The Sherman Tank what an amazing vehicle!!

[Drucius]

Originally Posted by Slipdigit

Brian, I must ask. Would the number of tanks lost been any less had they been Crusaders, Cromwells or Comets?

Comets certainly would have done far, far better.

[Owen]

Shermans would have still been OK if they'd all been up-gunned into Fireflies.
Just there wasn't enough of them.
As been said before on here the Germans guns would have penetrated any armour in service with anyone back then.
It's the ability to hit back that counts.

[von Poop]

Originally Posted by Drucius

Comets certainly would have done far, far better.

Likely not that much better.
At the ranges usually fought over in Normandy any allied vehicle was completely vulnerable to the German HV guns, including the front plate of the Churchill (even if Centurion & other postwar types had somehow arrived at Normandy their armour would be just as vulnerable).
The considerably more effective gun would of course be a considerable advantage in many cases, but the difficulties often found while attacking in the Bocage of locating well concealed German targets in strong defensive positions would often negate even that factor.
Whatever armour the allies deployed in the horrendously difficult task of attacking Normandy would likely have faced similar losses as actually occurred.

Edit: cross-posted with Owen above.

[Slipdigit]

Originally Posted by Owen

As been said before on here the Germans guns would have penetrated any armour in service with anyone back then.
It's the ability to hit back that counts.

Originally Posted by von Poop

Likely not that much better.
At the ranges usually fought over in Normandy any allied vehicle was completely vulnerable to the German HV guns, including the front plate of the Churchill (even if Centurion & other postwar types had somehow arrived at Normandy their armour would be just as vulnerable).
The considerably more effective gun would of course be a considerable advantage in many cases, but the difficulties often found while attacking in the Bocage of locating well concealed German targets in strong defensive positions would often negate even that factor.
Whatever armour the allies deployed in the horrendously difficult task of attacking Normandy would likely have faced similar losses as actually occurred.

Thanks guys, that was the point I was trying to make. A more effective main gun could have helped matters, but it returns to the premise that to hit a target, you had to see it. Which is more likely to be seen first, the concealed gun or tank or the one moving?

[Capt.Sensible]

Originally Posted by von Poop

Still soldiering on.

Traxxon Rock Drills - Specializing in manufacturing and distributing equipment, service, parts and consumables to the rock drilling industry - British Columbia, Canada

Interesting programme on telly last night ('Axemen' Channel ?5), showed a logging crew in Oregon using a converted Sherman to set up a cable pulley system to haul felled trees upslope to a loading area. And they manged to get it stuck in the mud.. These people still appear to sell conversions:
Shermans into ploughshares

CS

[sapper]

I repeat what the Germans called the Sherman's "Tommy Cookers" If you looked at them too long, they would burst into flames. Indeed the burst into flames on any excuse. Horrible things.
Sapper

[m kenny]

Originally Posted by sapper

I repeat what the Germans called the Sherman's "Tommy Cookers" If you looked at them too long, they would burst into flames. Indeed the burst into flames on any excuse. Horrible things.
Sapper

The early OR Reports found that 80% of Shermans burned when hit-compared to 60% of Panthers. Though the Tiger sample was small it also worked out at 80%.
Overal for Normandy the worst tank in terms of easy-to-kill was the Pz IV.

Battle losses 21 Arrmy Group to 31.12.44

June: Sherman 66, Cromwell 42, Churchill 16.
July: Sherman 186 Cromwell 28 Churchill 17.
August: Sherman 547 Cromwell 143 Churchill 142, Challenger 2.
September: Sherman 115 Cromwell 7 Churchill nil, Challenger nil.
October: Sherman 490 Cromwell 174 Churchill 56 Challenger 11.
November: Sherman 158 Cromwell 36 Churchill 81 Challenger 1
December: Sherman 157 Cromwell 5 Churchill 21 Challenger 1

(Obviously some earlier 'damaged' tanks were written off in August and October)
Totals:
Stuart M3 210
Stuart VI 80
Sherman 1717
Cromwell 435
Challenger 15
Churchill.. 333

total 2500 + 290 Stuarts


December 1944 British tank numbers with Units:
472 Churchill
1,168 Sherman 75mm
605 Sherman 17-pdr
59 Sherman 76mm
522 Cromwell
31 Comet


Interesting note. The British tank totals (excluding Stuarts) was 2857 compared to 2700 US.

[Tom Canning]

M Kenny -
might it be possible that your figures are a bit skewed inasmuch as you claim the overall losses British at 2857 vs US at 2700 at the end of '44. Are you then inferring that US tank battles in June - July and August were equal to the British Tank Battles in that period ? - Frankly - I don't think so therefore they would not have had the losses that 21st Army group sustained.

The initial question was British vs American built Tank destruction and for those heavy British tank battles to end of August - the losses of British made Tanks was only 48% of the US made Shermans. Thus confirming both Sapper and my rcollections that the Ronson was a bad Tank. We had a similar situation in Italy where the Sherman would light up on first hit - my own Churchill took six 88.mm hits before firing and that was only as they set fire to our bedding in the back pannier- as I was told much later !
Cheers

[Smudger Jnr]

Tom,

I cannot even hope to imagine what it was like for the tank crews going up against the 88's.

Those things were so accurate even at tremendously long ranges and like others have said, could penetrate any allied armour.

Like had been stated many times previously, we should have deployed our 3.7 AA as the German army did.

It could have been a different story.

Regards

Tom

[Capt Bill]

Originally Posted by sapper

I repeat what the Germans called the Sherman's "Tommy Cookers" If you looked at them too long, they would burst into flames. Indeed the burst into flames on any excuse. Horrible things.
Sapper

or 'Ronsons' light first time, every time