Why didn't General Patton want the M26 Pershing until the

>>31711149
I guess Patton was just not as good at war as you are.

>>31711149
because us tanks faced the tiger exactly two times.

Because you can ship more shermans on a boat than pershings and the US was more into combined arms and air superiority than sending tanks to go fight other tanks.

>>31711149

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNjp_4jY8pY&t=13m30s

Go to 13:30 if it doesn't automatically send you there.

>>31711149
The 76mm sherman, and the firefly, had no trouble with the tiger.

Which the US didn't exactly face a lot of. The brits and the canadians dealt with those.

>>31711219
This, and it would be foolish to risk the invasion by relying on a totally unproven vehicle.

>>31711219
>>31711237
Plus, the USAAF existed.

>>31711149
The Tiger was hardly the omnipresent threat it was made out to be and the M26 would have added more logistical strain, and was actually kind of shitty until the M46. 90mm guns were in use by the M36.

>>31711253

This might be the most relevant point made so far. Not even in terms of CAS but the fact that it was ten times easier to just bomb the Tiger factory than defeat Tiger tanks.

>>31711357
Don't forget bombing the railways and train depots too. It's not like those things moved far on their own.

File: 155mm_Gun_Motor_Carriage_M40_2.jpg (1MB, 2016x1512px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2016x1512px

>>31711219

Furthermore, combined arms operations made up for any inferiority, real or perceived, against Tigers and Panthers.

File: 449thBG2.jpg (131KB, 1341x792px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 1341x792px

>>31711357
>>31711374

Also, Tigers used two gallons of gasoline per mile. And Hitler was already starving for oil, hence the (horribly botched) invasion of Southern Russia.

That's also why Allied strategic bombing targeted Germany's oil refineries and why German science worked on synthetic fuels with vigor. Everyone knew oil is the lifeblood of mechanized warfare.

Is there any other primary source other than the long discredited Belton Cooper that claims Patton had any influence whatsoever on tank procurement?

>>31711149
>Wouldn't the Pershing save more American tank crew lives.

Ther Sherman already had the best crew survival rate of the war at (IIRC) .5 deaths per tank lost.

>>31711253
You mean army air force.

>>31711481
The extra A was there for a reason

>>31711481
That's exactly what he said.

>>31711457

No.
Cooper's book is an interesting memoir, but a lot of it is factually wrong.

If you want a solid book on the M26, you need to invest in Hunnicutt's work.

>>31711473
Yes, the M4 series as a whole was absurdly tough (M4A3E2 anyone?). Also reliable, accurate, and capable of indirect fire.
By far my favorite WW2 era armor.

>>31711149
Because Patton was bad @ tonks. Like really bad at tonks. Like "remove cannon to make room for more machine guns, then slap more machine guns on the side" level bad.

Somewhat paradoxically he was rather good at using tanks, even if they weren't what he wanted.

>>31711512
>>31711516
It's ok guys he was just pretending to be retarded.

>>31711530
>If you want a solid book on the M26, you need to invest in Hunnicutt's work.
What about Zaloga, I have a soft spot for him as a fellow alumnus?

>>31711552
He's more current, but if you want a "all the museums use this, and Zaloga references it" you need Hunnicutt.

Honestly, I was looking at them as less as a historian, and more as a mechanic, since I was working on WW2 armor.

>>31711149
The US played it smart and waited until the war had been decided in the East before doing anything tangible

>>31711149
The Tiger wasn't exceptionally well armored, no point bringing in a much heavier and harder to transport tank just to deal with the handful they had.

>>31711748

Do you think the United States would have been willing to make a peace with Nazi Germany had the Germans won decisively in the East while Italy remained a relative stalemate?

>>31711825
Depends on whether they knew about the camps or not.

File: 1445055854399.gif (535KB, 500x222px) Image search: [Google]

535KB, 500x222px

>>31711825
The US held roughly 100,000 Wehrmacht troops in a state of combat readiness (meaning they weren't disarmed once captured) nearest the Soviet front, ready to go back into combat against the slavs if they got greedy and tried to move further West.


Pretty sure Patton was behind the idea of a US/Ger alliance to skullfuck the Russians.

>we will never see film of German and American soldiers marching east towards Stalingrad, singing Erika and Blood on The Risers as they look up at the unending horizon of Ukraine.

>>31711481
you mean u.s. army air corps

File: sipa_patton_071112_ssv.jpg (49KB, 377x411px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 377x411px

>>31711886

As much of a shame as it was to realize the version of Patton in the film was very romanticized when researching him, it was almost equally satisfying to realize he became the man he did and achieved the success he did despite having a Lincoln tier speaking voice and being one of the most stubborn military leaders of the 20th century and still being right most of the time. I hope we find out some day whether or not Ike and his goons actually assassinated him for basically predicting the Cold War and being willing to just get it over with then and now.

>>31711858
They had some info from enigma intelligence and reports from the Polish government in exile.

>>31711981

also,

>ywn see film of an 85 year old George Patton coming into his own leading Helicopter cavalry into Vietnam firing his autist ivory handled Colt revolvers indiscriminately into the jungle

>>31712032
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlOxiwGLAkY

>>31711452
>That's also why Allied strategic bombing targeted Germany's oil refineries
yeah pretty much
Once we got through winning the war of attrition against the luftwaffe the oil and synthetic oil plants as well as the railway junctions were fair game.
The germans were short as shit of gas by late 44 and it ended up playing a major role into the failure of the watch on the rhine assault

>>31712032
Well, now I'm sad.

>>31712032
Well at least his son got to do that.

>>31711981
He was a good tactician but incredibly naive on the strategic and political issues. He was thinking of winning battles when Ike had to think of winning wars or rather, ending it. By the end of WWII in Germany, war weariness have risen in the West. There was still the Japs to contend with. Ike had to wrap up the Western theater as soon as possible.

The American people were baying for revenge against the Japs, which thus far had been relegated as second importance. There were no appetite nor resources for war against communist Russia. Patton was right in saying this would led to the Iron Curtain but wrong in wanting to fight the Ruskies at the time.

>>31711917
USAAC became the US army air forces in 1942

>>31711886
You're dumb. Americans of the time HATED Nazi Germany. Hollywood was churning anti nazi films. Even Bugs Bunny and Donald Duck did their duty. American citizen soldiers would find even the thought repugnant. Remember, these are the reason for forcing normal Americans to leave their hometowns and families and die horrible deaths in desert and snow, on the seas and skies.

The Germans and Japs ironically can thank the Russians for the relatively lenient treatment they got since the Western Allies need these two countries to not fall into communism.

>>31712208
>Americans of the time HATED Nazi Germany
in the same way they hated Germany before WW1, right?

kek

File: PattonIV.jpg (25KB, 464x563px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 464x563px

>>31712128
>>31712143

Great Patton discussion anons. That much is true.

>>31712208
You're....slightly incorrect. There was certainly hatred for the nazis as well as plenty of propaganda to support it, but hatred for the Japs at the time was much stronger due to Pearl Harbor (Aaaaand some racism to add into that, japs are easier to de-humanize)

We went after the Germans first due to a promise to England that we'd focus on the ETO because they feared they were next in line for Germany's onslaught.
The propaganda at the time showed anti-axis films, attacking both the Japanese and the Germans.

This isn't to say the US DIDN'T hate the germans, but there was a definite push to go after the Japanese first and foremost, even though the government at the time pushed for Europe first (a good idea overall IMO)

>>31712239
Hatred towards Germans in WWI was very different than hatred towards them in WWII, and it could be better argued that, in WWII, there was more of a hatred towards the Nazis versus Germans themselves, with the idea that Germans were being held hostage by the Reich.

This led to a situation where you had situation of rather brutal acts of hatred to German Americans in the first world war (beatings, passage of laws against people speaking german in the US, boycott of german-owned businesses) and much less during WWII

>>31712364
It wasn't until after bigger goals had been set by the Western powers for after WW1 that the US gov't started pushing for an anti german sentiment. Before we got involved, there was no reason for any hostile mentality. There was a large German population living in the states.


as for ww2, look no further than Churchill talking about the need to crush the will of the German people to see that it had always been forced.

>>31712392
No no not before, but certainly During the war there was a strong anti-German mentality

And for the Churchill quote: note that Britain had a very different view on Germany at the time rather than the US, with England having suffered from attacks by Germany directly

>>31712415
>but certainly During the war there was a strong anti-German mentality
and in both wars it was entirely manufactured by the state

And yes, Britain did have a slightly different view over the pond but that doesn't change the fact that in both wars it wasn't until after the western powers and their elite had established greater goals for the post war, it was THEN that the US started manufacturing the anti german mentality

>>31712436
>and in both wars it was entirely manufactured by the state
As I said before, anti-german mentality wasn't anywhere near as strong in WWII as it was in WWII, with the general opinion during WWII being that the German people were victims of Nazis themselves.

And it wasn't some big conspiracy to start hating the Germans like you seem to be conveying, in any war you hate the enemy. Propaganda surely assists in this due to the need to rally support for the war, but if your sons are going off to fight a war against an enemy, you hate that enemy naturally anyway.

>>31712510
In a poll in 1942, Americans were asked: "When the war is over how do you think we should treat the Italian people?" Fifty percent chose to "treat them kindly, humanely, fairly, as we would like to be treated." The American view of Germans had, on the contrary, by then become vindictive. In a poll on Germany's future (worded differently), approximately three-fourths of Americans felt that Germany should be demobilized and occupied; forty percent wanted to see the nation broken up into small states and de-industrialized; and, even more telling, almost half of the respondents believed that German labor should be forced to rebuild other devastated countries, and over 80 percent desired to see Germany saddled with a harsher peace than that imposed at Versailles.

>>31712436
>and in both wars it was entirely manufactured by the state

"L-l-lusitania never happened gais!"

>>31712596
Alright before anyone pounces on you:

Lusitania was definitely played up in the papers to fuel support for the allies and it is noted that the Germans warned that ships flying allied flags were libel to be torpedoed. In addition to this, the lusitania was carrying war-related goods in her holds.
But! News of it did produce outrage against Germany regardless of the propaganda spin

>>31711149
another point to add is American shipping was already outfitted for Shermans

They'd have to change a lot of stuff around to be able to effectively transport machines that weighed twice that of a Sherman

>>31712827

Logistics logistics logistics.

The US paid by far the most attention to logistics out of any of the major powers, due to every nut, bolt, and gallon of gasoline needed to be shipped either 3000 miles or 5000 miles.

In 1944, every US divisions that used Shermans turned in all their Shermans. M4A2, M4A4, and used but worn M4's were all sent to stockpile and standardized on the late production M4/M4 105 with the Continental R-975 engine.

Then as the M4A3 was available, units were swapped on a battalion basis. A battalion would hand in their M4's, and receive 50 brand new M4A3s.

M4's also shared automotive components with the M7 priest, which was based on the M3 Lee, and M4 basically kept the same drivetrain as M3. Therefore, every single ~30 ton vehicles in the division used pretty much the same parts; the same track pieces, the same R-975 engine, the same transmission, and even the same VVSS suspension bogies.

The Pershing shared basically no parts with any other vehicle in Europe besides the GAA engine with the M4A3. The transmission was different, the tracks were different, the suspension was torsion bar, and it was a unique chassis.

The logistical headache of integrating Pershing into the army at any time before late 43 would have been too great to make it worth the hassle, and the Pershing was not ready in late 43.

>>31712208
>Remember, these are the reason for forcing normal Americans to leave their hometowns and families and die horrible deaths in desert and snow, on the seas and skies.

I thought that was conscription?

>>31713527
>butthurt krautfag comes in to derail a thread
Kindly do like Adolph and kill yourself

File: 1475786310242.jpg (15KB, 388x341px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 388x341px

The real reason was that the tank was not ready.

The development hadn't actually finished yet, particularly the mounting of the gun, and the options that were available at the time weren't satisfactory.

Also, the Sherman worked fine.

We also won that war, by the way.

>>31711149
It looks too slav.

>>31713527
Fuck off nazi trash

>>31711149
>It also had a better chance of penetrating the Tiger's armor.
On a grander scale than "fantasy tank battle like the ones in Fury" the Tiger was largely inconsequential to the war, especially from the point of view of the American military command. By the time the Tiger was deployed in significant numbers, Germany's industrial capabilities were suffering at the hands of allied raids and Hitler's mismanagement. Earlier in the war they were too rare to be a major concern.

>>31713337
>>31714030
Why wasn't a 90mm turret designed for the Sherman? It obviously could have been done (M-36B2, Firefly, and Super Sherman all prove it), and that would have been far superior to the 76mm while also retaining a larger HE shell.

>>31717179
The Army did experiment with it heavily, but they just couldn't fit a larger caliber gun into the Sherman's turret to their satisfaction. The British only managed to cram the 17-pounder in there by sacrificing crew space, which the US wasn't willing to do.

The Super Shermans were postwar developments, when gun technology advanced to the point where the Israelis could fit a 105mm on the Sherman turret without sacrificing performance.

>>31717179
Since the US was supplying a large part of the Allied Forces with Sherman tanks, they didn't want to halt production. For example, the the design was largely the same as the M3 Lee tank; the turret was generally the only major modification.

The high profile of the tank comparatively to other tanks was also a noted design issue, but the designers stressed mechanical reliability, ease of production and maintenance, durability, standardization of parts and ammunition in a limited number of variants.

These factors, combined with the Sherman's then-superior armor and armament, actually outclassed German light and medium tanks of 1939–42.

Also keep in mind that US doctrine of the time was different than it is today. the M4 was supposed to be used in conjunction with infantry, in support, for a "striking echelon" heavily influenced by the Blitzkrieg tactics of Germany. Shermans weren't supposed to be out hunting other tanks, etc. And not necessarily supporting infantry either. They were supposed to be making breakthroughs in enemy lines, etc.

"Tank Destroyers" heavily armored, lightly armored fast moving self propelled artillery and towed heavy artillery were supposed to be the ones dealing with heavy armor.

In actual combat, the tank destroyer doctrine didn't quite work out, obviously and that's why it's not followed today.

General Lesley J. McNair, himself an artilleryman, was the mastermind behind the tank destroyer doctrine, and was actually staunchly against the development of heavy tanks in favor of his 90mm pet project tank destroyers.

Twice, commanders had to go over his head to get the Army Chief of Staff to get production on the T26 and Later Pershings moving, thus why they never played in crucial part in the war.

Reminder Patton was a pogue and a talentless hack

>>31711357
The impact of US air support against tanks is exaggerated according to historian Antony Beevor. The evidence shows hardly any German vehicles were destroyed in US or British strafing runs

>>31717282
Few tanks were actually killed, but Allied air attacks destroyed a lot of lighter AFVs as well as logistic vehicles. You can easily stop an armored push by killing all the fuel tankers and supply trucks supporting the tanks from the rear.

>>31717179

Why did the Sherman have such a disproportionately large turret ring in the first place?

>>31717236
>>31717268
Note the M-36B2, though; it had a turret with a 90mm gun, the turret just didn't have a roof.

So, why was an armored turret capable of mounting the 90mm never designed, as an alternative to the T26? It would have had far superior performance while still most of the protection (it's not like Pershing was *that* much better...).

>>31717287
Airpower is o.k. at CAS, although miserable against tanks until cluster bombs and ASMs came about.

Airpower is, and always has been, however, excellent at interdiction. It's like the secret sauce of AFs everywhere, but it always seems to be forgotten in between CAS and strategic bombing.

>>31717287
>>31717282
the allies's air supremacy work out like strategic level suppression. the constant threat of air strike severely limited the german's option. Traveling by daylight were down right suicidal.

It made a lot easier on the ground, but in the end you still need to send people in.

>>31717421
some bean counter ran the numbers and decided against it.

>>31717421
they actually had a prototype sherman fitted with the pershing turret, but by then the pershing were already ready for production.

the prototype sherman also had problem with center of gravity as well. the 90mm sherman TD used a lighter turret due to less armor.

>>31714918
It did a decent job making the GIs write in their memoirs that every piece of armor they encountered was an entire Tiger battalion, supported by the 1st and 2nd SS, and led by Rommel himself.

Really needs a "GI armor identification chart" like the liberal gun identification chart. Every vehicle, including British and Canadian, is a tiger.

>>31717271
t. JEEP PR rep

iirc 75% of shermans on the western front never actually encountered german tanks, they mostly just shot up apc's, trucks, cars and supported infantry.

>>31717465
and supposedly, most tanks causalities were actually a result of anti-tank gun,

but I have to question how do they tell the difference? they both shoot the same/similar rounds.

>>31711174
i hate this fucking meme

>>31717271
>I'm better than General Patton because I'm a GRUNT
>GRUNT PRIDE HUR DUR

>>31717268
>Also keep in mind that US doctrine of the time was different than it is today. the M4 was supposed to be used in conjunction with infantry, in support, for a "striking echelon" heavily influenced by the Blitzkrieg tactics of Germany. Shermans weren't supposed to be out hunting other tanks, etc. And not necessarily supporting infantry either. They were supposed to be making breakthroughs in enemy lines, etc.

It's neat how almost every country was fighting in roughly the same manner by the end. Red Army doctrine involving tanks was closely related. To severely compress Russian thought, anti-tank guns were the ideal method of countering large armored formations and tanks were an inferior way of killing other tanks. Like tank destroyers but a much greater emphasis on towed artillery.

>>31711149

Logistics.

File: P-47 Strafing Tiger Tank.webm (822KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

822KB, 1280x720px

>tank on tank combat
>not air power

lol good meme. tank on tank combat is retarded. the real power was the air.

>>31717450
Thank you. "Center of gravity issues with a fully-armored turret" is the first explanation that I've even heard of. I don't suppose you could point me towards a source, or something?

>>31711858
We knew about the soviet's horrible acts we still made an alliance with em and didn't ever go to war with them as they continued.

Furthermore we've known about NK's horrible state behavior since before they got nukes and did fuck all

States dont go to war for humanist reasons, the humanist reasons are just used to convince the population.

>>31713758
Conscription dosen't keep morale up, convince the troops not to surrender when SHTF and generally take winning the war as a personal objective

File: 1457901536582.jpg (407KB, 746x982px) Image search: [Google]

407KB, 746x982px

>>31712032
fugg, thanks anon

>>31720889
Yea, because .50 caliber MG's, or a salvo of 20mm rockets is going to do shit to a tank, right?

>>31714030
>We also won that war, by the way.
Spoilers.

>>31721321
20mm rockets?