Patton is set loose on Russia

[Sea Skimmer]

The Sherman could carry a 90mm gun and had room for upgrading. This was however not done during WW2 because there wasn't thought to be a need. To give you an idea of what US tanks spent there time doing, in 1943 the recommended mix of tank guns was 1 90mm anti tank for every three or four 105mm howitzers. Later Sherman's where fitted with 90mm guns by many armies.

[MKSheppard]

Parity had only been reached in tank weight, number of crew, and maximum speed. But look at hitting power - an 85mm vs. a 76mm-

Actually, give that 76mm tungsten ammo, and it will handily outperform
the shit russian 85mm

[phongn]

Parity had only been reached in tank weight, number of crew, and maximum speed. But look at hitting power - an 85mm vs. a 76mm-

Actually, give that 76mm tungsten ammo, and it will handily outperform
the shit russian 85mm

Unfortunately, HVAP ammunition was somewhat scarce.

[MKSheppard]

Unfortunately, HVAP ammunition was somewhat scarce.

Want to know why the FUCK? It's because of the USAAF. the fucking Army
Air Forces took all the supplies of Tungsten for their fucking aircraft
superchargers...

[Perinquus]

Unfortunately, HVAP ammunition was somewhat scarce.

Want to know why the FUCK? It's because of the USAAF. the fucking Army
Air Forces took all the supplies of Tungsten for their fucking aircraft
superchargers...

...Without which their bombers could not have flown nearly as high, nor carried nearly the bomb load they did. And even as it was the supply was limited. The P40 Warhawk could have been a much better fighter than it was, especially at high altitude, but the Allison engines were not supercharged because the superchargers mostly went into bomber engines.

[Ted]

Without which their bombers could not have flown nearly as high, nor carried nearly the bomb load they did. And even as it was the supply was limited. The P40 Warhawk could have been a much better fighter than it was, especially at high altitude, but the Allison engines were not supercharged because the superchargers mostly went into bomber engines.

Except for the B-29, which for some fucked up reason was sent to the Pacific, USAAC bombers had a shit bombload.

[Perinquus]

Without which their bombers could not have flown nearly as high, nor carried nearly the bomb load they did. And even as it was the supply was limited. The P40 Warhawk could have been a much better fighter than it was, especially at high altitude, but the Allison engines were not supercharged because the superchargers mostly went into bomber engines.

Except for the B-29, which for some fucked up reason was sent to the Pacific, USAAC bombers had a shit bombload.

That's because, being day bombers, they had to carry a shitload more in the way of defensive armament. An RAF Lancaster, for example, typically carried 8 .30 cal machine guns, while a B-17G carried 12 .50 cal machine guns. The .50 cal weighs about three times as much as the .30, and the ammunition is correspondingly heavier. The B-17 also carried more rounds per gun, and 3 more crew members (plus all their flight gear, oxygen bottles, etc) than the Lancaster, in order to man the guns. All this was necessary because day bombers had to face much heavier fighter opposition than night bombers did. Additionally, in order to escape the much heavier and more accurate flak encountered in daylight bombing, the B-17s had to operate at 35,000 feet, whereas the Lancasters flew much lower, at only 22,000 feet. The ability to climb that high and cruise there came at the expense of more bomb load (and the superchargers were indispensible for this).

And it was not "for some fucked up reason" that the B-29 was sent only to the Pacific theater, it was for a very sound strategic reason. Even U.S. industry had its limits. They could only turn out so many B-29s, and the long range Superfortress was much more badly needed in the Pacific theater, where the ranges over which it was necessary for bombers to operate were much, much greater. The need for it there was more pressing.

[phongn]

Without which their bombers could not have flown nearly as high, nor carried nearly the bomb load they did. And even as it was the supply was limited. The P40 Warhawk could have been a much better fighter than it was, especially at high altitude, but the Allison engines were not supercharged because the superchargers mostly went into bomber engines.

Except for the B-29, which for some fucked up reason was sent to the Pacific, USAAC bombers had a shit bombload.

Nitpick: USAAF.

The B-29 had a fairly long range, hence why it was sent to the Pacific Theatre. That kind of range wasn't needed over Germany. Perhaps if the war had been extended we would have seen them on penetration raids over Germany (and when the Luftwaffe reduced, nuclear strikes).

The B-17 had a relatively small bombload because it was intended as a maritime patrol/maritime strike bomber rather than something like the Lancaster, which was designed to flatten cities.

[Pablo Sanchez]

A nitpick on your armor figures:

As of 1945, the T-34/85 had improved armor on the turret, the hull of the vehicle having barely been uparmored at all in the years of production. Late model Sherman hulls were actually better protected than the Soviet tank.

I dislike the straight up min/max armor values because they are sometimes deceptive in this way. I much prefer a more complete listing of each arc.

[Sea Skimmer]

Without which their bombers could not have flown nearly as high, nor carried nearly the bomb load they did. And even as it was the supply was limited. The P40 Warhawk could have been a much better fighter than it was, especially at high altitude, but the Allison engines were not supercharged because the superchargers mostly went into bomber engines.

Except for the B-29, which for some fucked up reason was sent to the Pacific, USAAC bombers had a shit bombload.

Not really. It depended how far you wanted to fly. As the B-17s and B-24 where so often making very long range raid they had to carry smaller loads then there maximum. On shorter range strikes into France they often had much greater loads. Of course both bombers also had the best armor and defensive firepower of anything save the B-29 and could fly much higher then Bomber Commands aircraft.

The B-29's went to the Pacific because of there range.

[Sea Skimmer]

Unfortunately, HVAP ammunition was somewhat scarce.

Want to know why the FUCK? It's because of the USAAF. the fucking Army
Air Forces took all the supplies of Tungsten for their fucking aircraft
superchargers...

A fair amount was produced, but it mostly went to anti tank guns or tank destroyer forces. Your average Sherman 76 might have one or two rounds of it, mabey none. But a tank destroyer might have a dozen or so. Plus of course the US just had a fuckload of armored vechicals and guns to issue it to.

In a war with the Soviet Union, the full production of Spain could be bought up. And that would increase the supply by a good margin. Historically Franco was splitting production between Axis and Allies for much of the war.

[Perinquus]

A nitpick on your armor figures:

As of 1945, the T-34/85 had improved armor on the turret, the hull of the vehicle having barely been uparmored at all in the years of production. Late model Sherman hulls were actually better protected than the Soviet tank.

I dislike the straight up min/max armor values because they are sometimes deceptive in this way. I much prefer a more complete listing of each arc.

Sherman hulls may have had more thickness, but the armor sloping on the T-34 was superior, and its side armor was also sloped, where the Sherman's was vertical.

There can be little doubt that the T-34 was a superior design overall.

[Sea Skimmer]

There can be little doubt that the T-34 was a superior design overall.

T-34/85 can't claim any T-62 kills.

[Ted]

T-34/85 can't claim any T-62 kills.

A standard, popped off the factory M4 could?

[Sea Skimmer]

T-34/85 can't claim any T-62 kills.

A standard, popped off the factory M4 could?

Well with a rear shot it could do it. The M4's in question however had extensive modifications.

[Ted]

T-34/85 can't claim any T-62 kills.

A standard, popped off the factory M4 could?

Well with a rear shot it could do it. The M4's in question however had extensive modifications.

Super Shermans?

And I dont think any T-34/85's actually fought T-62's, which is why they cant claim any.

[Ted]

T-34/85 can't claim any T-62 kills.

A standard, popped off the factory M4 could?

Well with a rear shot it could do it. The M4's in question however had extensive modifications.

Super Shermans?

And I dont think any T-34/85's actually fought T-62's, which is why they cant claim any.

[Oberleutnant]

And I dont think any T-34/85's actually fought T-62's, which is why they cant claim any.

Both tanks were used by Iraqi and Iranian armies during the 80s war, so it's possible that they actually fought against each other.

[Coyote]

I'm not sure about the upgrade potential of the Sherman being so limited. The 'Firefly' version, with the 90mm gun as well as other modifications I am not wholly aware of, was kept in service by the Israeli Army well into the '60's I believe and scored hits on T-55s and (maybe) T-62s.

But this version did not exist in great numbers in the ETO by the end of the war (I'm not sure that many were sent to the Pacific for that matter). Would the US logistics chain have scrambled to upgrade Shermans to 'Firefly' standards, or more likely just contained the Soviet Army ("fists of iron but feet of clay") until the Pershings began to arrive by the boatload.

Tactical rockets were about equal; 'Stalins Organ' vs. the 'Screaming Mimi', only production output would have made a difference... In the end, the US forces have a better chance of reaching the Soviet production facilities in the Urals than the Sovies ever have of reaching the Bethlehem Steel Mill... With Iraq at this time in the hands of the British, we could land troops in Central Asia and drive up to grab the Urals...

[Ted]

Firefly was a BRITISH modification of the Sherman.

Armed with the 17 pounder.

The US never had them.

There was one Firefly per Sherman tank platoon in the British and Canadian armies.

[Sea Skimmer]

Tactical rockets were about equal; 'Stalins Organ' vs. the 'Screaming Mimi', only production output would have made a difference... In the end, the US forces have a better chance of reaching the Soviet production facilities in the Urals than the Sovies ever have of reaching the Bethlehem Steel Mill... With Iraq at this time in the hands of the British, we could land troops in Central Asia and drive up to grab the Urals...

Soviet Tactical rockets where more powerful. However they also took much longer to reload and salved slower. Overall the real advantage is America has a huge advantage in fire control. The Soviets had fuckloads of artillery but very poor control. Mass firing via map and preplanned concentrations is effective, but it was found in WW1 that you waste at least 90% of your shells doing it.

In the Soviet Army it was hard to get unplanned support beyond a regiments mortars, though high caliber SP guns helped to make up for it. In the US Army on the other hand a company commander could get a whole divisions worth of guns shooting in his support if it was needed. And since the guns weren't constantly busy some very interesting things could be done.

For example in Italy the Fifth Army once fired an army wide time on target barrage against one large town on the fly. It took nearly an hour to make the needed calculations though.


An attack into the Urals might become viable late in the war, but its unlikely. I'd expect the US would hold southern Iran as a bombing base, then perhaps advance to Baku or at least into northern Iran to bring shorter range bombers to bear on the oil fields.

[Ted]

Soviet Tactical rockets where more powerful. However they also took much longer to reload and salved slower. Overall the real advantage is America has a huge advantage in fire control. The Soviets had fuckloads of artillery but very poor control. Mass firing via map and preplanned concentrations is effective, but it was found in WW1 that you waste at least 90% of your shells doing it.

In the Soviet Army it was hard to get unplanned support beyond a regiments mortars, though high caliber SP guns helped to make up for it. In the US Army on the other hand a company commander could get a whole divisions worth of guns shooting in his support if it was needed. And since the guns weren't constantly busy some very interesting things could be done.

For example in Italy the Fifth Army once fired an army wide time on target barrage against one large town on the fly. It took nearly an hour to make the needed calculations though.

The British had the best Artllery control though.

Officers as low as Lieutenents could call down fire from up to the Army Group.

In Italy again, a Canadian called down an Umpire target on an Italian town (again).

Within 3 MINUTES of calling in fire, 13 Field Regiments, 8 Medium Regiments, 4 Heavy Regiments, and 2 Super-Heavy Regiments had their first rounds on the way.

Needless to say, the town was flattend.

The main difference, was that in American Artillery, the concentration of fire was decided by officers at HQ, whereas the British decided that the Forward Observing Officer would be most informed and qualified to decide on the concentration.

[Sea Skimmer]

Soviet Tactical rockets where more powerful. However they also took much longer to reload and salved slower. Overall the real advantage is America has a huge advantage in fire control. The Soviets had fuckloads of artillery but very poor control. Mass firing via map and preplanned concentrations is effective, but it was found in WW1 that you waste at least 90% of your shells doing it.

In the Soviet Army it was hard to get unplanned support beyond a regiments mortars, though high caliber SP guns helped to make up for it. In the US Army on the other hand a company commander could get a whole divisions worth of guns shooting in his support if it was needed. And since the guns weren't constantly busy some very interesting things could be done.

For example in Italy the Fifth Army once fired an army wide time on target barrage against one large town on the fly. It took nearly an hour to make the needed calculations though.

The British had the best Artllery control though.

Officers as low as Lieutenents could call down fire from up to the Army Group.

In Italy again, a Canadian called down an Umpire target on an Italian town (again).

Within 3 MINUTES of calling in fire, 13 Field Regiments, 8 Medium Regiments, 4 Heavy Regiments, and 2 Super-Heavy Regiments had their first rounds on the way.

Needless to say, the town was flattend.

The main difference, was that in American Artillery, the concentration of fire was decided by officers at HQ, whereas the British decided that the Forward Observing Officer would be most informed and qualified to decide on the concentration.

The problem that runs into is the officer at the front doesn't have nearly as good an idea of what's on call in terms of artillery and especially airpower. There also of course going to want as much firepower as possibul for everything. Since FO is a prime target and exposed anyway.

There was a great case around Caen fighting involving HMS Rodney. The observer kept rapidly calling in changing coordinates for a target, getting fire and reporting a miss. From the ships fire control room realized that the target was moving at very high rate and radioed to ask what it what it was.

Observer replied that it was a motorcycle dispatch rider.


Waste of 16 inch shells me thinks.

[Vympel]

Perinquus, I don't agree with anything you wrote- but note that the 90mm max of the T-34/85 was all along the turret. The front hull, however, was still only 45mm- which is what it started off with way back in 1940. Even though it was at a very nice 60 degree slope. This is why I brought up the T-44- 120mm at a 60 degree slope. Shermans with even the long 76mm didn't have a chance against that.

As for Shermans claiming T-62s- Shermans about to break from the weight and equipped with long British 105mm guns two generations removed from WW2 and crewed by the IDF versus pathetic Arab hamburger crews are of course going to claim a few kills.

However- give me the T-62s uber-115mm gun crewed by the IDF (Ti-67 is what captured T-62s were called by the Israelis, IIRC) and I'll give you dead Arab crewed M60A3s. Actually replace T-62 with T-55 and you still have dead M60A3s. It's just a fact.

In short- meaningless thing to bring up when we're talking about which was the better tank. The T-34/85 was clearly the superior. T-44 even more so (easily owned the Panther in comparative tests- though the 85mm gun still wasnt' as good as the German long 75).

I should also point out that the Sherman 'Firefly' was equipped with a 17 pounder, not a 90mm. It was one damn hot piece though.

[Sea Skimmer]

Ti-67 is a T-62 refitted with the L7. I don't believe the IDF ever used any with there original 115's. They also got new radios and fire control equipment. I believe a .50 machine gun was fitted coaxial for ranging.