Tanks for the Memory

Tech Central Station ^ | 05/13/2003 | Ralph Kinney Bennett

[farmfriend]

If you guys know of anyone who might be interested in this story, ping away.

[Dead Dog]

The author loses credibility when refering to the Sherman as a great tank.

[SAMWolf]

Thanks farmfriend.

FYI Snippy and Victoria.

[LibKill]

After WWII, some experts predicted the death of the Army, let alone the tank.

I'm betting tanks will be around long after I am not.

[farmfriend]

Don't go by me. I know what a tank is when I see it but that is about all I know when it comes to tanks. Just thought others might be interested in this story.

[ClearCase_guy]

the famed drive of General George Patton's Third Division armor deep into Europe gave tanks a somewhat mythical reputation they didn't completely deserve.

Nonsense. Patton's rapid advance in the face of a determined enemy, and with tenuous supply lines at his back was only possible due to tactics based on tank warfare. How did this give the tank a reputation it didn't deserve?

Kinda like saying the Roman Legions dominated warfare in the Meditaranean area for over 500 years, which unreasonably leads some people to assume that they were a capable military force.

[Arkinsaw]

Tanks as we know them are probably going away due to improved AT missiles and high tech stuff like robotic rail guns and particle weapons. But I suspect the tank will still be around with new ceramic and plastic armors and stealthy characteristics. They won't be clanking dinosaurs, I am betting they will be lighter, faster, stealthier, streamlined, low to the ground platforms.

[SAMWolf]

I don't see where the author refered to the Sherman as a "great" tank, he list's it as an important one, which IMHO is true. It was there in the right quantity when it was needed, it was reliable and was adaptable enough to serve in WWII, Korea and even the Arab-Isreali wars.

I agree it was not a great tank, under armored, under-gunned most of the time, although the Brits and Israeli's did a good job of upgrading the main gun, and it's silhouette was way to high.

That said, It took the US long enough to design and field a great MBT. IMHO,the Abrams is the best MBT in existance today.

[jriemer]

The author loses credibility when refering to the Sherman as a great tank

The word the author uses to descrive the Tiger, the T-34 and the Sherman was "important" not great. The Sherman was not a great tank and had all of the armor of the GIs SPAM can; however, it could be cheaply and easily manufactured in quantites that eventually overwhelmed the German tank corps with their high-quality tanks. The shear numerical superiority of Shermans made the tank strategically important and not just a footnote of history.

As we both can acknowledge, the down side of this approach is that many American tank crews died because they did not have the best equipment on the battlefield.

"Quantity has a quality all its own" - Joeseph Stalin

[Arkinsaw]

The main positive about the Sherman was that you could clean it out and stick a new crew in it.

I guess thats a positive unless you were one of the crews.

[John H K]

Yep, author never said the Sherman was a "great" tank.

It actually wasn't as bad as some claim; some of its advantages are rarely mentioned...and they were things that mattered a lot, like a VERY fast rotation rate for the turret, and mechanical reliability.

I have not read, but have had described to me, a book written by a RUSSIAN commander of a Sherman tank unit on the Eastern front. He actually liked the Shermans.

[colorado tanker]

The author loses credibility when refering to the Sherman as a great tank.

Agreed. A few other observations.

The few Abrams disabled in Iraq were hit from the rear with Kornet missiles, not RPG's. So far as I know no Abrams has ever been destroyed with an RPG. The manufacturer rushed out a kit to protect the M-1 from ATGM fire at it's grillwork.

The push is on to develop armor that can be deployed by C-130. DOD claims the Stryker armored car is C-130 deployable, but critics say it can't be deployed that way to offload into combat without "some assembly required."

The Future Combat Vehicle in development would be less than half the weight of an M-1, but it's armor hasn't yet been invented. I'm suspicious the FCV will be as survivable as an M-1. The FCV arty piece on the drawing board is a 105mm because a 155 won't fit on a chassis that light. FCV is an exciting concept, particularly as to some of the precision guided over the horizon weapons in development. I hope the whole package comes together.

The dirty little secret of the futurists who want to put the tank on a diet is that there isn't enough airlift for light tanks, either. Bottom line is we need more lift.

Yes the M-1 is vulnerable to air power, but light tanks are even more so. Bottom line is air superiority is key and we own the keychain right now.

The futurists said the M-1 was obsolete after Kosovo, but they were wrong. With axels of evil like N. Korea, Iran and Syria out there with potent armor forces, we'll need to keep the M-1 force razor sharp until the engineers figure out how to build a survivable FCV and suceed in doing so.

[SAMWolf]

The Sherman was a "Cadillac" compared to Soviet tank designs.

I've heard crew comfort was unheard of on the Soviet tanks.S

[MediaMole]

with the exception of tracks, how does going to the lighter, armored car concept change any of these items?

# Fire control systems, radios, the main gun and the machine guns must be regularly recalibrated because they are subject to vibration and violent knocks.
# The drive sprockets, road wheels and rollers of the track mechanism, the tracks themselves, as well as the bearings on which the ten-ton turret revolves, are subjected to grueling wear because of the sheer weight of the machine.
# All these load-bearing, moving parts must operate in mud, sand, snow, water, and in rough terrain. A good rule of thumb for a tank, even when it is just moving around and not in combat, is at least eight man-hours of maintenance every day - inspection, adjustment, lubrication, replacement and repair.

Whatever vehicles the Army chooses, they will still have to fire heavy weapons on improvised battlefields while facing heavy enemy weapons. The Abrams has proven itself time and time again. We need to improve our sealift and airlift capacity, not degrade our fighting capabilities.

[SAMWolf]

Yeah, I'm sure that came as a real shock to the crews to find out just how inferior the Sherman was to the German tanks.

I 've heard that SOP was 4 Shermans to take on 1 Tiger and you could count on losing 3 of the Shermans.

[SAMWolf]

Great observations colorado tanker. The Stryker serves a purpose, IMHO it is not to be a replacement for the MBT.

We still have enemies with major and good heavy armor, the MBT is not dead yet.

[caisson71]

There is a psychology that goes along with the presence of a tank. In Nam, the M-48s were used mainly for smashing & bashing and maybe drawing fire from the APCs which could not handle RPG-7s very well, especially the gas models. Tanks, in one form or another, will always be around, IMHO.

[Nick Danger]

Tanks were invented by the British, and originally called "land ships."

Not exactly.

I shall make covered chariots, that are safe and cannot be assaulted; cars which fear no great numbers when breaking through the ranks of the enemy and its artillery. Behind them, the infantrymen shall follow, without fearing injury or other impediments

-- Leonardo da Vinci, around 1487

[colorado tanker]

The Stryker serves a purpose, IMHO it is not to be a replacement for the MBT.

Ditto that, Sam!