German tanks

Non-naval discussions about the Second World War. Military leaders, campaigns, weapons, etc.
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3293
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Sherman versus Tiger

Post by dunmunro » Tue Jun 07, 2011 8:28 am

I was just watching Greatest Tank Battles and a Canadian tanker retold how his Sherman took a hull down position behind a hedge when a Tiger I took up a hull down position directly opposite the Sherman, on the other side of the hedge so that their barrels were nearly touching. The Canadians got the drop on the Tiger and fired about a 1/2 dozen 75mm rounds at the Tiger, at point blank range...everyone simply bounced off! The Tiger fired once and put a round through the Sherman's turret, but the driver was unwounded and it managed to back away and avoid another hit.

A Ram tank would have knocked the Tiger out with its first 6pdr hit...the incredible stupidity of arming the vast majority of Allied tanks with such a useless gun allowed the Tiger to develop its reputation for invulnerability.

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: German tanks

Post by lwd » Tue Jun 07, 2011 4:48 pm

Karl Heidenreich wrote:lwd:
Doctrine clearly played a part here. As for not hitting the Nowaki there is evidence that she took some spinter damage and of course Bismarck didn't manage to sink any of the much closer British DD's did she?
Of course this is OT but cannot be left unchallenged: when the destroyer action took place the Bismarck cannot steer because of the rudder damage, so no firing solution worth to hit the great number of destroyers attaching her. Which is not the case with Nowaki and Iowa: there several BBs fully operational were firing against one destroyer: no hits whatsoever.
But Bismarck wasn't moving very fast and of course there were the night attacks when she didn't have to worry about battleship fire. The Iowa's were moving at close to if not at flank speed, maneuvering and firing over their bows so not all that favorable of firing situation either.[/quote]
And of course as you say it's OT here so I will post no more on it on this thread.
Now: on the origins of the destroyed tanks at Kursk, besides the points that Alex already made, the same aplies both ways, so the ratio stands. If some Tigers were lost to mines then the ratio works against them, not in their favor. Learn statistics man!
I suspect I have a much better understanding of statistics than you do. Alex's post dose indeed support pretty strongly a favoreable kill ratio for the Tigers. On the otherhand no one was disputing that. However it's not worth much for actually determining kill ratios. For one thing the Soviet losses are listed as "claims". For another it's not clear what killed all the Tigers that were lost so you've got problems with both the numerator and the denominator in calculating the ratio.

It does appear from your post that you totatlly missed the point I was trying to make with my mine reference.

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: German tanks

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Tue Jun 07, 2011 9:16 pm

lwd:

I can't believe that in the Bismarck vs. Iowa everybody is making one hell of incredible discussion and I have to waste my time in reiterations:
But Bismarck wasn't moving very fast and of course there were the night attacks when she didn't have to worry about battleship fire. The Iowa's were moving at close to if not at flank speed, maneuvering and firing over their bows so not all that favorable of firing situation either.
And of course as you say it's OT here so I will post no more on it on this thread.
[/quote]

Please refer to Tiornu's post of March 30th 2011, or so on from Thorsten, Dave Saxton and Alexandros.

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=561&start=180

You are comparing several BBs bullying a destroyer with Bismarck, damaged and alone against superior forces. Typical from you, an argumentative trick to put myself OT and reiterate in order for the forum management to pick on me. Read them and stop sabotage procedures.
I suspect I have a much better understanding of statistics than you do.
I doutb it: I use statistic for a living. I understand pretty well what you are doing, so I wont' follow your provocations any more. Sorry.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

Thorsten Wahl
Senior Member
Posts: 647
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:17 pm

Re: German tanks

Post by Thorsten Wahl » Fri Jun 24, 2011 6:33 pm

A piece about casualities of Sherman tank suffered by 7,5 cm and 8,8 cm guns
http://www.wlu.ca/lcmsds/cmh/back%20iss ... 201944.pdf
Meine Herren, es kann ein siebenjähriger, es kann ein dreißigjähriger Krieg werden – und wehe dem, der zuerst die Lunte in das Pulverfaß schleudert!

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: German tanks

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Sat Jun 25, 2011 1:36 pm

Thorsten,

Thanks for the piece of information. Incredible that lack of protection that the Sherman had even to the 75 mm shell, not to mention the 88 mm one. Also is nice to see the photos of knocked Shermans, it seems that the only ones available are those of German tanks destroyed and not a single was previously posted on Shermans, which outnumber the German casualties by the tens per one.

The reading is quite enlighting.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: German tanks

Post by lwd » Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:42 pm

Karl Heidenreich wrote:... it seems that the only ones available are those of German tanks destroyed and not a single was previously posted on Shermans,
There are lots of pictures available of knoked out Shermans but this is a thread about German tanks so why post them here?
which outnumber the German casualties by the tens per one. ...
Or not.
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Military-His ... sses-1.htm
States that the US lost 4,400 Shermans from D-day through the end of the war. There were obviously some lost in North Africa, Italy, and on the eastern front, as well as by the British, and in the Pacfic. However one wouldn't expect the number to rise much above say 10,000 based on that. On the otherhand http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 9&start=30 states:
In 43 ger lost 8000 tanks des on all fronts
. So "tens per one" is obviously a gross exageration.
More details on losses are available in the following thread:
http://208.84.116.223/forums/index.php?showtopic=30346

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: German tanks

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:11 am

lwd:
So "tens per one" is obviously a gross exageration.
Several sources confirm it. They have been posted in this thread.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 747
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: German tanks

Post by Byron Angel » Tue Jun 28, 2011 12:33 pm

Sorry gents, but for me this discussion is rapidly going down the rabbit hole of statistical legerdemain. For example .....
Or not.
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Military-His ... sses-1.htm
States that the US lost 4,400 Shermans from D-day through the end of the war. There were obviously some lost in North Africa, Italy, and on the eastern front, as well as by the British, and in the Pacfic. However one wouldn't expect the number to rise much above say 10,000 based on that. On the otherhand http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 9&start=30 states:

In 43 ger lost 8000 tanks des on all fronts
. So "tens per one" is obviously a gross exageration.
More details on losses are available in the following thread:
http://208.84.116.223/forums/index.php?showtopic=30346
..... How exactly does the above all fit together logically? On one hand, it states that 4,400 of a specific tank type (Sherman) were lost by the US between Jun 44 and May 45, with some other Shermans lost elsewhere and by other allied nations (what about Canadians, French, Poles, other Commonwealth forces?) which it is guessed/estimated/extrapolated would not raise the total of Sherman tanks lost during the war to more than 10,000. This 10,000 figure is then compared to a number of 8,000 German tanks of all types lost in 1943. The more I read this, the more questions arise. What exactly do these figures represent - total number KO'ed in action? total constructive combat losses? losses from all causes including abandonment? Were both figures calculated on the same basis? Why is the comparison of the losses of a specific tank type on one hand against a figure reflecting losses of all types on the other hand presented as meaningful? How is it meaningful? What am I missing?

I'm not trying to raise a fuss or furor or flame war here, but numbers are meaningless to a reader without proper context.

B

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: German tanks

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Tue Jun 28, 2011 12:37 pm

Byron:
..... How exactly does the above all fit together logically? On one hand, it states that 4,400 of a specific tank type (Sherman) were lost by the US between Jun 44 and May 45, with some other Shermans lost elsewhere and by other allied nations (what about Canadians, French, Poles, other Commonwealth forces?) which it is guessed/estimated/extrapolated would not raise the total of Sherman tanks lost during the war to more than 10,000. This 10,000 figure is then compared to a number of 8,000 German tanks of all types lost in 1943. The more I read this, the more questions arise. What exactly do these figures represent - total number KO'ed in action? total constructive combat losses? losses from all causes including abandonment? Were both figures calculated on the same basis? Why is the comparison of the losses of a specific tank type on one hand against a figure reflecting losses of all types on the other hand presented as meaningful? How is it meaningful? What am I missing?

I'm not trying to raise a fuss or furor or flame war here, but numbers are meaningless to a reader without proper context.
You are right. The proper references have been given got the time the main discussion died weeks ago. No need to reiterate with un contextualized information.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: German tanks

Post by lwd » Tue Jun 28, 2011 2:36 pm

Karl Heidenreich wrote:
So "tens per one" is obviously a gross exageration.
Several sources confirm it. They have been posted in this thread.
They have? Perhaps you would care to point them out.
Byron Angel wrote:Sorry gents, but for me this discussion is rapidly going down the rabbit hole of statistical legerdemain. For example .....
I'm not trying to raise a fuss or furor or flame war here, but numbers are meaningless to a reader without proper context.
There only meaning was to demonstrate that the preceding comment was either a gross exageration or meaningless due a lack of precision.

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: German tanks

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Wed Jun 29, 2011 12:58 am

lwd:
They have? Perhaps you would care to point them out.
Lee, if you follow all this thread you will find those sources and what they state. From Schneider, Glantz, Willbeck, Dupuy, Calhoun, etc. I want to be polite this time so I will only say how tiresome is to see that a whole thread, of several weeks, in which a vast amount of links, books, sources and opinions are used only for you to come forward and play the one that has forgotten everything. That is why reiterations have to be done and people get into trouble.

In order to finish this once and for all: the Sherman was the best damn tank of WWII; it was so good that each Sherman knock out 10 to 15 German tanks, specially if it were Tigers I. Happy?
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: German tanks

Post by lwd » Wed Jun 29, 2011 2:55 pm

Karl Heidenreich wrote:
They have? Perhaps you would care to point them out.
Lee, if you follow all this thread you will find those sources and what they state. From Schneider, Glantz, Willbeck, Dupuy, Calhoun, etc. I want to be polite this time so I will only say how tiresome is to see that a whole thread, of several weeks, in which a vast amount of links, books, sources and opinions are used only for you to come forward and play the one that has forgotten everything.
I don't think I've forgotten everything. I just don't think the sources support your statement. You obviously do so what sources do you think support it.
In order to finish this once and for all: the Sherman was the best damn tank of WWII; it was so good that each Sherman knock out 10 to 15 German tanks, specially if it were Tigers I. Happy?
NO. I do believe no other tank that saw much action would have worked as well for the US as the Sherman did but I'm not even sure it makes sense to say there was a "best tank of WW II". I've never claimed Shermans had a kill ratio of opposing tanks anything like that and with good reason. I'm sorry that you seem to be unable to understand my points and draw unwarrented conclusions from both my posts, those of others, and the records presented but that does indeed seem to be the case.

User avatar
19kilo
Member
Posts: 143
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 1:46 am

Re: German tanks

Post by 19kilo » Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:31 pm

The M-4 series tanks were very much out of date by D-Day and really were horribly vulnerable to German tank/antitank guns, not to mention panzerfausts. That being said.....they were "good enough" and we won with them. VERY glad I never had to crew one of the things tho......I'll stick to my old M-1!

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: German tanks

Post by lwd » Mon Jul 11, 2011 2:39 pm

19kilo wrote:The M-4 series tanks were very much out of date by D-Day
That would explain why they were still providing valuable service decades later.
and really were horribly vulnerable to German tank/antitank guns, not to mention panzerfausts.
All tanks were pretty vulnerable to the latest AT weapons by that point. The big problem for the Sherman was not so much the armor but the weapon carried by most of them. Still it could be quite leathal to most German tanks.
That being said.....they were "good enough" and we won with them. VERY glad I never had to crew one of the things tho......I'll stick to my old M-1!
Not sure the old M1 ever saw combat service unlike the new one. :)
Designing a "better" tank that met all the requirements of the time was a non trivial process that's for sure. Particularly if you look at reliability, strategic and operational mobility requirements. With 20:20 hindsight a mix of Shermans with a new 90mm turret and the 105 (accompanied by a HEAT round) would probably have been the best bet.

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: German tanks

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Tue Jul 12, 2011 12:08 am


The M-4 series tanks were very much out of date by D-Day and really were horribly vulnerable to German tank/antitank guns, not to mention panzerfausts. That being said.....they were "good enough" and we won with them. VERY glad I never had to crew one of the things tho......I'll stick to my old M-1
:ok:
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

Post Reply