[Clyde]

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.

Well, no I wasn't a tanker in War Two (born in 1943). However, I was an Ordnance officer for a few years and spoke with folks who ran tanks on both sides in Europe and North Africa twenty years before I went on active duty. Plus studied after action reports and studies of actions. My feeling and accounts indicate the Sherman was NOT a POS. Far from the best tank of WWII, and far from the best medicine for either a Panther or Tiger, but the equal or better of a Mark III or Mark IV (and faced more of those than Tiger or Panther). Like the later M-26, very good automotive (didn't break down as often - still maintenance hogs like every AFV I ever saw). As to "lighting every time" - did that apply to the diesel models frequently supplied to British and Russian allies? In fact, those, until wet storage for ammo was applied ALSO lit up easily - it ws the ammo that usually caught fire first when a Sherman was penetrated. until wet storage came along.

Oh - all those German tanks (ALL of them, from Mark I to King Tiger) were gasoline powered with all that implies.

Now - could the Sherman have been better? Sure. A LOT better, especially the gun. Would it have ever been the 1-on-1 equal of a Panther or Tiger in a fight? No.

 

[jeff barnes]

My father was a prewar member of a half horse/half armored car National Guard cavalry unit. They converted fully to Stuart tanks and M8 armored cars post December 7th.
They arrived in France in time to participate in the battle of Falais Gap.

Like many WWII vets, he didn't tell many war stories. But he seemed to like the M8, and also seemed glad not to be in tanks. He did mention the many tanks he saw destroyed by shaped charge weapons.

 

[armenjs]

http://militaryhistorynow.com/2015/03/20/tank-clash-the-german-panther-vs-the-soviet-t-34-85/

Good reading folks #2 3 4

T34-85 43-45 Numbers build are 5-1 ~30,000 vs 6000

 

[Thagomizer]

All of this compares the Panther to the T34/85. A look at the comparative weights will show that the Panther is more closely related to the JS 2.

 

[milprileb]

Well, no I wasn't a tanker in War Two (born in 1943). However, I was an Ordnance officer .

Clyde, your credentials as a Ord Officer don't carry much water in this discussion nor does mine as Special Forces. However I will take you to task every time you come up with this crap about the Sherman because my old man fought in M4 Shermans in WWII and his analysis till the day he died was the Sherman was a POS.

You frequently pontificate your expertise about subs, air craft and other vehicles which you do routinely, maybe you got your stuff together, I don't know and can't say.

On the Sherman M4 Tank: you are very much misinformed and are contributor to revisionist writing / thinking on WWII facts. Sadly, many do this and do great injustice.

 

[armenjs]

All of this compares the Panther to the T34/85. A look at the comparative weights will show that the Panther is more closely related to the JS 2.

uhh know you're talking about heavy weights,,, IS2 , JS2 vs Jagdtiger's IMO waste of time and resource in Germany behave.

 

[bigjershooter]

As a former Marine,I have no experience with tanks personally(I watched the marines M-60 tanks role by me)on more than 1 experience.I have studied WW2 history since a child.The video shows that the Panther tank was more adept at cross country travel due to it,s larger track width,and better weight to power ratio.These tanks were first made in time for Kursk in July of 1943.They were designed to compete against the T-34 tank from knowledge learned on the eastern front from 1941-1943.The high velocity 75mm gun on the panther was designed to penetrate the angled Soviet armor of the T-34 at a much greater distance than previous German armored tanks under powered guns(MK1,MK2,and MK3).It was said correctly that the nick name for the Sherman was Tommy cooker by the germans,and Ronson burner by the allies.It being gasoline powered proved to be one of the M4 biggest detractions,along with a under powered 75mm gun,and lack of sloped armor.Remember that German tank design was influenced by there coming up against the T-34 starting in 1941.they learned many hard lessons from there many armored battles during 1941-1942 which directly influenced there tank design of the Panther and Tiger-1 tanks.The biggest advantage of the war was the ability of the Soviet,and Americans to out produce the germans in tank numbers.these are just my obsevations from many years of reading World War II history.In my view the panther was the best medium tank made with the Soviet T-34 second and the M-4 Sherman last in direct tank to tank combat.

 

[Mike In memoriam]

Just thinking out loud, I suppose the Panther was aprety good idea.
The interleaved suspension caused as many problemsas it solved among other things.
That said, it was a new design and teething issues develop.
Interesting is the plethora of WW2 pictures involving brewed up or blown up Panthers.
Seems to be a majority of those pics.
This one from Aberdeen.
Mined wheels?

 

[bigjershooter]

Mike;Nice photo of a Panther tank.I believe that the road wheels are certainly missing,which could have been caused by a anti-tank mine,or a hit to the road wheels by a 75mm tank round.Some times when the allies engaged the Panther from to great a distance,they would go for the drive wheels(and track) to halt the tank,and then drive around and close the distance to hit the panther from behind.Only at close range 850m or less could the M-4 Sherman,s main gun(75mm)low velocity penetrate the armor plate of the panther.Usually from behind the panther and make a engine shot.Another glaring weakness of the panther was the drive train and transmission.It took a very experienced driver to handle the panther cross country.A new driver would chew up the transmission,and final drive assemblies quickly without the valuable experience needed from combat operations.It was unfortunate that as the war progressed,the German armor school lacked the needed petrol to educate the new drivers.Thus they learned by hands on driving in combat.

 

[Mike In memoriam]

Here is a better Photo. Thought I had lost it.

 

[bigjershooter]

Dear Mike;Another more descriptive photo of the Panthers road wheels.I suspect a mine caused these injuries.There is a double single road wheel missing,then a set of two(inner and outer)road wheels missing,and another double single missing.I also see that the next set od doubles has the inner road wheel missing a significant amount of that wheel.There is no shell hole from a passing anti tank round also.I suspect that the US army just slapped on a new or used track,and had the tank shipped back to the states for examination.Thanks for the 2 nice photo thou.

 

[Clyde]

Clyde, your credentials as a Ord Officer don't carry much water in this discussion nor does mine as Special Forces. However I will take you to task every time you come up with this crap about the Sherman because my old man fought in M4 Shermans in WWII and his analysis till the day he died was the Sherman was a POS.

You frequently pontificate your expertise about subs, air craft and other vehicles which you do routinely, maybe you got your stuff together, I don't know and can't say.

On the Sherman M4 Tank: you are very much misinformed and are contributor to revisionist writing / thinking on WWII facts. Sadly, many do this and do great injustice.

Well, we shall have to disagree. The Sherman was not any sense a complete POS, however your dad claimed. I will note - he fought in Shermans, and survived. That should offer something. In North Africa where the enemy had mainly Mark III and Mark IV, the Sherman actually dominated the German tanks (but not the German tankers - German doctrine made them dangerous until the end). Had opportunity to examine damaged tanks (Aberdeen was a great place for that). And read the reports from the time and the analysis of them.

The "revisionist" writing is actually the consequences of actual examination of the facts, without the pressure of time and all that. Including emotion. I will repeat - the Sherman was NOT the equal of a Panther or or Tiger, one on one. But it did the job required at the time. In a manner that was more costly than could have been arranged. But - who won, eh?

 

[Clyde]

Just thinking out loud, I suppose the Panther was aprety good idea.
The interleaved suspension caused as many problemsas it solved among other things.
That said, it was a new design and teething issues develop.
Interesting is the plethora of WW2 pictures involving brewed up or blown up Panthers.
Seems to be a majority of those pics.
This one from Aberdeen.
Mined wheels?

Pretty sure I saw that one when I was at APG, and should have some slides of it. Yours shows a new and much better paint job than when I saw it (mid-60s). There is another Panther (or maybe a Tiger II, but I think it was one of the Panthers) with an example of why frontal engagement with our 75mm didn't work well. Sort of looks like somebody (Jolly Green Giant?) took a scoop and got a shallow sample as it ricocheted. Sherman wasn't a one-on-one match for a Panther, except it didn't break down as much.

 

[oneshooter]

Wasn't the problem of Sherman "cooking off" fixed by the use of "wet" ammo storage?

Oneshooter

 

[Clyde]

Wasn't the problem of Sherman "cooking off" fixed by the use of "wet" ammo storage?

Oneshooter

If not fully "fixed", very much reduced according to the reports on file.

 

[John A. Larsen]

I read several reports and forums discussing the Sherman versus German tanks and it seemed to me that the Sherman did not dominate the Mark IV (the one with the longer barrel 75mm cannon) nor was it dominated by the Mrs IV. When the Sherman got the 76mm it was big help and the British version with the 17 pounder was quite capable, but with both these models it seems from the posts there just weren't enough of them. Also something about Gen McNair insisting the really good AP ammo go to the "Tank Destroyers" not so much to the Shermans, regardless of what the Tank Commanders wanted. One source said that in Normandy 1500 allied tanks were knocked out and 1700 German tanks were knocked out so "Who Won?". I think from past posts here that a great many of those German tanks were knocked out by Allied aircraft, and virtually none of the Allied tanks were knocked out by German aircraft. When it came to the Panthers and the Tigers, the Sherman had a faster turret traverse but the 75mm cannon was not very effective. One report lists a US Sherman hitting a Panther three times, then backing behind a building, and the Panther fired thru the building and knocked out the Sherman. I watched "Fields of Armor, Nightmare in Normandy" documentary on You Tube, with British,and Canadian tank crews in Shermans, and several German Tank commanders in Tigers. One British tank commander relates about hitting a Tiger several times, no results, again backing behind a building and the Tiger firing thru 5 walls of the house and knocking out the Sherman. Another allied tank commander relates his unit caught in the open and a Tiger tank calmly knocking out Sherman after Sherman , and was only stopped when a Allied fighter came up and knocked the Tiger out. Watching the video I think it is evident that the tankers interviewed felt they were badly out gunned by the Panther and Tiger and that IMO just gives them more credit for still going out and continue to attack. John

 

[David Murvihill]

No comment has been made so far about mechanical reliability:
Sherman-2500 miles between overhauls
T-34 400 miles between overhauls
Tiger 2- half broke down between railhead and start line during Ardennes offensive.

 

[shooterike]

In armoured warfare "kills" are delineated into 3 classes:

1. MISSION KILL- A tank that has been damaged to such an extent that it can not fulfill its' combat mission and must be repaired. Rarely a crew member may be injured or killed.

2. KILLED- A tank that has knocked out of the fight long term. It will take major repairs to put it back into service. Often one to all of the crew has been killed or badly injured.

3. OVERKILL- A tank that has been reduced to scrap. Turret holed/blown off. Body opened like a tin can by internal explosion. Major fire damage. Not repairable even in a fully equipped station.


Review the above and compare available data for Sherman and panther tanks. Remember, while it is possible for a tank to be Mission KILLED or KILLED several times, it can suffer OVERKILL only one time. Also, German tanks tended to be much sturdier than US or British tanks, therefore it was much more likely for German tank to only suffer MISSION KILL or KILL. But because of the generally greater power of German tank cannon, a very large percentage of US and British tanks were OVERKILLED.

 

[Sheniloiu]

OK, but in order to repair a tank one must recover it. That means controlling the battlefield after the battle and having the necessary heavy towing machines. The Germans were usually retreating and a Panther was not an easy thing to recover. That is why there are so many photos with Panthers being blown up by their own crew. Even a minor breakdown could cause the tank to be a total loss.
See the Tiger. One had to remove the turret, 15 tons, in order to replace the gear box or the main clutch. The crane capable to do this was a big fixed thing, one had to tow the tank under it to perform the operation. How stupid one can be to design a vehicle in such a way?

 

[David Murvihill]

The Germans had different classes of inoperable, depending on the damage:
Local repair- fixed by unit
Field repair- fixed at local workshop
Factory repair-fixed at factory
There may also be a theatre workshop repair. Commanders did not like sending their tanks back beyond the field repair workshops because there was no guarantee they'd get them back. So usually tank units had a bunch of tanks still in inventory but not functional. Tiger battalions would have almost their full complement of tanks officially but only able to field a dozen or so tanks every day, the rest waiting parts or repair. Then the enemy would overrun the workshop and the battalion's inventory would suddenly disappear from their records. Jentz' books on Panzer warfare are interesting reads in this regards.