Were heavy tanks worth the cost in WWII?

[grumbler]

I liked that Nip light cruiser with a quadrillion Long Lance tubes. Made playing SSI's Warship a fun and rewarding experience.

Those two ships were eggs armed with a sledgehammer.  If anything hit it first, the torpedoes aboard would blow it to bits.  That's why it was only in that configuration for a few months, and was never committed to battle.

There's also some evidence that the torpedo tubes were the 21-inch torpedo tubes taken off the older cruisers when they were upgraded to 24-inch tubes, and not Long Lance launchers at all.

[11B4V]

Good try, Viking.

[Neil]

I liked that Nip light cruiser with a quadrillion Long Lance tubes. Made playing SSI's Warship a fun and rewarding experience.

Those two ships were eggs armed with a sledgehammer.  If anything hit it first, the torpedoes aboard would blow it to bits.  That's why it was only in that configuration for a few months, and was never committed to battle.

There's also some evidence that the torpedo tubes were the 21-inch torpedo tubes taken off the older cruisers when they were upgraded to 24-inch tubes, and not Long Lance launchers at all.

Yeah, the torpedo cruisers wouldn't really serve much of a purpose after technology ran out on their concept of ambushing the USN trundling across the Pacific.  Still, they were meant to be used in night actions, where the odds of them being blown up were less.  They were specialists, sort of like your tank destroyers.

[grumbler]

Yeah, the torpedo cruisers wouldn't really serve much of a purpose after technology ran out on their concept of ambushing the USN trundling across the Pacific.  Still, they were meant to be used in night actions, where the odds of them being blown up were less.  They were specialists, sort of like your tank destroyers.

I think that that is exactly correct.  They were converted to play a specialized role in a very scripted Japanese war plan which never was relevant to the war as it actually happened.  That's always a danger when a country fools itself into believing that it can dictate the terms of a war; see Germany, 1914-1945.

[Ed Anger]

I liked that Nip light cruiser with a quadrillion Long Lance tubes. Made playing SSI's Warship a fun and rewarding experience.

Those two ships were eggs armed with a sledgehammer.  If anything hit it first, the torpedoes aboard would blow it to bits.  That's why it was only in that configuration for a few months, and was never committed to battle.

There's also some evidence that the torpedo tubes were the 21-inch torpedo tubes taken off the older cruisers when they were upgraded to 24-inch tubes, and not Long Lance launchers at all.

What a buzzkill. Grumbles ruins my game memories. 

[Neil]

Yeah, the torpedo cruisers wouldn't really serve much of a purpose after technology ran out on their concept of ambushing the USN trundling across the Pacific.  Still, they were meant to be used in night actions, where the odds of them being blown up were less.  They were specialists, sort of like your tank destroyers.

I think that that is exactly correct.  They were converted to play a specialized role in a very scripted Japanese war plan which never was relevant to the war as it actually happened.  That's always a danger when a country fools itself into believing that it can dictate the terms of a war; see Germany, 1914-1945.

Yeah, the Japanese had a way of trying to plan the war based on the way they wanted things to be, rather than the way they were.  See:  Battle of Midway.

[DGuller]

I actually think the Shermans were some of the best tanks of the war. 

bah, T-34

A good tank shouldn't have such a high loss rate.  Also a radio.

Still better than the Sherman.

I really, really doubt that Shermans had a worse loss rate than T-34s.  Even if you exclude T-34-76s, which were THE T-34s for most of the war.  Apart from that, there was a book written by a Soviet tank commander who fought in Lend Lease M4A2s.  He was very complimentary of the Shermans, and thought them to be superior to T-34s.

[Razgovory]

I'm not sure which tank was the best in the war, but I think the Sherman has a pretty good chance at it. Despite the doctrine flaws that made it under armored and inadequate in a tank vs tank fight against late German tanks, it was extremely reliable and produced in vast numbers.  Against the Panzer IIIs and IVs it was an equal of the Germans and more then adequate against anything the Japanese could throw at it.  It was well liked by it's crews for being easy to drive and fairly comfortable and it excelled at its designed task of exploiting breakthroughs.  The ability to land the tanks on the beaches often proved extremely useful and may not have been possible with a heavier tank.

[Viking]

Good try, Viking.

Not really, you just make it so easy.

[celedhring]

The most important thing about the Japanese torpedo cruisers is how would they look as scantily clad teenage girls.

Going back to the tank issue, though. I think people have to take into account that by the time the Sherman and the Tigers came face to face, the Germans were fighting a defensive war and the Allies an offensive one. The Sherman befitted the need for a dependable, easy to supply and mantain tank that could exploit breakthroughs and stretch its own supply lines, while the Tigers weren't such a bad idea when the German army was no longer waging a war of mobility and essentially needed super-hard static defense. Quite probably the Tigers ended up being too unreliable even for that role, but I don't think that it was such a foolish endeavor from an operational pov.

[Ed Anger]

The most important thing about the Japanese torpedo cruisers is how would they look as scantily clad teenage girls.

She might be packing something long in the crotch area. 

[KRonn]

Based on some things I've read about using Shermans, the lesser weight was a big factor, as many tanks could be transported across the ocean from the US. But it was a cruel shock at first to American tank crews to realize they were so badly out gunned and out armored when going against German heavy tanks and anti-tank 88s. The UK upgraded Shermans to a Firefly named variant, with the 76mm gun and armor plates welded on. At least then the tank was equal to MK IV tanks, and more able to deal damage to the stronger German tanks and TDs. The US upgraded some Shermans also. The upgunned and uparmored Shermans were a lot better off, still not a match for the Tigers and Panthers, but a lot more useful and survivable. The 76mm high velocity gun gave them a much better chance than the lower velocity 75mm. I'm surprised that the upgrades weren't done en masse on the entire fleet of Shermans before going into D-Day, as there had already been experience in N. Africa, Sicily and Italy.

[grumbler]

I'm surprised that the upgrades weren't done en masse on the entire fleet of Shermans before going into D-Day, as there had already been experience in N. Africa, Sicily and Italy.

because the Sherman was an infantry support tank, and was supposed to leave destroying enemy tanks to the 76mm-equipped tank destroyers.  If Shermans were allowed to willy-nilly destroy enemy tanks, then what would be the purpose of the TDs, and what would be the promotion prospects of their designers, administrators, and commanders?

[Berkut]

I think people should also realize that coming out of Africa, the Sherman looked pretty good.

It handled most of what was thrown at it in Africa just fine, thank you very much.

The real problem with the Sherman, even the later models, was not that they could not go 1 on 1 with a Tiger or Panther. There weren't enough Tigers or Panthers for that to be the major issue.

The real problem was that their armor was not even adequate to handle relatively small German AT weapons, and the Germans had lots and lots and LOTS of those. The Sherman most tankers took into D-Day was vulnerable to the 50mm German AT gun from the side, and with specialized ammo (which the Germans did not have a lot of) from the front. The standard German AT gun (75mm) could reliably penetrate from any side at nearly any range, to say nothing of the 88.

The vast, VAST majority of German armor that a Sherman was going to run into would be some variant of a PzIII or PzIV, or a StuG. The 75 could handle those tanks from the flank, or from the front for the lighter ones. The 76 could handle them from any reasonable angle.

[Ed Anger]

You assholes are going to get me started playing Combat Mission again. I don't need another 3 year addiction.