Guest claespiper Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 Sherman vs Panther/Tiger. In the much heated discussion of Shermans vs Panther/Tigers I must recommend you to read the following article written by Lieutenant Colonel Albin F. Irzyk. It is a well balanced analyze of the differences of the Allied and Axis tanks at the western front. http://www.geocities.com/funfacts2001/TankversusTank1946.pdf In short it describes the strengths of the Sherman tank that we never see at the tactical level of CMBO. Hope you enjoy the reading as much as I did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 Originally posted by claespiper: Sherman vs Panther/Tiger. the following article written by Lieutenant Colonel Albin F. Irzyk. http://www.geocities.com/funfacts2001/TankversusTank1946.pdf Hope you enjoy the reading as much as I did. When I use your link I get: This page is not available. We're sorry, but this page is currently unavailable for viewing. Regards, John Waters [This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 01-25-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest claespiper Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 Originally posted by PzKpfw 1: When I use your link I get: This page is not available. We're sorry, but this page is currently unavailable for viewing. Try to go directly to http://www.geocities.com/funfacts2001/ and its the third link. "Tank versus Tank / US / 1946 / 6 pgs / 1,234K" Hope that works. Claes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henri Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 Originally posted by claespiper: Sherman vs Panther/Tiger. It is a well balanced analyze of the differences of the Allied and Axis tanks at the western front. Although the article is interesting, it was written for propaganda purposes. Also I believe that it contains some inaccuracies when it says that the Shermans had less ground pressure than the German tanks. The statement that a Sherman could rotate to any 360 degree direction in less than a second is highly dubious, as is the statement that the Sherman could fire three times faster than the German tanks: Tiger maybe, but not Panthers and PzIVs, some of which were as good as the Sherman.I would take a PzIVF2 before a Sherman any day of the week. In addition, the article compares the Sherman only to the Tiger, which of course has all the disadvantages of a heavy tanks, whereas the Sherman is a medium tank like the Panther, which was a superior medium tank. As far as Combat Mission is concerned, it is comforting to know that one's Shermans can drive 150 miles and be ready for action, whereas that Tiger facing you on the 2 km map will run out of gas or break down after only 25 miles... Still, the article is interesting and there are other interesting historical articles on the site as well. I like the one showing pictures of right and wrong ways to use a tank in combat.Thanks for pointing out the site. Henri Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 Well after a quick reading of the article which is rather propagandaist IMHO it focusud on the Tiger vs Sherman to much, as we know encounters between Tigers & Shermans were not that common when compared to the more numerical PzKpfw IV or Panthers. Its statements on the Shermans advantages mechanichly are dead on, as are the swarm tactics, while it realy ignored the Shermans tendancy to burn, & the statement about Shermans getting the 1st hit is debateable as from anecdotal evidence (Eisenhower Report) whjere many crews reported German tanks more often then not got the 1st shot off because they were in ambush etc. Regards, John Waters ------------------ "We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field". Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest machineman Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 Jasper did a really nice job of posting all that info up. Interesting article, and makes a lot of good points, but to me it is basically a long rationalization based on, basically: "We crushed our adversary, therefore the tanks that spearheaded the victories must have been good". Well, the tanks performed very well pursuing an outnumbered and routed enemy short of fuel, artillery, tanks, trained crews, veteren soldiers, food, etc, and under COMPLETE Allied air superiority on the battlefield. If you can carpet bomb, crush with artillery and/or rocket firing Typhoons/Jugs you don't need much of a tank. And even if you take the argument that yes, the Allies did not need a Tiger type tank, it is hard not to see how much easier the war would have been for the Allies had they had a Panther type one. Built in undisturbed American factories with the know-how that was available and plenty of raw materials to choose from an 'American Panther' with a hard-hitting gun, wide tracks, heavy frontal armour, fast turret, and powerful, reliable mechanicals could have easily been built. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts