Posted on 04/07/2018 9:25:29 AM PDT by Simon Green
The Littlefield Collection in California has one
IIRC, several Syrian Jagdpanzer IVs survived the 6 Day War, were in inventory during Yom Kippur but never saw service during Yom Kippur.
Also a factor in Germany’s defeat was the reality that German tank crews after July-August 1944 were not as well trained. Even in a superior tank like the Tiger or Panther poorly trained crews were no match for experienced American crews. A classic of this was the Battle of Arracourt in late September 1944 where American tankers won a lopsided victory over a German tank force consisting mostly of Panthers.
BS on that. I knew men who served in armored units in WW2 and considered the Sherman a piece of junk. On average it took five Shermans to knock out one Panther Mk.5. German tanks had excellent armor and excellent guns with superior range.
>>All of their assault guns were capable of knocking out any allied tank.
Sure, with a rear shot.
But the 75mm gun on a STG III wasn’t doing much against the front armor on a IS-2 at anything beyond point blank range, and they were deployed in numbers starting in 1944 for the drive to Berlin.
The “precision bombing” campaign was amazingly imprecise, and the Germans were really good at hiding industrial operations.
It wasn’t until we started bombing oil and refinery production facilities that we hit on the right target, and really ground the German mechanized war machine to a halt. Think the raid on Ploesti, among others. Those facilities were much harder to move/hide.
The Sherman was poorly designed, built for manufacture and transport in large number, for which purpose it did serve. They were superior in quality (as in quality control) and weren’t broken down all over the length and breath of Europe like the malfunctioning hodge podge of manifestly inadequate German armor.
OH THE PANTHER! You mean tha T34 knock off? Yeah, a later development, which tended to catch fire at first.
German armor performed better because of the men inside of them, not the over engineered, overrated boxes around them. Their doctrine was superior. Their training and motivation was superior.
But the Hun got their asses kicked. My dad was one of the ones who helped kick it. What he told me the GIs feared was the 88mm gun. That and SS, which again is personnel not hardware. We grossly overestimate machines over men.
I mostly meant dreadful movies like Battle of the Bulge
I highly recommend "Death Traps: The Survival of an American Armored Division in World War II" by Belton Y. Cooper. Cooper's job was to recover, clean out and cobble together tanks destroyed in combat.
I am familiar with Mr. Cooper. In all respects to Mr. Cooper, he was in a recovery unit and all he did day in and day out was deal with the aftermath of knocked out tanks. His story is deeply personal but somewhat analogous to members of a Graves Registration unit. All either did was deal with the failing part of a winning war. Understandably given such role, Mr. Cooper's account makes it sound as if the Germans won the war.
When a knocked out tank came to Mr. Cooper's unit, they didn't know the details of it's destruction. From their damage assessment they could surmise the type of munition(s) used against it. That was about it.
All they knew was that their unit had another knocked out tank to get back into service and all too often an awful mess to clean out of the inside.
Those 3rd Army armored divisions took well over 100% casualties in a matter of less than one year.
And IIRC, 3rd Army armor achieved over a 2:1 kill rate versus German armor during that same period. So whose tanks were death traps?
Shots through the front glaxis were probably the most common.
Yes, many Shermans were holed through the glaxis but one cannot make a sweeping statement from that. In western Europe, tank combat often took place at point blank range. In the Bocage, hedgerows are about 100 yards apart meaning, ALL tank combat took place at point blank range until a breakout could be achieved.
As I noted above the shorter barrel low velocity guns were to fulfill the requirement that the gun could fire 1,000 rounds without burning out the rifling.
And at the time of it's design, that short barreled gun was capable of dealing with the Mk-III and Mk-IVs which is all designers knew about. It isn't as if the Sherman was never up-gunned and up armoured. Further more, M61 APCBC rounds for the 75mm short barreled gun were capable of taking out a Tiger from head on at 500 yards.
Finally, if the Sherman was such a death trap, why were so many used in Korea?
Yup. Same as with Japanese pilots. Towards end game, the best were mostly dead.
Problem with the Panzerfaust is that you had to get fairly close to employ it and Shermans were typically accompanied by infantry and there would be several Shermans to shoot back.
The backblast would give away the shooters position.
A Pak could engage from 100’s of meters distance and might get off several shots before its position could be determined.
I have that, and read it. The Super Pershing sounds amazing.
He exposes Patton’s erroneous reasoning on armor and armament.
Our guns were low velocity for longevity over penetration, and our tracks were too narrow for weight distribution; the Russians used our own Christie suspension before we did.
Interwar American military philosophy compromised both tanks and fighters (which were built for ground support over interception).
Five Shermans to knock out one Panther doesn’t sound like good odds. I knew men who served in the 4th. Armored Division and they had respect for the German tankers. And the effectiveness of their tanks. “Our shells would bounce off them’’ is a refrain I heard many times.
Only sim I play online is Aced Hi. Their Aircraft, Armor and ballistics are modeled very exacting to real world tolerances. The German Armor is very difficult to take down with a Sherman even with the tanks armor thickness and weak spots being documented. Panthers are hard to take out, Tiger 2's very very difficult.
A weapon whose production was approved by people who didn't understand the potential of dive bombing aircraft.
The Mk V main weakness was it’s crappy transmission.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.