For Want of a Gun

[m kenny]

Originally Posted by JBark

I don't doubt you feel you have the measure of the man, I was calling for a little fairness. I would take a guess that DeJohn suffers from PTSD and for this reason in particular would hope that he receive some consideration.

I have had contact with him and he is a professional victim. He plays the Vet card every time anyone says a bad word about him. He even sued Carlisle for being anti vet. He lost. You do know what 'Carlisle' is?
Note the damages he go for the University crusade., $1. Token damages for a token slight because, if you read the court papers, the University corrected the matter he complained about long before he decided to sue.

[m kenny]

Originally Posted by Wooden Wonder

Thankfully the Western Allies, with the significant exception of North Africa were not too often tasked with having to face 88s at long ranges with 75s.

One of the advantages of the M4 in NA was it could lob a HE shell back at the 88's. Exposed crews won't hang around when a salvo of HE starts creeping towards them

[Mountain Man]

Originally Posted by m kenny

Then post them.





Depends how you define small. Even then commanders did not want to get rid of the 75mm tanks.

Because even a tank that can't cut it is better than no tank, if only for the infantry to take cover behind. Think "moving rock". Not a cogent argument.


'The 75mm was not crappy and it is juvenile to try and say it was. What you mean to say it was not a great hole puncher. Given that hole punching was a small part of the M4s task then this was not an insurmountable issue.

It lacked the penetrating power needed to kill enemy armor. If you prefer a term other than "crappy", how about totally inadequate? The Allies could not wrap their heads around the fact that German tactics relied heavily on armor that was better than ours.



No one is saying it was so keep tilting at your windmill. The Sherman was part of an Allied strategy to attrite and destroy all the individually crafted German tanks by being on every part of the battlefield in great numbers and not poncing about looking for single Tigers to engage in one-on-one-jousts. The Sherman was able to provide every Allied Inf Unit with its own supporting tanks. I can well imagine the 80 year old Germans puffing about in 1945 on a bicycle trying to save their city from the invaders comforting themselves with the knowledge a single Tiger knock out the whole armoured division coming their way-but sadly they did not have even that one single Tiger.

Actually, Allied round-the-clock bombing of essential industries and transportation and Hitler's Three Front Folly had a lot more to do with defeating Germany than any other factor.

Without the destruction of vital factories, rail yards, bridges and road networks for years prior to the invasion, the Allies would very likely have never won at all.

Throughout this discussion it is worthwhile noticing what the Soviets, in far more desperate straits than the rest of the Allies, did to counter German armor. They managed to come up with multiple generations of heavier and better armed tanks and assault vehicles and the beat the German armor at their own game.

Had Patton and MacArthur gotten their way, imagine the slaughter when those mediocre M4's ran up against Soviet armor. We barely got the Patton tank onto the field - with a lot of problems - by '45 at which time the Soviets were fielding the JS-II, the 1944 variant of the T-34, the KS-II with the 85mm gun the ISU-122 anti-tank with it's 122 AP gun and the ISU-152 assault gun which also had AP capability and armor than no Sherman could even dent since it was designed to kill Tigers up close and personal.

The Sherman was a mediocre medium tank with a mediocre infantry support gun, ill suited to encountering enemy armor on the battlefieds of Europe. It's only "advantage" was that we made a lot of them, and we lost a lot of them, and that's all.

We could have done better, as we did repeated with ships, submarines, aircraft and bombers, but we chose not to.

[Arnold J Rimmer]

Originally Posted by m kenny

Then post them.

Volume Five of the US Army's ETO campaign series.

Originally Posted by m kenny

Depends how you define small. Even then commanders did not want to get rid of the 75mm tanks.

Post documented examples of commanders declining to convert to Easy 8s.

Originally Posted by m kenny

'The 75mm was not crappy and it is juvenile to try and say it was. What you mean to say it was not a great hole puncher. Given that hole punching was a small part of the M4s task then this was not an insurmountable issue.

Pretty insurmountable if you are a tank crewman who is trying to survive an engagement with an enemy AFV.

Originally Posted by m kenny

No one is saying it was so keep tilting at your windmill. The Sherman was part of an Allied strategy to attrite and destroy all the individually crafted German tanks by being on every part of the battlefield in great numbers and not poncing about looking for single Tigers to engage in one-on-one-jousts. The Sherman was able to provide every Allied Inf Unit with its own supporting tanks. I can well imagine the 80 year old Germans puffing about in 1945 on a bicycle trying to save their city from the invaders comforting themselves with the knowledge a single Tiger knock out the whole armoured division coming their way-but sadly they did not have even that one single Tiger.

Nonsense.

[Arnold J Rimmer]

Originally Posted by m kenny

One of the advantages of the M4 in NA was it could lob a HE shell back at the 88's. Exposed crews won't hang around when a salvo of HE starts creeping towards them

'Lob'?

How about a documented case of this tactic in use?

With a clear explanation of how that gun 'lobbed' rounds, too.

[m kenny]

Originally Posted by Mountain Man

The Sherman was a mediocre medium tank with a mediocre infantry support gun, ill suited to encountering enemy armor on the battlefieds of Europe. It's only "advantage" was that we made a lot of them, and we lost a lot of them, and that's all.

Wrong on nearly every count. The 75mm was an excellent HE lobber. Even when they could have had 100% 76mm gunned M4s commander kept their 75mms. Tank v tank combat was never more than 20% of a tanks actions.

[Arnold J Rimmer]

Originally Posted by m kenny

Wrong on nearly every count. The 75mm was an excellent HE lobber. Even when they could have had 100% 76mm gunned M4s commander kept their 75mms. Tank v tank combat was never more than 20% of a tanks actions.

Again, I'm calling BS on your claim. Post documented proof of that claim.

Also, answer my question on how the M-4s gun 'lobbed' rounds.

verb (used with object) to fire (a missile, as a shell) in a high trajectory so that it drops onto a target.

[m kenny]

Originally Posted by Mountain Man

the ISU-122 anti-tank with it's 122 AP gun and the ISU-152 assault gun which also had AP capability and armor than no Sherman could even dent since it was designed to kill Tigers up close and personal.

The Soviet 122m gun that also featured in the IS2 was a field artillery piece. It was used because it worked, was available in number and could be in action tomorrow. The best Soviet AT gun was 100mm. Rather than mess about ramping up 100mm production for the perfect tank killer in 6 months from now the Soviets went for what will do today. Same with the Sherman. All we can say that decision (to stick by what will do) worked and in 12 short weeks the finest army Germany could muster was totally destroyed. Sent packing in no small part because of the contribution of the M4. Those dazzled by innovative cammo patterns and hand-crafted monster tanks have waged an unrelenting war of the humble M4 ever since for daring to get the better of the Panther & Tiger.

[m kenny]

Originally Posted by Arnold J Rimmer

Again, I'm calling BS on your claim. Post documented proof of that claim.

Here


Page 34 Survey Of Allied Tank Caualties In WW2 ORT-117.

No need to apologise...............

[m kenny]

Originally Posted by Arnold J Rimmer

Volume Five of the US Army's ETO campaign series.

See how I provided the actual page of my source? Please do the same

Originally Posted by Arnold J Rimmer

Post documented examples of commanders declining to convert to Easy 8s.

After you comply with the above.

Originally Posted by Arnold J Rimmer

Pretty insurmountable if you are a tank crewman who is trying to survive an engagement with an enemy AFV.

Survival of every soldier has never been a military objective. If it was we would never have any wars. Crew casualties have been gone over in fine detail here many times and all claims that Allied tank crew casualties were 'high' are bogus.

[Arnold J Rimmer]

Originally Posted by m kenny

Here


Page 34 Survey Of Allied Tank Caualties In WW2 ORT-117.

No need to apologise...............

You're right that there is no need: I'm still calling you a liar. That shows no evidence of commanders declining E8s for earlier models, which is what I called you out upon.

Nor of a documented case of a M4 'lobbing' HE to drive off emplaced German 88s.

You are 0 for 2.

[Arnold J Rimmer]

Originally Posted by m kenny

Survival of every soldier has never been a military objective. If it was we would never have any wars. Crew casualties have been gone over in fine detail here many times and all claims that Allied tank crew casualties were 'high' are bogus.

And I call BS on that as well.

[m kenny]

Originally Posted by Arnold J Rimmer

And I call BS on that as well.

Can you please be more specific as shotgun dismissal of everything I say allows you to dodge any reply by saying you were referring to something else and not the claim I referenced.

[Arnold J Rimmer]

Originally Posted by m kenny

Can you please be more specific as shotgun dismissal of everything I say allows you to dodge any reply by saying you were referring to something else and not the claim I referenced.

Trying to tap dance out of this?

OK, I'll lead you by the hand. Speaking of the E8s:

Even then commanders did not want to get rid of the 75mm tanks.

Then to a MM post:

Wrong on nearly every count. The 75mm was an excellent HE lobber. Even when they could have had 100% 76mm gunned M4s commander kept their 75mms. Tank v tank combat was never more than 20% of a tanks actions.

Again, you have claimed commanders declined up-gunned Shermans.

I say you are deliberately telling a falsehood.

In that post, as elsewhere, you claim the Sherman's gun was a 'lobber', by definition a weapon capable of firing at a high trajectory. A mortar lobs, but a tank cannon?

Then you made this claim:

One of the advantages of the M4 in NA was it could lob a HE shell back at the 88's. Exposed crews won't hang around when a salvo of HE starts creeping towards them

Again with the high trajectory fire. I challenged you to provide documentary evidence of such a tactic actually used in combat. I would suggest you start with data showing how the M4's gun 'lobbed' shells, first.

[m kenny]

It seems you will do anything to avoid referencing your claims

Please deal with this:

Originally Posted by Arnold J Rimmer

There were complaints in North Africa and Italy, which were not dealt with.

Where can I read about 'the complaints' I am very interested in the NA complaints.
Actual words please not some vague reference to a book