Sherman Tank Performance

[The_chieftain]

On the matter of helmets, you will note I said they didn't wear them, not they didn't have them. The Wright/Harkness report has this to say on the matter, after establishing the number of wounds which would have been in the area covered by the standard Royal Armored Corps helmet:

"If it agreed, on the basis of the figures that have been presented, that the enforced wearing of an adequate stell (sic) helmet would be of value, it is worth considering briefly the reasons why helmets were not generally worn by tank crews in N.W. Europe. There are probably two main reasons for it not being used: The first is that it is not possible to wear headphones for any length of time with the existing type of helmet, which is generally held to be uncomfortable. The second is a feeling amongst troops that it is not of very great use and will not keep out bullets. These factors have led to the arguments so frequently advanced that it is not really desirable or possible for a tank commander to wear a helmet. This has been the basis of the tradition that has grown up in so many regiments that discourages the wearing of helmets. Granted that the existing helmet is far from ideal, it is suggested that had its wearing been enforced at all times of exposure - both where the head was through the hatch and when men were outside in the open - at least some of the injuries reported here would have been avoided. That the wearing of helmets is a practicable possibility is shown by the American Army where its use is enforced at all levels and by the 23rd Hussars Regiment in which helmets are worn at all times except when wholly inside the tank.
[snip]
If such an 'ideal' helmet could be designed and its wearing enforced at all times of exposure there should be a reduction of fatal casualties and a corresponding reduction of non-fatal ones, especially those due to small fragments"

It is worth noting that not only does the report delve into a discussion as to why the helmet was not normally worn, it manages to single out all of one unit in the British Army which actually wore the helmet routinely, indicating that the others were...less rigid about it.

[Sheldrake]

On the matter of helmets, you will note I said they didn't wear them, not they didn't have them. .........
If such an 'ideal' helmet could be designed and its wearing enforced at all times of exposure there should be a reduction of fatal casualties and a corresponding reduction of non-fatal ones, especially those due to small fragments"

It is worth noting that not only does the report delve into a discussion as to why the helmet was not normally worn, it manages to single out all of one unit in the British Army which actually wore the helmet routinely, indicating that the others were...less rigid about it.

The post war British army had a preference for regimental soft headdress rather than helmets. Part of this was bravado and an expression of unit and individual identity. Partially a fashion statement drawing on the tradition of Two Types of looking as un-warlike as possible - unlike say the Americans who seemed to take a pride in looking as wary as possible. This was perhaps a result of the North Africa campaign where tin helmets were pointless and impractical.

Until the late 1980s the British army still used a version of the WW2 1944 assault helmet which was a PIA to wear in an AFV. British AFVs were designed(?) or rather evolved, to have the maximum of protrusions on which to inflict injury or catch clothing.

There may have been crew helmet's of the equipment schedule of the Chieftain and Centurion but I don't recall them being worn and photos of the 1980s major exercises show berets. Photos do show recce crews of Scimitar and scorpions which may have been unique to these vehicles.

[Chepicoro]

Honestly I believe in your version even if you refuse to show or name your sources,

I did, but you couldn't be bothered to read.

As far as I know, nope you never quoted your sources.

um, no, sorry, but I have little interest in providing you gratis the fruits of my labor. With regards to the events at Tidworth, you have been given numerous references, yet want me to provide more. If you would really like to find out, then here is a hint, buy my book,

The references were basically post from 2 forum users with no quotes of anything.

Finally I find this.

It is documented in Eisenhower's papers, and also by Hobart, Bradley, and Brooke, while Rollie Ward recounted what happened to me in a couple of letters shortly before his death.

I really hope that is not your standard to quote your sources...

I normally buy books, but in your case I will make an exception... thanks pdf, thanks internet.

[Richard Anderson]

As far as I know, nope you never quoted your sources.

It took you a week to come up with this as a response? Seriously? That's lame, even for you.

For what actually happened at Tidworth.

Entry 1522, Eisenhower Mss. to Percy Cleghorn Stanley Hobart, January 29, 1944, The Papers of Dwight David Eisenhower, The War Years, Volume III, Alfred D. Chandler, Jr., editor, (The Johns Hopkins Press: Baltimore, MD, 1970. Eisenhower specifically mentioned riding in a DD at the demonstration at Fritton, Norfolk, so it is clear it was not the 27 January demonstration, which was at the Orford Battle Area, Suffolk. The Fritton demonstration did result in the decision to convert DD tanks in the U.S. although in the event no U.S.-built DD tanks were used in the invasion; Ibid, Entry 1537; Ibid, Entry 1539.

Alanbrooke, pp. 516-517.

Delaforce, p. 87. Rollo Ward later confirmed this with me in correspondence shortly before his death.

TNA WO 205/1159, 79 Armoured Division Final Report, 1943 Apr.-1945 July.

For the facts behind the bridging restrictions vis a vis the T26.

Stubbs & Connors, p. 50.

Blanche D. Coil, Jean E. Keith and Herbert H. Rosenthal, The Corps of Engineers, Troops and Equipment, pp. 486-489, 491.

AR 850-15, dated 28 August 1943 and Change 8 dated 27 January 1945.

WRT "naming" American tanks, you already know Crisp and Hills stories, but you can find any number of contemporary sources using the names.

“Battle Rages in the Alamein Area”, Melbourne Daily Age, Tuesday 7 July 1942; DeWitt MacKenzie, “The War Today”, The Free Lance-Star, Fredericksburg, Virginia, 18 July 1942.
Amy Porter, “Newswomen Ride in New-type Tank”, Associated Press, (St. Petersburg, Florida, Evening Independent), Thursday 27 August 1942. The mistake was repeated later on by the International News Service as well, “Nation to Reach Goal in Building Merchant Ships,” Toledo [Ohio] Blade, Saturday 24 October 1942. However, others got it right and sometimes in the same newspaper, “U.S. Tanks Bog Down, Burn Too Easily, Reds Reveal”, Toledo [Ohio] Blade, Friday 16 October 1942, correctly identified the tanks supplied to the Soviets as Medium Tank M3 General Grant.
“Allies Closing Steel Vise on Buna Japs”, Eugene [Oregon] Register-Guard, 27 December 1942; “Mr Churchill on Events of June 13”, The Glasgow Herald, Monday 3 July 1942; “The Sherman Tank”, The Glasgow Herald, Monday 9 November 1942.
In “Rommel Loses Ridge South of El Alamein”, The Glasgow Herald, Monday 6 July 1942, it is “General Lee”, but by “The Sherman Tank”, The Glasgow Herald, Monday 9 November 1942 it is just “Grant”, “Lee”, and “Sherman”.

I confess I didn't give you those earlier, but then it takes about two minutes searching through newspapers to find them.

WRT your crap post about the 76mm N1A1 Tank Gun, my remark that a simple source for most of that is Hunnicutt's Sherman remains true. In fact, Pershing, Firepower, and Stuart would all be of immeasurable use to you. I hoped - apparently in vain - you would be smart enough to realize that is where quite a bit of the basic material on these issues still resides.

BTW, I didn't reference them, but some of the more interesting archival sources on these matters I have used include:

Review of Ordnance Research & Development in World War II, Box A744, Entry 646A, Record Group 156, Records of the Office of the Chief of Ordnance, Executive Division Historical Branch, Military Historical Files, NARA RG 156.
Summary Ordnance Research and Development, History of Research and Development in World War II, [July 1947] Box A744, Entry 646A, NARA RG 156.
Limited Procurement Activities of the Ordnance Department, Box A744, Entry 646A, NARA RG 156.
The Design, Development and Production of Tanks in World War II, Office, (Washington, D.C.: Office, Chief of Ordnance, ASF, 15 August 1944), Box A797, Entry 646A, NARA RG 156.
Research and Development in the Ordnance Department during the Second World War, Draft No. 3, 28 September 1945, p. 17,bBox A744 N,ARA RG 156.
Memorandum for Major General L.H. Campbell, Jr, Subject: History of Tank Guns, by Major General G.M. Barnes, 11 October 1944, pp. 3-4, Box A772, NARA RG 156.
Major D. W. Hoppock, Chief, Control Branch, Exec. Division, Ordnance Department, Critical Policy Papers, Memorandum for Major General G.M. Barnes, Chief, Research and Development Service, 3 August 1944, Tab: Anti-Tank (Wheeled & S.P.), Subject: “Record of Conversation between Major General G. M Barnes and Major General J.L. Devers (at Fort Knox, Kentucky) held on August 5, 1942”, Box A744, Entry 646A, NARA RG 156.
Correspondence Files of Maj. Gen. Gladeon M. Barnes Box A772, NARA RG 156.
Letter from Hdq., ETO, “Observations on Problems in Armored Units”, 6 June 1945, p. 6, “Military Historical Files”, Box A772, Entry 646A, NARA RG 156.
Enclosure to letter C. M. Vandeberg, Deputy Director Office of War Information, to Lt. Col. R. J. Icks, Ord. Dept., 18 February 1943, Box A799, NARA RG 156.

Knock yourself out dude.

The references were basically post from 2 forum users with no quotes of anything.

No, as you will note above, I fully referenced the events at Tidworth, you just weren't bothered to look.

Finally I find this.

I really hope that is not your standard to quote your sources...

No, the standard I gave you is sufficient for academia, so I suspect exceeds your ken. I do confess in some of the multiple citations I pulled from my manuscript I didn't bother to go back and copy the full cite - so sorry to have to make you do any work other than playing with a keyboard or yourself.

I normally buy books, but in your case I will make an exception... thanks pdf, thanks internet.

Oh goody, another know-nothing...you know you can probably find yourself a good position on The Donald's campaign, they like your sort.

[ChristopherPerrien]

[ This was perhaps a result of the North Africa campaign where tin helmets were pointless and impractical.

Hey, Brodie helmets appear to do a better job of keeping the sun off your face and neck than many other helmets. They were designed to keep other things off the same areas.

British AFVs were designed(?) or rather evolved, to have the maximum of protrusions on which to inflict injury or catch clothing.

They all do that, nationality regardless. Except for maybe those inflatable tanks and the unyetinvented pillow tank.

[Sheldrake]

[ This was perhaps a result of the North Africa campaign where tin helmets were pointless and impractical.

Hey, Brodie helmets appear to do a better job of keeping the sun off your face and neck than many other helmets. They were designed to keep other things off the same areas.

Eh??? Not quite the Eighth Army Way

DSCF1527.jpg (31.98 KiB) Viewed 1245 times

Example set at the top...

317px-Montgomery_watches_his_tanks_move_up.jpg (17.66 KiB) Viewed 1242 times

British AFVs were designed(?) or rather evolved, to have the maximum of protrusions on which to inflict injury or catch clothing.

They all do that, nationality regardless. Except for maybe those inflatable tanks and the unyetinvented pillow tank.

Err I served in CVRT, FSC and FV432 and visited the occasional Chieftain. All had protruding bolts from some abandoned technical wizardry, from flotation panels, to NBC systems to two generations of comms. Crew kit was held in place by bungees or improvised lockers.

The Germans managed to design the Leopard with a place for everything and everything in its place. (no boiling vessel though )

[Chepicoro]

As far as I know, nope you never quoted your sources.

It took you a week to come up with this as a response? Seriously? That's lame, even for you.

For what actually happened at Tidworth.

Entry 1522, Eisenhower Mss. to Percy Cleghorn Stanley Hobart, January 29, 1944, The Papers of Dwight David Eisenhower, The War Years, Volume III, Alfred D. Chandler, Jr., editor, (The Johns Hopkins Press: Baltimore, MD, 1970. Eisenhower specifically mentioned riding in a DD at the demonstration at Fritton, Norfolk, so it is clear it was not the 27 January demonstration, which was at the Orford Battle Area, Suffolk. The Fritton demonstration did result in the decision to convert DD tanks in the U.S. although in the event no U.S.-built DD tanks were used in the invasion; Ibid, Entry 1537; Ibid, Entry 1539.

Alanbrooke, pp. 516-517.

Delaforce, p. 87. Rollo Ward later confirmed this with me in correspondence shortly before his death.

TNA WO 205/1159, 79 Armoured Division Final Report, 1943 Apr.-1945 July.

For the facts behind the bridging restrictions vis a vis the T26.

Stubbs & Connors, p. 50.

Blanche D. Coil, Jean E. Keith and Herbert H. Rosenthal, The Corps of Engineers, Troops and Equipment, pp. 486-489, 491.

AR 850-15, dated 28 August 1943 and Change 8 dated 27 January 1945.

WRT "naming" American tanks, you already know Crisp and Hills stories, but you can find any number of contemporary sources using the names.

“Battle Rages in the Alamein Area”, Melbourne Daily Age, Tuesday 7 July 1942; DeWitt MacKenzie, “The War Today”, The Free Lance-Star, Fredericksburg, Virginia, 18 July 1942.
Amy Porter, “Newswomen Ride in New-type Tank”, Associated Press, (St. Petersburg, Florida, Evening Independent), Thursday 27 August 1942. The mistake was repeated later on by the International News Service as well, “Nation to Reach Goal in Building Merchant Ships,” Toledo [Ohio] Blade, Saturday 24 October 1942. However, others got it right and sometimes in the same newspaper, “U.S. Tanks Bog Down, Burn Too Easily, Reds Reveal”, Toledo [Ohio] Blade, Friday 16 October 1942, correctly identified the tanks supplied to the Soviets as Medium Tank M3 General Grant.
“Allies Closing Steel Vise on Buna Japs”, Eugene [Oregon] Register-Guard, 27 December 1942; “Mr Churchill on Events of June 13”, The Glasgow Herald, Monday 3 July 1942; “The Sherman Tank”, The Glasgow Herald, Monday 9 November 1942.
In “Rommel Loses Ridge South of El Alamein”, The Glasgow Herald, Monday 6 July 1942, it is “General Lee”, but by “The Sherman Tank”, The Glasgow Herald, Monday 9 November 1942 it is just “Grant”, “Lee”, and “Sherman”.

I confess I didn't give you those earlier, but then it takes about two minutes searching through newspapers to find them.

WRT your crap post about the 76mm N1A1 Tank Gun, my remark that a simple source for most of that is Hunnicutt's Sherman remains true. In fact, Pershing, Firepower, and Stuart would all be of immeasurable use to you. I hoped - apparently in vain - you would be smart enough to realize that is where quite a bit of the basic material on these issues still resides.

BTW, I didn't reference them, but some of the more interesting archival sources on these matters I have used include:

Review of Ordnance Research & Development in World War II, Box A744, Entry 646A, Record Group 156, Records of the Office of the Chief of Ordnance, Executive Division Historical Branch, Military Historical Files, NARA RG 156.
Summary Ordnance Research and Development, History of Research and Development in World War II, [July 1947] Box A744, Entry 646A, NARA RG 156.
Limited Procurement Activities of the Ordnance Department, Box A744, Entry 646A, NARA RG 156.
The Design, Development and Production of Tanks in World War II, Office, (Washington, D.C.: Office, Chief of Ordnance, ASF, 15 August 1944), Box A797, Entry 646A, NARA RG 156.
Research and Development in the Ordnance Department during the Second World War, Draft No. 3, 28 September 1945, p. 17,bBox A744 N,ARA RG 156.
Memorandum for Major General L.H. Campbell, Jr, Subject: History of Tank Guns, by Major General G.M. Barnes, 11 October 1944, pp. 3-4, Box A772, NARA RG 156.
Major D. W. Hoppock, Chief, Control Branch, Exec. Division, Ordnance Department, Critical Policy Papers, Memorandum for Major General G.M. Barnes, Chief, Research and Development Service, 3 August 1944, Tab: Anti-Tank (Wheeled & S.P.), Subject: “Record of Conversation between Major General G. M Barnes and Major General J.L. Devers (at Fort Knox, Kentucky) held on August 5, 1942”, Box A744, Entry 646A, NARA RG 156.
Correspondence Files of Maj. Gen. Gladeon M. Barnes Box A772, NARA RG 156.
Letter from Hdq., ETO, “Observations on Problems in Armored Units”, 6 June 1945, p. 6, “Military Historical Files”, Box A772, Entry 646A, NARA RG 156.
Enclosure to letter C. M. Vandeberg, Deputy Director Office of War Information, to Lt. Col. R. J. Icks, Ord. Dept., 18 February 1943, Box A799, NARA RG 156.

Knock yourself out dude.

The references were basically post from 2 forum users with no quotes of anything.

No, as you will note above, I fully referenced the events at Tidworth, you just weren't bothered to look.

Finally I find this.

I really hope that is not your standard to quote your sources...

No, the standard I gave you is sufficient for academia, so I suspect exceeds your ken. I do confess in some of the multiple citations I pulled from my manuscript I didn't bother to go back and copy the full cite - so sorry to have to make you do any work other than playing with a keyboard or yourself.

I normally buy books, but in your case I will make an exception... thanks pdf, thanks internet.

Oh goody, another know-nothing...you know you can probably find yourself a good position on The Donald's campaign, they like your sort.

Ohh what a difference finally I got something useful from you ... you could have done that 15 pages ago, but instead you prefer your trollish answers.

Unfortunately is not enough to name several dozens of sources if you are not quoting anything... really.

here an example.

The existing M7 3 inch tank gun was already in use on theM10 tank destroyer and M6 heavy tank.However, it had a big and clumsy breech and recoil system. Ordnance redesigned the weapon in a more compact fashion specifically for use in smaller tanks and tank destroyers, calling it the 76mm M1 tank gun. The designation 76mm was used for the gun instead of 3 inch since it required a different propellant casing and hence different ammunition than the other 3 inch gun, even though the 3 inch M7 gun and 76mm M1 gun both shared the same projectiles.
Armored Thunderbolt, Steven Zaloga page 106.

See the difference? I do not just name a book or a document, already in this thread someone recommend a Patton´s biography telling me that the information requested was there... and was not the case, anyway interesting biography.

Well with time I can check some of the books and documents you have mentioned, thanks, that was the point of this thread.

[Michael Kenny]

do not feel bad I have found much more agressive trolls, but keep trying.

You have indeed met with much criticism as you post the very same-word-for-word picture-for-picture argument over a bewildering number of forums. However this was because of the way you ignore any fact that contradicts your comical argument. You are a simple soul with a simple attitude plying a simple case that simply is wrong.

[Richard Anderson]

Ohh what a difference finally I got something useful from you ... you could have done that 15 pages ago, but instead you prefer your trollish answers do not feel bad I have found much more agressive trolls, but keep trying.

Uh, dude? I gave you all the stuff relevant to this thread ages ago, you were apparently too dull to notice. I created that post mostly by cutting and pasting the references I already gave you. Troll. So stuff it. :roll:

[Chepicoro]

Ohh what a difference finally I got something useful from you ... you could have done that 15 pages ago, but instead you prefer your trollish answers do not feel bad I have found much more agressive trolls, but keep trying.

Uh, dude? I gave you all the stuff relevant to this thread ages ago, you were apparently too dull to notice. I created that post mostly by cutting and pasting the references I already gave you. Troll. So stuff it. :roll:

Congratulations I usually stop reading your posts when are moderated or start with "funnies" and "gremlins".

[Richard Anderson]

here an example.

Ooo! An edit. Let's see, did it change any silliness? No. Too bad.

The existing M7 3 inch tank gun was already in use on theM10 tank destroyer and M6 heavy tank.However, it had a big and clumsy breech and recoil system. Ordnance redesigned the weapon in a more compact fashion specifically for use in smaller tanks and tank destroyers, calling it the 76mm M1 tank gun. The designation 76mm was used for the gun instead of 3 inch since it required a different propellant casing and hence different ammunition than the other 3 inch gun, even though the 3 inch M7 gun and 76mm M1 gun both shared the same projectiles.
Armored Thunderbolt, Steven Zaloga page 106.

Would you like to know where Steve got that information from? And how much his shorthand rendition of it has changed things? Well, get stuffed.

See the difference? I do not just name a book or a document, already in this thread someone recommend one Patton´s biography telling me that the information requested was there.. and was not the case, anyway interesting biography.

Sweetie pie, I hate to tell your this, but Armored Thunderbolt is a book. :roll: You in fact did "just name it". :roll: So, no 'fraid there just 'taint no difference cuz. :roll:

Well with time I can check some of the books and documents you have mentioned, thanks, that was the point of this thread.

Knock your socks off dude, but it was apparent 15 pages ago just what your "point" was in this thread. I can't wait to see you restart your nonsense on the next Tank Site for Wankers.

[Richard Anderson]

Congratulations I usually stop reading your posts when are moderated or start with "funnies" and "gremlins".

But wait...you said you didn't have any idea what Funnies were so had no clue what was going on...and apparently little interest in learning either. :roll:

[Richard Anderson]

It actually always surprises me just how entertaining terminal stupidity can be.

[Chepicoro]

So far you proved that in one picture a british tanker had not a helmet, and that Cooper was wrong about Patton and the weapons demonstration... thanks for that even with your childish style.

It actually always surprises me just how entertaining terminal stupidity can be.

Ahh so the last 3 messages are just trying to provoke... you must learn from your new communist friend Zinegata he is a better troll than you and honestly much more effective.. I´m sorry but I can not help you with your

terminal stupidity

Also is amusing how you are jealous of the success of other more successful authors... maybe because they have a better education and are better persons, it is a shame since I have read and watched some interviews with the Colonel T. N. Dupuy a totally different person open to the debate without insults, encouraging others to learn, and as far as I know always respectful in any debate and like historian trying to avoid any bias... unfortunately the opposite of you.

Now expecting the next month to find another 3 messages with more of your shit...

[David Thompson]

This thread is locked for poster misconduct.