(False) Historical stereotypes

You are one ignorant Hollywood cocksucker, mkay?

The M4 was one of the best mediums of WWII. Most of its haters are misinformed and the speakers who talk about the tank for many programs are also misinformed. History Channel, Discovery Channel, and Military Channel are pop history - not actual history. (for example)
the designers of the M4 actually took steps to rectify that problem up to and including relocating ammunition storage and adding a mechanism of watertight jackets and chemical solutions to dampen fires. Other tanks which are far more famous, like the German Panther and the T-34, were both well known by their respective sides for being unacceptably prone to internal fire. Either country made much of an attempt to really solve the issue, and just chose to accept it for what it was.
also the idea that the gasoline engine was the culpret that lead to the M4 being prone to fires has been a persistent myth and has been proven to be false time and time again since testing back in 1942 proved without a shadow of a doubt that the primary cause was ammunition stowage. The notion that the M4 had thin armor is also exaggerated. Compared to what? It had superior armor on the frontal arc than both the T-34 and the Pz.Kpfw IV. The Pz.Kpfw V and VI had superior armor protection, but that goes without saying. One of those is a heavy tank, and the other was well known as a revolutionary design that was every bit as superior to everything that came before it as it was to the M4; including the T-34 and Pz.Kpfw IV.
Shermans had a good combat record against Pz.Kpfw IVs and, frankly, even against Panthers. Que germanophile whining.
The M4 was adequate against its direct peers of the T-34 and the Pz.Kpfw IV.

A large reason for M4 mortality during the course of the war was because it was on the offensive for most of its tenure on the front line against an enemy that had a massive investment in the development of antitank weapons. And, even then, land mines counted for more destruction of allied vehicles on the Western front than German/axis infantry and tanks combined. i bet @General Mosh you Didn't know that only 30% of all tank kills during the war, were results of tank v tank action.

If you want a different perspective, Dmitriy Loza was a Russian tank battalion commander who operated Lend-Lease Sherman tanks on the Eastern Front and he liked them just fine. He frequently compares it favorably to the T-34. Something to consider is that during WW2 and for a long time afterwards the Soviets played down the usefulness and effectiveness of Lend-Lease equipment for political reasons but in many cases American equipment like the Sherman (specifically the P-39 Airacobra fighter) were preferred over more famous Russian equipment.

(Dmitriy Lova interview: http://english.ireme...itriy-loza.html )

edit. some more ( i rarely get to do this shit)
The Sherman was actually an excellent vehicle for its mission. Complaining that it was not up to fighting Tigers one on one is akin to condemning a light cruiser for not being able to do the same against a battleship. People who complain about the Sherman simply do not understand the U.S. Army's doctrine in WW II and, in general, don't care about it. They want a tank to be a land battle-wagon for slugging it out with other heavies. If that means your infantry gets slaughtered, who cares?

A lot of the time tanks arent fighting other tanks. Tank v tank might be the stuff that gets "experts" all worked up but the real job of the Sherman was infantry support which it did very well.Shermans only had 14% of casualties inflicted by other tanks. Also I hope you argue about allied CAS and how "it did the work for shermans" I hope you do

Does everybody forget the Easy 8? It's cannon can pen any German tank, and its easy of production made it more effective against the Germans.

I am not fucking letting this go. You're wrong, and you damn well know it, you're just either too stubborn or too stupid to see it.

And? Seriously, just like with the 9/11 jokes you love to get all butthurt about, you completely and utterly fail to see the big picture. In the end, beyond US involvement, the mission failed, period.

Yes it is. Do I need to point it out for you? Fuck, I'm not even going to wait for an answer. You said it wasn't a war the US was involved in. And what do we see here:


Tadaa. No, it's not formal. But it's still a fucking war according to the article you posted. Oh, and the Iraqi war is also under the same category.

Because marching in there as their allies and fucking up the country by napalm bombing the shit out of it with thousands of soldiers would make you think they're at least a bit responsible, no?

Yes it is. I'm not sure what you replied to, but I'm sure I disagree with it.

And I wasn't referring to that post. You contradicted yourself in the post itself, the other post had nothing to do with my point.

The rest I've already debunked on multiple occasions, there was still one other thing of which the naivety blew my fucking mind:

Good idea! Oh, and while we're at it, let's ask the Turkish government if they massacred a bunch of Armenians! I'm sure we'll get an honest answer!

omg dutch people call keyboards "schermtoetsenbords" that sounds way more badass than the english version.

Actually, just "toetsenbord". "Scherm" means screen, referring to the fact that this was a virtual keyboard. My laptop doesn't have a PrntScrn key, so I needed to do it this way.

god i love the dutch language.

Really? It's pretty shitty...

the english language is worse

Myth: Jimmy Carter destroyed the Economy
Fact: The whole econonic crisis faced in the late 70's was fallout from the Vietnam War and any president who was president in Carter's time would have had the same problem. Yes republicans even St. Reagan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war
That entire article debunks this.

No, I know I am right.

How in the world did the United States fail when they weren't even there?

It's not our fault that South Vietnam fell.

No, it isn't.

I said that to refer to my older posts. Do I have to repeat myself again?

Dream on!

The Turkish government didn't massacre those Armenians......it was the Ottomans who were Turkish but that isn't the same government.

You're failing to respond to both my point AND the one being posted earlier about a "Police Action" being a war in the first place. Not to mention:

Changing the term doesn't change the fact that it was a war.

Then I'll go with the ignorance and stupidity option.

Because the "work" was undone the moment they left. In the grand scheme of things, a concept that seems to be new to you, the mission ultimately failed.

It is, but that's not necessarily a horrible thing. At least, according to the people who wanted the US to back out of the war.

Again, I don't know what it was about, but I doubt you were.

Go ahead, it's not going to change anything, though.

Just because you're either too stubborn or too ignorant to acknowledge that I'm right doesn't mean I'm not.

Then rephrase the question and ask if the Turks committed genocide. You damn well knew what I meant, and damn well knew that my point was correct. Don't try to steer away from that.

I'm not going to argue with you @thelistener

I'm just saying the Sherman was not teh mazingist tnk of WW2. In a 1 on 1 fight, it would get its ass handed to it by a Panzer 4, Panther, Tiger, T-34, IS-2, etc. I understand it was made to work with others, and a lot of others at that. But I've heard people try and claim the Sherman was by far the best WW2 tank and that's stupid. And I don't know what your point was about "pop history" but I've never seen History say one thing bad about the Sherman and I've never seen anything about WW2 on the discovery channel except the Mythbusters once used WW2 tanks in a myth.

After looking at several articles, I have concluded that the United States did indeed lose the Vietnam War. I did read one article that Viet-Cong/North Vietnam's tatics were better. Thank you all for using well constructed arguments and not attacking me or the US. This has been a rather civil argument. Vietnam really suffered from this war though, unfortunately.

@Melanthropist When something says military conflict, that doesn't mean it is a war.

Are you. . . serious?

So a battle is a war?

No, but then again, a battle isn't a military conflict or a military engagement. It's a military confrontation. Although there are wars that have lasted for a single battle, I suppose.

I love you, you are like " im not going to argue with you, but then again I am, in my own way co's yours too complex XD"

Here's some facts for you. In 1954, the US Army's Ballistics Research Laboratory conducted a study of tank vs tank engagements fought by the 3rd and 4th Armored Divisions from August to December 1944

98 engagements were identified, including 33 from the Ardennes fighting.The average range Shermans inflicted kills on the panzer's was 893yds, and the panzer's averaged kills at 946yds.
The study concluded that the most important factor was spotting and shooting first. Defenders fired first 84% of all engagement, inflicting 4.3 times more casualties on the attackers then suffered. When the attackers fired first, they inflicted 3.6 times as many casualties on the defenders compared to own losses.

29 engagements involved Panthers and Shermans. The Shermans had an average numerical advantage of 1.2:1. The data showed the Panther had a 10% advantage over the attacking Sherman when the Panther defended, but the Sherman was a whopping 8.4 times more effective then attacking Panthers when the Sherman defended. Overall, the Sherman was 3.6 times as effective as the Panther in all engagements. German A/T guns however, were by far the most effective anti-Sherman weapon they had.

From the study itself:
Data on World War II
Tank Engagements
Involving the U.S.
Third and Fourth Armored Divisions

According to Table II, the most common type of engagement was Shermans defending against Panthers, and the Shermans fired first. In 19 engagements, involving 104 Shermans and 93 Panthers, 5 Shermans were destroyed compared to 57 Panthers.

The second most common engagement was US Tank destroyers defending against Panthers, with the TDs firing first. In 11 engagements, involving 61 TDs and 19 Panthers, 1 TD was lost compared to all 19 Panthers.

The most successful enemy weapon was antitank guns defending. In 9 engagements (3rd most common), 19 a/t guns inflicted 25 casualties on 104 total attacking Shermans, losing 3 guns in exchange.

The 4th most common engagement was Shermans attacking Panthers, and the Shermans fired first. In 5 actions a total of 41 Shermans fought 17 Panthers, losing 2 and taking 12 Panthers in return.

In 40 actions in which the US forces were attacking, they had 437 weapons and lost 100 (23%). The Germans had 135 and lost 45 (33%). In 37 actions in which the Germans were attacking, the US had 205 weapons, losing 14 (7%), and the Germans lost 83 of 138 (60%).

MORE FACTS

Several newly raised Panzer brigades were demolished by the US around Lorraine, for little results.

PzB 106 was destroyed in an attack on the 90th Infantry. The German commander (Bake, IIRC) thought that the US infantry would panic and run when confronted by the Panthers (because that's what happened in the East.)

PzB112 and a group from the 21st PzDiv were demolished by a task force (Langlade) from the 2nd French Armored around Dompaire. PzBrigade 112 lost 69 of 90 tanks, 350 dead, and 1,000 wounded. French losses were 5 M4 tanks, 2 M5 tanks, 2 halftracks, 2 Jeeps, and 44 killed, with a single P47 shot down.

PzB111 and 113 mounted an attack on Sept 18th around Arracourt, but ran into the 4th Armored. By the end of the day 43 panthers had been killed for 3 M18s, 5 M4s, and 6 crew killed. Over the 4 days, the 4th lost
14 M4s, 7 M5s, and 25 killed. The 111 was down to 7 out of 90 Panzer's, and the 113th was shattered as well.

Total 3rd Army losses for all of September included 49 light tanks and 151 medium tanks and tank destroyers. The Germans committed 616 tanks and assault guns to the fighting in September; only 127 were operational at the end of the month, with a further 148 awaiting repairs. 101 PzIVs, 118 Panthers, and 221 assault guns were lost.

Actually no, panzer 4 it did beat 1v 1, panther it could beat 1-1 on occasion but it doesn't matter because the other one is a different weight class altogether and came out after Sherman did (it matters because when US engineers built the Sherman they didn't know about tiger and panther tanks so they obliviously didn't take that into consideration, only when they came across did they upgrade the gun, you see) and other is a medium tank, you see. Its like saying:"hur hur yamato battleship is better than Brooklyn class cruiser co's yamato can destroy light cruiser and the other one can't destroy yamato XD" tiger the same thing, t-34 it could beat and did beat in Korea, again IS-2 is a heavy tank.

The focus on the Tiger and even the Panther by you in this thread is somewhat misguided. Most of the tanks that were to be found in Heer formations, all the way to the end of the war, were Pz III (built in numbers until 8/43) and IV (built until the end of the war) both of which were well within the Sherman's engagement capacity. Tigers were fairly rare and had horrible availability rates, mechanically the Tiger was a mess. The vehicle also was fairly handicapped in urban of forest environments because of its best advantage overall, the 88mm gun, which was exceptionally long, especially for the era.
A second, although reasonable question is if it is better to have two battalions of Shermans to support an infantry division or two companies of Pershings (or in the German case, one operational company of Tigers)? That was quite literally the choice that the U.S. had to make. If I'm in the infantry, I know how I answer that question.

Sure, the German heavy tanks (well, okay the Panther is technically a medium, but it's still much heavier than other medium tanks of the era) offered a serious problem for the Sherman, but they also offered a serious problem for just about every other allied medium tank, even the late model T-34-85s.

Against other medium tanks it remained potent well into the 1950s (during the Korean war 76mm gunned Shermans more than held their own against T-34-85s).

You could make a comparison with Churchill tank and a tiger because they are both heavys.

Actually the shows and some old books I have seen about ww2 always in some way point out how shermans sucked.

Also wtf you mean its stupid to say it was the best tank? Are you seriously saying tiger would beat Sherman in that contest? If its not stupid to say t-34 was the best, it damn isn't stupid to say Sherman, mkay? And don't you name a German tank as the best. Well.. If you do, at least I know how much you know about tanks. (And if you wondering what I think was the best: its tie between Sherman and its variants and t-34 and its variants)

I want you to remember that one of those things the Germans did wrong was building tanks that were mainly meant to fight other tanks, when most of the time tanks weren't fighting other tanks at all.

And remember if you don't strust me, trust logic People weren't going to war in Panthers in 1973, but they were going to war in Shermans. Hell, they were taking out T-55s in 1973. I don't see any Panthers or Tiger IIs doing that. That tells you something.

BTW,the folks who bad mouth the Sherman might want to talk to the Israelis. They used upgunned versions of the same chassis until the mid-1970s.

No, but people refer to the Vietnam War as a. . . war.