Why W.Allies used whole war obsolete tanks ?
Alabama, United States
Joined: January 26, 2006
KitMaker: 1,381 posts
Armorama: 1,347 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 05, 2020 - 02:00 AM UTC
How on earth is it "destroyed"? On the one hand you have someone using official US Army statistics and official contemporary records of the various branches making the decisions in question. On the other hand you have a personal memoir whose author freely admitted was pulled primarily from his memories over four decades after the war ended. It's akin to dismissing everything Hillary Doyle has written on panzers after years probing through surviving records and climbing atop and measuring most of the surviving panzers from WW2 in favor of a memoir from an aged Heer maintenance Leutnante from his half century old memories with no actual research to bolster his memories. Anyone is free to do so but data is data, whether we want to believe it or not.
Washington, United States
Joined: March 11, 2016
KitMaker: 1,792 posts
Armorama: 1,186 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 05, 2020 - 03:26 AM UTC
Here's where a lot of people get it wrong about the number of KIA's in Shermans. Just because a tank was knocked out or destroyed doesn't mean there were crew losses. Blow off the tracks and running gear will knock out a tank and leave a crew unharmed. Crews practice to get out of their tanks as fast as they can and Shermans were equipped with fire suppression systems that gave the crew time to bail out.
Case in point.
Lafayette G. Pool. In 81 days he is credited with 12 tanks and 258 armored vehicles and SPG's destroyed, 1000 enemy KIA's and 250 POW's. He commanded three Shermans. All of which were destroyed. He kept the same crew until the third tank. First tank destroyed by a panzerfaust and the crew got out safely. Second tank destroyed by friendly fire from a P38. Crew survived. Third tank hit twice by a Panther in ambush. Killed his replacement gunner and wounded Poole causing him to lose a leg.
Three Shermans destroyed. 1 KIA, 1 WIA. Not too shabby for a tank everyone is calling under armed, under armored and obsolete.
Alabama, United States
Joined: May 21, 2018
KitMaker: 197 posts
Armorama: 183 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 05, 2020 - 04:48 AM UTC
It was clearly not picked apart as people were countering the OP's claims. That thread quickly devolved into, believe it or not, this thread here arguing about M4.
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: April 09, 2015
KitMaker: 1,063 posts
Armorama: 1,000 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 05, 2020 - 05:21 AM UTC
The American army during WWII was the product of two of its most enduring legacies, dealing with the Indians along the frontier and during westward expansion, and the Civil War. The former required light fast moving troops to deal with the hit and run and ambush tactics preferred by the Indians. The Civil War demonstrated that mass armies were needed to defeat the Confederacy. The US Army in WWII reflected those legacies in that it was both a mass army and a mobile one, in fact the only fully mechanized army of the WWII belligerents. The Sherman tank was like wise heir to those legacies being relatively fast and maneuverable as well as reasonably armed and armored. The three key components in armor design are mobility, firepower, and armor protection. Invariably, increasing one of those components means a decrease in one or both of the others. Given the firepower, metallurgy, and power plants available it was a competent design.
While this has already been mentioned it was also mechanically reliable. Also, by the time the US got into WWII American culture/society was well acquainted with modern mechanization. There was almost some farm boy, grease monkey or motor head around who could at least provide a quick fix or work around till proper maintenance was available.
"No plan survives contact with the enemy." Helmuth von Moltke the Elder
#186
Texas, United States
Joined: May 24, 2006
KitMaker: 771 posts
Armorama: 750 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 05, 2020 - 05:33 AM UTC
There have been some good points made in this discussion that I won't repeat. What I haven't seen mentioned is the global nature of the war, and the requirement that the U.S. had to ship all their personnel and war material across the oceans of the world to the various theaters of combat. Just to get the tanks from factories to ships, load on the ships then across thousands of miles of ocean, unloaded, and then to where it is needed. That's a monumental task that is all too often lost in the discussion about how much armor could be penetrated at what range.
Colorado, United States
Joined: January 20, 2005
KitMaker: 7,219 posts
Armorama: 6,097 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 05, 2020 - 05:50 AM UTC
“You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.”
― Donald Rumsfeld
A strong man stands up for himself; A stronger man stands up for others.
Admit nothing. Deny everything. Make counter-accusations.
He is not Khan who calls himself Khan. Afghan proverb
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: April 09, 2015
KitMaker: 1,063 posts
Armorama: 1,000 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 05, 2020 - 05:59 AM UTC
Guy- I think it my have been mentioned but its worth repeating. There were no such things as super ships back then so available sealift was an important factor. Also of note is that the US ws the only power capable of waging a land and sea war simultaneously.
Robert-So true.
"No plan survives contact with the enemy." Helmuth von Moltke the Elder
Washington, United States
Joined: August 09, 2002
KitMaker: 1,742 posts
Armorama: 1,658 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 05, 2020 - 06:41 AM UTC
While the Sherman served throughout WWII it did so with many upgrades that did not stop manufacturing. Hull shape, cast / welded hulls, aircraft and diesel engines, transmision covers, suspension changes, turret changes , main gun changes, track changes, cupola and hatch changes, internal storage changes, ammo types etc. The tank that started in North Africa was not the tank that ended the war in Germany. Yes they could have started production on the M26 sooner but... you can't change history. The M26 was not someones idea back in 1936 that was shelved. Combat experience provided the requirements that lead to the M26. That means even if they wanted to, the M26 could not have shown up in 42'. I think the mistake most obvious to me was not going with the 17 pounder as the British did. A platoons worth per company would have been helpful.
Msgt Retired USMC
M48/ M60A1/ M1A1
Semper Fi!
Praha, Czech Republic
Joined: January 03, 2016
KitMaker: 53 posts
Armorama: 53 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 05, 2020 - 06:51 AM UTC
I wrote this threat because i saw a "Fury" movie with Brad Pitt and Shia LeBouf etc... Yes, it is a fiction and end isn´t realitty - it is a Call of Duty videogame. (And Duel with Bowington original Tiger No "131" is from World of Tanks...probably...). But first combat when was Sherman K.O with Panzerschreck/Panzerfaust firing from hedge near road looks very realistic - to same as duel with Tiger I (5 shermans - 4 K.O. and all rounds was ricochet. ) And when can Sherman give K.O to Tiger, must he kill on rear plate. I read in many books a US tank crews have "Tiger Fever" (on Eastern Front it is a Ferdinand Fever) and was feared by deadly "88" Flak cannon. All German Armor was "Tiger" or "Ferdinand" (but in real was Tiger unusual as real live Tiger in jungle). Tiger fever was eliminated by "JABO" - Rocket firing Typhoon or Jug... with bazzoka and big caliber bombs... Too Il-2 with rockets and bombs and high velocity cannons was great "Panzer Killer". So, is Tiger Fever a - war myth ? Never exist ? Never tank crews concerned by Tigers ? And probably any tank cant´destroyed Super heavy Destroyer JagdTiger.This monster can be beaten by air attacks, or group fire. Yup, Jagdtiger was very rare (only 50 pieces ?) but one of Heavy Tank Destroyer battalion was commanded by skilled famous Tiger ace Otto Carius... But i know, Jagdtiger was maybe as video game "Ultimate Boss Armor" and can be ambushed or destroyed by whole platton concentrate fire, or can be damaged by simple hit to track - and imobilised (it is casemate TD) and one direct hit to track make it totaly K.O. , and have drinking and unpowered engine, and was too heavy - but it is still a ultimate weapon (as f.e. F-22 Raptor today) who can destroy any tank in allies arsenal on long range and because have 128mm ammunition was simple deadly. (But yup, when guys from Shermans calls P-47 or Tiffies - bye bye Jagdtiger !) But when Jagdtigers ambushed Allies - it is a massacre in short time. (In my sight, was Jagdtiger uneffective machine - slow, drinking and too big, another mistake was a Maus super heavy tank only, but "Mouse" never used in combat.) Jagdtiger was propaganda weapon. But with real fire power. (I have in now on the table from Tamiya).
California, United States
Joined: February 08, 2003
KitMaker: 776 posts
Armorama: 477 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 05, 2020 - 06:54 AM UTC
Obsolete ? lol. No.
Lacking ? Possibly yes.
The beauty of the Sherman tank, unlike the others, it was reliable and could be upgraded using the same chassis. Best example of this, it continued to serve well into the late 90's with different countries mounting different weapons/engines.
Enough that it encountered the T-34 during the korean war and would be the better of the 2.
"Our job is not to forgive them, thats gods job. Our job is only to arrange the meeting." General Norman. Scharwzkopf
Washington, United States
Joined: March 11, 2016
KitMaker: 1,792 posts
Armorama: 1,186 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 05, 2020 - 07:09 AM UTC
As stated earlier, simplicity and mass production were the key to fighting and winning WW2. The moment the U.S. was brought into the war there was no way the Axis could win.
50 escort carriers built in 2 years for a total of 122 carriers built during the war.
300000 aircraft of all types from 1940 to 1945 including 12731 B-17s and 18493 B-24's.
More than 2700 liberty ships average 3 ships launched every 2 days including one that took just 7 days from laying of the keel to fleet acceptance.
228 submarines and thousands of other support craft.
6400 M10's, 2500 M18's and nearly 50000 M4's of all flavors.
The US buried the Axis under masses of metal and a well trained military that no other country could equal.
The M4 was a very good tank that evolved during the war to meet the needs of the military. It was adaptable, reliable, powerful, and while it may not have been able to go toe to toe with the tigers there was really no need to. The war was coming to an end, Germany had no fuel, very little manufacturing capabilities left intact and was getting so short on man power the were putting old men and boys on the line.
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: October 27, 2009
KitMaker: 195 posts
Armorama: 194 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 05, 2020 - 08:07 AM UTC
Quoted Text
I think the mistake most obvious to me was not going with the 17 pounder as the British did. A platoons worth per company would have been helpful.
IIRC there was a shoot-off by the Ordinance Board between the US 75mm, 76mm, 90mm & the 17pder. What they found at the time is that the 17pder had marginally less accuracy when firing conventional shells, & far worse accuracy when firing the APDS. All the US guns had better accuracy. Also, the 90mm was already well into development, had better accuracy than the 17pder, & had only slightly inferior AP performance when firing HVAP compared to APDS. So the decision was made that the 90mm would be the gun going forward, & the US 76mm was good enough for most of the jobs tanks would face in the near future.
That being said, the US Army asked the British to do conversions, which they agreed to do...as long as there was spare capacity. There never really was, so no US 17pder Shermans.
Damon.
Arizona, United States
Joined: February 25, 2007
KitMaker: 1,066 posts
Armorama: 789 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 05, 2020 - 08:22 AM UTC
[quote]Old Shermies are still knocking around, but I doubt anyone in the Paraguayan Army believes that they are ready to go up against hardly any armored force.... Let alone against any modern MBT. Of course, when it comes to going to war, "You run what you brung". Today's infantry AT stuff would deal with those "up-gunned" Shermies quite rapidly.
Paraguayan generals might think a guerrilla insurgency is more likely than invasion by another country. Any tank is effective when your opponent has none. The last armed force to actually use Shermans in combat was probably the South Lebanon Army in 2000.
Washington, United States
Joined: March 15, 2009
KitMaker: 3,670 posts
Armorama: 2,052 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 05, 2020 - 08:42 AM UTC
I think one other factor besides simplicity and quantity was at work too— time. Combat in Western Europe lasted less than 11 months after the Normandy invasion. The Allies really had no need to develop more advanced, better armor in that time— the Germans were already on the run and fighting largely on the defensive, while the Allies were rapidly advancing and overwhelming with the tools they already had on hand. The M26 was sent to Europe in the last months of combat as an experiment, the M4 was adequate and was the tank winning the war. Like it or not, the Sherman and mass production was now the standard. The proof is it was the tank that won the war on the Western Front, while German armor was consigned to the junkyards, ditches and dumps of Western Europe. By sheer numbers alone (along with many other Allied innovations that were also standardized— industrial mobilization on a scale never before seen, aircraft, logistics, communications, military formations and strategy) the Germans could never hope to compete. The “arsenal of Democracy” of which the Sherman was a product, is what won the war, with the dedication, valor and skill of Allied soldiers.
VR, Russ
Alabama, United States
Joined: January 26, 2006
KitMaker: 1,381 posts
Armorama: 1,347 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 05, 2020 - 09:44 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted Text
I think the mistake most obvious to me was not going with the 17 pounder as the British did. A platoons worth per company would have been helpful.
IIRC there was a shoot-off by the Ordinance Board between the US 75mm, 76mm, 90mm & the 17pder. What they found at the time is that the 17pder had marginally less accuracy when firing conventional shells, & far worse accuracy when firing the APDS. All the US guns had better accuracy. Also, the 90mm was already well into development, had better accuracy than the 17pder, & had only slightly inferior AP performance when firing HVAP compared to APDS. So the decision was made that the 90mm would be the gun going forward, & the US 76mm was good enough for most of the jobs tanks would face in the near future.
That being said, the US Army asked the British to do conversions, which they agreed to do...as long as there was spare capacity. There never really was, so no US 17pder Shermans.
Damon.
It's also worth mentioning that the 17 pdr in the turret was a major ergonomic fail and was initially rejected. I've been in a firefly turret and it genuinely sucks. However, if you're trying to take out a Panther I'm sure one becomes far more willing to put up with it. The thing is, as both Moran and Zaloga have discussed there were fundamental misteps with the Sherman planning into 1944 based on some flawed methods in how the US Army planned ahead for future conflicts. Lopping off several inches from the 76mm was foolish and only happened because the Army didn't see a great need for the 76mm anyways, so nobody got outraged when they reduced its capabilities. That does not turn the M4 into a death trap, simply it was a great tank in 1942/1943 that became a good tank in 1944/1945 as other tanks overtook it. However until the end of the war it was extremely reliable, mechanically sound, and had an adequate HE capability and a reasonable anti-AFV capability. Note also something that often gets forgotten is the german, Soviet, British, and US armies all ran the stats and found that the quality of the tank came in a distant second to getting off the first shot in a fight. All of the allied tanks had similar kill ratio failings in 1944-45 because they were typically advancing on unfamiliar ground against a prepared enemy who typically got the first shot off, even though the Panther's lack of a periscope for the gunner slowed them down significantly. When the Germans attacked US, Soviet, and Allied forces with tanks in their less and less frequent offensives in 1944-45 they died at similar rates. In essence, Shermans and Cromwells and T-34's were killing Panthers and late model PZKPF IV's at the same rate they were getting killed by those same tanks when they were on the attack.
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: April 09, 2015
KitMaker: 1,063 posts
Armorama: 1,000 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 05, 2020 - 09:51 AM UTC
Mat- excellent point about the importance of the first shot in a tank duel. I had forgotten about that.
"No plan survives contact with the enemy." Helmuth von Moltke the Elder
Quebec, Canada
Joined: August 26, 2017
KitMaker: 91 posts
Armorama: 89 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 05, 2020 - 10:46 AM UTC
No, Fury was not realistic in that Tiger scene based on both US doctrine and training and German doctrine and training.
The Sherman Firefly was said to be a temporal solution and it was a known fact. The British had the just started to build the Cromwell/Comet at the time. The US 76mm is generally regarded as a better all purpose.
Even the early Soviet T-34 was known to be very unreliable, poor steel and not crew friendly. But later on, when they improved it and got the momentum advantage, their then tank is known as one of the finest tank of the war.
Also, Germans knew fear, too. Run around on supposed better equipment, know knowing that anything can kill you is not very assuring. A Sherman in ambush position can kill a lot of German tanks too, and Sherman tank is never alone. I mean, even Soviet T-70 light tank can ambush and destroy Panther with 45mm tank gun...
United States
Joined: January 19, 2020
KitMaker: 1 posts
Armorama: 1 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 05, 2020 - 12:05 PM UTC
The Sherman was a good tank for the time it was developed, remember the M3 managed to give the Afrika Korp a surprise when it showed up in North Africa and started destroying Panzer IIIs that up until that point had been superior to most things they encountered. Allied armor commanders were the ones who requested production remain focused on the Sherman rather than a heavier tank since they valued speed, reliability and mass production and doctrine called for tank destroyers, not tanks, to engage other armored vehicles.
Shermans weren't the only ones outclassed by the Panther and Tiger. The much-vaunted T34-75 also saw large losses at Kursk, spurring the Soviets to develop the T34-85 as a quick response rather than developing the T-43.
I was reading in Robert Kershaw's "Tank Men" that it was the British who, after using the Sherman in combat, praised the 75mm M3/L40 as a great all-around gun, slowing development of alternative armament for the tank. I think the gun issue is the reason the Sherman developed such a bad reputation, since no crew wants to feel powerless when engaging the enemy, particularly attacking a well-trained, seasoned enemy in good equipment and on the defensive instead of the attack. Germans apparently didn't have too high an opinion of the tank, but also grimly noted that even if one Panther could easily knock out 10 Shermans, it did no good since there was always an 11th. And, when given a good gun, the Sherman was able to hold its own in conflicts for the next three decades, showing that the tank couldn't have been all that bad.
JPTRR
Managing Editor#051
Tennessee, United States
Joined: December 21, 2002
KitMaker: 7,772 posts
Armorama: 2,447 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 05, 2020 - 12:34 PM UTC
Great thread. Alfred, thanks for asking, and thanks to every one who answered.
If they demand your loyalty, give them integrity; if they demand integrity, give them your loyalty.--Col John Boyd, USAF
“Any plan where you lose your hat is a bad plan.”
California, United States
Joined: January 30, 2013
KitMaker: 537 posts
Armorama: 531 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 05, 2020 - 01:40 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Why USA & UK used whole war obsolete tanks against German armors ? Sherman have high siluette, poor low velocity gun, weak armor (except Jumbo), HVSS version and Firefly have better gun, but still was under armored and any German tank or tank destroyer from mid war can penetrated it on one hit. Cromwell was tragic tank, it was fast - but thats is all. Soviet forces have from begin on war better tanks - T-34 was fast, have angled armor, primitive optic but better cannon and can penetrate any Panzer in sight (except Tiger I), and US & UK haven´t any tank as was KV and IS series - heavy armoured, with high velocity gun when can kill any Panzer in sight... US runs whole war on obsolete Sherman with nickname "Rohnson" from their germans enemies... and all tanks in W.Allies arsenal can be kill on long range by "88" FLAK on first day of war to D-Day. In 1945 coming Pershing, with was fast, with stabilised high velocity gun and heavy armor - but in small counts... Why W. Allies High Command used obsolete types of tanks, which can´t penetrate German Panzers in one shot - but Germans have tanks and tanks destroyers with high velocity and highly penetrates guns (not Tiger I and King Tiger only, too Ferdinand/Elephant, mid war production Panzer IV, naturally an Panther family and on end of war unepenetreteable JagdTiger, which can destroy only Fighters Bombers with Missilles or heavy bombs). Many casulties on W. Allies tank forces was for it used a obsolete tanks. But i don´tknow - why ? Because Sherman or Cromwell was cheap ? But in Air Force W.Allies used high-tech Fighters which was deadly enemy for Luftwaffe, but in battlefield have Panzerwaffe all aces in hand... And Germans can hit W.tanks in any place - and on 90 % it was a sure kill. (And can used cheap and fast machines as was Hetzer with low silhuette, good armor and excellent gun. Hetzer was derivat from absolute obsolete Czech Praga 38 - and after all it was deadly Tank destroyer...) But W.Allies haven´t good tank Destroyer.... Wolverine was tragic mistake and casemate TD as Hetzer or Su-85/100 never used in W. arsenal... I don´t understand, why wasn´t begin production of Pershing earlier ? Pershing was really Tiger/Panther Killer... But coming in ´45... Not before or short after Normandy and never used in Battle of Bulge...
It’s a wonder how the allies won, hmmm...the sherman was far from obsolete, it was dependable so US troops had a tank they could fight in as opposed to one that was in the shop constantly being repaired. It was the first tank in the world to feature a vertical stabilizer. Unlike Russia and Germany the Sherman had size and weight limitations, it had to be transported across an ocean and early in the war when it was designed it was already pushing the size and weight limits of what american trains and ships could move across the country and then across the atlantic. It took german crews a minute plus to manually traverse their turrets, otherwise they had to stop and engage a turret gear to rotate the turret and even that was very slow compared to a sherman 40-50 seconds for full rotation with full throttle. Shermans turrets were so fast (15 seconds for full rotation) that they had to be slowed down (governed) to a maximum of 22 seconds or the crew got thrown around and became sick inside the tank. They used electronic and pneumatic systems for rotation so the turrt could spin without the tank stopping like a modern tank. The sherman featured live track which no one else had and no is a common fo all modern tanks. Shermans also pioneered panoramic sights in addition to telescopic sights so gunners could get on target much faster that is also seen on modern tanks and no german tanks had this feature. I just mentioned a few of the features that made the sherman one of the most advanced tanks in the world in WW2. Not bad considering it was Americas first real attempt at a battle tank and it went from drawing board to production in less than a year.
With all due respect I think you need to do a little more research on WW2 tanks and stop looking at just armor and guns, a tank is a weapon system and has to be looked at in it’s entirety, reliability, ease of use, all it’s systems were dependable, it was easy to transport and logistically was a dream because they were small enough to be transported across an ocean and reliable enough to drive across europe with little maintenance.
Besides, the Sherman was just a small part of our combined arms tactics, our priorities were air power and artillery and I think history has shown that dropping production to try and build a super tank was not only a bad idea but also ultimately uneccessary. The Germans loved shermans and used as many of them as they could get their hands on, why? Because they were garbage?
New South Wales, Australia
Joined: February 28, 2006
KitMaker: 1,605 posts
Armorama: 1,565 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 05, 2020 - 05:03 PM UTC
Quoted Text
So, i think a Sherman was dangeours for it´s own crew. When was hit by German High Velocity gun - 75mm or 88mm - it was in flames. It is very famous duel, when on Operation Barbarossa one damaged KV-1 stops german advence near Vilno. And be knock out a 88 a day later. But allies ignored Heavy tanks, with heavy balistic protection... I don´t understand, why Allies used a tanks, with minimal balistic protection against "88". Acht Acht was used from first day of WW2, it was a ultimate weapon on battlefield, with high velocity armor piercing ammunition..... and can kill Sherman on range of 3Km ! With one shot. Allied tank crews have low chance to survive battle with most advanced Panzers. On sky have Allied superiority over German JagdWaffe. Spitfire was still developed and was better and better. T-Bolt have devastating fire power (shootgun) and was very durable. P-38 was ace maker in Pacific. Mosquito was uncatchable figher bomber. Tempest can knock out last version of piston engined and first jets. And Mustang demoralized and destroy japanese and german air force... But in whole time, when USAAF and RAF have nevest fighters - G.I. used Shermans. IS-2m or ISU-152 can destroy Tiger on long range - with one hit. In famous war tape - a battle in Cologne was duel Panther with Sherman - Panther fire one shot - and Sherman was in flames. So, on battlefield incoming a Pershing - and - voilá - one shot on Panther - and german beast was penetrated, second - and was in flames. And Pershing can survive direct hit from Tiger with minor damaged... Pershing is the same cathegory as IS-2m. Fast, heavy armored with devastating fire power. And low silhouette. But Sherman was medium tank- Panther is medium tank. Caliber of it´s cannons is similar - but Sherman in duel 1:1 can´t deadly competitor for Panther. Naturally, not Firefly or Achilles with great 17 pounds gun. But it isn´t only in gun. The basic tank is still sherman or wolverine TD. When allied must sacrifice three or five Sherman on one Panther or Tiger it was casaulties on HUMAN power - not at AFV only. Every duel was 10-12 dead tankers.... on Allied Side. And this i don´t understand. Allied tank crews must fight on tanks with "paper armor". Panther,Tiger, long barreled Panzer IV, Hetzer can penetrate Sherman on any angle, on any side on long range with one shot. Pershing can penetrate all Panzers and Panzerjagers. On Sherman was low percentage of survability of tank crew. When we must go against enemy, and their cannons can we destroy on long range, and we must he hit tree times... and their front armor we can´t penetrate on 1m... This must make a frustration and depress ! It was a strategy - Many dogs were sure dead for Tiger. But still was here a human aspect. This is as i think....
Your facts are all skewed particular loss rates and crew casualties. Also the main German Tank faced was not the Panther or Tiger but hte Panzer IV which was on par to the Sherman in Gun, Armour but not reliability
A Pershing cannot survive a direct hit from an 88 (with the possible exception of mantlet). It simply did not have enough Armour. The Churchill had 1 and a Half times the Armour of a Tiger (Greater than a Pershing) yet could still be knocked out by an 88 (L71 although the L56 could penetrate it at shorter ranges) or L70 75mm (Panther). As guns got bigger so did Armour and as armour got thicker so did the guns - It has been that way ever since and the Germans realized that themselves post war when they made the Leopard which had armour on par with a WW2 Sherman and in some places less! t did have a bi gun and mobility though. Every time you add a new tank to the fleet you increase logistic burden (parts, Ammo, transporters, bridging trained maintainers etc. When hte Sherman was introduced it had no problem with the German armour around on the battlefield. 19 mths later in Normandy they met the Panther and it was a tougher nut to crack but the All arms skill of the Western Allies easily overcame this and despite all the gloomy pictures painted had loss rates less than expected when. Read some serious titles about armour battles in Normandy and beyon and you can clearly see that when the shoe was on the other foot and the Germans counterattacked they had similar losses to the very vehicles you so wilfully denigrate. The losses for `Western allied armour crews were low in comparison to the Germans and considering nearly 50 were caused when OUTSIDE the tank then the Sherman was not that bad. Others hve mentioned Shipping etc as all equipment had to com via shipping and space and weight restrictions applied. The Late war Sherman's were far better than they are credited and had good mobility, Guns and adequate Armour. The British were fielding Comets which were a very good tank and had the Centurion (enough said) coming online. Better to use what you have than chase new toys like the Germans did and have huge logistic dramas and massive maintenance liabilities that effect combat availability
Alabama, United States
Joined: January 26, 2006
KitMaker: 1,381 posts
Armorama: 1,347 posts
Posted: Friday, March 06, 2020 - 12:46 AM UTC
Quoted Text
No, Fury was not realistic in that Tiger scene based on both US doctrine and training and German doctrine and training.
The Sherman Firefly was said to be a temporal solution and it was a known fact. The British had the just started to build the Cromwell/Comet at the time. The US 76mm is generally regarded as a better all purpose.
Even the early Soviet T-34 was known to be very unreliable, poor steel and not crew friendly. But later on, when they improved it and got the momentum advantage, their then tank is known as one of the finest tank of the war.
Also, Germans knew fear, too. Run around on supposed better equipment, know knowing that anything can kill you is not very assuring. A Sherman in ambush position can kill a lot of German tanks too, and Sherman tank is never alone. I mean, even Soviet T-70 light tank can ambush and destroy Panther with 45mm tank gun...
I like Fury but it is unbelievably inaccurate in a lot of respects. One thing on the Tiger fight, the US had an unparalleled ability with its fast response artillery to target individual vehicles. The ability of aircraft to take out tanks appears to be wildly over-estimated but IRL, those three M4's would have backed away, called in artillery, and eaten their lunch next to the burning hulk of a Tiger tank. . .
Washington, United States
Joined: March 11, 2016
KitMaker: 1,792 posts
Armorama: 1,186 posts
Posted: Friday, March 06, 2020 - 12:55 AM UTC
The OP keeps bringing up US personnel losses but how many german tankers died? Does anyone have a breakdown on that? Total KIA, KIA's by tank model?
California, United States
Joined: January 30, 2013
KitMaker: 537 posts
Armorama: 531 posts
Posted: Friday, March 06, 2020 - 02:59 AM UTC
Quoted Text
The OP may be mostly correct that "one-on-one," German tanks outgunned the Sherman. But he seems to miss the point (mentioned by others) that German tanks were often overwhelmed by sheer numbers. While your Panther/Tiger is lining up a shot at one Sherman, three or four others are busy getting behind it or close enough to get a kill shot. Same goes with Russian armor. Best example may be at Kursk. The Russians lost probably a thousand tanks, but the Germans also lost several hundred, and were never able to recover from those losses.
Germany lost 200 tanks at kursk? That’s news to me, it’s been a while since I’ve read about the battle but off the top of my head I recall reading that both sides lost a similar number of tanks w russia maybe lossing a few more but they could afford it. Guys like guderian knew much like yamamoto did after midway, they knew a war of attrition was a sure loss and after the invasion of France it became attrition against the RAF and then against the Russians and finally against the US.
Look at the the tanks Germany had during early successful part of the war, it was never their tanks, it was always their application of more advanced tactics. And later in the war their antitank success was due in large part from fighting a defensive war with prepared positions using antitank guns and handheld antitank weapons. Once again it wasn’t their tanks. German tactics were superior but their tanks are ridiculously overrated by most people. They were impressive LOOKING machines but history has shown that germany’s investment in those monstrosities never came close to paying off great for propaganda (still working today) but propaganda doesn’t win wars
California, United States
Joined: January 30, 2013
KitMaker: 537 posts
Armorama: 531 posts
Posted: Friday, March 06, 2020 - 03:05 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted Text
No, Fury was not realistic in that Tiger scene based on both US doctrine and training and German doctrine and training.
The Sherman Firefly was said to be a temporal solution and it was a known fact. The British had the just started to build the Cromwell/Comet at the time. The US 76mm is generally regarded as a better all purpose.
Even the early Soviet T-34 was known to be very unreliable, poor steel and not crew friendly. But later on, when they improved it and got the momentum advantage, their then tank is known as one of the finest tank of the war.
Also, Germans knew fear, too. Run around on supposed better equipment, know knowing that anything can kill you is not very assuring. A Sherman in ambush position can kill a lot of German tanks too, and Sherman tank is never alone. I mean, even Soviet T-70 light tank can ambush and destroy Panther with 45mm tank gun...
I like Fury but it is unbelievably inaccurate in a lot of respects. One thing on the Tiger fight, the US had an unparalleled ability with its fast response artillery to target individual vehicles. The ability of aircraft to take out tanks appears to be wildly over-estimated but IRL, those three M4's would have backed away, called in artillery, and eaten their lunch next to the burning hulk of a Tiger tank. . .
Fury is entertainment created by people that were not exactly interested in telling a true story. In reality war daddy hunkers down his tanks calls in artillery or airstrike or both and then drives on with a smoldering tiger burning in the background. It’s a WW2 movie made by someone that plays WOTs
