Check out this devastating Video :eek:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBp4eWqXfno&feature=related

I'd say sending troops into battle in one of those POS's was damn near criminal.

I'd say sending troops into battle in one of those POS's was damn near criminal.

They weren't that bad. At least compared to what we used previously. Like one of these.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_P7vup-B2rg&NR=1

I believe the Germans called the Sherman 'Tommy cookers' for the quickness of igniting due to the petrol engine.

How America has caught up, the M1 is nearly as good as the MK2 Leopard :)

I believe the Germans called the Sherman 'Tommy cookers' for the quickness of igniting due to the petrol engine.

I think the Americans called them "Ronsons" after the cigarette lighters of that name..."first strike, lights every time".


How America has caught up, the M1 is nearly as good as the MK2 Leopard :)

The differences are negligible. I wouldn't want to be in either one if the other was shooting at me. ;)

They weren't that bad. At least compared to what we used previously.

Yeah, but we weren't fighting those. :) I don't know if it was in the video clip Dunkirk posted, but I saw the show in question when it aired originally. Essentially they said the best way to defeat a German tank was to parade a few Shermans in front of it while a third went around the back and shot it in the engine at close range. Or something like that - I'm going from memory.

In the movie "Battle of the Buldge" I think the Sherman's strategy was to get in as close with the Tigers as possible, thus making it hard for them to hit them without actually hitting each other :@@:

In the movie "Battle of the Buldge" I think the Sherman's strategy was to get in as close with the Tigers as possible, thus making it hard for them to hit them without actually hitting each other :@@:

Reminds me of a story I read about the battle of Leyte Gulf, when a US destroyer charged a Japanese battleship, pulled up right next to it, and laid into it with 5" shells and machine gun fire. The battleship couldn't depress its gun barrels low enough to hit the destroyer. Eventually they pulled away from each other, at which point, IIRC, the destroyer was sent to the bottom.

Hows that remind you of he Sherman Tiger debate.

Hows that remind you of he Sherman Tiger debate.

Underarmed, underarmored tin cans getting in close to a much larger foe to even the odds.

In the movie "Battle of the Buldge" I think the Sherman's strategy was to get in as close with the Tigers as possible, thus making it hard for them to hit them without actually hitting each other :@@:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sn2xk5_knKc

Yeah, I know, it's only a game -- but what a game!!

Underarmed, underarmored tin cans getting in close to a much larger foe to even the odds.

Hmm ok.

I was under the impression that Shermans attacked Tigers in packs, and defeated them thru weight of numbers.

Usually around 4-5 Shermans knocked out to every 1 Tiger.

An advantage the Germans had was that they only had to transport their tanks from Germany to France for that battle. Many times they just loaded them on flatcars.

The US had to transport them several thousand miles in vulnerable, slow moving ships.
One reason for quantity trumping quality and size was the assumption that many of them may not successfully complete the journey.

The US had to transport them several thousand miles in vulnerable, slow moving ships.
One reason for quantity trumping quality and size was the assumption that many of them may not successfully complete the journey.

True, but by 1944 the U-boat threat was much less of an issue.

Oddly enough-I dont buy Brook's post one little bit.

The US jumped into the European threatre on a whim and wasnt prepered dor the fighting at start.

This was just when the US war machine was being born, the Germans had transport problems also.

Tigers were too heavy for most bridges in Normandy.

Oddly enough-I dont buy Brook's post one little bit.

The US jumped into the European threatre on a whim and wasnt prepered dor the fighting at start.

This was just when the US war machine was being born, the Germans had transport problems also.

Tigers were too heavy for most bridges in Normandy.

I wouldn't call it a whim, but it's true we weren't prepared for the German resistance, especially at Anzio.

The US jumped into the European threatre on a whim and wasnt prepered dor the fighting at start.

When the US was attacked by Japan in 1941 we were unprepared. When we invaded France in 1944 we had the most well-prepared military in the world. I will say that when we invaded Europe in 1944, Germany was already well on their way to being defeated by the Russians, but to suggest that the largest sea-borne invasion in history was undertaken on a whim, or that it was an ill-prepared venture is perhaps a bit of a stretch.


This was just when the US war machine was being born, the Germans had transport problems also.

Tigers were too heavy for most bridges in Normandy.

True, but most of the transport problems the Germans had were caused by the 40,000 combat aircraft of the USAAF.

If anyone has any questions on WW2 just ask me :)

What color socks did McArthur have on when he said, "I shall return"????

trick question, he wasn't wearing any :D

When the US was attacked by Japan in 1941 we were unprepared. When we invaded France in 1944 we had the most well-prepared military in the world. I will say that when we invaded Europe in 1944, Germany was already well on their way to being defeated by the Russians, but to suggest that the largest sea-borne invasion in history was undertaken on a whim, or that it was an ill-prepared venture is perhaps a bit of a stretch.



True, but most of the transport problems the Germans had were caused by the 40,000 combat aircraft of the USAAF.

Prehaps when its put in such a way then Yes, a stretch sounds a bit mild.

However, the US was involved in the European Threatre long before DDay.

Ever since those Anglos went cap n hand to Washington, begging for free goodies, at that time, as you say, the US was unprepared for war.

Sure as fuck made up for it since tho.

Here is a Weapon the U.S. posessed, that probably would have had more than favorable results against the Panthers and Tiger Tanks....that was never used :(

Secret Strobelight Weapons of World War II

By David Hambling May 17, 2008 | 9:07:00 AMCategories: Bizarro, Lasers and Ray Guns, Less-lethal
It might have been the greatest lost weapon of World War II. Major-General JFC Fuller, the man credited with developing modern armored warfare in the 1920s, called failure to use it "the greatest blunder of the whole war." He even suggested that British and American tank divisions could have overrun Germany before the Russians -- if it had been deployed, that is.

I've been looking at a new range of strobing weapons, which use flickering lights to subdue criminals and insurgents. But it turns out that the disorienting power of such lights was discovered decades before.

The secret weapon Fuller was referring to was the Canal Defence Light -- a powerful searchlight mounted on a tank, with a shutter allowing it to flicker six times a second. The 13-million candlepower searchlight -- intended to illuminate the battlefield and dazzle the enemy -- was described in a fascinating article on the CDL Tanks of Lowther castle:

The angle of the beam dispersion was 19 degrees which meant that if the CDL tanks were placed 30 yards apart in line abreast, the first intersection of light fell about 90 yards ahead and at 1000 yards the beam was 340 yards wide by 35 feet high. This formed triangles of darkness between and in front of the CDL's into which could be introduced normal fighting tanks, flame-throwing Churchill Crocodiles and infantry.

A further refinement was the ability to flicker the light. On the order given for 'Scatter', an armour plated shutter was electrically oscillitated back and forward at about six times a second. When first produced it was thought that this flicker effect (similar to the modern disco strobe lights) would have a damaging effect on the eyes of any observer and might cause temporary blindness.

It was the flickering aspect that made the CDL special. The makers found that when it was employed, it was impossible to locate the vehicle accurately. In one test, a CDL-equipped vehicle was driven towards a 25-pound anti-tank gun. Even as it closed from 2000 yards to 500 yards, the gunners (firing practice rounds, one assumes) were unable to hit the tank. When asked to draw the route taken by the CDL tank, the observers drew a straight line, while in fact the tank had been crossing the range from side to side.

Spraying the area with machine-gun fire would not work either; the armored reflector of the searchlight kept functioning, even after being hit repeatedly.

Although the CDL did not have the kind of disabling effect that the light-based personnel immobilization device currently being developed by Peak Beam for the US Army has, the type of disorientation seems quite similar. If it had been used at much closer range then more dramatic effects -- dizziness, loss of balance and the infamous nausea -- might also have been observed. However, with its mechanical shutter, the technology was much more primitive than the strobing Xenon light developed by Peak Beam. It produces a 'squarer' pulse and is significantly more effective than earlier strobes.

Over three hundred CDLs were built -- using Matilda, Churchill and Grant tanks -- and might have played a major role after D-Day. But instead, they remained unused. There seem to have been two reasons for this. On the one hand, the power of the CDL was kept extremely secret. "Even the Generals who should have used it did not know what the tank could do," complained its inventor, Marcel Mitzakis. And those that had heard of it had trouble believing that a simple flickering light could have any effect. Fuller was one of the few who appreciated what the CDL might have achieved.

Another use of flickering lights in World War II was the proposal by Jasper Maskelyne, a stage magician employed by the British military. (A very colorful account of Maskelyne's role is given in the book The War Magician - reading it you might think he won the war single-handed.) The magician was given the task of making the Suez Canal invisible to enemy bombers. When the idea of constructing an illusion using mirrors was rejected as impractical, another plan was formulated, as this site on Maskelyne describes:

Maskelyne came up with the unorthodox idea of constructing 21 'dazzle lights' along the length of the Canal. These powerful searchlights, containing 24 different spinning beams, projected a swirling, cartwheeling confusion of light up to nine miles into the sky. A barrage of light to confuse and blind the enemy bombers, which Maskelyne dubbed Whirling Spray.

Fisher claims that this radical defensive shield of light was highly effective and was a major reason why the Suez Canal remained open for the duration of the war.

However, in spite of the book's claims, the dazzle light were never actually built (although a prototype was once tested). Is the power of strobe lights just an illusion based on hype, like Maskelyne's whirling spray? Or a significant new weapon that will be ignored or shelved because people are either ignorant of it or don't believe...?




link: http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/05/wwii-strobe-t-1.html

Oddly enough-I dont buy Brook's post one little bit.

The US jumped into the European threatre on a whim and wasnt prepered dor the fighting at start.

This wasn't at the start.

Look at the evolution of American fighter planes in WWII. They were constantly improving on them. I'm sure the US could've had the same progress with creating superior tanks.

The reason they didn't wasn't lack of ability or creativity.

This wasn't at the start.

Look at the evolution of American fighter planes in WWII. They were constantly improving on them. I'm sure the US could've had the same progress with creating superior tanks.

The reason they didn't wasn't lack of ability or creativity.

The US declared war on Japan the day after Pearl Harbour (rightly so).

After intense pressure from Churchill, the US declared war against Germany 3 days later on 11 December 1941.

Now between then and DDay was two and a half years, in that time the best design and manufacture the Yanks could come up with was the Sherman.

This is my point, on December 11 1941 America was ill prepared for the coming clash.

After intense pressure from Churchill, the US declared war against Germany 3 days later on 11 December 1941.



Paul, Germany declared war on the United States, Dec. 11, 1941, in a speech before the Reichstag, in which a confused and rambling Adolf compared his poverty stricken childhood to the wealthy FDR's.

The formal declaration was delivered to our State Department at around 7 AM Dec. 11, 1941.

On Dec. 8, the US and Great Britain had formally declared war on Japan.

IOW, Germany was itching for a fight.

Now between then and DDay was two and a half years, in that time the best design and manufacture the Yanks could come up with was the Sherman.

This is my point, on December 11 1941 America was ill prepared for the coming clash.
Paul, when we declared war on Japan, the AVG (Flying Tigers) had been fighting Japan with P-40's, an inferior plane.

By the end of the war we had the Mustang, Hellcat, and the Bearcat (which could have been the best of all, but the war ended before it could be fully exploited).

Although the US may have been ill prepared at the beginning, if their desire was to come up with a better tank, they certainly could have.

Paul, when we declared war on Japan, the AVG (Flying Tigers) had been fighting Japan with P-40's, an inferior plane.

By the end of the war we had the Mustang, Hellcat, and the Bearcat (which could have been the best of all, but the war ended before it could be fully exploited).

Although the US may have been ill prepared at the beginning, if their desire was to come up with a better tank, they certainly could have.

I agree we could have come up with a better tank, and we did, in the Pershing, but an important quality that the Sherman had was that it was capable of being offloaded on a beach, where the Pershing required a port equipped with heavy cranes.

Guys, no doubt as the United States became more on a war footing its armaments improved greatly, and rightly so the Mustang was a superior
warplane to anything the Luftwaffe could muster.

No doubt in tank technology it was only a matter of time before the Tiger would have been matched and indeed out gunned, with Americas resources,
it would have produced a better heavy tank, wheras, sheer numbers of Shermans defeated the Tiger on the Western Front.

And of course, German engineering was too technical for operational success.

How did we all end up agreeing.

Diplomacy.

Guys, no doubt as the United States became more on a war footing its armaments improved greatly, and rightly so the Mustang was a superior
warplane to anything the Luftwaffe could muster.

No doubt in tank technology it was only a matter of time before the Tiger would have been matched and indeed out gunned, with Americas resources,
it would have produced a better heavy tank, wheras, sheer numbers of Shermans defeated the Tiger on the Western Front.

And of course, German engineering was too technical for operational success.
the Brits came up with a way to fit their 27lb anti-tank gun on the Sherman, but the war was over too soon for us to get over the anxiety of using a foreign gun on our tanks.

You know, its tatally amazing that even though Germany lost the war, to this day they still have what is considered by many the best tank in the world... The Leopard II

Photo http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/3149/leop113qk9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


link: http://www.army-technology.com/projects/leopard/

the Brits came up with a way to fit their 27lb anti-tank gun on the Sherman, but the war was over too soon for us to get over the anxiety of using a foreign gun on our tanks.

Yeah- its called ego.

You know, its tatally amazing that even though Germany lost the war, to this day they still have what is considered by many the best tank in the world... The Leopard II

Photo http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/3149/leop113qk9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


link: http://www.army-technology.com/projects/leopard/
Dunkirk, why do you find that amazing ?

You know, its tatally amazing that even though Germany lost the war, to this day they still have what is considered by many the best tank in the world... The Leopard II

Photo http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/3149/leop113qk9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


link: http://www.army-technology.com/projects/leopard/
of course they think it is-the Germans will sell it to just about anyone, but underneath, it's basically an Abrams.

i moved this bad boy around a couple of dozen times- http://www.army-technology.com/projects/shadow/

when you see one in blue, that was my idea...along with the cryogenically hardened armor and turbo-jet driven generator:D

Yeah- its called ego.
no argument there.

of course they think it is-the Germans will sell it to just about anyone, but underneath, it's basically an Abrams.

i moved this bad boy around a couple of dozen times- http://www.army-technology.com/projects/shadow/

when you see one in blue, that was my idea...along with the cryogenically hardened armor and turbo-jet driven generator:D

Its basically an Abrams-thats funny.

Its basically an Abrams-thats funny.
compare the stats...just ignore that a new Abrams engine hasn't been made since 1991.

A tank is an armoured gun.

The 120mm L55 has not been bettered, anywhere.

A tank is an armoured gun.

The 120mm L55 has not been bettered, anywhere.
it still has to get where it's going, and survive the fight. the 120mm is the standard on MBTs, but it has to hit what it's firing at, and i'll bet the exported Leopard IIs don't have the best targeting system possible. why give the tank that might be shooting back at you someday an even break?

it still has to get where it's going, and survive the fight. the 120mm is the standard on MBTs, but it has to hit what it's firing at, and i'll bet the exported Leopard IIs don't have the best targeting system possible. why give the tank that might be shooting back at you someday an even break?

Well I guess that Switerland Poland Holland and Austria are the only
ones who could effectivly roll across the German plain in Lepoards these days,
tho I suspect they more than likely use their Volkswagon camper vans, so nothing to loose sleep over.

Dunkirk, why do you find that amazing ?

Even thought they know they can longer use them for their own full benefit, they still havent lost the ability lead the world in weapons technology.

Take a look at this :cool:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxdEtyxa7Ao&feature=related

the Brits came up with a way to fit their 27lb anti-tank gun on the Sherman, but the war was over too soon for us to get over the anxiety of using a foreign gun on our tanks.

You're right, there was a lot of pointless rivalry between the allies, and even between the various branches of our own armed services.

BTW, the British gun was a 17pdr, not a 27pdr. :)

You're right, there was a lot of pointless rivalry between the allies, and even between the various branches of our own armed services.

BTW, the British gun was a 17pdr, not a 27pdr. :)
thank you for the correction. still a damn big round:eek:

thank you for the correction. still a damn big round:eek:

Actually, it was slightly smaller in diameter than the German 88mm gun, but they had developed a discarding-sabot anti-tank round that was quite effective.

of course they think it is-the Germans will sell it to just about anyone, but underneath, it's basically an Abrams.


According to all those shows on TLC and the Discovery Channel, the gun used on the Abrams is made by the Germans. Maybe the Abrams is basically a Leopard underneath. :)

Dont know, they say a Leopard never changes its spots.