"Sherman vs. Panther" Topic

What was the likelihood of a regular Sherman surviving a hit from a Panther at 500+ yards? I am learning Fireball Forward and looks like the Sherman needs a miracle save (3x6's on 4d6). Sound about right?

In return the Sherman has to get really close up to have a small chance to take out the Panther from the front. This does sound fairly accurate for the most part.

That's accurate for this hit on the Sherman.

Amazingly, mutual penetration ranges were published in … Newsweek? as the Battle of the Bulge wrapped up.

Didn't late war era German tanks have a armor problem, due to no steel Harding additive in the manufacturing. They were brittle and cracked under fire?

If the Sherman is in a one on one there is a problem. Five Shermans sounds about right

Problems with consistency of hardening, Wackmole, problems with a drive train never up to the vehicle weight, problems with thin side armor, problems with a hand crank for turret rotation--the Sherman's was powered--problems with semi-trained crews and problems with outright sabotage stemming from the use of concentration camp labor for construction. But IF the two tanks faced off like TV gunfighters in the middle of the street, and IF they fired at the same time, the Panther was more likely to penetrate the Sherman's armor than the other way around.

Patton pointed out at the time that this was not the way you were supposed to use tanks, but wargamers continue to ignore him. What would he know about it, after all?

4th Armored Division did fine at Arracourt.

Wouldn't that depend on whether you had the "infantry support" Sherman – 75mm or the 76mm?

If the Sherman is in a one on one there is a problem. Five Shermans sounds about right

In reality people like Zaloga disproved that myth. In reality more Panthers fell to Shermans due to:

1. American and British crews were generally better trained than Panther crews. This due to loss of experienced German crews over war, new units being formed on Panthers instead of older units, and lack of fuel for training Panther crews.

2. German reconnaissance capabilities collapsed. Most German reconnaissance battalions in Panzer Divisions were usually used as mobile "firefighting" units. Panzer Brigades had no recce ability whatsoever.

3. Sights – Germans had telescopic sights for gunners which made targetting slower as you used the same sight for finding the target and then laying the gun. Allied tanks which had two sights – one panoramic for target acquisition and one telescopic one for targetting.

The Allied method was faster which is key is war where the usual maxim is "who fires first wins".

Note German commanders had excellent sights – it was the gunners who suffered with the single sight and were thus more reliant on commander's verbal commands.

And you can see all of this is interconnected. Eg poor quality of crews and lack of recce meant Germans were more likely to blunder into enemy fire whilst their target acquisition system meant they were struggling to acquire targets faster than an allied tank.

So my bet is on the Sherman – that tank probably has better trained crews, better intel and faster target acquisition.

wrt the OP, just in terms of the physical characteristics of the weapons and armour, a 75L70 will blow right through the front of a Sherman and out the back at 500m range, whereas a 75L40 has virtually no chance whatsoever of penetrating any of the frontal armour of a Panther, despite issues with armour brittleness. The lower glacis plate is a slightly weak spot

Given the Panther weighs almost twice as much as a Sherman, I'd expect it to perform slightly better.

The answer for the Sherman of course, is to shoot the Panther in the side. Which is where things like crew quality etc come in handy. As one exasperated Churchill commander put it 'The Panthers aren't so bad, we can work to a flank and knock them for six, but the Tigers are a real sod'.

And I forgot the declining quality of German armor-penetrating ammo. Tungsten shortage, I think?

But the Panther of the rule books and armor penetration tables is the Panther as ordered and not the Panther as delivered, manned by the crews Rommel and Guderian commanded in 1940 and not the half-trained kids of fall 1944.

Darn good thing WWII was played out in real life. On the wargame table, the Nazis would have won.

Yes, I've read several accounts of the Panther's slow turret rotation. If an enemy tank could catch them on the flank they could get off four or five shots before the Panther could rotate its turret 90 degrees to fire back.

There is a new book out on How to Kill a Panther. link

The first version of the Panther D had the 6 degrees per second traverse. The A and G models had a variable traverse based on engine RPM that could be up to 15-18 degrees per second. However, at the halt, the driver had to rev up the engine to boost the RPMs for the rapid traverse with a chance of over-revving and blowing the engine. The exhaust could give away their position. All Panther models had an unbalanced turret. Their traverse was about 5 degrees per second on a slope. The radio operator had a hand crank to assist the gunner in traversing.

Another big advantage the Sherman had was the TC turret override (no other tank had that). This allowed an unbuttoned TC to traverse the turret at up to 25 degrees per second and engage the target using a vane sight mounted in front of him. Somewhat like the open iron sights on your hunting rifle. If the gunner had the elevation set for a typical 500m-700m engagement range he'd have a good chance of hitting the target taking only 4-5 seconds to get the shot off. Now the gunner has acquired the target and can make adjustments for follow-up shots. A Sherman could get off 2+ shots before the Panther fires his first. If it's a frontal shot with no chance of penetrating fire WP. That will blind him and force him to relocate and he may catch fire.

Most Shermans went into battle with an HE round in the chamber as most of their engagements were infantry and anti-tank guns.

arealdeadone mentions many of the other tactical disadvantages the Panther had that hindered them in gaining a tactical advantage to get off the first shot. Panthers also had a neutral turning ability (pivot in place) which the Sherman transmission could not perform. However, they didn't always use it because it put a strain on the engine and on soft ground could break the track.

AFV 1:1 engagements are determined in seconds, most game systems have a hard time doing that. The real advantage the Panther or any other tank had was a concealed ambush to shoot first but the Allies had the infantry and recon to spot them first and call in artillery.

From: "How to Kill a Panther"
link

Wolfhag

Good points, Wolfhag. And don't forget that, given the state of German tank crew training from mid-1944 on, if you hit a Panther with WP, there's a decent chance the crew will assume the tank is on fire and bail. (Not a hypothetical: I've read descriptions of it from Sherman crews.)

And keep in mind radios so poor that there are descriptions of panzer brigade TCs having to get out of their vehicles while under artillery fire to run over to some other tank and talk things over. By this time, the Shermans frequently have additional radios set to the infantry and the air support nets, and phones welded to the back of the tank so supporting infantry can talk directly to the tank crew.

Not even armored warfare is entirely a matter of armor penetration tables.

I was looking up flank armor comparisons yesterday, in referencd to another question here on TMP, relating to the Panther, T-34, and Sherman for CoC.

One site mentioned there is no chance for the Sherman to penetrate the Panther's front from 500 yds. with the 75mm, and a small chance at 300 yds. and less – must hit the lower, flat part of the turret mantlet, and/or get a deflection into the turret top through one of the hatches there off of the mantlet (not 100% sure if this is for the 75mm, or perhaps the 76mm round).

So, given the above, that's only about a 5% – 10% chance of success in pulling that off when firing at the Panther from the front.

First fallacy,,,tanks never operate in ones alone.

The UK was a minimun of a half squadron at a time.
US would have been minimum of a five tank platoon.

Good points by Arealdeadone and Wolfhag.

Allied tank gunnery was good. I even remember stories from Indian tank units in Burma where if a Sherman gunner couldn't hit something the size of a 20L jerry can at 700-800m, he was removed.

Turret traverse speed and target aquisition equally vital.

The type of gun on a Sherman isn't reallly mentioned but need not be. Even the short 75mm, no one is going to sit around and take the pummeling if the first round does n't do the job. No one will sit still waiting for the next hit.

A 76mm might do betterr at 500m. The 17lbr would definitely do the job. No one ever mentions the French CN75-50 which was a shortened adaption of the Panther gun fitted post war to the Isreali Shermans. (M50) It was also fitted to a number of Indian army rebuilds but without all the turret modifications. Without the modifications,,,let's just say the elevating gearing broke too easily.

I suffer from the terribly bad (and sometime impolitic) habit of consulting contemporary assessments and commentary from the actual WW2 "end-user" community about such matters.

Anyone interested in gaining an appreciation of the assessments of the US Army tankers who actually faced these German vehicles should go to Amazon and order a copy of -
"United States versus German Equipment" by (Major General) Isaac White, 2nd Armored Division, which is in actuality White's response to a private (i.e., outside official bureaucratic channels) March 1945 request from General Eisenhower for a candid (i.e., free of bureaucratic bull@hit) comparison of US Army versus Wehrmacht equipment.

After reading the White report, take a moment and ponder the tactical and operational conditions under which the Wehrmacht was fighting in the ETO during 1944/1945. What was the balance of forces? Who controlled/dominated the air and to what degree? Who held a 3:1 advantage in artillery? Who held the advantage in numbers of tanks and AFVs? How great was the advantage? Who had large reserve parks of AFVs to immediately replace losses? Who had an amply supplied and unharassed vehicle recovery and maintenance echelon? How might such factors have influenced events on the battlefield?

B

Does leave the question of why so many Shermans were always taken out?

There are a couple of logical explanations.

First, they were pretty well always on the offensive. That ideal three to one advantage is lopsided for good reason, There will be losses. Equally remember when the Germans attacked on June 9th against the British and Canadian beaches,,, dug in tanks and simple six pounder AT guns slaughtered them Same story during the US defences at the Bulge. Being the attacker,,, you will suffer losses.

Next is a combination of bad tactics, political pressure and what you can afford to replace.

Example being all those Big British armoured operations in Normandy. A lot of pressure to get a move on while the US was slugging it out in the woods. Also a need to draw the German heavy units away from the incredible bocage counrty. So the UK made a number of mass tank attacks in broad daylight in open rolling country.

It really did force the germans to deploy there heavy units against them to stop them. It seems like British Napoleonic cavalry all over again, good troops lead by bad leaders doesn't it. But you have to realize the incredible pressure they were under to get a move on and to draw the germans to them. The biggest thing to remember is that despite losing five hundred Shermans at a time, only a third of the crew were lost dead, another third wounded and to return and another third ok. It was far easier for the british to replace another five hundred Shermans from their pool of reserves than it was ti find infantryman. Indeed they had a surplus of armoured regiments and crews they were happy to disband and absorb into other armoured units.

You might think this attitiude a bit crass against your men. I am not going to disagree. However, look at the 1943 battles post Kursk. The Soviet drive for retaking Kharkov was a massive politically driven goal. The Soviets lost what, a thousand tanks, some say double that, blundering against the German Flak and Pak defenses at Kharkov?

Sorry Blutarski. Must have been typing it out simultaneously with your post. Pretty much agree.

Why are so many Shermans being taken out?

I'd say mostly from concealed anti-tank guns and StuG's firing from a concealed and flanking ambush position. The German flashless powder made them even harder to spot too. In a flanking ambush, an anti-tank gun could get off 4-5 rounds before being spotted and fired at. Normally an ambush was triggered at a point when the ambushing units had already measured the range giving them an almost 100% chance of a first-round hit. One of the reasons Shermans went into battle overloaded with HE rounds to conduct recon-by-fire against potential ambush sites. It's also a big reason they were lit up so easily too when penetrated. The big white star on the side over the ammo storage made a great aiming point too.

The Tigers and Panthers had a better chance of multiple shots and kills without return fire if the range was 1500m or more.

That sounds about right Thresher01. Also, in the opening of an engagement four Shermans rapid-firing just HE could get off about 12 rounds in about 15 seconds with the Panther getting off only one shot. Throw in 1 or 2 WP or smoke rounds and the Panther is going to withdraw.

troopwo is right. So normally Shermans will have 4-6 vehicles operating together. In NWE with the Germans if they did have 1-2 Panthers or Tigers concealed and ambushing they might have a hidden StuG or minefields to intercept any flanking enemy units. That can make things more interesting.

At the typical NWE engagement ranges all anti-tank guns had a very good chance of a first-round hit if static and the gunner not hurrying his shot.

In wooded and urban areas the Sherman had another advantage. Their short barrel did not get interfered with trees and buildings when traversing or turning. If a gun collides with something hard enough it will get knocked out of boresight and may be worthless for the rest of the engagement.

One other tactic a Sherman could use is firing HE with a delay fuse and ricocheting it off the ground for an airburst. It would explode over the tank with shrapnel and blast going through the open hull top engine grating and into the turret if the hatch is all of the way open. It was a common tactic against infantry and anti-tank guns. The Germans could not duplicate it because their delay fuse was too long and made air bursts mostly ineffective.

Blutarski makes a good point and if the US did use its superiority, especially in artillery/ToT and recon by fire, the game will not be much fun. The Germans would be lucky to have 50% of their Panther strength available for combat at any time. With poor drivers, the breakdown % was even higher, especially with the D model.

Wolfhag

I've always had a question about the British tank offensives that all failed so miserably after D-Day.
If they were all such failures, why did each successive one start out far beyond the point at which the previous one failed?
Maybe the Sherman did the job after all?

Too add to what Wolfhag pointed out about the US using the artillery advantage. The British were known to actually do a concentrated divisional artillery shoot, sometimes even a corps level shoot, if they knew there were Tigers in the target zone.

Known Pak/Flak and heavy armnour zones were oftne targeted by Bomber Command for a massive raid in Normandy too!

Johnthe OFM,,,if you want a pretty good comparison of what one of those British tank drives could actually achive, then you need to compare some of their daylight attemtps to the one attack that they did using mass tank charge at night.

Bomber Command attacking flanking town targets and ropping flares for marking the flanks and advnace.

Using Bofors to guide the advanve.

Using and combining Kangarros/APCs as part of the tank columns to keep the infantry with the tanks.

Cme daylight half wee probably lost and found themselves in some incredibly precarious positions. Mind it stunned the Germans just as badly. More amazingly the advance was far better than most of the daylight attacks and the troops on the ground used their equipment to their advanteage. and for the most part cleared the Germans out.

Something to think about.

Re Allied air power -
See "Panzer Ace – the Memoirs of an Iron Cross Panzer Commander from Barbarossa to Normandy" by Rich Freiherr von Rosen for a candid account of the effect of a Bomber Command attack upon his company of Tiger tanks during Operation Goodwood.

Also see Bayerlein's account of the effects of the preparatory heavy bomber raid upon Panzer Lehr at the opening of Operation Cobra.

It is also worth examining the close tactical cooperatio0n between the post-Cobra US armored spearheads and "Pete" Quesada's 9th Tactical Air Force, which supplied each thrust axis with more or less round-the-clock daytime overhead fighter-bomber coverage and real-time reconnaissance to front and flanks.

Re Allied artillery -
German ETO prisoners with Eastern Front experience claimed that Soviet artillery paled in comparison to the power of US and British artillery.

The 75mm Sherman tank was well past its "sell by" date by 1944. But it managed to serve on as a reliable spear carrier within a huge "Cecil B. De Mille" scale epic of combined arms warfare, forged in the factories of America.

Strictly my opinion, of course.

B

John OFM,
To see a worst-case scenario for a troop of Sherman's check out this video: YouTube link

Allied bombing destroyed many tanks and components before they could be assembled. The Germans concentrated on the production of new vehicles to the detriment of making spare parts which caused more problems in the field.

Some German units listed up to 45% of their losses as tanks that ran out of gas or broke down and could not be recovered. German crews probably blew up as many of their own tanks as Sherman's did. Imagine going into battle and being issued a demolition charge to put in the breach of your gun so it does not get captured. It does not exactly bolster confidence.

The US and British/Canadian forces had different anti-tank challenges. The Canadiens and Brits had more open country for maneuvers and long-range shooting so faced more Panthers, Tigers, and 88's. In Normandy and the Bocage, it was anti-tank guns, StuG's, panzerfausts, and panzershreks. The Tigers and Panthers were not good to operate in close terrain and you didn't need the long-range of an 88.

Games using balanced scenarios without defender hidden deployment cannot really duplicate historical engagements. Most games can't really duplicate the tactics and strategies as they were really carried out either. But then the idea is to have fun – reality sucks.

Wolfhag

Wouldn't that depend on whether you had the "infantry support" Sherman – 75mm or the 76mm?

This question highlights another myth -- the "infantry support" Sherman.

Shermans were not designed to be "infantry support" tanks. They were medium tanks, designed and intended to be a critical part of every sort of combat. They were intended, from the first steps of design through all of the doctrines layed down in the FMs, to fight other tanks, to fight dug-in positions, to counter infantry in the open, to maneuver deep into the enemy's rear and shoot up targets of opportunity ranging from softskins to artillery positions to HQ units … everything. The concepts were very appropriate even to today's US Army concept of the MBT.

About half of the Shermans in the US Army in ETO were assigned to the GHQ tank battalions -- independent units that were assigned out to the infantry divisions. But these Shermans were 1) no different from the Shermans in the Armored Divisions (at least as built and supplied), and 2) almost equally likely to face enemy armor as the Shermans in the Armored Divisions.

The 75mm gun in the Sherman was not a short gun. If you want a short gun look at a Russian T-28 (L16 gun, eventually upgraded to an L26), or the early Pz IV (L24 gun). The Sherman started with an L40 gun, which in length was quite comparable to a T-34 (L41.5) and the then-most-current Pz IV "special" (L43). Comparable in barrel length, that is. Not in power or penetration, where the German gun clearly out-classed the Sherman or the T-34. But to say it was a "short" gun is just not accurate.

The 76mm gun used in Shermans was notably longer and more powerful. Against a Panther's frontal armor it made only a little difference. It had better penetration, but still not enough to punch through a Panther's upper front hull (glacis) except, as with the 75mm, for a lucky hit on the bow MG mount. It would bounce off of the upper mantlet due to the rounding, but might bounce down through the hull roof if it hit the lower mantlet (just as the 75mm would). About the only difference was that the 76mm at 500m could reliably punch through the mantlet directly if hit pretty squarely (say the middle 6-8 inches). So that means that perhaps 1/3rd of 75mm turret-front hits may go through (bouncing-down through the hull roof), while 2/3rd of the 76mm hits may go through (no-bounce straight-ons and bounce-downs). Still, neither is very likely as the turret front is a pretty small target, much less only 1/3 or 2/3 of the turret front.

Add to that, that if the 76mm gunner was lucky enough to have a golden bullet (an HVAP round -- very rare for US troops until maybe Feb 1945) he might also penetrate the lower hull front, if he can see it to hit it.

Or so I've read.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

Imagine going into battle and being issued a demolition charge to put in the breach of your gun so it does not get captured. It does not exactly bolster confidence.

Demo charges are fitted before a tank is issued to the troops. They are in designated positions and the bonus is that if they are triggered on a Tiger the damage is so distinctive that there is no doubt what happened to the tank.

The point is not that the M4 Medium was designed to be an infantry support tank in NWE 1944 but that the main role of the tank became infantry support It was the scarcity of panzer targets after Aug 1944 that relegated the much hyped one-on-one tank 'fair fight' to obscurity. .

Thanks for the wealth of information and all the great responses. Yes. I was comparing the basic 75mm Sherman to the Panther. I am planning on using Fireball Forward and in reading through the armor firing rules and like how ranges are handled. Unless I have missed something, the Sherman is most likely destroyed if hit at almost any range. To kill the Panther the Sherman has to get really close, flank shot, critical hit with a six, or some combination of these to have a chance. Or the Panther has to roll multiple 1's on 7d6 save. A 76mm increases the chances quite a bit. Just trying to decide if I need to play as written or alter to avoid player frustration as the matchup is almost unavoidable. I think a few games are in order.

Thanks.

Those one on one duel scenarios are horrible.

Even the 75mm could mess one up.
Like I said, after one round smashing off the glacis and rococheting off into the cook wagon,,,no one with any sense would stick around to see if the next one would do.

The rolls for punching a hole in the font really don't take into account the idea of scaring them off, or of the choice of hitting the Panther with something like an HE round or a white phosphorous round. Given damage to the optics, engine, tranverse or tracks, it is just another 45 ton piece of scrap metal. No one ever mentions the fact that a Sherman crew on the offensive were emotionally about equally as hopped up as a squirrel on cocain. Knowing german tanks were about would have made the crews walking adrenalin before the made contact. They would have pounded off three rounds before there was even a respnse. I have talked with enough crews to actually confirm this when they knew there was german armour about.

Look up some of the photos of what the 8th Air Force did with their "tactical bombing" of the German Tiger I unit in Normandy.

Apparently, many vehicles were damaged or destroyed by this bombing, and some Tigers were even flipped upside down by it, which I find to be truly astounding for such a heavy vehicle, but the photos are out there.

Can't imagine what it would be like to be under that kind of attack.

American air power had a quality all its own.

Yea, Shermans are pretty fragile when fired at and hit by Panthers and Tigers.

I think the 5:1 ratio often cited to take out a well placed German tank is a pretty good rule of thumb.

This reminds me of a couple of excellent anecdotes/photos that would seem to prove this maxim to be accurate, e.g. the Battle of Barkmann's Corner for the Panther, and one famous photo of a Tiger I on a bocage-flanked road, covered in foliage to the point that it can't really be seen from 25' away (if you didn't know it was already there. since it blends in so completely with the bocage flanking it).

One shot and the attacking allied tank is finished, and it will block the road completely, greatly complicating, if not totally blocking the advance via that avenue. The allies would have to tow the dead tank out of the way in order to try again, with no doubt, predictable follow-on results if the Tiger didn't relocate.

Trying a flanking maneuver, or pressing infantry with anti-tank weapons forward would probably be a better option.

What a Tanker might be another option to consider for games like this, though some of the stats for various vehicles might need a little tweaking to make them a little more "realistic".

This reminds me of a couple of excellent anecdotes/photos that would seem to prove this maxim to be accurate, e.g. the Battle of Barkmann's Corner

'Barkmann's Corner' has been shown to be a much over-hyped action where a flanking group of the main US attacking force was engaged and lost a light tank and some half-tracks/trucks. Noticeably there are no accounts from Barkmann.

Leadjunky,
This calculator should give you a better idea:
wwiiequipment.com/pencalc/#

I'd consider a small chance of a ricochet and a small chance of a Sherman 75 causing some type of damage or mission kill even if not penetrating.

I've never played Fireball Forward but have observed two games and read some of the rules. I don't think their activation rules can execute the real-life advantage/disadvantage nuances of the timing and rates of fire that are critical in 1:1 AFV combat.

Wolfhag

Apparently, many vehicles were damaged or destroyed by this bombing, and some Tigers were even flipped upside down by it, which I find to be truly astounding for such a heavy vehicle, but the photos are out

I believe those results from Operation Goodwood were obtained by RAF Bomber Command, not US 8th AF.

I think the 5:1 ratio often cited to take out a well placed German tank is a pretty good rule of thumb.

That ratio was disproved by people such as Stephen Zaloga. It's basically just an urban myth.

Note Americans faced very few Panthers in Normandy and mostly took them on with ATGs such as at Mortain.

Americans didn't engage in massed tank on tank warfare until Lorraine Valley and then the Americans totally dominated.

Brits faced large numbers of tanks around Caen but again the Panthers arguably lost more than they won, mainly against ATGs and even PIATS.

Similarly main killers of Shermans were ATGs, shrecks and fausts as well as the ubiquitous StuG in ambush.

Battle of Barkmann's Corner

Barkmann's corner is a very specific circumstance under which a Panzer IV or T-34 or M4 Sherman would have had the same performance.

If you look at Battle of Arracourt the Shermans (mainly 75mm) of 37th Tank Battalion destroyed most of Panzer Brigade 111 (somewhere around) for loss of only 7 medium tanks. In one instance Company A destroyed 17 out of 22 Panthers for loss of only 1 Sherman!

Doesn't mean Sherman enjoyed a 17:1 kill ratio against Panthers just like Barmkann's corner doesn't justify Panther 5:1 kill ratio.

Very true. The RAF had a custom to drop everything from 500lb gp to 2,000lb HC (high capacity or HE as it were)cookies. There was a well known photo of a Tiger on its' side from one of those strikes.

Anyone remember Sicily or Salerno where the cruiser and battleship broadsides were used to break up german tank attacks.

People are forgetting that tank on tank combat was relatively rare in Normandy compared to other types of combat (ie tank v infantry/ATG). The terrain simply didn't allow it.

Americans never even fought Tigers in Normandy (they did capture some on a train).

Most armour casualties on both sides were ATGs and infantry weapons like fausts, bazookas, panzerschreks etc.

When the American tanks finally started encountering German armour en masse following Normandy breakout , poor German tactics and other issues meant the Sherman (as well as tank destroyers ala M18 or M36) dominated the Panthers, Panzer IVs and various Jagdpanzers assigned to the ill conceived Panzer Brigades.

And note after Bulge, most German tanks were withdrawn from western front to fight the Soviets. Tank on tank again became very rare on western front in 1945.

Anyone remember Sicily or Salerno where the cruiser and battleship broadsides were used to break up german tank attacks.

Combined arms at its best.

And there's the rub.

The Sherman was a war winner because it was relatively cheap, easy to build, easy to maintain and was reasonably capable as a medium tank that fitted the American doctrine of war and fitted well into the concept of combined arms and suitable for both defence and offence.

Panther on the other hand had a great gun and great frontal armour but was an expensive manufacturing disaster, was mechanically unreliable and difficult to maintain.

Panther fitted poorly into offensive operations because of weak side armour, slow gun traverse and inneffective targeting, that really long gun (which gave it poorer HE performance and was difficult to target on the move), had poor range (especially as some drive train components had poor lifespans), and was too heavy for many bridges.

And German deterioration in terms of combined arms meant it was often squandered by the time it entered service en masse.

I once read the Panther was really a turreted tank destroyer much like a Firefly.

The Panzer IV was in many ways a better tank and save the gun even it wasn't as good as a Sherman or later T-34.

Oh and finally, wargamers obsess on tank-on-tank warfare cause it's sexy.

Even in the desert and steppe wars which were the heyday of tanks, tank on tank wasn't as important as ATG v tank.

Indeed nearly every German armoured assault was supported by a Pak front whose job was to neutralise enemy armour so the Panzers could punch through without issues and preserve their fighting force.

Guderian said a tank's engine is as important a weapon as its main gun.

The Panzers success's in 1941-43 were based on this.

Risking tanks in tank v tank combat means losing combat capability to exploit breakthroughs and exploiting breakthroughs is how you win wars!

You don't smash France in 5 weeks if you're engaging in unsupported tank v tank warfare even if your tanks are superior.

Thus the combined armed divisions equipped with Panzer II, 37mm Panzer IIIs and Panzer 38(t)s backed by ATGs, infantry, recce and artillery as well as airpower did far better than the Panther heavy units of late war when the Panzer units were running low on infantry, artillery and had started to unravel from a combined arms approach (eg recce units shrunk and usually used as combat not recce forces).

arealdeadone,
Well said. The Panther was developed as a breakthrough tank (based on weight actually a heavy tank) which never accomplished any worthwhile breakthroughs. Ideally, in an assault, its flanks would be covered so put the armor on the front where you'll need it. It was not designed as a defensive weapon.

Regarding the failed Panzer Brigades, I think the German high command put new crews in the Panthers and experienced crews in Panzer IV's thinking it gave the new crews an advantage.

Ideally, in the defense, you use your anti-tank guns, terrain, artillery, and obstacles to delay and attrite enemy armor and separate their infantry from the armor. You save your mobile units/tanks for a counterattack. That's not fair or sexy.

mkenny,
Thanks. I recall reading the same thing but when checking I only found the reference I posted. IIRC the demo charge on the Tiger was attached under the center of the hull roof.

People need to remember the Sherman was a pre-war design and better than the German Panzer III pre-war design too.

Regarding the 5 Shermans to 1 Panther, I'm not sure how people are interpreting it or what the statement was supposed to communicate. The US didn't deploy single tanks, they operated in at least platoon strength of 4-6 tanks. It was not uncommon for the Germans to spread out in a defensive line that only one would be engaged. So an engagement could be 5-1 at the start and it would rarely be 1:1. I think depending on the terrain and range an ambushing Panther would get multiple kills, especially if it was not spotted immediately.

This gives some historic results about who fired first and how important it really is:

Wolfhag

IIRC the demo charge on the Tiger was attached under the center of the hull roof.

One charge in the engine which would flatten the turret bin upwards or blow it clean off. One charge in the gun breach and the third at the front LH corner of the hull which would buckle the roof upwards. The charges were stowed and then placed in those 3 positions when the decision to destroy the tank was made.

Wolfhag,

Good graph. What period does it relate to? And I assume it's Americans only?

In any case the defender will probably always fire first as they get to be in a prepared position and probably with well sighted approaches.

Attack is inherently more risky than defense.

It's why indeed a single machine gun team of 3-4 men can stop a whole company of infantry (and why I never buy into those "amazing – 100 guys stops 1000" stories because those 100 guys are probably far better situated than the 1000 mugs attacking them).

Note also with Normandy in US sector at least, the hedgerows really limited tanks in attack to very predictable routes which would increase losses.

arealdeadone,
From this book:
link

Wolfhag

Thanks.

Casualty rates for Panthers are really bad for the Germans:

M4 v Panther

M4 losses – 21
Panther losses – 69

TD v Panther
TD losses – 3
Panther losses – 22

Though Germans were attacking and didn't bother with such "luxuries" like recce or artillery preparation and lacked ATGs and infantry.

What's interesting is in 5 engagements the M4s were attacking and they suffered 2 casualties compared to 12 Panther losses. The Americans outnumbered the Panthers BUT more critically they got to fire first.

Also Panthers only fired first against M4s 4 times out of 30 engagements in which case they accounted for 9 Shermans and lost 3 Panthers.

Goes to show two things:

1. Advantage of defending over attacking
2. American awareness and target acquisition was far superior to the Germans.

I think Leadjunky question was more about armor penetration and maneuvering to get a hit. IIRC Fireball Forward uses a random card draw for activations with one side potentially getting 2 or was it 3 activations before their opponent. I'm not sure how that would translate into a tactical advantage the Sherman or Panther might have.

The causality rates are interesting but they don't reflect the role smoke, WP, and artillery/mortars might have played. If a German tank was caught in a medium mortar barrage it would most likely relocate. The US 4.2" mortar used mostly smoke and WP. Once you get the German tanks turning tail and running it's a pretty easy task for a Sherman to hunt them down and kill them.

Wolfhag

Yes. I think you must use combined arms to best deal with German armor and gun advantage. Indirect fire, smoke, maneuver, and infantry AT, balances the Sherman's disadvantage in a strait up tank duel. I guess I will have to keep that in mind with scenario design. I have mainly played Eastern Front games where the terrain density is less and there seemed to be a reliance on larger vehicle formations.

Does leave the question of why so many Shermans were always taken out?

Because they were so ubiquitous. ALL US medium tanks in NW Europe were Shermans. The majority of Commonwealth and allied medium tanks in NW Europe were Shermans. For example 21st Army Group on the eve of D-Day reported the following:
Cromwells 451
Churchills 856
Shermans 2213

So chances are if you saw a knocked out allied tank it would be a Sherman if nothing else due to their numbers.

Hi Leadjunky
You might be interested in the following document:
"The 76mm Gun M1A1 and M1A2: an Analysis of U.S. Anti-Tank Capabilities during World War II"

Go here – PDF link

- – -

I also suggest that you consider obtaining a copy of "United States vs German Equipment" by Isaac White. It is (IMO) a valuable resource in terms of getting candid assessments of German tanks from the US tanker "end-user" community.

The book is out of print and Amazon is out of stock. As a consequence, asking prices on the used book market are STUPID. But keep an eye out and grab a copy when and if opportunity presents. You won't be disappointed. Below is a brief description of the contents and organization of the book, taken from an Amazon review -

"US vs. German Equipment by Major General Isaac D. White was a raw military report originally prepared for General Dwight D. Eisenhower in March, 1945, of the state of US and German equipment, when the US knew it was going to win the war, but was equally cognizant that it had severe problems with the quality of its tanks versus the German tanks; and it reads like that. The study is filled with first-hand accounts of encounters during the war and I found it very easy to read cover to cover. However, the reader may want to flip to a random page and read the historical treasures. These may not be necessarily pleasant ones to read though. Nevertheless, United States vs. German Equipment report is full of historical gems.

United States vs. German Equipment is published by Merriam Press and printed on high quality half glossy paper in 23.2 cm x 15.4 cm soft cover/paperback format, which is quite easy to read. It has total of 168 pages and over 100 black/white photographs. The book was published already in 1988 by Merriam Press and it is a great resource as primary information regarding the US and German equipment.

The structure of the report is broken down into seven (7) parts. Let's walk shortly through the detailed contents of the report:

1. Publisher's Note
2. Introduction, which has several letters exchanged between Generals White and Eisenhower discussing the report
3. Digest of Opinions of Tank Officers and Crews of 66th and 67th Armored Regiments for which Brigadier General J.H. Collier provides a brief overview
4. Comparison of United States Equipment with Similar German Equipment from tanks and halftracks to clothing, written by Colonels and Lieutenant Colonels of the 2nd Armored Division. This part includes a comparison table between T26E1 (M26), Mark V (Panther), Mark VI new type (King Tiger) tanks and M36 TD. Furthermore, there are series of questions and answers, mostly focused on the M36 tank destroyer
5. Personal Convictions of Individual Officers and Enlisted Men of the 2nd Armored Division as to Comparison of German versus American Armor and Equipment, written by men ranging from privates to a major and are personal accounts of their experiences using US equipment against the Germans. This is the longest part at 76 pages
6. Characteristics of the German Mark V tank, i.e. Panther tank
7. Photographs, a series of photographs illustrating various pieces of equipment – mostly tanks."

B

Leadjunky,
Panzer War has a good gunnery system to use with Fireball Forward and it's free.
panzer-war.com

Wolfhag