"What did the GERMANS think of the Sherman tank?" Topic

Well?

Just a guess, but I'd expect that the Germans thought that there were way, way too many of them.

Well, cut-n-paste from somewhere else,

A German once said "One Tiger can kill 10 of your Shermans, however you always had 11".

I recall reading in the memoirs of a German soldier who was transferred from the Eastern to the Western front, "now we got to see how a rich man wages war". Meaning he thought it vaguely unfair that we would just bomb, shell and overwhelm them with exploding stuff. I remember thinking, "now you know how the Russians felt, except without so many prisoner massacres."

Old story. May or may not be true.

A German Panzer soldier is taken prisoner. When asked what he thought of the Allied tanks he has faced, he replied " Ha! Any one of our is worth any ten of yours. ….. Unfortunately you always seem to have eleven".

Seasons Greetings, Michael in Cloverdale.

Didn't the Germans come up with 'Tommy Cooker' for them?

Regards

Also, Ronson – lights first time.

Check Greatest tank battles… it's on Netflix. You can hear German Tanker's comments first hand.

Not to start a fight, but I'd like to challenge this comment:

I recall reading in the memoirs of a German soldier who was transferred from the Eastern to the Western front, "now we got to see how a rich man wages war". Meaning he thought it vaguely unfair that we would just bomb, shell and overwhelm them with exploding stuff. I remember thinking, "now you know how the Russians felt, ……

As far as resources go it is debatable whether Germany was clearly the "rich man", indicated in the comment. In '42 German total tank production was 5,530 tanks. Russian production of just the T-34 was 12,553 tanks. In the same year the production of warplanes was 14,200 and 26,000 respectively.

Total tank production in the war was 56,439 for Germany and >100,000 for Russia. That is domestic production and not leand lease.

German field troops never rose above 4,500,000 men, dispersed on more than one front.

link

Russian field troops are difficult to estimate. Most sources indicate a peak strength of > 12,000,000 men.

The set backs of the Russian army in the early phase of the war had more to do with Stalin's purging of almost 50% of his officer corps, than discrepancies in supplies and manpower.

I think it is difficult to argue that Germany clearly was the "rich man" in this conflict.

Sorry for the derail.

I think the question wasn't USSR vs Germany, but USSR vs UK/USA. The amount of artillery and bombs the western allies would lavish on the front on call was probably a shock. Part of that was probably due to responsiveness, but the supply situation in the west was better than in the east, "barely enough" vs. "plenty".

No doubt, they probably despised them.

Apparently their gunners liked to use the large white stars on them as aiming points. Seems some were quite good at putting one or more rounds in that.

If you don't have tanks of your own then the enemy's are always Tigers. And I daresay even German tankers had a healthy respect for them and their crews.
However, I've never seen any contemporary accounts discussing them in detail, just memoirs or interviews after the fact.

Hans Schmidt in 'With Rommel in the Desert' recalls being dismayed by the arrival of Shermans. 'Heavy Tanks' as he described them. The shells from their Pak 38s just bounced off the front.

The Sherman was a good tank when it appeared – it just happened to appear too late and only matched the Germans. Then the Germans brought out their new tanks and upgraded the rest…….

I thought the Ronson term was from British troops opinion of the Sherman?

One major advantage the Sherman had was reliability and repairability. Does not matter if you have a King Tiger if it breaks down before getting to the battlefield.

The Sherman had its problems but it was a war-winner.

Don't forget, where there were Shermans the best artillery and airforce came with them.

One German veteran thought the Sherman was the best tank he'd seen in the war. Because it was the only tank he'd seen during the war.

…the best artillery and airforce came with them

Yes, tanks are glamorous but in modern war combined arms and communications are what wins. American communications and co-ordination was also first-rate.

I know Rommel was really ed off when 300 Shermans showed up in North Africa. He only had about 2 dozen Panzer IV's to match them.

I guess they thought that like other tanks that if they were still usable when captured they would use them. Robert

link

link

I always wondered, if US troops landed at D-day with large numbers of 76mm armed Shermans, if the story would have been different? Probably people would be complaining that the HE shell wasn't powerful enough and we should have stuck with the 75mm…

Damon.

The Americans didn't land in good tank country. in the Bocage and flooded lands I doubt the gun would have mattered much. After St Lo they would have appreciated them…

I remember reading a British history of Normandy, where they totaled the number of tanks lost by various means. The most where damaged or knocked out by mines. Second – hand held AT weapons, third – AT guns and tanks.

The preferences of the crews for lighter, more manoeuvrable Panzers was recorded in a report written on November 1944 by Albert Speer on his trip to Italy during 19 to 25 October 1944:

"On the Southwest Front, opinions are in favour of the Sherman tank and its cross-country ability. The Sherman tank climbs mountains that our Panzer crews consider impassable. This is accomplished by the especially powerful engine in the Sherman in comparison to its weight. Also, according to reports from the 26.Panzer-Division, the terrain-crossing ability on level ground (in the Po valley) is completely superior to our Panzers. The Sherman tanks drive freely cross-country, while our Panzers must remain on trails and narrow roads and therefore are very restricted in their ability to fight.

All Panzer crews want to receive lighter Panzers, which are more manoeuvrable, possess increased ability to cross terrain, and guarantee the necessary combat power just with a superior gun. This desire by the troops corresponds with conditions that will develop in the future as a result of the drop in production capacity and of the fact that, because of a shortage of chrome, sufficient armour plate can't be produced to meet the increased production plans. Therefore, either the number of Panzers produced must be reduced or it will be necessary to reduce the thickness of the armour plate. In that case, the troops will unequivocally ask for a reduction of the armour thickness in order to increase the total number of Panzers produced."

Jentz, Panzer Truppen Vol 2, pp 150-151

Well probably the average German Panzer or AT gun crew thought of the M4 as a "target" …