What is your favorite WWII tank?

[IronDuke_slith]

Are these stats "claims" by 3rd Army or from some independent source?

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
3rd Army. But I do not agree with your assessment of overclaiming. These figures are based on the number of German wrecks towed from their area of operations and likely also adjusted to account for means of damage.

I disagree. The number they claimed around Lorraine was clearly the victim of the usual causes of overcounting. This is merely part of that 3rd Army stat that gleefully points out how many prisoners they took, without mentioning most of them huddled into seaside towns and waited for the end. There was nothing spectacular about it. The only vehicle counts I know that were this precise were done by research teams after the fact and they never covered an area as large as you are claiming here. I'd need a reference for this one, it isn't something Ive come across before. I also wonder why they would take the trouble to adjust them for anything?

Something obviously taken out by an bomb, rocket, or .50cal run would not likely have been included.

"Likely" means you have no documentary evidence for this assertion, save your own percepotion of what would be common sense, does it not? [;)]

It's quite different from assessing damage in aerial combat, because in air to air much of the time you don't get to count the wrecks. Your difference with 3rd Army's might come down to AFVs vs Tanks... for 3rd Army this would have included any fully tracked AFV probably.

I generally take Air damage reports with less salt, since I understood it usually required other pilots acting as eye witnesses to support claims of shooting downs etc. On the battlefield, there were 101 reasons why overclaiming as the norm, and every study I read that was done on the ground in Normandy (good ones are from Falaise and Mortain) indicate claims were hopeless exegerated both in the number of kills, and the nature of what did the killing on occasion as well.

As for Wittmand and Villiers Bocage, it wasn't exactly defence. He came forward and drove down the side of the lane and into the village destroying vehicle after vehicle as he went. It wouldn't have worked had he been driving an easy 8.

And yes, it would have worked in an Easy 8. I can't imagine why you would think otherwise. All of the UK AFVs would have been killable with a US 76mm gun, and the front armor of a Sherman was effectively the same as a PzVIE. Indeed, it would have been easier in an Easy 8, because the gyrostabilized gun would have been easier to place on target while on the move. In contrast, the Cromwells with their 75mm OPQR (designed to fire the 75mm ammo used in the US M3 75mm shermans) would have had a hard time knocking holes in an M4A3E8.

I disagree. The easy 8 had thinner turret armour than the standard Sherman, and I think you are oversimplifying this Tiger frontal armour the same as the sherman angle. I know of no German reports complaining the Sherman was difficult to kill. The 6 pdrs and 75mms would have had problems taking the Tiger, and required the right circumstances or good (and brave in the circumstances) tactical use. They would have had feer problems taking a Sherman. Use an Easy 8, you are vulnerable to everything.

[mdiehl]

Sure. The point is that against a Cromwell this attack works. Against any 76 armed M4 it fails (IMO). I think Ironduke may be correct in suggesting that Wittman had sufficient knowledge of the immediate circumstances to be comfortable with making the attack, but surely factor was the presence of Cromwells.

[Rune Iversen]

ORIGINAL: IronDuke


But industrially cheaper units of manoeuver were pointless because without fuel and battling enemy air supremacy, operational manoeuver was something of a game of Russian roulette.

Yes and no. The Wehrmacht could generally still make operationally offensive moves when it had to (lord knows they tried in the last few years, mostly to no avail). Fuel as a limiter to operational manuever didn´t really start in earnest before early 1945, when the loss of Romania and most of the Synth oil industry the previous year really began to bite. That being said, fuel was of course a consideration to any german commander, and most likely a more serious one than it was for his allied counterpart. But it still remains a fact that the germans were genrally able to move when they wanted or needed to, even in the last war years (barring tactical disasters like 2nd Panzer at Dinant in the Bulge or the last few months where everything was bedlam anyway). If they could have done this with a bigger fleet of tanks is a good question though. Airpower didn´t really prove any restraint to the launching of these operations either, though it certainly served to blunt and alleviate it´s effects.

The Tiger wasn't worth the effort, although one might argue the mythos she attracted did result in a lot of hesitation and loss of morale amongst Allied units. The Panther was a good bet and could they have mass produced them, a real headache. It outperformed the Sherman in Armament, manoeuvrability, speed and Armour. Even the 76mm Sherman was not nearly in the Panther class.

TDs were nice but as the Americans found out, the best hunter of Tanks is another Tank...[;)]

I concur [8D]

[mdiehl]

"Likely" means you have no documentary evidence for this assertion, save your own percepotion of what would be common sense, does it not?

To believe otherwise is to engage in a paranoid conspiracy theory of the form of "wreck recovery vehicle operators and battle damage assessment experts (who were in the US forces) were unable to figure out what killed a tank based on the type of damage evident."

I see no reason to think that the US couldn't make that sort of analysis. Show me compelling evidence to the contrary and I'll change my mind.

I generally take Air damage reports with less salt, since I understood it usually required other pilots acting as eye witnesses to support claims of shooting downs etc.

Odd. I take pilots claims with a double mouthful of salt because it is a documented fact that their error rates even under very good circumstances meant that post combat assessments could be routinely expected to be "off" by a factor of 2. Worse still if the people making the assessments were Japanese. It is a plain fact that among pilots of all nations, pilots swore they blew the wing off an enemy plane or that it exploded in midair, and yet in many cases nothing at all like that happened.

you are oversimplifying this Tiger frontal armour the same as the sherman angle.

That is not correct IIRC. Tiger's front armor was vertical along most of the turret and upper glacis. Any Sherman shot to hit frontally and low would be deflected into the ground or into a tread if from a horizontally oblique angle (which means a detracked cat). Shermans glacis was sloped to a greater degree and along its entirety.

I know of no German reports complaining the Sherman was difficult to kill.

I know of no American 76 armed drivers reporting that PzVIs were difficult to kill. Again, you have to ask which Sherman you are discussing. And of course the Germans did not complaing. A Tiger's 88 could hole anything, including another Tiger. Yet the US 76mm was adequate to hole a Tiger. Was you fighting a Koenigstiger or a jagdtiger, you'd want that German 88 rather than a US 76. But for a garden variety PzVIE vs any 76 armed sherman what you'd want MOST of all is to be the guy who shoots first.

The 6 pdrs and 75mms would have had problems taking the Tiger, and required the right circumstances or good (and brave in the circumstances) tactical use.

Yes.

They would have had feer problems taking a Sherman. Use an Easy 8, you are vulnerable to everything.

No.

[Rune Iversen]

ORIGINAL: IronDuke




Not relevant. We were discussing standardisation. By the Ardennes, the Germans couldn't achieve the above make up because they didn't have enough weapons, not because they were producing 120 different models.

Heh. Which was part of the problem to begin with. [;)]

They did start adding TDs into the armoured units to make up the gap (didn't Peiper take some?)

Nope, but 12th SS and 2nd Panzer (OTOH) had to make up their numbers by including StuGs (2nd Panzer) or Jagdpanthers (12th SS. This might actually have looked good on paper, but the abteilung attached was recently formed (the 12th SS div. history afaiklaments that the unit was unable to complete a simple roadmarch), and subsequently got mauled by US TD´s and artillery).

but in normandy, aside from the 21st Panzer and either the 9th or 10th SS (can't remember which of the top of my head, quite possibly both) the others had this sort of make up if memory serves. Liebstandarte, Das Reich, 2nd Panzer, 9th Panzer (although its Panther unit was still forming and training), HitlerJugend snd 116th Panzer all had a MKIV and a Panther Battalion.

True. And they lost almost all. Besides, Mister Picky would like to point out that very few of the above units had their Panther battalion at TO&E strenght (varying between 75-50%) [;)]

I class these as TDs, mentioned in the next section.

The germans didn´t [:'(]

Every nation had boondoggles. If memory serves, they produced two prototype Maus as well.

Well, only the germans made a virtue out of producing them in any amount of meaningful numbers [;)]

I thought the Jagdpanther a good weapon. How many of the others did they actually produce combined?

Depends on how you define "boondoggle". Jagdtiger, Ferdinand and Sturmtiger production combined was around 175 or so. If we add in the Königstiger as well, you approach 500 or so. Still quite a lot of resources to spend on such poversized and overmatched weapons systems.

[IronDuke_slith]

ORIGINAL: IronDuke
AGF suffered and stuck with the attritional approach, not because they enjoyed losing more Tanks or having to sneak around looking for flank shots but because they possessed average equipment which did not match the best of German equipment, either Tanks or AT guns. To turn it into a virtue here in this thread is to hide the real failures that contributed to this situation.

ORIGINAL: Rune IversenAnd just whose fault was that again ID?

But to move on to the question: whose fault was it? you have surely had to concede I am right there was an issue? Do you? Can we clear that one up before moving onto the next question?

Not everything was because of failure, I contend that greater german combat experience in the east worked against the western Allies in one way, because the Germans went through the action/reaction phases of Tank design more quickly than the Allies did with their more limited campaigning. The russians front meant we had far fewer Germans to contend with, but better armed ones.

How come that the soviet "answers" looked remarkably similar to the allied ones then?

Why do they? The Soviets produced designs that suited the deep manoeuver they wanted to pursue. They added bigger Tank guns than even the Germans managed, far bigger than the British and Americans managed and created some real monstrosities. What was the Allied equivalent of the JSIII? The M26 was slower and less well armed. It also didn't have the influence the JSIII did, I'd suggest.

This whole "Sherman was fine" thing baffles me because it flies in the face of everything you read from those that were there. From Belton Cooper

Maintanence sergent with a bug up his backside. Limited perspective. get´s plenty of things outright wrong.

But unlesss he gets all wrong...His limited perspective was very close to the events he describes. He retrieved plenty of Shermans one presumes and therefore heard what had happened to them.

to Omar Bradley, they univerally condemn the situation they were in.

Heh, well given the press "scandal" at home, he pretty much had to, didn´t he.

No, he didn't. Or asking the next question, why was there a scandal back home?

Now, I don't accept uncritically the words of vets, the wider picure isn't easy to see in the confusion of combat, but its such a widely held perception that there must be something in it. The British were no better but did come up with the better stopgap in the Firefly.

Yet the solutions worked so remarkably well that all of the supposedly "war winning" operational armoured counterattacks the germans managed got beaten. The allies traded off though, but only the germans in Russia anno 1941 really managed not to.

I disagree. Operational warfare stagnated as the war progressed, except in the east. Patton got through because the only thing stopping him was lack of MPs to direct traffic. Whereever armoured forces attacked reasonably sufficient defenders, they had problems. The Germans had some horrendous experiences on the attack, but then the bocage and Goodwood showed all the Allies were having the same problems. To be fair to the Germans, no Allied attack from 1943/44 onwards ever hard to manoeuver in the face of enemy air superiority or supremacy. Operational counterattacks require air parity. I don't blame the Germans for failing after 5 years of casualties against lavishly supported allied troops.

Their advantages also disappeared on the attack because defenders could wait to engage, and the Allies could field very useful AT assets where they chose, most particularly on the defence.

I have one word for you ID: Scoreboard. Just what is the ratio of tanks lost for each side in those operations where german armour was present in strenght (Goodwood excepted,).

Why are we excepting Goodwood again? There were a lot of Shermans deployed there...

[Rune Iversen]

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

But to move on to the question: whose fault was it? you have surely had to concede I am right there was an issue? Do you? Can we clear that one up before moving onto the next question?

Yes of course there was an issue. everything was not peachy. Like I think I stated above, the allied (and in particular american) solution was "adequate". Not "perfect". Besides, you know my views on US orduction and upgrade history and why it developed as it did.

Why do they? The Soviets produced designs that suited the deep manoeuver they wanted to pursue. They added bigger Tank guns than even the Germans managed, far bigger than the British and Americans managed and created some real monstrosities

But the monstrosities were designed to gfight the "breakthrough" battle. Not the "Deep" battle [;)]

What was the Allied equivalent of the JSIII? The M26 was slower and less well armed. It also didn't have the influence the JSIII did, I'd suggest.

The T95. Later the M103 and Conqueror [;)]

But unlesss he gets all wrong...His limited perspective was very close to the events he describes. He retrieved plenty of Shermans one presumes and therefore heard what had happened to them.

Which is exactly the problem. Cooper sees only what the germans does to the sherman. Not what the Sherman does to the germans.

No, he didn't. Or asking the next question, why was there a scandal back home?

Because the Sherman proved penetrable to each major german AT weapon, which likely came as a shock to the reading allied civil public. The modern equivalent would have been if you had a story breaking from Iraq showing that the M1s was vulnerable to most iraqi AT weapons and was knocked out in significant numbers because of it (you have seen tendencies towrds this following M1 loss to IEDs for instance. The so far small TWO loss numbers have made any comparison patently silly as of yet). Again, it is a question of perspective.

*EDIT* A direct analogue can be found in the debate over the perceived lack of an HMMWV armour package.

I disagree. Operational warfare stagnated as the war progressed, except in the east.

You don´t really have many opportunities for operational maneuver in a campaign spanning less than a year and with the germans setting the tempo for roughly 1/6 of the time (The Bulge) and Log problems putting a spanner in the works for another 1/6th of the time at the very least.

Patton got through because the only thing stopping him was lack of MPs to direct traffic. Whereever armoured forces attacked reasonably sufficient defenders, they had problems. The Germans had some horrendous experiences on the attack, but then the bocage and Goodwood showed all the Allies were having the same problems.

Yes.

To be fair to the Germans, no Allied attack from 1943/44 onwards ever hard to manoeuver in the face of enemy air superiority or supremacy. Operational counterattacks require air parity. I don't blame the Germans for failing after 5 years of casualties against lavishly supported allied troops.

I do. Unless the gain to be won can actually be offset by the forces at risk, DON`T ATTACK. yet they did so anyway and frittered away mych of their (partially superior) armour as a result.

Their advantages also disappeared on the attack because defenders could wait to engage, and the Allies could field very useful AT assets where they chose, most particularly on the defence.

I concur wholeheartedly.

Why are we excepting Goodwood again? There were a lot of Shermans deployed there...

Because Goodwood is THE (single large-scale) template for a succesful use of german armour in the defence. I am already willing to admit as much. If the germans had only used their armour for more defensive "linebacking" like Goodwood, instead of launching it on "warwinning" gloryrides whenever they saw the chance, the cost the western allies would have had to pay would have been quite a bit higher than it actucally was. Tactically and operationally it was the sound move. yet they chose not to (partially because of Hitlers wishes. partially because german armoured doctrine, like anybody elses, had the tank marked down as an "offensive" weapon.

[IronDuke_slith]

double post

[IronDuke_slith]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

"Likely" means you have no documentary evidence for this assertion, save your own percepotion of what would be common sense, does it not?

To believe otherwise is to engage in a paranoid conspiracy theory of the form of "wreck recovery vehicle operators and battle damage assessment experts (who were in the US forces) were unable to figure out what killed a tank based on the type of damage evident."

I see no reason to think that the US couldn't make that sort of analysis. Show me compelling evidence to the contrary and I'll change my mind.

But your first "likely" was that they were battle damaged assessed in the first place after being towed away, your second "likely" is that the Americans could tell the difference between vehicles hit by various things. Surely, it is for you to illustrate these claims are more than just the normal "okay Guys, who hit what?" sort of claims? You're asking me to disprove something you haven't actually proved becuse "likely" isn't proof.

I generally take Air damage reports with less salt, since I understood it usually required other pilots acting as eye witnesses to support claims of shooting downs etc.

Odd. I take pilots claims with a double mouthful of salt because it is a documented fact that their error rates even under very good circumstances meant that post combat assessments could be routinely expected to be "off" by a factor of 2. Worse still if the people making the assessments were Japanese. It is a plain fact that among pilots of all nations, pilots swore they blew the wing off an enemy plane or that it exploded in midair, and yet in many cases nothing at all like that happened.

And you don't with Tanks claims? One of the Operational Research groups (actual as opposed to "likely") recounts an interview with a Farmer unlucky enough to live in the Falaise area in mid 44. there was a burnt out German halftrack in his yard. He claimed the Germans had abandoned it at the start of the battle, but that it had been strafed four times over the coming days. Each aircraft hit it, and you can be sure each aircraft chalked it up as a kill.

you are oversimplifying this Tiger frontal armour the same as the sherman angle.

That is not correct IIRC. Tiger's front armor was vertical along most of the turret and upper glacis. Any Sherman shot to hit frontally and low would be deflected into the ground or into a tread if from a horizontally oblique angle (which means a detracked cat). Shermans glacis was sloped to a greater degree and along its entirety.

So in the right circumstances, Sherman shot could hit tiger tank tracks? I suspect you could untrack a Tiger with a .50 cal if you shot long and accurately enough. How strong are tracks? Of course, this exercise hits issues if the Tigers are hull down.

I know of no German reports complaining the Sherman was difficult to kill.

I know of no American 76 armed drivers reporting that PzVIs were difficult to kill. Again, you have to ask which Sherman you are discussing. And of course the Germans did not complaing. A Tiger's 88 could hole anything, including another Tiger. Yet the US 76mm was adequate to hole a Tiger. Was you fighting a Koenigstiger or a jagdtiger, you'd want that German 88 rather than a US 76. But for a garden variety PzVIE vs any 76 armed sherman what you'd want MOST of all is to be the guy who shoots first.

But why did Ike bitterly complain 76s couldn't take anything (in July 44), why did Bradley request 17pdrs? Why were the facts lying to them but not to you? Rune has already alluded to the shatter issue. The tests done at Aberdeen proving grounds (although too late to change anything) vclearly showed the 76 was not the answer. It did better than the 75 and the 6 pdr but not by enough. The best source I have describes its chances as "slightly better".

The only weapon that could take them on was the 17 pdr. There was one guy from the 2nd Armoured (if you don't like mechanics or Army Group Commanders) a Platoon Commander, he wronte in late 1944.

Many times I have seen our tanks engage German tanks in tank duels. Their tanks have the ups on us...

If you don;t like Platoon Leaders, lets have a colone. Hinds this time, S R Hinds, Commander CCB of 2nd Armoured.

In my opinion the reason our armour has engaged the Germans Tanks as successfully as it has is not due to any means to a superior Tank but to our superior numbers of Tanks on the battlefield and the willingness of our Tankers to take their losses whilst manoeuvring into a position from whcih a penetrating shot can be pout through a weak spot of the enemy tank

Now, I've given you a Tank veteran, a middle ranking combat officer, Commander 12th Army Group and a European Supreme Commander. At all levels they are saying much the same thing. Crap equipment, ballsy Tankers doing the business anyhow, but doing it by trading and attrition.

The Panther was quicker than the Sherman, outmanoevred it, had better armour, better sights and a far better gun (whatever Sherman model you want, you can have it).

Although I haven't read the book, I understand Hunnicut on pg 562 quotes an AORG memo on the performance of 75mm and 76mm ammo, and it was sobering. The Americans weren't that happy at having to accept the 76 once they realised this and the clincher is surely US forces lobbying for the introduction of the 17pdr into their TOE. How good are you own weapons when you'd rather fight with British ones...[:(] Yes, they were that bad...

They would have had feer problems taking a Sherman. Use an Easy 8, you are vulnerable to everything.

No.

I disagree, you are overplaying this armour thing. what references would you cite to suggest the easy 8 could stop shot like a Tiger?

[Paul Vebber]

Although I haven't read the book, I understand Hunnicut on pg 562 quotes an AORG memo on the performance of 75mm and 76mm ammo, and it was sobering.

My copy of 'Sherman' has a data sheet for 75mm guns M2, M3, M4 on that page. You should read the whole book. It points out the complexity of the situation. Not to mention the danger of aking critical commoents and extrapolating them to mean "piece of crap"...

THe 76mm data shet is on page564 and gives APC pen of 3.5 in at 1000 yards and HVAP of 5.3in at 1000 yards. hardly "crap".

[Big B]

Hi guys, I see we are in the old Sherman vs Tiger debate.
I read the last few pages, and I'm getting a sense of everyones' positions - but please allow me to be a little lazy and ask - What is the point of contention?
I did do exhaustive research on the Sherman years ago, I wrote my Congressman to get information from The US Army Historical Division (they do things for Congressmen), got hard to find government ballistics tests, yadda yadda yadda, Contacted the Imperial War Museum WWII history section, etc. Went to Cal State Fullerton Library to look up physics of armor penetration (how it actually works).

I may have something informative to add to this discussion... if I knew what the key issue is?

Hey Mdiehl, haven't seen you post for a long time - good to hear from you again....

B

[Paul Vebber]

if I knew what the key issue is?

That is the problem in these things. The "sherman is crap" - compared to what? And what did the decision makers at the time know and what drove the compromises they made. The Panther was "a piece of crap" when it was introduced mechanically, and suffered extensive armor problem as german heavy armor qality waned (and 122mm HE were known to shatter their glacis plates). Even the vaunted Tiger was considered too slow and over weight by some.

The reality is all tanks are compromises, ad when push came to shove, the Sherman was the most flexible design of the war, with more modifications and variations than any other tank of the war - some good, some not so good, but in reality a "family of vehicles" that defies simple characterization as "good" or "crap" in general - you have to examine each of its sub-species, and look at how they performed in their designed role.

Panthers and Tigers were "better" individually - that is like saying a heavy cuiser is "better" than a light cruiser. Head to Head yes, but they have different roles and are the resut of different design compromises.

[jwilkerson]

... that is like saying a heavy cuiser is "better" than a light cruiser ...

I think the above exemplifies the "disconnects" in this tread. The tread started off being about "what is your favorite" ... and then turned into "which is better" without a clear definition of "better" ... for instance in terms of "manufacturability" the Sherman was pretty good ... but in general I think you would need to define some common criteria, some "components" of "better-ness" before this debate will become meaningful.

[Big B]

Oh my, yes I see.

Well, number one - Paul I can see you're pretty well read, and you are correct. jwilkerson, point well taken.

It's easy to get caught up in the "specs" game ...as I well found out, but what really happened on the battlefield in WWII is not easy to square with strict statistical numbers.

A quick word about where I am comming from. Years ago as a fanatical wargammer with Squad Leader and ASL, among other games and Miltary History in general, I was driven to research just "what in the He11" they base these things on!!?? So it drove me to do original source research, as I mentioned above.

Anyway guys, shesh.. so much misconception.

Yep, one on one a PZKW Mk ViE should take a "run of the mill" M4 Medium on any given Sunday. But it was never that simple, and 76' armed Shermans did indeed kill Tigers and Panthers, and Shermans were more mechanically sound which ment more of them should show up to the party, and by Jan 1945 most Shermans were 76 armed varients, and yes in Korea the M4A3(76)HVSS did not have any problems killing numerous T-34 85 varients.

But guys, I don't think you don't even understand what "armor penetration" means - it has different standards to different nations .. all of which concede that the projectile in question at least partially defeated and passed through the armor plate that supposedly stopped it.

Also you should all note that penetration values are quoted at 30 degrees oblique - but at 30 degrees - over half of the target has it's vulnerable sides exposed (by 50% or more) - and is more likely to be the point of impact. At less than 30 degrees the penetration potential goes up quite a bit...and on and on and on.


BEST TANK OF WWII? The M-26 Pershing family, it was the only one to stay in production through the post war years as a world class MBT (M-60 series)

B

[Big B]

double post

[Paul Vebber]

But guys, I don't think you don't even understand what "armor penetration" means

HEHE one too may don'ts in their

Oh gees you are going to get me going on armor pen mechanics...'ll have to get out the spreadsheet from Hell

"Slowly I turn, step by step, inch by inch" ...

What formula do you think best normalizes "penetration effect" across the various test conditions? What is your take on the roll of L/d ratio for WWII era rounds? and how do you think plate imperfections relate to T/d ratio? Ricochet ratio on superhardened plates higher or lower? for what ranges of T/d ratio? And is there such a thing as "HE penetration"?

But debate of penetration lends little to the argment about "what makes a good tank" which requires considertion of mobility, protection, doctrine, supporting arms, logistics, and servicability - meaning a "best tank" in one army may not have faired well in another...

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: Paul Vebber

But guys, I don't think you don't even understand what "armor penetration" means

HEHE one too may don'ts in their

Hehehe - That's what comes from editing your posts too much LOL![:D]

But yes, the mechanics of armor penetration has to take into account the gross vehicle weight, the jointing method, caliber vs Face Hardened vs Rolled Steel Homgenuos, Brinnell(?) Hardness ratings...not to mention angle of attack with different projectile types....etc, it gets ugly.

Suffice to say that for the Allies the Shermen M4 Medium was a decent choice (with far sight it could have been better from the get-go) and the PZKW VIE Tiger was not the tank to pin your hopes on for ultimate victory.

[Big B]

What I meant to say..

ORIGINAL: Big B

Oh my, yes I see.

Well, number one - Paul I can see you're pretty well read, and you are correct. jwilkerson, point well taken.

It's easy to get caught up in the "specs" game ...as I well found out, but what really happened on the battlefield in WWII is not easy to square with strict statistical numbers.

A quick word about where I am comming from. Years ago as a fanatical wargammer with Squad Leader and ASL, among other games and Miltary History in general, I was driven to research just "what in the He11" they base these things on!!?? So it drove me to do original source research, as I mentioned above.

Anyway guys, shesh.. so much misconception.

Yep, one on one a PZKW Mk VIE should take a "run of the mill" M4 Medium on any given Sunday. But it was never that simple, and 76' armed Shermans did indeed kill Tigers and Panthers, and Shermans were more mechanically sound which ment more of them should show up to the party, and by Jan 1945 most Shermans were 76 armed varients, and yes in Korea the M4A3(76)HVSS did not have any problems killing numerous T-34 85 varients.

But guys, I don't think you even understand what "armor penetration" means - it has different standards to different nations .. all of which concede that the projectile in question at least partially defeated and passed through the armor plate that supposedly stopped it.

Also you should all note that penetration values are quoted at 30 degrees oblique - but at 30 degrees - over half of the target has it's vulnerable sides exposed (by 50% or more) - and is more likely to be the point of impact. At less than 30 degrees the penetration potential goes up quite a bit...and on and on and on.


BEST TANK OF WWII? The M-26 Pershing family, it was the only one to stay in production through the post war years as a world class MBT (M-60 series)

B

[BailChannis]

I always liked the T-34. The sloping glacis - it's just surprising no one applied it earlier. Also like the Sherman. Though I believe neither of these tanks had the performance of things like the Tiger or Panther, I think there's more to a design than simple performance - maintenance, cost, ease of production, logistic requirements, etc, all have to be factored in too and I think the late war German models were very poor at striking a good compromise in these areas.

[hawker]

Best tank,