Matrix Games Forums

I was trying to be funny... the Shermans were really thinly armoured, and any hit caused them to catch fire.

Yes I remember reading an account(s) where the 'white star' was used as an aiming aid by German Tank and AT crews, it stands to reason. There were many models of Sherman tank and they were all better armoured than the German MkIV tank which was the mainstay of the Germans up until the end of the war. If comparing to Panthers and Tigers then yes they were woefully underarmoured, but there weren't that many German 'big cats' compared to the number of Shermans the Allies fielded. The British mounted the 17pnd AT gun on a Sherman, the Firefly, which was more than a match for any Tiger or Panther. The legend of the Sherman brewing up easily started in N Africa and was due to improper ammo stowage, something soon rectified, but the 'myth' lived on. German tanks, especially Panthers, were prone to burning easily as well.


Ron

Yes I remember reading an account(s) where the 'white star' was used as an aiming aid by German Tank and AT crews, it stands to reason.

"it stands to reason"? reasoning being that if they're close enough to make out the star, then the extra help the star provided would have helped them shoot at the less vital parts such as the turrets.

IMHO if anything, the higher profile/silohette of the allied tanks did more for the siming of german crews than any paint may have done.

As for the shermans out numbering the "big cats"... what good is it if you out number them 3 to 1 when you lose 4 for every Tiger or Panther you take out?

The shermans were a royal screw up. They had less armor and their guns couldn't penetrate anything without getting within 200 - 100 yards... which is well into Tiger prime firing range. And even then they had to either hit the side or the back of a tiger tank. You might have 100 shermans on a battlefield vrs 20 tigers, but the tigers are gonna win.

That was the same problem the Russians had with their early tanks vrs the Tigers. They'd lose tanks before they were even in firing range themselves.

The blowing up thing isn't nearly as important as the fact the Sherman was horrifying to crew. The armor was nothing and when you were penetrated the shell would bounce around inside. They'd patch it up and send another crew out in the sherman again.

No Sherman model was a match for a Tiger. Period. However the other tanks the Germans used is another story.

"it stands to reason"? reasoning being that if they're close enough to make out the star, then the extra help the star provided would have helped them shoot at the less vital parts such as the turrets.

IMHO if anything, the higher profile/silohette of the allied tanks did more for the siming of german crews than any paint may have done.

Going from memory most German tanks had a 2.5x magnification sight, the Panther dual magnification at 2.5x and 5x. "It stands to reason" meaning anything that helps acquire the target at typical combat ranges, 600-1000m, would be beneficial. If you have ever done any hunting you will know what I am talking about, or even if not, take a walk in the country and try and pick out a 'target' with any certainty at said distances. Military forces didn't camoflauge tanks, AFVs, soldiers, positions etc just because it looked cool. [;)]



Ron

Edit: re 'higher profile'

Tiger 2.93m
Panther 2.85m
MkIV 2.68m

M4A4 Sherman 2.74m
Sherman VC Firefly 2.74m

As for the shermans out numbering the "big cats"... what good is it if you out number them 3 to 1 when you lose 4 for every Tiger or Panther you take out?

Myth. What are your sources for that? The Allies, Russia included, did not lose 4 tanks for every Panther and Tiger destroyed. Some, read some, elite Tiger/Panther crews achieved such ratios but they were the exception not the norm.

The shermans were a royal screw up. They had less armor and their guns couldn't penetrate anything without getting within 200 - 100 yards... which is well into Tiger prime firing range. And even then they had to either hit the side or the back of a tiger tank. You might have 100 shermans on a battlefield vrs 20 tigers, but the tigers are gonna win.

False. The Tiger had 100mm of armour at 10deg on the front turret and hull, 80mm of armour at 0 deg on the sides.

Stats found online or any decent WWII book:

Firefly - 17pdr
Range(meters)______________100 400 1200 2000
Penetration(mm thru vert plate) 137 132 117 102

Sherman M4A2(76)
Range(meters) _____________100 500 1000 2000
Penetration(mm thru vert plate) 123 113 103 88

That's with regular AP ammo and not even considering the 'souped up' Tungsten ammo which the Allies had in plentiful supply by war's end. You do the math.

No Sherman model was a match for a Tiger. Period. However the other tanks the Germans used is another story.

See above.



Ron

Going from memory most German tanks had a 2.5x magnification sight, the Panther dual magnification at 2.5x and 5x. "It stands to reason" meaning anything that helps acquire the target at typical combat ranges, 600-1000m, would be beneficial. If you have ever done any hunting you will know what I am talking about, or even if not, take a walk in the country and try and pick out a 'target' with any certainty at said distances. Military forces didn't camoflauge tanks, AFVs, soldiers, positions etc just because it looked cool.



Ron

Edit: re 'higher profile'

Tiger 2.93m
Panther 2.85m
MkIV 2.68m

M4A4 Sherman 2.74m
Sherman VC Firefly 2.74m

ron, you obviously know your stuff.

what camoflauge are you refering to on the sherman? I don't think I've ever seen a sherman with camo on it (or any allied tank for that matter).

according to your hunting analogy, you're saying that hunters (which I am not) will use spots on animals to aim at? I'd have to defer to actual hunters, but from what I've read regarding the subject they aim for vital parts and don't look for anomilies on animals, since its worse to wound an animal after all. The same could be said for aiming at a sherman. I've read accounts where gun crews woould aim for a particular parts of the tank, like the engine compartment, just like a hunter might aim for the head or throat.

I think if I was in a tank, either back then or today, I would clearly have my insignia showing to avoid friendly fire. Plus there were a lot more case of friendly fire back then. if the enemy gunner needed that insignia to aim at, I don't think I would worry too much of him hitting me, since the truely good gunners would do just as well without having a point to aim at.

I wonder if there are any veterns here that could comment on their real life experience?

edit: the high profiles was in reference to the stugs the germans tended to use later in the war. I don't have thenumbers, but besides making them easier to manufacture, the lower profile made them less of a target.

All this from my comment about the allied star..... [:D]

Shermans cannot be said to be equal or anything close to that of a Tiger or Panther. They were built only as infantry support based off the US doctrine of exploiting a gap, rather than punching through armored lines. The US left that up to Tank Destroyers and not the tanks.

Despite what you believe, the sherman was not what one would consider a success.

According to Belton Y. Cooper in his memoir of his 3rd Armored Division service, Death Traps, the final combat losses of the division were nothing less than breathtaking. The division was nominally assigned by table of organization 232 medium tanks (a total which included ten M26 Pershing tanks that made it into combat). It lost 648 tanks totally destroyed in combat, and 1,100 needing repair. Of those 1,100 tanks, nearly 700 had been knocked out in combat. According to Cooper, the 3rd Armored therefore lost close to 1,350 medium tanks in combat, for a total loss rate of 580 percent.

Early models are often criticised for the 75 mm gun chosen by the artillery branch of the US Army. While it was an effective weapon in 1942 when the Sherman was introduced, by the Normandy landings of 1944 the Sherman lacked effectiveness against contemporary German tanks, especially the Panther and Tiger. The 75 mm gun was, however, a solid weapon against infantry and anti-tank artillery. Later models had a somewhat more powerful gun, but the Sherman was still outgunned by Axis armor.

Sherman tanks had at most 85 mm hulls, that was only the front... the rest was all 35 mm. Despite the stopping power of the inaccurate 17 pounder (we can debate that later) it did have a nice range. 1000 meters with regular ammo and 2000 meters with more advanced munitions.

A Tiger tank, on the other hand, had 100 mm hull max.

While the firefly was much, much, much better at penetration... It was also extremely limited in use. It was purely a UK variant, and not something the bulk of the production was using. The bulk was still stuck with 75 mm, or maybe a 76 mm cannon.

Of perhaps some controversy is the argument that a Tiger I was capable of destroying a M4 Sherman at ranges in excess of 3500 m; however, the first Shermans were not capable of penetrating the Tiger Is fore and side armor, even at point blank range.

Even then, they were definately reported able to destroy T-34s and Churchill IVs at ranges up to 1300 meters. Considering the T-34 had an effective (yet brittle) armor of 140 mm and the Churchills had either the same or much more armor than the shermans, that leaves even the Firefly sherman out gunned... That's however only under optimal conditions.

Even so, the failing of the Tiger was not so much it's armor or weaponry, which clearly defeats all but some of the later soviet Tanks... It was lack of supplies at the end of the war and a tendency to overheat in battle.

And this paper written an posted may not mean much to you, but the sources mean a lot to me.

http://www.angelfire.com/trek/mytravels ... wknss.html

http://www.valourandhorror.com/DB/BACK/Cd_Tank.php

In the first lines it says "The first tank battles were hopelessly one-sided. The Germans could easily pick off Canadian tanks at a range of three kilometers. With better equipment and better training, the Germans killed l0 Allied tanks for every one they lost.

At first the Panther seemed invulnerable. Canadian tank officer Radley-Walters once watched a lineup of three Canadian tanks killed with one shot from the Panthers 75mm gun.

http://www.89infdivww2.org/memories/hitleryouth.htm

"The Caen attack gradually built up so that by July 31, the British and Canadians had 16 Divisions. Five were armored. Field Marshal Rommel had concentrated 7 Armored Divisions around Caen facing the British. The tank battles around Caen were extremely destructive to Allied tanks because none of the Allied tanks could prevail against the three main German tanks: the Mark IV, the Mark V Panther and the Mark VI Tiger, all of which had better armor and guns. The only way the Allied tanks could stop a German tank was a shot in the side."

http://members.shaw.ca/millerww2/ww2/hi ... _Tanks.htm

I will admit shermans were more servicable, more readily available, and had more crews to man the tanks than the german tanks... but I will not admit that ton for ton a Sherman was equal or even close. Nor will I admit they were successful at being Tank Killers.

The fact is, Shermans weren't anti-tank tanks... which is a huge problem. They're just support tanks. It took Korea for the USA to realize their assumptions about tank warfare were wrong when Russian tanks came rolling right over their Shermans in terrain that "Heavy" tanks would be useless in.

Finally... German tanks had the problem of being under produced. Hitler was a military moron. That's the reason why I love this game. I can basicly fix things where people like Hitler or Churchill screwed up. I can have fun seeing what would've happened if things had progressed differently... though only in a limited fashion.

what camoflauge are you refering to on the sherman? I don't think I've ever seen a sherman with camo on it (or any allied tank for that matter).

Oh, it was used. The British used camo on their tanks from early war on. you´ll find some pretty "wierd" camo patterns especially on the vehicles use din North Africa. Later on in Europe british tanks and vehicles were camoed with a black stripes pattern. Fat bold black stripes on the standard olive drab color (as found on modern UK tanks too). Same (except they used more brown then black) for US armor, especially in Italy. The problem with old black white photos is that due to the low contrast of OD and brown it´s sometimes very hard to see. Granted, the germans had more creativity when it came to camo patterns, but one shouldn´t overestimate the usage, it was not as widespread as believed.

If you have a chance try to grab some old "Squadron Signal" books on the respective vehicles. Their color plates show some of the camo variations that were around.

Well camo was expensive, time consuming, and worst of all... not practical in war. In a desert, maybe... the terrain is pretty much the same everywhere. In europe, however, with constant changes in colors, density of plants, and even seasons camo wasn't exactly practical.

Basicly for camo you rolled your tank into a semi-fortified position and through a giant mesh version of a gilly suit over it to break up the outline and image and then used it like artilery.

I don't think the Sherman was, by itself, a mistake. It was a good, reliable medium tank on a par (almost) with the medium tanks of other nations. The mistake, if one was made, is that the Allies did not develop a heavy tank of their own to battle the Tigers and Panthers. I would speculate that there were at least 2 reasons for this. The first is that the allies didn't encounter very many of these heavy tanks until Normandy as the Germans did not use them much (if at all) in North Africa, Sicily or Italy. Having not faced these tanks they had little reason to develop a counter. The second is that the Western Allies relied on their airpower (primarily typhoons) to take out these heavy tanks. In other words the Allies didn't think they needed a heavy tank of their own so long as they controlled the air. Again this is just speculation on my part as to why they didn't develop a heavy tank.

In any event, it could be argued that the Tiger Tank (but not the Panther) was a bigger mistake than the Sherman. Mechanically it was a beast, it was slow, it consumed vast quantities of fuel, it took a long time to build and it used up a lot of resources. I think I read somewhere that the Germans could have built 4 medium tanks for every tiger which was produced. And when it was hit by a rocket fired from a typhoon it was just as likely to blow up as any tank.

Now that is something I can mostly agree with. If the Tiger was produced in the same way the Sherman was with simple parts for ease of replacement and maintenance it would've paid out more... but Hitler didn't see much use in it and went on to create the three tanks he thought were the future. Tiger II - King Tiger, Maus, and some other incredibly huge thing like 20 meters tall, with three treads and with two naval cannons as it's main weapons... It was deadly. The specs basicly were creating something that could not only shrug off anything (if it could get there in time...) but could also relatively easily sink ships that got a little bit too close to shore. Scary friggen thought.

So I agree that the Sherman was easier to manage, more cost effective when deployed in optimal conditions (like not against medium or heavy tanks)... The thing is, the Sherman is a heavy Light Tank... It's not on par with Medium Tanks. What we use today are Medium Tanks. The Tiger was just a really light Heavy tank and the Panther was a really really Heavy light tank. I mean these descriptions are bad, but that's basicly how it was because up until Korea everything was in terms of Light or Heavy tanks. Then the Russians rolled over the Shermans in their new class of Medium tanks.

Anywho... back to what I was saying. The Shermans did face heavier tanks in Italy and North Africa, which ended up leading to a near major loss on the part of the Allies until the Tigers ran out of gasoline.(I forget exactly where it was... think it might've been Italy) but because so many of the Shermans were already produced by this time they had to use them for Normandy. I mean you don't change production a year before a massive invasion because your tanks can't cut it against the enemy's. You just keep pumping them out, especially when you have greater production power and more people to man it than the Germans.

Which is why in the end the Shermans win out. It became a war of Attrition that the Germans couldn't compete in. They were at the limit of their population for military use, they were strained to the breaking point with supplies. Even 10 to 1 odds in their favor and they'd lose. Problem was they were only getting on average 3 or even up to 5 to 1... which isn't enough.

Think of it like in this game. When you research a 9/9 tank or even higher, you're getting maybe 6 or 7 to one (if they didn't research at all) for your tanks. Problem is you also have almost no tanks, so in the end that 6th, 7th, or even 12th tank you come across defeats your gas guzzler and you just wasted all that money and supplies. That's what happened to Germany.

What I would also like to see (and this is a random side note) is a German nuclear AV. They were researching Nuclear Technology just as much as us, they just didn't do it enough because they didn't think anyone in the world could do it if they couldn't. The US on the other hand were afraid that Germany was already on the brink of discovery so they poured a lot of money into the Manhattan Project. So Germany should have that AV as well.

In a nutshell, US tank doctrine stated that their tanks should not be fighting other tanks. That was the job of the tank destroyers (M-10, M-18). The tanks (Shermans et al) were for support and exploitation.

That was great in theory. In practice, Shermans often ended up engaging enemy armor and was eventually up-gunned to match the role (the 76mm and the higher velocity 75s).

Some other factors in not wanting to develop a heavy tank were not wanting to interrupt production (Germany often never really hit mass production on many designs because they kept changing or replacing them) and weight for transport overseas (the US was the only major combatant who had to ship all of her troops and equipment in by sea).

Together, the doctrine ideals and the other factors listed were enough to keep the US from wanting to 'rock the boat' and come out with a whole new heavy (until very late with the M-26). Other factors are listed above (air power and ease of maintenance). If all you play are tactical 'shoot-em-ups' then, yeah, the Sherman looks like a mistake. If you figure in reliability and maintenance as well, it looks a heck of lot more appealing than many of the German tanks!

Better said than all of us combined!

ORIGINAL: Daykeras

Well camo was expensive, time consuming, and worst of all... not practical in war. In a desert, maybe... the terrain is pretty much the same everywhere. In europe, however, with constant changes in colors, density of plants, and even seasons camo wasn't exactly practical.

Basicly for camo you rolled your tank into a semi-fortified position and through a giant mesh version of a gilly suit over it to break up the outline and image and then used it like artilery.

[&:]

The other thing is that comparing a Sherman to a Panther or Tiger is apples and orages - a medium vs a heavy. The proper comparison is a 76 armed sherman vs a late PZ IV.

On virtually all counts (armor, gun, firepower, mobility, and maint) the late model Sherman was superior to the late Mk IV.

Well camo was expensive, time consuming, and worst of all... not practical in war.

I guess the guys who put camo on SHIPS were REAL dolts...

I never understood why you'd paint a ship anything other than blue, gray, or white... maybe black if you're doing night raids.

But green forest camo on a battleship?

"They can't see us. We've got our camo! We'll blend right into these blue waves with our dark and light greens!"

Daykeras, you are operating on many misconceptions. I don't know where to start except to say WWII history is a vast subject and you won't know it all or form a clear picture simply by reading a few books.

You gave the example of the losses of the 3rd Armoured Division to somehow mean their tanks were less than adequate versus German tanks. Where and how did those losses occur? Do you think mines, AT guns, and Pzshreck/Pzfaust played any role in those losses? Don't you think German Panzer Divisions suffered horrendous losses as well?

During the Battle of the Bulge there was a sharp engagement between Task Force Kane of the 3rd Armoured against the 2nd SS Pz Div near the villages of Freineux and Lamormenil. During the opening attack on Freineux, 3 Shermans and 2 Stuarts beat back 11 Panthers, destroying 3-4 and disabling 2 more for the loss of one Sherman. The remaining Shermans then halted an assaulting coy of Panthers forcing them to call off their attack and seek shelter. Leading to Lamormenil, 2 Shermans halted another ~ coy of Panthers, destroying 2 for no loss. I may be a bit fuzzy on the details but the just of it is there. The so-called 'mistake of a Sherman' performed more than adequately. There is a book on the battles in the Vosages called "When the odds were even" IIRC, you should try reading that for an eyeopener.

Do you really think tank vs tank engagements were common at 3-3.5 kms?? There were instances yes, but it definitely wasn't the norm. IIRC the German Tiger training manual stressed engagments should occur at 1200m or less. From the above battle at Freineux, after halting the attack of 2nd SS Pz, Task Force Kane was ordered to counterattack and capture a crossroads. They did so with 5 Shermans. In their way was a previously disabled Panther which was having its tracks repaired when the Panther gunner spotted the Shermans at around 1000m or less and began firing. The lone, disabled Panther destroyed 3 Shermans and forced the other 2 to retreat. Sounds about right to you eh? Well, even after seeing their comrades getting knocked out, the Shermans couldn't see the enemy Panther at all to even fire back! The Germans used smokeless powder so it was difficult to spot the muzzle flash and the Panther had been obscured in the treeline. There is more to combat than simply the technical 'specs'.

The British 17 pnd AT gun was 76mm not 75mm. The only accounts of inaccuracy I have read about concerned not the regular AP rounds but the special sabot round. Yes there weren't many Fireflys produced, about 600-800 IIRC(compare to 1300 Tigers produced, most in the East). The British included one in every troop - 1 Firefly and 3 75mm Shermans - with the Firefly providing overwatch specifically to engage any German 'heavy' armour. What do you think happened to Wittman and his coy of Tigers? They were shot up by Fireflys. Numerous German accounts reflect their fear and respect of the Firefly.

Yes the British suffered heavy tank losses in the battles around Caen and Falaise, but I believe it could be argued very successfully that was due in large part to faulty British doctrine, not simply disparity between opposing tanks. Tanks on either side weren't deployed in some 'armoured line' as you suggest. In the battles around Falaise the Germans kept their tanks in the rear, at a depth of up to 50km, to be used to seal off any breakthroughs and to counterattack. German armour suffered badly as well when they attempted to attack in Normandy. Apologists tried to explain it away due to overwhelming Allied Air power but a couple books have come out recently that pretty much put to rest that 'myth'.

Camoflauge was used extensively in WWII. Obviously it is of more benefit for the defending side than the attacking.

How many 'Maus' were built again???

By all accounts, the Sherman was a medium tank, the Tiger a Heavy. The bottom line is the US didn't build a 'heavy' tank earlier because it wasn't necessary though expedients were produced like the Jumbo, but they were very few. Tigers were very rare also with only handfuls operational at any one time, yet its 'legend' grew and to many Allied soldiers every German tank was a Tiger - the truth likely being a PzIV. As I stated previously PzIVs were the mainstay of the German tank fleet right to the end and when compared to the 76mm Sherman, two like tanks, the Sherman was a better tank.




Ron

5 allied tanks beat back 11 axis tanks, correct? Did they do this alone, or with help? And if they had help, how much of a role do you think this help played?

Last I remembered, there was no Allied Armored division out on it's own. They were all tied to Infantry due to US doctrine of support.

And I don't care what the sherman's are classified as. They're just heavy Light tanks, but they were "Medium Armor." Light armor being armored cars....

And what does the Maus have to do with anything? So they built only three and they probably never saw combat. They were planning on building the Ratte which had two naval guns for it's armament... So what if it never saw battle. That scares the shit out of me. 50 guys in 1 tank manning machine guns and 2 naval cannons with a range of 47 kilometers weighing in at a total of 2000 tons. If they ever got it into position in time it could destroy everything.

Anyway... Just to clarify. You're saying the Germans had no chance in heck to ever win because the Americans had more and better stuff. Well then why the hell are we playing this game? What's the point! We can't win. Nothing matters. No wonder Germany was given so many historically inaccurate boosts. It's because they can't really win! WOW!!! Why should anyone ever make a WW2 game. Germans are destined to lose no matter what.

Thank you Ron for destroying my enjoyment of all WW2 games


Lastly. An excerpt of report. This is obviously a one time thing, but still .

Despite their well known liabilities, when encountered in the Normandy
hedgerows, Tigers, (and there were fewer Tigers than one imagines, with only
three panzer units fielding a relatively small number of operational PzVI's
so that their actions are historically pretty easy to track and assess..),
inflicted extremely serious damage on their opponents. Regard for instance
this excerpt concerning one encounter during the battle of Hill 213 or
"Villers-Bocage" during the British investiture of Caen:

"On 13th June 1944, a week after D-day, following a drive from Beauvais
under repeated air attack, 2nd Kompanie of sSSPzAbt 101 led by Michael
Wittmann had 6 Tigers located in the area of Hill (Point) 213 above Villers
Bocage. His orders were to stop the advance of the 22nd Armored Brigade of
the British 7th Armored Division (the famous 'Desert Rats') from advancing
through the township, outflanking the German line and gaining the road to
Caen. Wittmann's company, hidden behind a hedgerow, spotted the enemy
column, which passed him at a distance of 200 meters. At about 8:00am,
Wittmann attacked the British column on the main road, while the rest of his
company (4 Tigers as one broke down) attacked the British forces around Hill
213. Soon after, Wittmann destroyed a Sherman Firefly and Cromwell IV and
headed south to attack the rest of the enemy transport column. After
knocking out 8 half-tracks, 4 Bren Carriers and two 6 pdr anti-tank guns,
Wittmann reached the crossroad with the road to Tilly-sur-Seulles. At the
crossroad, he destroyed 3 Stuart tanks from recon unit and reached the
outskirts of the town of Villers-Bocage. While in town, Wittmann destroyed 4
Cromwell IV tanks and a single half-track and then turns into Rue Pasteur.
Following up the street, he knocked out a Cromwell IV and Sherman OP tank,
reaching the main street of Villers-Bocage. At the end of Rue Pasteur,
Wittmann's Tiger was hit by a Sherman Firefly from B Squadron and he decided
to turn back as being too far forward without any infantry support and in a
build-up area. He turned in the direction of Caen to join the rest of his
company. On his way back, Wittmann's Tiger was attacked by another Cromwell
IV, which he destroyed as well. Back at the Tilly crossroad, British
soldiers from 1st Rifle Brigade opened fire at Wittmann with their 6 pdr
anti-tank gun, immobilizing his Tiger. Wittmann and his crew managed to
escape on foot towards the Panzer Lehr positions 7km away near Orbois. The
rest of his company at the Hill 213, destroyed the rest of the A Squadron of
the 4th County of London Yeomanry Regiment ("Sharpshooters") including 5
Cromwell IV and a Sherman Firefly, while capturing 30 men. During this short
engagement, Wittmann's company destroyed 4 Sherman Firefly, 20 Cromwell, 3
Stuart, 3 M4 Sherman OP, 14 half-tracks, 16 Bren Carriers and 2 6 pdr
anti-tank guns. Wittmann's attack was followed by another one by Tigers of
Hauptsturmfuehrer Rolf Moebius' 1st Kompanie of sSSPzAbt 101 and
Panzerkampfwagen IV tanks from Panzer Lehr but was repulsed by anti-tank
guns from 22nd Armored Brigade. Following day, British withdrew from the
town leaving it to the Germans, who occupied it for next two months. The
British drive on Villers Bocage and Caen was stopped cold by Wittmann's
attack and following actions."

Feel free to read these.

"The Panzers and the Battle of Normandy," by Georges Bernarge.
"Steel Inferno: 1.SS Panzer Corps in Normandy," by Michael Reynolds
"Hill 112: Cornerstone of the Normandy Campaign," by Major JJ How
"Sledgehammers: Strengths and flaws of Tiger Tank Bns in WWII," C. Wilbeck
"Commanding the Red Army's Sherman Tanks," by Dmitriy Losza

I realize there are some "myths" but not everything is a myth. Especially not when given by the commanders in charge of Shermans, the Engineers dealing with the repair of Shermans, the Companies involved, and the number of losses. Yes a lot of other things factored in, but stop knocking reading and try it sometime. Maybe you'll learn something. I know during the course of this I learned something. I learned people are incredibly dense.