"M4 Sherman Tank - Crew tell how shocking it was " Topic

"Strange booklet" – LOL. Gotta love that one!

B

So are you saying they were all liars

I said no such thing and it is absurd for you even to hint at such a deception.

"Strange booklet" – LOL. Gotta love that one!

Love it indeed-even when it contradicts itself. For example after the section where Howard A Wood,Robert N Merritt, J C Baker, Donald T Morgan, Charles B Kelly, Sgt Zins, Cpl Parr, Sgt Cloud and crew, Walter Taylor and many others regale us with the inferiority of US Gun-sights and their shortcomings at getting hits at 'long range' we have a section devoted to the 'inferiority' of US ammunition. In this part Camiel Van De Walle, Dock M Hicks, Albert B Jones,Paul A Bane Jnr, Vernon M Barnet, Stephen M Hill, Thomas H Osborne and others happen to mention in passing hits obtained from 880 to 2800 yds which contradicts the earlier claims about gunsights.

So it was hard to get hits at long range and when they did get hits the ammo was defective – seems straightforward.

As to Shermans performing as well as Tigers in the same combat conditions, with less armor and a weaker gun (particularly the 75), that would seem unlikely.

I said no such thing and it is absurd for you even to hint at such a deception.

Hardly absurd. You implied in your post that the information in the booklet was inaccurate by quoting 2 different pieces of information which appear to be incompatible. By doing that you imply the quotes I used are also inaccurate. That is the same technique lawyers use to discredit witnesses in court. Show they are lying about something and imply that they are also lying about the damning evidence against their client. However the quotes that I used also include claims of actual comparative tests between a captured Panther and a Sherman. The only way that could be inaccurate is if the person concerned was lying about the results.

"A friend told me that his Uncle(?) was an M5 crewman/TC in France. When a Tiger I broken thru the nearby woodline. They immediately got out the M5 and ran like Hell just before the Tiger fired. No one died but some were wounded by pieces of the M5 flying thru the air."

It almost certainly wasn't a Tiger 1.

So it was hard to get hits at long range and when they did get hits the ammo was defective – seems straightforward.

No. The first lot were is a group complaining about inferior US gun sights. They were saying the US sights were so bad they could not get hits at longer ranges whilst the Germans had no problems hitting them with return fire. The second lot were in the group complaining that US shells were faulty.They give examples of long range engagements where US shells bounce off German tanks. No one seemed to notice the fact they 'bounce off' means they hit in the first place. If you are complaining that a German tank is firing at you from(example) 2000 yds with their 'superior' sights and your return fire hits them then your sights must be good enough for the job. In the rush to denigrate the contradiction gets lost.

Hardly absurd. You implied in your post that the information in the booklet was inaccurate by quoting 2 different pieces of information which appear to be incompatible. By doing that you imply the quotes I used are also inaccurate.

I implied nothing. I gave information from the exact same source you used. This information does not 'appear' to be incompatible it is in direct contradiction. I leave it for the reader to draw their own conclusions. If readers conclude they prefer the first set of quotes then I will not get even the smallest bit upset about it. We are all free to believe whatever we want to believe.

However the quotes that I used also include claims of actual comparative tests between a captured Panther and a Sherman

The same booklet has a whole section at the back where a direct comparison is made between a Panther and The Sherman.

I implied nothing.

In that case I am not sure why you posted as it adds nothing to a discussion of Panther vs Sherman mobility. Was it just your "fun fact" of the day?

I gave information from the exact same source you used.

Actually you gave very little information, not even including any direct quotes, so it would be impossible for a reader to directly compare anything, without having access to the source.

This information does not 'appear' to be incompatible it is in direct contradiction.

Again all you gave was your interpretation of the information, without the actual quotes or the source it is impossible to form an opinion on your interpretation, hence my use of appears.

The first lot were is a group complaining about inferior US gun sights. They were saying the US sights were so bad they could not get hits at longer ranges whilst the Germans had no problems hitting them with return fire. The second lot were in the group complaining that US shells were faulty.They give examples of long range engagements where US shells bounce off German tanks.

Difficult to pick this apart without more detail. What were the ranges that they couldn't get hits at? What were the ranges shells were bouncing off and what armoured vehicles were they shooting at? What US tanks were doing the shooting? 75mm or 76mm or both?

If you are complaining that a German tank is firing at you from(example) 2000 yds with their 'superior' sights and your return fire hits them then your sights must be good enough for the job. In the rush to denigrate the contradiction gets lost.

2,000 yds is an unusual range to be trading shots in NWE. Average engagement ranges were under half that.
Quite what this has to do with Sherman vs Panther mobility I am not sure. Even if it were the same people complaining about poor accuracy and penetration and reporting on the mobility tests people can be wrong about something and right about something else.

Actually you gave very little information, not even including any direct quotes, so it would be impossible for a reader to directly compare anything, without having access to the source.

Actually I gave the source. You did not. Anyone seeing my post has the option of checking the source and finding the names and their quotes. With your post they had no idea where to even start looking. If you have the book then check and if you find I misrepresented or distorted anything then you can discredit my post.

Difficult to pick this apart without more detail. What were the ranges that they couldn't get hits at? What were the ranges shells were bouncing off and what armoured vehicles were they shooting at?

Missing the broad point. If US tankers are praising German guns for hits at long range and then say they fired back and hit the tanks firing at them then it follows that if the German gunnery/sights are 'superior' then they were matched by US guns/sights. It matters not what they are firing at or what bounces off because it is a point about sighting and getting hits at long range.

This is an account (not in the booklet) of shells 'bouncing off' and seemingly doing 'no damage' to a Tiger but note the Tiger turned around and fled. Clearly something happened to make the Tiger leave.

US veteran Charles R. Corbin:
Quote:
…I went upstairs in a house on a hill behind us to observe better. There under our nose was a large German tank in some trees. After telling Plummer and Edmark we got artillery on it and flushed it out where one of Company D's tanks had a clear shot at it, and shoot it he did, but three balls of fire bounced off of it and it backed away never moving its turret. It had to be a Mark VI Tiger. It made us all wonder and I know the tank gunner was shaking his head, feeling helpless, as it backed up the railroad on our left flank. I had seen our 75s bounce off Mark V tanks before, the last time near Roetgen where they wiped out several of our tanks…

I've read the 5th Guards Tank Bgd's report regarding the Sherman in the book Soviet Lend-Lease Tanks Of World War II. It appears to me to agree, for the most part, with Marc & Mark's post. If the Soviets officially complimented an American Tank then that's good enough for me.

Try "Commanding the Red Army's Sherman Tanks: The World War II Memoirs of Hero of the Soviet Union Dmitriy Loza" Translated and edited by James F Gebhardt University of Nebraska Press 1996. Loza retired as a Colonel in 1967 with his last posting being as an instructor at the Frunze Academy. I think you will enjoy it.

Missing the broad point. If US tankers are praising German guns for hits at long range and then say they fired back and hit the tanks firing at them then it follows that if the German gunnery/sights are 'superior' then they were matched by US guns/sights.

Not necessarily. If they were complaining about their shells bouncing off at 1,000 yds and in a seperate section complained that the Germans got hits at 2,000 yds and they couldn't get a hit in return that is not the same thing. However if they are talking about the same range range then the broad point of your post is that US tankers are a very confused and contradictory bunch.

Anyone seeing my post has the option of checking the source and finding the names and their quotes.

Not everyone will have access to the source of course, so a limited option.

Generally all things being equal … A big gun with longer range is more acceptable than otherwise. E.g. imagine your average IJF AFV verses most Allied AFVs … in a tank battle. There was a reason why the M4 was called the "Panther of the Pacific" …

Paul Bane Jnr, Major 3/67 Armored Regiment:
I observed a platoon of M4 tanks engage a Mk V at abour 1500 yds scoring at least 10 hits……………

Ross Figuera:
fire at enemy Mk V at 1500 yds……..1st round bounced off…..second round HVAP destroyed the Mk V……….

Leo Anderson Sgt:
we located 2 Mk Vs at 2800-3000 yds…..opened fire……….several hits

The point is the claims US routinely could not even hit never mind knock out German tanks is a gross exaggeration.

The point is the claims US routinely could not even hit never mind knock out German tanks is a gross exaggeration.

And yet serving US tankers made that claim. Which says what about them? Confused? Exaggerating? Bad shots? Liars?
And of course who is doing the exaggerating? Those who claimed they couldn't hit or those who claimed they hit at long ranges?

mkenny wrote (13 Aug 2018 – 6:05pm) – "These are all from the 'US v German Equipment' which is a strange booklet. There is a section where many soldiers claim US sights were very poor and could not hit a barn door yet in a later 'US AP shells were useless' section the same soldiers recount tales that show the superiority of German tank armour by using examples of long-range firing where the US shells 'bounced off' German tanks.

- – -

Generall Issac White's report to Eisenhower (later published as "United States vs. German Equipment") was originally cited by Fred C to highlight the broadly unanimous assessment of armored division personnel that the German MkV (and to a lesser degree the MkVI) exhibited superior mobility compared to that of the Sherman tank. This was apparently perceived as a micro-aggression by mkenny. Ufortunately unable to counter this point in any meaningful way, mkenny chose to approach the issue from a different direction. The mobility issue was dropped and an effort to discredit the trustworthiness of the source publication itself was undertaken. On the basis that it contained "contradictory" testimony by various tankers who claimed that "US sights were very poor and could not hit a barn door", while other US tankers related experiences of successful hitting at ranges up to 2,000+ yards.

The publication was deemed a "strange booklet" on this basis, which would imply a certain degree of untrustworthiness as a reference source. Where did mkenny discover such contradictions? No such "could not hit a barn door" claim appeared anywhere within its pages to the best of my recollection. In the interests of intellectual propriety, I double-checked the gun-sight topic, as discussed in the book. Let's see what was turned up …

Pg 15 – Brig Gen J H Collier, Commander, Combat Command A.
German tank sights are definitely superior to American sights. These, combined with the flat trajectory of the guns, give great accuracy.

Pg 17 – Colonel S R Hinds, Commander, Combat Command B.
The few undamaged German tank sights I have seen are definitely superior to our sights in clearness and speed in laying.

Pg 28 – Lt Col Wilson M Hawkins, Commander, 3rd Bn, 67th Armored Rgt.
The matter of tank gun sights has caused us much concern. I have looked through and worked with sights in German Mk V and VI tanks as well as our own. I find that the German sight has more magnifying power and clearness than our own, which is a big advantage to a gunner.

Pg 35 – Lt Col John A Beall, Commander, 702nd Tank Destroyer Bn.
Q. Is the sight magnification in the 90mm gun (approximately 2.5 power) sufficient?
A. No. Sergeant Renalatta gun commander Company A, stated that about 1300 on 4 January 1945, he was fired upon by a 75 ground mount or a Mark V which was at least three thousand yards from his position. He could not pick up the gun through his sight. This same German gun had already destroyed four M4 tanks in his vicinity. At about 1230 on 20 November 1944 in the vicinity of Ederen, Germany, Lieutenant Shirk stated his vehicle was destroyed by a tank firing at arrange of approximately fifteen hundred yards. He could seethe position from which the enemy fire was coming but could not pick it up in his sight. During the period 24-25 November 1944 when the company was holding in the vicinity of Gereonsweiler, Germany, German tanks were obtaining hits on our tanks and tank destroyers at ranges of thirty-two hundred yards from vicinity of Lindern, Germany. The weather was generally misty and foggy. We were able to see these tanks only with great difficulty through our sights.
Q. Considering all the above, do you believe the M36 can meet the Mark V on equal terms?
A. Company "B": The M36 cannot meet the Mark V on equal terms due to its inferiority in:
(1) <snip>
(2) <snip>
(3) Sighting equipment

Pg 45 – Sgt Lewis A Taylor, Sergeant, Assault Gun Sergeant, 2nd Armored Division.
The German telescopic sight mounted in their tanks are (sic) superior to ours, in particular it is more powerful, in fact all of their optical equipment is superior to ours.

Pg 51 – Capt Henry W Johnson, Company F, 66th Armored Rgt.
In general, it is my opinion that <snip> their Mark V and Mark VI tanks are in a class by themselves, having <snip> much better sight reticules …

Pg 52 – T/5 Howard A Wood, Gunner.
The telescopic sight on the Mark V is also better than ours, because it always has a lever to make the sight have six or two power, whichever is needed. It is much easier to bore-sight in, for you don't have to find a stack two or three thousand yards away in ordre to bore-sight.

Pg 53 – J C Baker, Sergeant, Tank Commander.
Sights on our M4 tanks haven't enough power or vision on the telescope, whereas the German tank has a unique device. By simply flipping a lever on their sight they can increase the power. This works as an automatic range finder. For shooting into the sun they just flip a lever which just lets down a colored lens, reducing the glare.

Pg 55 – T/4 Donald Morgan
The German sight is far better than anything we are using today. It takes a bright light in order to see them –and we do not have that.

Pg 56 – Captain John A McNary, 2nd Bn, 66th Armored Rgt.
The things that our tanks need most are: lower ground pressure, higher velocity guns, and better sights.

Pg 63 – Captain Charles B Kelley, Company D, 66th Armored Rgt.
Our gunners believe that the German telescopic sight is better than ours because of its greater power.

Pg 64 – Sergeant William Baum, Corporal W P Gutoski, PFC A J Orgeron, PFC R Schneider, Pvt L Powers.
The crew agrees that the M6 sights are good. As for the M4 gunner's sight, it has a good field of vision, but could be made more accurate.

Pg 65 – Sergeant McGinnis and Crew.
The German tanks have it all over ours as far as sights <snip> goes (sic). As for the sights, the gunner has very much more vision than the German but we have seen our tanks knocked out from ranges as far as 2,000 and 3,000 yards.

Pg 66 – Sergeant Moore and Crew.
My opinion <snip> is that our sights could be improved a lot.

Pg 67 – Sergeant Zins and Corporal Parr.
We are of the opinion that Tiger and Tiger Royal's 88mm gun are far superior to our tank destroyer with the 90mm gun. Our reasons for this assertion are: (1) Far superior sights, which permits (sic) hitting a target at a great range, that is, 3,000 yards, usually without bracketing; …

Pg 67 – Sergeant Cloud and Crew.
The German sight is more powerful than ours and targets can be picked out at greater ranges.

Pg 68 – T/4 Walter Taylor, Corporal Ulbrich, T/5 James Whary, PFC DeWitt Fowler.
Our sights have a wider range of vision; the German sight has three times the power of our sight enabling the gunner to select targets at much greater range.

Pg 69 – Sergeant Shull, T/5 Sulphur, T/5 Knox, PFC Limbaugh.
We have fairly good sights, but the Germans must have it when they shoot as far and accurate as they do.

Pg 71 – Sergeant Lambert, Corporal Torrenzano, T/5 Reed, T/5 Cherill, PFC Yachera.
As for the sights, well a book could be written on them, but just a few words will be sufficient. They could be made of better material and just as powerful if not more than the Germans. We still believe that we cannot beat their sights.

Pg 71 – Major Philip C Calhoun, 3rd Battalion, 66th Armored Rgt.
The German sight has provision made for range estimation in the sight. The principle seems to be similar to the focusing of a camera – at least they get hits consistently at ranges which make it improbable that they could have accurately estimated the range as we must. They also have filters conveniently built into their sight for various light conditions. The magnification of the German sight is greater than ours, on the Mark V and Mark VI, and has an adjustable reticule for the type of ammunition being fired. The lens seems to be made of better glass than ours. They also seem to have beter light transmitting qualities.

Pg 72 – First Lt David O Craycraft, 3rd Battalion, 66th Armored Rgt.
The sights on the Mark V tank are better than sights used on the American M4, because they seem to be clearer, are adjustable, and are more powerful. Also, range estimation can be achieved with the German sight.

Pg 79 – Staff Sergeant Charles A Carden.
The Mark V and VI have our tanks <snip> out-sighted in all cases except for the new M71D on the American M4E8.

Pg 80 – T/4 Delbert C Grimmett.
My opinion of German tanks, Mark IV-V-VI, in comparison to American M4s is that they <snip> definitely have us <snip> out-sighted in all cases.

Pg 81 – 1st Lt Coulter M Montgomery, 66th Armored Rgt.
Our sight reticule is okay, but our sights are not nearly powerful enough. These new telescopic sights are an improvement over the old periscope sight, but are still not powerful enough. The Germans seem to have better glass in theirs.

Pg 83 – Sergeant Harold Smith, Tank Commander.
I believe that what we need is a more powerful sight. Our reticule is by far the best. But if we could have about a ten or twelve power glass, then we would really have something worth having.

Pg 102 – Major Paul A Bane Jr, XO, 3rd Bn, 67th Armored Rgt.
Along with the development of high velocity tank guns, the Germans have a fine telescopic sight which enbles them to do accurate shooting at long ranges. Their sights have far greater magnification than the present telescopic sights used in the M4 medium tank. Our tank gunners would like to have sights with greater magnification.

- – -

After poring through the book page by page, I was unable to locate mention of any American tanker complaining about being unable to hit the broadside of a barn because of a poor gun sight. What I did find was a succession of comments indicating that the American gun sight was suitable out to ranges in excess of 2,000 yards in conditions of good weather and visibility, but was inferior to German tank gun sights at long ranges when weather and/or light conditions were less than optimal.

So ….. it appears there are no contradictions to be found. Funny about that.

B

Ah yes the view that if a German sight is declared 'better' than an Allied sight then the Allied sight suddenly becomes unable to perform its job. I guess that means the German sights must be emitting 'death rays' that interfere and disrupt the function of Allied sights.

Strangely when I just checked the account of Leo Anderson(Sgt) where he mentions hits out to 2800-3000 yds I find not a single comment about 'bad weather' or 'conditions less than optimal'. I do not remember any of the other long range hits having a mention of the weather either.
Lets go through then one by one:

Camiel Van De Walle: No mention of visibility/weather
Dock M Hicks : mention of visibility being good
Albert B Jones : mention of visibility being very good
Paul A Bane Jnr : No mention of visibility/weather
Vernon M Barnet : No mention of visibility/weather
Stephen M Hill : No mention of visibility/weather
Thomas H Osborne : No mention of visibility/weather
So in all the examples I gave 'visibility' is mentioned twice and nothing says hits could only be obtained in 'good weather'.
You have introduced a strawman and hope no one notices it.

What I did find was a succession of comments indicating that the American gun sight was suitable out to ranges in excess of 2,000 yards in conditions of good weather and visibility, but was inferior to German tank gun sights at long ranges when weather and/or light conditions were less than optimal

I re-read your examples carefully and could find nothing about 'when weather and/or light conditions were less than optimal' so where did you read that?
I note also your own source says:
in the vicinity of Gereonsweiler, Germany, German tanks were obtaining hits on our tanks and tank destroyers at ranges of thirty-two hundred yards from vicinity of Lindern, Germany. The weather was generally misty and foggy. We were able to see these tanks only with great difficulty through our sights.
I would say 'just picking up' a target at 3200 yds in 'misty and foggy' conditions is an amazing achievement and proof that US sights did indeed function properly

2000yds would be 'long' range in WW2. Even 'superior' German sights would struggle to get consistent hits at that range. If you can function out to 2000 yds then you cover 95% of the firing situations you are ever likely to encounter in NWE

You have introduced a strawman and hope no one notices it.

I am not sure you understand what a strawman arguement is. To be a strawman you have to introduce something and then knock it down. Blutarski introduces visibility, but doesn't try and discredit it. If anyone has introduced a strawman it is you. By introducing into a discussion on Sherman vs Panther mobility US tanker claims about sights and penetration which you proceeded to knock down in classic strawman style all the while studiously ignoring the question of mobility. Blutarski now having taken the trouble to go through all the evidence it seems the only gross exaggeration is your assertion that US tankers claim they couldn't hit a barn door, when in fact it amounts to (1) The Germans have an edge in extreme range gunnery and (2) The German sight has some handy features the troops would like on theirs.

By introducing into a discussion on Sherman vs Panther mobility US tanker claims about sights and penetration which you proceeded to knock down in classic strawman style

The thread title is M4 Sherman Tank – Crew tell how shocking it was only you think it is all about mobility.
I have never seen this thread starter ever engage or contribute anything in the threads after he starts them so I doubt very much he has any interest in the content.

Blutarski now having taken the trouble to go through all the evidence it seems the only gross exaggeration is your assertion
I also went through the evidence-after I told viewers where they could look for it and I can tell you that he 'exaggerated ' what he thinks he read.
I gave clear example earlier in the thread of how US tankers did not always realise the damage they were doing to the mighty Tigers.
This:

US veteran Charles R. Corbin:
Quote:
…I went upstairs in a house on a hill behind us to observe better. There under our nose was a large German tank in some trees. After telling Plummer and Edmark we got artillery on it and flushed it out where one of Company D's tanks had a clear shot at it, and shoot it he did, but three balls of fire bounced off of it and it backed away never moving its turret. It had to be a Mark VI Tiger. It made us all wonder and I know the tank gunner was shaking his head, feeling helpless, as it backed up the railroad on our left flank. I had seen our 75s bounce off Mark V tanks before, the last time near Roetgen where they wiped out several of our tanks…

So the gunner could be one of the ones complaining in the booklet about how his shots bounced off the TII without doing any damage when in fact he knocked out the TII. Far from feeling helpless the gunner was a hero!

Hi mkenny -

Not to put too fine a point on things, but it's difficult for anyone (not YOU of course) to … 'exaggerate' what he thinks he read' … when all that was done was to quote the exact language of twenty-two separate comments by officers, NCOs and enlisted men regarding their opinions of the respective merits of German versus US tank gun sights.

I still have been unable to locate that "section where many soldiers claim US sights were very poor and could not hit a barn door" that you mentioned in your mkenny post of 13 Aug 2018 – 6:05pm. Perhaps you could provide page references.

Or, of course, you can simply change the subject again to yet another non-existent false flag topic which absolutely no one has disputed.

This is getting really funny.

B

Virgil Townsend Cpl: 2 Mk V tanks opened fire at about 3600 yds…. I was forced to elevate the gun so that the target appeared completely below the graduation in the sight. We succeded in holding them off but did no damage to their vehicles.

So there we have a makeshift but effective way to fire out to 3600 yds that held the Tigers at bay. Obviously Townsend can only speculate as to the damage done to targets some 3600 yds away. He might even have knocked a Tiger out just like the Tiger knocked out in the example I gave of Charles R. Corbin above.

The thread title is M4 Sherman Tank – Crew tell how shocking it was only you think it is all about mobility.
I have never seen this thread starter ever engage or contribute anything in the threads after he starts them so I doubt very much he has any interest in the content.

Well when someone takes the trouble to cut and paste from a previous message it is not unreasonable to assume they are commenting on that specific message. If that was never your intention why do it?
Can we take it that you have no issue with the conclusions of the Panther vs Sherman mobility tests as quoted in US vs German Equipment then?

So the gunner could be one of the ones complaining in the booklet about how his shots bounced off the TII without doing any damage when in fact he knocked out the TII. Far from feeling helpless the gunner was a hero!

That is a very odd conclusion to draw from the information provided. Clearly the Tiger was not knocked out as it left under its own power. Why it left and what damage was done to it, if any, is a matter of speculation. Having been taken under artillery fire is a pretty good reason to leave. And of course if it did receive any damage it could just as easily been done by the artillery fire that flushed it out. As a general rule tankers would consider a tank knocked out when it no longer moved or fired and preferably was burning.

So they we have a makeshift but effective way to fire out to 3600 yds that held the Tigers at bay. Obviously Townsend can only speculate as to the damage done to targets some 3600 yds away. He might even have knocked a Tiger out just like the Tiger knocked out in the example I gave of Charles R. Corbin above.

The quote says Mk V, so Panthers, not Tigers. Once again it is pure speculation as to why the advance was held up. I am afraid that example proves nothing other than the Sherman could lob shells out to 3,600 yds. We don't even know if they scored any hits.
Finally could we please have the page numbers from US vs German Equipment that support your initial statement that US Tankers claimed they couldn't hit a barn door please? I would like to check it when I get back to my books. Thanks.

@Marc…Thanks, I'll take a look at it. By chance I'm currently reading Patton Versus The Panzers. Appendix 3 is titled A Tanker's View of the Sherman and contains a report written by an officer in the 4th Armored Div.

If you haven't already read it, the officer gives his perspective on the strengths and weaknesses of the Sherman compared to it's German rivals and, in my opinion, seems to come to some of the same conclusions as the 5th Guards.

Cheers

That is a very odd conclusion to draw from the information provided. Clearly the Tiger was not knocked out as it left under its own power. Why it left and what damage was done to it, if any, is a matter of speculation

No it is not. We are fortunate in that we have an account by the commander of the TII:

SS-Oberscharfόhrer Werner Wendt relates his side of the engagement:

…I started again in the direction of Stavelot trying to give my best. About fifty meters in front of the edge of the town my driver suddenly swung around our tank. The interphone isn't working, I don't know what happened. The driver drove back at full speed, passing the command post in the direction of Petit Spai. About 100 meters in front of the bridge we drive into the ditch. Only now can I see the reason for the sudden turn-around of the driver. We have received a hit into the turret ring. The shell had bounced downwards into the hull, torn off the hatch of the radio-operator, and killed the radio-operator…Fragments had destroyed the steering gear and the gearbox, oil was leaking. As the driving mechanism and gear shift was conducted by oil pressure the failing oil pressure caused the tank to run out of control. The Tiger was totally immobilized.

This is that Tiger II after they decided they could not repair it and blew it up.
[URL=https://imageshack.com/i/poVyj61lj]

[/URL]
[URL=https://imageshack.com/i/plvsAdGSj] [/URL]

Details can be found in Duel in the Mist 3.
So you see tales of invulnerable tanks shrugging off shells from puny Shermans are not always so. Only when we know what happened on the tanks hit can we be certain. In this case if not for Wendt's account it would be just another proof that the M4 really was was an 'engineering disaster'

So you see tales of invulnerable tanks shrugging off shells from puny Shermans are not always so. Only when we know what happened on the tanks hit can we be certain. In this case if not for Wendt's account it would be just another proof that the M4 really was was an 'engineering disaster'

Yes, but what about the claims they couldn't hit a barn door? You still haven't provided the evidence or the page numbers so we can check it ourselves.
Here is your quote in case you have forgotten.
"These are all from the 'US v German Equipment' which is a strange booklet. There is a section where many soldiers claim US sights were very poor and could not hit a barn door"
Are you suggesting that on the basis of one case where an observer was mistaken about the effect of fire that all such reports are invalid?
No one has claimed the M4 was an engineering disaster. Clearly it had advantages over the Panther and the Panther had advantages over it. That is hardly news!

Are you suggesting that on the basis of one case where an observer was mistaken about the effect of fire that all such reports are invalid?

An observer 1000s of yards away from a tank he is engaging is in no position to comment accurately as to the effect of his fire. Unless the tank bursts into flames damage is not obvious and a simple penetration will go unnoticed.

How do you know it was a 'one off'? I think you are letting what you believe happened cloud your judgement.

If I had just used the quote from Charles R. Corbin: :

one of Company D's tanks had a clear shot at it, and shoot it he did, but three balls of fire bounced off of it and it backed away never moving its turret. It had to be a Mark VI Tiger. It made us all wonder and I know the tank gunner was shaking his head, feeling helpless

and said it came from the booklet then you (and 99% of readers) would say it was confirmation the M4 could not harm a Tiger II frontally. Having the German side is just pure chance and it is entirely possible that accounts by the German crews of the 'invulnerable' Tigers mentioned in the booklet would reveal similar stories.

No one has claimed the M4 was an engineering disaster.

It is the thread title. Click-bait to be sure but a title so preposterous that it will not go unchallenged. Not by by me at least.

Clearly it had advantages over the Panther and the Panther had advantages over it. That is hardly news!

Then why is the climate here so hostile to those who do not follow the group-think?

This is a rather well known TII photo that has a fake glacis hit photoshopped into it and can be found in one of Jentzs Tiger books so it fooled the experts. Real and fake side-by-side

[/URL]
[URL=https://imageshack.com/i/pmXugNQWj]

Then it ran into a couple of Shermans that pumped 7+ rounds into the front of it. 1 crew member killed the rest baled out and the tank burned.

[/URL]
[URL=https://imageshack.com/i/plIdBbjPj]

Another TII that was engaged frontally by Shermans with fatal consequences

[/URL]
[URL=https://imageshack.com/i/pmAxIUsej]

A Tiger that was engaged frontally by Shermas and the crew baled and ran

[/URL]

Seems to be a lot of 'lucky shots from the M4!

Frontal damage inflicted by Shermans resulted in the demise of more than a few Tigers.

My point?
A Tiger could be hit frontally by an M4 and come off second best.

Note this is not all the photos of frontally defeated Tigers.

Lots of nice pictures, mkenny, but rather too little information.

75mm or 76mm?
AP or HVAP?
Range – 200 or 1200 or 2000 yards?

I don't recall anyone suggesting that any German tank was impervious to US tank fire in 100 pct of circumstances.

Perhaps you can flesh things out in a bit better detail.

p.s. – Any luck tracking down those "could not hit a barn door" references????? Very much looking forward to your response on that issue.

B

15 Aug 2018 3:38 p.m. PST
Lots of nice pictures, mkenny, but rather too little information.

75mm or 76mm?
AP or HVAP?
Range – 200 or 1200 or 2000 yards?

Sorry. I have no idea of the chassis numbers, camo schemes or the names of the crews wives either.
If you really want to read up on the first Tiger 301 and not just contradict anything I post I suggest you purchase La Battaille Du Vexin, Memorial Des Combats De La Liberation Tome II by Bruno Renoult et Genevieve Havelange 2004 or .45 Tiger En Normandie by Didier Lodieu 2002. I sure that will further your understanding. Note they are both French Language books.

Bruno's book has Tiger 301 on the cover.
link

link

Then why is the climate here so hostile to those who do not follow the group-think?

The climate is hostile to people who make bold claims about what a source says without being able to back it up. Still waiting for the page numbers in US vs German Equipment in which US tankers claim not to be able to hit a barn door!

How do you know it was a 'one off'?

I never said it was a one off. There are almost certainly others and German claims when they thought they had failed to knock out a tank, but had done so.

and said it came from the booklet then you (and 99% of readers) would say it was confirmation the M4 could not harm a Tiger II frontally.

Hardly. To make claim on the basis of a single example would be foolishness in the extreme. But equally to make the claim that a Sherman's shots never bounced off the armour of a Tiger on the basis of that one example would also be foolish.
Neither Blutarski or myself have ever made claims that the Tiger was invulnerable to Sherman fire or that Sherman tanks couldn't hit anything. All I did was to quote some US tankers on the mobility of the Panther based on comparative tests of a captured example. I am at a loss to understand why you commented on my post or why you seem to feel the need to rubbish the claims of serving US tankers, none of which judging from what I remember and from Blutarski's quotes seem particularly controversial.

Perhaps you can flesh things out in a bit better detail.

Whilst I am happy to help a struggling poster out now and again in no way am I your personal researcher. I suggest you do as I did and spend 50 years purchasing the best books on the areas you are interested in. In my opinion the most detailed books on the Normandy Campaign are published in French.

All I did was to quote some US tankers on the mobility of the Panther based on comparative tests of a captured example. I am at a loss to understand why you commented on my post

I am in a thread where many details are introduced. I reply to any point I want in any way I want. How and why I introduce a point has nothing to do with 'you' personally. I know I am talking to the many and in no way am I interested in, nor trying to start, a personal debate with you alone. That clear enough?

or why you seem to feel the need to rubbish the claims of serving US tankers,

I did not rubbish anyone. I introduced quotes from the same booklet than on the face of it contradict what your chosen quotes claim. I glad you noticed the conflicting views but Its a bit pathetic to try and get out of this contradiction by claiming I in some way disparage 'your' chosen crew claims.
Just so you know I did not use the crew quotes where it is claimed the Sherman was taller than the Tiger and Panther (it was not) or that the bulk of German tanks were destroyed by air power and not AP shot (the reverse being true. Most German tanks were destroyed by AP hits) so I left the easy target out of my replies.

But equally to make the claim that a Sherman's shots never bounced off the armour of a Tiger on the basis of that one example would also be foolish.

I agree.
Where is the claim made that that a Sherman's shots never bounced off the armour of a Tiger by the way?
Which fool said it and which page is it on?

I introduced quotes from the same booklet than on the face of it contradict what your chosen quotes claim.

Actually you introduced no quotes and nothing you said contradicted the quotes I posted. Your post was merely disparaging of the the booklet by claiming the information was contradictory, although you now seem unable to to find any of the quotes where US tankers say they couldn't hit a barn door.

I glad you noticed the conflicting views

I think everyone noticed your claim of conflicting views, it is just no one can find any evidence it exists!

Actually you introduced no quotes and nothing you said contradicted the quotes I posted……………..I think everyone noticed your claim of conflicting views, it is just no one can find any evidence it exists!

A simple matter of opinion.
The fact you do not agree with my posts is of no concern to me at all.

A simple matter of opinion.
The fact you do not agree with my posts is of no concern to me at all.

Actually I am concerned with facts not opinions, but as your opinions are based on no verifiable facts, then they are probably of no concern to anyone.

mkenny wrote -
"Whilst I am happy to help a struggling poster out now and again in no way am I your personal researcher. I suggest you do as I did and spend 50 years purchasing the best books on the areas you are interested in. In my opinion the most detailed books on the Normandy Campaign are published in French."

- – -

I would never be so presumptuous as to impose upon anyone to act as my "personal researcher", even so kind an individual as your goodself, who avows that he is "happy to help a struggling poster out now and again". I simply asked you to provide the necessary background details to place the photos which you posted into proper context with respect to the matter under discussion. Apparently, it was not possible for you to do so. Too bad. If you have other photos available which are attended by the necessary background information to make them relevant to the discussion at hand, I would be thrilled to see them.

B

Facts? Well in the case of the Speer quote you replied to earlier:

Well Mark maybe they should have seen what the Americans had to say about the cross country mobility of the Sherman vs Panther before telling Speer that!

You failed to grasp the 'fact' Speer was talking about the weight of the tanks not 'flotation'.
Speer clearly says it: All Panzer crews want to receive lighter Panzers, which are more maneuverable, possess increased ability to cross terrain, and guarantee the necessary combat power just with a superior gun………..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

He also makes it clear that looming shortage of armour will mean they will have to choose between a 'few' heavily armoured tanks or 'many more' lightly armoured tanks anyway so why not leap before they were pushed?

It was a strategic comment but you leapt in to praise the tactical point of the Panther's lower ground pressure as being the most important factor. Maneuverability encompasses many things. The miles your tanks can cover without simple mechanical breakdown and daily readiness numbers being two of the more critical.

Its called not seeing the wood for the trees.

would never be so presumptuous as to impose upon anyone to act as my "personal researcher", even so kind an individual as your goodself, who avows that he is "happy to help a struggling poster out now and again". I simply asked you to provide the necessary background details to place the photos which you posted into proper context with respect to the matter under discussion.

Its clear you lack any knowledge about the incidents I raised. This troubles you and you have formed an opinion it is my job to provide you with details you hope will reclaim some of your authority.
I decline your request. I gave you the book title where you can read about Wendt's Tiger being knocked out so you have the means to check and find out if I distorted anything. A simple Google on Tiger 114 along with 'Rauray' will give you a ton of hits on that incident. I understand your pain but it isn't my problem. Good luck with the research and in time I expect you will have a detailed and crushing expose on all my 'errors/deceptions'!

For someone who doesn't want to engage in a personal debate it seems you just can't help yourself! :-)

It was a strategic comment but you leapt in to praise the tactical point of the Panther's lower ground pressure as being the most important factor.

Sigh! Some people just don't get irony! I thought with the "grass is always greener" comment and the smiley face it would be obvious, but it seems not!
But anyway to take your point about Speer's quote. First the opinions he got from the tankers in Italy are not reflected across the board and it was generally well liked by the crews. I think it was Zaloga in Armoured Thunderbolt that quotes Fritz Bayerlin saying of the Panther "An ideal vehicle for tank battles and infantry support." Italy was a special case with its mountainous terrain and not reflective of the terrain the Panther fought most of it's battles in. Secondly the quote directly mentions tactical mobility the desirable features being manoeuvrability and ability to cross terrain. So a quote on the Americans experience of the Panthers tactical mobility in comparative tests would be appropriate. Finally and most importantly Speer's comment is complete ballhooks. It is dated November 1944! The Germans were already upping the carbon content of their steel to try and make up for the missing alloys. No design or tooling for such a lighter Panzer existed and it would have taken at least a year to get into production. It also ignores the real problem the German had at the time which was lack of oil. They didn't have enough fuel to train the crews of the few Panzers they were producing. There wasn't a snowballs chance in hell they could have trained the crews or fuelled a whole bunch more light Panzers. Of course I could have pointed all that out in reply to Mark's post, but I thought I would give his leg a gentle pull instead, knowing how highly he rates American thinking on tank design. I am sure he didn't mind! :-)

Certainly the M4 in all it's variants killed some Pz Vs & VIIs. But in general the Big Cats did have some advantages, in many cases. But numbers, ease of maintenance, etc., etc., were not in their favor generally …

I think it was Zaloga in Armoured Thunderbolt that quotes Fritz Bayerlin saying of the Panther "An ideal vehicle for tank battles and infantry support.,

I think you should check Bayerlein's rather better known comments about the Panther in Normandy before going out any further on that limb…………

Secondly the quote directly mentions tactical mobility the desirable features being manoeuvrability and ability to cross terrain.

Speer was making a general point about the increasing weight of German tanks. The Panther was well over its design weight and they had starting deleting features on the latest marks of the Pz IV because the chassis was massively in advance of the weight its engine was rated for. A 30 ton tank powered by an engine rated for 25 tons has mobility problems. A tank of any weight with a faulty final drive has serious mobility problems. 'Lighter' tanks could cross bridges and roads that would limit 50 ton monsters. That is the 'mobility' that Speer is talking about and he is not getting into mircro-detail about the ground pressure and flotation properties of the Panther v The M4.

I think you should check Bayerlein's rather better known comments about the Panther in Normandy before going out any further on that limb…………

I am well aware of dear old Fritz's Comments on the limitations of the Panther in the bocage, but despite knowing the limitations of the tank he still recognised it was a good tank. He was able to form a balanced view, it is shame more people aren't able to do that. :-)
These threads about the virtues and vices of the various WW2 tanks are a bit of fun, but the truth of the matter is it wouldn't have mattered if the Germans had mass produced a lighter, more reliable Panzer instead of the Panther, the war was already lost before it could have entered service.

That is the 'mobility' that Speer is talking about and he is not getting into mircro-detail about the ground pressure and flotation properties of the Panther v The M4.

I think you need to go back and read the quote again which includes this,
"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." That appears to me as a direct comparison of the tactical mobility of the Sherman vs the German tanks. I see nothing in the quote that mentions overloaded chassis, bridging capacity or anything remotely like it.

I am well aware of dear old Fritz's Comments on the limitations of the Panther in the bocage, but despite knowing the limitations of the tank he still recognised it was a good tank

Let the reader judge:

The Panther tanks all got stuck. I had been told that the terrain near St Lo was better suited for tank operations than that around Caen. Although I could have taken either the Mark IV or Mark V (Panther), I relied on what I had been told and took the latter. Actually the Mark IV would have been more suitable; the Mark V has too long a barrel and is not maneuverable. It was too wide and had too low a slope to negotiate the hedged dikes; it had to stick to the roads. ……………….

……………………….. We could only knock out enemy tanks at a maximum range of 200 yards, as the hedges concealed everything farther away. The German tanks are built for long range firing in the desert and on the Russian front. We could not use the Mark V cross-country in Normandy. The British Cromwell tank had a sharper angle of approach and, therefore, could scale the hedgerow dikes. We believed it had been specially built for use in Normandy, where the terrain is similar to that in southern England.

While the PzKpfw IV could still be used
to advantage, the PzKpfw V [Panther] proved
ill adapted to the terrain. The Sherman
because of its maneuverability and height was
good . . . [the Panther was] poorly suited for
hedgerow terrain because of its width. Long
gun barrel and width of tank reduce maneu-
verability in village and forest fighting. It is
very front-heavy and therefore quickly wears
out the front final drives, made of low-grade
steel. High silhouette. Very sensitive power-
train requiring well-trained drivers. Weak side
armor; tank top vulnerable to fighter-
bombers. Fuel-lines of porous material that
allow gasoline fumes to escape into the tank
causing a grave fire Hazard. Absence of vision
slits make defense against close attacks impossible

He was able to form a balanced view, it is shame more people aren't able to do that.

Indeed it is. Perhaps, in the furtherance of balance, you could explain why the following faults only apply to the Panther when in service 'in Normandy':

It is
very front-heavy and therefore quickly wears
out the front final drives, made of low-grade
steel. High silhouette. Very sensitive power-
train requiring well-trained drivers. Weak side
armor; tank top vulnerable to fighter-
bombers. Fuel-lines of porous material that
allow gasoline fumes to escape into the tank
causing a grave fire Hazard. Absence of vision
slits make defense against close attacks impossible

I think you need to go back and read the quote again which includes this,
"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." That appears to me as a direct comparison of the tactical mobility of the Sherman vs the German tanks. I see nothing in the quote that mentions overloaded chassis, bridging capacity or anything remotely like it.

I give up. Speer obviously knew a great deal about the ground pressure of Allied tanks and thus he was giving an incredible demonstration of his masterly ability to get right down to the most important details of a tank design-its ground pressure. He knew that ground pressure alone.
was the true measure of a tanks greatness.
Like I said, can't see the wood for the trees. Strategic v tactics.

And yet he still described it as the ideal tank. I guess for him the virtues outweighed the drawbacks. :-)

And yet he still described it as the ideal tank. I guess for him the virtues outweighed the drawbacks

Blast, trumped me again.
One sentence found by you negates the 3 paragraphs where he list some very serious faults. I don't know why I bother with actual books when Google/Wiki are clearly the best and only source for killer facts.

Speer obviously knew a great deal about the ground pressure of Allied tanks and thus he was giving an incredible demonstration of his masterly ability to get right down to the most important details of a tank design-its ground pressure. He knew that ground pressure alone.

For a start that is not Speer's quote that is from a report by the 26th PD, and it is not about ground pressure it is about tactical mobility, which is more than just ground pressure. If you remember one of the quotes I originally posted was "In recent tests we put a captured German Mark V against all models of our own. The German tank was faster, both across country and on the highway and could make sharper turns. It was also a better hill climber." The 26th PD report does not include a direct comparison of the Panther vs Sherman to my knowledge.
I don't think you can see the wood or the trees! :-)