155mm arty was used in direct fire mode to blow Panthers up?

[warrenpeace]

I've read Death-Traps by Cooper and I've also talked with several veterans who served in Europe in armored units (My Mom once dated a guy who lost his hand when his Sherman was hit by an AP round that "bounced around a lot inside"). While I agree that the Sherman was ok against PzIV, it was clearly inferior against the PzV and VI, which it came up against about half the time. According to my source in June 1944 the combined number of PzV and PzVI on the western front was 630 vs. 667 for Pz IV. However, the reason the Sherman was weaker in terms of crew survival was its propensity to catch on fire and blow up (well modeled in the game BTW). There is no denying Cooper's thesis that the Army's decision to delay the M26 and simply focus on increased Sherman production probably cost more tankers their lives as measured in deaths/hour-combat. More debatable (although I tend to think Cooper is still right here) is whether the shifting to the M26 earlier would have also ended the war quicker and with fewer overall tank casualties. This is a classic quality vs. quantity argument and is essentially impossible to know. However, I can tell you that all of the Armored division Veterans I have talked to (Four that I can think of offhand) clearly felt there Sherman's were inferior to German tanks.

[dieseltaylor]

On the Ronson tag for the Sherman, I seem to recall someone posting on here the official after battle damage survey figures. I think I am correct when I remember that the percenatage of Shermans found to have burned was not much different to MLIVs and other tanks.

Well I suppose if I blew up in flames on my first or second hit that is no different from a MkIV burning after its fifth hit if they are examined a few days later. Or is it?

Anyway without seeing the figures and how they deduced the figures it is hard to say. And in any event if this survey mentioned is for post-Normandy it should be markedly better than the North African experience with the earlier non-modified Shermans.

[Charlie Marlow]

Use of M4 over the M26 probably did cost some tankers their lives, but also most likely saved any number of infantry soldiers. The size and number of M4s produced resulted in a lot more available than if the US switched to the M26. Thus, more tanks and armor units to support the infantry.

Also, when facing German infantry (which was the usual. German tanks becoming increasingly rare), the Sherman was extremely effective. Its medium velocity 75 and 3 machineguns were very good for anti-personnel use.

[dieseltaylor]

Use of M4 over the M26 probably did cost some tankers their lives, but also most likely saved any number of infantry soldiers. The size and number of M4s produced resulted in a lot more available than if the US switched to the M26. Thus, more tanks and armor units to support the infantry.

Also, when facing German infantry (which was the usual. German tanks becoming increasingly rare), the Sherman was extremely effective. Its medium velocity 75 and 3 machineguns were very good for anti-personnel use.

I don't disagree with your conclusions. The alternative does offer the interesting possibility that the Germans will to resist may have been substantially impaired if facing M26's routinely. Ardenes offensive anyone?

Would the Wehrmacht have had much more spine dealing with Hitler if losing on land and in the air to technically superior machines? I think the psychology of the M26 could have been fairly major.

[Blackcat]

"the reason the Sherman was weaker in terms of crew survival was its propensity to catch on fire and blow up (well modeled in the game BTW)"

But MkIVs and Stugs seem to catch fire just as often in the game. So the game is modelling them wrongly?

[Charlie Marlow]

Would the Wehrmacht have had much more spine dealing with Hitler if losing on land and in the air to technically superior machines? I think the psychology of the M26 could have been fairly major.

Since I usually play the allies if given a choice, having M26s earlier and in larger numbers would have helped my psychology.

The one big mistake that the US did make was to not upgun the Sherman earlier and with either the 17 pound gun or something equivalent. The Firefly is approximately equivalent to a Panther in most respects, and is more reliable. Could even have been done with a 90mm gun. I recall seeing pictures of a Pershing like turret on an M4 hull. Also, the M36B2 was basically a 90mm gun turret on a Sherman hull. Put a little top armor on that, and you have a tank that can go up against a Panther pretty well.

[gunnergoz]

"the reason the Sherman was weaker in terms of crew survival was its propensity to catch on fire and blow up (well modeled in the game BTW)"

But MkIVs and Stugs seem to catch fire just as often in the game. So the game is modelling them wrongly?

The early Sherman was most vulnerable to brewing up because of exposed ammo stowage in the early models. Additional armor was added on as production advanced (it can usually be seen on the sponson sides covering the ammunition stowage areas, commonly one welded plate on one side and two on the other.) Later models had wet stowage, with water jackets around the ammo, which was mostly moved to the turret floor as well. Those alterations helped reduce the fire hazard, at least long enough to let crews get out.

But make no mistake, any tank or AFV will burn if the ammo, hyraulic fluid or fuel ignites as a result of a penetration. And, has been noted, post war analysis showed the Sherman to be little worse than its opponents as far as fire risk went, particularly as modernized ones went into service. The German tanks brewed up just fine too - if you could get a sufficient penetration. There is amazing war footage now on video of a Panther dueling an M26 in the streets of Cologne at the end of the war and the Panther can be seen to brew up quickly and fiercely after the M26 penetrated the upper hull.

AFAIC the game models tank vulnerabilities quite well. What seems to be distorted somewhat is the wartime and postwar discussion of the matter and this has left a legacy which does not tell the whole story. Contemporary wartime US and UK journalists jumped on the stories telling of the "Ronson" and pressure grew in the US to do something when mothers started writing the army about what they were hearing. The army knew it had problems and probably might have even moved more slowly than it did, were it not for some of the domestic pressure it was getting thanks to the news stories.

[Gazmaps]

I had a PBEM game and a Priest knocked out my Tiger. I thought it was going to be one sided and it was just the not the way I expected. The Priests in game do have HEAT rounds and yes they can take out Heavy Tanks. It was a front on shot at probally 100m

The disadvantage to the priest is no turret and slow turning rate. So can be outmanouvered by tanks.

I didnt think it would penetrate a Tiger so approached from head on. Now I know better.

[gunnergoz]

Since I usually play the allies if given a choice, having M26s earlier and in larger numbers would have helped my psychology.

The one big mistake that the US did make was to not upgun the Sherman earlier and with either the 17 pound gun or something equivalent. The Firefly is approximately equivalent to a Panther in most respects, and is more reliable. Could even have been done with a 90mm gun. I recall seeing pictures of a Pershing like turret on an M4 hull. Also, the M36B2 was basically a 90mm gun turret on a Sherman hull. Put a little top armor on that, and you have a tank that can go up against a Panther pretty well.

For this decision we have the hidebound army brass at branch level to thank. These were the same hair shirts who in their wisdom decided that tanks were not for fighting other tanks, that one needed tank destroyers for that purpose. So the army went into the war with a mish-mash of lights, mediums and towed and SP TD's. Some efforts were made to design a workable heavy tank (the M6) but even though hundreds were produced, the decision was made that they took up too much space on the cargo ships and it was considered best to just keep shipping Shermans and TD's. The GI's at the pointy end of the stick made do with what they had, but a more rational development and procurement approach would have served the GI far better than the rigorous adherence to this now disproven doctrine that restricted what could be designed and fielded for far too long. The army finally wised up after the war and redesignated the M26 from heavy to medium and then finally just decided to call it's grandsons (M48's and M60's) main battle tanks by the 1960's.

[gunnergoz]

I had a PBEM game and a Priest knocked out my Tiger. I thought it was going to be one sided and it was just the not the way I expected. The Priests in game do have HEAT rounds and yes they can take out Heavy Tanks. It was a front on shot at probally 100m

The disadvantage to the priest is no turret and slow turning rate. So can be outmanouvered by tanks.

I didnt think it would penetrate a Tiger so approached from head on. Now I know better.

The 2nd Armored Division after the Normandy breakout got itself mixed in with retreating elements of the 17th SS division on a French road one night and some M7's got to go toe to toe with German armor and AFV's, including a 150mm Hummel which was knocked out after leading a charge down the road in an effort to break through the Americans around them. The M7 was never intended for this kind of work but it managed to come through, although I'll bet there were a lot of soiled skivvies afterwards.

[c3k]

In Soviet Russia, tanks trapped death!

Thanks for the laugh!

[Destraex1]

Here is the quote from "Death Traps" about the combat losses. I do not know what the Germans losses were like. I was out by a few hundred percent sorry. But the point still stands. That being that the US in one division lost a lot of tanks. They were certainly not likely to survive for long even when the US army had huge superiority in equipment, numbers and logistics. You could indeed say they were death traps as it is likely that every tanker that originally went in got his ride shot from under him.

"the 3d armored division entered combat with 232 m4 sherman tanks. During the European Campaign, the division had some 648 sherman tanks completely destroyed in combat and we had another 700 knocked out, repaired and put back into operation. this was a loss rate of 580 percent. In addition to this staggering battle loss rate of 580 percent in our main battle tanks, we also experienced extremely heavy wear and tear due to the everyday operation of the equipment."

The references to the m12 in what seems to be a direct fire incidence:

"The fighting became so intense that CCA finally brought up some of the 155mm GPFs on M12 chassis from the 991st field artillery."

"At that point, a German tank came through an opening in a hedgerow and encountered and m12 with its 155mm GPF zeroed in on the gap. The 155 let go and struck the tank at the base of the turret, completely decapitating it. the turret and gun were blown off, and the tank stopped in its tracks.

[gunnergoz]

Sounds about like the loss rate of infantrymen in some of the infantry divisions...they replaced their frontline GI's several times over during the course of the war. Not much armor on a GI, either. Thank goodness for us that the GI's and tankers made the most of what they had then, eh? They were fighting not only an enemy in front of them but a military bureaucracy that was certain it had all the answers...too bad the questions they were answering were from back in WW1. The Sherman was a legacy of that thought process, having been originally conceived to be resistant to 37mm AT fire...when the other guys were already fielding 50 and then 75mm AT guns. It did fine against Mk IV's but the Panther and Tiger were real headaches that could only be taken out at a cost to yourself.

BTW its been a while since I read the book - where and when was the M12 incident said to have taken place and with which AD?

[Blackcat]

Here is the quote from "Death Traps" about the combat losses. I do not know what the Germans losses were like. I was out by a few hundred percent sorry. But the point still stands. That being that the US in one division lost a lot of tanks. They were certainly not likely to survive for long even when the US army had huge superiority in equipment, numbers and logistics. You could indeed say they were death traps as it is likely that every tanker that originally went in got his ride shot from under him.

"the 3d armored division entered combat with 232 m4 sherman tanks. During the European Campaign, the division had some 648 sherman tanks completely destroyed in combat and we had another 700 knocked out, repaired and put back into operation. this was a loss rate of 580 percent. In addition to this staggering battle loss rate of 580 percent in our main battle tanks, we also experienced extremely heavy wear and tear due to the everyday operation of the equipment."

The references to the m12 in what seems to be a direct fire incidence:

"The fighting became so intense that CCA finally brought up some of the 155mm GPFs on M12 chassis from the 991st field artillery."

"At that point, a German tank came through an opening in a hedgerow and encountered and m12 with its 155mm GPF zeroed in on the gap. The 155 let go and struck the tank at the base of the turret, completely decapitating it. the turret and gun were blown off, and the tank stopped in its tracks.

Thanks for providing the source you are using. At least I know where you are coming from.

[Charlie Marlow]

...too bad the questions they were answering were from back in WW1. The Sherman was a legacy of that thought process,

Sherman was really an answer to 1941, not WWI. Pretty damn good tank in 1942 and early 43. Probably best in the world. Tiger in mid42 was arguably better at tank to tank fighting, but other than that, Sherman wins.

[Charlie Marlow]

Here is the quote from "Death Traps" about the combat losses. I do not know what the Germans losses were like. I was out by a few hundred percent sorry. But the point still stands. That being that the US in one division lost a lot of tanks. They were certainly not likely to survive for long even when the US army had huge superiority in equipment, numbers and logistics. You could indeed say they were death traps as it is likely that every tanker that originally went in got his ride shot from under him.

How many of those losses were to German tanks? Even a T26 doesn't stand up to Panzerfaust and PanzerSchreck fire very well. Most late war German AT guns could penetrate the T26's armor at least from the sides, and the 88s from the front sometimes. And there would have been less T26s to take the losses.

[Sgt Joch]

On the Sherman, don't forget the US was fighting a global war, so they needed a AFV that could be shipped anywhere on the planet and that could be used in Europe as well as the Pacific, so they were limited in size and weight. The Germans did not have that problem.

Second, as odd as it may seem, the main job of a tank was not to kill other tanks, but to help breakthrough enemy positions and then exploit in the enemy's rear.

A direct tank v tank comparaison is not really useful. The Germans savaged the Russians in 41-42 even though they fielded inferior tanks. The Russians returned the favor in 43-45 even though they were facing Panthers and Tigers.

[Erik Springelkamp]

How many of those losses were to German tanks? Even a T26 doesn't stand up to Panzerfaust and PanzerSchreck fire very well. Most late war German AT guns could penetrate the T26's armor at least from the sides, and the 88s from the front sometimes. And there would have been less T26s to take the losses.

Good point.

During the fighting for my home town in 1945 for instance, there was not a single German tank, but the Canadians lost several Shermans, mostly from panzerfausts. One of them was hit right around the corner where I live, from the entrance of a house. Same thing happened several times: lead tank does a rush, around a corner, or over a bridge, gets hit by a panzerfaust, overwatch destroys the firer, and they had established a new foothold.

Must have been a terrible job to do the rush.

[gunnergoz]

Sherman was really an answer to 1941, not WWI. Pretty damn good tank in 1942 and early 43. Probably best in the world. Tiger in mid42 was arguably better at tank to tank fighting, but other than that, Sherman wins.

The Sherman was an evolutionary result of tank designs based on the realities of the late 30's, hurriedly upgraded in time for WW2; T5 medium, M3 medium, to M4, hence my comment.

Best in the world in '42 and '43? My vote would be for the T34 there as a more modern design in '41, although it's superiority was soon eclipsed by the fact of the Sherman's 5-man crew.

As for the reference to WW1, I was not saying the M4 was a WW1 design, rather it was an outgrowth of the way the army branch chiefs looked at tanks in general as support to the infantry, not as offensive weapons on their own right. That legacy remained well into WW2, with the result that they had to come up with TD's to deal with enemy tanks, because our own tanks were supposed to be used for either infantry support or for exploitation of a breakthrough, not for fighting other tanks. And, in fact, the Sherman proved to be excellent in both the support and exploitation roles it was designed for. Where it fell short, as we all know, was as a tank-killer.

[Destraex1]

@ springelkamp, That may be true. however we are talking about the sherman being a death trap primarily.

I also think it a little short sighted on the US commands part to say tanks should not fight tanks when they know from experience in other theatres it often happened.

I cannot say it was the wrong decision to ship shermans rather than pershings or t26s from an logistics POV. But from an moral and morale POV it was not a good look. Something that would certainly be frowned upon today in the current theatre of operations.

[Charlie Marlow]

I guess I sort of was commenting on the deathtrap aspect. Any tank in heavy offensive operations against a determined enemy with effective AT weapons is going to be a deathtrap. That the M4 was so designated was because it was there.

As far as a mistake to use the M4 instead of a heavier tank. I don't thing so given the situation. The mistake was in not upgunning the M4. The Brits suggested rather early that the US do just that, but the US Army brass declined.

[gunnergoz]

I guess I'm just hung up on this "death trap" terminology. It makes it sound like the tank was useless, that operating it in a combat environment was suicidal. It's hyperbole and not a useful description when assessing the value of the thing.

A little short sighted is being generous. Some of these planners were fools IMHO. No question that the army brass of the era was backwards looking. Recall that the doctrines were written before WW2 and the army went into the war using them right up to and including D-Day. Experience in other theaters? Please. The army wouldn't even listen much to its own veterans of amphibious assaults in the Pacific who were brought over to give advice to the Overlord planners. They could have had some amphibious vehicles, like amtracs, but rejected them. They only grudgingly accepted "funnies" like flails, flame tanks and mine rollers. It was tough even to get them to accept the 76mm gun for the Sherman. These high level officers making these decisions were dinosaurs and their thinking was very influential for far too long. As for the times, well it was different and pressure on the army to change things built up slowly. By the time there was sufficient momentum behind bigger guns and better tanks, the war was almost over in the ETO.

[MikeyD]

Panther gun and British 17 pounder were said to have a much inferior HE round compared to the Sherman 75. U.S. 76mm was said to be slightly inferior. U.S. tank guns included provision for artillery-style indirect gunlaying, something the German tanks did not. Sherman is an inferior tank if you insist on symmetric warfare. Tanks must fight tanks on an equal footing. U.S. tank destroyers, a failure according to conventional wisdom, were achieving an exchange rate on the order of 10:1. German AT guns, once spotted, were quickly dispathed with artillery. U.S. tanks, as part of a combined arms force, doesn't really look too shabby. Yes, doubling the bow armor is hard to argue against, though the addition often results in failed transmissions and collapsed roadwheels.

[Blackcat]

@ springelkamp, That may be true. however we are talking about the sherman being a death trap primarily.

I also think it a little short sighted on the US commands part to say tanks should not fight tanks when they know from experience in other theatres it often happened.

I cannot say it was the wrong decision to ship shermans rather than pershings or t26s from an logistics POV. But from an moral and morale POV it was not a good look. Something that would certainly be frowned upon today in the current theatre of operations.

I am not sure that there is much evidence to suggest that the morale amongst allied tankers was generally low in the ETO. They did seem to fight well and they did win. Was morale affected by the decision not to push the production of the M26 earlier? I very much doubt it. I shouldn't think 1 tanker in a 1000 had even heard of the M26 or knew that a better tank could have been with them if different decisions had been made.

As for the moral element, I think it is a capital mistake when considering history to judge the people by the standards we hold and knowledge we have today. Much better understanding comes from considering what they knew and judge their decisions against that. Its also a capital mistake to take any old soldier's memoirs as gospel and Cooper is a case in point.

[Sequoia]

Here's a response from Steve about the use of towed artillery in the game from a prior instance when this came up.

We could spend an enormous amount of time putting in weaponry that was never supposed to be used in a tactical situation, but in theory could be. That's a very poor use of our resources so we're drawing a line between "infantry" type guns and "artillery". Infantry guns will be portrayed, here and there as we go along, but "artillery" will not be.

Steve