The flaw in Nazi Armor

[TedKennedy]

The American manufacturing process was the greatest in the world. You may recall we built Liberty ships in under a week at a time. Automobile manufacturers were quickly converted to building tanks and churned them out like new sedans. Nearly all of the raw materials were obtained and processed internally. Our manufacturing centers were in no threat of bombing. Civilian goods manufacturing was severely curtailed to shift over to the war effort.

Wasn't this during a time when a large percentage of manufacturing jobs were union, and we had tariffs on imports? Too bad neocons don't learn from history, eh?

 

[rhodesbe]

The mechanical problems with Nazi armor are a bit overstated. They didn't just randomly fail and break at a higher comparative rate.

They were more difficult to maintain in the field without proper tools, and were more mechanically fickle about having that maintenance done.

When you combined this with the fact we were continually bombing the factories producing replacement parts and the transport utilities to get them where they were needed, it resulted in operational issues.

I have to imagine if the Allies faced the same logistics problems the Krauts did from mid-war, you'd hear the same things about the Shermans and transport trucks.

The Germans had a well-established modern auto industry by the time the 1930's came around. And the fact that Ford was a huge player in German armor manufacturing development, via Ford-Werke AG is commonly overlooked.

 

[trade350]

Cost per Tank (1943)
USA: $33,500
Russia: $50,000
Germany: $320,000
=========================
Also the TIME they spent on building.....
Not only was the cost per tank excessive, the Time to build the German tanks was equally excessive according to the article.
"The Tiger took 300,000 man hours vs 10,000 hours for the average Sherman. "

Also interesting was the Soviet tank methodology. "There was no sense in building an engine or transmission that would last more than 932 miles:
the tank would be dead by then. The Soviets realized they could machine those components to looser tolerances, using lower-quality metals. Pain jobs
were lamentably bad; welds were often crude. "
The Soviets outproduced the Germans nearly three to one.

 

[TerryMiller]

I'd always heard Shermans were called coffins because of their thin armor and that their guns were ineffective but that they were more reliable. And the fuel issue combined with the fact that we had more of them and men to lose than the Germans did allowed us to overcome them.

Since a number of the Shermans were used by the British, I've heard or read in places that the Germans referred to the Sherman as a "Tommy Cooker."

 

[TedKennedy]

Since a number of the Shermans were used by the British, I've heard or read in places that the Germans referred to the Sherman as a "Tommy Cooker."

I watched an interview with an old soldier that had to refurb the Shermans and put them back in battle after getting hit by the Germans. He was still disturbed by what he saw left in those tanks. (pieces of young Americans)
Too bad the politicians that order up that nonsense don't get to be on the front lines.

 

[rhodesbe]

Too bad the politicians that order up that nonsense don't get to be on the front lines.

I think the vulnerability of the Sherman was more of an intelligence failure than a political one.

Most of the army's intel guys significantly underestimated how many 88mm guns (both field pieces and those mounted on armor) the Germans really had.

The prevailing theory was that Shermans wouldn't face the high-velocity 88 all that much in action, and so the tanks were designed to protect against the much lower velocity 5cm KwK38 cannon, ie: thinner armor and a 75mm main gun, both tragically undersized in combat.

 

[TedKennedy]

Doesn't matter to me - don't send young men in where you ain't willing to go yerself - period. The boys over there had to fashion their own armor to try to repel the German shells. So at some point the problem was known but they kept runnin' em back in.

 

[Billybob]

Since a number of the Shermans were used by the British, I've heard or read in places that the Germans referred to the Sherman as a "Tommy Cooker."

I'd heard that term also.

 

[Billybob]

I watched an interview with an old soldier that had to refurb the Shermans and put them back in battle after getting hit by the Germans. He was still disturbed by what he saw left in those tanks. (pieces of young Americans)
Too bad the politicians that order up that nonsense don't get to be on the front lines.

At Liveleak.com-horrors of war there's a very disturbing video showing the results of a Sherman being hit by an 88 gun.

 

[Billybob]

I think the vulnerability of the Sherman was more of an intelligence failure than a political one.

Most of the army's intel guys significantly underestimated how many 88mm guns (both field pieces and those mounted on armor) the Germans really had.

The prevailing theory was that Shermans wouldn't face the high-velocity 88 all that much in action, and so the tanks were designed to protect against the much lower velocity 5cm KwK38 cannon, ie: thinner armor and a 75mm main gun, both tragically undersized in combat.

I'd heard it was a trade off for speed and maneuverability.

Engineering Disasters - The Sherman Tank of WW2 (History Channel)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEeQPUp5VTY