The US and WWII

Not him, but while fixed ATGs did do a lot of damage, they got their biggest losses from SPGs (Stugs for the most part), and while 88s were deadly and iconic, you were more likely to run into other guns, 75mm guns being way more common and could still kill you real good.

>pre-making firing solutions for literally all of the areas they'd be fighting
Went and pre-sourced this myself.

etloh.8m.com/strategy/artil.html

>Americans used the British system, but with a very significant innovation. They pre-computed the firing data for a HUGE number of variations of wind/temperature, barrel wear, elevation differentials, etc. Then for each possible variation, they created a separate calibrated tape measure. Along the tape was printed the gun laying information instead of distance marks. When a firing mission came in, the plotting officer would simply go to a filing cabinet containing the hundreds (thousands?) of these tapes and pull out the correct one for the current meteorological and situational factors. Then the tape would be laid out between the two grid points on the map (the battery's and the target's) and the firing data would be read from the printing on the tape. Apparently there were some other fudges that got thrown in to make the firing even more accurate.

>The Sherman in particular was very good at its main job of infantry support
You are confused and bad at history, but I've come to expect that from Veeky Forums.
Sherman's primary role was not infantry support but exploitation. It was forced into the infantry support role because the US army did not have a heavy tank until very late and did the job, but infantry support is for heavy tanks.
I bet you are one of those memespouting morons who think tanks were for fighting other tanks.

>they got their biggest losses from SPGs
Source me up senpai

>fixed ATGs did do a lot of damage
What the fuck even are >fixed ATGs?
Please read at least one wiki article before posting. Preferably on the subject.

>infantry support is for heavy tanks

This is honestly one of the stupidest things I've ever read on Veeky Forums.

If you're not trolling, I want you to seriously think about your life, and then pick up a fifth of whiskey and a cheap revolver.

>I bet you are one of those memespouting morons who think tanks were for fighting other tanks.
>quotes a post saying the Sherman's job was supporting the infantry

nigger you what

>The vast majority of Sherman casualties were from 88s and mines.
88s are CoD memes. They were forced into AT and infantry support roles, but they were hardly ideal tools for the job compared to actual assault guns and AT guns.

Tanks might not be "for" fighting other tanks, but it is definitely still something that happens and so tanks should be prepared for that task regardless even if it isn't technically their job.

Heavy tanks were breakthrough tanks. They were meant to go up against fixed positions and enemy guns. Medium tanks were used for exploitation AFTER the breakthrough was achieved.
You fucking moron kill yourself.

>the 88 was not an "actual" AT gun

fucking WHAT

When someone says "88" they are usually referring to the 8.8cm Flak. You dumb autist.

Sherman was forced into infantry support roles. Doesn't mean that was its main role or the role it was built for. Is this hard? Do you need someone to hold your hand through understanding this idea?

But that's wrong.

Medium tanks were for general purpose. They were intended, and did quite a good job, of engaging infantry, other tanks, and fixed emplacements.

The most common request from Sherman crews in Europe was to get the 105mm howitzer so they could fire bigger HE shells and do a better job killing infantry.

The western allies didn't even have fucking heavy tanks in any significant number, because they physically couldn't carry them to where they needed to go.

Remember, the LST was the logistical backdone of the war in Western Europe for quite a long time until the ports in Antwerp were brought back online.

>The most common request from Sherman crews in Europe was to get the 105mm howitzer so they could fire bigger HE shells and do a better job killing infantry.
This is the stupidest thing I heard but I'm willing to entertain the idea and wait for you to provide a fucking source.

There was a Sherman variant matching that description but it was not widespread.

>The most common request from Sherman crews in Europe was to get the 105mm howitzer
is a pretty specific factual claim that I'm sure is easy to pull up a source for.

My apologies, the source I had is actually for British forces, not American ones.

panzerworld.com/german-tank-kill-claims

Do you prefer towed ATGs? Non self-propelled ones.

And yes, there were a lot more 75mm guns made than 88mm guns. They were quite capable of killing American tanks if they got them in their sights.

>Do you prefer towed ATGs? Non self-propelled ones.
Towed gun is the preferable term as it was the actually used term and isn't completely divorced from reality like "fixed ATG" is. Fucking retards shitting up the board.

>owed gun is the preferable term as it was the actually used term and isn't completely divorced from reality like "fixed ATG" is.

eur.army.mil/pdf/eBattlebook_EbenEmael.pdf

Page 83

>The C 47 is the main anti tank gun in use in the Belgian army in 194. It was used in three different roles: towed anti tank gun in the field army, fixed anti tank gun in bunkers and forts, and motorised gun aboard the Belgian t-13 light tank destroyer. It was an effective gun by all accuonts, markedly superior to the German 37 mm gun, but perhaps not as good as the French 47 mm.

Now, I admit, I'm not sure how many of said German guns in late war were actually being installed into bunkers and the like and were properly "fixed", and how many of them were actually literally towed, as they were generally the same guns being used in more or less the same way for the same purpose, but to pretend that "Fixed ATG" is not a term is quite simply wrong.

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Why the hell would you want something armed with a high velocity 88mm or 90mm for INFANTRY SUPPORT? Those guns are tailored for taking out other tanks. Some of the Shermans did have low-velocity HE firing guns, which made them suitable for infantry support, but others had high velocity AP guns for taking on other tanks.

>breakthrough is the same as infantry support
lolwut

"Fixed" implies neither towed nor self-propelled, having to be assembled on the spot and taken apart to transport, like the German 128mm

>fixed anti tank gun in bunkers and forts
Again, this seems to imply it was used as a stationary part of a defensive installation, rather than as towed AT artillery.

And yes, "fixed atg" is a term, and the guns might be mostly identical to the towed versions, but "fixed ATG" does NOT refer to towed AT guns, they're two separate things. If you can move it around, it's not "fixed". Emplacement guns might arguably have more in common with SPGs, since they're both fixed into a structure, just one that's immobile instead of on tracks.

>tanks were for fighting other tanks.
(one of the purposes of the) medium tanks fighting other tanks is literally, explicitly, black-on-white stated in the american armored combat doctrine manual

>most tech. superior (arguably thing with the Germans in terms of superiority).
>Germans
>technologically superior
ebin
fuckers couldn't even reliably produce penicillin

There was one US general during WW2 who said that tank destroyers should be the primary means of combating tanks. People tend to exaggerate this into believing that he thought that tanks should NEVER EVER fight other tanks. And it was just one guy, and there was no evidence he ever actually did anything to impede tank development other than cancelling development of heavy tanks, which weren't very useful anyway.

>All shermans were easy8

Hate those threads

>105
Not for killing infantry, but for busting concrete emplacements, famalan.

>german technical superiority meme

There were thousands of types of equipment throught the war. There were period when germans had the best AA, russians had the best air superiority fighter, japs had the best torpedo, etc. etc.

It wasn't just a technology, population, freedom game of scissors like fucking Starcraft or whatever.

I find pic related interesting, as criticism of the Sherman published during the actual war is quite rare. It's obviously futile to compare the M4 to two more-modern heavy tanks, but if gives you an idea of how people at the time saw it, and that the idea of an American public blinded by patriotism and under the impression that our shit didn't stink is objectively wrong.

for the most part the US was actually behind in tech and most of their shit wasn't quite as good as their enemies. they did however get to learn a lot from the UK when the UK handed over basically everything they had. the US also got to learn from the UK and others experiences fighting along with their own experiences when they finally did enter the war

another massive factor is the fact that the US was very secure without the fear or air raids or any of that shit so they were free to just sit around designing shit and had the industry to mass produce new designs very quickly

even if the US didn't really have huge advances they still had the industry and materials to completely overwhelm everyone which they did anyway even while supplying allies.

The 76 could reliably pen.

And the easy 8 sucked, the turret was too small for the gun and as a result the gun hindered operational ability.

>for the most part the US was actually behind in tech and most of their shit wasn't quite as good as their enemies
what the actual fuck
the us (and the uk) was undoubtedly the most technologically advanced combatant of ww2 in most areas
medicine, electronics, artillery, navy, aircraft production and so on

at the end yes but not at the beginning. sure some shit might have been better but overall every allied nation was lacking.

Not him but it's true the 105mm M4 was seen as the most useful and often requested -by general officers-, which makes sense as they were often slotted as artillery, ie. providing indirect fire, which American divisional commanders had an insatiable boner for. (Pic related)

It's also true that many M4 tank commanders opposed the up-gunned 76mm cannon because the HE shells were less effective than with the 75mm. (More penetration = higher muzzle velocity = thicker shell walls = less room for explosives.)

If you consider how rare tank engagements were on the Western Front, and especially once they're into the meat grinder of pillboxes and fortifications in Hurtgen Forest, HE was simply more effective most of the time.

>operation paperclip was a lie.
t. brit.

>this fucking thread again

Really? We're doing this again? Did the Sherman haters not get enough last time or the time before? Every god damn thread, here and on /k/, it's alway the same rehashed history channel arguments that get torn to bits:
> soviets proved the 76 mm could penetrate a tiger I reliably as long as the right ammo was used
>ammo stowage issues were fixed and made safe
> Ronson was a meme
> optics were fine
> 5 Sherman engaged a tiger because 5 tanks were the smallest operational unit
> best crew positioning of any medium tank of the war
> firefly was a meme tank and the gun made fighting in it a pain in the ass
> only a little taller than a T-34 whose dick everyone can't stop sucking

>The infantry weapons weren't the absolute best,
They arguably were, with the exception of shit machine gun doctrine.

Part of the reason the Western Allies developed a technical advantage is because of Lend-Lease and Reverse Lend-Lease. The system effectively pooled the resources of the US, UK, and Commonwealth nations together. For example since 1943 the British supplied all spark plugs used in American B-17s, the life of which were four to five times longer than American-make. The British also had superior radar and signals equipment, military ambulances, specific engineering equipment like the bailey bridge on top of numerous general materiel, so it's not hard to see why world powers working together would produce better equipment.

If you want a mostly impartial view of the Sherman I'd recommend Dmitriy Loza's memoirs 'Commanding the Red Army's Sherman Tanks.' He's frank about the Emcha (their name for the M4) and its many shortcomings, but also gives a personal account of its use on the Eastern Front where tank combat was vastly different. He had fought in a T-34, a Matilda, and finally the Sherman so I consider his opinions well founded, and its an interesting read regardless.

mega.nz/#!QEwVCZiA!w3wD9dXMm8O1Iu4RlkETgeU_Bw3XC0Tr1jtUBmijscA

>he fell for the tank destroyer meme
WEW

>panzerworld.com/german-tank-kill-claims
>It [the Sherman] is a useful tank, best in the world AFTER Russians and Germans

HOWZA BOUT DAT?

Let us Amerifat Tank addicts get on board with what our ancestors knew and acknowledged.

>Towed gun is the preferable term as it was the actually used term and isn't completely divorced from reality like "fixed ATG" is

You were wrong. What's more, you stepped into a conversation on a completely semantic issue, made a lot of noise about your autism, and were still wrong, as it is an "actually used term" and is not "completely divorced from reality".

And given the EXTENSIVE use of German fortifications, (17 million cubic meters of concrete in the Atlantic wall alone, over 18,000 bunkers with yes, their own gun emplacements in the Sigfried Line), to say that the Germans didn't have fixed guns is again wrong. And even if you should be right, which again, you aren't, you actually aren't contesting the actual issue, simply a word choice, because either you're incredibly autistic, or you just have to win internet fights.
>Emplacement guns might arguably have more in common with SPGs, since they're both fixed into a structure, just one that's immobile instead of on tracks.

Because tactical mobility isn't important, now is it? It wouldn't possibly affect how you use your weapon if it's capable of moving around the battlefield at around 40kph as opposed to having to be packed up and hitched up to a truck or a team of horses if you want to get it from point A to point B. I have no idea why actual military planners and historians would consider self propelled ATGs to be in a separate category from towed ATGs. [/sarcasm]

It's also popular to label German tanks as overengineered, and in some cases this is quite true. What is overlooked, however, is the shortage of spare parts resulting from a growing need to press all available tanks into service. Without a surplus of parts, issues that may require only rudimentary maintenance can now cause a tank to be lost. Fighting a withdrawal only serves to exasperate it.

American tanks, which generally enjoy a reputation of reliability, have thier own issues with overengineering. The gyrostabilizer was overly complex, worked on only one axis, and wasn't viewed to be of much benifit; youtu.be/j81wOr_6zco

They were the reasons the Russians had the strength to counter, they funded all their allies and they didn't have a chance of losing
Shermans are underrated for what they were

what a shitty thread. let's hope that all powerlevel threads are banned in the future.

Are you serious? Next to /k/ this board is incredibly wrapped up and coddled in American Nationalism.

The only thing the US was superior to compared to Germany were the numbers

The Reich was LITERALLY multiple decades ahead of all the other parties involved in WW2. This is a historical fact.

Isn't that doctrine one of the reasons why most early Shermans were equipped with the low-velocity M3 75mm, and the higher velocity M1 76mm only became widespread when it was realized that tank destroyers couldn't be relied on for anti-tank support?

Most German tanks weren't heavies, either.

The part about the Sherman being smaller isn't really a valid criticism, since the other tanks were heavy tanks, and the Sherman was a medium. The lack of a heavy tank could be considered a flaw in American doctrine, but it doesn't mean the Sherman was itself a bad example of a medium tank. It's basically in the same class as the T-34, Panzer IV, and Panther.

>overall every allied nation was lacking
And the same wasn't true of the Axis? Japan barely had tanks at all, German tanks of 1939 weren't even good by 1930s standards.

> to say that the Germans didn't have fixed guns is again wrong
I didn't say that, just that towed guns don't count as fixed guns.

>
Because tactical mobility isn't important, now is it? It wouldn't possibly affect how you use your weapon if it's capable of moving around the battlefield at around 40kph as opposed to having to be packed up and hitched up to a truck or a team of horses if you want to get it from point A to point B. I have no idea why actual military planners and historians would consider self propelled ATGs to be in a separate category from towed ATGs. [/sarcasm]
There's 3 classes of tactical mobility:
fixed - cannot be moved, at least not without considerable preparation
towed - can be moved by trucks, horses, or artillery tractors
self-propelled - built into a chassis with its own propulsion

If you're going to go on about how self-propelled vs towed is a useful distinction, you'll also have to accept that towed vs fixed is a useful distinction as well. "Fixed" by definition means IMMOBILE, it's totally not the same thing as towed.

TIL that Germany had nuclear weapons, intercontinental bombers, guided air-to-air missiles, and supersonic fighters in the 1940s.

>literally every thread about a conflict involving America involves shitting on America in the face of sources
>coddled in American nationalism
lolno

>They pre-computed the firing data for a HUGE number of variations of wind/temperature, barrel wear, elevation differentials, etc

It's the things like this (the increased specializations) that make me hate hearing people think that people in the past were inherently less intelligent or capable than they are today.

Panther is pretty much a heavy tank when compared to mediums like T-34, M4 and PzIV.

Lets put it this way, a medium tank is just heavy enough to perform tank duties for combined arms tactics. A heavy tank is meant to be able to deal with other tanks and big guns, but not aiding significantly to it's use in terms of dealing with tank and anti-tank warfare.

meant
>but not aiding significantly to it's use in terms outside of dealing with tank and anti-tank warfare.

>/k/
>everythread not meming about nogunz

Someone remind them that the saber got BTFO by fucking airshow planes.

You brought up /k/, not me.

Can anyone give me good firsthand sources on tank life, operations, and engagements from the crews?

German, American, Russian preferably.

no fuck off

Here, have a Russian's experiences with the Sherman:

iremember.ru/en/memoirs/tankers/dmitriy-loza/

The gist of it was that they liked the Sherman a hell of a lot better than the did the Matilda, found its comfort far exceeded the T-34, and found it generally a good tank.

>soviet art deco propaganda posters

Muh dick

Any idea what it says?

Unfortunately I do not. Neither of the sites I found it on had a translation. I was actually looking for a specific one, where they had a British, Soviet, and American soldier smashing Hitler with a united fist, but I couldn't find it.

...Red army, together with the armies of our allies, will break the back of fascist animal.
t. Stalin :DDD

Pact of friendship.

post war VE day posters

>The part about the Sherman being smaller isn't really a valid criticism

Yeah I assume they just included it for the sake of comparison. They also don't mention American size requirements for road/rail/naval shipping, something considered so important they ended up chopping off a good portion of the 76mm cannon to meet.