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.
These things are a given, not a "likely." IIRC the data were compiled in a 1946 study that also revealed that most Sherman tank drivers (they standardized on the driver) were killed in their first 16 days of combat, and that drivers who survived that critical 2 week period had much lower mortality rates. Suggests to me that the real advantage among Wehrmacht tankers was not in their machines (qua the Sherman) but rather in the experience of their crews. As US crews got better at handling their machines, they became more lethal than their German counterparts. (Not being a vet I'd guess but not prove that tank crews started out thinking of themselves as sluggers and quickly changed to fire & maneuver experts, and that in such context the Shermans being more mobile and having partial gyrostabilization had a distinct advantage over Axis AFVs -- except the Koenigst and Jagt which were impenetrable to the 76mm gun).
And you don't with Tanks claims?
No. The tank tallies aren't based on tankers' AARs a la "I saw a Tiger at 800 yard, shot, saw it stop and smoke come out." IIRC these were based on battle damage assessments from bda guys. I'll try to dig up a reference for you but I am working from a memory of something I read 24 years ago, so it may take a long time. In contrast, there are very, very, very few circumstances where aircraft wrecks could be recovered (as many fell over unpopulated areas or in water) so one had to base a.c. claims on pilots' accounts, gun camera footage and so forth. But even with "eyewitness" verification it is an irrefutable fact that "confirmed kills" accorded to pilots by their own battle assessment guys typically are way off unless the plane is seen destroyed on gun camera film -- and then you have to watch a lot of films to make sure that two guys shooting at the same plane aren't both awarded a kill (why the US awarded pilots fractional victories).
Each aircraft hit it, and you can be sure each aircraft chalked it up as a kill.
Nope. In 1944-45 each plane would have had a gun camera. More to the point, a 76mm hole looks quite different from a rocket hole in terms of where it hits and what the damage looks like, and these too are different from the (crater surrounded by bits of junk) that often results from an aerial bomb hit.
you are oversimplifying this Tiger frontal armour the same as the sherman angle.
A little but not very much. I haven't oversimplified the Sherman angle. The Tiger's upper front glacis was flat, and its lower front glacis was a shot trap leading to the flat upper front glacis. It was a crummy design for armor. The ONLY thing the PzVIE had going for it was thickness. That's worth alot, but it was not close to proof against a 76 round, nor was it particularly economical.
More's the point, the whole "Tiger was best Sherman was crap" argument is, as I have argued many times, at best a very crude, ill informed, oversimplification, and rests (as far as I can tell) on the incorrect claim that no Sherman could handily hole a Tiger. In fact, where the 75 armed ones had a hard time with Tigers, the 76 armed ones could, and did, regularly, repeatedly, and confidently kill Tigers and PzVs. M10 drivers had no qualms about taking on Tigers because they knew they could win. Much less M36 drivers, (who could hole anything the Germans could put on the battlefield).
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.
A 76 armed Sherman could hole any part of a Tiger. A 75 armed Sherman had a problem that is without a doubt one of the principal reasons for the whole "Sherman is crap Tiger is king" mythos. But even a 75 armed Sherman could detrack or otherwise hole a tiger from an oblique shot at the side.
And yes, this is moot if the Tiger is hull down. That's an advantage that a defender gets. One would expect a hull down tiger with a clear field of fire to be a problem for any tank in any WW2 combatant's arsenal. One would be rather foolish to frontally assault a Tiger in that position, even if one was driving another Tiger.
Turn the situation around. A Sherman 76 hull down to a Tiger offered the Tiger the exact same problem. Indeed, a worse problem as the Tiger was marginally taller than the Sherman.
But why did Ike bitterly complain 76s couldn't take anything (in July 44), why did Bradley request 17pdrs?
Expectations and the dramatic effects of battlefield results to the morale of troops. When a Tiger killed a Sherman the round often detonated the gas tank or ammo box. Pretty spectacular. Very demoralizing. When a Sherman killed a Tiger, the apparent effect was a Tiger that stopped moving. The fact that the 76mm shell rattled around inside killing most of the crew was not obvious to the American tank driver who merely saw an immobilized, nonfunctional, nonburning Tiger.
If you'd put a 17pdr or 90mm on every Sherm, most Tigers would become nice pyrotechnic pyres. Very nice battlefield display. Probably quite good for morale. Certainly M36 drivers did not complain about their work. But, and here's the key, M10 drivers also had no substantial complaints, and all they got was that 76.
The only weapon that could take them on was the 17 pdr.
That's not correct.
Many times I have seen our tanks engage German tanks in tank duels. Their tanks have the ups on us...
See "pyrotechnics" and "crew experience" above.
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
What tank driver is going to say "no, I'd rather not have a bigger gun, thanks!"
The Panther was quicker than the Sherman,
Except when its engine or transmission failed, a problem that the Panther had and that the Sherman did not have.
outmanoevred it
?? Obviously because of the air dam and cool looking spoiler. No wait, you were thinking about the Ki-43. Wtf? No, actually, maneuver was how you used the tank and how well it could shoot on the move. The former is training and experience, the latter has to do with turret traverse and gunlaying. The Sherman had superior turret traverse (and most of the 76 armed ones were gyrostabilized), and was better at gunlaying in a maneuver battle. That is why when German armor tried to use heavy fog to counterattack US armor (which entailed close ranges and lots of maneuver), the German armor had its lunch eaten by the US armor.
had better armour
Yes. But not enough to stop a 76.
better sights
Yes, but a markedly inferior turret traverse and no gyrostabilizer.
and a far better gun
Yes.
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.
Again, what tanker wouldn't want a bigger gun?
I disagree, you are overplaying this armour thing. what references would you cite to suggest the easy 8 could stop shot like a Tiger?
That is a straw man argument. The discussion isn't about whether a Tiger could hole a Sherman. It's about which of the various models of Shermans could hole Tigers. The 75mm ones couldn't unless they got real tight with the Tiger. The 76 ones could and did regularly.
Show me a German tank shooting American 75mm or the Cromwell's OPQR75mm gun at a Sherman and I will show you a German tank that can't easily hole the front glacis of an M4A3E8 at ranges beyond 500m.
I don't see why this is so controversial. Rune and others have cited the ballistics tests. The battlefield recover reports clearly show that the Tigers were holed. Was I to believe all of the "Tiger was impenetrable to every Sherman" claims made here then I'd have to believe that no Tigers were lost to 76-armed Shermans or M10s, and that claim is manifestly false. It's not even true at ranges out to 1000m. There are plenty of battlefield accounts of M10s and M476 types holing Tigers at range. But anyone would be a fool to just stand in the open and trade shots with an 88, regardless of the kind of tank one were driving.
Standing and Slugging with an 88 gun isn't something you would do if you were driving a Tiger. If you were driving a Tiger you wouldn't stand and slug it out with a 76 armed tank either. If you saw the distinctive silhouette of a Cromwell, you'd do it though.
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.
Didn't we have this conversation already?
