The Sherman Tank what an amazing vehicle!!

[montgomery]

I do not really like shermans I like panthers tigers and panzer3s and 4s

[von Poop]

Can anyone provide any primary evidence of the famous "5 Shermans to one Panther/Tiger" claim?
After a comment elsewhere I'm intrigued, the rough statistics and tactical evidence don't immediately appear to bear this out on a first look.

[Owen]

Praise for the Sherman in Taurus Pursuant, for the way the Sherman performed from Normandy to Antwerp.

..all the way from Caumont, some 580 miles-and for that matter all the way from the beaches-the tanks had travelled on their own tracks. Never once had they been lifted by transporters. By the time they reached Antwerp many of the tanks and self-propelled guns had done considerably more than the milage prescribed for them. A few fell by the wayside, but on the whole the Shermans had stood up splendidly to this severe test of their mechanical reliability.

[superpumper]

That Sherman crushing the car, is that a 17 pound gun? Seems very long for a 75.

[T. A. Gardner]

Originally Posted by Von Poop

Can anyone provide any primary evidence of the famous "5 Shermans to one Panther/Tiger" claim?
After a comment elsewhere I'm intrigued, the rough statistics and tactical evidence don't immediately appear to bear this out on a first look.

This got me to actually start looking at tank battles between US (I left the British et al out to avoid different tactics and orgainzation) armored units and German ones between roughly D-Day and Jan 45. So far (and this is ancedotial at this point....it will take alot more effort for detailed results) I have found the following:

1. Battles between US armor and Tiger tanks is extremely rare. There are just a handful of actions. The Tigers usually do a bit better than the Shermans but not anywhere close to 3 to 1 let alone 5 or 10 to 1.

2. In battles where one side is defending from a prepared position the attacker usually takes slightly more losses than the defender regardless of who the defender is. The US generally terminates such actions by maneuver forcing the Germans to withdraw whether they are attacking or defending.

3. In battles where both sides are maneuvering, such as a meeting engagment, the Germans usually take heavier losses and have to withdraw.

4. The Panther and other heavier German tanks only have an advantage at long range and when they are being attacked head on. Neither condition usually exists and when it does the advantage is very temporary.

5. Overall, in tank on tank battles the US usually gives as good or better than they take. The value of heavier armor and bigger guns on German tanks is hardly any, if any at all, advantage in European tank combat.

6. The majority of Shermans and tank destroyers are lost to antitank guns and panzerfaust usually in an ambush. But, these do not count in the survey as they are not tank-on-tank actions.

The big US advantages that create the above are:

1. Better communications
2. Better orgainzation
3. Tanks with faster turret traverse and crew coordination allowing them to get the first round in. This is an absolutely huge advantage. Time and again the Germans are unable to get their tank guns on target before taking several hits one of which is usually fatal.
4. Use of combined arms. The Germans simply do not make good practice of combined arms. Most of their tank attacks are made without reconnissance, artillery support, and frequently they operate in small groups rather than enmasse.

[Za Rodinu]

Come on, Terry, now you're in the Mythbusters team?

[von Poop]

Potential big myth, from what I can see it needs chipping away at.
Just whacking in this from Kyt elsewhere, many might have read it by now but it seems so relevant to this thread as a contemporary defence of the Sherman that I'm putting it here for reference.

Originally Posted by Kyt

This was published in Military Review January 1946.

Attached Files

[kfz]

I think this thread amy finally be heading in the direction it was supposed too....

[Owen]

Originally Posted by Herroberst

#98 Reminds me of Ernie, a commander of an AT unit armed with 57mm At guns. They were in Afrika and set up in an ambush position. Along came a Tiger and one of the 3 crews panicked, shot early. The Tiger didn't bother to fire, it just ran over them. Ernie and four others got away, barely. This is in reference to ineffective weapons systems.

Going to pick you up on this.
You say the crew panicked, it was not the weapon that was at fault.
The 57mm aka 6 pdr could take out a Tiger if hit in the right place.
Therefore not an example of ineffective weapon system but a poorly trained crew member.

Two Tigers were knocked out by 6 pounder anti-tank guns of 72nd Anti-Tank Regiment, Royal Artillery, in Tunisia on 20 January 1943. This is the leading tank, a rear, left three-quarter view showing four distinct penetrations.

The Tiger Tank Restoration project - History of Tiger Tanks.

Further, it is interesting to note that the Pz. Kw. 6 has proved vulnerable to the British 6-pounder (57-mm) antitank gun when fired at a range of about 500 yards.

New German Heavy Tank, Tiger I: WWII U.S. Intelligence Bulletin, June 1943 (Lone Sentry)

[Owen]

Love this photo.
NA 18551
Description: The crew of an upended Sherman tank of 7th Armoured Brigade enjoy a 'brew' beside their vehicle while waiting for a recovery team, Gothic Line, 13 September 1944. Their tank overturned after slipping off a narrow road in the dark.