Jump to content


History Channel Hatchet Job


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

Uranprojekt #21 Posted 16 January 2015 - 01:51 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 8338 battles
  • 3,437
  • Member since:
    08-19-2013

View PostNocturnal814, on 16 January 2015 - 01:15 PM, said:

 

no it wasnt. It was designed to kill infantry. 

 

Hence I said "should the Shermans encounter them."

War does not determine who is right, only who is left - Bertrand Russell

 

I write things, things which can be found in Historical Discussions. Things like this article on the Soviet invasion of Manchuria in 1945 and this article on the Spanish Civil War.

 

To those of you who don't molest the English language, I salute you. For everyone else, there's this handy link; http://www.reverso.n...elling-grammar/


Metalrodent #22 Posted 16 January 2015 - 01:55 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 10186 battles
  • 14,433
  • [KMD]
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014
At several points they show the M3 Lee, proving they don't even know what tank they're meant to be talking about

<a data-cke-saved-href='http://i.imgur.com/sCeAbYa.gif' href='http://i.imgur.com/sCeAbYa.gif' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/sCeAbYa.gif</a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s...sCeAbYa.gif</a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s...bYa.gif</a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s...gif</a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'>http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>

There’s a mask upon my face
I can’t live without
So you won’t recognize me
When I am in the crowd


Uranprojekt #23 Posted 16 January 2015 - 02:03 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 8338 battles
  • 3,437
  • Member since:
    08-19-2013

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 16 January 2015 - 01:23 PM, said:

They do at some point mention that according to American ideas tanks are not supposed to engage tanks. This assertion is not correct. If I were to show you this document, would you like to show me where it is stated that tanks are not supposed to engage tanks? 

It would be more fair to say that according to American doctrine  tanks are supposed to be able to do more than just engage tanks. 

Regarding the engines, it is extremely misleading for the history channel to harp on about it when:
The Sherman was no more prone to engine/fuel fires than any other tank.
The Shermans operated by the Americans in the ETO were the least flammable tanks used by any combatants. 

The narrative does give them impression that the Sherman was specially designed for the Normandy invasion rather than having already been produced in its thousands by 1944. 

 

Section 7h, page 11 (document page 6): Against equal or superior hostile armored forces, friendly armored units will avoid frontal assault and maneuver to cut off or destroy armored units supply facilities, followed by blows against the rear of enemy detachments.


War does not determine who is right, only who is left - Bertrand Russell

 

I write things, things which can be found in Historical Discussions. Things like this article on the Soviet invasion of Manchuria in 1945 and this article on the Spanish Civil War.

 

To those of you who don't molest the English language, I salute you. For everyone else, there's this handy link; http://www.reverso.n...elling-grammar/


HighSpyker #24 Posted 16 January 2015 - 02:06 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 36874 battles
  • 6,322
  • [IRN]
  • Member since:
    09-12-2013

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 16 January 2015 - 08:23 AM, said:

They do at some point mention that according to American ideas tanks are not supposed to engage tanks. This assertion is not correct. If I were to show you this document, would you like to show me where it is stated that tanks are not supposed to engage tanks?

You could try looking at Seek, Strike, and Destroy:  US Army Tank Destroyer Doctrine in World War II.



KuroFelidae #25 Posted 16 January 2015 - 02:15 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 9825 battles
  • 8,305
  • [CRY]
  • Member since:
    08-25-2013

View PostUranprojekt, on 16 January 2015 - 12:45 PM, said:

Time stamp: 3:08

 

The video has this guy, no idea what his name his, talking about how the Sherman originally had a 75 mm gun designed to fire HE. He then goes on to talk about how this gun was inadequate against the Tiger and Panther. What he fails to mention is that American doctrine was for tanks to engage infantry and infantry strongpoints and avoid engagements with enemy tanks wherever possible. The engagement of tanks was the job of the American TD divisions. I find it rather misleading that this guy would talk about the Sherman being inferior to German tanks without mentioning the fact that American tanks weren't supposed to engage German tanks if they could avoid it which is why the Sherman was designed to fire HE over AP. AP was more for self defence should the Sherman encounter a German tank.

 

I forget the time stamp but another bit that annoys me is the talk of the engine the Sherman used. All tanks use highly flammable fuel, all fuel will ignite if sparked. The Sherman gets singled out because it used "high octane fuel in an aircraft engine." The British used the Merlin engine, an engine used in countless British fighter and bomber aircraft, in the Cromwell yet the Cromwell doesn't have a reputation of going up in flames in the same way that the Sherman does, despite also using an engine originally intended for an aircraft. In fact, a lot of British tanks used aircraft engines but not one single British tank has a reputation for going up in flames like the Sherman does.

The reason the Sherman has a rep as such and the cromwell does not isbecause there were many more Shermans in operation and fighting on the frontline than cromwells. Hence the Sherman would be percieved to light much more than a cromwell because much more shermans were destroyed and subsequently set on fire than cromwells. Also German tank crews would genereally shoot tanks until they set alite or exploded to ensure it's destruction and removal as a threat on a battlefield. I'm not sure if that was tank doctrine or just a thing they did but it was definitley something that happened.

 

So on that basis I don't beleive there is a bias towards british tanks or bias towards the sherman being something that lit very easily. It's just due to the perception of people who faught during the time and/or witnessed the events of WW2. Most people probably weren't even aware the Cromwell was a tank during the war, where as I'm sure every american soldier and many british and other allied soldiers knew the Sherman existed. It doesn't help that as I said the Germans liked to burn tanks out to ensure the removal of their threat. But with that said the M3 Lee or Grant had a very similar rep in North Africa when it was in heavy use.


R6tP6te.gif

The No.1 worst unicum player on World of Tanks.

 


KuroFelidae #26 Posted 16 January 2015 - 02:16 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 9825 battles
  • 8,305
  • [CRY]
  • Member since:
    08-25-2013

Edited: double post -_-


Edited by a flappin cod, 16 January 2015 - 03:18 PM.

R6tP6te.gif

The No.1 worst unicum player on World of Tanks.

 


STLxSTANG #27 Posted 16 January 2015 - 02:57 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 15662 battles
  • 4,305
  • [IMTLZ]
  • Member since:
    06-16-2014

View PostNocturnal814, on 16 January 2015 - 07:15 AM, said:

 

depends on the situation. In an open field with high visibility the rifle would be far deadlier. 
Well of course, thats why this was a good analogy. 

 

 

Original IMMORTALS Leadership- (Retired)


Matthew J35U5 #28 Posted 16 January 2015 - 03:23 PM

    Major

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

View PostUranprojekt, on 16 January 2015 - 09:03 AM, said:

 

Section 7h, page 11 (document page 6): Against equal or superior hostile armored forces, friendly armored units will avoid frontal assault and maneuver to cut off or destroy armored units supply facilities, followed by blows against the rear of enemy detachments.

 

Seems like a pretty bad idea to frontally engage equal or superior forces don't you think? That statement is not equivalent to saying that Shermans should not fight tanks. 

View PostHighSpyker, on 16 January 2015 - 09:06 AM, said:

You could try looking at Seek, Strike, and Destroy:  US Army Tank Destroyer Doctrine in World War II.

Does the TD doctrine document have a section on tank doctrine? The existence of speciality anti-tank units does not imply that the other tanks should not engage tanks. The point of the TD's is not that upon meeting enemy tanks your own tanks will flee, but that your TD's will engage en masse large concentrations of enemy tanks to supplement your other forces. The idea would not be that upon your infantry division encountering the enemy panzer division your tank regiment will avoid all contact with the enemy tank regiment, while your TD battalion tries to fight the enemy tank regiment. 

Anyway, the pdf I posted, on page 95 mentions that medium tanks should be used in an anti-tank role, as well as several times in the preceding section. (Though I skimmed over those because I was looking for something more specific.) 


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


leova #29 Posted 16 January 2015 - 04:24 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 11380 battles
  • 12,908
  • [47R]
  • Member since:
    06-11-2014

View PostUranprojekt, on 16 January 2015 - 07:45 AM, said:

Time stamp: 3:08

 

The video has this guy, no idea what his name his, talking about how the Sherman originally had a 75 mm gun designed to fire HE. He then goes on to talk about how this gun was inadequate against the Tiger and Panther. What he fails to mention is that American doctrine was for tanks to engage infantry and infantry strongpoints and avoid engagements with enemy tanks wherever possible. The engagement of tanks was the job of the American TD divisions. I find it rather misleading that this guy would talk about the Sherman being inferior to German tanks without mentioning the fact that American tanks weren't supposed to engage German tanks if they could avoid it which is why the Sherman was designed to fire HE over AP. AP was more for self defence should the Sherman encounter a German tank.

 

I forget the time stamp but another bit that annoys me is the talk of the engine the Sherman used. All tanks use highly flammable fuel, all fuel will ignite if sparked. The Sherman gets singled out because it used "high octane fuel in an aircraft engine." The British used the Merlin engine, an engine used in countless British fighter and bomber aircraft, in the Cromwell yet the Cromwell doesn't have a reputation of going up in flames in the same way that the Sherman does, despite also using an engine originally intended for an aircraft. In fact, a lot of British tanks used aircraft engines but not one single British tank has a reputation for going up in flames like the Sherman does.

 

View PostHighSpyker, on 16 January 2015 - 08:03 AM, said:

To this, let me add that the M4's reputation as easily set on fire was due to improper ammo storage in the turret.

 

Probably also worth noting that the Germans originally had infantry tanks and tank-killer tanks (like the British Cruiser/Infantry concept), but a taste of real combat changed their mind...and the Pz IV, originally meant for mobile fire support, became the most-used German tank.

 

View PostUranprojekt, on 16 January 2015 - 08:09 AM, said:

I'd like to add that, and this was something else totally ignored in the video, the M4 Sherman entered service in 1942. The Tiger also entered service in 1942 and the Panther didn't enter service until 1943. The Sherman was designed to defeat the Pz. III's and IV's already in service should the Shermans encounter them.

 

All 3 of these points are also brought up in the 2nd video I linked, which is actually a good watch about the Shermans :)

 

As for the old Sherman Tanker in the 1st video, i get the sense that his angle, being a former tank commander, is simply " We had weapon X, they had weapon Z, and theirs was better", plain and simple



NativeBlood115 #30 Posted 17 January 2015 - 04:36 PM

    Corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 8189 battles
  • 87
  • [N8VE]
  • Member since:
    11-09-2013
Good find:great:

Chieftain WGA #31 Posted 20 January 2015 - 06:30 PM

    Private

  • Players
  • 4 battles
  • 246
  • Member since:
    06-28-2013

View PostUranprojekt, on 16 January 2015 - 02:03 PM, said:

 

Section 7h, page 11 (document page 6): Against equal or superior hostile armored forces, friendly armored units will avoid frontal assault and maneuver to cut off or destroy armored units supply facilities, followed by blows against the rear of enemy detachments.

 

 


 

Is any force in any branch expected to frontally assault equal or superior forces of a similar type?

 

The man is correct. US tanks were expected to engage any enemy tanks that they came across. Indeed, they were priority target number 1, see page 203 of FM 17-10. The 'tanks were not supposed to fight other tanks' thing is a total myth which I can only assume was developed post-facto by people who misunderstand tank destroyer doctrine, wanted an excuse as to why American tanks had difficulty killing German ones, and the myth has perpetuated since.

 

Armored Force doctrine was not so ignorant as to think that they could break through and conduct an exploitation without considering the possibility that the enemy might happen to have a tank or two along. Note that FM 18-5, the TD manual, is purely defensive (at least as regards enemy armor), while the Armored Force Manual FM 17-10, states for example, on page 90 that the role of the medium tank (i.e. M3 and M4) includes dealing with hostile armor when on the offence. Note also that the later FM 18-5 (1944) states that an armored division is capable of dealing with an attacking enemy armored unit on its own, and the TD battalion might not be called up to action, though it is not recommended.

 

 

 

The reason the M4 had a "plane jane 75mm" was primarily because it took years to figure out how to correctly implement the 76mm in the tank, and the field commanders had no indication that they needed the ones which were available in the UK for D-Day. There was no doctrinal resistance in Armored Force to the concept of a bigger gun, and the US Army had changed to 76mm production in 1943. See http://worldoftanks.com/en/news/21/the_chieftains-hatch-end_of_75_M4/ and http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/316113-general-barnes-makes-a-phone-call/http://worldoftanks.com/en/news/pc-browser/21/chieftains-hatch-us-guns-vs-german-armour-part-1/  and , http://worldoftanks.com/en/news/21/us-guns-german-armor-part-2/



Sgt Bull 1943 #32 Posted 20 January 2015 - 06:56 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 11337 battles
  • 431
  • Member since:
    08-14-2013
Greatest tank battles that comes on American heroes channel is much better at how the sherman was imporrtant to the aliies. One question history channel , if the shermans were so bad , than why did they use them in Korea ?

The Gearinator #33 Posted 20 January 2015 - 07:02 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 12365 battles
  • 923
  • [F00B]
  • Member since:
    09-01-2013
"Powerful sherman tanks" - 'nuf said 

Hai! 


WidowMaker1711 #34 Posted 20 January 2015 - 07:02 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 11837 battles
  • 10,002
  • [BNKR]
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014

View Posta flappin cod, on 16 January 2015 - 02:15 PM, said:

The reason the Sherman has a rep as such and the cromwell does not isbecause there were many more Shermans in operation and fighting on the frontline than cromwells. Hence the Sherman would be percieved to light much more than a cromwell because much more shermans were destroyed and subsequently set on fire than cromwells. Also German tank crews would genereally shoot tanks until they set alite or exploded to ensure it's destruction and removal as a threat on a battlefield. I'm not sure if that was tank doctrine or just a thing they did but it was definitley something that happened.

 

So on that basis I don't beleive there is a bias towards british tanks or bias towards the sherman being something that lit very easily. It's just due to the perception of people who faught during the time and/or witnessed the events of WW2. Most people probably weren't even aware the Cromwell was a tank during the war, where as I'm sure every american soldier and many british and other allied soldiers knew the Sherman existed. It doesn't help that as I said the Germans liked to burn tanks out to ensure the removal of their threat. But with that said the M3 Lee or Grant had a very similar rep in North Africa when it was in heavy use.

 

5RTR certainly knew about the Cromwell having come back from the desert and reequipping with them.


For Russ and the Allfather

 

 


Terminatenorsn5 #35 Posted 20 January 2015 - 07:03 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 32512 battles
  • 1,573
  • Member since:
    02-14-2014
I don't trust the History Channel to illustrate true history. With "reality" shows like Swamp People, Ax Men and Ice Road Truckers, come on!


PLK180W #36 Posted 20 January 2015 - 07:53 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 61 battles
  • 7,907
  • Member since:
    10-29-2014

The Sherman was designed when the primary Germany tanks were the Pzkpw III and the Pzkpw IV with the short barrelled 75mm. By the time it entered service the Pzkpw III was obsolete and the Pzkpw IV had been up armoured/up gunned.  It was also hampered by U.S. doctrine that the PRIMARY weapon against enemy AFV's was supposed to be tank destroyers, (as a side note, the large white star painted on the sides of the Sherman proved to be an excellent aim point for German forces as it was painted where the ammo storage was located!).

There are innumerable reasons for shortcomings in British Armour, lack of spare industrial capacity, rail transportation issues, doctrine, design failings, the fact that it was decided to keep obsolete designs in production rather then have nothing in production. But the truth is that the primary fault was designers in both countries designed tanks to match what the Germans had in production at the time, rather then designing tanks that would overmatch the Germans and still have room for future development. 


Through The Mud And Blood To The Green Fields Beyond

Matthew J35U5 #37 Posted 21 January 2015 - 09:43 PM

    Major

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

View PostSgt Bull 1943, on 20 January 2015 - 01:56 PM, said:

Greatest tank battles that comes on American heroes channel is much better at how the sherman was imporrtant to the aliies. One question history channel , if the shermans were so bad , than why did they use them in Korea ?

Because the Pershing was still too unreliable to be used effectively. :trollface:

Keeping that in mind, I'm sure an invasion of France in 1944 would have gone swimmingly if America had decided to wait for the Pershing. 

View PostPLK180W, on 20 January 2015 - 02:53 PM, said:

The Sherman was designed when the primary Germany tanks were the Pzkpw III and the Pzkpw IV with the short barrelled 75mm. By the time it entered service the Pzkpw III was obsolete and the Pzkpw IV had been up armoured/up gunned.  It was also hampered by U.S. doctrine that the PRIMARY weapon against enemy AFV's was supposed to be tank destroyers, (as a side note, the large white star painted on the sides of the Sherman proved to be an excellent aim point for German forces as it was painted where the ammo storage was located!).

There are innumerable reasons for shortcomings in British Armour, lack of spare industrial capacity, rail transportation issues, doctrine, design failings, the fact that it was decided to keep obsolete designs in production rather then have nothing in production. But the truth is that the primary fault was designers in both countries designed tanks to match what the Germans had in production at the time, rather then designing tanks that would overmatch the Germans and still have room for future development. 

The Sherman cannot be said to not have room for future development. 76 mm? Can be done. 17-pdr? No problem. 90 mm? Done it. 122 mm? Did it. 105 mm? Done it. I can't think of another tank from WWII that had as much upgrade potential. 


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


RNG3SUS #38 Posted 24 January 2015 - 05:04 PM

    Captain

  • Beta Tester
  • 8778 battles
  • 1,611
  • Member since:
    07-03-2013

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 21 January 2015 - 04:43 PM, said:

Because the Pershing was still too unreliable to be used effectively. :trollface:

Keeping that in mind, I'm sure an invasion of France in 1944 would have gone swimmingly if America had decided to wait for the Pershing. 

The Sherman cannot be said to not have room for future development. 76 mm? Can be done. 17-pdr? No problem. 90 mm? Done it. 122 mm? Did it. 105 mm? Done it. I can't think of another tank from WWII that had as much upgrade potential. 

 

KV-85/1s?

Honest labor, no matter how menial or seemingly unimportant, disgraces no one. -Adolf Hitler "Mein Kampf"

Nerf Tier 10 TD's.

 

 


Nocturnal814 #39 Posted 25 January 2015 - 01:23 AM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 16690 battles
  • 9,952
  • Member since:
    08-09-2013

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 21 January 2015 - 09:43 PM, said:

Because the Pershing was still too unreliable to be used effectively. :trollface:

Keeping that in mind, I'm sure an invasion of France in 1944 would have gone swimmingly if America had decided to wait for the Pershing. 

The Sherman cannot be said to not have room for future development. 76 mm? Can be done. 17-pdr? No problem. 90 mm? Done it. 122 mm? Did it. 105 mm? Done it. I can't think of another tank from WWII that had as much upgrade potential. 

Except perhaps the panzer IV 



something, something, something, dark side...

MrWuvems #40 Posted 25 January 2015 - 01:26 AM

    Major

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

View PostNocturnal814, on 24 January 2015 - 07:23 PM, said:

Except perhaps the panzer IV 

 

Do we want to count the Jg in that? Because for all the German complaints about the Jg4, the US army had a lot of documents, videos, and stories about the L/70 wrecking everything while all available guns did nothing to it.

 

If not, the Pz4 was really only in the running from the F2-H, when the T-34/76 was still the main production model and the wet-racked E8 wasn't a factor.






2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users