What is your favorite WWII tank?

[Big B]

For my part I think what is getting lost in the shuffle of definitions of tank classes is that with the Panther - the Germans created a new class of tank - the MBT. That is where it gets dificult to judge tanks by class. The Soviets, Americans and British did the same thing in creating the T-44, M-26, and Centurion (respectively) - all of which came a year later than Panther, and all of which excelled Panther IMHO.

None of the powers consciously tried for a new class of tank per say - but in affect that is what they created.

None of this IMO reflects poorly on the Sherman. Surely what we see is the pressure of development under the impetus of war.

If there was a signal failing in the Sherman story it was only the failure to provide a lot of HVAP T45 shot for the 75mm M3 gun.
This round penetrated 117mm of Face Hardened plate at 500 yards (30 degrees olique) and would have been a God Send to the common Sherman.
source Hunnicutt History of the American Medium Tank

EDIT: One last thing:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke
In Korea, I expect it was T34/85s. In other words, it's survival after the war was in theatres where it faced other Tanks of mid WWII vintage....

Not exactly, the T-34/85 that the M4A3E8 Sherman faced in Korea was the T-34/85 II which had improved drivetrain, optics, and heavier armor than the WWII varient.

[Big B]

Oh, and my favorite tank is still the funky looking M-3 Lee, Terror of the PzKw III J [;)]

[Procrustes]

I like all those tanks with the second gun - here's the French Char B -

[Paul Vebber]

Goll Dern it - the damn board ate my response...I had a much better version but this hits the high points...

I'm saying the Sherman was out of its depth, not criticising those Americans responsible.

Your line of argument earlier appeared to be "those Americans responsible" were not listening to the complaints of the troops that the Sherman was deficient. THe purpose of teh whole Hunnicutt story was that the reason the Sherman had a poor gun (and other deficiencies) was BECAUSE the armor board was giving so much consideration to "grunt level" issues like, room in the turret to operate efficiently, ability to observe the enemy after shooting, being able to use the radio and shoot at the same time, safely move ammo, etc, etc.

Now it seems that line of argument has played out and now it was simply "outclassed" by tanks weighing 50% and nearly 100% more, yet must be considered comparable. Well, what does "outclassed" mean. Based on your previous line of argument and what facts are available, it is not based on mission success. According to WO 291/1218, the ratio of Allied tanks to german tanks required for Allied succes was 2.2 in NW Europe, 1.6 overall. the average Allied ration in battle was 4, which should not be surprising, since we won the war. So overall mission accomplishment can't be the reason the Sherman was "outclassed". It would seem it is the casualty rate incurred while winning.

T-34 casualty rates were much higher, so by that argument the T-34 must have been even more "out-classed".

According to WO 291/1186 only 14.5% of Allied tanks were damaged or destroyed by german tanks. (22.1% to mines, 22.7% to AT Guns, 24.4% to SP guns and 14.2% to "Bazooka" (ie PFs/PSs)) Casualty rates are a function of exchange ratio per engagement, and number of engagements. Your apparent preffered solution is to increase Sherman lethality to shift the exchange ratio in tank combat, only addresses part of the problem as who has "tactical control" of the engagement and gets the first fire drives the casualty rate more than relative lethality (this was the secreat of how the germans won with equipment "out of its depth" earlier in the war...

Adding the 17lber to the Sherman may have made matters worse since, while it increased lethality, its size reduced efficiency and rate of fire. It is unclear if the increase in lethality would ahve made up for the decrease in engagability.

There is also no evidence that had a "super Sherman" been fielded in large numbers that the germans would have continued to use heavy tank tactical counterattacks nearly as often to counter Allied tank thrusts. Given teir adapability it is likely they would have relied more on mines and AT guns, and use heavy tanks more like SP gunsin mobile defense rather than tactically offensive flanking and turning maneuvers. Given the greate proportions of tank casualties to those weapons, reducing casualties to tanks may have resultdin GREATER over all casualies to the other weapons.

So the issue driving the Sherman being "out of its depth" relates to casualty rates. So the question is, sure you would like to see victory with as few casualties as possible, but what is the "threshold" for casualties that sees an "acceptable tank" becom "out of its class". And by this metic is teh T-34 similarly "out of is depth"?

Is the fact german heavy tanks apparently had an "acceptable" casualty rate, thus being "within their depth" - yet they still lost render the distinction moot?

[Kevin E. Duguay]

You guys are all talking about armored doctrin of different nations now.

The Russians while they stayed with the T-34 design also built the JS series. But they always had excuses when tigers were in theater. Statements like "We do not have to engage these tanks as they are few in number." This was true. Many times the Russians backed away from Tiger equiped units just to make them burn up gas and automotive components. In some cases this was more effective that engaging them in combat. The Russians also stated more than once that if thay could take on the PZIV and V on spme sort of an even setting thet could win the armored war. This is not to say that the Tiger was junk, it just means that they needed lots of maintanance and careful handling by their crews.

The USA had a different idea about tank warfare. The tank battalions were to support the infantry and exploit holes in the enemy line to destroy the enemys rear areas. This sounds like everyone elses ideas at the time. The difference is that our tanks were not to engage enemy tanks if they did not have to. That was the job of the tank destroyer arm. They were supposed to destroy enemy armor. Even when the call went out for the 76mm gun to be mounted on the Sherman. Statements like "With that gun they'll be going out to hunt enemy tanks.". This BTW was also the reason why the T45 HVAP round was not approved for service. The tank board did not want "infantry support tanks" taking on the panzers.

With all this said, the reason I chose the Tiger I was because everything on this vehicle was total quality. Even the armor was special and just used on this vehicle. When hit by Russian 76mm AT rounds on the side a red hot mark would appear and the interior paint would smoke off. No spalling. This on the other hand was not true of the Tiger II (vs larger cal weapons) where spalling was a problem. Everything on this vehicle worked fine as long as it was maintained propperly. If not bad things happend. In one report that I read about a company of Tiger I's went out on some kind of recon in force. They only engaged a few enemy vehicles (Shermans) and handily destroyed them with no loss to themselves. But on the way back they lost well over half their strength due to break downs. They even lost one Tiger that was trying to recover another. They blew up the bogged and disabled vehicles and the crews rode home on what was left of their company's Tiger I's. This action happened in Italy.

So while the Tiger I had it's problems it was still the best made tank of it's time.

On a side note, take a look at the Abrams. Without heavy and constant mantenance this supurbe tank also would not last long on the battlefield.[;)]

[Ursa MAior]

ORIGINAL: Demosthenes

Pretty much, the German heavies couldn't knock out allied medium tanks in any meaningful numbers before those same allied mediums killed off the German heavies they were facing.

Well the airforce played no role then ha?

Can an AFB sum it up for me why it took so long to get to the Elbe?

[Ursa MAior]

ORIGINAL: Big B

Oh, and my favorite tank is still the funky looking M-3 Lee, Terror of the PzKw III J [;)]

If it is for me than I'd glady bring my Pzgr 40 armed agile III mark special against that lumbering giant of yours. [:P]

BTW which weapon was used in AT role? The 37mm or the 75?

[Twotribes]

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

ORIGINAL: mdiehl


And regularly did same.

Well, as "regularly" as Tigers showed up anyway. There weren´t really that many of them in the West between 1943 and 1945. High point is probably Normandy (around a 100 all told over the entire fight).

Indeed, and many of those would have faced the Commonwealth forces where they would have been bested by the 17 pdr.

If memory serves, Kelly's battlegroup did meet one outside the bank and Oddball's Sherman had a few issues if memory serves, but don't quote me since it was 20 years ago when I read the AAR and he may have been using a 75 and/or had none of the gold dust HVAP available. [;)]

In the movie the lone american tank to make it the city broke down after destroying all but the single tank in the town square. But who really cares? It isnt like "Kelly's Heroes" was about anything that really happened or might have happned.

[Kevin E. Duguay]

The 17 pounder armed Sherman was feared by the Germans. This was a very effective gun. Usually we see them issued 1 per troop in the game. However by the end of the war some British and Canadian armored units actually had 3 Fireflys to 1 75mm armed Sherman.

[hawker]

Just tell me please someone,in what aspect Sherman was better than Tiger except speed and numbers what is better on sherman???
Armor-NO
Gun-NO
Maybe crew was better looking[;)]

Sherman is Medium tank,Tiger is heavy tank. I watch nice documentary on Discovery some time ago about tanks. Sherman took 10th place,Tiger third and winner is T-34.
Allies need four Shermans to destroy one Tiger[;)]

You can compare Sherman with Pzkw IV auf G or T-34. Both of these two are slightly better than mighty sherman,but you cannot compare sherman with tiger,tiger is so better

P.S. Tiger you can compare with Pershing or IS-2,in this comparison Tiger is slightly better than Pershing and about equal with IS-2[;)]

Big B,my answer is:TIGER IS BETTER THAN ANY VERSION OF SHERMAN

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: hawker

Just tell me please someone,in what aspect Sherman was better than Tiger except speed and numbers what is better on sherman???
Armor-NO
Gun-NO

Armor - correct, except the M4A3E2 Jumbo wich had much thicker armor than Tiger on the entire turret and front - sides and rear about the same. (140mm front, 152mm turret all around, and 177mm gun mantlet)[X(]
Gun - 88 has a bit more penetration than the 3" M7 and 76mm M1,M1A1 L52 guns, but the latter was good enough to penetrate the Tigers frontal arc at 700 to 900 meters and that's all that is needed (not to mention higher rate of fire).[;)]

ORIGINAL: hawker
Maybe crew was better looking[;)]

Well, sometimes perhaps, but probably higher paid.[:D]

Note - no one has claimed the M4 was "better" than a Panther.

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

ORIGINAL: Big B

Oh, and my favorite tank is still the funky looking M-3 Lee, Terror of the PzKw III J [;)]

If it is for me than I'd glady bring my Pzgr 40 armed agile III mark special against that lumbering giant of yours. [:P]

BTW which weapon was used in AT role? The 37mm or the 75?

They were both used in the AT role with the 75 being the much more effective weapon, most American M3's had the same 75L40 M3 Gun as in the Sherman, unlike the British Grant that used a shorter M2 75mm gun with a little less performance.

[Paul Vebber]

TIGER IS BETTER THAN ANY VERSION OF SHERMAN

And the medium MkIV was better than the light Stuart. This is obvious.

Battleships are better than Heavy cruisers, are better Light cruisers, are better than destroyers.

The issue is does that make the Sherman "bad", "out of its depth" or somehow a mistake?

If yor metrics are purely "tank stats" then the heavy Tiger was better than any "medium" and most other heavies until the very end of the war. But does that make it the "best" tank in the context of national doctrine, tactical employment, and roe in winning battles?

It is interesting to note that the T-34 beat the Tiger on the show you discuss.

Just tell me, please someone, in what respect T-34 was better than Tiger except in speed and numbers what is better on T-34???
Armor-NO
Gun-NO
Maybe crew was better looking

TIGER WAS BETTER THNA ANY VERSION OF T34!!

How did the T-34 ever win???

Gee, maybe looking at tank stats in a vacuum is not the best measure...

[Procrustes]

ORIGINAL: Kevin E. Duguay
On a side note, take a look at the Abrams. Without heavy and constant mantenance this supurbe tank also would not last long on the battlefield.[;)]

Good point!

[Procrustes]

ORIGINAL: Big B




BTW which weapon was used in AT role? The 37mm or the 75?

They were both used in the AT role with the 75 being the much more effective weapon, most American M3's had the same 75L40 M3 Gun as in the Sherman, unlike the British Grant that used a shorter M2 75mm gun with a little less performance.

The Grant had that cooler looking turret, though. (Albeit without the .30 cal in the copula.)

[Rune Iversen]

ORIGINAL: ezz

or you could argue that allied airpower could destroy german armour faster than they could manufacture it and air support was plentiful so a really powerful tank was never required at all.

Well, Operational reseach studies tends toward alleging, that even during the period that Allied aircraft were most active over the front (Falaise etc.) less than 10% of german tanks shows signs of having been knocked out from the air. Which is not to say that tac. Aorcraft was not a threat or couldn´t have a major impact in one or two instances (At the battle of Dompaire, the 112th Panzer brigade was caught with it´s Panther battalion in a valley. The french 2nd AD encircled and called in XIX Tac. Fighter Bombers who then proceeded to mess up the constricted Panthers majorly. The french then gradually tightened the perimeter and destryed the germans. Only 2 Panthers out of 40 or so got away). But as for the majority of german tank losses, the reason was something else than aircraft.

[mdiehl]

BTW which weapon was used in AT role? The 37mm or the 75?

Initially the AT weapon of doctrine on the M3 Grant was the 37mm. The 75 was intended solely to be an infantry support weapon and lend-lease units were initially shipped only with high explosive for the 75mm gun.

There was some logic to this choice. The US37mm gun was the best light anti-tank gun of the war, and proved easily capable of punching holes in most variants of the PzIII and some early PzIVs. It was however showing its age by 1942, and the redesign anyhow of the M3Grant into the M4 Sherman with one turret necessitated the elimination of one of the guns. Naturally, because given a choice between a 75mm with AP or a 37mm with AP you'd shoot the 75, the 37mm was chucked. Anyhow, it was clear it was not going to last as an effective weapon.

The US had faith in the 37mm gun in North Africa up until the battle at Kasserine, where the AT gun crews equipped with the 37L54 M3 atgs saw their shots bouncing off until German medium tanks closed to 100 yards. At that point the US began to re-equip all ATG units with 57mm guns... a choice that was one-step behind the tech-curve IMO.

In the PTO the 37L54 was effective throughout the war. Apparently it was used with good effect on Guadalcanal with Stuarts firing AP shot into Japanese log bunkers (to bust them up) and also firing canister.

[Rune Iversen]

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

On the shatter issue, do we know how often it occurred? I suppose this is difficult to generalise because it depends on a variety of tactical factors, but how big an issue was it? Would every round fired between the problem ranges be at severe risk?

Regards,
IronDuke

Depends on what armor plate you hit and at what angle [:'(]

[Rune Iversen]

ORIGINAL: IronDuke
Well, they had the same area to manoeuver in that they had in 1940 when winning arguably the greatest operational victories in history.

[:-]
After the initial breakthrough at Sedan, french force to space ratio was LOW, and they had an almost impossible time of moving reinforcements in to blunt it, and was only capable of committing piecemeal. As a consequnce, the germans could achive "maneuver". Not so in 1944, where fleets of 2½ Ton trucks shovelled the entire XVIII Airborne Corps into Bastogne, in front of Peiper and in to the flank at the "tip" of the Bulge (thereby relieveing US Armor stuck ccupying frontage). All accomplished seamlessly in less than 48 hours.

Yes, but this is precisely down to an innability to interdict and the logistics mismatch and is therefore part of the air reasoning.

Nobody had this fabled "air superiority" over the East Front at any time the germans managed to achieve maneuver any time after the summer of 1942. Manstein didn´t have "air superiority" at either Kharkov or Kursk (or when the counterattack against Op. Rumyantsev was launched in late august), yet the german attacks went in anyway and managed to mess up the soviets in a major way (though only the Kharkov Op. was a clear cut succes at the operational level).

I also think it is less the size of the opposition as the relative theatre strengths. It is difficult to fight an enemy when you can't threaten in many places at once as he can counter conentrate more easily.

I concur.

I don't think this is strictly correct. A third of the Panthers stopped at mortain were destroyed by Germans (10)

Meaning: "It stopped moving for any number of reasons, so we blew it up when we couldn´t recover it".

with 6 from air power and 14 classed as US Army. Certainly, the general feeling on the ground amongst the US units was that it was Allied air power that stopped the assault, yet their kills were quite low, indicating that it was the disruption they caused that really mattered.

Airpowr also works quite well at duffing up infantry on the move and driving it to ground (or into concealing terrain anyway). And as we know, soft transport is so much prey for Tac Air. So yeah, likely correct.

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: Paul Vebber

Goll Dern it - the damn board ate my response...I had a much better version but this hits the high points...


According to WO 291/1186 only 14.5% of Allied tanks were damaged or destroyed by german tanks. (22.1% to mines, 22.7% to AT Guns, 24.4% to SP guns and 14.2% to "Bazooka" (ie PFs/PSs))
...

Paul, that is fascinating. Do you know where I could find that, and moreover - do you know of a breakdown of actual numbers lost, along with similar info for the Germans?

B

[Paul Vebber]

Paul, that is fascinating. Do you know where I could find that, and moreover - do you know of a breakdown of actual numbers lost, along with similar info for the Germans?

Unfortunately I don't have the entire study, just the "snippet" from John Salt's complilation...

Dupuy's work has some breakdowns alng those lines but they are typically for individual engagements in his database, which some criticize as a biased sample. Check his work on Attrition and "Understanding War"