"Comparison of Sherman vs. Panther Cross Country Performance " Topic

A postwar Swedish film from Ingmar Bergman…

YouTube link

Hope you enjoy!

Amicalement
Armand

Interesting. I would have thought the lighter tanks would have better cross-country performance. I wonder how the Tiger would stack up.

Shouldn't there be a chess game….or a dream sequence or something???…"while the Panther can strike a bargain with its claws…I am being threatened by my yogurt…"

Or….is that a film by Werner Herzog…

Dave, that's the one where he eats his shoe while riding a tank…

A better question is: How much shop time for how much operational time. And ask the crews how much they like field repairs.

It says in the text below that the Panther is now in the Panzer museum Munster. The Swedes have donated some of their old tanks to various museums. Bovington has a Stridsvagn M41, S tank and an upgraded Centurion. All in running order.

Do any crews like field repairs? :-) I guess waiting for someone to come and tow you out of a bog is preferable.

It's a little more complicated than just ground pressure or HP/weight.

This document is a good read (but pretty technical) and gives a good comparison between different tanks and the Mean Maximum Pressure. The number of road wheels and their configuration have a lot to do with it too.
link

Wolfhag

Very interesting video and commentary

As to crews and maintenance, I believe it was the Churchill AFV profile that noted that daily maintenance for a Sherman or Cromwell averaged three hours while maintenance on a Churchill took four.

It then noted that Churchill crews did not mind the extra time…

My uncle who served in Italy, armored combat engineers, spoke of seeing German tank crewmen moving rocks out of the way before driving through.

He then stated that when his team wanted a couple of days off on one occasion they blew the tranny in their tank.

That is a real find Tango.
Fascinating stuff.
L

From Jentz:

"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."

Interesting Hornswoggler. The US troops thought differently. This from 2nd AD also late '44.
"I saw where some MkV (Panther) tanks crossed a muddy field without sinking their tracks over five inches, where we in the M4 started across the same field the same day and bogged down."
I guess the grass is always greener on the other side.

….. would be interested to see a comparison between the Sherman and the Mk IV. That might explain the apparent conflict between the commentaries in two above posts.

B

Gotta think that a tanker's surest means of staying alive is to make sure his tank breaks down on the way to the battlefield.

This is a comparison of the Mean Maximum Pressure that I could find.

[URL=http://s1276.photobucket.com/user/wolfhag/media/maximum%20pressure_zpswdxfc15g.png.html]

Wolfhag

Happy you enjoyed it boys!. (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

thanks a lot for sharing