By the time Tiger met Sherman it was obvious which was the more capable. You could probably stop a Tiger with mess-kitchens if you threw enough of them.

I'm surprised none of the Allied enthusiasts has mentioned a Sherman "Jumbo" yet. There were some pictures posted here some time ago of a Jumbo that had taken 5 88mm hits without penetration (maybe at longer range but so what? At least it could live long enough to close the range!). I don't recall hearing of any neutral country buying up Tigers after the war, although the French army DID use Panthers. Many neutrals bought PzIVs but I don't think this proves a lot.
As a confirmed modeller of German kit I should plump for the Tiger, & I suppose in a 1-on-1 situation it would have to be. Saying that they were built for different roles isn't really relevant, anyway the 56 ton class original brief was as a "breakthrough" tank. Doesn't this imply infantry support also? (Sturmgeshutz vehicles were originally designed as infantry support vehicles, but type for type they probably destroyed more Allied tanks than any other type.)
The Sherman is always presented as a fast tank (30mph or so), but a Panther at full chat could go faster, & with wider tracks could go places no British or American tank would dare. I recall a veterans comments on a panther that had driven along a ditch in Italy. He said if he'd tried it in a British tank it would have thrown a track for sure. So if the choice is between a Sherman & a Tiger, give me a Panther!

Tiger Tank...

LOL...weren't there something like 50,000 Shermans made during the war?? And about 1,500 Tigers??

Since the production number of the Sherman is brought into play above, I will take the 50,000 any day.

And this is coming from a Tiger fan.

Exactly. 50,000 shermans and 1,500 tigers. The americans had the manpower to man those tanks and the germans were looking for men.

Hi all, let's keep in mind the nickname's the sherman crews called thier tonka toys. Ronsan, A popular ww2 lighter, zippo, (my fave) another popular lighter.
There is no comparison when you consider the attrition rate that sherman crews had compared to tiger crews.
Look at Wittman at Villers Bocage. Look at Carius's record. There is no allied tanker who even came close to the killrecords of the axis tankers.
Bring on the Tiger's!!!

Tank on!!!

Sigh... I probably will regret even replying to your post pzkfwmk6 or Pzkmfwgn6. Please don't take any of this personally but your post begs some examination.

1) The initial question isn't a very good one. Like I earlier stated, it's really apples and oranges. The vehicles were so completely different that it stretches logic. If I were to post this question: "Panzer II versus JS2: which one is better?" What answers would you get? What would you learn about a Pz II or a JS2? Nothing that you already don't know. Each was designed and utilized for a different purpose. In a face off, which would I rather be in? Unless you were Mr. Incredible or Superman, you'd of course want to be in the JS2.

2) Why do we belittle things? Were there faults in some design aspects of the Sherman? Yep. Their internal ammo stores, when hit, brewed up the tank fast. Why? Because Shermans faced on the whole, many more defensive positions of ambush from PAKs and hand-held AT weapons. When attacking, you optimally want a 3-1 advantage b/c the defender always starts off with a better hand. What were faults with the Tiger I? It was an incredibly complex machine, prone to needing finesse maintenance, extremely wasteful of limited resources, hard to transport and maintain, and ultimately a dead weight in terms of tactical and strategic needs for the Germans.

3) Lauding the records of high scoring German Tiger crews doesn't prove anything other than what we already know. The Tiger was able to protect its crews better, it was a great killing machine and the German soldier didn't have much choice to fight until all was lost (many years of frontline combat in some situations). Yet Lafayette Poole who fought in one of your "Tonka toys", killed 100s of German AFVs (including Tigers) and vehicles, mostly in offensive operations and in a shorter combat career. (The top Tiger aces were Knispel of sPzAbt 503 had 168 kills, Carius +150 , Bolter 139, Wittman 138, BTW)

From this logic you would say that the Bf109F-G series was superior than a P51D because Erich Hartmann, the world's leading ace (352 kills) flew in 109s. I don't know the highest scoring P51 ace but I'd be surprised if it were over 35. Go over to the Aircraft forum and post this question of which was a superior aircraft (Bf109 vs. P51: fairer comparison since both were sgl seat fighter a/c asked to do similar duties). See how many people would want to jump into the 109. Not many. By the way, which ones stayed in use longer? Bf109/P51, Tiger I/Sherman. Hmmmm.... NATO wants to rearm the Western allies. Let's order Tiger Is and Bf109s!! Right. They were being turned into European bridges and tin cans.

4) I agree that if Rod Serling transported me back in time and said: "You're going to crew either a Sherman or a Tiger I. Come back alive" I'd want to be in the Tiger I. But the two-cent comparisons promulgated by lame History Channel shows and threads like this one don't really add anything to the deeper understanding of the weapons or the context in which they were used.

Okay, off my soapbox now.

maybe we arent seeing the big pic. the germans made oversized tanks that there was no engine big enough for at the time. sure the diesel engines did well but the axis tanks broke down and needed more maintenence than the allied tanks because the engine was undersized for the mass. too much strain was placed on the mechanics. this is why the shermans had the upper hand. all 1500 of those tigers were in the shop lol. the king tiger seems close to the size of an abrams. its been a while since i looked but they may be the same size. i held the chassis of my two 1.35 kits next to each other. i think it was close. the panzer 4 was a good tank tho. more dependable. its just that i have never seen a maintenece crew set for a sherman tank, just the tiger crew. just a little speculation. i think i would pick the tiger but the above is something nobody has seemed to consider so far

LOL, it was great response Roy, but you must remember that on internet forums we should use special logic. There are only two main rules:
1) German equipment was best in all aspects
2) If you can find any german tank, gun or plane which is not best on the world see rule 1

It's evident that questions like why nobody produced Tigers after the war and especialy why germans loose war are childish

Piotr

I agree with the gist of this, but a couple minor nits to pick. First, the Germans didn't use many diesel engines. The Maybachs that powered most of their tanks were gasoline-fueled. Secondly, the Tiger had a surprisingly high "in-service" rate. Now, that's not to say that they weren't resource-hogs in terms of keeping operational, but their in-service rate compared favorably with their other vehicles. It was underpowered, no doubt, but the quality of its construction helped in keeping the vehicle operational. Perfect case-in-point is the transmission/final drive unit. This was a VERY complex sub-assembly but was also of extremely high quality. Because of this, it's serviceability was quite a bit higher than the unit used in the Panther (which was quite prone to failure).

'Amateurs speak of tactics, professionals talk of logistics'... Now apply that piece of inescapable logic to the argument and think of the Allied supply train compared to that of the Germans. The hoary old Sherman vs. Tiger debate becomes little more than a sideshow...Jim

[have a 90% chance of surviving. The only thing was...after you survived, you prolly got assigned to a sub par tank]

Or given a rifle and a panzer faust.

particularly late in the war.

Craig

The one on one aspect would give over to the tiger.

but this was a combined arms war.

The tiger was vulerable to artillery and aircraft, which the allies had in numbers and quality.

Plus, the sherman crews learned quickly to not be in the front arc of a tiger if at all possible. Flanking was the prefered method.

I thought I had read some where that the sherman could move faster on it;s treads than the tiger could traverse it's turrret - can anyone back me up?

It comes down to I would want to fight with air cover.
Craig

Definitive answer... :-) :-)

Cheers
Brad

Here is something that I think is being missed about this conversation. Not everything has to do with the tank itself. I am pretty sure if Wittman was in a Sherman he would have had alot of kills as well. A tank is only as good as its crew and leaders. Remember the Germans had been at war since 39, we really didnt join in until early 42. They were seasoned, experienced, however the Americans were young men, some only boys. But as they progressed they learned, and as they learned they got better. Skill is what won the war, not shermans versus tigers. After all we had to learn to do the best with what we have, and we did. Its the same with the 109 vs the 51, what if Hartmann had a P-51? But if it is based on best Weapon 1 on 1 same skill level I would choose Tiger anyday. But you know I have heard from a lot of People through various channels that the Panther was the champ. Anyways I am just stating my 2 cents worth.


Herky

Your right a tank is only good if the right commander is in it. More great tank command come from the tiger side of the issue than the shermans. Don't get me wrong I love Shermans, but Whittman and Pieper(wrong spelling Sorry) had a lot of kills in their tanks before either they broke down, disabled or the wrost killed. I really haven't heard of any allied Tank commanders that had a high kill ratio.

But look at it this way the reason the sherman (beat ) the tigers was and yes it has been said, is numbers. The US was not being constantly bomb night and day either thats way the German could get the numbers needed to win the war.

If i'm wrong then way i'm sorry , but i would be in a tiger in a heart be if i know i would servive in that war.

Mike
Scouts out

Lets take a look at the question again:



See, it originally asked about your choice for your "side" not for you, individually. If I was a commander and had to pick between the two vehicles and their historical level of availability, I'd have the Sherman every time.

If it was my personal a$$ on the line, I'd want it covered in as much steel as possible, but that wasn't the question, was it?

Paul

How about Neither. I would choose the Typhoon.

I hate to ask a question in order to answer a question.

Why is it always the Tiger against the Sherman. Is it because the Tiger was so formidable or because the Sherman had so many flaws? Is it because the Sherman could not take the Tiger, or because the Tiger could easily take the Sherman. Is it because the Tiger was used by the Axis and the Sherman was used by the Allies? Is it because the Tiger was designed as a battle tank and the Sherman an infantry support tank? Or is it because you need something to drive your unrelenting yet unquenchable desire to build that which evil used?

To finish off my question, how about a real equal challenge? How about asking "Tiger vs. Pershing"? Tiger vs. Jackson? Tiger vs. IS-2? Sherman vs. Panther II, III, IV?

Really! What gives? You always get the same run-of-the-mill - cookie-cutter answer to this.

(Disclaimer: please so not take this post to heart, it's just a friendly jab)

Better yet Ken, how 'bout IS-2 vs. a Pershing?

Shaun

I'd take the Sherman to sport around town and use on the twisties playing road tag with my friends, but when I want to go to diner, special occasions with the wife or just a long highway trip I'd want the Tiger. :-) :-)

I'd take the Tiger!!, my grandfather was a gunlayer in a Tiger, he could easily out shoot any Allied tank. Due to the crews experience with the machine. its the men that win the battles not the machines, all the machines do is *help you out* strategically. Yes the Sherman with the 17 pound gun was bacically the only westernized allied tank capable of taking a tiger out, but its still a Sherman, thinnly armoured out gunned still by a 88 . My grandfather alone accounted for many Commonwealth deaths and more Russian because he could outgun them.

I support your statement, constant 24/7 allied heavy bombing on German military strategic targets will demain them on making more weapons, specifically Tigers. Shermans like the t-34 were both highly mass produced. Men like Michael Witmann, Otto Carious, Karl Korner, Willi Fey , Ernst Barkmann all had high kills, but it was their skill in using their command potential to defeat many enemy assaults without heavy loses. Men like those are what commanders require.