Sherman Tank frustration & strategies?

[vince hughes]

The fact remains that at long ranges, the T34's got seriously crucified whether defensive or offensive against the Panther, let alone the Tiger. The Panthers and Tigers were burning T34's at 1500m against a reply shot needing to be 500m or lower.

I understand Shermophiles defending their beast, but IMO there is no argument as to whose tanks were better. Give me the choice of having to see my chances in the M4, T34 or PzV and I know where my seat is booked.

I'd go for a 4 defence for Shermans rather than a 3, but I'd change nothing else as some would wish to do so.

Also, using the 'Shermans were attacking and the Panthers were not' as reason does not hold on the Eastern Front. Being that Kursk is recently released, its worth citing that you are looking at a 1:5 or even a 1:6 exchange rate even when the Germans WERE attacking in this battle (as well as defending at times of course). The plain fact remains that production numbers are the killer here. 7,800 Tigers and Panthers combined against what ? 50,000 T34 and M4's, 40,000 ? I don't know, even if it was 30,000 the numbers speak for themselves.

[Poor Yorek]

"Tank Tactics" by Roman Jarymowycz (part of the Stackpole Military History Series) is an interesting read vis-a-vis this issue. It has elements of historical development of US & Canadian armored forces; Western tactical doctrine and performance; and - at least I found - a very interesting chapter on the differences between Soviet and Western strategic offensives. There is a nice discussion of the Sherman performance in battles in Lorraine and Arracourt.

[Blackcloud6]

" The plain fact remains that production numbers are the killer here. 7,800 Tigers and Panthers combined against what ? 50,000 T34 and M4's, 40,000 ? I don't know, even if it was 30,000 the numbers speak for themselves."

Bingo! In an industrial war of attrition, the side that makes the most of "good enough" is going to beat those that make only a small amount of "very good." When look at the tanks of WWII, one must look at them in toto; Strategically, operationally and importantly, logistically, as well as tactically. ThebPanther fails in many of those categories. Thus it was part of the overall series of strategic and operational decisions that doomed the Germans to a horrible defeat.

It is interesting that Kursk is mentioned. Some points: the a Germans were soundly defeated at Kursk, the Panther D made a very poor showing, especially maintenance-wise and they went up against T-34/76s and still lost. It would be interesting to see, though, where most Soviet losses occurred, during the German attacks at Kursk, or the Russian counterattacks. The Russians were very aggressive at Kursk and I believe some new sources are showing that both the Germans and Soviets inflated Russian tank losses at Kursk.

But I agree, all the Sherman really needs in PG is defense of 3. the 76mm ones are available.

[Blackcloud6]

Jay, that article on Cooper further convinces me that he is not an expert on the Sherman. He may come across as such for popular history shown on the History Channel, but the fact that he thinks Sherman fires were caused by gasoline fires shows he does not know what he is talking about. Sherman burned mostly because of ammunition fires after penetration. By the time the gasoline burned, it didn't matter.

The museum guy calling Cooper the best expert on the Sherman shows that although he may be a curator, he may not know much about the subject to judge. Cooper gets respect for his opinion simply because he was there and nobody wants to dispute a veteran. But combat veteran recollections, especially 40 or 50 years later should be cautiously listened to and followed up with questions and further research.

[Blackcloud6]

BTW, lately I've been thinking about what would have been the best tank production strategy forthe Germans later in the war. The notion I like the best would have been for the Germans to stop production on all tanks and tank destroyers and produce nothing but Stug IIIGs and Panthers. The Stugs we're excellent defensive weapons and the Apthers would have been the backbone of the counterattack force. The Stug was easy to produce and many could have been made to offset the Allies numerical superiority somewhat.

[waynebaumber]

Good point about tank production above. However that was never going to happen with the German tank production. Taken on its own the Sherman is a good tank, taken with how many were produced and deployed it is a war winning tank.
The Panther and Tiger taken on its own are great tanks, but in the context of the final years of the war there were too few and far between to effect the final outcome.
In PG Sherman's have to be used in combined arms attacks and, yes you will lose some, but at least in our games its only cardboard counters burning.

[larry marak]

Would no Tigers and Panthers and 50% more PzIVh's and StuGIV's have made enough of a difference against the Sherman hoardes?

How many of the big guys were taken out by Shermans using the Fuzzy-Wuzzy tactics? Anyone have statistics to bring up here?

[Poor Yorek]

Anyone have statistics to bring up here?

The work I cited above includes data from Allied survey teams regarding German tank losses (see especially chp 13). A notable quote is based on the losses due to mechanical breakdown: "the most accomplished slayer of German panzers was German engineering." It would be interesting to poll members regarding the % of German tank losses through air strikes compared to the data given in this work.

As I noted in the post above, there is a nice discussion, for example, of the M4 Sherman engagement with PzVs at Bezange-la-Petite (where 4 M4 tanks destroy 8 PzV's).

One deficiency I noted in the text is a fascination with range at the expense of discussion regarding rate of fire. Had the German engineers worked out an increased fire rate (via more efficient turret rotation and interior ventilation systems) with the already superior optics and range of their long guns ...

[mike perryman]

BTW, lately I've been thinking about what would have been the best tank production strategy forthe Germans later in the war. The notion I like the best would have been for the Germans to stop production on all tanks and tank destroyers and produce nothing but Stug IIIGs and Panthers. The Stugs we're excellent defensive weapons and the Apthers would have been the backbone of the counterattack force. The Stug was easy to produce and many could have been made to offset the Allies numerical superiority somewhat.

Agreed but I would substitute the JdpzIV with the original gun as they were an awesome defensive weapon and I would built the Tiger I for offensive operations. Manned by veteran crews they were a handful and the crew stood a good chance of surviving if the tank was destroyed. There were also awesome psychological weapons as their crews felt invincible and the enemy saw them behind every bush.
Thanks, Mike

[mike perryman]

" The plain fact remains that production numbers are the killer here. 7,800 Tigers and Panthers combined against what ? 50,000 T34 and M4's, 40,000 ? I don't know, even if it was 30,000 the numbers speak for themselves."

Bingo! In an industrial war of attrition, the side that makes the most of "good enough" is going to beat those that make only a small amount of "very good." When look at the tanks of WWII, one must look at them in toto; Strategically, operationally and importantly, logistically, as well as tactically. ThebPanther fails in many of those categories. Thus it was part of the overall series of strategic and operational decisions that doomed the Germans to a horrible defeat.

It is interesting that Kursk is mentioned. Some points: the a Germans were soundly defeated at Kursk, the Panther D made a very poor showing, especially maintenance-wise and they went up against T-34/76s and still lost. It would be interesting to see, though, where most Soviet losses occurred, during the German attacks at Kursk, or the Russian counterattacks. The Russians were very aggressive at Kursk and I believe some new sources are showing that both the Germans and Soviets inflated Russian tank losses at Kursk.

But I agree, all the Sherman really needs in PG is defense of 3. the 76mm ones are available.

Interesting point as tactically the Germans dominated at Kursk yet lost in every way that mattered. The bad performance of the Panthers could have been predicated when the Germans shunned experienced crews opting for rookies instead. Not even enough veterans to recognize small problems before they became major. No way to break in an untried vehicle,
On the Sherman discussion the one point not raised so far was their reliability of 90%. Whatever their faults a platoon usually when into battle with 5 tanks instead of their opponents 4. Just something to consider. The only other tank to approach that level of reliably was the Pz38t which explains why the chassis stayed in product so long.
It's funny as I have heard every other factor on the Sherman discussed but the direct fire value of 9 as it was at least as effective it this role as the German 75mm tanks were. The Firefly was originally undervalued in Beyond Normandy but the 8 range might be a bit high as German optics were superior. Just my thoughts.
Thanks, Mike