Are Shermans THAT bad?

[John Kettler]

michael kenny,

This thread is an awful lot to absorb and daunting enough in and of itself, but with the page wider than can be read because of that incredibly long link, it has become simply overwhelming. Please fix this with some truncated form so that I can concentrate on the debate proper rather than having to try to follow it while scrolling the visual field too. If you can't, maybe the Forum mods can do it for you. I say this because I can't get the feature to work for me, either.

Regards,

John Kettler

[michael kenny]

Ok now John?

The point of all this rambling seems to have been lost. I am no champion of the of 5 Shermans for 1 Panther/Tiger myth. I do not accept that Allied tankers existed simply as targets for the Panzers to prove their superiority. However it does no good to take the exact opposite view and cliam (one of) the Allies was able to outfight the Germans and inflict more losses than it sustained. After years trying to get to the bottom of this subject, (tank losses in Northern France, that should stop the arguments about dates and location!)I was unable to escape the inevitable. When all the hard data is sifted the overall exchange rate was slightly less than 2:1 in the Germans favour.

However the way the data was collated by the protagonists precludes any like for like comparison of the figures. There are gaps, double counting, errors and omissions that defy any attempt at closure.

Thus if you believe the Germans wiped the floor with the Allies you point to the number of tanks simply abandonned and not count those hulks as 'combat losses'. All Allied tanks hit are counted as write offs and no German tank is considered lost until it is burnt out in front of 16 Nuns who can all testify to the fact. Now your German total loss figure is way below the Allied one and the 5:1 ratio comes in to play!

If you want to disparage the British figures you endlessly repeat the mantra that 500 tanks were lost during Goodwood. Forget that this is the total of all tanks hit/damaged and lost and that 300+ were later repaired and put back into combat.

You then compare this total to some 80+ German write offs, totaly ignore all the hit and damaged German tanks to get your 'Brits were stuffed' version.

Equally if you want to show how the Germans were totaly oufought you carefully select their own data to use against them. Thus anything not written down is assumed to be lost or destroyed. Any omission in a strength return is counted as a loss and can never re-enter the picture. By using the same method for pre-invasion returns you can see some Units lost more than half their tanks without firing a single shot or being engaged in any combat!

Allegations that June and July German loss accounts are deliberately falsified and on the low side is not an option I would recommend. I would save this tactic as a last resort. Suggesting dissenting authors are 'revisionists' is really a doomsday weapon and not to be countenanced unless your position is about to be overwhelmed.

I checked up on the site referenced by Jason and I find it is actualy Zetterlings own site. I know it by another name and did not realise it was the same one. I was wrong to disparage it as a 'gamer' site.

Do I think Zetterling has a bias? Yes EVERY author has a bias. Knowing this allows you to make an allowance for it and helps you discount it.

Is Zetterling the absolute last word on Normandy (Northern France)? No and if you read my linked threads you can see I have been attacked several times for daring to suggest he missed some very high profile actions where Heavy Bombers inflicted significant losses on some Panzer Units. I have corresponded with Zetterling and he is the first to admit he is not perfect. Not being perfect is far from being a 'revisionist' though.

Germany lost most of its equipment in Northern France. Substantial numbers of individual tanks did make it out of the pocket and litter the roads to the Seine and beyond. Losses were spread right across August in the Falaise pocket.

[JasonC]

Z claims the Germans lost less than 300 tanks in the entire battle of Kursk using the same tendentious reasoning. If you just look at delta runners again this is transparent nonsense - PD GD alone (with panthers etc) lost 250 in runner strength just to 14 July - AG south more like 950 which was 2/3rds of engaged. (In SS PzK it is another -250, about half for them). With AG center included the total delta op figure would be more like 1500. That is net of returns to running status.

Maybe a third of them ever actually returned to operational status - Jentz figures show a permanent reduction in runners post Kursk, despite high levels of ongoing replacement. By 1 August the typical PD has about ~30 runners but many are still carrying over 100 on the books as "under repair". (The biggest divs up to twice that, only fresh arrivals in 3 digits, etc).

As for my pretending they never come back into play, I don't have to pretend, they never do come back into play in the case of Normandy. There is no time or place where the 1000 extra AFVs show up and influence operations.

I say 1000 because there were 2200 sent and you claim only 500 were lost before the breakout so there should be 1700 left then, when in reality it is more like 700 left then. The only place this extra 1000 AFVs ever show up again is in the September TWO column, as an accounting entry.

TWO only accounting as German spin is a well known and thoroughly exploded piece of revisionist rhetoric, which taken literally falsifies the entire history of the war, conveniently erasing every espisode of massive loss of German armor by spreading it over 3-4 months and burying it in larger operations and ongoing replacement streams etc.

The OR solution is also well known, watch runners, and that suffices to explain the actual battle narrative. Which is hopelessly left completely unexplained in the K picture of a -300 Kursk and a -500 Normandy. They wouldn't have lost entire provinces immediately afterward had either been true.

[michael kenny]

Originally posted by JasonC:

TWO only accounting as German spin is a well known and thoroughly exploded piece of revisionist rhetoric,

Give me the references where this is explained to you-or are you claiming it as your 'discovery'?

Originally posted by JasonC:

The OR solution is also well known, watch runners, and that suffices to explain the actual battle narrative.

This mystery 'OR solution' again.

What is it?

where is it explained?

[pamak1970]

Equally if you want to show how the Germans were totaly oufought you carefully select their own data to use against them

Actually i do not beleive that these types of data can show the above, even if jasons numbers are correct and US had about equal losses with the portion of Germans against them .

Someone can claim different arguments to show who outfought whom but there is not really proof.

For example let's take the argument that Germans did outfought US and try to support it based on Jason's data.

One type of argument.

Assume you are familiar with a certain wargame scenario which you usually finish winning with an average of X casualties .

If you decide to edit the scenario and play it possesing a bigger force, do not you think that it is reasonable to finish it with less than X casualties?

Or the opposite, assume that You get a smaller force.

Is it reasonable to expect to have more casualties?

Someone can argue that if US did not have the enormous combat power advantage (the first day allies landed 1500 tanks from what i read!!!) , they would sustain much more casualties.

I point here that the operational posture of German army as defender does not really mean that the armor force is entrenched and fights with the advantage of occupying a hull down position.

The tanks are kept back trying to outmaneuver the "attacker" and counterattack!.

In such cases the advantage goes to the force that outmaneuvers the opponent.

You might be a defender but being forced to counterattack against the attacker who at least temporarily has a defensive posture, or you might be able to outthink and place your tanks in perfect position waiting for the attacker to come to you ,or you might maneuver and attack his flanks rather than waiting passively as "defender" letting him the initiative

We have numerous examples of all of the above cases.

The British at Gazala as defenders were attacking Afrika corps inside Cauldron, The Afrika corps as defender was attacking trying to eliminate the bridgheads and gaps in Alamein and so on.....

In other words being in defence does not mean that Your armor has some type of "inherent advantage" as defender.

[ November 06, 2006, 09:02 AM: Message edited by: pamak1970 ]

[pamak1970]

Another poster put it somewhat different.

If i recall right ,he said something like five Shermans were used to KO a Tiger ,but it does not mean that all these Shermans were KO.

Maybe in this case the ratio was much lower like for example 2 to 1.

That might be true, but the question is if 3 or two Shermans inittially for example ,would even dare to try to KO a Tiger opposing them.

[Corvidae]

Somebody please lock this thread befor the grogs start digging up actual tanks to test against eachother in this pointless argument over shades of grey.

[pamak1970]

Originally posted by Corvidae:

Somebody please lock this thread befor the grogs start digging up actual tanks to test against eachother in this pointless argument over shades of grey.

Considering the difference in quality of steel , the passage of time and oxidation would have different effects on mechanical properties of steel.

Accordingly , the resistance to penetration would be degraded unequally among the different materials.

Therefore any test conducted today,would not reflect the effects on the same models 60 years ago and the results will be skewed in favor of the tank with the best quallity of steel.

[Guest Mike]

I'm still unsure about whether Shermans weer THAT bad or not?? :confused: :confused:

[David I]

Stalin's Organist,

Shermans weren't bad, they are just ducky against Pz III and Pz IV. They do however have a hard time against the kitties. I don't think I recall a thread that postulated that the Pz II, Pz III and Pz IV were "that bad or not" in '41 Russia when they ran up against the KV.

When the US and the Brits figured out that they were facing superior armor and guns from the German heavies they went into hyper drive to design, test and field their own heavy tanks (Centurian and Pershing). That they arrived after hostilities were over was the way it went, but mind you they did it inside of two years.

The struggle to up armor and up gun usually has one side or the other reaching that breakthough before the other, the Allies did well with what they had. You fight with what you have until they give you something better to fight with, and if you have been in the service long enough, you bitch that the new stuff is "too slow", "too maintenance heavy", "too 'not what you are familiar with'" whatever.

My two bits.

DavidI

[imported_Wildman]

Despite the "Grog Talk" Shermans were not that bad at all.

Early Shermans were designed to fight infantry but field experience proved they were more than capable of taking on PzIII and PzIVE (their timeline contemporaris and designed advisaries) quite well.

They started to fail in the anti-tank role (not their primary mission) when faced with the new tank designs being driven by the East Front.

That said, it was more than likely a Sherman was going to run into a PzIV or Stug, both of which they could defeat.

The Easy 8 could and did match well with later tank models when the gun vs armor war was well in favor of the gun.

[MikeyD]

I'm (still) reading my "The Tank Killers" book by Yiede on the subway - What can I say, I'm a slow reader! I've been more than a little surprised by how handily Tigers and Panthers are being dispatched in the narrative. Not at all what I expected of the much-touted überweapons. I'm wondering how much of the above statistics can be credited to the strengths and weaknesses of the weapons systems themselves and how much credit (or blame) goes to the tactical situations they repeatedly find themselves put into! Nobody's going to survive a side shot at 100m, no matter how superior your design.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

how much credit (or blame) goes to the tactical situations they repeatedly find themselves put into! Nobody's going to survive a side shot at 100m, no matter how superior your design.

My take, exactly.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Wildman:

Despite the "Grog Talk" Shermans were not that bad at all.

Early Shermans were designed to fight infantry but field experience proved they were more than capable of taking on PzIII and PzIVE (their timeline contemporaris and designed advisaries) quite well.

They started to fail in the anti-tank role (not their primary mission) when faced with the new tank designs being driven by the East Front.

That said, it was more than likely a Sherman was going to run into a PzIV or Stug, both of which they could defeat.

The Easy 8 could and did match well with later tank models when the gun vs armor war was well in favor of the gun.

I see we have a Sherman Apologist in the room.

Their "primary mission" as you put it was based on faulty doctrine which was revealed to be faulty in 1942 or so. What excuse, then, was there in 1944 for fielding a tank in a role for which it was not suited? Why the scramble to upgun and ap-armour Shermans both at the factory (Firefly, Jumbo) and in the field (spare track, sandbags, applique armour)?

[John Kettler]

michael kenny,

Yes, that helped a bunch!

DavidI,

The true U.S. heavy tank, which I understand was simply too heavy to ship overseas in available vessels, was the M6. If I've got my anecdotes right, one of these fell right through the wharf during loading trials.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M6_Heavy_Tank

See also TOG 2 link at bottom. Couldn't post because URL's read as having parentheses.

Regards,

John Kettler

[David I]

John,

Cool, didn't even know about the M6.

Passed the drawing board, but not the field.

DavidI

[michael kenny]

Originally posted by JasonC:

[QB] TWO only accounting as German spin is a well known and thoroughly exploded piece of revisionist rhetoric

November the 6th when I first asked for the references used to 'explode' the revisionist rhetoric. It seems I am not going to get it. Probably because it only exists in the mind of one poster. No matter. As a leaving present I include the German/US SP losses in the summer of '44.

The figures are from 'Rich' not me.

Losses of SP TD, Sturmgeschuetz and Panzerjaeger

June –

German

27 StuG-III (L48)

29 Pak Sfl 7.5cm

56 Total

6-20 June –

US

1 M-10

1 Total

July –

German

68 StuG-III (L48)

15 Pak Sfl 7.5cm

83 Total

21 June-20 July

US

17 M-10

17 Total

August –

German

14 Stu-Pz

98 StuG-III (L48)

24 Pak Sfl 7.5cm

136 Total

21 July-20 August

US

28 M-10

6 M-18

34 Total

September –

German

17 Pz-IV (L70) (PzJg-IV)

2 StuG-III (L24)

4 StuG-III (L43)

348 StuG-III (L48)

2 StuG-IV (L48)

21 StuH

71 JgPz-38t

65 Pak Sfl 7.5cm

24 Jagdpanther

554 Total

21 August-20 September

US

40 M-10

6 M-18

46 Total

21 September-20 October

US

71 M-10

14 M-18

2 M36

87 Total

June-September

German Total – 829

6 June – 20 October

US Total – 185

[John Kettler]

This is a Soviet OR table of their tank losses by caliber as a function of time. Unfortunately, it isn't broken down by tank type destroyed. Even so, it should be helpful in the present debate.

http://sturmvogel.orbat.com/sovtankl.html

Regards,

John Kettler

[Corvidae]

[imported_Wildman]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Wildman:

Despite the "Grog Talk" Shermans were not that bad at all.

Early Shermans were designed to fight infantry but field experience proved they were more than capable of taking on PzIII and PzIVE (their timeline contemporaris and designed advisaries) quite well.

They started to fail in the anti-tank role (not their primary mission) when faced with the new tank designs being driven by the East Front.

That said, it was more than likely a Sherman was going to run into a PzIV or Stug, both of which they could defeat.

The Easy 8 could and did match well with later tank models when the gun vs armor war was well in favor of the gun.

I see we have a Sherman Apologist in the room.

Their "primary mission" as you put it was based on faulty doctrine which was revealed to be faulty in 1942 or so. What excuse, then, was there in 1944 for fielding a tank in a role for which it was not suited? Why the scramble to upgun and ap-armour Shermans both at the factory (Firefly, Jumbo) and in the field (spare track, sandbags, applique armour)? </font>

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Wildman:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Wildman:

Despite the "Grog Talk" Shermans were not that bad at all.

Early Shermans were designed to fight infantry but field experience proved they were more than capable of taking on PzIII and PzIVE (their timeline contemporaris and designed advisaries) quite well.

They started to fail in the anti-tank role (not their primary mission) when faced with the new tank designs being driven by the East Front.

That said, it was more than likely a Sherman was going to run into a PzIV or Stug, both of which they could defeat.

The Easy 8 could and did match well with later tank models when the gun vs armor war was well in favor of the gun.

I see we have a Sherman Apologist in the room.

Their "primary mission" as you put it was based on faulty doctrine which was revealed to be faulty in 1942 or so. What excuse, then, was there in 1944 for fielding a tank in a role for which it was not suited? Why the scramble to upgun and ap-armour Shermans both at the factory (Firefly, Jumbo) and in the field (spare track, sandbags, applique armour)? </font>