Nemo wrote:On the Sherman/Heavy tank there was no one reason things turned out that way, but one thing I dont think I saw mentioned, maybe overlooked, was that there were two fronts in this war. I skimmed, admittedly, but every mention I saw was of Panzers Tigers and Europe but the Sherman was in every way superior to the tanks available to the Japanese. Also a match for early and mass produced Panzers, had greater range than the m-26, the A2 version ran on diesel as opposed to gasoline which was a logistical blessing. The Army was set on its operating doctrine, the researchers were going after pet projects like electric drives, and the Sherman was simply good enough.
I did skip the Pacific theatre, I didn`t think it was worth while. The first Amercian tanks to fight Japanese tanks were M2 Stuart Light Tanks. While the M2 was newer the Japanese Light Tank they both had roughly the same statistics. The Japanese also had a medium tank, but it too was roughly comparable to he M2. By the time the M4 Sherman got to the Pacific, it out classed all Japanese tanks completely. It was new and more modern, far out striping the aging Japanese tanks. I do know the Japanese made two or three new tanks to combat the Sherman, but they made them in very low numbers and held them all on Japanese mainland, they did not enter service against the M4.
I read somewhere that for M4 tankers in the Pacific the danger from a Lunge Miner, suicide device - think bomb on a pole, was more deadly than enemy tanks.
As for the Panzers, yes, the M4 did out class the Panzers I - III. The Panzer IV was made in two primary versions, the short barreled and long barreled. The short barreled was out classed by the heavier gun of the M4 when they clashed in Northern Africa. However the long barreled edition was an even match for the M4. Yet, American tank designers knew that their capabilities in production was far greater than Germany`s therefore they decided that the M4 could win the war against the Panzer IV on it`s own.
As for the Panthers and Tiger I and IIs the Sherman swarmed them to death. The German heavy tanks suffered from what most German made things did at the time, they were too good. Because of the stringent regulations in production of the tanks they were produced slowly, more over, they could not be easily repaired in field conditions.
The M-26 and M4 were in different roles and weight classes, the lighter tank natural had higher millage. The M-26 had roughly equal statistics to the Panther and Tiger II, it may have been able to fight them head on, one on one. The M4 could not.
It is hard to say what the "best" tank of the war was.
Do we say it was the Tiger II for being the the biggest baddest tank in the war until near the end?
Or perhaps we say it was the M4 Sherman, and it`s variants, for it`s simplistic, yet excellent design, multiple upgrades, high speed, good mobility, relatively good fire power.
Maybe it was the T-34, which had a lot of what the Sherman had and more.
And I'm not even thinking about; Iosif Stalin Tank, T-44s, Jagdpanthers.
A 100 M2 light tanks could have disabled a single Tiger II by ramming it until it was completely enclosed. The fact was that the mighty American war economy steam rolled Germany.
icekatze wrote:
On the topic of drones and their vulnerabilities to ground fire:
• Wind speed increases with altitude, and not always evenly. What may seem like calm air at ground level may be blowing 10+ mph at 100 feet above ground level. And often times not in exactly the same direction as at ground level.
• Small objects in the sky without any reference points have a
tendency to vanish.
• Predator drones can cruise at 7620 meters
• Light helicopters can, on average, hover at around 1900 meters.
• They're quiet.
• They're quick.
Thats not to say shooting down drones would be impossible, but they have some pretty good advantages vs ground targets. I suspect in a real contest between air and ground, they would both be using computer calculated firing solutions. Even if a real war between major powers manages to not kill every last human being on the planet, we're almost certainly going to see a Kessler Syndrome. Optical targeting is getting pretty advanced these days, and I think if there were ever a big need (like no more GPS satellites) it would ripen very quickly.
I've shot everything from finches, guinea fowl, pigeons, Har-Dee-Dars, cats, rabbits, I've managed this not because I'm a decent marksman, but because I can ambush them. By this logic alone, people watching the drones gathering intelligence on how they move and operate will learn enough that taking pot shots at them will score a hit, eventually. Even by Murphy`s Law alone it should be possible.
While as you said, the advantages to drone remaining undetected are considerable, especially their size speed and the difficulty of motion as you pointed out, I think you may be underestimating the Mark I Eyeballs. Given that many people might be looking for these new terror drones of the future, it would not be impossible for many look outs scanning the skies to see them.
As for major powers, if the drones became a real threat to Infantry troopers I would expect some kind of new weapon to deal with them. A compact missile launcher comes to mind, designed only to kill small drones.
I think you are right about need for these type of drones, at the moment there really isn`t a need, but as you said with fewer operational satellites, drones would be able to take up some of the slack. And if it makes you feel better about World War 3, in whatever it`s form, if it involves China it would draw South Africa in to whatever conflict it was. So even me sitting here on my farm, many kilometers distant from anything more stressful than frequent violent crimes, would not be spared by global conflict.
fredgiblet wrote:
I once heard someone say about the Germans "They laughed at our infantry, sneered at our tanks and shat themselves at our artillery." The biggest difference IIRC was that any American infantryman with a radio could call in an artillery strike, while the Germans needed someone of a relatively high rank to get authorization for artillery.
That's all IIRC though.
While I cannot attest to the phrase, I do know the Americans had the best Infantry fire support of the war, and the second most accurate heavy bomber planes. I have also been told that the Marine Close Air Support was quite good. As icekatze pointed out, with that fairly in depth source, American artillery was more than likely the best.
fredgiblet wrote:Soviet artillery practices:
Build 10 million artillery guns
Point them in the rough direction of the enemy
Fire them for a while
Drink Vodka for the friendly casualties.
Да, товарищ.
Soviet artillery practices ( At Stalingrad ):
Have 7 million shells.
Have 9000 artillery pieces.
Fire roughly 1.2 million rounds in one day.
Gunners keep mouths open or face medical consequences.
City already smashed to rubble.
Vodka anyway.
That'll learn those beer drinking Fascists the power of Potato based Alcohol!