[Thagomizer]

Brazen Chariots is indeed a good book. i remember his description of watching his 37 m/m tracer go sailing across the desert and bounce off a German tank. He always worried about their short cruising range and running out of gas.

 

[Fusil L' Acadienne]

M3/M5 were great little tanks, but like the M26, M41, and all other light tanks, more scout vehicles than anything else. My dad was a tank platoon leader on M41's back in the 50's, and still gets teary-eyed when talking about them. Relative to the M4/T-34/Pzkw V discussion, I do not believe that you would get much of an argument from M4 or T-34 crewmen that the Panther was the better tank. Tactically, no doubt, however, a 5-1 or 7-1 kill ratio is still a loser if your enemy can out produce you at 10-1. Add to that, the fact that the German effective strength was even lower, significantly, due to reliability. All this adds up to the M4/T-34 being better strategic systems. But the real killer for Germany, was their lack of real force multipliers. They lost air superiority, never could co-ordinate their artillery, and lost the ability to keep their forces supplied. The real comparison should be the 2 1/2 ton truck to the horse cart.

 

[armenjs]

Despite contrary beliefs inside Panther was cramped.

 

[armenjs]

 

[armenjs]

commander, gunner loader.

 

[Clyde]

Despite contrary beliefs inside Panther was cramped.

Of course a Panther was cramped inside. Not AS cramped as aT-34, though. I have never been in any tank (was a 4815 Mech Maintenance Officer on active duty 1966-1970) that wasn't pretty tight, though some more than others. As best I can recall, I have been inside M-4, M47, M-48, M-60, T-55 and M-41. Oh - also M-1 Abrams when I was a JAG with 1st CAV 1974-77. For a tank, the Abe struck me as fairly roomy, but still right tight.

 

[izzytok46]

I've seen some of those scenes in a longer video before. If I remember right it was a Swedish training film and it was linked here. They also ran a Churchill tank and some kind of light tank. Interestingly the light tank bogged down in the marsh too and the panther did much better

 

[redgemak]

The best tank of WWII was in my opinion the sturmgeschutz (long barreled), there were more knight cross commanders who drove a sturmgeschutz than tank commanders.
It even was a rule under soviet tank commanders to NOT engage a fight with a sturmgeschutz if they were alone on the battlefield.
The same goes foor al the low tank hunters (Hetzer ea).

Jean

 

[diopter]

Not sure either who made the comparison, but the infantryman who jumped into the water trench looked to be carrying a Swedish K SMG. John

It is Swedish.

My regiment was the Canadian Grenadier Guards. *
They were an armored corps During WWII.
There were still a few WWII vets alive when I was there. Many were wounded in ation, Most died in action.
Most still had nightmares about the Shermans
Were decent tanks until they had to face Panthers and Tigers
If it wasn't for the 17Pdr gun version, they might have been wiped out.

*The Second World War[edit]
The regiment mobilized The Canadian Grenadier Guards, CASF on 24 May 1940. It was redesignated as the 1st Battalion, The Canadian Grenadier Guards, CASF on 7 November 1940. It was converted to armour and redesignated as the 22nd Armoured Regiment (The Canadian Grenadier Guards), CAC, CASF on 26 January 1942 and as the 22nd Armoured Regiment (The Canadian Grenadier Guards), RCAC, CASF on 2 August 1945. It embarked for Britain on 25 September 1942. On 26 July 1944, it landed in France as part of the 4th Armoured Brigade, 4th Canadian Armoured Division, and it continued to fight in North West Europe until the end of the war. The overseas regiment was disbanded on 15 February 1946.[13]
On 1 June 1945, a second Active Force component of the regiment was mobilized for service in the Pacific theatre of operations as the 22nd Canadian Tank Battalion (The Canadian Grenadier Guards), CAC, CASF6 It was redesignated as the 22nd Canadian Tank Battalion (The Canadian Grenadier Guards), RCAC, CASF and was disbanded on 1 November 1945.[14]

 

[Clyde]

The best tank of WWII was in my opinion the sturmgeschutz (long barreled), there were more knight cross commanders who drove a sturmgeschutz than tank commanders.
It even was a rule under soviet tank commanders to NOT engage a fight with a sturmgeschutz if they were alone on the battlefield.
The same goes foor al the low tank hunters (Hetzer ea).

Jean

Sturmgeschutzen and Panzerjagern were not tanks. AFVs, yes, and with a tank destroyer function as a secondary or primary role, yes. But not tanks.

 

[milprileb]

Gents,

Spin it anyway you want to ...it does not alter the fact the Sherman was high silhouette, burnt up quickly due to gasoline engines, and under gunned. T34, Panther, Tiger were neither and far superior

If "more' is your rationale to give Sherman value added in WWII...then lay it out in the open, we made more Shermans than Brits made Cromwells and the Sherman was clearly superior to the Cromwell. Not saying much is it ?

Fact is the US Army had a POS for a tank . Don't forget..we made more POS than anyone else in battle tanks so were were #1..true statement but irrelvant. We had a POS tank.

 

[Nick]

.. FUEL TANKS on the outside rear of the tank (with your engine deck between them)..........how stupid can you get ???

Not stupid at all as the external tanks were only used on the march and were dropped before battle.

 

[John A. Larsen]

In the book "The Sharp End" The Fighting man in WWII is an interview of a British Churchill Tank commander about fighting Panthers and Tigers:

"What do the Germans have most of?
Panthers. The Panther can slice through a Churchill like butter from a mile away.
And how does a Churchill get a Panther?
It creeps up on it. When it reaches close quarters, the gunner tries to bounce a shot off the underside of the Panther's gun mantle. If he's lucky, it goes through the piece of thin armor above the driver's head.
Has anyone ever done it?
Yes, Davis in "C" Squadron. He's back with headquarters now trying to recover his nerve.
What's next on the list?
Tigers. The Tiger can get you from a mile and a half.
And how does a Churchill get a Tiger?
It's supposed to get within 200 yards and put a shot through the periscope.
Has anyone ever done it?
No.

Not mentioned if it was the 6 pounder (57mm cannon) or the 75 mm cannon version of the Churchill. Later it talks about the Churchill when shot would catch fire 3 out of 5 times and take about 10 seconds for the flames to sweep through the entire tank. It then says the Sherman caught fire every time, and flames swept through in about 3 seconds, and the Germans called the Sherman "Tommy cookers" while supposedly the Allies called the Sherman "Ronson" burners. This came from the Ronson add that their product "light the first time".
Still there were way more Sherman's than Panters or Tigers and the fact that the Allies had almost complete air superiority and P47's and Mustangs over almost all advances saved lots of tank crews. John

 

[tacfoley2 in Memoriam]

'Quantity has a quality all of its own' were the truest words ever spoken about the latter stages of WW2. The allies could put more than a THOUSAND four-engined bombers in the air, by day or night, and sometimes, by day AND night. The German four-engine aircraft, the Focke-Wulf 'Condor' was mostly used for maritime reconnaissance and the occasional convoy attack. And there not very many of them, either.

As for the figures regarding Shermans, let's just read the words written by Belton Y. Cooper in his book 'Death Traps'.

Quote - 'The Third Armored Division entered combat in Normandy with 232 M4 Sherman tanks. During the European campaign, the Division had some 648 Sherman tanks completely destroyed in combat and we had another 700 knocked out, repaired [and] put back into operation. This was a loss rate of 580%'.

My dad was inducted into tank maintenance just prior to D-Day, and spent the remainder of the war repairing those Shermans, and other Allied tanks, that were at least salvageable. Even so, he had some real horror stories that he passed on to me when I got old enough to 'appreciate' them. I was able to see at first hand the effects of the 75mm Hartkerngeschoss from Panther on one of the exhibits at Overloon in the Netherlands. The shot penetrated the chilled casting of the right-hand transmission cover, then went up and over the gun and back down into the compartment, exiting through the engine compartment and into oblivion. Only the commander got out, but left his legs behind.

According to the text accompanying the exhibit, the Panther had opened fire at just over 950m.

Let's not overlook that as well as the Mustangs and P47s, the Allies also had the Typhoon and Tempest FGA aircraft. Their onboard load of eight 60 pound rockets was the equivalent of a broadside from a 6" gun cruiser, and the end results were annihilation for the vehicles and their crews on the ground. The Falaise pocket, the definitive Armageddon for the Wehrmacht, was an early preview of the famous Highway of Death in GW1.

tac

 

[Alexei]

Messers. Larsen and Foley share some brilliant comments and analysis.

 

[milprileb]

My father was a career armor officer. WWII thru VN Wars. In 37th Tank Battalion of 4th Armored Division which was the unit that busted into Bastogne . He was no stranger to German Armor. He had zero good things to say of the M4 or any of our tank designs in WWII, he was complimentary of the M26 which arrived far too late in the war. He said...as long as you kept a ton of fan belts on hand the M26 did the job.

Now..all you experts who want to praise, shade, spin or manufacture great things to say of the M4 Sherman ...you were not there in WWII. No M4 tanker who fought German tanks will ever tell you the M4 was anything but a death trap. They used it because that is all the US Army had but it was a failure as a tank .

This American thing of always thinking and saying we had the best gets in our way some times. Sometimes truth and fact have to be taken seriously and in the case of M4 Sherman Tank, this tank
was awful. Bloody Awful.

My respects to John Larson, who commented above. He was an all star Green Beret in 3/1 SFGA.

 

[armenjs]

Messers. Larsen and Foley share some brilliant comments and analysis.

OUTSTANDING PICK- OFFTOPIC BUT WHY NOT

 

[John A. Larsen]

I agree about General Mattis. Back in 2002/2003 I got to take part in a demo of different gear for the 1st Marine Division at Camp Pendelton. We demo'ed the Vector Binocular Laser Range Finder, range, azimuth and hook it to a military GPS and it would give you a 10 digit grid coordinate out to about 12 KM. We started with a Gunnery Sergeant and worked our way all the way up to then MG Mattis. He liked what he saw, but one of his aides made a comment that the system was expensive. MG Mattis turned to the aide and said something like:

"How many Marine SGLI's do we have to pay out before this becomes cost effective?"

SGLI being Service Group Life Insurance, which is paid when a service member dies in combat. MG Mattis had his priorities right, take care of his men and women was more important to him then dollars. John

 

[panzerfaust44]

Not stupid at all as the external tanks were only used on the march and were dropped before battle.

Sorry, but I don't believe that for a minute !

 

[Nick]

Sorry, but I don't believe that for a minute !

Then the Russian books must be lying. I don't think T-34 is better than the Sherman (mostly because of T-34's build quality), but the Russian designers and their clients were not stupid.