Better tank is then when achieved kill in tactics - first shot-first kill. On many photographs are Tiger with hits in armor - without penetrating. Legend of Tiger I and "Tiger Fever" (in Eastern Front Ferdinand Fever) was a Tiger was unstopable, heavy armored and high deadly machine with high velocity gun. In Viller Boccage we can seen a superiority of Tiger I over allies tank. I canīt agree with argument we have poor techology, and isnīt time - OK - we use this poor technology of whole time of war. P-51 Mustang was developed in 100 days - and was tool of Victory in air battles in ETO and PTO.... You need a quality engineers, luck and progresive thinking in HQ. US Tank destroyers have same poor construction issues as Sherman. Soviet and German tank destroyers are far far away of Wolverine/Achilles Tank destroyers. When you compared a Jagdtiger (most deadly German AFV)and Volverine. Only counterpart who was comparable with Jagtiger was ISU-152... But not only heavy tanks are dangerous for all allied tanks... Most dangerous enemy - from first day of war (!!!) was "Acht-Acht" - 88mm FLAK. When have Nazis problem with enemy tanks, deployed on battlefield few "88" and have in quick win situation. (This is story of KV-2 who blocked three days road to Vilno...When was "88" deployed to battlefield KV-2 was quickly destroyed. And German 75mm guns was most dangerous for British tanks in WW I. Why UK HQ donīt calculate with this in inter-war period ? And why after first months of WW II donīt developed better tank as highly ineffective Cromwell ? (In Villes Boccage canīt Cromwell gun penetrate Wittmanīs Tiger on 50m -but Tiger can give K.O. to Cromwell to 2.5Km range...) I canīt was is myth about Sherman ? Gasoline - highly flameble engine ? Poor armor ? (In Cologne film you can seen it...), ineffective 75mm canon against Tiger and Panther ? 76mm was better, but best Sherman was developed in time of Cold War - M-51 israeli Super Sherman. You can see a Sherman have a capacity for high velocity, high effective gun and can destroyed tanks of newest generation... But WW II period Sherman isnīt good tank - maybe "Easy Eight" was little better and Firefly, but isnīt ideal. Allied HQ ignored category of heavy tanks and heavy tank destroyers.
"You can with it disegree, you can argument against this - but this is one who you can." (Jára D. Cimmrman - Greatest Czech inventor, thinker and philosoph of all times.)
This is a truly fascinating discussion. I can't recall if it's been mentioned before, but the western allies, especially the Brits and Canadians but the Americans, too, fought the war largely based on the concepts of strategic air power and artillery. The northwest campaign was essentially about shooting the infantry onto an objective, the use of overwhelming tactical and even strategic bombers, and armor to support the infantry with limited deep penetration thrusts.
The density of allied artillery in Normandy exceeded that of the First Workd War in many operations. Infantry memoirs have talked of seeing their role of escorting their FOO across Europe as their main task. Armor in the west ultimately served to support the infantry. As has been mentioned many times, the mobility, reliability and ease of mass production made the Sherman the logical outgrowth of western technology and doctrine.
The Second World War was won more by artillery and air power in the west (and to a lesser degree on the eastern front) than the tank. A better tank than the Sherman would not have dramatically changed this. Says I
Cheers!
Chris
I am not saying the Sherman was a bad tank. It was OK. In Africa there were short 75's on the Panzer 4's and 50mm on the Panzer 3's and the Sherman was equal or better. But as the Germans upgraded to the longer 75's and introduced the Stug 3 and 4 with the longer 75,s the firepower shifted to the Germans. Armor wise the Panzer 3-4 did not hold an advantage. The Sherman was more reliable allowing more Allied armor to be in combat. I think it was a crime not to manufacture the 17 lbs gun and install it on a few thousand Shermans for the US. I think the 105 mm Sherman and the 17 lbs Sherman working together would have made a great team firepower wise.
As far as add on armor, it got to the point they were welding armor plate onto the front of the shermans? Maybe it was psychologically only helping the crews, maybe it was effective who knows. They were quite worried about 75mm pak guns and 88mm anti tank guns. probably more so than tanks.
Better tank is then when achieved kill in tactics - first shot-first kill. On many photographs are Tiger with hits in armor - without penetrating. Legend of Tiger I and "Tiger Fever" (in Eastern Front Ferdinand Fever) was a Tiger was unstopable,
........
"You can with it disegree, you can argument against this - but this is one who you can." (Jára D. Cimmrman - Greatest Czech inventor, thinker and philosoph of all times.)
It is worth mentioning that the reliability had a whole cascade of issues coming from it. For one thing, the Sherman could do road marches of 100's of miles and did so routinely. The tactical flexibility this allowed is not to be dismissed; if you needed M4's somewhere you figured out how fast they could drive and sent them. A thousand mile drive left you with 90+% of the Shermans ready to fight. For the Panthers and Tigers the Germans didn't dare risk them on long drives because so many would drop out along the way. So they had to line up rail transport, spend hours getting the tanks onto flat cars, and then prey to God that Allied fighters and bombers hadn't shot up the tracks or caught the train while it was rolling. Imagine the limitations that put on the commanders.
Taking an order from George Patton. He forbade his Shermans to engage a Panther tank (no mention of a Tiger). He said it took 5.2 Shermans to knock out one Panther. Bombers doing carpet bombing did far better against German armor than all the Allied tank corps could dream of.
A good comparison would be an overall look at the Western Front verses the Eastern Front. The Allies pretty much had complete control of the West by August First 1944, and maybe three weeks earlier. On the Eastern Front the Russians sent up huge masses of aircraft in a ground attack role, but they never gained air superiority till very later 1944. Yet with the Russians possessing greater numbers and probably greater quality armor The Germans busted tanks and soft skins by the thousands. Much of this was via air strikes from JU87's and FW190f8's. Last I heard they lost close 40K T34's alone. What was the difference? Control of the air space. Yet taking a page from one Otto Carius he states that he and two other Tigers knock out 17 T34's in one engagement, but only to see 34 T34's the next day from the same bunch! On the Western front, the Allies did little compared to the Eastern front. 85% of all German KIA's came from the East! Why? Because that's where the better units were placed.
gary
Quoted TextIt is worth mentioning that the reliability had a whole cascade of issues coming from it. For one thing, the Sherman could do road marches of 100's of miles and did so routinely. The tactical flexibility this allowed is not to be dismissed; if you needed M4's somewhere you figured out how fast they could drive and sent them. A thousand mile drive left you with 90+% of the Shermans ready to fight. For the Panthers and Tigers the Germans didn't dare risk them on long drives because so many would drop out along the way. So they had to line up rail transport, spend hours getting the tanks onto flat cars, and then prey to God that Allied fighters and bombers hadn't shot up the tracks or caught the train while it was rolling. Imagine the limitations that put on the commanders.
As I said earlier: The Shermans' "live" Tracks were designed to go for 2500 miles; the German Tanks, 500... This is just ONE example.
Another GREAT advantage that US Forces had, (and still do), was that the US is a Nation of Mechanics- TACKLING A MECHANICAL PROBLEM IN THE FIELD, really wasn't a big problem. American boys could figure out what it was pretty quickly, and figure out how to FIX the problem without having to wait for Ordnance or Maintenance Crews to come fix the problem- Or worse, abandoning their "ride", as many German Crews had to do with their Tanks...
What American boy growing up during the mid 1920s to late 1930s didn't have some kind of a "flivver" or "jalopy" to "soup up" or tinker with, or farm equipment that sometimes needed fixing? "Back-yard mechanics" abounded in the US, and to some extent, they still do. Even a fellow with the most basic mechanical skills during that era knew enough to keep a set of pliers, a screw driver, maybe a hammer, a tire jack, tire patches, and some baling wire in his car, "just in case". Nearly every car that was sold, re-sold, and re-sold yet again, usually included a set of tools right when it left the factory as "Standard Equipment". In short, American Tankers, AFV Crewmen, Truck Drivers and Chauffeurs were already waaaay ahead of the game even before they shipped overseas to fight a Winning War...
Patton's "Race across France" is ample evidence of American Vehicles' RELIABILITY and their Crewmen's mechanical skills, when needed to be used, and when things reeeally became complicated, our Ordnance and Maintenance organizations were there to keep our well oiled War Machine moving...
PS- Remember what Onkel Ludwig told me: "Our greatest fears were being hit with "White Phosphorous and the US/Allied JABOS..."
I am not saying the Sherman was a bad tank. It was OK. In Africa there were short 75's on the Panzer 4's and 50mm on the Panzer 3's and the Sherman was equal or better. But as the Germans upgraded to the longer 75's and introduced the Stug 3 and 4 with the longer 75,s the firepower shifted to the Germans. Armor wise the Panzer 3-4 did not hold an advantage. The Sherman was more reliable allowing more Allied armor to be in combat. I think it was a crime not to manufacture the 17 lbs gun and install it on a few thousand Shermans for the US. I think the 105 mm Sherman and the 17 lbs Sherman working together would have made a great team firepower wise.
As far as add on armor, it got to the point they were welding armor plate onto the front of the shermans? Maybe it was psychologically only helping the crews, maybe it was effective who knows. They were quite worried about 75mm pak guns and 88mm anti tank guns. probably more so than tanks.
Quoted TextTaking an order from George Patton. He forbade his Shermans to engage a Panther tank (no mention of a Tiger). He said it took 5.2 Shermans to knock out one Panther. Bombers doing carpet bombing did far better against German armor than all the Allied tank corps could dream of.
A good comparison would be an overall look at the Western Front verses the Eastern Front. The Allies pretty much had complete control of the West by August First 1944, and maybe three weeks earlier. On the Eastern Front the Russians sent up huge masses of aircraft in a ground attack role, but they never gained air superiority till very later 1944. Yet with the Russians possessing greater numbers and probably greater quality armor The Germans busted tanks and soft skins by the thousands. Much of this was via air strikes from JU87's and FW190f8's. Last I heard they lost close 40K T34's alone. What was the difference? Control of the air space. Yet taking a page from one Otto Carius he states that he and two other Tigers knock out 17 T34's in one engagement, but only to see 34 T34's the next day from the same bunch! On the Western front, the Allies did little compared to the Eastern front. 85% of all German KIA's came from the East! Why? Because that's where the better units were placed.
gary
Well then. Where to start?
1. Could you please find the exact Patton quote? I'll wait. Regardless it would appear it was an entirely ignored order.
Or at the least the 86 or so dead Panthers at Arracourt to 40ish US losses seems to differ in that assessment. Consider it was Patton's dudes, I imagine he court martialed the lot of them for recklessly defeating the enemy.
2. The use of carpet bombing after Operation Cobra was not a thing. Could you explain how large numbers of German tanks were destroyed after that point?
3. I'll repeat it again. Air to ground claims must be verified. The German ground attack aircraft regularly "destroyed" more Soviet tanks in one battle than were available on an entire front. The same applied for US, Soviet, UK and all ground attack claims. If you compare kills claimed, to wartime logs of the units attacked there is a vast gap.
4. Soviet tank losses were frankly appalling. However:
a. Much of them early on had a lot to do with terrible training of crewmen and tank officers.
b. Soviet high command had Stalin at the top, who frequently and disastrously intervened with demands for frankly stupid counter-attacks.
c. Soviet recovery assets did not exist for much of the war, magnifying losses significantly.
So in a TLDR, poor Soviet planning put poor Soviet tankers right where they were least able to fight, and then was unable to recover much of the damaged armor. While the Germans would still generally inflict more damage than they took, the Soviets outsmarted the Germans operationally and strategically by massing forces locally, while denying the Germans enough intelligence to adequately defend against those masses.
I swear to god if I have an irrational pet peeve in life it's the whole deutch ist besser narrative. The Germans weren't that good, they lost many battles for want of intelligent choices or due to Allied/Soviet fighting ability.
HEAR, HEAR!
If Onkel Ludwig were still alive today, he would have agreed with you on many points. Still, I'll say it yet again: His, and his fellow Crew Members' greatest fears were:
"Being hit with White Phosphorous Rounds, and being caught out in the open with US/Allied JABOS about..."
Quoted TextHEAR, HEAR!
If Onkel Ludwig were still alive today, he would have agreed with you on many points. Still, I'll say it yet again: His, and his fellow Crew Members' greatest fears were:
"Being hit with White Phosphorous Rounds, and being caught out in the open with US/Allied JABOS about..."
My grandfather most feared Naval gunfire, as he was part of the USMC contingent that spent some time under fire from Japanese battleships at Guadalcanal. However strictly in terms of most lethal to Marines and Marine-like organisms Naval gunfire fell well behind rifle or mortar fire.
Being under air attack is indeed terrifying and it was a highly disruptive attack. However battle damage assessments do not support fighter bombers being a significant "killer" of tanks compared to other means such as direct fire.
Quoted TextQuoted TextHEAR, HEAR!
If Onkel Ludwig were still alive today, he would have agreed with you on many points. Still, I'll say it yet again: His, and his fellow Crew Members' greatest fears were:
"Being hit with White Phosphorous Rounds, and being caught out in the open with US/Allied JABOS about..."
My grandfather most feared Naval gunfire, as he was part of the USMC contingent that spent some time under fire from Japanese battleships at Guadalcanal. However strictly in terms of most lethal to Marines and Marine-like organisms Naval gunfire fell well behind rifle or mortar fire.
Being under air attack is indeed terrifying and it was a highly disruptive attack. However battle damage assessments do not support fighter bombers being a significant "killer" of tanks compared to other means such as direct fire.
You might want to ask any of Saddam's Tankers about US/Coalition Fighter-Bombers, if you can find any that survived "DESERT STORM" or "OIF", or the subsequent Ground Attack against them by US/Coalition Forces...
I think it's funny everytime the Sherman's role in WWII is discussed, all opinions weighed in are definitely skewed from only what they have read about... not actually being there to know the whole story.
Just like Belton Coopers opinion was skewed for he only witnessed one side of the Sherman tank, the negative side for he only worked in the maintenance department and they repaired vehicles... not sharing in the victories the tank was involved in.
Let's read the book FIRST then judge.
Jeff
 |
