Sherman VS. tiger!!

[wamphyri]

I was watching discovery channel here in canada and they had a cool 3 part series about certain weapon/equipment conflicts in war. In ww1 I saw the camel vs the folker, they chose the camel. In ww2 it was the sherman vs the tiger and they chose the sherman, also there was the spitfire vs the 109 and they chose the spitfire. In the cold war it was the mig vs some american fighter(dont member name .. but was during korea both), and the m16 vs the AK-47.

Now that thing that gets me is how every allied item seems to win no matter what. During the sherman/tiger debate they had 3 clasifications, firepower/manuverability/armor, and we all know the answer to this .. the sherman only wins the manuverability one. However, it seemed to win the contest because it was mass produced .. well I know this was true .. and shermans out numbered the tigers by a ton .. but come on. They make a new reason for the sherman to win the contest just out of the blue. The only thing that kept me from throwing something at the television is they did an awesome job at re-creating a tiger vs 4 shermans battle.

They used actuall shermans/tigers and used fake explosives/smoke to simulate damage. Was realy cool to see the turret speeds in use.. the last sherman flanked the tiger and knew the turret would take forever to transit to the rear. The sherman got a rear shot on the tiger and that was the end. In the testimonies of some sherman tankers they talked about getting 50 feet from a tiger and having round bounce .. god that'd be scary.

also, they did a simulation of what a tiger round would do to a sherman. They took a piece of 2" + steel and a bullet shaped thing with explosives enough to simulate a shot at 50 feet. The shot went through the steel and all the little wooden things to simulate ppl with ease!!

One of the things the sherman tankers talked about was how many shermans there were .. if theirs got knocked out they'd get put into another one. It's crazy to think how they were pushed into one after another till that enemy was taken care of.

Just my views of this whole thing. Anyone's thoughts?

Wamphyri

[Kingfish]

One of the things the sherman tankers talked about was how many shermans there were .. if theirs got knocked out they'd get put into another one. It's crazy to think how they were pushed into one after another till that enemy was taken care of.

That is without doubt one of the biggest advantanges of Shermans over the more powerful German tanks. In reading 'Steel Inferno' the author describes Commonwealth tank units losing 20+ tanks in a day's worth of fighting, and the unit being brought back up to strength the next day. German Panzer formations were lucky to receive 20 tanks during the entire campaign in Normandy. Some never received a replacement tank at all.

[roqf77]

true plus a large number of shermans did not have the l38 75mm. numbers were produced with 76mm and 17 pounder guns. in fact the british i believe had more of these that 75mm versions as the sherman was being replaced by the cromwell. the tiger is still a much better tank though, its just a little of a myth the british army still relied heavily on the sherman in normandy because they did not. Even in italy the m10 basicly a sherman with better gun was used alot more because of the increase in firepower. The sherman didnt have to armed with the 75mm their were other version. But of course none of them were as good as the tiger four fireflys on a tiger and it wouldnt stand a chance.

[Kingfish]

true plus a large number of shermans did not have the l38 75mm. numbers were produced with 76mm and 17 pounder guns. in fact the british i believe had more of these that 75mm versions as the sherman was being replaced by the cromwell.

While the Commonwealth did field the Sherman IIA (76mm) and Firefly (17 pdr), they were in the minority, at least during the Normandy campaign. The standard TO&E for a CW tank platoons was 3 75mm tanks (Sherman or Cromwell) + 1 Firefly.

BTW, the Cromwell replaced the armored cars in the Recce troops, not Shermans of the armored regiments. The exception being the Brit 7th armored, which was equipped with Cromwells in it's armored regiments. Later on in the war uparmored and upgunned versions of the Cromwell began taking over for the Shermans.

[trackpad]

I've seen the noted Discovery Channel presentation, although it's been quite a while. I'd suggest that viewers take the results of the Tiger/Sherman "battle" with much more than a grain of salt. The tactics employed by both "sides" left much to be desired. I think that the entire scenario was designed simply to bolster the erroneous claim that the Sherman was the better tank.

[Falcon988]

The notion of a Sherman being in any way superior to a Tiger tank is... laughable to the extreme. Although I'm compelled to share with you all an anecdote which to this day baffles me.

Okay, a few months ago I was playing a battle against the AI. Some little Italian town, who cares what it's name was, I'm German they're American, I have a Tiger tank and they have Shermans. At one point a Sherman showed up directly infront of my Tiger at about 80 meters. My Tiger fired its 88 and the shot -bounced off- the Sherman's hull. And if that wasn't enough the Sherman then fired and knocked out my Tiger -through its frontal armor- with one hit.

I swear I just stared at the screen in shock for a half hour after that happened.

[wamphyri]

I would definately agree with trackpad about the tactics used .. the tiger shot on the first tank before it had any others in sight. I'm no ww2 tiger commander but what were the chances of a sherman being alone?

Wamphyri

P.S. to falcon .. eep .. that'd be rough

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by Falcon988:

[QB] The notion of a Sherman being in any way superior to a Tiger tank is... laughable to the extreme.

Not at all... depends on just how you're judging it. Sounds like the show did pull a bait and switch, though.

It'd be interesting to take an onion-layer sort of approach to the question. Start at equal-numbers very basic tactical match-up between tanks, and then start bringing in things things like communications and ease-of-use, and then move in to logistical and transport concerns, and finally the equipment's actual role on the battlefield. (The final thing, for example, might take into account just how often Shermans were required to go up against Tigers, as opposed to giving lesser-foes a hard time.)

Oh... and just what flavor of Sherman they were talking about. The final Shermans were very nice tanks, while I think the early ones suffered somewhat from the "just good enough" philosophy that afflicted lots of early tanks.

I swear I just stared at the screen in shock for a half hour after that happened.

Lordy. Well, if it was multi-player you had a VERY happy opponent.

[wamphyri]

They were talking the earlier ones around in 42 that had the 75" guns.

Wamphyri

[ December 27, 2004, 04:44 PM: Message edited by: wamphyri ]

[HeinzBaby]

A very loaded topic - Sherman v Tiger. Each had their own tactics and when used correctly both were deadly.

Tanks always operate better hunting in packs verse the Lone Ranger, up close and personal any tank was vunerable. The Sherman did stirling work through Europe, but then Tigers hunting in packs will ruin anybodys day, try one of the Kursk battles

[throwdjohn]

Where's my unsung hero, the firefly? God i love them. As an Allied player, it is comforting to have a tank that can take on a cat frontally (though not recccomended to do that). And while the TDs like m10 and whatnot where used well IRL, in-game, they have no advantages over any but the most basic sherman. My big qualm with them is their light armor. Once i deal with armor, i like to pound krauts with tanks, but AT guns take out Tds easy easy.

[Pyewacket]

Maybe the answer depends on the point of view. If I were a General I would prefer a reliable and manouverable tank which can be produced in masses. When I remember right the T34 is said to be the best ww2 tank because of that reason. If I were a tank commander my choice would go for thicker armor...

[Patrocles]

Originally posted by wamphyri:

Now that thing that gets me is how every allied item seems to win no matter what. During the sherman/tiger debate they had 3 clasifications, firepower/manuverability/armor, and we all know the answer to this .. the sherman only wins the manuverability one. However, it seemed to win the contest because it was mass produced .. well I know this was true .. and shermans out numbered the tigers by a ton .. but come on. They make a new reason for the sherman to win the contest just out of the blue. The only thing that kept me from throwing something at the television is they did an awesome job at re-creating a tiger vs 4 shermans battle.

Wamphyri

did the DC provide any more info on their breakdown of classifications? something like...manueverability = 50%, firepower = 25% and armor = 25% of score

[roqf77]

While the Commonwealth did field the Sherman IIA (76mm) and Firefly (17 pdr), they were in the minority, at least during the Normandy campaign. The standard TO&E for a CW tank platoons was 3 75mm tanks (Sherman or Cromwell) + 1 Firefly.

BTW, the Cromwell replaced the armored cars in the Recce troops, not Shermans of the armored regiments. The exception being the Brit 7th armored, which was equipped with Cromwells in it's armored regiments. Later on in the war uparmored and upgunned versions of the Cromwell began taking over for the Shermans.

actualy the 75mm on the cromwell was a re bored 6 pounder so it would of been atleast a l43 more likely l 50 75mm, or a new gun but ive been told it was definatly not the 75mm in the sherman it just used the same round. not arguing with you but i was told by one of my grandads friend that his sherman was replaced by a cromwell and he was not in the 7th i dont think.

[MPK]

"While the Commonwealth did field the Sherman IIA (76mm) and Firefly (17 pdr), they were in the minority, at least during the Normandy campaign. The standard TO&E for a CW tank platoons was 3 75mm tanks (Sherman or Cromwell) + 1 Firefly".

Standard TO&E apart, several sources

give the actual ratio of Firefly's

(or is that 'Fireflies'?) as being 1 in 20

during the Normandy campaign.

E.g "Caen: Anvil Of Victory" by Alexander

McKee- highly recommended BTW.

[flamingknives]

The ratio of tanks in Normandy may have been that, but Armoured units were very careful with their Charlie (standard designation for the Firefly in a troop). Vanilla 75s were used to take advanced positions and go for risky shots. The Charlie was kept back until the target was ID'd.

The fighting squadrons would most likely have a decent to full complement of Fireflies.

The British 75mm is the 6pdr mount with a 75mm barrel. In effect on target, they are identical to the US 75mm, but will fit in any tank that could hold a 6pdr.

[MPK]

"The fighting squadrons would most likely have a decent to full complement of Fireflies"

Makes sense. The 1-in-20 ratio (assuming this is

accurate) however gives us some insight into

the 4 or 5 Shermans vs 1 Tiger problem- i.e

not enough Fireflys.

[Michael Emrys]

Could be that they were losing so many 75-armed Sherms that that's what the overall ratio was that got shipped to Normandy. But the ratio in the squadrons at any one time may have been closer to the 1:4 mark that they wanted to have.

Michael

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by MPK:

Standard TO&E apart, several sources

give the actual ratio of Firefly's

(or is that 'Fireflies'?) as being 1 in 20

during the Normandy campaign.

E.g "Caen: Anvil Of Victory" by Alexander

McKee- highly recommended BTW.

Would that be 1 in 20 for Sherman equipped units, or all tank formations? If the latter, then the 1 in 20 ratio would make sense since it is also including army tank brigades, specialist tank formations and the armored recon regiments. None of these units had the Fly in their TO&E.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by MPK:

[snips]

Standard TO&E apart, several sources

give the actual ratio of Firefly's

(or is that 'Fireflies'?) as being 1 in 20

during the Normandy campaign.

E.g "Caen: Anvil Of Victory" by Alexander

McKee- highly recommended BTW.

The following table summarizing Firefly holdings in 21 AG at six-monthly intervals is lightly adapted from Mark Hayward's superb "Sherman Firefly" (Barbarossa Books, 2001), which I think can be regarded as authoritative:

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">

Formation 30 Jun 44 30 Dec 44 30 Jun 45

7th Armd Div 36 67 21

11th Armd Div 36 74 Comet

Gds Armd Div 36 56 De-mechanized

4th Armd Bde 36 In 11AD 67

8th Armd Bde 22 66 66

27th Armd Bde 29 Disbanded

29th Armd Bde In 11AD 48 Comet

33rd Armd Bde 36 72 Funnies

1st Polish Armd Div 25 40 40

4th Can Armd Div 36 101 --

2nd Can Armd Bde 22 77 89

Czech Armd Bde -- 4 --

8 Corps -- -- 3

ARGs/Depots 24 123 750

Total 338 728 1036

Approx. 200 17-pdr Shermans were with units in D-Day.

Unit entitlement as of June 44 was 12 17-pdr and 49 75mm Shermans per regiment.

29th Armd Bde was withdrawn from 11th Armd Div to re-fit with Comet, and had given its 75mm Shermans

to the ARG at Brussels when it was called upon to participate in the Ardennes battle.</pre>

[MPK]

"That is still 5 Fireflies to 56 75mm gun tanks, and must surely have been the least favourable ratio of the campaign, so I think the "1 in 20" figure is in error as far as the equipment in the fighting line in North West Europe is concerned."

Giving a worst-case ratio of about 1 in 11....

much better

McKee's book is vintage 1964, and perhaps is stronger in its anecdotal content than in exactitude- i.e its got some great stories

(great scenario material).

Thank you, John

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by MPK:

[snips]

McKee's book is vintage 1964,

...which, in fairness to him, was probably ten years before the source material Hayward was using was released to the public.

All the best,

John.

[roqf77]

The British 75mm is the 6pdr mount with a 75mm barrel. In effect on target, they are identical to the US 75mm, but will fit in any tank that could hold a 6pdr.

Actualy that is the oqf 75mm not the rsf 75mm as i was told it used the same ammunition but it was stressed to me by the crew of the tank that it was not the same gun. i will search for the web page but i found one that had a ministry of defence file from sep 44 that said a ratio of 36% of medium/cruiser tanks were fireflys by august44. that does not include churchill's though as it was considered a infantry tank. Plus firefly's were never refered to as such they were only denoted by a c at the end of there name and this was only with two marks of the firefly all other conversions were not marked as engineers were ordered to convert as many as they could.

[flamingknives]

Note:

In effect on target they are identical to the US 75mm

[flamingknives]

Oh, and what exactly do you mean when you use the acronym(?) rsf? Which I presume to be RSF (note use of Capitals).

And 76mm armed Shermans in British service were referred to with the suffix A while 105mm armed Shermans had the suffix B. I imagine anyone doing written work on the subject is aware of the convention. Any chance of a reference to the MoD file?