Shermans vs Panthers

[Crank_GS]

Hi all.

I was curious about something. I read where the US Army command estimated it took 5 Shermans to kill a Panther. I am pretty sure they meant it took the loss of 5 Shermans. Well, I am learning all about movement, feinting, and boxing in a Panther, but one has to break eggs to make omlettes, so I lose a few Shermans here and there. I am also confident that as I learn more, I will get better at killing Panthers and preserving Shermans. How do you guys find it to work for you? I like the speed and turret traverse of the Sherman: it works well for those tactics. Of course, spotting is critical, and I have learned to keep my infantry right up there with the Shermans to assist with locating the bad guys. It's all a learning curve, right?

My point is that I consider a 5 to 1 exchange to be a bad deal (especially with the point values what they are). What do you think? What works for you?

This is NOT a complaint on CM - it is a quick "poll" of tactics and opinions from within the current game structure.

Thanks

------------------

Capt. Byron Crank, US Army

[Guest wwb_99]

I think they mean it took five shermans working together to take out one panther, probably losing at least two in the process.

WWB

------------------

Before battle, my digital soldiers turn to me and say,

Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salutamus.

[tss]

Crank_GS wrote:

I read where the US Army command estimated it took 5 Shermans to kill a Panther.

No, they estimated that when on attack, a 5 to 1 superiority in tanks would be enough to ensure victory. Quite a different thing.

- Tommi

[Crank_GS]

OK OK, fine, I mis-interpreted a passage from a book

My question to you all went more toward hearing a few ideas as to your successes in these engagements.

------------------

Capt. Byron Crank, US Army

[This message has been edited by Crank_GS (edited 12-07-2000).]

[Guest Mikey D]

An average of 5 dead Shermans to one Panther might actually be the truth. The U.S. made something on the order of 50,000(?) Shermans during the war but by 1945 was running low on tanks and crews due to the horriffic loss rate. At war's end the Tank Command was thoroughly demoralized. 75mm gun Sherman crews had more confidence in their SMOKE rounds against heavy Panzers than their AP! At least the Panther could be holed from the side.

[ParaBellum]

I thought american tank crews in Normandy were ORDERED only to attack a Tigers/Panthers if they had an advantage of 5:1 in numbers. One explanation for this could be the heavy losses of US tank formations in Africa which resulted in low experience levels compared to German tank crews and hampered American tanks till the end of `44. And, of course, I wouldn´t change my panther/tiger for a Sherm, even with a 76mm or 17 pounder gun...

------------------

Klotzen, nicht kleckern!

[Guest Big Time Software]

Mikey... the Germans only made 5,000 Panthers. The US did make something like 50,000 Sherman. Even if every single Panther went up against every single Sherman, that is still a 10:1 advantage. So even if the US lost 5 Shermans for every one (there are no statistics to back that up BTW) they would still have had 25,000 Shermans at the war's end. And as we know, there were tens of thousands of Soviet and British tanks, as well as other US TDs and tanks in combat as well.

Upshot is to take this very often quoted, and misquoted, passage with a big grain of salt. As others have said, it was apparently a rule of thumb for Sherman commanders to gauge their chances of victory. 5 Shermans had a good chance of knocking out a Panther, probably with only one or two losses. But it was only a rule of thumb, not a scientifically compiled statistical reflection of reality. Unfortunately, that is the way most people think of it as

Steve

[Guest Big Time Software]

ParaBellum:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>One explanation for this could be the heavy losses of US tank formations in Africa which resulted in low experience levels compared to German tank crews and hampered American tanks till the end of `44.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, it was the rapid expansion of the Army as a whole that caused the most problems. The Germans had such problems as well, but way back in 1938 and 1939. The US was still working through this in 1942 and 1943. Most US units that went into France were completely without battle experience. Unfortunately, this was compounded by the US' troop replacement system sucked, which also caused great problems.

Steve

[Jeff Heidman]

Another thing to remember is that a lot (majority?) of Shermans lost in the war were lost to things other than enemy armor.

AT guns, infantry, etc., played a large part.

Jeff Heidman

[Jarmo]

Here's how I do it. If I can.

Show a sherman for a moment.

The panther turns to face it, but the sherman reverses to safety.

Another 2 shermans come from the other direction and shoot

several quick flank shots.

If they miss, they reverse to safety.

Then, when the panther rotates to face them, the original

sherman pops it.

That's how it goes. In theory.

It's easier with tank destroyers.

A 2-3 of those bunched together can kill a panther or tiger frontally.

Now that the tungsten really works, they can even kill a king tiger.

[jshandorf]

Get this...

A while back I was watching this WWII show on the history channel and they ACTUALLY had a WWII veteran who was a TC from Normandy to the end of the war roughly. It was amazing. I was sitting there think, "Does this guy REALLY know how lucky he is?" Well apparently he did.

He said something to the effect that ater the first day at Normandy they had lost soooo many Sherman crews that they were recruiting infantry to take over the replacement Shermans. They recruited 17 infantry crews to man the crewless Shermans. They guy said that by the end of the next day all 17 crews were dead. Makes ya wonder how HE survived.

Jeff

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jshandorf:

Get this...

A while back I was watching this WWII show on the history channel and they ACTUALLY had a WWII veteran who was a TC from Normandy to the end of the war roughly. It was amazing. I was sitting there think, "Does this guy REALLY know how lucky he is?" Well apparently he did.

He said something to the effect that ater the first day at Normandy they had lost soooo many Sherman crews that they were recruiting infantry to take over the replacement Shermans. They recruited 17 infantry crews to man the crewless Shermans. They guy said that by the end of the next day all 17 crews were dead. Makes ya wonder how HE survived.

Jeff<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You hear lots of stories like that.

Everyone crows about how great the Sherman was because we were able to build so many of them. Yeah, we were able to build so many of them that we could not crew them faster than we lost them.

And people wonder why other people think the Sherman was an American travesty.

The Sherman and the US Navy torpedo were the two best things to ever happen to the Axis in WW2.

Jeff Heidman

[Guest Big Time Software]

To be fair, no tank stood up well to attacking in Boccage. When the Germans tried it with Panthers and Tigers, they got into trouble too. The terrain was simply too restrictive. Couple this with inexperienced crews with a VERY experienced adversaries armed with plethora of deadly AT weapons ideal terrain, I don't think the US would have done any better with Pershings than with Shermans.

I for one still think the decision to make MORE tanks instead of BETTER ones was a large reason for the German defeat. After the breakout the Germans were crushed because the superior numbers of US vehicles were able to do what they were designed to do -> move fast, strike hard. The Sherman was very capable of doing this.

This is not to say the Sherman couldn't have used improvements. It really did need some, but they were made over time. Better armor, suspension, less likely to brewup, better gun, etc. They also served well in Korea, against some pretty tough tanks, some 10 years after they were first introduced.

So while I don't think the Sherman was the best possible tank design for the Allies, it was not a disaster. And even if it was, the Germans still couldn't match it in numbers, so the effect on the war was still not positive for the Germans. Additional greiving families in the US did not help the German war effort.

Steve

[Fangorn]

S

P

O

I

L

E

R

Hey, you guys should try Chance Encounter 2 to see how bad it is to face a small number of panthers with a much larger force of shermans 75... real though job.

[lassner.1]

Just thought I might add that in a recent meeting engagement QB I was playing (me as allies him as axis) he bought two Linxs and one Tiger I (late) and I bought three Chaffees. The result: 2 dead Linxs, 1 dead Tiger, 2 dead Chaffees. Why? I found out where the Tiger was and came at it from three directions. I knocked out the Tiger from the side at c. 200m

[Kitty]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

The US did make something like 50,000 Sherman. Even if every single Panther went up against every single Sherman, that is still a 10:1 advantage. So even if the US lost 5 Shermans for every one (there are no statistics to back that up BTW) they would still have had 25,000 Shermans at the war's end. Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course some of those Shermans were sent to the Pacific though and therefore your post is totally wrong. hehe =)

Kitty

*runs and hides*

------------------

ICQ 8273286

http://www.fluffkitty.com

[Guest Big Time Software]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>*runs and hides*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good thinking

Seriously, the whole discussion of production figures and this or that tank could take out x or y number of this or that is all hogwash. There were SO MANY factors involved it simply can't be quantified. Unfortunately, many people have taken the 5 Shermans and 1 Panther thing literally. It was simply a rule of thumb which I for one think is about right. 5 Shermans should pretty much be assured of knocking out 1 Panther with highly variable friendly losses. Trying to engage a Panther with just 2 or 3 Shermans generally is a very bad idea. At least as a rule of thumb. Unfortunately for tankers of all nations... rules of thumb often were impossible to follow.

Steve

[Guest Andrew Hedges]

Many German tankers in Italy commented that they wished they had Shermans instead of their heavier tanks because the Shermans were not road-bound the way the German Tanks were (it wasn't clear whether the German tanks had problems with ground pressure or slope); these guys felt that lighter armor was better in that environment.

It's also true that Patton couldn't have done what he did with German tanks; they were *much* less reliable than US tanks.

Having said that, though, I still think it was bad not to have had more Sherms with 76s at Normandy. Or any at Normandy. You don't need a whole new tank, and the 76 was already in mass production for the TDs. That would have been fine.

[Guest machineman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Many German tankers in Italy commented that they wished they had Shermans instead of their heavier tanks because the Shermans were not road-bound the way the German Tanks were (it wasn't clear whether the German tanks had problems with ground pressure or slope)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have seen one famous quote from I think Speer to that effect, it seems strange as the ground pressure of the Panther is quite a bit lower than the Shermans, especially the early ones, and both obstacle crossing ability and hill climbing ability is higher, from what I remember. He could have been trying to discourage production of the Tiger series.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It's also true that Patton couldn't have done what he did with German tanks; they were *much* less reliable than US tanks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mostly due to raw material shortages. Alloys, natural rubber, etc became very short and all sorts of substitutes had to be dreamed up, some of which worked and some of which did not. The factories getting bombed flat periodically, plus the widespread use of non to happy 'guest workers', did not help the situation either.

The other thing is that many of the German tanks abandoned on the late war battlefield were not broken down or knocked out, but simply out of gas. Had they had full tanks of gas and equivalent air and artillery support, the historical record of the Panther vs Sherman would have been even more one sided.

[Bastables]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

Many German tankers in Italy commented that they wished they had Shermans instead of their heavier tanks because the Shermans were not road-bound the way the German Tanks were (it wasn't clear whether the German tanks had problems with ground pressure or slope); these guys felt that lighter armor was better in that environment.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes but in Italy the campaign was carried out with StuG’s and PIV’s and even PIII Lang and 7.5cm, there was only one Panther regiment in Italy, 1 Abteilung/Panzer-Regiment 4. This unit had at its height 64 Panthers operational. The report you speak of comes from the 26 Panzer Division, which contained PIV Lang, Kurz and PIII 7,5cm. During the conflict in Italy 26 Pz. Div never played with anything larger than a PIV Lang (7,5cm L48). So the report is in essence describing the poor qualities of the later overloaded PIV vs. the Sherman’s. (1996, Jentz P 135-151)

[This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 12-08-2000).]

[Maximus]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

To be fair, no tank stood up well to attacking in Boccage. When the Germans tried it with Panthers and Tigers, they got into trouble too. The terrain was simply too restrictive. Couple this with inexperienced crews with a VERY experienced adversaries armed with plethora of deadly AT weapons ideal terrain, I don't think the US would have done any better with Pershings than with Shermans.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I couldn't agree more. I have played this one boccage scenario at least 3 times now with the Germans including 4 Tigers and I still end up coming out at a DRAW. The boccage is so restricting that it is nearly impossible to fight a "normal fight". It's like the battles and firefights in 'Nam. Neither side really had an advantage.

In this scenario, my Tigers do have an upperhand in terms of survivability, but it's the boccage crossing that the Shermans can do which equalizes the playing field.

This sceanrio, BTW is the same one in which my "One bloody tough Sherman M4A1(76)" thread talks about.

[This message has been edited by Maximus (edited 12-08-2000).]

[Olle Petersson]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jshandorf:

Get this...

a WWII veteran who was a TC from Normandy to the end of the war roughly.

... They recruited 17 infantry crews to man the crewless Shermans.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>In my CM vocabulary the infantry crews would be rated "conscript", the veteran would be just that. And drawing conclusions from the other replies here, I'd say the average US Sherman crew would be Green, with a couple of experienced in between. Crews for Sherman(76) would be one step better.

But where are all the Conscript crews? Not available in CM, why?

Cheers

Olle

BTW, the average Panther crew would be veteran, some crews crack and a few odd ones only experienced. This is based on how the Germans picked the best crews for their heavier stuff. (The very best, Crack+, got to Tiger units.)

Cheers

Olle

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Olle Petersson:

BTW, the average Panther crew would be veteran, some crews crack and a few odd ones only experienced. This is based on how the Germans picked the best crews for their heavier stuff. (The very best, Crack+, got to Tiger units.)

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would not really agree with this, since it is highly dependent on what time you are talking about.

Panzerbrigaden 111, 112 and 113 that engaged 4th US Armoured and 2nd French Armoured in September at Epinal were almost certainly green to regular only in the context of fighting in the west. The Allies wiped the floor with them. The Brigades were both equipped with Panthers and Panzer IV, and they were newly created units that had not trained much together. Wilmot in 'The Struggle for Europe' puts it down to lack of experience on the Western Front. A large number of casualties was apparently due to mechanical failure b/c the tanks were not run in.

These blanket assumptions about German crew experiences are problematic when it comes to scenario design.

------------------

Andreas

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a >

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 12-11-2000).]