The Sherman Tank what an amazing vehicle!!

[von Poop]

Originally Posted by mollusc

Owen, you should be a in Government! Quoting one or two tiny examples that back up your theory, and ignoring the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Where is this 'overwhelming evidence' for the '5 sherman's to one tiger' theory?

I'd be absolutely fascinated to see it as much enquiry still hasn't turned up anything to back it up... Quite the contrary.
There's many more serious tank-nuts (both ex-military and civilian) than I digging into it too, all apparently with the same result... it's popularly accepted, but not true.

Cheers,
Adam.

[mollusc]

I think what it boils down to is this:

Are you an economist or not?

If you are an economist you will marvel at the efficient and plentiful output of Shermans and the ease of maintenance and recyclability (I think I just make that word up)....

If not, you will always look to the losses of shermans in combat, and much, much more importantly, the crew losses.

Let's not forget, even if the sherman had the same armour as the enemy tanks it would still have been vulnerable; all the german tanks were vulnerable to their own armaments, so I think the bigger shortfall of the sherman was in its armament, rather than its armour. Give it a decent gun (ah-ha like a 17 pdr!), and you've got a decent tank to take on virtually any german opponent in combat conditions. Why bother adding bits of armour when, really, only DOUBLING it would make a significant difference.

It wasn't too high..but it's centre of gravity WAS too high. I've read of more than one veteran making this observation. Yes, and tracks too narrow, ground pressure was too high.

Overall I'd say, given the 17pdr, a good (score 7/10) tank - a poor mans panther is a good quote! Mostly not having the 17pdr though, I wouldn't want to go to war in one.

When I was a wee lad of about 12, I was spraying my Tamiya 1/35th scale King Tiger in the garage, and in popped Harry, who must've been about 55 years old but seemed ancient to me at the time, looked at the model and was quite shaken by it. He called it a Royal Tiger and then told me he fought against them in the war in a Sherman, and he was visibly upset just by looking at the model - "terrible things". As a young lad I didn't know what to say, I felt guilty in a way that I had this model of an ENEMY tank and that it had upset him. That's my only face-to-face with a Sherman vet, and to this very day I can remember how haunted he seemed by it.

That means so much more than anything I can read in a book.

[mollusc]

Originally Posted by Von Poop

Where is this 'overwhelming evidence' for the '5 sherman's to one tiger' theory?

I'd be absolutely fascinated to see it as much enquiry still hasn't turned up anything to back it up... Quite the contrary.
There's many more serious tank-nuts (both ex-military and civilian) than I digging into it too, all apparently with the same result... it's popularly accepted, but not true.

Cheers,
Adam.

Hi Adam, sorry I didn't make it clear - I don't subscribe to any 5:1 ratio either.... the only way to come up with that is to take all losses of Tigers and Shermans, involved in direct tank to tank action only, for the entire war. Clearly impossible to do. The 5 to 1 is a myth, somebodies nice to quote round figure. Look at "Goodwood", a nice day at the races.... most losses due to anti-tank guns, the real killer.

So what's the average kill ratio? I don't know. In some cases 0:1, in others 20:1 !!!
I've got me Tigers in combat tomes out now, righty-ho here's a little spreadsheet for yer:

	Issued	Issued	Issued		Losses	Destroyed				Kill
Unit name	Tiger I	Tiger II	Total		In action	by crew	Others		Kills	ratio
Schwere Panzerabteuilung 501	73	45	118		73	40	5		530	7:1
Schwere Panzerabteuilung 502	105	8	113		92	15	6		1450	16:1
Schwere Panzerabteuilung 503	171	76	247		111	121	15		1750	16:1
Schwere Panzerabteuilung 504	109	0	109		29	80	0		280	10:1
Schwere Panzerabteuilung 505	78	48	126		46	62	18		950	21:1
Schwere Panzerabteuilung 506	94	74	168		57	109	2		430	8:1
Schwere Panzerabteuilung 507	83	21	104		43	57	4		630	15:1
Schwere Panzerabteuilung 508	77	0	77		15	45	17		130	9:1
Schwere Panzerabteuilung 509	70	50	120		75	40	5		530	7:1
Schwere Panzerabteuilung 510	57	6	63		50	13	0		230	5:1
Schwere Panzerabteuilung 301 (Fkl)	10	0	10		4	13),0)">5	13),0)">1		65	16:1
Panzerkompanie (Fkl) 316	3	5	8		5	3	0		45	9:1
13./Panzerregiment "Grossdeutschland"	15	0	15		6	15),0)">8	15),0)">1		130	22:1
III./Panzerregiment "Grossdeutschland"	96	0	96		60	32	4		530	9:1
Schwere Panzerkompanie "Hummel"	14	0	14		8	5	1		65	8:1
Schwere Panzerkompanie "Meyer"	8	0	8		5	3	0		45	9:1
13./SS-Panzerregiment 1	42	0	42		6	32	4		430	72:1
8./SS-Panzerregiment 2	31	0	31		15	10	6		270	18:1
9./SS-Panzerregiment 3	51	0	51		28	18	5		530	19:1
Schwere SS-Panzerabteilung 101 (501)	45	60	105		70	33	2		530	8:1
Schwere SS-Panzerabteilung 102 (502)	45	31	76		38	29	9		600	16:1
Schwere SS-Panzerabteilung 103 (503)	0	39	39		17	22	0		530	31:1
+ others to make up total build no's.
Totals	1277	463	1740		853	782	105		10680	13:1

Is that of interest?

Cheers,
Mollusc

[von Poop]

Good stuff mate, didn't quite believe you really subscribed to the 5:1 business, the old knee always jerks at the possibility though .

Poster on a.n. other forum pointed me to this thread on a third place
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtop...highlight=pziv
which only helps to underline what a nightmare statistics can become.

Some of the links on there become fascinating but strewth it overheats the mind trying to get a grip on it, the sheer range of when/where/why/what factors....

Cue almost entirely gratuitous but more relaxing shot of some lucky kids in a Firefly from last weekend :

[mollusc]

[quote=Von Poop;108588]
Poster on a.n. other forum pointed me to this thread on a third place
Axis History Forum :: Comparative tank losses, June/July 44 Normandy
which only helps to underline what a nightmare statistics can become.

Yes... lies, damn lies and statistics.
Nice piccy of the Firefly. Who's tank is that, do you know?

[von Poop]

Beltring programme implies it's one of the Cadman brothers's... but the programme often lies.

[Owen]

OK. I'm shot down in flames or should I say brewed up.
Off to bed.
Nice spreadsheet mollusc, tell you work in accounting .

[Owen]

That right place was in the side of the Tiger, at about 600 yards or less, and at angles of less than 30 degrees. So, in your opinion then, the properly trained crew member would have kindly asked the Tiger's crew to "come-about 300 yards away please and nicely side on, thankyou"?

Battles aren't a case of everyone staring down each others barrels.
Well dug in , camoflagued and concealed 6 Pdrs in a Bn position would be able to hit the Panzers in the side as the advancing Panzers negotiated the terrain, minefields etc.
A Panzer's flank would be exposed to at least one gun.

[von Poop]

I'm not sure they've got enough track-links mounted on this vehicle, they could have squeezed a few more on the turret to make it completely unrecognisable.