WW2 myth busting info sought

[maple_leaf_eh]

Originally Posted by James P

..... I think the wildest two minutes inside a Panther turret during WWII would have been when in two minutes time a Panther crew knocks out five Polish Shermans at Hill 262.

Or the 1st Hussars Firefly that knocked out 5 Panthers in one punch up in early June 1944.

[Ed Storey]

It looks like the events of 8 May, 1945 demonstrated which side could afford to loose five tanks in a row.

[James P]

Originally Posted by maple_leaf_eh

Or the 1st Hussars Firefly that knocked out 5 Panthers in one punch up in early June 1944.

True, fighting from a prepared position paid off when Henrys tank got the drop on them. The Germans did get some pay back on the 11th.

[dcrfan]

Surely your viewpoint on height depends if your considering your vehicle as being a potential target or an offensive weapon and nature of the terrain/vegetation you're operating in.

As a tank gunner you're taught to aim at the centre of the visible mass so the more you can see, the more target area you have to mitigate any errors in your accuracy.

On the offensive having additional height is an advantage so you can see over hedgerows or cutty grass etc noting you do need to get crest clearance on the main gun if that is the weapon you need to fire.

Paul

[maple_leaf_eh]

Originally Posted by dcrfan

Surely your viewpoint on height depends if your considering your vehicle as being a potential target or an offensive weapon and nature of the terrain/vegetation you're operating in.

As a tank gunner you're taught to aim at the centre of the visible mass so the more you can see, the more target area you have to mitigate any errors in your accuracy.

On the offensive having additional height is an advantage so you can see over hedgerows or cutty grass etc noting you do need to get crest clearance on the main gun if that is the weapon you need to fire.

Paul

Paul, glad to bump into you again!

I agree 100% that height is an advantage all its own. Where I get a little confused, is the M4 and Panther were/are comparable height and the Pz IV not so much, but the Sherman is perceived to be quite tall.

[Ed Landstrom]

Another illusion shattered. As far back as I can remember, the conventional wisdom has been that:
The Sherman's vulnerability was due in part to its high profile.
The high profile was necessitated by the radial engine initially used.
The radial engine was used because it was the only engine powerful enough that was available in quantity at the time the Sherman was being designed.
When other engines became available, the Sherman design wasn't modified to reduce its height because that would have delayed production.

Now that the first premise has been debunked (Is it possible that nobody bothered to look up the actual dimensions until now?) does anyone know if the others are also myths?

[Jakko Westerbeke]

Let me refer you to a post of mine above.

Which other supposed myths are you referring to, exactly? That the tank wasn’t redesigned when lower engines became available because it would slow down production? That would hardly be a myth: redesigning the basic shape would cause all sorts of delays, not to mention logistical problems that you can do without in the middle of a war. Fact is that there were several designs for improved Shermans, including things like welded turrets, hulls with sloping sides, a lower hull and more, and none of those were put into production.

[m kenny]