Tamiya classifies shermans as light tanks
03-01-2013, 11:05 AM
#1
Thread Starter
Tamiya classifies shermans as light tanks
Just came across this on the tamiyausa site. Interesting that Tamiya has the Sherman's set as light for combat.
http://www.tamiyausa.com/popups/1_16_tanks.php
http://www.tamiyausa.com/popups/1_16_tanks.php
03-01-2013, 11:53 AM
#2
RE: Tamiya classifies shermans as light tanks
Well, don't believe everything you read. 
~ Jeff
~ Jeff
03-01-2013, 02:22 PM
#5
RE: Tamiya classifies shermans as light tanks
ORIGINAL: rivetcounter
Surely it should be a super heavy least ways that’s how some perceive the Tommy cooker/Ronson
Surely it should be a super heavy least ways that’s how some perceive the Tommy cooker/Ronson
The Sherman was no more of a Tommy cooker/Ronson than the German tanks were. Both were gasoline powered tanks and both could burn the same way. It's just the Sherman really wasn't designed for armored warfare but as an infantry support vehicle and they had the ammo stored incorrectly.
Once that was rectified it burned no better than the German tanks did.
Super Heavy? [X(]
~ Jeff
03-01-2013, 04:20 PM
#6
RE: Tamiya classifies shermans as light tanks
Except the Sherman had fundamental flaws.
Weak armor.
Gasoline.
Weak gun.
The Germans had issues too, but not ALL of them at the same time. The Germans tanks were much, MUCH better.
I'm actually disgusted of how bad the Sherman was. The only reason it 'won the war' is because so many were built. Russian mentality... except Russians had better tanks.
The later versions of the Sherman was (thankfully) much better. I just feel horrible for the poor chaps that had to use the first versions... Metal coffin.
Now i do want to add that i am THANKFUL for the Sherman, because it was a necessesity and it did help a lot.
Weak armor.
Gasoline.
Weak gun.
The Germans had issues too, but not ALL of them at the same time. The Germans tanks were much, MUCH better.
I'm actually disgusted of how bad the Sherman was. The only reason it 'won the war' is because so many were built. Russian mentality... except Russians had better tanks.
The later versions of the Sherman was (thankfully) much better. I just feel horrible for the poor chaps that had to use the first versions... Metal coffin.
Now i do want to add that i am THANKFUL for the Sherman, because it was a necessesity and it did help a lot.
ORIGINAL: Panther F
The Sherman was no more of a Tommy cooker/Ronson than the German tanks were. Both were gasoline powered tanks and both could burn the same way. It's just the Sherman really wasn't designed for armored warfare but as an infantry support vehicle and they had the ammo stored incorrectly.
Once that was rectified it burned no better than the German tanks did.
Super Heavy? [X(]
~ Jeff
ORIGINAL: rivetcounter
Surely it should be a super heavy least ways that’s how some perceive the Tommy cooker/Ronson
Surely it should be a super heavy least ways that’s how some perceive the Tommy cooker/Ronson
The Sherman was no more of a Tommy cooker/Ronson than the German tanks were. Both were gasoline powered tanks and both could burn the same way. It's just the Sherman really wasn't designed for armored warfare but as an infantry support vehicle and they had the ammo stored incorrectly.
Once that was rectified it burned no better than the German tanks did.
Super Heavy? [X(]
~ Jeff
03-01-2013, 06:07 PM
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Portsmouth,
NH
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Tamiya classifies shermans as light tanks
Really strange, when the Medium Pz IV were 25 tons when Light Shermans were 30 tons? And weren't the Panther and Pershing in the same weight range? Why's the Panther Heavy and Pershing Medium then?
03-01-2013, 06:25 PM
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Portsmouth,
NH
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Tamiya classifies shermans as light tanks
Now I know the German tanks have always had a bigger following than Allied tanks, probably it just appeals to the gearheads in all of us?
For each of the German heavies, I could think of similar crippling (yes crippling) deficiencies. They've tried to use the same basic HL230 engine in increasingly heavier chassys, mated with gearboxes that were equally fragile. Then there was their interleaved roadwheels that were great to use, not service or repair. A tank that can't move is just a pillbox, and not a very good one at that.
The Sherman and T-34 were prime examples of the might of mass production and the T-34 was a better overall design than the Sherman. Mass production coupled with easy serviceability (the whole front transmission slides out) meant that more tanks could be on the line more of the time than the Germans.
Toe to toe, an Allied tank would not stand much of a chance against a German tank, but keep in mind even in WW2 combined arms was already in practice. Tankers had infantry bazooka/panzerfaust to worry about, fighter bombers to ensure that German tanks couldn't have freedom of movement with the established Allied air superiority. Then having to stick your head out of the cupola renders you prey to sniper fire.
If I were a tanker, I'd rather be in a Sherman than a King Tiger. I'd be among so many other Allied tanks that the chances of being singled out are statistically lower. In comparison, a German heavy is probably so rare and such a threat that it would get smothered with explosive Allied love... its a matter of time before they land a mobility kill, or a penetrating shot.
For each of the German heavies, I could think of similar crippling (yes crippling) deficiencies. They've tried to use the same basic HL230 engine in increasingly heavier chassys, mated with gearboxes that were equally fragile. Then there was their interleaved roadwheels that were great to use, not service or repair. A tank that can't move is just a pillbox, and not a very good one at that.
The Sherman and T-34 were prime examples of the might of mass production and the T-34 was a better overall design than the Sherman. Mass production coupled with easy serviceability (the whole front transmission slides out) meant that more tanks could be on the line more of the time than the Germans.
Toe to toe, an Allied tank would not stand much of a chance against a German tank, but keep in mind even in WW2 combined arms was already in practice. Tankers had infantry bazooka/panzerfaust to worry about, fighter bombers to ensure that German tanks couldn't have freedom of movement with the established Allied air superiority. Then having to stick your head out of the cupola renders you prey to sniper fire.
If I were a tanker, I'd rather be in a Sherman than a King Tiger. I'd be among so many other Allied tanks that the chances of being singled out are statistically lower. In comparison, a German heavy is probably so rare and such a threat that it would get smothered with explosive Allied love... its a matter of time before they land a mobility kill, or a penetrating shot.
03-01-2013, 06:55 PM
#9
RE: Tamiya classifies shermans as light tanks
Pillbox or not, they would still tear a new one to Sherman tanks so lol
Also not all german tanks had interlocking wheels and under powered engines.
if you choose a Sherman over a KT then you won't live long saddly. At least in a KT you KNOW you can kill your target and take hits.
If your tank does break down.... Heh surrender or run. Better than being dead from taking 1 hit.
Also American bazooka's didn't do anything to a KT armor.
But back to the OP. It should be a medium tank (the Sherman that is), same as the Panzer IV.
if you choose a Sherman over a KT then you won't live long saddly. At least in a KT you KNOW you can kill your target and take hits.
If your tank does break down.... Heh surrender or run. Better than being dead from taking 1 hit.
Also American bazooka's didn't do anything to a KT armor.
But back to the OP. It should be a medium tank (the Sherman that is), same as the Panzer IV.
03-02-2013, 04:57 AM
#10
Thread Starter
RE: Tamiya classifies shermans as light tanks
ORIGINAL: no12skyline
Really strange, when the Medium Pz IV were 25 tons when Light Shermans were 30 tons? And weren't the Panther and Pershing in the same weight range? Why's the Panther Heavy and Pershing Medium then?
Really strange, when the Medium Pz IV were 25 tons when Light Shermans were 30 tons? And weren't the Panther and Pershing in the same weight range? Why's the Panther Heavy and Pershing Medium then?
03-02-2013, 08:28 AM
#11
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 903
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Tamiya classifies shermans as light tanks
Some of you who disparage the “lowly” Sherman need to remember American Military doctrine of the era. It was based on combined arms, which incidentally, the Germans used to great effect in the early stages of the war when they had air superiority. I find it ironic the allies took that concept and perfected it to great effect which won the war. I just finished “Tank Men” and the German tankers quoted in that book feared air power. They were constantly harassed by Typhoons, Lightnings and Thunderbolts. The Soviets threw men and tanks in simple mass and numbers against German armor, I would argue the allies did not. The Soviets lacked air power.
General Leslie McNair believed in the Tank Destroyer concept and pushed for its continued development to deal with the German tank threat. He believed American tanks were not designed or should go “toe to toe” with German armor, rather to find gaps in the lines and exploit the rear areas. This is why the Sherman was more reliable and quicker than any German tank in production. The Soviets even joked how pathetically unreliable German armor was if you had a road march of any appreciable distance. The Germans had to train their stuff wherever they went.
General Patton's famous motto was "Grab them by the nose and kick them in the ass" andwhen asked if he wanted the Pershing, he turned it down as he feared the heavy tank due to weight, lack of speedand fuel consumption would slow down his thrusts deep into the heart of Germany. As Monte stated, the Sherman and the 75mm was “good enough” and many historians agree the Sherman was equal to the most numerous German tank, the Pz4. The Sherman proved this in North Africa.
In my opinion using 20/20 hindsight, our doctrine was flawed only that it cost more lives than necessary. I believe the Pershing should have been brought over sooner as it could go “toe to toe” with anything the Germans had. In the end, who knows? We could have been chasing the next best thing like the Germans instead of producing what worked in great numbers.
I think American armor gets unfairly criticized considering the Sherman was used by Israel until the 1980’s and was THE tank which prevented them from being pushed into the sea during the six day war fighting against the newer T-55. The Pershing proved it’s superiority to Soviet designs in the Korean War with ridiculous kill ratios and was the basis for every American tank used in front line service until the retirement of the M60 in 1997. What war time German tank can claim that distinction? The only service most saw following the war was as a bumper on a VW Bug or an ashtray in France. Again, read “Tank Men” along with other wartime accounts and you will see a great deal of Germans were “cooked” in their tanks as well.
General Leslie McNair believed in the Tank Destroyer concept and pushed for its continued development to deal with the German tank threat. He believed American tanks were not designed or should go “toe to toe” with German armor, rather to find gaps in the lines and exploit the rear areas. This is why the Sherman was more reliable and quicker than any German tank in production. The Soviets even joked how pathetically unreliable German armor was if you had a road march of any appreciable distance. The Germans had to train their stuff wherever they went.
General Patton's famous motto was "Grab them by the nose and kick them in the ass" andwhen asked if he wanted the Pershing, he turned it down as he feared the heavy tank due to weight, lack of speedand fuel consumption would slow down his thrusts deep into the heart of Germany. As Monte stated, the Sherman and the 75mm was “good enough” and many historians agree the Sherman was equal to the most numerous German tank, the Pz4. The Sherman proved this in North Africa.
In my opinion using 20/20 hindsight, our doctrine was flawed only that it cost more lives than necessary. I believe the Pershing should have been brought over sooner as it could go “toe to toe” with anything the Germans had. In the end, who knows? We could have been chasing the next best thing like the Germans instead of producing what worked in great numbers.
I think American armor gets unfairly criticized considering the Sherman was used by Israel until the 1980’s and was THE tank which prevented them from being pushed into the sea during the six day war fighting against the newer T-55. The Pershing proved it’s superiority to Soviet designs in the Korean War with ridiculous kill ratios and was the basis for every American tank used in front line service until the retirement of the M60 in 1997. What war time German tank can claim that distinction? The only service most saw following the war was as a bumper on a VW Bug or an ashtray in France. Again, read “Tank Men” along with other wartime accounts and you will see a great deal of Germans were “cooked” in their tanks as well.
03-02-2013, 08:52 AM
#12
RE: Tamiya classifies shermans as light tanks
The sherman was a great tank in 1942- early 43 when the germans were using 50mm guns.....just like the panzer 3 and 4 were great tanks in 1939 and 40....but they ran into the t34. The t34 forced the germans produce tanks that could fight the t34. When the sherman was designed, it was made to fight the panzer 3's and 4's of the early 40's....20/20 hindsight it would have been better for the americans to design a tank that could fight the t34, then theywould have come out with something like the easy 8.....jmo
03-02-2013, 09:21 AM
#13
RE: Tamiya classifies shermans as light tanks
Exactly, the Americans were (sadly) 2 step behind. What bugs me is the loss of life because of that.
Even at the end of the war they didn't catch up, but would have if the war lasted a bit longer IMHO.
Even at the end of the war they didn't catch up, but would have if the war lasted a bit longer IMHO.
ORIGINAL: mustclime
The sherman was a great tank in 1942- early 43 when the germans were using 50mm guns.....just like the panzer 3 and 4 were great tanks in 1939 and 40....but they ran into the t34. The t34 forced the germans produce tanks that could fight the t34. When the sherman was designed, it was made to fight the panzer 3's and 4's of the early 40's....20/20 hindsight it would have been better for the americans to design a tank that could fight the t34, then theywould have come out with something like the easy 8.....jmo
The sherman was a great tank in 1942- early 43 when the germans were using 50mm guns.....just like the panzer 3 and 4 were great tanks in 1939 and 40....but they ran into the t34. The t34 forced the germans produce tanks that could fight the t34. When the sherman was designed, it was made to fight the panzer 3's and 4's of the early 40's....20/20 hindsight it would have been better for the americans to design a tank that could fight the t34, then theywould have come out with something like the easy 8.....jmo
03-03-2013, 02:53 AM
#14
RE: Tamiya classifies shermans as light tanks
It was the Germans who named the Sherman “Tommy Coocker” and the English who named it “Ronson” this was with the crews experience in North Africa and Italy it was also common to have survived more than 1 Sherman some had survived 5 though not entire crews, in 1943 the Sherman was on par with the PzIV but then the German put a longer barrelled gun in in the PzIV,F2 this changed things as the PzIV could destroy a Sherman from greater range.
Germans used trains as much as possible to transport tanks, this is less to do with reliability and more to do with saving benzene, benzene the Germans did not have and a Panzer division with over 150 tanks uses a vast amount of fuel to travel 100km the Allies would have done this also except the railway lines had been destroyed and when they did repair lines tanks went by train as far as possible, modern tanks are also transported as much as possible by train does this mean they are also unreliable.
As for interlocking road wheels well yes it was not the best design on a Panther this along with torsion bar suspension latter used in Pershing (I wonder why) gave a Panther over 36cm of travel giving the tank a very stable gun platform a Sherman on the other hand only had less than 18cm of travel giving a very rough ride this would also reduce the speed across country, a Panther could neutral steer within the tanks own length a Sherman required 2-3 times this space, Panther had wider tracks and was able to travel across soft muddy fields without much trouble a Sherman with its narrow tracks would simply bog down , the top speed of a Panther when first introduced was 55km/h this was later dropped to 45km/h and in 1944 to improve reliability more and also reduce the amount of Benzine used it was reduced to 32km/h while off road was 24km/h now if we look at a Sherman we find that official top speed of first generation benzene powered tanks was 40km/h for a short distance while sustained speed on a road was 32km/h first generation diesel engine Sherman had a top speed of 51km/h a T34/76 was 52km/h and 40km/h off road so we see that a Sherman is nothing like the Ferrari we are constantly told and T34 was faster both on and especially off road.
Panther was never available in the numbers Sherman was it did have its problems it was not as reliable as Sherman its transmission was not strong enough for the tank and required a long time to replace one major factor most people choose to ignore is that the German were on the retreat and as such did not control the battle field thus could not recover and repair tanks lost one only has to look at the figures for destroyed German tanks to see how they were lost most being destroyed by their own crews or abandoned this doesn’t mean they were a bad tank.
Israel had an arms embargo on them and still does for things like tanks hence why they make their own, the Sherman they did buy were being given away by 1967 Sherman was long considered not worthy of front line service by any nation certainly by 1944 it was considered obsolete Israel had no option to have Sherman and the one thing that they did was copy what the British did and put a longer 75mm gun in the turret and replace the engine with a more reliable Diesel engine the fact is the French supplied the 75mm guns these were exact reproductions of the German 75mmL71 Panther gun which in 1967 was still a potent weapon, as proven in many conflicts both before, during and after WWII superior tactics can win the day even when faced with technically superior tanks
Germans used trains as much as possible to transport tanks, this is less to do with reliability and more to do with saving benzene, benzene the Germans did not have and a Panzer division with over 150 tanks uses a vast amount of fuel to travel 100km the Allies would have done this also except the railway lines had been destroyed and when they did repair lines tanks went by train as far as possible, modern tanks are also transported as much as possible by train does this mean they are also unreliable.
As for interlocking road wheels well yes it was not the best design on a Panther this along with torsion bar suspension latter used in Pershing (I wonder why) gave a Panther over 36cm of travel giving the tank a very stable gun platform a Sherman on the other hand only had less than 18cm of travel giving a very rough ride this would also reduce the speed across country, a Panther could neutral steer within the tanks own length a Sherman required 2-3 times this space, Panther had wider tracks and was able to travel across soft muddy fields without much trouble a Sherman with its narrow tracks would simply bog down , the top speed of a Panther when first introduced was 55km/h this was later dropped to 45km/h and in 1944 to improve reliability more and also reduce the amount of Benzine used it was reduced to 32km/h while off road was 24km/h now if we look at a Sherman we find that official top speed of first generation benzene powered tanks was 40km/h for a short distance while sustained speed on a road was 32km/h first generation diesel engine Sherman had a top speed of 51km/h a T34/76 was 52km/h and 40km/h off road so we see that a Sherman is nothing like the Ferrari we are constantly told and T34 was faster both on and especially off road.
Panther was never available in the numbers Sherman was it did have its problems it was not as reliable as Sherman its transmission was not strong enough for the tank and required a long time to replace one major factor most people choose to ignore is that the German were on the retreat and as such did not control the battle field thus could not recover and repair tanks lost one only has to look at the figures for destroyed German tanks to see how they were lost most being destroyed by their own crews or abandoned this doesn’t mean they were a bad tank.
Israel had an arms embargo on them and still does for things like tanks hence why they make their own, the Sherman they did buy were being given away by 1967 Sherman was long considered not worthy of front line service by any nation certainly by 1944 it was considered obsolete Israel had no option to have Sherman and the one thing that they did was copy what the British did and put a longer 75mm gun in the turret and replace the engine with a more reliable Diesel engine the fact is the French supplied the 75mm guns these were exact reproductions of the German 75mmL71 Panther gun which in 1967 was still a potent weapon, as proven in many conflicts both before, during and after WWII superior tactics can win the day even when faced with technically superior tanks
