"Panther vs Sherman" Topic

This is a very interesting article about the tests made by the US Army with the Panther after Normandy, the first erroneus reports and the failure of the 76mm cannon of the Sherman against the Panthers.

link

Do you consider that the rules for wargaming tank battles at WW2 are close or not to this information?

Hope you enjoy!.

Amicalement
Armand

Every German tank encountered in France was a Tiger, so the point is moot.

Good one Connard!. Robert

Close enough.

Every German tank encountered in France was a Tiger, so the point is moot.

Yes, but actually when you look at a PzIV with full turret shurtzen rounding off the turret, I can see why under combat conditions they were reported as Tigers…

Armand, I do think FOW accurately reflects this:

Sherman 76 AT value 12, armour 7
Panther AT value 14, armour 10

Perhaps if you are not a FOW player these figures do not mean much, but they do make a Panther, frontally, hard to KO since with an average D6 throw of 3 added to the armour value of 10, the '76 will not penetrate…

Personally, while aesthetically I love Tigers, in a game I would prefer to field Panthers everytime….

And yes, I do often field the more mundane PzIV's!

Some rules reflect this more than others. I will note that in a slug-fest between a UK division with Crocodiles and Shermans and Fireflies, versus a German Jagdpanther platoon in Flames of War, that the Shermans and Fireflies had a difficult time killing the Jagdpanthers in a long range gunnery duel. The saving grace for the UK troops was the close assault of the Crocodiles which managed to eliminate everything in front of them with their flame throwers. So, close enough by my standards – most players maneuver to get a flank shot knowing full well that a frontal shot against a Panther or a Tiger is not a good solution or situation to be in with any Allied tank or tank destroyer.

I like the German halftrack converted to look like an American one.

DM

"I like the German halftrack converted to look like an American one"

Where'd you see this on that page? I just see a captured halftrack that the allies marked with their star.

that the Shermans and Fireflies had a difficult time killing the Jagdpanthers in a long range gunnery duel. The saving grace for the UK troops was the close assault of the Crocodiles which managed to eliminate everything in front of them with their flame throwers

Jeez..

I wonder if the poster could have used a photo with US soldiers rather than Soviet soldiers? LOL.

This,

For this,

Fascinating stuff thanks

Otoh, if each side has 100 tanks, and does a hundred mile approach march, how many Shermans get to the battlefield, versus how many Panthers? And who gets there first?

I would say most of the Sherman tanks would get there and the Panthers lucky if even half arrive. Which would still make for a pretty fair fight.

I have of late regarding the ubiquitous "what was the best tank of WW II?" argument to now cast my vote for the variety of Sherman tanks that fought in the war. The Sherman was reliable, easy to repair in the field, the later models with the 76 gun could in number take on German cats, and the Sherman was faster which counts for something in a tank battle. Oh and there were a ton of them so the Germans could never even come close to matching production.

The Panthers don't have to march and arrive though, since when fighting Shermans on the Western Front, they can just sit and wait.

Thanks you Sparker.

Amicalement
Armand

Not counting lack of fuel and breakdowns, what is the greatest Allied killer of Panthers and Tigers at Normandy? Jabos? Artillery? Shermans? Infantry close assault with sticky bombs or whatnot?

"Achtung Jabos!" most def.

Armor piercing shot. Either from tanks or direct fire artillery link

Artillery. Only 4% of German tank losses in NW Europe were from air attack.

Definitely not Jabos; the claims made for their lethality were shown to be false.

I play Panzermarsch and Kampfegruppe Normandy both reflect this well,

Tally Ho!

" the Shermans and Fireflies had a difficult time killing the Jagdpanthers in a long range gunnery duel"

Any WW2 tank would have problems dealing with Jagdpanthers in a long range gunnery duel, whch was why many of the captured examples have lots of shell holes in the side and engine.

They gave medals to people who knocked them out at long range (such as the gunner in 9th RTR who knocked out with a flank shot at 1000m outside Nispen). His own tank was destroyed in the process.

Only 4% of German tank losses in NW Europe were from air attack ?????

Where does this statistic come from?

A tank is a very difficult item to kill from the air (takes a direct hit on a small, perhaps, moving target), but the planes did take out their support units (repair, fuel, recovery, etc…) – which made the tanke less mobile, and an immobile tank is a pillbox – and not a very good one either.

A given that the Panzer Brigade "experiment" proved costly and mostly green crews yet still valid that US and French forces successfully met and destroyed several of these brigades composed of Mk IVs and Panthers at places like Dompaire and Arracourt during the Lorraine campaign. The allied forces were a mix of 75 and 76mm Shermans, M10s and M18s.

Otoh, if each side has 100 tanks, and does a hundred mile approach march, how many Shermans get to the battlefield, versus how many Panthers? And who gets there first?

More importantly, if one side has 300 Shermans and the other side has 100 Panthers to begin with, who do you suppose will have more operational tanks on the day of battle.
-Kle.

"has 100 Panthers to begin with"

That total probably includes 25 in short term repair and another 25 in long term repair.

Add in the fact that any losses could take months to replace.

The 300 Shermans probaly means 300 ready on the day of the battle. Any tank not fit is likely to have been replaced. Any lost get replaced almost overnight.

The biggest killer of German tanks? Self destruction by the crews of broken down vehicles* is probably near the top of the list.

* Breakdowns are less of an issue advancing, but a bigger problem retreating.

Steve

Where does this statistic come from?

See previous threads. There is an enormous amount of operational research data looking at causes of tank destruction in NWE. Even allowing for those instances where it wasn't possible to determine the cause of destruction and adding those to the air attack figures the percentage is very small. Most German tanks were killed by AP shot – tank, TD or AT gun.
There is also the results of RAF experiments conducted prior to D-Day against simulated ground targets. Despite these being conducted under optimal conditions (eg no-one shooting back) the results show vwery low destruction rates.

The legendary mechanical reliability of the Sherman has been somewhat exaggerated. There's no doubt that it was more relaible than most other tanks, but that's just a relative measure. I recall reading of a US armored division that had to make a forced march of about 200 miles and over half the Shermans broke down on the way.

Another interesting difference between the Sherman and the Panther was the rate of turret traverse. The Panther was terribly slow. I've read a number of accounts by Sherman crews that if they could get on the flank of a Panther they could get off five rounds before the Panther could traverse its turret far enough to fire back.

Another interesting difference between the Sherman and the Panther was the rate of turret traverse. The Panther was terribly slow.

That's a result of low fuel supply and being in a hide position. The Panther would have it's engine shut off to save fuel and prevent engine noise. With no power the crew had to hand crank the turret around. With it power on it had a pretty good traverse.

R. J. Jarymowycz's Tank Tactics includes a table of causes for German tank losses (time period not specified but probably relates to NW Europe 1944-45):

Gunfire…………………….43.8%
Abandonment…………………18.3%
Mechanical…………………..4.0%
Self destruction…………….20.7%
Air Attack…………………..7.5%
Hollow-charge Rounds………….4.4%
Mines/Miscellaneous…………..0.9%

For those wanting to know more… Buy this;

Yes, the Sherman was more reliable, but what tank would you rather fight in?
Much has been said about the allied superiority in tank numbers and the "it takes 5 Shermans to take one Tiger out " rule of thumb. Numbers don't amount to much when you see 2 or 3 Shermans (with your buddies on them) brewing up and your tank is next.
The Sherman was considered to be inferior by its crews. That makes their commitment to fight even more admirable.

I'd rather be in a Sherman.

Faster, reliable, good survivability and a good all round gun. Or if its a Firefly, Im truly happy… not much negativity about that tank!

Plus another waiting for me when the first gets knocked out.

There is alot of myths about the Sherman… I would recommend Dr. John Buckleys book 'British Armour in Normandy' for anyone who wants to see a new look at things… and not just cos Im in the credits!

Too much balls talked about the Uber-Roadblocks the Germans employed. By 1944 the low grade steel in the Panther was causing terrible spalling from non-penetrative hits which would send splinters around the inside, injuring crew and causing damage. Plus they still broke down just as much…

I think of the Panther as the blonde supermodel… Great to look at, all the right curves, but high maintenance and liable to let you down just when you need her.

The Sherman is more ya dependable, but frumpy, girl next door…

Back on the OP, I must say that I am somewhat amused by the rejection of the 17pdr APDS at that link due to it's 'accuracy' problems.

So with a 57 percent accuracy you have to shoot twice to get a hit. With the APDS round's improved penetration that hit penetrates and destroys the target.

With the 17pdr APCBC or the 76mm HVAP you have 95+ percent accuracy. So two shots, two hits – neither penetrates, target not destroyed.

I think I would rather fire twice and have a good chance of a kill rather than hit a target every time I fire and bounce off……

On the other hand that link doesn't seem to have a test observation I have seen on other sites carrying the Isigny no. 2 test report. In it it is noted that a hit made using the 17pdr APCBC shot penetrated the Panther glacis. It struck 6 inches from a previous hit, also by 17pdr APCBC, that had cracked the plate.

Also in the report (as carried at the other site) was the note that the guns tested were accurate enough that a specific point on the glacis could be used consistently as an aiming point. In a skirmish level game this could lead to allowing for the possibility on consecutive hits on a stationary target, with the potential for this type of penetration.

many years ago, i worked with an old timer who was a tanker in ww2. he was in late in the war and was a gunner on a m4a3e8. he did'nt talk too much about the war, but when he did, it was very insitefull.
i asked him about fighting panthers and tigers once, and his reply was, "we'd get to their flanks and hit them on their sides. then they'd burn".

"General SV Radley-Walters ( link ), a Canadian squadron commander during Normandy in the past told a couple of us personally in the Officer's Mess that he thought the Sherman was the best tank of the war. Mainly because when he had loses, the next day he'd have replacements."

Belton Cooper disagrees, and he explains why in his book Death Traps. There could be replacement Sherman galore, it does not matter how many tanks you have, if you don't have crews. Every time a Sherman was knocked out, there was a very high possibility that the crewmen would be killed or injured.
That there were more than enough replacement Shermans proves that the American manufacturing industry was better, not that the tank was better.

Here is a recent online game I ran in which a few Shermans (including a Firefly) and a couple of Achilles TDs defeated a Jagdtiger, Tiger II, Jagdpanther, and Panther.

link

Here is a recent online game I ran in which a few Shermans (including a Firefly) and a couple of Achilles TDs defeated a Jagdtiger, Tiger II, Jagdpanther, and Panther.

Who needs real life when you can prove the theory with toy tanks on a tabletop?

"Who needs real life when you can prove the theory with toy tanks on a tabletop?"

Perhaps the military can explain that one as they've been running wargames in one for or another since the Prussians invented 'kriegspiel' in 1812 …..

Somewhere or other I came across the statistic that for knocked out British tanks in NW Europe, roughly 20% of crew were fatalities & another 20% wounded. Not great odds, but better than those for Bomber Command crewmen or U boat crews…..

where's John Salt when we need him?

Indeed – as one GI observed, the Sherman's armor was several inches thicker than his field jacket….

The charming Mr Salt is the first and so far only TMP member I have stifled, so can't help you on that one ;)

There were a couple of surveys done on German tanks losses in Normandy.
The mistake most people make is to forget they were made at 2 very different times. During the static phase(when the German stood and fought) the self destruction numbers were low.
When the panzers were fleing in panic then the amount of thrown away tanks was greater.
The error is to take data fron the 'running' phase and apply it as if it was also the case during the static phase-an absurd method.
Whilst I see many take the 'panic phase' % loss and apply it to the static phase I never see it done in reverse.
I.E no one ever takes the high % of AP penetrated tanks in the static phase and applies it to the running away totals.
I wonder why?

And Tim if you do decide to make that investment in Death Traps you might also want to top up your salt shaker so you can take a few grains every time you're reading it.

"Where does this statistic come from?"

Places like this:

link

"Somewhere or other I came across the statistic that for knocked out British tanks in NW Europe, roughly 20% of crew were fatalities & another 20% wounded."

Probably from David Fletchers 'The Universal Tank'. Average crew casualties for destroyed British Shermans once hit were approximately two, of which half were fatalities. Strangely these averages were almost identical for Cromwells and Churchills as well.

Partly why during e.g. Goodwood, even though 2nd Army lost 400 tanks, personnel losses were much higher in the supporting infantry formations than the armoured brigades.

Few random thoughts.

If I remember correctly didnt the original APDS rounds for the 17pdr have some problems which were eventually corrected? Seems it would matter when tests were conducted.

I do chuckle a bit whenever this discussion is held and someone brings up Mr Cooper's book. One can have folks cite a dozen different sources to the positive only to have someone say "But according to Belton Cooper's book". I dont discount his material but it is not the prevailing opinion. Even Mr Cooper acknowledges in his book that German gunners would fire on disabled Shermans repeatedly UNTIL they caught fire to prevent their repair or recovery.

Also when considering this it must be remembered that for the most part the Germans were on the defensive which confers an advantage. When on the offensive (Falaise, Dompaire, Arracourt, etc) the Germans didnt fair quite so well and indeed were mauled in some circumstances from these "inferior" weapons.

@ Ditto: good points. In the end it looks like the Sherman was an excellent strategic weapon, not a very good tactical weapon.

Yes, the Sherman was more reliable, but what tank would you rather fight in?

Who cares?
Even volunteer soldiers don't get to choose, much less draftees.

Theirs really isn't to wonder why, or at least, all the wondering in the world won't get them anywhere.
-Kle.

Who needs real life when you can prove the theory with toy tanks on a tabletop?

I don't recall claiming to "prove" anything.

"I do chuckle a bit whenever…and someone brings up Mr Cooper's book. One can have folks cite a dozen different sources to the positive only to have someone say "But according to Belton Cooper's book". I dont discount his material but it is not the prevailing opinion."

Belton Cooper is not infallible, like every other author, but he had credentials that no other author or veteran had, afaik. As the divisional maintenance officer, he saw *every* disabled tank belonging to his division. This gave him insights into tank warfare which those crewmen fighting on the front line, no matter how valiantly or successfully, did not have.