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

[JonS]

Here is the quote from "Death Traps" ... 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."

Ok, so this is a really good example of why Cooper's book needs to be taken with generous doses of salt, especially when he strays out of his lane.

The attack being discussed occurred on 11 July, when Lehr attacked north towards Carentan/Isigny, into the advancing Americans. Lehr totally had their asses handed to them, and the attack fizzled in less than 12 hours causing a barely noticeable slow down in the US rate of advance. Yet Cooper - with no personal experience relating to this fighting - describes the day as "one of the most critical battle in the battle of Normandy. He also states there were Jagdpanthers present that day. He then goes on to opine that "the 105mm howitzer mounted on the M7 chassis proved to be one of our most effective weapons against German armor."

When he talks about ordnance stuff and and his own - personal - experiences: great. When he starts free forming about anything else: terrible.

[gunnergoz]

Destraex1: No offense but it seems to me you are working on the assumption that all German tanks were Tigers and Panthers. Their most common tank quantitatively throughout the war was the Pz IV, which was equal to if not inferior in some respects to the Sherman. Yes, tankers were aware of the Sherman's limitations and did ask for something better, at least better armed. Up-armoring and adding wet stowage only went so far. The Sherman could have had a 76mm gun from 1943 production on, making it conceivable that every American M4 at Normandy could at least have had that gun, but the Army Ground Forces decided in its infinite wisdom that having it would tempt Sherman crews to fight enemy tanks when their primary responsibility was to support the infantry and exploit breakthroughs.

And yes, Sherman crews had to be careful, savvy and lucky to survive. But they were very often able to defeat the weapons in front of them if they handled their tank well. And, as I've noted, every tank is a potential death trap if it's vulnerabilities are exposed. The Sherman, like the Mk IV simply had to be fought smarter (and have a bit of luck) to survive on battlefield.

The way you speak of the Sherman makes it sound like there were other tanks that were invulnerable to the point where crews did not have to worry about their own survival. Nothing could be further from the truth. But the Sherman was the result of a very different mindset than the one that designed the Panther and Tiger. Again, thought the Sherman did fight tanks, it was not primarily designed to do so. That was the job of the TD's according to American doctrine at the time.

Russians were of mixed emotions about the Shermans they got. Compared to the Valentines, the Shermans (and even the M3 Grants they got under lend-lease) were far more roomy and had tons of neat spares that came with them. They rode so well that the troops using them felt like they were riding Cadillacs compared to their own T34 and KV series. They liked the reliability and mobility of the Sherman and the M3. But they were not crazy about the gun or the armor, that is true.

Just try to remember that no one set out to design "death traps" but the mindset that went into these designs had intrinsic flaws that were not apparent until they really got illuminated on the battlefield. By then it was too late and the tankers had to make do while the army tried to get its collective head together about how to resolve the problem.

Panthers and Tigers OTH were from the start designed with tank to tank combat in mind. That was reflected in their superior armament and armor layout. But at the same time, they were not produced in anything like the numbers that the Sherman was. The USA had to fight two wars and the Germans really only had to deal with one continent. The tank designs in part reflect that reality. Were the German designs (apart from the Pz IV superior? Yes. But the Sherman was there in quantities the Germans could not conceive of. And Quantity has a quality all its own, they say.

[Charlie Marlow]

It still seems to me that the evidence suggests the Sherman was certainly inferior to both German and Russian tanks.

The Russian workhorse was the T34. The Sherman was a better tank in most respects.

T34(76) v. M4. Protection was about the same. M4 has a better gun in AP, HE, and accuracy (better optics). M4 has 3 man turret. M4 is much more reliable. M4 has radio. Better secondary armament. The only things the T34 has going are flotation and size.

T34(85) v. Easy 8 76mm. Sherman is better protected, has better AP. Not sure about HE. Is more accurate. Again better secondary armament. Mobility is probably about the same.

Sherman also has all the intangibles. Easier to drive, faster turret, more crew comfort (i.e. less fatigue).

Don't believe everything you see on the History Channel or in Russian wartime propaganda.

[Andrew H.]

Destraex1: No offense but it seems to me you are working on the assumption that all German tanks were Tigers and Panthers. Their most common tank quantitatively throughout the war was the Pz IV, which was equal to if not inferior in some respects to the Sherman.

And keep in mind that the most common AFV wasn't even a tank, but was the StuG III.

[Charlie Marlow]

The Russians certainly did not like the sherman from what I have read.

At least one Hero of the Soviet Union liked them well enough.

http://english.iremember.ru/tankers/17-dmitriy-loza.html

http://www.amazon.com/Commanding-Red-Armys-Sherman-Tanks/dp/0803229208

[MikeyD]

T34 had so many faults that they can hardly be counted. They were really manufactured to run only so long as they'd *typically* be expected to survive on the battlefield. Then the engine melted or transmission gave way. That would be like designing the Sherman only to last through 3-4 gas refills before replacing the entire drive train. The oil bath air filter was particularly notorious, gave them headaches throughout the war. Armor protection was great... for 1941. By 1942 they were already manufacturing bow applique armor kits it increase protection, but these had to be dropped when the heavier 85mm gun turret got mounted. The performance of the 85mm gun was pretty close to the Sherman's 76mm, perhaps a touch inferior.

[Charlie Marlow]

US evaluation of the T34. Nice design, lousy manufacturing.

http://www.battlefield.ru/en/documents/80-armor-and-equipment/300-t34-kv1-aberdeen-evaluation.html

[Magpie_Oz]

And keep in mind that the most common AFV wasn't even a tank, but was the StuG III.

In Normandy the Stug was the 3rd most prevalent. PzIV was most numerous, then the PzV, the Stug III, then a few Pz VI and a handful of other types.

[gunnergoz]

For anyone talking about tank vs tank and the effects thereof, this documentary footage from Cologne in 1945 is well worth watching if you have not seen it before. It shows a Panther KO'ing a Sherman and an M26 knocking out the Panther. This is very graphic actual footage so be advised.

Another perspective from the Pershing's gunner and more background:

This amateur researcher's site has details I'd never known before checking it out:

http://www.anicursor.com/colpicwar2.html

My point in posting this, which I'm sure many have seen, is to reach those who have not seen it. It is as close to the real thing as we are ever likely to get. Draw your own conclusions as to what it teaches us about tank warfare, but I hope that one of the ones you draw is that tankers (on both sides) really earned their pay.

[Magpie_Oz]

I note in the video too that the Panther "Rosons" quite well.

The Sherman and the Panther both had unarmoured ammo bays which causes this.

Pretty confronting stuff that is for sure.

[Michael Emrys]

The increase in survival chances from being assigned to a tank as compared with being assigned to the armored infantry? A factor of at least 3.

"Deathtraps" my eye...

Bingo. However much Sherman tankers may have wished for a better tank, they knew they were a hell of a lot safer behind armor than the PBI. As has been stated many times on this board, the big killer in the war was shell fragments, and tankers were nearly always safe against those unless they had their heads outside their hatches.

Michael

[Bastables]

In Normandy the Stug was the 3rd most prevalent. PzIV was most numerous, then the PzV, the Stug III, then a few Pz VI and a handful of other types.

The Germans thought the PIV was a loser from mid 1944 onwards. You can see this in how they redistributed their factories: You see StuGs being thought more important so Krupp converted to making StuG IV when StuG III shortfalls were experienced, Vomag was redirected to manufacture the Jadgpanzer IV's leaving only Styer with their Nibelungenwerke facility the only one to manufacture PIV's.

When Nibelungenwerke was badly hurt by bombing there was no major impetus to redirect manufacturing to make up the short fall in a similar manner to the StuG III. The Sherman was designed to do a lot of things including beating the PIII and PIV, which it did remarkably well. The Sherman had thicker armour either in total thickness (sides) or due to sloping (glacis) and eventually the Sherman had a comparable high velocity gun in the M1 7,6cm.

[Magpie_Oz]

It wasn't that the Stugs were considered more important it was more that Stug were cheaper and easier to build and as the Pz IV had technically been replaced by the Pz V the manufacturing was directed towards the assault guns.

The Pz IV was still very much a viable tank in 1944, as was the M4 and the T34. I often wonder if the Germans had not squandered resources on the Pz V and Tigers I and II whether they may have fared better.

[gunnergoz]

I note in the video too that the Panther "Rosons" quite well.

The Sherman and the Panther both had unarmoured ammo bays which causes this.

Pretty confronting stuff that is for sure.

The later Shermans had "wet" ammo stowage which helped at least delay brew-ups unless of course a round managed to hit the ammo lockers. These models also had the ammo moved from the sponson sides (very exposed) to the turret basket floor where they were relatively safer. The change cost a few rounds (from 97 total to 91 IIRC) and required some fancy footwork in action on the loaders part.

I suspect that the Sherman in the video was a wet variant because it did not burn quite as intensely and as quickly as did the Panther. In the video the Sherman clearly was smoking and starting to burn after it was struck, but nothing as catastrophically quick as how the Panther went up.

It is clear from other photos that the Sherman was hit in the lower left side (as seen from the rear) of gun mantlet, right over the driver's position. The driver was unlucky enough to be driving with his hatch open and the fragments from the penetration apparently struck him fatally in the head. A hit in that location would also likely kill the loader instantly and indeed he did not survive. The commander, standing above and behind the gunner, lost his lower leg, perhaps taken off by the round as it ricocheted around the turret interior or by shrapnel in the turret and subsequently died from the wound. The co-driver was the only other survivor besides the gunner.

[MikeyD]

I note in the video too that the Panther "Rosons" quite well.

Just a few days ago I happened on a German initial assessment of the new Panther in combat. They state that the tank tended to immediately catch fire when holed through the side. All those open stowage high-propellant gun rounds, they supposed. I know of nothing that they did to mitigate the problem.

[Destraex1]

What is clear from that video is that tanks should not be fighting at ranges of 50m in built up areas, with no infantry support.

Nice video though. Pershing looks smaller than I had imagined.

[Blackcat]

"The attack being discussed [use of heavy artillery over open sights against armour]occurred on 11 July,"

It certainly wasn't the 991st then as claimed by Cooper. They only landed in Normandy on that date and didn't get to the area of ops until the 13th, going into action for the first time, as corps level atillery, on the 14th (see the USAMHI's 1955 history of the battalion).

Even by the standards of military memorialists, Cooper seems very unreliable.

[JasonC]

wokelly - you wrote "the US suffered a severe shortage of Sherman tanks throughout much of the ETO fighting". I deny it. The average field strength of armor battalions in the armor divisions was 90% of TOE, averaged over the entire campaign. The average strength of independent armor battalions was 80% of TOE over the whole campaign. The Germans would have killed for those numbers; they were frequently at 50-60% within a week of being committed to action and then ground lower until there was nothing left.

The US lost only about 3000 mediums in the entire campaign. Um, they made 86,000. Some went to the Brits to be sure, and there was losses in other theaters, etc. But US tank losses never got even within an order of magnitude of the number produced and sent overseas. There were acres of the things in rear echelons. By the standard of every other power in the war, the US had tanks coming out of its ears.

The fact is, trained crews and the shipping space for full armor divisions with all the rest of their equipment were the rate limiters on tanks employed - not tanks themselves. In action, it was the AIBs that burnt out first, always - even the later pattern ADs were too infantry light and casualties to the 3000 men in the AIBs that had by far the highest loss rates in action, determined the length of time a US AD remained effective in combat, before it had to be withdrawn to take replacements and refit. They regularly cross attached infantry regiments to extend this life but it still wasn't enough.

A few formations in the Bulge took high enough tank losses that they needed to be re-equipped to go back into action - but this was purely a matter of getting the tanks forward and finding crews for them. Not of having tanks for them to be issued.

There were genuine shortages in the ETO - of gasoline in the race across France, of 105mm ammo throughout the fall, of rifle replacements at the west wall. Sherman tanks were not one of them.

[Blackcat]

JasonC,

I remember being told that the original USA war plan was for X armoured divisions and production was set-up to produce the appropriate number of tanks. However, by early 1944(?) it was realised that such a large number of AD's would not be required and the manpower was diverted towards the infantry, but a large proportion of the tanks had already been produced. Given your knowledge, do you know if that is actually what happened?

[JasonC]

Partially right. The real limit was shipping space to get forces from the continental US to the theater. The force structure originally planned had gobs more TD and AAA battalions as independent units than were ever actually fielded, due to the perception at the time the force was planned (the fall of France and soon after) that the Germans relied on tanks and aircraft above all. Both were scaled back by a factor of 2 or more in reality. On total divisions there was a similar "reality check", but it occurred rather earlier.

It wasn't easy to plan the number of formations because a formation doesn't fight as a "stock", it fights as a "flow". Meaning, it takes losses in all arms continually, and needs a replacement and equipment *stream* to stay in action as a "cutting edge". Ok, so what will the loss rate actually be per formation in action? And how long will the war last? Ever different estimate of those needs a different ratio of initial forces to sustaining replacements, and thus a different total formation count.

They got the expected loss rate quite low for the "poor bloody infantry", and underestimated the appetite of the field artillery whenever the campaign went static for any period time - but (after the initial errors about AA and AT strength required), got the other rates about right.

[Blackcat]

Thanks, Jason

[Magpie_Oz]

While I have no doubt the Allies in general and the US in particular had an embaressment of riches when it came to equipment, 86k M4's does seem a little high, I think it was more around 50k of all variants and derivatives, over the life of production from 1941 - 1950something?

[Magpie_Oz]

I suspect that the Sherman in the video was a wet variant because it did not burn quite as intensely and as quickly as did the Panther. In the video the Sherman clearly was smoking and starting to burn after it was struck, but nothing as catastrophically quick as how the Panther went up.

I thought the smouldering crewmen was mainly from the flash fire of the round that penetrated and that the round wouldn't have hit any ammo seeing it hit the mantlet, but yeh the 2nd or 3rd hit on the Panther definitely hits the bullseye

It is clear from other photos that the Sherman was hit in the lower left side (as seen from the rear) of gun mantlet, right over the driver's position. The driver was unlucky enough to be driving with his hatch open and the fragments from the penetration apparently struck him fatally in the head.

Not wanting to dwell ghoulishly on this but looking at the photo of the poor driver chap I did wonder if it might have been simply the concussion of the round hitting at most a foot above his head. Just an idle thought, either way the poor bugger died so in the end it doesn't really matter I suppose.

[JasonC]

Magpie - no you are right, 86,000 is the figure for total US tank production in WWII, all types. 50,000 is right for turreted Shermans, plus another 10,000 or so of other types on those chassis, mostly TDs. The balance of the higher figure is things like Stuarts, earlier Grants, and smaller numbers of less common types (like the M18 Hellcat, late war M24 Chaffees, etc).

Thanks for the correction.

[dieseltaylor]

Lots of interesting stuff.

Gunnergoz - I am confused as to who moved the Panther turret around after it burned. I would have thought the turret might have become fixed after the fire, Someone being tidy?