Paul & Matt:

Both of you bring up very valid points in your contributions, and I respect you for that.

What I object to, (and this has nothing to do with any of Paul & Matt's respective observations and comments), is all the negativity directed at the US M4-series Medium, in all of it's various permutations, by the Panzer-Heads. They just don't want to concede that the Sherman was a much better machine than what they think it was. Panthers and Tigers reign supreme, and that's all there is to it! I see so many more articles and builds on this site covering Panthers and Tigers than I do Shermans, or indeed, ANY WWII US/Allied Armor; possibly by a ratio of 10:1 at the very least, and usually built or written by the same contributors that diss Shermans.

Another point: Shermans didn't catch fire easily because of shoddy workmanship, or the lack of the proper materials used in their manufacture, etc. Flammable Engines? Not because of faulty, leaking Fuel Lines, with Fuel/Oil gunk that was accumulated in the depths of Panther and Tiger Engine Bays, and igniting because of overheating Engines.

More Shermans were lost through AT penetrations of the Fighting Compartment and igniting the Ammunition than anything else. Generally, the earlier Shermans burned when they were penetrated by AT Rounds' spall, which ignited the Ammo, which in turn, was stowed in "DRY" Stowage Ammo Bins. This was the case in the earlier M4 and M4A1 56-degree Hull machines.

The new, updated welded (M4A2, M4A3) and cast (M4A1) 47-degree Hulls, incorporated newly-designed "WET" Ammo Stowage which helped to alleviate the "Ronson/Tommy-Cooker" problems to a great extent, but not entirely. "WET" refers to re-designed Ammo Bins which surrounded the Ammunition with a tank-like structure filled with a flame-retardant, water-antifreeze solution. This new design of Ammo Stowage also contributed to much better Crew survivability rate if, and when a Sherman was hit.

Note: This new system was not "flame-proof"- A well-placed AT Round will dispatch ANY Tank, Sherman or otherwise.

Re: Derisive comments about the Shermans and other US/Allied Tanks being fitted with supplemental "add-on"/"stop-gap" Armor, sandbags, chain-link fencing or logs-

What!?! And Russian Tank Crews didn't do the same thing with their T-34/85s, for example, "Bed-Spring Armor"..? Pz.IIIs and IVs wore supplemental "Schurzen", but there's NO criticism from the "Panzer-Heads" over that. How can anyone fault US/Allied Tank Crews for adding ANYTHING to their Tank that would help to protect themselves, when new, more heavily-armored tanks were NOT forecoming..? One wonders what these detractors would have done, had they been in the same place?

PS- I wasn't dissing the new book; rather, my commentary concerned the merits and faults of WWII US/Allied Armor versus German Armor of the same period...

Quoted Text

---

Quoted Text

---

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

---

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..."

Re: Patton's order concerning the "engagement of Panthers being forbidden"- That was just more of Patton's BS- He really GLOATED when his Shermans were able to kill Panthers. Patton was the foremost proponent of en masse envelopment of German Armor "when it was feasible to do so". He did however, get irate if any of his units went after Panthers and other heavy German Armor when they didn't have to, especially when they had a geographical objective to meet or surpass. That would have upset "his" timetable, and that wasn't something you'd want to do. In retrospect, of course Patton was right. You want to win the war, not just a battle...

Re: "Deutsch ist besser"- I too, say that's a lot of NAZI propaganda that has been swallowed wholesale by the "Panzer-heads". Ask any WWII German Vet still living about the reliability and workmanship of US/Allied Equipment...

True, the Germans had some real "super-weapons" such as the world's first operational Fighter Jet in combat: the Me.262, and the world's first ICBM, the A4, otherwise known as the V-2. But how reliable were they? The Me.262 only had an "Engine-life of 100 hours AT BEST, and these Engines were also prone to catch fire for no apparent reason. The A4, wasn't very accurate, but it did manage to raise quite a scare with the British populace. It is a testament to the British People's determination and their faith in Allied Arms that helped them to "stick it out" against the V-1s and V-2s...

As to the "invincibility" of Panthers, Tigers I & II, Fw.190s, Bf.109s, Kubelwagen, "Gulaschkanonen" and virtually everything else they produced during the war, some VERY viable issues with that "invincibility" have been raised just in this comparatively short thread, actual history notwithstanding. "PANZER-HEADS BEWARE! WE'VE GOT YOU IN OUR SIGHTS, AND WE AIN'T TAKIN' NAMES!!!

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.

I am not here to pick a side on what country had the best tank during the war, I am just curious why American crews felt it so necessary to add so much extra amour.

www.theshermantank.com, it's a site about the Sherman tank

There are three Documented Tiger I contacts with the US Army in North West Europe.

There are three Documented Tiger I contacts with the US Army in North West Europe.

1) Sherman Won
2) Pershing Lost
3) The Tigers were caught being loaded/off loaded from rail cars and was a turkey shoot.

Quoted Text

---

www.theshermantank.com, it's a site about the Sherman tank

---

Thanks for the link.
Could you explain one comment on your site? It's at the comparisons page and it reads:

"The US Army faced very few [Tiger E]. When they did face them, they didn’t prove to be much of a problem."

I knew the first fact; the US army rarely met a Tiger. But I would like you to explain the second statement in the context of the Sidi Bouzid battle. It was Shermans versus Tigers (and 88s and other tanks), but I haven't yet found a detailed account of how they performed at that battle. You seem to have the answer?

David

I suggest the readers here read "Lucky Forward"by Col. Robert s. Allen. Page 340 Gen. Eisenhower asked Gen, Patton to try to squelch the statements by Army tankers who upon returning home said that the German tanks "are better than ours" It goes into great detail about how they were worried about those stories and how harmful they are to the public.
I pose only one question to all of this. All things being equal. Meaning a crew of the same experience in terrain in northern France just tank on tank, who wants to be in a Panther or Tiger I and who wants to be in a Sherman?

I'm a little unsure what you're trying to get at though, 31 or 6 tigers, my point still stands, it didn't have a real effect on anything

Quoted Text

---

I'm a little unsure what you're trying to get at though, 31 or 6 tigers, my point still stands, it didn't have a real effect on anything

---

I'll restate the question:

- Shermans faced Tigers at Sidi Bouzid.

- I'd like to know their performance in that battle but I haven't found any reports yet.

- You wrote "When they did face them, they didn’t prove to be much of a problem". So you must have seen the report that I'm looking for. Could you tell me where it is, please?

The photo, by the way, was sold on ebay and only the purchaser could give us a better scan, whoever he is.

David