login   |    register
Modeling in General
General discussions about modeling topics.
The Best & Favorite
Joined: December 18, 2001
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
AeroScale: 287 posts
Posted: Sunday, February 17, 2002 - 10:32 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Inshort, he thought the Shermen would be quicker & more manuverable in the European terrain. Thought the Pershing would be slower and heavier.

He wanted our tanks to be modern cavalry, poking holes in the lines and exploiting the breakthrough. Patton also was a realist when it came to logistics. He knew the Sherman was only hampered by its fuel consumption. It was a mechanically sound machine that carried a fair amount of ammo. Plus, if you add another type of tank to the mix, you get the German logistic problems of too many varying types of chassises in the mix. Sherman was a common chassis that the US mechanics were working on when we used the M3 Lee.
Utah, United States
Joined: January 24, 2002
KitMaker: 835 posts
AeroScale: 0 posts
Posted: Sunday, February 17, 2002 - 04:24 PM UTC
I admit I have a lot of love for Patton but am willing to take the bad with the good. Who knows, if he had pershings could he have been able to pull his 3rd army out of a battle and head north to rescue the 1st army during the battle of the bulge in such a short time? For tank to tank battles the pershing would have done better than the sherman, but for the way Patton fought the sherman was probably a better choice. All the figures I have seen comparing Pattons casualties to the casualties he inflicted with the 3rd army are pretty incredible. So I guess my final opinion on the matter after picking up a book and doing some thinking would be this:

The sherman was not as good against german armor as the pershing would have been, but the sherman fit Patton's overall battle plans better and its hard to argue with his record with the 3rd army.

I am far from being a WWII history or armor expert, but thats how I feel about what I do know.
Ohio, United States
Joined: January 18, 2002
KitMaker: 330 posts
AeroScale: 0 posts
Posted: Monday, February 18, 2002 - 12:37 AM UTC
Wow...look what I started. Not to take anything away from Patton or the 3rd Army, the point I was making was that the Pershing would of saved lives. If they were my tankers I would want them in the best tank available. And I don't think the M4 was. But I also don't feel this was Patton's fault, but the pentagon was at fault here. That's the one thing I think the 8th Air Force did alot better than their ground pounder brothers. When the P51 became available they couldn't get their crews into them fast enough. And changed the roll of the P47 to ground attack.

Ron C.
Ashtabula, Oh