Tank dilemma

[Fab Foodie]

I've read that this was because it was standard practice to send 5 Shermans against any tank - from a Stug to a Tiger. The Sherman was an infantry support tank - if the infantry said there was a pillbox, machine gun nest or other static obstruction, a single Sherman would be sent in support. If a tank was reported then a full platoon of five Shermans was sent - but only if a Tank Destroyer was unavailable. TDs like the M10 and M18 were meant to take on tanks. As heavier tanks like the Pershing became available they were used.

Here's a famous example of a Panther destroying a Sherman before being destroyed itself by a Pershing - graphic


View: https://youtu.be/D6LqB-RYUvY

Jeez, that's some watching. :-/

 

[Tin Pot]

Jeez, that's some watching. :-/

How did the guys out on top of the Panther survive the second hit?

Is the footage cobbled together for dramatic effect or is it all genuinely of the same engagement - not that I doubt the honesty of someone named spottydog7744...

 

[Joey Shabadoo]

All the same engagement apparently.

 

[Illaveago]

Shermans looks silly.

What was the armour thickness on the back of a Cromwell?

I have been looking at a cut away drawing of a Cromwell tank in my Tanks of the world book by David Miller. The actual rear of the tank appears to be around 1 inch thick. The back of the turret looks similar to the front which was 3 inches. The book says that some welded tanks had a maximum of 4 inches with applique armour,( extra armour welded on).

 

[Tin Pot]

I have been looking at a cut away drawing of a Cromwell tank in my Tanks of the world book by David Miller. The actual rear of the tank appears to be around 1 inch thick. The back of the turret looks similar to the front which was 3 inches. The book says that some welded tanks had a maximum of 4 inches with applique armour,( extra armour welded on).

Hmm an inch isn't much but enough for my battlefield tactics.

 

[Yellow Fang]

Not sure I'd call up a Typhoon, I thought that despite the shock and awe of their rockets they had a disappointing tank kill rate?

I think you're right. Typhoons did not actually kill many tanks. TBF, Cromwell crews did attack Tigers, they were just really up against it.

 

[classic33]

I have been looking at a cut away drawing of a Cromwell tank in my Tanks of the world book by David Miller. The actual rear of the tank appears to be around 1 inch thick. The back of the turret looks similar to the front which was 3 inches. The book says that some welded tanks had a maximum of 4 inches with applique armour,( extra armour welded on).

Rear Upper or Rear Lower.

 

[Yellow Fang]

I am thinking of changing my vote. I was reading about Tiger tank ace Michael Wittmann. He left a trail of carnage at Villers-Bocage. In quarter of an hour he destroyed thirteen or fourteen tanks, two anti-tank guns, thirteen to fifteen transport vehicles. Well, most of them, there were several other Tigers in his platoon. I read this sorry state of affairs was largely put down to the incompetence of the British commanding officers. Anyway, Wittmann was finally put out of action for good after he fell into a British-Canadian Firefly trap.

 

[Illaveago]

I found that I did have a book on the Cromwell tank but it covers all of the variants. A couple of the things that came up in the book was the reluctance of some of our company owners to change production and carried on producing tanks that were scrap. One instance being the production of the Liberty engines instead of the Meteor.
Regarding the thickness of armour at the rear, it said in the book that they were worried about the increased weight and it's effect on the suspension and so reduced the thickness of armour around the engine.
As for the effectiveness of the Cromwell it did say that the debacle at Villers Bocage in which a lot of our tanks were destroyed would have resulted in a similar outcome even if we had Tiger tanks. Once the Cromwell tank was out in open country from France to Belgium it performed a lot better and kept the Germans on the move.
The book did say that the Cromwell initially had problems with the escape hatches which could be booked of the turret was pointing backwards. This was improved by making a door which included part of the roof to make it larger. Damage from mines could result in the tank twisting and becoming scrap.
I'm still undecided.

 

[classic33]

That piece abou the early encounters could be said of nearly every tank though. They operate best in open country, not streets.

 

[Joey Shabadoo]

Sherman/Firefly or Cromwell? Which one continued to be used for decades afterwards?

 

[Drago]

The Sherman saw service with the Turkish forces into the Seventies?

 

[Joey Shabadoo]

And in Chile until 1999

 

[Drago]

Blimey. No wonder they were so angry and kidnapped and murdered so many lefties.

 

[Joey Shabadoo]

I have no idea where the Chilean Army got it's brutal tactics from -