Picture of the day

XRCD011 said:
One has to wonder whatever came of the Shermans used in the 1970 movies Kellys Heros and if they played any role 20 years later in the 1990 civil war . Kellys Heros is actually based on a real life theft of gold during WWII.

Click to expand...

... and not a Panzerfaust or Panzerschrek to be had by the Wehrmacht. Warum nicht?
 
I remember reading somewhere that Patton hated the tankers adding extra "armour". He said the extra weight took away the Sherman's speed and mobility, which were it's advantages over the German Panzers.
 
fwm said:
I remember reading somewhere that Patton hated the tankers adding extra "armour". He said the extra weight took away the Sherman's speed and mobility, which were it's advantages over the German Panzers.
Click to expand...

Not so much when you are doing a frontal attack.
 
fwm said:
I remember reading somewhere that Patton hated the tankers adding extra "armour". He said the extra weight took away the Sherman's speed and mobility, which were it's advantages over the German Panzers.
Click to expand...

The field improvised armour (e.g. sections of track, logs, concrete, sandbags, etc.) likely didn't too much to add protection for the Sherman, and in some cases, probably caused more problems than it solved.

Other measures, like welding a piece of armour plate over the lower front of the hull (especially over the differential housing) was much better, and reportedly, fairly widely employed by Patton's 3rd Army.
 
The maintainers complained that the additional weight was overloading the tank's suspension and drive train, but the maintainers weren't the ones to take them into harm's way. There was no doubt some psychological value to a crew shading their bets this way as well.
 
purple said:
The maintainers complained that the additional weight was overloading the tank's suspension and drive train, but the maintainers weren't the ones to take them into harm's way. There was no doubt some psychological value to a crew shading their bets this way as well.
Click to expand...

In the case of being overloaded with sandbags or concrete applique, the lack of speed and maneuverability caused by the extra weight would have quickly evaporated any psychological value once they found themselves in need of those things in a hurry.
 
We used de-turreted Shermans as APCs at the RCAC School in Borden and Meaford where I learned to drive them. They were replaced by the spanking new M113A1s in 1965. The M113 was quite an impressive vehicle at the time, altho the aluminum hull was only advertised as protection against shell fragmentation from artillery, and not direct fire. The old Sherman hulls offered more protection, but were open to the sky. The Sherman APCs were heavier and longer than the M113 and were more comfortable to ride in cross country.

I learned the limitations of the M113 in the Middle East where I saw them after being reamed out by tanks and ATGMs. They were a sound vehicle automotively, but offered minimal protection. In Vietnam people would line the floor with sandbags and ride on top of them for protection against mine strikes.
 
As I recall, our M113A1's were diesel powered whereas the US models had gasoline engines.

That meant diesel detonation for the crew and infantry. It was then we started to get ear plugs that came in a 'twist-to-open' plastic tube with a chain you could attach to your combat jacket.
 
5K52oC7.jpg
 
A lot of guys apparently lost their hearing as a result of hours sitting in the back of the m113 .... I didnt realize any of them were produced with gas powerplants - thats interesting
 
We were told that the diesel powered M113s were less likely to 'flame' than the gas powered vehicles.

But - it was a pita for the POL supply Officer who had to provide diesel fuel as well as gasoline.

We were also told that the diesel detonation 'deafness' was short lived, but the ear plugs would enable infantry to hear better once they hit the ground.
 
AP said:
A lot of guys apparently lost their hearing as a result of hours sitting in the back of the m113 .... I didnt realize any of them were produced with gas powerplants - thats interesting
Click to expand...

Our M113 and M548 had Diesel engines. Hearing protection was mandatory when riding in one. The few times that I didn't use it I regreted it.
 
purple said:
I learned the limitations of the M113 in the Middle East where I saw them after being reamed out by tanks and ATGMs. They were a sound vehicle automotively, but offered minimal protection. In Vietnam people would line the floor with sandbags and ride on top of them for protection against mine strikes.
Click to expand...

Yeah, an inch and a half of AA 5083 (at best) is not going to stop much.
 
The tactical philosophy behind the thinly armored M113 APC was that it would be a "battle taxi" which would enable infantry to quickly cross shell/bullet swept ground to close with an objective and to then dismount to secure the objective. It was never intended to be an armored fighting vehicle which would protect the infantry while fighting from it or to offer protection from tank and anti-tank fires. It wasn't designed with a major weapons system and only had a MG to provide some suppressive fire while the infantry was closing with the objective and dismounting.

There was an eternal debate about where the infantry should dismount to fight; in front of, on top of, or beyond the objective. Either way, the infantry would be killed in bunches within the APC, rather than individually on foot while advancing to and assaulting the objective. Fortunately, we never really had to test the operational concept because we never had to fight the Soviets in a major war.

The M113 family certainly did enhance the mobility of the infantry and did offer some degree of protection. It also provided the basis for a wide range of armored utility vehicles, incl TOW tank killers. Our budget driven army is now wedded to the wheeled LAV for better or for worse. The LAV vs M113 is probably a saw-off on automotive reliability, somewhat better on protection, a lot better on its weapon's system, but poorer on cross country mobility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom