Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Best Offensive Tank - Far East 1945

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Can anyone tell me the numbers of Sherman tanks sent to Burma?

    What British tanks were used predominantly in Burma?

    Regards,Kurt
    Theo mir ist die munition ausgegangen ich werde diesen ramman auf wiedersehen uns in walhalla

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Kurt Knispel View Post
      Can anyone tell me the numbers of Sherman tanks sent to Burma?

      What British tanks were used predominantly in Burma?

      Regards,Kurt
      Not a straight answer to your question, as I don't have access to my references.

      The Burma theatre seems to have been the last priority in terms of the Ally supply line - Something that Slim mentions a few times in his bio, IIRC.

      So most use of armour in battles in Burma seem to mention Stuarts/Honeys and Grant/Lee.

      I'm trying to remember, if Sherman did eventually show up in Burma.

      Comment


      • #48
        The Sherman did serve in Burma.
        Good overview of the types available here:

        British & Indian Armoured Units
        Of the Burma Campaign: A Painting Guide

        Also
        British and Indian Armour in Burma

        No numbers though

        (thought the author needs to check on where the Stuart got its nickname from )

        Got these books somewhere and will see if I can dig them out for numbers:





        EDIT: Found my copy of Jungle Armour. In the back Dennis Oliver has a list of WD numbers listing the Shermans he's identified as being in SEAC 1944-1946 Sherman types were V, III or III DD. He cautions this is not a comprehensive list but is derived from reports, official correspondence and some times photographic evidence. 128 unique vehicles are listed in this table.
        Last edited by CarpeDiem; 16 Apr 17, 12:56.

        Comment


        • #49
          It was a long way from the UK to India. If they could possibly help it, the British shipped American Tanks to India. The Soviets got Matilda II's and Valentines through the Persian Gulf. The Australians invaded Borneo and brought along Matilda II's, Stuarts and Grants (maybe some Shermans). This was all that remained of the Australian Armor Division.

          Pruitt
          Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

          Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

          by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

          Comment


          • #50
            Given the Japanese penchant for digging in and fighting from caves and bunkers, I think having a flamethrower is vital component.

            For this reason the OT34/85 is the best option here. It replaced the bow MG with a powerful flamethrower. The resulting tank had good armour, mobility and still retained a gun that could kill anything it might face. It also had good HE.

            There were also sherman variants with flamethowers who are worthy candidates but they generally replaced the main gun with a flamethrower and thus lost HE and AP capability.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by AdrianE View Post
              There were also sherman variants with flamethowers who are worthy candidates but they generally replaced the main gun with a flamethrower and thus lost HE and AP capability.
              The Sherman flame tanks had one interesting twist added to some of them: hose extensions.

              From M4 Sherman Flamethrowers:

              In another field expedient, troops on Okinawa employed an ingenious hose extension against caves that were out of range of tanks. The Navy donated fifty-foot lengths of fire hose which the men coupled together to form a hose four hundred feet long. They fastened one end of the hose to the fuel reservoir of the tank, and attached an M2-2 portable flame gun to the other end. In action, the M4 Sherman tank parked as close as possible to the target, the operators dragged the hose to a position within range, the tank pumped fuel through the hose, and the nozzleman ignited the fuel and directed the flame at the target. The extension was used with good results on a number of occasions.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by AdrianE View Post
                Given the Japanese penchant for digging in and fighting from caves and bunkers, I think having a flamethrower is vital component.

                For this reason the OT34/85 is the best option here. It replaced the bow MG with a powerful flamethrower. The resulting tank had good armour, mobility and still retained a gun that could kill anything it might face. It also had good HE.

                There were also sherman variants with flamethowers who are worthy candidates but they generally replaced the main gun with a flamethrower and thus lost HE and AP capability.
                Although not an option here, the Churchill Crocodile had a trailer with nearly twenty times the fuel of the OT34/85. As far as flame tanks go, nothing comes close to this afv. It also kept its 75mm gun or 95mm howitzer as well.
                How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                Comment

                Latest Topics

                Collapse

                Working...
                X