I saw this photo on the Stalin 2 thread. I was amazed at the difference between the two tanks.
If the Sherman guys panicked over a tiger, this would have been instant PTSD if they survived.
If the Sherman guys panicked over a tiger, this would have been instant PTSD if they survived.
11 Likes
Size doesnât matter they say âŚ
BS say I
2 Likes
Do I hear some barrel-envy going on? 
2 Likes
My gunâs bigger than yours!! 
1 Like
Tanks capable of locking horns with the Tiger I and King Tiger didn;t appear on the allied side until 1944-45.
The Soviets has the IS-2, while the Americans had the M26 Pershing; I think the British were still using the VC Firefly because of itâs high-velocity 76.2mm 17pounder gun could tackle everything up to a Tiger I.
1 Like
Didnât the North Koreans/Chinese have Stalins in 1950? Think about itâŚ
1 Like
11th Armoured was using the Comet in itâs dash across Germany to the Baltic. They were in the middle of training on the Comet when the Bulge happened and had to quickly recover their Sherman/Fireflies. Once the Bulge was consolidated they went back to the Comets, they kept Cromwells in the Recce units.
Quote âThe Comet tank or Tank, Cruiser, Comet I (A34) was a British cruiser tank that first saw use near the end of WWII during the Invasion of Germany. It was developed from the earlier Cromwell tank and mounted the new 17 pdr High Velocity (HV) (3 inch; 76.2 mm â sometimes referred to as â77 mmâ) gun, in a lower profile, partly-cast turret. This gun was effective against late-war German tanks, including the Panther at medium range, and the Tiger. The tank was widely respected as one of the best British tanks of the war, and continued in service afterwards.â
5 Likes
Last I checked the JS-2 didnât have to be transported across an ocean in huge numbers. Why people continue to make these comparisons still baffles me. The Sherman was a first ever attempt at a turreted battle tank. That it turned out to be such a competent weapons system is nothing short of miraculous considering itâs rushed development and lack of experience making tanks on the American side. The Germans, Brits, and Russians had a ten plus year head start minimum in development of these types of machines. An on top of that overall size, length and width limitations were placed on American engineers so that the M4 could be transported on rail and in ships. But when it was used by people that understood its strengths alongside air support and artillery support it was a war winner just the same. BTW, Russian crews loved it!
As for the JS-2, itâs traverse was carp, the turret required ground that was level. Anything over 12 degrees caused all sorts of issues with traverse etc⌠It was cramped inside and a fully trained crew could manage to fire 1.5 times a minute due to the huge ammunition which had to be loaded in two parts and the gun placed at full depression to reload, first the round and then the cartridge. it had subpar gun depression too. As for the gun itself it was known to be very inaccurate and its penetration was not great considering the size of the round. Russian crews resorted to using HE rounds to cause massive internal damage to German tanks or stun the crews.
4 Likes
Or simply blow the turrets off,
didnât work so well with the Ferdinand/Elefant though âŚ
1 Like
All I see is a bunch of stuff I would like to have in a display case. 
3 Likes
youâd have to hit the turret first, LOLâŚImagine having to re-lay the gun every time you were going to fire. there is s reason that the JS-2 didnât play a big role in the Cold War era, it just wasnât a very good tank.
2 Likes
Donât forget arguably the best all-round tank to come out of WW2, the Centurion. A batch of 17pdr-armed prototypes arrived in the field just one month too late to see action in Europe, although the tank didnât really achieve itâs full potential until the 20pdr-armed Mk.3 arrived in 1948 and the adoption of the 105mm L7 gun about a decade later.
Cheers,
M
1 Like
I didnât say the Sherman was an automotive failure. I think of it like a American version of the T34 76 sort of. The Russians had gone from the T 26 thing to a Stalin 2 in 4 or 5 years. The reason the Stalin 2 did not play a big role in the cold war was the Russians were continuing their tank development that was moving toward the T54. None of the heavy tanks played a roll in the cold war because everyone was moving toward the medium tank design. The Stalin 2 could have been improved but the design wheel was turning.
1 Like
Iâll start with having it in the stash âŚ
2 Likes
Hitting the side of the tank or within a few yards could be enough to disable it making it easier to hit with the second round
1 Like
I suspect that is as far as most will ever get.
2 Likes
if you want to stick to the tanks that saw the most actual service in the war on all sides, to me it always comes down to three vehicles, the T-34, the M4, and the Panzer 4âŚthey were the most practical and usable weapons system that each side hadâŚthey all had their pluses and minuses but it still amazes me how the Sherman gets crapped on when it was literally Americaâs first attempt at a modern tank AND it had to be built with compromises because it needed to travel far from where it was being built to where it was being used. Some key tank technology was also pioneered on the Sherman and some of it even carried over to modern tanks too. Things like super fast traverse, gun stabilizer, wet stowage, live track, and wasnât the Sherman the first to incorporate technology that allowed it to be used as an artillery piece when the situation demanded it? I believe the Radios used in the Sherman also set the standard going forward as wellâŚthere is so much more that goes into a successful weapons system besides the obvious gun size and armor thickness etc that table top games and video games donât take into account. The Sherman also set a standard in availability to itâs crews because you canât fight in something thatâs always broken down or needs to be transported a few miles away from the actual front otherwise it wonât make it to the fight, the logistics involved cannot be overstated, the Sherman was a practical weapons system that afforded units to maneuver around the battlefield in ways that most WW2 tanks couldnât match.
So the question is, do we just look at the gun barrel and the armor or do we open the shutter a bit more and take a wider look when comparing these machines?
2 Likes
Automotively, Shermans were perhaps the best of WW2, and that is where heavy tanks were weak.
It turned out that, as the medium tank evolved, they were able to do everything the heavies used to do, without all that excess weight and all the associated problems that came with it.
Edro
1 Like
I guess there been a lot of love given to the German Tigers and Panthers, kinda like German sports cars are today. The Sherman wasnât fancy and it had some design faults, but the Sherman was simple, rugged and reliable. But most importantly, it was mass produced. One of the many advantages of the Sherman design, was that it had an efficient modular design.
The British, French and even the Germans produced several different tank designs that for each nation, it had to have been a logistical nightmare to provide all the spare parts necessary to maintain and repair these vehicles. On the other hand, America relied on basically one design that could be used on many different vehicles. The Sherman was an evolution of the Grant/Lee, which itself was an evolution of the M2 medium tank. But they all shared in common parts. The Sherman platform was also used on Tank Destroyers, SPGs and other vehicles. This commonality of parts made logistics far simpler in keeping these vehicles running.
Edro
1 Like
I would definitely build an is-2 if it had a full interior
1 Like