Jump to content


The Sherman and The Cat


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
69 replies to this topic

Sqn Ldr B #41 Posted 02 January 2016 - 12:55 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 6141 battles
  • 18,352
  • Member since:
    02-14-2014

View PostTurboclicker, on 02 January 2016 - 12:51 AM, said:

 

And you say I disregard your "arguments".

 

Try an argument rather than rhetoric, it gets old.

"Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first prize in the lottery of life" ~ Cecil Rhodes

Click For a Compilation of My Ideas


Sqn Ldr B #42 Posted 02 January 2016 - 01:00 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 6141 battles
  • 18,352
  • Member since:
    02-14-2014
Now, we're going round in circles, getting nowhere, I'm getting bored, Turbo has gotten into sly comments territory and I'm pissed off enough already to deal with him any more, so I'm going to distance myself from the whole thing now. Tiger was better. End. Bye.

"Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first prize in the lottery of life" ~ Cecil Rhodes

Click For a Compilation of My Ideas


GLA Odin #43 Posted 02 January 2016 - 02:36 AM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 10835 battles
  • 384
  • [MOSS]
  • Member since:
    11-10-2013

View PostSqn Ldr B, on 02 January 2016 - 12:04 AM, said:

 

Fact actually. Tiger has more armour. Tiger has better gun. Tiger can bounce Sherman rounds. Sherman cannot bounce Tiger rounds. Imagine this scenario. Sherman shoots Tiger hurriedly. Round bounces. Sherman fires again. Round bounces. Tiger shoots Sherman. Sherman brews up. This scenario will happen maybe 6 times out of 10.

 

Now imagine this. Sherman shoots Tiger. Round goes through the turret ring shot trap, Tiger is abandoned. That'll happen maybe 2 times out of 10.

 

Now imagine this. Tiger shoots Sherman. Round bounces. Sherman shoots Tiger. Tank brews up. That's going to happen maybe 1 time out of 100-ish.

 

Do you see where I am getting at with this? The Tiger is more survivable. It can and will bounced 75mm rounds from Sherman tanks. And it also has a much better gun. The Sherman does not have that survivability. It will almost never ever bounce a Tiger's 88 round. And it is much harder for the Sherman to kill the Tiger than it is for the Tiger to kill the Sherman.

Plus, for a good majority of the War, the Tigers crew was better. Having experience alongside a strong vehicle and you have a strong force. 


 

100% genuine Scotsman

Struggling to keep a full Garage since 2013.


Matthew J35U5 #44 Posted 02 January 2016 - 02:58 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

View PostTerminatenorsn5, on 01 January 2016 - 06:14 PM, said:

What I don't understand is if the Easy 8 in "Fury" could pen the Tiger I frontally, why did Wardaddy not pick off the Tiger at long range instead of rushing him?

 

 

The E8 was being used to portray a 75-mm armed Sherman, as indicated by its use of white phosphorous shells, which were only available for the 75 mm, not the 76. Which I only know because I had a similar question, and that was the answer I got. 


KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:


JAG THE GEMINI #45 Posted 02 January 2016 - 08:52 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 65344 battles
  • 2,429
  • [FAUST]
  • Member since:
    02-15-2014

View PostTurboclicker, on 02 January 2016 - 12:26 AM, said:

 

 

 

Not trolling, make sure to lie to yourself though.

 

I do not believe you... sry​ but whatever

 

I just leave this here and then I shall leave too:

 

Battle of Oka River, Russia, part of the battle of Kursk, 1943
30 TigerI engage a large (over 100 tanks) Russian armored formation on the open fields. They opened fire at over 2km, scoring hits early. 42 T-34 destroyed, the rest fled. 1 Tiger was lost to enemy tank fire.

Battle of Collombelle, Normandy, part of the battle for Caen, 1944
12 TigerI attacked in the night a formation of 75mm Shermans. 12 Shermans were destroyed, 2 captured, 3 Tigers lightly damaged (repaired in 3 days or less). The battle was in the open terrain, no ambush, no air cover.

Battle of Tatjanowka, Ukraine, part of the strategic German retreat, 1944
8 TigerI remain without fuel out in the open fields. A large (over 30) formation of soviet tanks approaches them. 20 are destroyed, the rest flee; no Tiger lost or severely damaged.

Battle of Maritima, Italy, part of the battles for the Gustave line, 1944
4 TigerI engage a formation of 25 US Shermans. 11 are burned, the rest are abandoned by their crews. All Tigers moderately damaged.

Battle for Bollersdorf, Germany, part of the final drive to Berlin, 1945
4 TigerI are attacked on the open by 30 T-34-85s. All soviet tanks are knocked-out [unknown number destroyed]. No Tiger lost.

 

50% of Tiger forces were in generell ready to fight, which is not good but not bad either in the 2nd World War when it comes to armored warfare.

Bibliography:
books
• Scheider, Tigers in combat, I and II
• Jentz – King Tiger heavy tank
• Jentz – Tiger 1 heavy tank
• Jentz – Germany’s Tiger 1 and Tiger II. Design. Production. Modifications.
• Buckley – British armor in Normandy campaign 1944

 

 

http://archives.library.illinois.edu/blog/poor-defense-sherman-tanks-ww2/

 

23 min. 40 seconds on...

In short: "Quantity VS Quality"


Edited by JAG THE GEMINI, 03 January 2016 - 12:45 PM.

 

 

My youtube channel:https://www.youtube....w_as=subscriber


Matthew J35U5 #46 Posted 03 January 2016 - 03:47 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

View PostJAG THE GEMINI, on 02 January 2016 - 03:52 PM, said:

 

I do not believe you... sry​ but whatever

 

I just leave this here and then I shall leave too:

 

Battle of Oka River, Russia, part of the battle of Kursk, 1943
30 TigerI engage a large (over 100 tanks) Russian armored formation on the open fields. They opened fire at over 2km, scoring hits early. 42 T-34 destroyed, the rest fled. 1 Tiger was lost to enemy tank fire.

Battle of Collombelle, Normandy, part of the battle for Caen, 1944
12 TigerI attacked in the night a formation of 75mm Shermans. 12 Shermans were destroyed, 2 captured, 3 Tigers lightly damaged (repaired in 3 days or less). The battle was in the open terrain, no ambush, no air cover.

Battle of Tatjanowka, Ukraine, part of the strategic German retreat, 1944
8 TigerI remain without fuel out in the open fields. A large (over 30) formation of soviet tanks approaches them. 20 are destroyed, the rest flee; no Tiger lost or severely damaged.

Battle of Maritima, Italy, part of the battles for the Gustave line, 1944
4 TigerI engage a formation of 25 US Shermans. 11 are burned, the rest are abandoned by their crews. All Tigers moderately damaged.

Battle for Bollersdorf, Germany, part of the final drive to Berlin, 1945
4 TigerI are attacked on the open by 30 T-34-85s. All soviet tanks are knocked-out [unknown number destroyed]. No Tiger lost.

 

50% of Tiger forces were in generell ready to fight, which is not good but not bad either in the 2nd World War when it comes to armored warfare.

Bibliography:
books
• Scheider, Tigers in combat, I and II
• Jentz – King Tiger heavy tank
• Jentz – Tiger 1 heavy tank
• Jentz – Germany’s Tiger 1 and Tiger II. Design. Production. Modifications.
• Buckley – British armor in Normandy campaign 1944

 

 

http://archives.library.illinois.edu/blog/poor-defense-sherman-tanks-ww2/

 

23 min. 40 seconds on...

In short: "Quantity VS Quality"

You're adorable.

 

Did you hear the one where 3 Tiger II's destroyed more tanks than existed in the nearest Soviet formation, which proceded about its business as if it hadn't noticed being completely destroyed?

 

I don't suppose that any of the books you're quoting actually looked at Soviet after-action reports, to verify that the events the Germans described actually happened? Surely they would also try to verify with American and British reports, seeing as how those would be written in english, and it wouldn't require that much effort to verify these claims. 

 

Spoiler

 


KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:


leatherbelt4589 #47 Posted 04 January 2016 - 03:58 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 11571 battles
  • 528
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    08-14-2013
Everyone knows the Tiger was better because of all those 3 battles it won against the Sherman. And it makes sense it had a better... wait hold on a second, what is it? What do you want? Oooooh, yeah I have been informed by my robot lawyers that the winner of those battles was the Sherman because as it states in this paper "the Tiger sux booty" so yeah...
I spread that gospel nice and hard. 

ghost cowboy 99 #48 Posted 04 January 2016 - 04:37 AM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 6412 battles
  • 380
  • [47R-2]
  • Member since:
    03-01-2014
honestly if its one on one the jumbo might stand a chance the easy 8 one on one with a tiger no but tiger hands down

Signature made by METALHELLIONx84


DStegCat #49 Posted 04 January 2016 - 08:37 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 25012 battles
  • 2,031
  • [BACON]
  • Member since:
    05-24-2014

Historically simple answer since this is in Historical Discussions....

Allies won.

Sherman thus won.

If this is not a Historical Discussion place it elsewhere.

 

     From a historical perspective once the allies had their beach head at Normandy there were rarely sufficient numbers for any offensive operations by Tigers other than delaying counterattacks.

Numbers won.  Manufacturing might and simplicity won.

 

You can build a mighty machine but if you can't field enough to make a difference then....

 

In the game 1 vs 1 you have a Tier VII vs a Tier V. Duh.

 

 


nam et ipsa scientia potestas est (for knowledge is itself power)  Francis Bacon - 1597

More Bacon


MrWuvems #50 Posted 04 January 2016 - 09:02 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 10629 battles
  • 8,091
  • Member since:
    11-08-2013

View PostDStegCat, on 04 January 2016 - 02:37 PM, said:

Historically simple answer since this is in Historical Discussions....

Allies won.

Sherman thus won.

If this is not a Historical Discussion place it elsewhere.

 

     From a historical perspective once the allies had their beach head at Normandy there were rarely sufficient numbers for any offensive operations by Tigers other than delaying counterattacks.

Numbers won.  Manufacturing might and simplicity won.

 

You can build a mighty machine but if you can't field enough to make a difference then....

 

In the game 1 vs 1 you have a Tier VII vs a Tier V. Duh.

 

 

 

By that logic, for example, the DP-28 was a better weapon that the MG-34 or MG-42, or any of the early A-series cruisers were good tanks.

DStegCat #51 Posted 04 January 2016 - 09:31 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 25012 battles
  • 2,031
  • [BACON]
  • Member since:
    05-24-2014

    Yes.  Inferior equipment can win a battle and a war.   Numbers in capable hands make a huge difference.   It's not all about how good a tank is. Leaving aside Allied bombing, labor shortage, etc., Hitler's Birthday present was too complex (read breakdown prone early on) to manufacture in sufficient numbers to make a difference.  Hard to imagine from a country with a concept like the Volkswagen.  Engineering something possible does not make it extremely practical from a manufacturing production standpoint.

    Don't blame the German's for seeking technology as a wunder weapon solution for winning the war.  They understood the simple math of numbers (army size), economics, manufacturing, etc.


nam et ipsa scientia potestas est (for knowledge is itself power)  Francis Bacon - 1597

More Bacon


MrWuvems #52 Posted 04 January 2016 - 09:46 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 10629 battles
  • 8,091
  • Member since:
    11-08-2013

View PostDStegCat, on 04 January 2016 - 03:31 PM, said:

    Yes.  Inferior equipment can win a battle and a war.   Numbers in capable hands make a huge difference.   It's not all about how good a tank is. Leaving aside Allied bombing, labor shortage, etc., Hitler's Birthday present was too complex (read breakdown prone early on) to manufacture in sufficient numbers to make a difference.  Hard to imagine from a country with a concept like the Volkswagen.  Engineering something possible does not make it extremely practical from a manufacturing production standpoint.

    Don't blame the German's for seeking technology as a wunder weapon solution for winning the war.  They understood the simple math of numbers (army size), economics, manufacturing, etc.

 

So you just make general blanket statements defending horrible equipment choices then? The things I mentioned were specific, since the DP-28 could not field-change the barrel while the MG-34 was used in pretty devastating unit tactics, while the Cruisers were weak-armored and capped out at a 40mm gun that didn't have a decent HE rounds. The US, for example, chose the wrong gun for squad fire support, the BAR having too low firing capacity combined with, oddly being too accurate. The German army made a lot of terrible decisions adopting equipment that couldn't be produced in high enough volumes (which is irrelevant, as no equipment choices could have won the war).

 

The fact is, if the Tiger can outfight individual M4s. Allied forces feared even the JgPz4, something of a failure in the eyes of the Germans.

The Tiger was better than the M4 just as the Garand was a better rifle than, well actually it was the only semi-automatic/select fire weapon to not be an abject failure until the StG44



killer etzi0 #53 Posted 04 January 2016 - 09:48 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 59715 battles
  • 19,183
  • [47R]
  • Member since:
    06-20-2014
Heck when I first read the title I thought this thread was going to be about the Sherman and the Hellcat..

"When you can't make them see the light, make them feel the heat."

 

Ronald Reagan
 

 


Matthew J35U5 #54 Posted 04 January 2016 - 10:25 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

Calling the Tiger "better" than the M4 is dumb. The M4 was a war-winner of a weapon. The Tiger was a 60 ton breakthrough vehicle that never did a damn thing for the Germans. The only way people can make the Tiger look good is by directly comparing it to vehicles literally half its weight. I'd ask why people never try to compare the Tiger to a similarly sized, similarly produced tank with the same role, the IS-2, instead of the tank half its size, 40x as many produced tank with a completely different role, the Sherman/T-34, but I already know the answer. 

 

 

Next up, on WoT forum discussions, which was better?

Iowa or Atlanta?

Soyuz or Concord?

Bradley or Abrams? (The vehicles)


KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:


JAG THE GEMINI #55 Posted 04 January 2016 - 10:28 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 65344 battles
  • 2,429
  • [FAUST]
  • Member since:
    02-15-2014

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 03 January 2016 - 04:47 PM, said:

You're adorable.

 

Did you hear the one where 3 Tiger II's destroyed more tanks than existed in the nearest Soviet formation, which proceded about its business as if it hadn't noticed being completely destroyed?

 

I don't suppose that any of the books you're quoting actually looked at Soviet after-action reports, to verify that the events the Germans described actually happened? Surely they would also try to verify with American and British reports, seeing as how those would be written in english, and it wouldn't require that much effort to verify these claims. 

 

Spoiler

 

That's why I presented multiple reasons why the tiger was better because kill claims might only get you so far....

View PostDStegCat, on 04 January 2016 - 09:37 PM, said:

Historically simple answer since this is in Historical Discussions....

Allies won.

Sherman thus won.

If this is not a Historical Discussion place it elsewhere.

 

     From a historical perspective once the allies had their beach head at Normandy there were rarely sufficient numbers for any offensive operations by Tigers other than delaying counterattacks.

Numbers won.  Manufacturing might and simplicity won.

 

You can build a mighty machine but if you can't field enough to make a difference then....

 

In the game 1 vs 1 you have a Tier VII vs a Tier V. Duh.

 

 

One might HAVE THE BETTER WEAPON AND STILL LOOSE BECAUSE NUMBERS/LACK OF OPTIONS. The germans were almost ALWAYS outnumbered even with easier to produce tanks(PZ4). Think about that.


 

 

My youtube channel:https://www.youtube....w_as=subscriber


MrWuvems #56 Posted 04 January 2016 - 10:29 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 10629 battles
  • 8,091
  • Member since:
    11-08-2013

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 04 January 2016 - 04:25 PM, said:

Calling the Tiger "better" than the M4 is dumb. The M4 was a war-winner of a weapon. The Tiger was a 60 ton breakthrough vehicle that never did a damn thing for the Germans. The only way people can make the Tiger look good is by directly comparing it to vehicles literally half its weight. I'd ask why people never try to compare the Tiger to a similarly sized, similarly produced tank with the same role, the IS-2, instead of the tank half its size, 40x as many produced tank with a completely different role, the Sherman/T-34, but I already know the answer. 

 

 

Next up, on WoT forum discussions, which was better?

Iowa or Atlanta?

Soyuz or Concord?

Bradley or Abrams? (The vehicles)

 

The M4 is a direct comparison to the T-34 at various revisions, the Cromwell, and the Pz4.

At which point it does come out pretty shiny, with the Pz4 especially not being that good of a concept to begin with. T-34 vs Sherman is a more interesting discussion, since the former never shed its reputation for being a death trap held together by the wishes of its crew.



SpartacusDiablo #57 Posted 04 January 2016 - 10:32 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 19642 battles
  • 10,138
  • [BNKR]
  • Member since:
    02-15-2014
I watched Fury so I know that it works out like this. Brad Pitt is stronger than a Tiger but the Tiger is stronger than a Sherman. It was in a movie so it's true right?

 


DStegCat #58 Posted 04 January 2016 - 10:33 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 25012 battles
  • 2,031
  • [BACON]
  • Member since:
    05-24-2014

Macro vs  Micro.  Depends on the basis for point of view.

Explain the base before we can hypothesize.


nam et ipsa scientia potestas est (for knowledge is itself power)  Francis Bacon - 1597

More Bacon


Sqn Ldr B #59 Posted 04 January 2016 - 10:35 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 6141 battles
  • 18,352
  • Member since:
    02-14-2014

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 04 January 2016 - 10:25 PM, said:

Calling the Tiger "better" than the M4 is dumb. The M4 was a war-winner of a weapon. The Tiger was a 60 ton breakthrough vehicle that never did a damn thing for the Germans. The only way people can make the Tiger look good is by directly comparing it to vehicles literally half its weight. I'd ask why people never try to compare the Tiger to a similarly sized, similarly produced tank with the same role, the IS-2, instead of the tank half its size, 40x as many produced tank with a completely different role, the Sherman/T-34, but I already know the answer. 

 

 

Next up, on WoT forum discussions, which was better?

Iowa or Atlanta?

Soyuz or Concord?

Bradley or Abrams? (The vehicles)

 

Spitfire and 109...

"Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first prize in the lottery of life" ~ Cecil Rhodes

Click For a Compilation of My Ideas


Matthew J35U5 #60 Posted 04 January 2016 - 10:39 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

View PostSqn Ldr B, on 04 January 2016 - 05:35 PM, said:

 

Spitfire and 109...

 

I don't really know much about planes, but aren't those both single-seat fighters, that could be compared directly?

KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users