What was the ratio of tank losses on the western front ?

[Jarmo]

Originally posted by 88mm:

At the Battlefront-series at discovery they tell a whole different story. They calculated that the allies needed at least 4/5 shermans to make a good chance againts a panther/tiger.

Well that's actually not a whole different story.

As it happens, allies did have 4/5 shermans to throw at every Panther/Tiger. And the 4 to 5 Shermans doesn't mean they'd all be lost taking out the panzer. Might not lose a single one.

Obviously, if Shermans would happen to just stumble upon a Panther platoon on an open field, they'd be lucky to escape alive.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by 88mm:

At the Battlefront-series at discovery they tell a whole different story. They calculated that the allies needed at least 4/5 shermans to make a good chance againts a panther/tiger. 1 a 2 to meet head-on, and the rest to outflank it.

I've never understood how this works in practise, unless the only things in the battlefield are one Tiger and 5 Shermans. More likely there is a tank platoon and supporting infantry with fausts.

[Andreas]

4 = number of Shermans in a platoon. It actually works with 2 as well if you have a Commonwealth platoon.

Step 1: Platoon IDs German heavy

Step 2: Platoon retreats to turret down

Step 3: Platoon OC in 75 Sherman plays bait by breaking cover at high speed, trundling past the German heavy

Step 4: Firefly breaks cover at different point when the German heavy is turning the turret to deal with high-speed 75 Sherman

Step 5: Firefly whacks German heavy or

Step 6: German heavy whacks Firefly but gets whacked by flanking 75 Sherman

This tactic uses the twin advantage of speed and superior numbers. Was told to me by a platoon commander, the chap who wrote the history of the ERY. He served from October 44 to January 45, when he was badly wounded.

[Marlow]

Originally posted by Andreas:

4 = number of Shermans in a platoon.

Full strength American med tank platoon was 5 tanks.

[88mm]

There was a good reason that the german's hold on that long in normandy. Despite several attempts by monty at Caen or in the U.S. region. The germans simply filled the gap with Panzer's. most of them positioned in the Caen region, since it was the most open terrain. Villers-Bocage comes in mind with the Wittmann action.

anyway, those days the Panthers and Tigers were clearly superior to any Allied Tank availible then. However, every lost panzer was lost. reserves where non to very little where the allies kept unloading large amounts of supply, tanks, men....everthing. Also there was A.H., who actions ensured heavy losses of equipment and a almost total colapse of the german army in the WEST by september. It was a miracle that they recovered after Falaise and create a complete "new" army in that shor amount of time.

Afrika is a good example how well the Allied Armor performed against the germans.

[Marlow]

Originally posted by 88mm:

There was a good reason that the german's hold on that long in normandy. Despite several attempts by monty at Caen or in the U.S. region. The germans simply filled the gap with Panzer's. most of them positioned in the Caen region, since it was the most open terrain.

What was the ratio of Panthers and Tigers to Stugs and Mark IVs? The reasons for delay in teh Allies meeting the early timetables in Normandy were multiple: Green troops, insufficient use of combined arms tactics by both Brits and U.S. (green troops and developing doctrine), terrain far more suitable to the defense in the U.S. sector (see how well those panzers faired when the Germans went on the offensive e.g. Mortain counter offensive).