Were heavy tanks worth the cost in WWII?

[DGuller]

Why should you assign a German breakdown kill to Shermans, instead of, say, some guy in a jeep?

Because the Sherman advance is what would cause that broken down tank to be left behind and/or destroyed by the crew.

[Admiral Yi]

Because the Sherman advance is what would cause that broken down tank to be left behind and/or destroyed by the crew.

The Sherman presumably didn't advance alone, or only in the company of other Shermans.

[DGuller]

"Lights up the first time, every time!"

Which, ironically, was the slogan that Ronson itself didn't use until after the war.

[DGuller]

Because the Sherman advance is what would cause that broken down tank to be left behind and/or destroyed by the crew.

The Sherman presumably didn't advance alone, or only in the company of other Shermans.

Maybe not, but there would be no advancing without working tanks.

[PDH]

The Germans did praise the Sherman for its reliability. A tank that keeps on running will at least be in the field to get blown up and not in the shop.

[grumbler]

The Sherman's bad rep for brewing up is actually just a reflection of the tendency of any petrol-power tanks to brew up.  The petrol-engine-powered Panthers and PZ IVs were as bad.

I agree with PDH that the TD branch crippled the development of the Sherman.  First, it monopolized 76/52 gun production, and then it delayed introduction of the HE round for the 76mm (for fear that commanders would use the M10 as a tank if it had a decent HE round).  In essence, the TD branch deliberately created the factors that allowed it to successfully argue for quite some time that the Shermans should not be upgraded to 76mm guns.

[Neil]

The real questions is:  Were heavy cruisers worth the cost in WWII?

[grumbler]

The real questions is:  Were heavy cruisers worth the cost in WWII?

depends on what you mean by "heavy cruiser."  If you mean any ship with 8" guns, probably not.  If you mean a cruiser of 10,000 tons or more, then probably yes.  I'd argue that St Louis was a better bargain than her 8-inch-gunned contemporary, Wichita, but that Baltimore was a better bargain than the hastily-designed Cleveland because it had so much more growth potential.

[derspiess]

The Sherman's bad rep for brewing up is actually just a reflection of the tendency of any petrol-power tanks to brew up.  The petrol-engine-powered Panthers and PZ IVs were as bad.

I agree with PDH that the TD branch crippled the development of the Sherman.  First, it monopolized 76/52 gun production, and then it delayed introduction of the HE round for the 76mm (for fear that commanders would use the M10 as a tank if it had a decent HE round).  In essence, the TD branch deliberately created the factors that allowed it to successfully argue for quite some time that the Shermans should not be upgraded to 76mm guns.

I loved lobbing mortar shells at M10s in Close Combat IV.  Hard to get a hit with the limited ammo they gave you, but when you did it was glorious.

[Queequeg]

The real questions is:  Were heavy cruisers worth the cost in WWII?

depends on what you mean by "heavy cruiser."  If you mean any ship with 8" guns, probably not.  If you mean a cruiser of 10,000 tons or more, then probably yes.  I'd argue that St Louis was a better bargain than her 8-inch-gunned contemporary, Wichita, but that Baltimore was a better bargain than the hastily-designed Cleveland because it had so much more growth potential.

How does a cruiser or a battleship have growth potential?  Honest question. 

[Neil]

The real questions is:  Were heavy cruisers worth the cost in WWII?

depends on what you mean by "heavy cruiser."  If you mean any ship with 8" guns, probably not.  If you mean a cruiser of 10,000 tons or more, then probably yes.  I'd argue that St Louis was a better bargain than her 8-inch-gunned contemporary, Wichita, but that Baltimore was a better bargain than the hastily-designed Cleveland because it had so much more growth potential.

I was using the treaty definition.  And I think it's a bit more nuanced than that.  After all, the Japanese got some good service out of their heavy cruisers.  Not only were they of use in the early phase of the war for mopping up the various Allied navies in SE Asia, and then their large hulls allowed them to mount large numbers of semi-effective AA guns and floatplanes.  And the Italians got better service out of the heavy cruisers they built than they did out of contemporary light cruisers, whose fragility was proverbial.  Overall though, I tend to agree that on an equally-sized hull, you're better off going with with 6-inch guns rather than 8-inch guns.  Sure, the 8-inch gun is far more powerful than the 6-inch, but I'm not sure that armour-piercing qualities are all that valuable in cruiser warfare anyways.

[Neil]

The real questions is:  Were heavy cruisers worth the cost in WWII?

depends on what you mean by "heavy cruiser."  If you mean any ship with 8" guns, probably not.  If you mean a cruiser of 10,000 tons or more, then probably yes.  I'd argue that St Louis was a better bargain than her 8-inch-gunned contemporary, Wichita, but that Baltimore was a better bargain than the hastily-designed Cleveland because it had so much more growth potential.

How does a cruiser or a battleship have growth potential?  Honest question.

Warship design is a tricky business.  There's a lot of pressure to turn something out at the minimum possible displacement.  But as technology advances, you're going to want to add things to the warship.  Radar, AAA and the personnel to man them all add to the weight of the ship, and weapons and equipment are often placed high up on the hull.  Adding more weight high up on the ship reduces the ship's stability, which means that the ship will be harder to handle and more dangerous in any kind of weather.  Ships are designed with a certain amount of roll in mind, and adding weight up top is like adding weight to the pendulum.  A good example of this is the British R-class battleships.  They were designed and built back in 1914, and by the time 1943 rolled around, they were covered in AA guns and radar sets that changed the way the ship rolled in the water to the point that they were bobbing around like corks in any kind of seaway.  The Clevelands weren't quite that bad, but the additional AA guns they added to the design once the war broke out did make them problematic.  The Japanese were famous for turning out their smaller ships overweight due to the Admiralty adding things to them late in the design process, to the point that they actually had a number of their ships capsize in a typhoon in the 30s.

[Siege]

None of the current MBTs can compare to.Katmai in weight.

[Warspite]

I'm trying to bake a cake in the shape of a Tiger.

It's definitely not worth the hassle.

[Queequeg]

The real questions is:  Were heavy cruisers worth the cost in WWII?

depends on what you mean by "heavy cruiser."  If you mean any ship with 8" guns, probably not.  If you mean a cruiser of 10,000 tons or more, then probably yes.  I'd argue that St Louis was a better bargain than her 8-inch-gunned contemporary, Wichita, but that Baltimore was a better bargain than the hastily-designed Cleveland because it had so much more growth potential.

How does a cruiser or a battleship have growth potential?  Honest question.

Warship design is a tricky business.  There's a lot of pressure to turn something out at the minimum possible displacement.  But as technology advances, you're going to want to add things to the warship.  Radar, AAA and the personnel to man them all add to the weight of the ship, and weapons and equipment are often placed high up on the hull.  Adding more weight high up on the ship reduces the ship's stability, which means that the ship will be harder to handle and more dangerous in any kind of weather.  Ships are designed with a certain amount of roll in mind, and adding weight up top is like adding weight to the pendulum.  A good example of this is the British R-class battleships.  They were designed and built back in 1914, and by the time 1943 rolled around, they were covered in AA guns and radar sets that changed the way the ship rolled in the water to the point that they were bobbing around like corks in any kind of seaway.  The Clevelands weren't quite that bad, but the additional AA guns they added to the design once the war broke out did make them problematic.  The Japanese were famous for turning out their smaller ships overweight due to the Admiralty adding things to them late in the design process, to the point that they actually had a number of their ships capsize in a typhoon in the 30s.

I realized almost immediately after posting that it was probably in reference to advances (in WW2 things like RADAR, sonar, whatnot).  It still seems like a unique and interesting challenge, though.