"Performance of American tanks in World War II" Topic

"The American tank is not nearly as good as the German tank."

"Next to the German and Russian tanks, the American tanks are the best in the world."

Quotations, opinions, and comments similar to the two above, which have been widely publicized and caused widespread discussion, have been made by various individuals.

Because they have, to a certain degree, jumped to hasty conclusions, and because they have helped fashion many erroneous conceptions, I shall attempt in this article to present considerations which they have apparently overlooked and which may change the outlook of many on American tanks.

In making those statements, what standards did the persons involved use?…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Both are true.

Guns and armor of American tanks were poor, but mechanically, they were some of the best, if not THE best in the world, and there were a lot of them, with fuel to burn on taking control of other countries.

I think that, in many ways. American tanks are probably best classified as 'armoured artillery' rather than tanks. Different concept to German tanks.

Getting my popcorn out for this thread topic.

Is that why the Germans won the war?

The link is to an article by then Lt Col (later Brigadier General) Albin F Irzyk and appeared in the January 1946 issue of Military Review. During WW II he commanded the 8th Tank Battalion of the 4th Armored Division. Rather interesting to get his first hand comments so soon after the end of the war. Certainly worth a read especially for those who value the opinions of those who were actually there and in the thick of things as it were.

Am sure there will be many "quibbles" but nonetheless worth your time.

If anyone's interested, there's a very spirited discussion on the same subject going on over at the Army Rumour Service. See link below:

link

If you want to comment you'll have to register but be prepared to back up your statements or risk being shot to ribbons! There are some very well-informed people on there – mostly ex or serving members of the British Army. Have fun!

Windy

Edited to add: the thread wanders all over the shop but generally comes back to the subject.

'Is that why the Germans won the war?'

They lost production, bombing, logistics, materials, manpower… somehow, having better tanks that were outnumbered 10 to 1 by their enemies just doesn't seem enough to ensure victory…

Americans only saw (or at least only fought) the German tanks that actually made it to the battlefield, which fact gave them a slanted view of the subject.

Hmm. I generally regard tanks which can't make it to the battlefield--too expensive to produce in quantity, mechanically unreliable and too heavy for bridges--as bad tank design. The Fuehrer disagreed.

Three cheers for Gen Irzyk, by the way--8th AB and 4th AD were among our very best, and he spoke from personal experience.

Worth remembering that miniature wargamers are, by our nature, tacticians. We love the elite unit and the capable tank. We don't see the tanks which didn't make it to the battlefield, or even the platoon of good mediums we could have built for the cost of a Tiger. (Point value is not the same thing.) For that matter, we can't see Napoleon draining capable, experienced soldiers out of his line units to create his Guard. If we could, we might not be so impressed by the Immortals.

I enjoy the tabletop too. But let's not confuse "really cool on my board!" With "best use of the country's resources."

I like this article. It does put up the weaknesses but the strength's as well. I ddi not know that most german tanks were only good for 2 -3 hours max. Thanks.

thanks Windy Miller. nice read.

One of the resources that a country may consider getting the best use of is its men.

As the letter notes casualties were higher and were expected to be higher due to the Sherman's lesser armor and weaker gun.

I would imagine that as a general this would be less of a concern when rating tanks than it would be to a tanker.

It also depends on the time period. In early- mid 1943 the Sherman was as good or better than any tank the Germans had except for the Tiger I.

Great link, Tango! I enjoyed reading it.

Is that why the Germans won the war?
ULTRA

The link to the Rauray doesn't mention several Shermans knocked out before the first Tiger was taken out. Nor that an Achilles was also burned out somewhere in the midst of battle.

The link to the Rauray doesn't mention several Shermans knocked out before the first Tiger was taken out. Nor that an Achilles was also burned out somewhere in the midst of battle.

It is a report of the effects of Sherman 75mm fire and as such has no real information on any casualties. However if you consult page 107 of Stuart Hill, By Tank Into Normandy.

It had been
a great day. Thirteen Panzer Mark IVs had been knocked out, along
with a Tiger and a Panther. The enemy tank force defending Rauray
had been eliminated and their infantry overrun. Aggressive tactics had
paid off, and at relatively small cost to ourselves. C Squadron had lost
two tanks, with two dead and two wounded. I felt encouraged by the
way each squadron had performed and this was reflected in the general morale of my troop, in spite of the casualties. We had won a tank
battle against significant opposition, and this gave our confidence an
important boost.

The book does mention Sherman casualties the next day but 12th SS Pz IV losses alone during this period were 11 total losses and 21 damaged.

It was Hill's unit mentioned in the original report and it was Hills Unit (SRY, 1st Nottinghamshire Yeomanry, 8th Armoured Brigade) that claimed 3 Tigers during EPSOM and as we have evidence of 3 Tiger wrecks they are pretty solid claims.
In the British Army M10s were classed as anti-tank guns and were crewed by Royal Artillery personnel. They were not considered tanks, they were not used as tanks and nor were they crewed by tankers.

In the British Army M10s were classed as anti-tank guns and were crewed by Royal Artillery personnel. They were not considered tanks, they were not used as tanks and nor were they crewed by tankers.

Same in US service (except for the artillery part). Tank Destroyers were not part of the Armored Force, but a separate branch of service.

In the German forces, panzerjagers were part of the panzertruppen, but were not part of the panzer regiment in panzer divisions, but in separate battalions directly under division HQ.

Tango, that is a great article. Thanks.

Has everyone forgotten about the Sherman in the Pacific with the Army and Marines?

It was the "Tiger" of the Pacific if you want to make a comparison. I'm pretty sure it was the largest tank that could have made amphib landings on the US landing craft. In the Pacific the Sherman was a better fit than a German Panther or Tiger.

Look at all of the variations, especially the flamethrower. The Japanese AT guns could not touch it until Iwo Jima with the advent of the 47mm at close range. It dominated every tank-tank engagement in the Pacific and was a big reason the Marines took Tarawa and other islands.

Yes, it had some short comings but I doubt if there was a German tank that could have out performed the Sherman.

Now I know people are going to say the Japs had tin can tanks, so what. The Pacific War was as much about logistics and delivery/beach assaults as the type of tank. The short 75mm firing HE was a great fit for all targets, including armor.

IIRC the Marines used the Sherman with two diesel engines (same ones sent to Russia?). That made them less flammable and may were able to limp back to the beach head on only one engine.

Sherman's were also used into the 1970's with the Israeli's fitting a French 105mm gun on it and successfully engaged some of the latest Soviet designs.

Wolfhag

Wolfhag wrote – "Has everyone forgotten about the Sherman in the Pacific with the Army and Marines?"

A good history on this topic:
"Marine Tank Battles In The Pacific", by Oscar Gilbert

My impression from reading about the island campaigns is that US tanks posed a very difficult tactical challenge for the Japanese and were likely an important reason behind the Japanese decision to relocate their main defenses from the beaches into the very steep, broken and difficult volcanic interiors of the islands (Okinawa and Peleliu for example).

B

Blutarski,
That's the book. The most famous Marine tank is probably "China Gal" on Tarawa. It was the only Sherman out of 12 that survived on the second day. Many were lost because the tide did not go over the reef and they had to ride in and some sunk in 14" gun shell holes.

The Marines used the Stuart on Guadalcanal which was pretty ineffective and showed the need for a larger tank. Japan had never faced real tanks before and fortunately lacked any real HHAT weapons or anti-tank guns. 500 pound bombs used as mines were effective though.

Wolfhag

Wolfie,
Based on what I have read, the Japanese 47mm AT gun was quite respected by US tankers in the PTO. The side armor of the Sherman appears to have been vulnerable up to 750 yds @ </= 30deg obliquity and up to 1,000 yds @ < 30deg obliquity, although the true threat of the gun was probably more a function of engaging with surprise fire from well prepared and camouflaged dug-in positions at "can't miss" ranges.

B