"Myths of American Armor. TankFest Northwest 2015 " Topic

I thought this video would be of interest. Remember, the speaker says to always check sources, including his I might add.

YouTube link

Wolfhag

Thanks, very interesting

Indeed. Interesting video that answered a lot of questions I've had. Thanks!

Good talk. I think I had believed all the myths at some point in the past.

Some of the best historical research into U.S. armor is currently done by "The Chieftain" for his "Chieftain's Hatch" forum on WoT (World of Tanks).

The video Wolfhag posted above is a talk he gave at TankFest. You can follow the discussion among WoT devotees here: link

When the Chieftain wants to talk tank history, look who comes to sit at his table:

Yes, he can get Steven Zaloga, Harry Yiede, Hillary Doyle, David Fletcher, Rob Griffin and Ken Estes to join him to talk tanks. Has anyone seen a more august body of tank knowledge gathered in one place?
Want to see the conversations that resulted (in bite-sized pieces)? link

Some of his other findings/writings might be of interest to TMPers and Armor buffs in general:

Did you know that the US T28 super heavy tank was deployed during the Korean war? link

Did you know the US Army tested the Sherman Firefly for possible adoption by US forces in ETO? What did the tests show? See the Chieftain's research here: link

In the OP video The Chieftain talks about the naming of US Army tanks during the war (M4 vs. "Sherman", etc.). More of his original research on this topic can be seen here: link

Oh, and The Chieftain likes miniatures gaming. Mostly 6mm WW2 and moderns.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

Not a bad q&a – the timeline and topic index is very helpful. Thanks for posting.

Nice write up on the Firefly firing trials with SDs and MPIs in mils.

That's what Brit firing trials still do today.

I'll see if I can punch some numbers in a spreadsheet and give a %-age C-O-Hit for those.

Assuming 'Military-Mils' quoted for SDs:

17pdr APCBC at 1000yds:
SD: 0.834x 0.834y
MPI: 0.233x, 0.218y

Single-shot C-O-H at 2.3msq target:
500m; 1000m; 1500m; 2000m; 2500m; 3000m; 3500m; 4000m
99%; 68%; 40%; 25%; 17%; 12%; 9%; 7%

Readings taken after firing 40+ rounds:
17pdr APCBC at 1500yds:
SD: 0.546x 0.566y
MPI: 0.106x, 0.135y

Single-shot C-O-H at 2.3msq target:
500m; 1000m; 1500m; 2000m; 2500m; 3000m; 3500m; 4000m
100%; 92%; 69%; 49%; 35%; 26%; 20%; 15%

17pdr APCBC at 2000yds:
SD: 0.736x 0.750y
MPI: 0.172x, 0.293y

Single-shot C-O-H at 2.3msq target:
500m; 1000m; 1500m; 2000m; 2500m; 3000m; 3500m; 4000m
99%; 75%; 47%; 30%; 20%; 15%; 11%; 9%

SVDS readings
17pdr SVDS at 500yds:
SD: 2.35x 4.34y
MPI: 0.5x, 0.92y

Single-shot C-O-H at 2.3msq target:
500m; 1000m; 1500m; 2000m; 2500m; 3000m; 3500m; 4000m
27%; 8%; 4%; 2%; 1%; 1%; 1%; 1%

17pdr APCBC at 1000yds:
SD: 0.834x 0.834y
MPI: 0.233x, 0.218y

Wow! That's quite a large standard deviation.

I have held for a long time that the Sherman gets a bad rap. Thank you sir for your diligent research and scholarship. Sadly most WW II rule systems and online MMO's will do not reflect the reality.

17pdr APCBC at 1000yds:
SD: 0.834x 0.834y
MPI: 0.233x, 0.218y

Wow! That's quite a large standard deviation.

It's not that bad.

The real bad ones are the SVDS ones! I think there were serious fouling problems going on there with the sabot separation, but that's just a hunch..

It depends on what it is compared to, governor.
PDF link

Page 3, Table 1
75mm M3 from M4A2 tank
Standard Deviation (in mils) of Shots for Stationary Fire, Moving Fire with Gyrostabilizer, and Moving Fire without Gyrostabilizer—at 500 yd. Range. (Data from Ref. 2.)
Stationary Fire: 0.21x, 0.17y

Oh, and The Chieftain likes miniatures gaming. Mostly 6mm WW2 and moderns.

The Chieftain getting a troops' eye view of the battlefield in a 6mm WW2 battle for a Tunisian village.

(Just thought I'd share -- took me a couple days to find it!)

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

I wonder what rules he plays. At 6mm I think Spearhead, Command Decision, or other higher level command set. Anyone know?

I wonder what rules he plays. … Anyone know?

That particular game was ODGW's Mein Panzer. That seems to be his prefered ruleset for a few years. Also played Mobius' PanzerWar several times back in the mid-2000's.

Had high hopes for Mein Panzer, based on the expectations that the same ruleset (with different optional rules and data books) could cover both WW2 and moderns. Hasn't quite been the case yet. I do know he wanted to find a good set of modern rules several years back, and expect he would be even more interested these days …

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

I thought this video would be of interest. Remember, the speaker says to always check sources, including his I might add.

Yes interesting that he chooses the Arracourt battle to illustrate how good the Sherman was. The battle was fought in fog which negated the Panthers long range advantage, not to mention that 4th Armoured were probably the best US armoured unit in NWE and the German Panzer Brigades some of the most inexperienced. If Arracourt proves anything it is that the man is more important than the machine.

The Sherman gets a bad rap in a few popular memoirs and in the less well researched TV documentaries.

Even a quick look at the stats and it comes up equal or better than a Pz IV and T-34. Tigers and Panthers can eat them for breakfast in the right situation but even then the numerical advantage leaves the Tiger/Panther in some difficulty.

And let us never forget – the US army faced very few Panthers and almost no Tigers in the ETO right up to and even including the Bulge fighting.

I often wonder if the Germans simply didn't complain as much about their equipment as the Allies…

In the following I am mixing statements from more than one poster. And I am not necessarily quoting true to the author's intent in these rather selective passages. Apologies in advance … I am not suggesting argumentation or disagreement with any one poster's point of view. Rather, I have just conveniently snipped some words from postings that seem to me to characterize viewpoints that I have heard other times in other conversations ….

Yes interesting that he chooses the Arracourt battle to illustrate how good the Sherman was.

And yet there really is hardly a better case to choose. Any other examples of large-scale encounters between armored forces equipped primarily with Panthers (and Pz IVs) and Shermans? Any occasion where the sun is shining and Panther lovers will declare that it was all the P-47s and Tempests, and the Shermans were just spectators. Or that it was all artillery, or it was all the PBI with their bazookas.

But at Arracourt it was essentially tank-vs-tank action, mostly with 75mm armed Shermans against superior numbers of Panthers and Pz IVs.

If we listen to the lecture with open ears, we will note that one of the points the Chieftain makes is that there were so few German tanks around that there are very few cases of large-scale armored engagements. That being one of the points about the Sherman, of course -- that it was available everywhere, in numbers, while panzers were not. And that this was a telling advantage.

Even a quick look at the stats and it comes up equal or better than a Pz IV and T-34.

Depending on what stats you take a quick look at, it also comes up better than the Tiger or Panther.

It just depends on what stats you are interested in …

If you are interested in armor and gun penetration stats, then the Sherman may be compared with the T-34 or Pz IV. If you are interested in tactical or operational success stats, the Sherman comes up better than the Panther or Tiger.

Tigers and Panthers can eat them for breakfast in the right situation…

And Shermans can eat Tigers or Panthers for breakfast in the right situation (like Arracourt, where there were more Panthers on the battlefield than Shermans).

… but even then the numerical advantage leaves the Tiger/Panther in some difficulty.

Yep. Giving the Panther the numerical advantage did leave it in some difficulty.

… not to mention that 4th Armoured were probably the best US armoured unit in NWE…

I've never heard anyone dismiss the Tiger's performance by saying Witmann was probably one of the best German armored commanders in NWE. It seems that Panzer lovers have no problem associating crew quality with tank quality, and yet we seek a way to dismiss the Sherman by saying it's successes don't count because it's crews were too good?

If Arracourt proves anything it is that the man is more important than the machine.

That is an excellent point.

Another way of putting it might be that the Sherman was an entirely competent and competitive tank … good enough that the determining factor in any engagement was more likely to be the tactical circumstances and/or the quality of the units involved. And that, incidentally, is pretty close to what the Chieftain's citations of operations research seems to indicate.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

I recall rumors of some large armor actions involving the British in the vicinity of Caen . Are they true?

B

Interesting article but that forum seems to have simply too many people with too many agendas to make it worth wading through the piles of ego by-product in order to discern whats valid information and what isn't. A lot of subjective tank "facts" and a lot of ignoring larger issues
This place seems a lot more pleasant.

Arracourt is a very specific situation and while it still counts cannot be used to generalise to more typical engagements.

WW2 wargames usually feature a plethora of big cats pulverizing large numbers of 'weak' Shermans. This can become excessive with Flames of War style points based tournament games – though FOW is not alone in this for sure.

Not so in the real ETO. Typically, you had plenty of Shermans supporting infantry as they chewed up Germans who often lacked any armoured support and whose inadequate AT capabilities had to be supplemented by hand-held weapons.

Shermans were common – almost everywhere they were needed/useful. Panthers and Tigers were rare – seldom where they were needed and were often abandoned/destroyed by their crews due to breakdown or supply problems.

On the very rare occasions Shermans encountered Panthers or Tigers they often suffered heavy losses but would usually still knock them out and advance.

The Sherman design was more than adequate. It may not be a 'sexy' tank but it worked.

Personally I very much enjoyed the talk and found little to take issue with. One thing which I would take a bit of an issue with is he dismissed the fact that he was an armor officer as irrelevant. I would argue his background and ability to recognize those things which did matter to armored troops are part of the reason he has been able to provide such a comprehensive look.

One thing to remember is that while the Tiger and Panther had excellent long range guns, which would apply much more to the steppes of Russia, most armor engagements in Northwest Europe took place at 500 meters or less which negates much of that advantage. I routinely read descriptions usually somewhere along the line of…"while the Sherman could only penetrate (insert tank here) at 3-500 meters". When the bulk of the engagements take place at that range suddenly the Sherman isnt all that bad!

And the point is well taken on numbers and availability. US Infantry Divisions regularly had Independent Tank Battalions assigned to them on a semi-permanent basis and sometimes augmented with an Independent Tank Destroyer Battalion. While we read about German armor forces running hither and yon, and most usually described as "fire brigades" the American forces in Northwest Europe had almost an embarrassment of assets.

Steve Zaloga closes his book "Armored Thunderbolt: The U.S. Army Sherman in World War II" with a chapter called "Report Card on the Sherman". The final sentence reads "The Sherman was not the best tank of World War II, but it was good enough".

It struck me profoundly when I noticed a US infantry Division with attached tank and TD Bns had more AFVs than many a Panzer division. Factor in the availability of the US AFVs against the less reliable Germans and it could be twice as many.

The Germans had a marginal advantage in AFV designs but the US had massive numerical superiority. The Germans probably started 1944 with better crews on average but this changed as the year wore on and by late 1944 the US probably had much better crews on average than the Germans.

I think that depends how you count and classify AFVs.

A US Tk Bn would have a maximum of 54 M4 gun tks and 6 M4 105-mm tks, while an SP TD Bn would have a maximum of 36 M10/M18/M36 TDs. Assuming all units were up to T/O strength that's 96 tracked AFVs.

The 1944 Pz Regt was authorised 200 tks. If both the PzIV and PzV Bns were on the reduced scale (dropping the fourth Pl from each Coy), that figure was 160. The Atk Bn could have 45 PzJags authorised, with an alternative org having 31, and the reduced strength version going down to 21. Again assuming units were up to strength that's at least 181 tracked AFVs.

If the assumption is US units were always up to strength and German units were always significantly below, then there's little point in drawing a direct comparison.

If you want to count the 17 US M5 lights then there's an argument for counting the heavy 8-wheeled German armd cars in terms of firepower if not protection, which numbered roughly similar.

About 80 AFVs is more than MANY a Panzer Division had.

Typically the Germans were severely understrength so never came close to 200 tanks in 1944-45. MANY would be under 80 AFVs MUCH of the time. Some would be at higher strength at the start of a campaign or after a refit – up to about 150-160 – but that would never be true for very long.

On the retreat from Normandy they'd have been fielding a couple of dozen or less.

To be more precise – A US inf Div with both Tank and TD Bns attached would have as many as most Pz Divisions and more than some – albeit when the Pz were well under strength.

If we listen to the lecture with open ears, we will note that one of the points the Chieftain makes is that there were so few German tanks around that there are very few cases of large-scale armored engagements.

True maybe for the U.S. Forces, but not the British who faced significant numbers in Normandy where the bulk of the German armour was.

Any occasion where the sun is shining and Panther lovers will declare that it was all the P-47s and Tempests, and the Shermans were just spectators.

Another myth, allied air power killed very few Geeman tanks.

I've never heard anyone dismiss the Tiger's performance by saying Witmann was probably one of the best German armored commanders in NWE.

Au contraire. I have heard that argument put many times. Tiger battalions had very experienced crews in general. Not so for Panthers. Some very experienced like Panzer Lehr in Normandy. Others very green like some of the Panzer brigades in the autumn of '44.

Depending on what stats you take a quick look at, it also comes up better than the Tiger or Panther.

While that may be useful if you are playing Top Trumps, cherry picking stats is not relevant to a discussion on overall performance. If you are playing Top Trumps the M4A4 will win on cylinder count I'm sure! :-)

The Chieftain was talking about Yank Tanks. The Brits[and Canadians and Poles and Free French et al] were using Shermans too – albeit with a leavening of 17pdr Fireflies. So he is correct in saying there were very few large scale tank battles for the US ARMY in the ETO prior to the Bulge fighting.

The British fought the Panzers in Normandy. The US Army did not. It would be great to hear the Chieftains thoughts on how the Sherman performed in British [and other] hands.

[Yank is not a term of abuse BTW – just a gentle bit of ribbing.]

Singling was pretty much Panthers vs. Shermans with no air support.

As does the Bulge fighting. Panthers outnumbered Panzer IV's.

As for games, the Mein Panzer modern ststs are coming along, and the game is designed to work with them as is, no huge change of rules.

Why is nobody ripping him a new one for calling himself, 'The Chieftain' that's hilarious!

John