Sherman 105 & Task Force Baum

[Sarge Saunders]

Currently reading "Raid!" about Task Force Baum and liberation of Hammelburg POW camp. This is the one where Patton sends these guys behind enemy lines to liberate his son-in-law.

Roughly the vehicle OOB of the task force is Sherman 75s, HTs, Stuart Light Tanks, and a platoon of Sherman 105 assault guns. Now the thing that made my eyebrows rise is when they have almost reached the POW camp and are ambushed by a company of Ferdinand Panzerjaeger.

For those who don't know yet, a Ferdinand is a heavy 88 gun mounted on a panther chassis. {EDIT: book is wrong here...It is actually a Tiger I Chassis, Porsche version} It is a serious Tank Destroyer!

Now, apparently, Baum brought his Sherman 105s EXACTLY for this possibility. Huh? OK, he sets up his platoon of Sherman 105s to overwatch positions after the Ferdinands open fire. Some 105s shoot smoke rounds to screen the convoy (smart!). Others shoot HEAT ("C" charges) rounds at the Ferdinands. So we have a platoon of Sherman 105s facing off with a company of Ferdinands.

The result historically, according to the book, was that the Ferdinands where driven off and the convoy made it through (though losing many HTs and supply HTs).

The big question for all you grogs, demi-grogs, and semi-demi-grogs is: What the heck!? Did armored force commanders commonly use Sherman 105s against heavy german tanks? Why didn't Baum bring some M10s or some real tank destroyers? Are Sherman 105s undermodelled in CM for their AT capability?

Shocking! Having played CM for so long, I just can't imagine thinking: "I may run into some German Heavies so I should bring some Sherm 105s....."

What gives?

-Sarge

[ July 17, 2002, 10:36 AM: Message edited by: Sarge Saunders ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Bear in mind Raid was written as more action-adventure than history (if IIRC). I remember the really sterling quote, about a Sgt Nutley (sp?) being wounded, thinking he was dying, and regretting that he never slept with a well-endowed girl (though it was put in terms far more crude than that).

I wonder if the reference to Ferdinands is accurate? It's been awhile since I read the book, however. One of the authors was a vet of the raid, writing a few decades after the raid occurred.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Sarge Saunders:

For those who don't know yet, a Ferdinand is a heavy 88 gun mounted on a panther chassis. It is a serious Tank Destroyer!

If the book says that, e don't need to discuss other claims any further. I think these should be Jagdpanther (if any 88 based), as the Ferdinands were in Italy at the time, and they are based on the Tiger chassis with electrical drive train, not a Panther chassis.

The 105mm HC certainly beats the Sherman 75mm, so it makes sense to takem them with you if these are your only choices. That doesn't make a 105mm HC charge the right tool for engaging Jagdpanthers.

[Sarge Saunders]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Bear in mind Raid was written as more action-adventure than history

It is Michael. The book is written in narrative form. Skimps greatly on historical detail. BTW, it was Sgt. Nutty who though he would die without having sex with a "big-breasted" woman! LOL! Also, it was Abe Baum who co-authored the book.

Redwolf- You are correct. They book is wrong. Ferdinand, according to a web search, was based on the Porsche Tiger I chassis. And no, it seems to me the neither the 75mm nor the 105mm are the right tool for engaging the Ferdinand beast.

Also, the book mentioned that 105s were used with WP in the anti-tank role. We all know that WP is not modelled in CM so there is one difference.

Anymore comments about historical(?) use of Sherman 105s in the anti-tank role are welcome.

-Sarge

[ July 17, 2002, 10:40 AM: Message edited by: Sarge Saunders ]

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Sarge Saunders:

Redwolf- You are correct. They book is wrong. Ferdinand, according to a web search, was based on the Porsche Tiger I chassis. And no, it seems to me the neither the 75mm or the 105mm are the right tool for engaging the Ferdinand beast.

They aint no Ferdinands anyway. Jagdpanthers, if at all a 88-based tank hunter. I think Astor's book (which isn't precise either) mentiones the exact type of German tanks involved, will look it up.

Also, the book mentioned that 105s were used with WP in the anti-tank role. We all know that WP is not modelled in CM so there is one difference.

Well, that makes more sense. It will blind or otherwise temporarily disable the German tanks. That's enough for the task force to run away or cross some ground and is hence the right tool for the right situation. I doubt they had an efficient mean to deliver large smokescreens, so directly blinding the tanks makes sense.

Need reading recommendations ?

[ July 17, 2002, 10:42 AM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Sarge Saunders]

Originally posted by redwolf:

They aint no Ferdinands anyway. Jagdpanthers, if at all a 88-based tank hunter. I think Astor's book (which isn't precise either) mentiones the exact type of German tanks involved, will look it up.

Please do. I asked the question primarily because the book was sketchy and possibly incorrect. Any factual information is welcome. BTW, the Panzerjaeger company was led by Hauptman Richard Koehl. They were on the Eastern front until March 45 where they transferred to Schweinheim. So yes, Ferdinands where probably rare on the western front until very late possibly????

Originally posted by redwolf:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sarge Saunders:

Also, the book mentioned that 105s were used with WP in the anti-tank role. We all know that WP is not modelled in CM so there is one difference.

Well, that makes more sense. It will blind or otherwise temporarily disable the German tanks. That's enough for the task force to run away or cross some ground and is hence the right tool for the right situation. I doubt they had an efficient mean to deliver large smokescreens, so directly blinding the tanks makes sense.

Need reading recommendations ? </font>

[Doug Beman]

Well, if you're a Task Force commander, and your superior officer tells you to drive several miles behind enemy lines in a rescue mission, and there are only plain-jane and 105mm Shermans readily available, and you haven't the time to wait around for a more fitting anti-armor vehicle, you'd probably be well advised to take whatever vehicle you can get.

Unless directly stated, I think Baum's choice wasn't a choice at all; rather than saying "I'll take the 105s over the M10s," it was probably more like "the 105mm is the best we have access to."

If Baum DID specifically choose the 105s over more-AT-capable units, maybe we need to wonder what would've happened if he'd made the more obviously logical choice?

DjB

DjB

[Xavier]

I read somewhere a similar story. During the fight for the liberation of Paris. A free french M4 encountered a Panther near "Luxembourg park". The M4 withdraw and called a M4105 in support wich was abble to immobilize the Panther. The later one was so abandonned by its crew. During the same battle, german also used some B1bis captured french 1940 tanks :eek:

[jgdpzr]

There is an excellent piece in After the Battle magazine about this action. The author did exhaustive research on the subject, specifically he spent a great deal of time looking at German records and interviewing German veterans. His conclusion was that the only German vehicles in the area were Hetzers. This was corroborated by numerous sources, including the identification of the particular abteilung to which they belonged. IIRC, the author also discussed the discrepancies in the different books, specifically singling out "Raid." He was quite adamant that the vehicles were incorrectly identified in that book.

[JasonC]

105mm HEAT will KO a Jagdpanther with a lower front hull hit, or any side hit. 105mm HEAT or HE can also immobilize them with track hits and damage the gun with gun hits. Only the upper front hull is invunerable. The lower front hull does need the side angle to be moderate, too - pretty close to straight on, that is. Of course, if it isn't pretty close to straight on it isn't shooting back at you.

Neither 75mm AP nor bazookas will do the trick. The highly angled 55 degree front slope is a poor target for 76mm tungsten, incidentally. 76mm plain AP is better than tungsten against so much slope, but needs to be close to penetrate as well as 105mm HEAT does at any range.

105mm HEAT is a pretty good tank killing round. It will also get through the lower front hull of the Panther, and with a straight-on enough shot, through the turret front some of the time. Those "rare" kill chance read outs you see in the LOS tool are not corrected for target armor quality.

The troops considered the Sherman 105 the best all around weapon they had, an impression stemming in part from the scarcity of facing armor. They used them for everything. The main drawback was the relatively low muzzle velocity, making for relatively poor accuracy at long range. With HE, that didn't matter, though.

Are they undermodeled as to armor penetration in CM? Possible. HEAT penetration numbers are notoriously difficult, because there is so much random variation from shot to shot, stemming from things like the exact impact angle. Brit 95mm HEAT is rated much higher, when it is a smaller charge. The US 105mm is given only 13% more than the 60mm HEAT round of the bazooka. Arguably the bazooka is rated a bit too high, though.

Slightly more powerful, they would penetrate Panther turret fronts a bit more often, and Jagdpanther lower front hulls from wider side angles. The basic story would remain. 105mm HEAT will kill any critter, even a King Tiger, from the side, and a number of the better ones from the front. Tiger I, Panther all but upper hull, Jagdpanther lower hull only, Jagdpanzer 70 any plate through only sometimes for the upper hull.

The ability to damage a tank even if not penetrated is also important. I don't know how well it is modeled in CM (just haven't tested it), but 105mm HE (or HEAT) was much more likely to cause serious track damage, or other external damage without a penetration, than 75mm HE. When you have 6 105s firing fast, in a few minutes anything on the other end is not going to like it very much, even if tough enough to avoid outright penetration (which is King Tiger territory).

As for the rate of fire being 5-8 rounds a minute, that is also perfectly believable. The rounds were already prepped. There was no particular reason for the ROF to be that much slower than a 75. CM undermodels them in that respect, certainly, giving more like 3 rounds a minute (which would be right for 150mm with 100 lb shells, but not a mere 105mm). It just isn't that much harder to load a 33 lb shell instead of a 12 lb shell. Either is easy to lift, as any swing by the dumbell rack at your gym will demonstrate (if you haven't done it). Maybe an extra second or two, but not twice as long.

P.S. this is not the only use of the term "Ferdinand" for a Jagdpanther. It was the troops who made the mis-ID, not authors. They called any SP gun with a long 88 "Ferdinand" or "Rhinoceros" or "Elephant", indifferently, probably because of the pictures in an "enemy AFV type" friend or foe ID booklet, or some such thing. There are other cases of it in the Bulge. Sometimes even a Jagd-70 might be called that, but when you check vehicle deployments and places, Jagdpanthers are the most common "Elephants" spotted in the west. (Of course there weren't any real ones, the Kursk model).

[ July 17, 2002, 11:49 AM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Sarge Saunders]

Bump!

Anyone know of a CM scenario for a Task Force Baum engagement? Seems like some possibilities for the Gemünden bridge would be fun. Take the crossing on the run! Or the ambush of the Panzerjäger and the attack on Oflag XIIB would have some interesting what ifs.... No doubt the "Ferdinands" could regroup down the road near camp. Could 3 Sherman 105s screen a convoy against 5 to 8 German tank destroyers? Just how many Halftracks would go up in flames?

-Sarge

[Sarge Saunders]

Originally posted by jgdpzr:

There is an excellent piece in After the Battle magazine about this action. The author did exhaustive research on the subject, specifically he spent a great deal of time looking at German records and interviewing German veterans. His conclusion was that the only German vehicles in the area were Hetzers. This was corroborated by numerous sources, including the identification of the particular abteilung to which they belonged. IIRC, the author also discussed the discrepancies in the different books, specifically singling out "Raid." He was quite adamant that the vehicles were incorrectly identified in that book.

Very good. I figured the factual version would likely differ from Raid. Hetzers would be pretty tough for regular shermans.

Question: Are only the Axis vehicles incorrectly identified? What about the Task Force vehicles? Did they even sport the Sherman 105?

Dying to know. Thanks!

[Sarge Saunders]

Originally posted by JasonC:

The troops considered the Sherman 105 the best all around weapon they had, an impression stemming in part from the scarcity of facing armor. They used them for everything. The main drawback was the relatively low muzzle velocity, making for relatively poor accuracy at long range.

Right. This is modelled in CM. I actually engaged a poor newbie toting Sherman 105s on a large map. Had him from a large hill with a hull-down veteran Jagdpanther. Sherm 105 guns cannot hit at range.

Incidently, I could see that a 105 HEAT round would get more kills against sloped armor like Hetzers and Jagdpanthers. Since even the Tungsten carrying tanks like the Sherman EZ8 and M10 would have trouble with sloped armor (though regular 76mm AP rounds are enough to acheive regular kills against Hetzers it seems).

So with that, I might not mind having some Sherman 105s along on a Task Force.

Originally posted by JasonC:

P.S. this is not the only use of the term "Ferdinand" for a Jagdpanther. It was the troops who made the mis-ID, not authors. They called any SP gun with a long 88 "Ferdinand" or "Rhinoceros" or "Elephant", indifferently, probably because of the pictures in an "enemy AFV type" friend or foe ID booklet, or some such thing. There are other cases of it in the Bulge. Sometimes even a Jagd-70 might be called that, but when you check vehicle deployments and places, Jagdpanthers are the most common "Elephants" spotted in the west. (Of course there weren't any real ones, the Kursk model).

Hehe, when Raid! describes the 88 on a Panther hull I figured Jagdpanther. Tougher opponent really than a Ferdinand. Panther chassis moves much better. But jgdpzr's sources seem clear they could only be Hetzers anyway.....

[ July 17, 2002, 12:08 PM: Message edited by: Sarge Saunders ]

[Dirtweasle]

There sure could be some interesting CM scenarios. One thing I seem to remember from this operation is some of the half-tracks were what were called "Wasps", Half tracks with quad .50 cal or even heavier stuff. Can't recall where I read this now.

[Buzzsaw]

What suggestions does anyone have for interesting and accurate reading on Task Force Baum?

I have one book at home, I think it is titled "Hammelburg", that is really pretty terrible. It sounds like "Raid!" is not much better.

My grandfather was a POW at Hammelburg during the raid, and I am always curious to learn more about what actually happened.

[JasonC]

Dirtweasel - not sure what the nickname "wasp" refers to. But the US had a number of AA vehicles, M13-19 except 18. 13 and 14 were duel 50 cals. 16 and 17 were quad 50 cals. Those were the most common. The 15 was a 37mm AA gun plus 2 50 cals.

All those were halftracked. The M19 was a duel 40mm Bofors on a fully tracked chassis, meant to replace the 15, from the middle of 1944 on. It undoubtedly took time for the transition, but by late war I'd expect the 37mm 15's to be rare. If the vehicles are specified as "half" tracked, that rules out the 19. Leaving quad 50s or duel 50s, the former more likely (a common piece of equipment in AA automatic weapons batteries).

On Hetzers, that makes a certain sense, although it is a rather stunning level of mis-ID at that point. Certainly 105mm HEAT will clobber mere Hetzers, slope or not, if they get hits. Same for Jagdpanzers, incidentally (although as noted, the Jagd-70 requires small side angle, with some upper hull hits still likely to bounce). Against Hetzers, it is a small target and not the most accurate gun, though. For that matter, the Hetzer is so thin on the sides, even 105mm HE near misses might be dangerous. A W model Sherman 105 would also be able to withstand the replies of a mere Hetzer beyond 750 yards, except for turret hits. So at long range, where hits might be hard to get, the replies would often bounce.

Incidentally, in CM the Sherman 105 as a QB purchase has a few drawbacks. One, the ROF is slow, slower than is probably realistic. That makes the larger shells only marginally better HE killers than the faster firing and cheaper 75s of the plain Shermans. Two, the HEAT supply is often limited. About half will have a useful 6-10 rounds, but often you will get only 1-2. Since they aren't particularly accurate and get used right away for all but side shots (where HE is often enough), that is not sufficient. Also debatable as to historical accuracy, since these were actually used as all purpose weapons, not just fire support. Three, they are relatively expensive. You pay 20-30 more per tank for the 105 compared to a 75. If you would otherwise be buying W models they make more sense, because there you get HVSS suspension too, and the price difference is marginal compared to the 75W model. Four, the turret is slow, which is a big change compared to the fast turrets on the 75s. If the other weaknesses were not present, the extra price could be worth it. But with them, you pay more and sacrifice ROF, turret speed, and HEAT load depth (compared to 75 AP) for the bigger gun. Making them not a particular bargain at CM QB prices. The HE will kill infantry, though, and if you get enough HEAT it can do a few critters if you manage to hit them first.

As for the number of them, Sherman 105s were used in pairs, with 6 compromising a "battery". They were the fire support portion of an armor battalion, just like M8HMCs were for TD and cavalry battalions. So an "assault gun platoon" would be as few as 2 of them.

[ July 17, 2002, 01:08 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[jgdpzr]

Originally posted by Sarge Saunders:

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

There is an excellent piece in After the Battle magazine about this action. The author did exhaustive research on the subject, specifically he spent a great deal of time looking at German records and interviewing German veterans. His conclusion was that the only German vehicles in the area were Hetzers. This was corroborated by numerous sources, including the identification of the particular abteilung to which they belonged. IIRC, the author also discussed the discrepancies in the different books, specifically singling out "Raid." He was quite adamant that the vehicles were incorrectly identified in that book.

Very good. I figured the factual version would likely differ from Raid. Hetzers would be pretty tough for regular shermans.

Question: Are only the Axis vehicles incorrectly identified? What about the Task Force vehicles? Did they even sport the Sherman 105?

Dying to know. Thanks!</font>

[Sarge Saunders]

Originally posted by JasonC:

On Hetzers, that makes a certain sense, although it is a rather stunning level of mis-ID at that point. Certainly 105mm HEAT will clobber mere Hetzers, slope or not, if they get hits. Same for Jagdpanzers, incidentally (although as noted, the Jagd-70 requires small side angle, with some upper hull hits still likely to bounce)......So an "assault gun platoon" would be as few as 2 of them.

Oh yeah, sure Sherm 105 Ws would make easy work out of Hetzers. Yet, IRL, I could just hear those guys talking...."Yeah, WTF do we do if we run into some gawddamn Tigers?" I do find it interesting that the Sherman 105 was considered a standard answer to that problem....If true.

-Sarge

P.S. According to the book, 3 105s where used.

[jgdpzr]

Originally posted by Buzzsaw:

What suggestions does anyone have for interesting and accurate reading on Task Force Baum?

I have one book at home, I think it is titled "Hammelburg", that is really pretty terrible. It sounds like "Raid!" is not much better.

My grandfather was a POW at Hammelburg during the raid, and I am always curious to learn more about what actually happened.

I highly recommend the After the Battle story on the subject. I don't have the volume number, but I will look when I get home. The author surveyed all the literature on TF Baum, conducted interviews with participants (both German and American) and travelled the route extensively. He didn't seem to have any bias on the historical details, so I believe his conclusions are supported by the best available evidence. I do know he claimed to be absolutely positive the German vehicles were Hetzers, not any Tiger or Panther derivatives.

The story is accompanied by some very nice photographs and maps of the terrain along the route, as is customary for the magazine both during (or actually right after as no photos were taken during the actual raid) the battle and today (or at least when the article was written).

[Sarge Saunders]

Originally posted by jgdpzr:

Regarding the scenario question, I created a semi-historical scenario called Gemunden that I am rather proud of. *shameless plug alert* At least one board member (Blackhorse) said it is his favorite battle ever.....If you play the battle, I'd love to hear your impressions.

Oh yes!!! I have played Gemunden. My God, it is a real ballbuster. The German AI gave me tons of grief. The Axis TDs outshot my fast TDs at range. It was quite ugly. Smoke, fire and brute force got me across the bridge. I fought for every inch! Once across, my turreted shermans had a bit better time in town. But I eaked by a victory. I must have forgotten but I played that over a year ago....

Nice Job!

-Sarge

[ July 17, 2002, 01:45 PM: Message edited by: Sarge Saunders ]

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by JasonC:

[snips]The highly angled 55 degree front slope is a poor target for 76mm tungsten, incidentally. 76mm plain AP is better than tungsten against so much slope, but needs to be close to penetrate as well as 105mm HEAT does at any range.

Do you have a source for this, please?

I find it hard to believe that either the M62 or M79 would out-perform the M93 HVAP (APCR) round at any slope, except perhaps at extreme ranges.

All the best,

John.

[jgdpzr]

Originally posted by Sarge Saunders:

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

Regarding the scenario question, I created a semi-historical scenario called Gemunden that I am rather proud of. *shameless plug alert* At least one board member (Blackhorse) said it is his favorite battle ever.....If you play the battle, I'd love to hear your impressions.

Oh yes!!! I have played Gemunden. My God, it is a real ballbuster. The German AI gave me tons of grief. The Axis TDs outshot my fast TDs at range. It was quite ugly. Smoke, fire and brute force got me across the bridge. I fought for every inch! Once across, my turreted shermans had a bit better time in town. But I eaked by a victory. I must have forgotten but I played that over a year ago....

Nice Job!

-Sarge</font>

[Dook]

Anyone know of a CM scenario for a Task Force Baum engagement?

-Sarge

Rune has a Task Force Baum scenario at the Scenario Depot. Haven't played it so I can't vouch for it, but his scenarios are generally high quality.

[rune]

While fun, ignore the results and go with what is in the briefing. The report I had also stated they were priests, and I think I had that in the scenario, but I don't remember if I changed it to Sherman 105s. The amount of vehicles is accurate, and the German OOB is subject to debate also. If someone has a better OOB then the references I had, let me know and we can re-visit the scenario. Needless to say it is almost impossible to get the vehicles off the map safely.

Rune

[JasonC]

To John Salt - I don't have a quote on 105 vs. German sloped armor, but there are AAR reports of 105mm HEAT vs. highly sloped Russian armor in Korea. It performed very well, defeating T-34/85s routinely. Which have 60 degree sloped armor.

As for the poor performance of tungsten at very high slopes, I'm mostly just going by CM itself, and other comments to the same effect I've heard here - that T rounds underperform plain AP from the same gun at very high slope, presumably because they ricochet more easily.