Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
and our technology has kept pace---so no differenceThat's cute....
C-Wiz, is great, but it is getting old. We need a new system.
It's factual. The B-52 can only fly where we have air supremacy. Introduce a SAM to the theater and the 52s are toast.after they changed tactics, they did much better --mission accomplished in a SAM areanecessary changes: Vary the inbound routes and altitudes, eliminate the PTT and use a straight-ahead “feet-wet” exit out to the Gulf of Tonkin. Although angry at being bypassed, his Eighth Air Force commanders sent a “we agree” message to Meyer, who quickly ordered the changes. (Sullivan must have understood he’d fallen on his sword; despite his leading role in winning the war’s decisive battle, he was denied a second star and retired two years later.)
Operation Linebacker II: The 11-Day War
Technology has marched on. And now there are optically guided SAMs to contend with.
You don't know your history. The only tanks that "outclassed" US armor were the relatively few Panthers and the tiny numbers of Tigers I and II. Shermans were slightly superior to the Panzer IVs and far superior to the Panzer IIIs and Stug assault guns that made up the vast majority of the German armored force. The Sherman outclassed even the big cats in everything except gun and frontal armor, and it was far more reliable than any German tank.no shit we lost against them ....the US armor was outclassed by the enemy armor --so our tanks couldn't do that well against the Germans when the odds were even
..the Brits got massacred at Villers Bocage by ONE tank .....
When the Sherman was designed in 1941 it was easily the best tank in the world. It was far superior to the Germans Panzer IIIs that either had a short 50mm (42 calibers) or a long 50mm (60 calibers) it was superior to most of Panzer IVs which were armed with a 75mm 24 caliber gun and equal to the Panzer IV with the 75mm 43 or 48 caliber gun. It had features that German tankers could only dream of; a main gun stabilization system that allowed fire while moving to some extent, an auxiliary generator, good crew vision, both a periscopic sight and direct vision sight, great ergonomics and on and on...so we purposely designed a tank that was worse''???!!!!
...wrong wrong wrong--we won because we had naval/air/manpower and LOGISTICAL superiority
..the Germans were just as good, if not better
the Germans beat not one --but 2 countries --quickly in the Battle of France
https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...ur-army/0b2cfe73-68f4-4bc3-a62d-7626f6382dbd/
...they lost because the US and Russia had by themselves 200 million population vs Germany's 80 million ....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
..the US alone had over 2 times the warmaking potential of Germany AND Japan combined
Grim Economic Realities
..etc etc
...
The Germans didn't invent Blitzkrieg, it was developed by General Liddel-Hart of the British Army in the early and mid-thirties on the Salsbury Plain in England. The Germans just adopted it and adapted it to include airpower.
I thought we had anti-radar/etc aircraft? like the Weasels
..it's a whole system working together--not just the bombers --fighters/weasels/AWACS/tankers/bombers/etc---just becasuse they have SAMs doesn't mean we wouldn't or couldn't go in and kick A$$
....it's silly to think no planes will be shot down.....just like ground combat--you will have deaths usually --just because the enemy ground units have rifles, doesn't mean the friendlies won't attack
You don't know your history. The only tanks that "outclassed" US armor were the relatively few Panthers and the tiny numbers of Tigers I and II. Shermans were slightly superior to the Panzer IVs and far superior to the Panzer IIIs and Stug assault guns that made up the vast majority of the German armored force. The Sherman outclassed even the big cats in everything except gun and frontal armor, and it was far more reliable than any German tank.
When the Sherman was designed in 1941 it was easily the best tank in the world. It was far superior to the Germans Panzer IIIs that either had a short 50mm (42 calibers) or a long 50mm (60 calibers) it was superior to most of Panzer IVs which were armed with a 75mm 24 caliber gun and equal to the Panzer IV with the 75mm 43 or 48 caliber gun. It had features that German tankers could only dream of; a main gun stabilization system that allowed fire while moving to some extent, an auxiliary generator, good crew vision, both a periscopic sight and direct vision sight, great ergonomics and on and on.
Makes no difference whether it was Russian T-90. US M1 Abrams, or the feared German Leopards, all suffered massive defeats at the hands of rebels with missiles.
TOW missiles used by Syrian rebels blew holes through Russia's armored tanks.
The interconnected conflicts raging across the Middle East today have amounted to a dreadful human catastrophe with spiraling global consequence. One of their lesser effects has been to deflate the reputations of Western main battle tanks mistakenly thought to be night-invulnerable in the popular imagination.
Iraqi M1 Abrams tanks not only failed to prevent he capture of Mosul in 2014, but they were captured and turned against their owners. In Yemen, numerous Saudi M1s were knocked out by Houthi rebels. Turkey, which had lost a number of M60 Pattons and upgrade M60T Sabra tanks to Kurdish and ISIS fighters eventually deployed its fearsome German-built Leopard 2A4 tanks. ISIS destroyed eight to ten in a matter of days.
We build these massive steel boxes to fight one another and they never face off. It makes no difference whether it’s the heavy stuff or APCs, missiles seems to nullify their very reason for being.
A whole lot more about this @ Russia's Tank Forces Got A Really Rude Awakening In Syria
mediabiasfactcheck.com
You don't know your history. The only tanks that "outclassed" US armor were the relatively few Panthers and the tiny numbers of Tigers I and II. Shermans were slightly superior to the Panzer IVs and far superior to the Panzer IIIs and Stug assault guns that made up the vast majority of the German armored force. The Sherman outclassed even the big cats in everything except gun and frontal armor, and it was far more reliable than any German tank.
When the Sherman was designed in 1941 it was easily the best tank in the world. It was far superior to the Germans Panzer IIIs that either had a short 50mm (42 calibers) or a long 50mm (60 calibers) it was superior to most of Panzer IVs which were armed with a 75mm 24 caliber gun and equal to the Panzer IV with the 75mm 43 or 48 caliber gun. It had features that German tankers could only dream of; a main gun stabilization system that allowed fire while moving to some extent, an auxiliary generator, good crew vision, both a periscopic sight and direct vision sight, great ergonomics and on and on.
Plus 1 Tiger being as "good" as 3 Shermans wasn't much value when there were 10 Shermans for every Tiger.
The Germans didn't invent Blitzkrieg, it was developed by General Liddel-Hart of the British Army in the early and mid-thirties on the Salsbury Plain in England. The Germans just adopted it and adapted it to include airpower.
Actually, it was theorized by Hart, developed by Lt. Gen. Sir Percy Hobart.
The same Hobart who invented such equipment as the mine flails on the front of tanks to clear mine fields quickly? That guy was a genius on several levels.
The German gun was slightly superior in armor penetrating, the US M-3 75mm was superior in high explosive performance. Tanks fire far more HE rounds than AP ones. The Sherman had far better armor than the Panzer IV plus its frontal armor was sloped and the Panzer IVs was stepped and vertical. The Panzer IV H and J models were steps backwards giving up capabilities for easier and cheaper production.The Sherman had better mobility, and better reliability than a Pzkpw IV, but the L/46 75mm on the later F2 then the L/48 75mm on the G through H models of the Panzer IV was vastly superior to the 75mm, and better even than the later 76mm mounted to the Shermans.
The German gun was slightly superior in armor penetrating, the US M-3 75mm was superior in high explosive performance. Tanks fire far more HE rounds than AP ones. The Sherman had far better armor than the Panzer IV plus its frontal armor was sloped and the Panzer IVs was stepped and vertical. The Panzer IV H and J models were steps backwards giving up capabilities for easier and cheaper production.
The M-3 gun had nothing in common with the M-1897 except caliber. Different barrel, longer barrel, different breech mechanism; I don't even think they could fire the same ammo.That is not true. The German guns were far superior to the US 75mm, which was nothing more than the WWI French 75 adapted to the tank role.
Best tank in the world in 1941, bar none, was the T-34/76. With the KV-1 close behind.
The M-3 gun had nothing in common with the M-1897 except caliber. Different barrel, longer barrel, different breech mechanism; I don't even think they could fire the same ammo.
The T-34 was never as good as the M-4. It had a good gun, but it's reliability sucked, the crew was essentially blind when buttoned up, its transmission was so poorly designed than the driver needed a hammer to shift gears, the Christie suspension took a lot of space in the hull and combined with the angled armor all around, resulted in a very cramped interior. There was no turret basket, the turret "floor" was made up of ammo boxes that made it hard for the loader to move around to follow the gun as it traversed. Only company commanders ever had radios and often even they didn't. Engines and tracks often lasted less than a hundred and fifty kilometers before requiring rebuilding. Engines often "grenaded" because the "oil filters" couldn't filter out Aluminum scraps from the poorly machined engines. The original F-34 76mm gun had slightly less penetration than the US M-3 75mm, the original 76mm F-11 and F-32 guns on the T-34 had significantly less penetration than the early M-2 75mm on the earliest Shermans. The T-34 carried 77 rounds of ammo versus the M-4's 102.
The T-34 was a decent tank when compared to the Panzer 35Ts, 38Ts armed with 37mm guns and Panzer IIIs armed with 37mm or short 50mm guns, but when all its handicaps like the two-man turret, lack of vision and poor reliability are taken into consideration, it was far from the best tank in 1941.
I don't know where you are getting your figures, but according to the official German penetration tables, at 1,000 meters the Panzergranite 39 could penetrate 72mm and the tungsten cored Panzergranite 40 penetrate 69mm. You might be looking at the KWK40 L/70 from the Panther. The maximum armor on the Panzer IV was 50mm on the hull front, turret front and mantlet and 30mm anywhere else. That was easily penetrated by any round from the M-3 gun at 1,000 yards and with M-61 APC at 1,500 yards.Not slightly superior. Vastly superior. The L/48 could punch a hole through 89mm of armor at 1000 meters, while the 75mm on the Sherman could only get through 60mm. That doesn't penetrate any part of the Panzer IV. But the IV DOES punch the Sherman. HE performance for the two was similar. US ARTILLERY shells were far superior to the Germans, there is no doubt about that. But for the tanks the HE rounds were similar. The Sherman wasn't designed to fight tanks. It was designed to fight infantry. That was the philosophy of the armored forces of that era. The tank Destroyers were supposed to fight tanks.
Thus, is a tank vs tank comparison, the Sherman is always going to lose vs dedicated tanks.
That single T-34 seems to have been a KV-1 instead and the crew was so blind that the Germans were able to move an 88mm Flak 18 within a hundred meters of it to destroy it. And the German combat forces were going right around it, but they needed the crossroads it was sitting on for supply forces. A hell of a lot of T-34s were destroyed by Panzer 38Ts with 37mm guns and Panzer IIIs with short and long 50mm guns.Reliability was an issue early on, but that was due to the speed they needed to get them in the field. Hell, they were sending tanks from the factory, right into battle in Stalingrad. By 1942 most of those problems were worked out. More importantly, the T-34 was impervious to anything the Germans had bar the 88. A SINGLE T-34 stopped Army Group Center during Operation Barbarossa for a day. ONE tank vs hundreds of thousands of men and equipment.
The other problem they had was the soviet soldiers were technically not very adept. Stalins purges had seen to that. The average army infantryman, when given a choice would almost always choose the bolt action 91/30 over the self loading SVT-40.
