[shooterike]

On all fronts in 1944/45, the Germans were fundamentally on the defensive and to a great extent their guns dominated the battlefield. This alone indicates that their armoured vehicles were largely recoverable and repairable because any damaged German tanks were likely to within the range of German guns. Not so with the allies. If a Sherman was rendered MISSION KILLED, the crew very wisely quickly bailed because the Germans would then OVERKILL it very quickly with follow up shots. When interpreting comparative numbers, the realization will be made that German "losses" when added together total several times the total number of tanks they actually made and Allied "losses" indicate only those MISSIONED KILLED, if that. German defensive tactics and in particular those defensive tactic used against the Allies in operation GOODWOOD, was the basis of NATO thinking during the Cold War.

 

[hard stripe]

WOW. good thread. I'll back clyde all the way. M60 11E30 tank commander

 

[Sheniloiu]

One can not expect to be so simple to recover damaged tanks from between the lines only under artillery cover. Usually the area will be in the range of enemy artillery too and the men attempting to do the recovery will be very much exposed. It is essential to have complete control over the battlefield in order to recover most of the damaged vehicles. One can not expect to be lucky all the time!
Shermans and T-34s were easy to recover and repair. Also the Pz.Kpfw.IIIs and IVs. The Panther not so much, the Tiger was a real pain in...... and the Kingtiger was a disaster because of its weight. The Germans needed two 18tons half tracked tractors to tow a Panther, three for the Tiger and God knows how many in the case of the Kingtiger. So in my opinion, from the recover/repair perspective, the Sherman was far better than the Panther. And I can tell you a lot about the T-34/85s but in an other thread.
T-55 company commander and later chief of the service responsible for vehicles maintenance in an triple A regiment.

 

[old greybeard]

I wouldn't want to have been in battle in either of them during 1944-45. Panthers were no match for a P-47 and the Shermans were no match for German armor. But they weren't intended to be, that's what tank destroyers were designed for.
Shermans were made in mass to travel fast and attack ground troops en masse, which they did with heavy losses but they won. And covered great distances in record time. And we didn't have to use horses to get there, as did 80% of the German forces/artillery. Its like wasting your resources building the best fighter of the war, so what when they are very limited numbers?

 

[Sheniloiu]

Exactly my point! It is better to have 5 fast, cheap, dependable, reasonable armored and armed, easy to produce, repair and replace Shermans instead of maybe a single or a pair of very much better armored and armed but not su reliable, complicated, difficult to manufacture, maintain and repair Panthers. Not to mention the amount of fuel needed to keep these things moving.
But that is the perspective of high rankings, the trooper in the field would had liked the Panther better. Fact is that when you are sitting behind a thinner armor plate and you are facing a big gun you don't give a ...... about which tank is better in the big picture. You only want your precious ass to be safe!

 

[jjk308 In Memoriam RIP]

Tank development was extremely rapid in WWII and that led to great disparities in battlefield effectiveness. The archaic M3 did very well in North Africa, was massed produced in substantial quantities until replaced by the M4 Sherman. The USA switched to mass production of the M4 too soon. I've read an article that said that Patton chose to concentrate on Sherman production and to not to push the M26 Pershing development only because he thought a tank that size wouldn't have adequate mobility. I find it hard to believe he didn't look at the power/weight ratio and ground pressure where it was better than the Sherman.

 

[shooterike]

Exactly my point! It is better to have 5 fast, cheap, dependable, reasonable armored and armed, easy to produce, repair and replace Shermans instead of maybe a single or a pair of very much better armored and armed but not su reliable, complicated, difficult to manufacture, maintain and repair Panthers. Not to mention the amount of fuel needed to keep these things moving.
But that is the perspective of high rankings, the trooper in the field would had liked the Panther better. Fact is that when you are sitting behind a thinner armor plate and you are facing a big gun you don't give a ...... about which tank is better in the big picture. You only want your precious ass to be safe!

You are DEAD wrong! The Sherman was a failure on the battlefield, in a tank vs tank situation because it was a qualitative failure. It made no real difference how many more Shermans or T34s there may be. In operation Goodwood one Panther was hit near 200 times and remained operational. Its' crew knocked out so many Shermans and Cromwells that they took no count because of the constant action. On the Russian front one Tiger took on 17 T34s and knocked them all out, without suffering any damage. That is what QUALITIVE superiority can do. Tigers and Panthers were FORCE MULTIPLERS.

 

[Clyde]

You are DEAD wrong! The Sherman was a failure on the battlefield, in a tank vs tank situation because it was a qualitative failure. It made no real difference how many more Shermans or T34s there may be. In operation Goodwood one Panther was hit near 200 times and remained operational. Its' crew knocked out so many Shermans and Cromwells that they took no count because of the constant action. On the Russian front one Tiger took on 17 T34s and knocked them all out, without suffering any damage. That is what QUALITIVE superiority can do. Tigers and Panthers were FORCE MULTIPLERS.

You do know that the first Tiger examined by the Allies was knocked out by a six-pounder?

And - history establishes the Sherman was NOT a failure, and neither was the T-34. But neither was perfect and neither was a match for Tiger or Panther one-on-one, especially in open country. Only an idiot would think they were (I hope I am not one). And - while there some controversy on the matter - it seems probable that Michael Wittman was killed (in a Tiger) by a Sherman (a Firefly with 17-pounder, that saw him first - so much for qualitative superiority).

And there is the matter of "who lost?". Anecdotal, but one of our German employees at Roedelheim was a Leutnant of Panzertruppen in War Two. I once asked him about the Sherman. He said he considered it a very worthy opponent for Mark IV, except for catching fire too easily when the hull or turret was penetrated (which the later Mark IVs could do readily, but they had to get on the Sherman first as the Mark IV was also vulnerable to about the same degree at similar ranges), until late in the war (wet storage then). He also said the Mark III and IV caught fire too easily if penetrated, which he didn't like if he was in it. As to Panther or Tiger, he was dismissive. Unless the German tank got flanked, and that happened far too often because there we so many Shermans to fight. T-34, well, they were bad news unless you were in open country and had a Panther or Tiger. Then - toast, especially with Hartkern ammo for the Panther (which was scarce). He was on both fronts, and I guess he'd have known. I do not think Herr Schmitt was just saying what he thought I wanted to hear. Since he had no good words for one of our major projects (up-gunning M-114 along with reinforcing hulls to deal with a cracking problem at the drive sprockets)... he envied the automotive performance of the Sherman as it didn't breakdown nearly as often as German tanks.

Older American tankers I knew considered Panther and Tiger (surprise, surprise) to be greatly superior in terms of combat power (and they feared them; they could kill you too easily and from too great a distance), but also vulnerable to flanking or stern shots. And prone to breaking down. Which meant they could be maneuvered against and killed. I have to rely on reports from the time and what people who were there told me.

 

[Sheniloiu]

You are DEAD wrong! The Sherman was a failure on the battlefield, in a tank vs tank situation because it was a qualitative failure. It made no real difference how many more Shermans or T34s there may be. In operation Goodwood one Panther was hit near 200 times and remained operational. Its' crew knocked out so many Shermans and Cromwells that they took no count because of the constant action. On the Russian front one Tiger took on 17 T34s and knocked them all out, without suffering any damage. That is what QUALITIVE superiority can do. Tigers and Panthers were FORCE MULTIPLERS.

An old Romanian guy who fought on the Est front, infantry, told me one day his platoon was defending a village, they had no A.T. guns but a retreating Panther was assigned to back them up. The Russians sent a lot of infantry and around 50 T-34s to attack the village and they were so sure of victory they didn't bother to go around the village or to send a reconnaissance patrol. The Panther put out of action about 20 T-34s but ran out of ammo and off he went for Berlin! The Russians stooped a little but then resumed attack and the Romanian platoon retreated, fortunately they had trucks. They found the Panther after about three to four miles, blown up by the crew following an engine break down. They picked up the crew.
So yes, the Panther was the best in favorable conditions and surely in an one to one combat but neither the Western allies or the Russians were considering fighting like some knights in an arena. There were swarms of allied tanks against a few German tanks. The Germans never had enough Panthers or Tiger and that is because they were so difficult to produce and were breaking out quite often. The best tank in the world is of no use if it sits somewhere waiting to be repaired.
Someone, don't remember who, once said that the best is the enemy of better. Guderian only wanted a better tank, not the best because he feared a very advanced design was to have too much problems. He was right!

 

[shooterike]

You do know that the first Tiger examined by the Allies was knocked out by a six-pounder?

And - history establishes the Sherman was NOT a failure, and neither was the T-34. But neither was perfect and neither was a match for Tiger or Panther one-on-one, especially in open country. Only an idiot would think they were (I hope I am not one). And - while there some controversy on the matter - it seems probable that Michael Wittman was killed (in a Tiger) by a Sherman (a Firefly with 17-pounder, that saw him first - so much for qualitative superiority).

And there is the matter of "who lost?". Anecdotal, but one of our German employees at Roedelheim was a Leutnant of Panzertruppen in War Two. I once asked him about the Sherman. He said he considered it a very worthy opponent for Mark IV, except for catching fire too easily when the hull or turret was penetrated (which the later Mark IVs could do readily, but they had to get on the Sherman first as the Mark IV was also vulnerable to about the same degree at similar ranges), until late in the war (wet storage then). He also said the Mark III and IV caught fire too easily if penetrated, which he didn't like if he was in it. As to Panther or Tiger, he was dismissive. Unless the German tank got flanked, and that happened far too often because there we so many Shermans to fight. T-34, well, they were bad news unless you were in open country and had a Panther or Tiger. Then - toast, especially with Hartkern ammo for the Panther (which was scarce). He was on both fronts, and I guess he'd have known. I do not think Herr Schmitt was just saying what he thought I wanted to hear. Since he had no good words for one of our major projects (up-gunning M-114 along with reinforcing hulls to deal with a cracking problem at the drive sprockets)... he envied the automotive performance of the Sherman as it didn't breakdown nearly as often as German tanks.

Older American tankers I knew considered Panther and Tiger (surprise, surprise) to be greatly superior in terms of combat power (and they feared them; they could kill you too easily and from too great a distance), but also vulnerable to flanking or stern shots. And prone to breaking down. Which meant they could be maneuvered against and killed. I have to rely on reports from the time and what people who were there told me.

The Sherman WAS a failure on the battlefield! This is not to say that it did not have its' good points, but the reality was that it was a 1930s tank fighting 1940s technology. In a lot of ways, the Sherman was an engineering disaster. In order to speed up production and increase numbers, the Sherman was designed to be built along a too broad industrial base. To understand what I mean by that, consider that there are far more still mills that can produce 1 inch rolled steel than there are mills that can produce 2 inch rolled steel. Is it smarter to order the order all mills to produce 1 inch steel so that a LOT of tanks can be made or to build far fewer but far superior tanks with larger guns and much thicker armour? I've heard all the stories about how smart it was to send out 5 Shermans or T34s or whatever to knock out a single Tiger or Panther. A few times it happened, but mostly it didn't. What the Tiger didn't kill was totaled by 88s or panzerfausts. Had it not been for the 8th Air Force, the Germans would controlled Europe. Look at todays' tanks. Every serious main battle tank, no matter who made it, owes a huge engineering debt to the Panther and Tiger. The real lesson of history is that QUALITY trumps QUANTITY when it comes to tanks and about everything else.

 

[jjk308 In Memoriam RIP]

Nope. It was a 1942 tank fighting 1943-44 tanks. We standardized on mass producing Shermans too soon. But quantity has a quality of its own.

 

[shooterike]

Nope. It was a 1942 tank fighting 1943-44 tanks. We standardized on mass producing Shermans too soon. But quantity has a quality of its own.

The Sherman had a lot of problems which in turn, cost a lot of US lives. The best parts of it were the engine, transmission and drive train. Their quality was in large part due to Detroit and the automobile. The rest of it was uninspired copying of the most useable, for US industry, of 1930s tank tech with minor upgrades. The reality is that Sherman was an military engineering disaster because it was designed about the same time, the late 1930s, that the Germans began working on the designs of the Panthers and Tigers. These three tanks, the Sherman, the Panther and the Tiger, are very near contemporary designs. The first Tiger rolled onto the battlefield in 1942! These radically more powerful tanks came into existence, because even in the 1930s, the Germans correctly assumed that the tank tech available could be very much up graded. They also correctly assumed that they should concentrate on QUALITY, not QUANITY. Your analogy that the Sherman was a 1942 tank fighting 1943-44 tanks, is simply wrong. A closer to the truth analogy would be that the Sherman, a 1942 tank was fighting 1960s tanks. The Germans were that far ahead in their thinking.

 

[old greybeard]

What a stupid argument. Whats next, what was better a ME 262 or a P-47? Your call, go into battle supported by 20 P-47's or 1 ME 262, which do you choose? Hindsight is 20/20, but the Sherman's got the job done, and thats all that matters.

 

[Pilot1]

I am no tank expert, but from what I have read, and seen, the soldiers that were fighting in Shermans were cannon fodder. There were way too many Allied casualties. It has always surprised me that this was tolerated, especially considering the untouched U.S. manufacturing capability which never had to deal with being bombed. How we couldn't have fielded a better tank, in good numbers, than the M4 Sherman has always baffled my mind.

Our aircraft evolved over time in WWII, but why not our tanks?

 

[shooterike]

What a stupid argument. Whats next, what was better a ME 262 or a P-47? Your call, go into battle supported by 20 P-47's or 1 ME 262, which do you choose? Hindsight is 20/20, but the Sherman's got the job done, and thats all that matters.

You may not like or just plain don't wont to admit it, but facts are facts! Chuck Jaeger, maybe you have heard of him, owned a ME262 and said it was better than anything the US had until the 1960s.

 

[Clyde]

You may not like or just plain don't wont to admit it, but facts are facts! Chuck Jaeger, maybe you have heard of him, owned a ME262 and said it was better than anything the US had until the 1960s.

Well, by some measures a 262 was better than any of the Allied birds that faced it. Since he had flown both, not quite sure how Chuck concluded it was better than (say) an F-86 from 1950. But he was the airplane driver, I wasn't. I do suspect that the fact (FACT) that nobody continued production of the Me-262 post-1945, even with decent engines, suggests something..

 

[Oldstuffer]

What a stupid argument. Whats next, what was better a ME 262 or a P-47? Your call, go into battle supported by 20 P-47's or 1 ME 262, which do you choose? Hindsight is 20/20, but the Sherman's got the job done, and thats all that matters.

Well Ike chooses one Swallow, and gets his arse shot to pieces by to Thunderbolts.

True, the germans tried to field "quality", but their "quality" was UNreliable.
You didn't have to shoot a Tiger or Panther to put it out of action, it'd break sooner or later (and more likely sooner).
The Panthers airtight engine bay caused overheats, the interleaved road wheels were prone to debris jams and freezing solid, the transmission didn't like turning too tightly (especially pivoting on a track), and the final drive liked these turns even less (let alone dragging 45 tons of weight around.
A fully fueled range of 50 miles...................
13.7 engine HP/ton of weight.


The Tiger's 650 to 700hp engine (lower later in the war from poor fuel) was not nearly strong enough to drag 55 tons around off-road.
That gawd-awful interleaved clogable/freezable roadwheel arrangement again: Removing an inner wheel that had lost its solid rubber tire (a common occurrence) required the removal of up to nine other wheels first.
The exact same final drive that gave fragility trouble on the 45 ton Panther was put in the 55 ton Tiger, which broke them even more often.
At least fully fueled range was closer to 100 miles....................
13 HP/ton of weight.

The Tiger B/Tiger II:
Same engine, after 10 MORE tons of tank has been welded up around it. On a good day, 12mph cross country............. If it's flat.
Lets take the "problematic" final drive from the Panther, thjat was even more "frail" on the 10-ton-heavier Tiger1, and put it in the 10 ton YET HEAVIER Tiger II........ That'll work fine.......... Ooops, no, it didn't.
At least they finally got rid of the interleaved aspect of the roadwheels.
Range, 75 miles cross country.
10HP/ton of weight.

In 1943, Germany built 11,601 tanks, only 2,498 were Panthers/Tiger I's (1 was a Tiger II)
WE made 21,231 M4's to oppose them.

In 1944, Germany built 5,072 Panthers, Tigers I & II. Oh, and 90 Elefants.
WE made 12,925 M4's to oppose them (9,400 with 76 and 105mm guns)

In 1945, Germany built 705 Panthers and 140 Tiger II's (and they were STILL making Panzer II's, III's, IV's, and 38(t)'s (4,406 tanks total, only 845 Panthers and Tigers......)
We made 6,785 M4's to oppose them (only 651 short-barreled M4's, the rest had 76's and 105's)

Was the Sherman the "best tank" of the war?
Heck no, but when 1 of "the best" takes on 100 of "the rest", "the best" is going to loose sooner or later. THAT is the "quantity having a quality all it's own".
The Panther was probably The Best the German's fielded (and it COULD have been even better but for wartime shortage issues), but even though were were 6,557 of them made, there was no way for them to stop the tide of 49,000 American Shermans, how many Brittish tanks, AND how many T-34's and KV1's?.]\

300 of the finest Greek wariors to ever draw a spear closed a choke point and took on (estimates vary) from 800,000 to 4 million Persions.
In 2 days of fighting, 298 Spartans were killed (2 were sent back on orders), unknown thousands of Persians died, but "the best" got routed in the end by inferior troops. Quantity having a Quality all it's own.

WE spent 40 years in fear of Russian Quantity in Europe, actually PLANNING on nukes as a "fallback" if The Bear invaded with all it's armor.
WE didn't field a "First Rate" tank, ever, until the 1980's, and finally, 40 years later, that one is STILL among the finest.
Yes, for whatever unknown reasons, the Army to a large extent (not completely) stagnated land equipment production for the war.
The Navy and the Army Air Corps continued to "upgrade" and "field new designs" (some of which had serious issues) for the rest of the war.

The Mustang fighter was an "also-ran" with the Allison engine, it only became a World Beater when it was mated to the Rolls Merlin.
The B-29 was notorious for engine failure/overheating issues.
The Navy made many upgrades in submarines and Surface Warshipe, the best known but by no means the only was The Iowa Class

 

[panzerfaust44]

What a stupid argument. Whats next, what was better a ME 262 or a P-47? Your call, go into battle supported by 20 P-47's or 1 ME 262, which do you choose? Hindsight is 20/20, but the Sherman's got the job done, and thats all that matters.

Actually the German FOCKWULF FW-190 ......aka.....the Butcher Bird.............was an even match for the P51 Mustang and the Spitfire.

 

[old greybeard]

You may not like or just plain don't wont to admit it, but facts are facts! Chuck Jaeger, maybe you have heard of him, owned a ME262 and said it was better than anything the US had until the 1960s.

I haven't disputed the facts, just the usage. Which was better is immaterial. The side who didn't build overly complicated weapons, while still fielding a huge number of horse drawn gear, won. They also developed a weapon by the end of the war which would made the vaulted nazi tanks and plane technology irrelevant.

I don't know who Chuck Jaeger is, but Chuck Yeager had this to say:
Chuck Yeager
August 22, 2013 ·

Q:Ever fly Me 262? What did u think of it? Yeager A: Me 262 wasn't much of an airplane. Well armed-four 37mm cannons on it. And it was obviously pretty fast for its day. But it had to land - & that's where it was vulnerable.

BTW he shot down a 262 with a P-51. About sums up this debate!

 

[Pilot1]

Actually the German FOCKWULF FW-190 ......aka.....the Butcher Bird.............was an even match for the P51 Mustang and the Spitfire.

I agree with that, but even the BF-109 (ME-109) was a match for them if flown by an experienced pilot. I think the FW was easier to fly well, and also had some other advantages.