"Please don’t use the “5 M4s = 1 Panther” myth." Topic

"So on most WW2 Tank discussion the supposed fact that it takes 5 M4s to kill 1 Panther(sometimes it is the Tiger, Tiger II, or every Panzer, but I will focus on the Panther) or a Panther is 5 times as effective as the M4 always seems to pop up. I believe I have tracked down the source of this claim which didn't surprise me at all. In Belton Cooper's Death Traps on page 175 he claims "The German tanks had a qualitative superiority of as much as five to one over our M4 Sherman." This has been repeated everywhere from internet forums to the "History" Channel. Well I must say that even though Cooper's war experience detailed in Death Traps is a good read, his claims go well beyond his understanding and have little, if any, supporting evidence.

One of my favorite quotes in Death Traps which shows Cooper's ignorance is the following: "To make matters worse, the committee was apparently dominated by Yankees, who decided to name this tank(M3) the ‘Grant' , after the Union general and later president. The Southerners were aggravated further by the later naming of the M4, known as the ‘Sherman', after the Union general who burned a path through Georgia." This tid-bit is disgustingly stupid and I can't help feeling slightly angry at Cooper, by the way I am a Georgian. Also It was the British who named the M3 and M4, not "Yankees" for those who don't know…"

Main page

link

Armand

Part of the problem is that Cooper's book was based on the fifty-year-old memories of a rear-area ordnance depot staffer.
If the German superiority had been that great (assuming it existed at all) the breakout from Normandy never would have happened.

How many Shermans to Kill a Panther? Five. 4 to be sacrificial decoys while the 5th gets around the flanks.

How many Panthers to Kill a Sherman? Five. 4 to provide spare parts and 1 to do the shooting.

Obviously apocryphal, but wargamers and military historians often forget logistics and reliability.

I would say that Mr Cooper is full of beans. The Sherman had its flaws most certainly, but it was on the field in quantity and it ran. The assortment of German tanks, well………

On 9th June 1944 Gordie Henry's Sherman Firefly destroyed five 12th SS Panthers in four minutes. Other Shermans – 75s and Fireflies – were credited with two more. There were no losses among the Canadians. Described in Marc Milner's book 'Stopping the Panzers' I wonder if this incident is ever used to show that Panthers were worth one fifth of a Sherman?!

Also quality of crew must come into question, especially as the War wore on. Both sides lost experienced veteran personnel, but the Allies were able to train and replace in a more efficient way. For the Germans, good crews became more and more irreplaceable.

I always liked the story of how US Shermans dealt with Panthers in Alsace (if not elsewhere) which showed the disparity in quality of crews. Apparently, the SOP was to fire a smoke round at the Panther which, in many cases, caused the inexperienced crew to abandon their tank thinking it was on fire. Quite often the abandoned tank just sat there with the engine running…

Mr Cooper's book has been debunked here a number of times. There was one regular here who took just several paragraphs from one page and pointed out an appalling number of errors in just that small sample.

Also quality of crew must come into question

Didn't the Germans tend to put their green crews in the Panthers and their veterans in their he Pz IVs? I think to give the new guys a better chance of becoming veterans. So it wasn't the Panthers a Sherman crew had to worry about, it would have been the veteran crews in the Pz IVs.

Or am I mis-remembering something I read?

It's basic tactics
Attacked should always have at least a three to one advantage
Preferably five to one.

Mserafin,
I think you are correct although I read it was for the new Panther Brigades that got defeated at Arracourt and elsewhere.

By late 1944 I think the Allies had a real crew advantage overall.

Wolfhag

In 1946, the U.S. Army's Ballistic Research Lab conducted a study on the engagements fought by the 3rd and 4rd Armored Divisions during 1944. The study examined 30 armor-on-armor engagements and found that the Sherman had a 3.6-to-1 kill ratio against the German Panther. While part of the Sherman's success is due to its new armor and gun, other wartime factors must be taken into account.

Wolfhag

Late war German armour plate often much inferior to mid war. Lack of material additives could make it brittle and prone to shattering on an impact.
Crew training and, to an extent, experience was certainly a major factor be late war.

I, too, have 'heard' of veteran crews being in PzIV and newbies in Panthers. Not sure! But vets may have operated PzIV for a long time… knowing capability and maintenance inside out. Panthers BIGGER, heavier and more difficult to maintain… esp. suspension issues. Excellent gun platform! But… if it won't drive? Possibly, fuel consumption may have been a problem… but I have absolutely no idea about that. Others will know.

Thanks.

Armand

You only need one M4 Sherman (with a radio) and one P-47 (with rockets) to take care of one Panther… ;-)

Love the "spare parts" joke – haven't heard that one before :)

From the other side of the hill:-

Captured Panzer crewman to US interrogator "1 Panther is worth 10 Shermans; trouble is you always have 11!"

Another statement to the effect that the Americans never advanced under fire: they just took cover and called up massive artillery barrages and CAS. Who cares who has the best tank in the face of that? Not so sure about rockets, Zephyr1; didn't I read a report from after Falaise that virtually no tanks had been hit – let alone destroyed – by rockets?

I'll also take Belton Cooper's assessment of 1st-hand eye witness testimony – with all it's inherent flaws and prejudices from now 80 years ago – over some bloke on a WoT blog (who by the way also fails to provide much evidence, and displays plenty of bias and pre-formed opinion himself).

If Allied tanks were so good – and they were definitely plentiful – AND they had air superiority AND huge artillery advantages AND an enviable logistical tail, how come it took them 6 months to get to Germany against divisions that had been bled white in the east, tanks that you would be lucky to get to start and would break down every couple of miles, if they weren't still dependent on horse drawn carts and bicycles that is, when the Germans did the same distance in 6 WEEKS in 1940, using clapped out Pz I & Pz II with most of the rest being obsolete Czech light tanks, beating the Brits, the French, the Belgians and the Dutch along the way, PLUS a little diversion to take Denmark and Norway? It must have been the generals' fault (that should start it :):)!)

Kev

I read (well, listened to the audiobook) "Spearhead" by Makos. Several Sherman crewmen were interviewed for the book. In their opinion, the Panther was far superior to the Sherman and they had a very fatalistic perspective when having to face them in combat. That was opinion of those who were there, and the opinion was widely held.

The German crewman interviewed said the use of WP against German armor was successful not because the crews thought their tanks were on fire, but because the ventilation systems would ingest the WP and the crews couldn't breath inside the tanks, forcing them to bail.

I reviewed the book here, link

AND an enviable logistical tail, how come it took them 6 months to get to Germany

Because their logistical tail was far from enviable. Yes, the Allies shipped a lot of material to France. But getting it to the front line proved more difficult, especially as they moved away from Normandy. If their logistics were so enviable, why did Eisenhower have to choose between supplying Montgomery and Patton in Sept 44? The Allied logistical tail got too long to keep everyone in supply at once. Combine this with the Allies' strategy of pushing on a broad front instead of a few select points (like the Germans did in 1940) and it's easy to understand why it took six months.

That, and the fact that the Germans in 1944 were much better led than the French time in 1940.

If Allied tanks were so good – and they were definitely plentiful – AND they had air superiority AND huge artillery advantages AND an enviable logistical tail, how come it took them 6 months to get to Germany

The pre D-Day planning assumed it would take 11 months to reach the Rhine and that victory would come in July 1945. They got there before that so it was a lot easier than they had expected.

In their opinion, the Panther was far superior to the Sherman and they had a very fatalistic perspective when having to face them in combat.

Data collected by 'those that were there' showed that 75% of the hits on a Panther penetrated. An oft overlooked fact.

I'll also take Belton Cooper's assessment of 1st-hand eye witness testimony – with all it's inherent flaws and prejudices from now 80 years ago –

That would be a mistake. There are a good number of very basic errors of fact in his book.

Data collected by 'those that were there' showed that 75% of the hits on a Panther penetrated. An oft overlooked fact.

That was small sample of 22 vehicles, right? Where most of the penetrations were from the side or rear? Or does my memory fail me?

Where most of the penetrations were from the side or rear? Or does my memory fail me?

An invulnerable glacis is only of use if every shot hits it. In real life enemy fire comes from all directions and of the hits counted on the knocked-out Panthers 75% of them had penetrated. Claims that 75mm Shermans had no chance of knocking out a Panther are clearly false. Note the high % of penetrations so they most definitely were not 'lucky shots'

An invulnerable glacis is only of use if every shot hits it.

Incorrect. It makes thing more difficult for the enemy if they are forced to avoid frontal shots and seek out side or rear shots.

Incorrect. It makes thing more difficult for the enemy if they are forced to avoid frontal shots and seek out side or rear shots.

I tried to caution against thinking that it was deliberate to try flank shots by pointing out that it was found that only a third of strikes come from the front on ANY tank. Thus just by normal chance 66% of strikes on a Panther would be on the sides and rear and have a high penetration rate.
Having a invulnerable front (which it never had) does not make you 100% invulnerable. At most it would make you 33% invulnerable.
I have never read an account where an Allied tank crew facing a Panther declined to fire because it could only be a frontal shot.

I tried to caution against thinking that it was deliberate to try flank shots by pointing out that it was found that only a third of strikes come from the front on ANY tank.

See the Comment on Table X subsections and the Comment on Table XI subsections, on pages 405 and 406 respectively, of:

PDF link

PS Thanks again for posting the much more legible version of this study than the one I was previously using:

TMP link

@ IHG – nice balanced post. As a researcher (not a reviewer :) ) I always ask "why is this person telling me this?" Often the evidence is not wrong – simply selective. I've also heard that the abandoning tanks due to the WP thing was because they thought the US was using chemical weapons. Remember the US troops were under threat of arrest if they caused a "gas panic" due to the retreats in Normandy when someone started shouting "gas, gas!" It was a different world.
@ Mserafin – you make my points for me. Surely allocating supplies to one of the two super-egos is an embarrassment of riches. If your logistics (not problem free, but better/more plentiful than any other combatant by far) can't support a broad front strategy, why choose it? And if attacking a few selective points wins your war more quickly (and you don't need all those troops and supplies to do that), why on earth would you choose a "broad front strategy" in the first place? Poor leadership?
@ Wolfhag – if the Sherman had a 7:2+ kill rate against the Panther, and the Germans put veteran crews in Pz IVs, why is the record not replete with US tank crews Sh***ing themselves when they come up against the dear ol' Pz IV? I'd like a source for this one.

Kev

Basically, any tank would face oponent with its best protection.
It would then be hit by whatever could be thrown at it… esp. from vehicles on 'Overwatch'. HE or WP might not penetrate, but had good chance of taking it out due to crew panic/shock. Numerical superiority and speed/agility might allow flanking. Tank comander would very likely, pull back… unless stupid/lacking experience/indoctrinated. Forget movie 'Fury'!
Some 'tank killers' were very good at 'stalking' into best firing position. Have read about Firefly commanders who would recce on foot and then bring up tank.
There were also the instances of advancing columns of Panthers being hit and destroyed from ambush… probably hits from flank. Who would want to be a Tanker when a squaddie could jump into a ditch?

Who would want to be a Tanker when a squaddie could jump into a ditch?

The worst survival rates were for Infantry and by a wide margin. In comparison a tanker had it easy. A significant proportion of tank crew KIA occurred after they had left the (safety of)their damaged tank.

But… how many squaddies burned? :(
Hollywood is not a good guide.
Most tank crew losses were snipers or getting shot after bailiing.

I guess no one here is putting much stock into Barkmann's Corner.

Actually, a lot of the above is applicable.

The Panther was largely invulnerable to the early 75mm L40 gun of the basic Sherman. 76.2mm guns were pretty rare in Shermans during the D-Day landings, though the Tank Destroyers did have them (many Shermans eventually got the 3" gun, as did our TDs too.

With American/Allied tanks on the offensive, they'd be subject to defensive fire from well hidden, or even dug-in Panthers and other tanks/TDs. Therefore, one or more Shermans or other allied tanks and TDs might be knocked out before they even knew they were under attack.

Same for the Panthers when they were on offense vs. Allied armor and A/T Guns.

Try attacking a Panther or Panther as above with a Sherman platoon and see how that works out, especially if the German crews gets the first shot or shots off, sight unseen.

The 75mm L40 won't usually penetrate the front of a Sherman at any range.

The 76.2mm can only penetrate the front of the Panther from close range, shot traps excluded for both examples.

Try using your favorite WWII rules pitting Panthers vs. Shermans (75mm and 76mm), and see how it works out.

I guess no one here is putting much stock into Barkmann's Corner.

Try finding an account of that action by Barkmann.

crashtestdummy,
@ Wolfhag – if the Sherman had a 7:2+ kill rate against the Panther, and the Germans put veteran crews in Pz IVs, why is the record not replete with US tank crews Sh***ing themselves when they come up against the dear ol' Pz IV? I'd like a source for this one.

The source is from two US armored regiments (not mine) and I'm sure other units had a different experience. I'm not sure what they included as destroyed which is why I take all of these kill ratios claims with a healthy grain of salt. If a Panther broke down and the crew blew it up does that count as a kill? If you overrun a tank repair depot and capture 20 Panthers does that count?

Typically you don't know the training level of your opponent. The German Panzer Brigade turned out to be a very bad idea for a number of reasons like lack of recon, combined arms, and inexperience. At Arracourt they were surprised, flanked, and ambushed. There was not much any WWII tank could have overcome in that scenario.

Wolfhag

Remember, the Germans classified the Panther as a medium tank because of the gun caliber, not the weight like other countries. Sherman was 33 tons, the IS-2 was 46 tons, and Panther was about 44 tons. So overall it's a pretty unfair comparison. The Panther was designed to be used in assaults, the Sherman was a general-purpose medium tank. Any design is going to be about the mission and trade-offs.

A more equal comparison might be the Sherman Jumbo armed with a 76mm gun at 38 tons.

Wolfhag

@ mkenny

Who has made "Claims that 75mm Shermans had no chance of knocking out a Panther"?

Then there is the tactical situation and who shoots first:

PDF link

Read it and come to your own conclusion.

The defender is normally going to have the advantage for the first shot. However, in NWE if a Panther D model (first version) is flanked and surprised by a single Sherman under 600m the Panther is basically dead meat. The turret traverse on the D model was about 6 degrees per second and a neutral turn (pivot) was about 10 degrees per second. The Sherman traverse was 25 degrees per second and the TC controlled it lining up a shot within seconds. The Sherman gunner has a roof periscope making it easy to acquire the target while the Panther gunner is looking through a 15-degree FOV gunsight.

The Panther's side armor is 40-45mm so even somewhat vulnerable to an HE round. The Sherman could most likely get off 3-4 rounds before the Panther fires even once.

I think the only time the Germans used the Panther ideally in an assault was at Kursk and the ones that did not self-immolate did pretty well. The same goes for the Tiger I.

In an assault with a good flank cover, you don't need the 25-degree-per-second traverse. An offensive was designed to break through the enemy lines in a few days and be exploited by Panzer III and IV. Mechanical reliability could be secondary since they are not used in the exploitation and you can have repair depots established without fear of them being overrun and be ready for the next assault. I think these were trade-offs the Germans were willing to make. Using them on the defensive in NWE while outnumbered was not how they were intended to be used.

The Shermans were intended to be used in combined arms combat so use the artillery and WP smoke screens whenever you can – don't fight fair!

Wolfhag

The trouble with drawing inferences from destroyed tanks is that obviously there will be a bias in the raw data towards tank rounds penetrating. If there weren't, you'd have no data.

It's a bit like those statements by Napoleonic surgeons that they hardly ever saw bayonet wounds, therefore few soldiers were ever stabbed with a bayonet. Or indeed like those studies that found most bombers that returned damaged from air raids had damage to the tail, so the place to add more armour was the tail.

If most of the soldiers stabbed with a bayonet died of it, and most aircraft hit in places other than the tail did not return at all, bayonet wounds among injured soldiers and aircraft with damaged engines would both be rare, leading you to the wrong conclusion.

42 x 75mm rounds that penetrated Panthers out of 56 that hit, and that you find destroyed, does not equal 75% success rate. The missing data point is, were there (e.g.) another 22 Panthers hit by another 56 rounds of which none penetrated? The 75mm's actual success rate would then be not 75% but 37.5…

The trouble with drawing inferences from destroyed tanks is that obviously there will be a bias in the raw data towards tank rounds penetrating.

In the study, they recognize that there is a survivorship bias. See subsection 20(b) on page 405:

PDF link

Who has made "Claims that 75mm Shermans had no chance of knocking out a Panther"?

I am replying to statements like this :

The Panther was largely invulnerable to the early 75mm L40 gun of the basic Sherman.

Which, in light of the 75% penetration rate is palpably untrue.

On a side note I have never once seen anyone break down the survey of 45 knocked out Shermans (as in try and find excuses as to why it is an unreliable survey) which is THE most used source used to denigrate the Sherman. I bring up the survey done by the same people on the Panther and all of a sudden a ton of cautions and warnings are introduced to explain why it might be too harsh on the Panther.

42 x 75mm rounds that penetrated Panthers out of 56 that hit, and that you find destroyed, does not equal 75% success rate. The missing data point is,were there (e.g.) another 22 Panthers hit by another 56 rounds of which none penetrated? The 75mm's actual success rate would then be not 75% but 37.5…

Or we could go in a direction which I presume is not to your liking:

25 Panthers that were penetrated were hit in areas not critical to mobility and were able to be recovered or make it back to German lines and thus do not appear in the survey.

I leave you work out the improved penetration rate for that scenario.

Again, why the rush to excuse/explain away the Panther survey when the Sherman survey is (given its widespread use) accepted as definitive?

See "Operational Research in NW Europe: the Work of No. 2 Operational Research Section w/ 21st AG. Final Report Jun44-Jul45.

Page 207 -
"Report Number 17 – Analysis of German Tank Casualties, 6th June 1944 – 31st August 1944"
(Sections 20 through 23)

Here is the conclusion of the Team, as expressed in Section 20(a):

"The small success of our A.P. projectiles against the sloping glacis plate of the PzKw V is outstanding. It is felt to warrant the claim that this plate has proved itself to be adequate for a modern tank and that its qualities and advantages be taken fully into account in deciding future tank design."

Reading the rest of the a/m commentary (Sections 20-23) is recommended.

B

how come it took them 6 months to get to Germany

Can we put a stake in this one too?

The western allies and Patton's Third Army were not one and the same. By early September the U.S. First Army had liberated Namur, Liege and Luxembourg and had reached the German border. On September 13 von Schwerin 3 was contemplating surrendering Aachen. This was slightly more than 3 months after the Normandy landings and 6 weeks after Operation Cobra. We could also discuss British 2nd Army's advance to Antwerp and the U.S. 7th Army's advance from the landings on the French Riviera to Belfort Gap in less than a month.

See "Operational Research in NW Europe: the Work of No. 2 Operational Research Section w/ 21st AG. Final Report Jun44-Jul45.

Page 207 -
"Report Number 17 – Analysis of German Tank Casualties, 6th June 1944 – 31st August 1944"
(Sections 20 through 23)

Here is the conclusion of the Team, as expressed in Section 20(a

The numbering shows you are using a very bad copy of the report. This is the version as published in a book

link

The menu allows you to download everything or just the sections you want.

Your Page 207 is in 'Chapter 10 Tank Casualties'

My point on the invulnerability of the Panther to attack by the 75mm L40 gun of early Shermans related to attacks from the frontal arc of the Panther. From that angle, the Panther is very difficult, if not impossible to penetrate with the 75mm round, unless a shot ricochets off of the chin of the mantlet, down thru the top of the hull, or a shot hits the MG aperture, or driver view slot.

I imagine most Panthers killed by short-barreled Shermans were attacked from the flank or rear.

What's not clear is how many Panthers were abandoned by the Germans due to breakdown or lack of fuel, and then were subequently fired on and damaged/destroyed by Shermans coming upon them, just to make sure they were really dead/unmanned, or to test the penetrative capabilities of the allied tank guns of various calibers.

Crew quality has all sorts of effects.

I would suggest that crew quality was more significant than turret traverse speed.

One criticism I noticed of German tankers in a couple of accounts was they kept to roads even when attacking.
As a result they were predictable and exposed side armour unnecessarily.

This is down to inexperienced commanders and drivers.

Andy,
Crew quality would determine gaining any tactical advantage and situational awareness to get off the first shot. If you are advancing and want to halt fire you'd most likely have the driver turn into the target while decelerating. Then the gunner can acquire and fire with the minimal traverse.

However, if you are hull down, emplaced, or on a narrow road or trail you may not be able to pivot or turn and must traverse the turret. I've seen several pictures of destroyed tanks with turrets facing up to 180 degrees to the rear. This situation is what put the Panther D model in a poor tactical situation when flanked by Shermans or anyone else and the next Panther A model has a faster traverse.

Waiting in ambush it does not factor in.

What's not clear is how many Panthers were abandoned by the Germans due to breakdown or lack of fuel, and then were subequently fired on and damaged/destroyed by Shermans coming upon them, just to make sure they were really dead/unmanned, or to test the penetrative capabilities of the allied tank guns of various calibers.

If the crew set off a demolition charge in the tank it would be pretty obvious who destroyed it. But you bring up a valid point which makes coming to a conclusion on the data hard to define accurately.

I think it's difficult to determine how many rounds it took to knock out a tank. In the heat of combat, it was not unusual to keep firing at a target until you saw smoke or fire. A round may penetrate and start a fire that will engulf the target within 10 seconds but is unknown to the shooter so he continues to shoot.

I would not doubt that most Panthers that were knocked out by Sherman's short barrels were hit in the flanks. How the Shermans were able to achieve that is the big question for me.

The Sherman's advantages were in numbers, the ability to shoot first in a meeting engagement (not when ambushed), rate of fire, WP rounds, and the ability to call in artillery fairly quickly. Many situations better crews too. Hitting a tank turret with HE rounds has a slight chance of damage and may force a Panther to fall back. Every time you force a Panther to move there is a slight chance of a breakdown. Even calling in medium mortars on them will force them to move.

It's not just all about firepower and penetration.

Wolfhag

In one account by a Sherman tank commander he was not bothered too much by even tigers if they were spotted. The Sherman got a firing solution faster and fired rapidly and almost always outnumbered the Tiger's. His solution was to Fire HE and keep firing. The dust, noise and risk of secondary damage to sights etc. made them move off. Then they would call for some kit to take them out artillery or aircraft.
If you were a Brit the Firefly would take out a Panther or Tiger no problem whatever aspect.

OK, back to the OP … Oooh Armand, what have you started?!
TLDR – so here goes nothing.

Whilst I'd heard this "myth" before, I thought I remembered it from somewhere as a ratio of 4:1, which got me thinking …
So how do these "myths" come about? There is evidence of "Chinese Whispers" – even on the first page of this thread, and even in the OP itself. Cooper's claim of " … a qualitative superiority of as much as 5 to 1 over our M4 …" becomes "… it takes 5 M4s to kill 1 Panther …" evolving into (sorry Nick – I'm sure it was jocular) " … 4 to be sacrificial decoys …" within 3 posts! It only takes an anecdote such as Typhoon2's to make it to the glossy bit of a set of wargames rules, where thousands may read it, and it's set in stone for all time. Why would a wargamer do primary research when such "factoids" to impress yer mates can be gleaned with no effort whatsoever!?

Leaving aside the "History" Channel (a fair cop from my perspective; I mean, Sharpe's Rifles, seriously??), the article's author provides no real evidence, and just 1 source. The quotes from Death Traps may be accurate (I'll take his word for it, as I have no intention of re-reading it all for the purposes of this debate) and the stats he throws around may be true, but neither support – or debunk – the "myth".

The second para is pure character assassination and does nothing for the argument. Indeed analysis would indicate that "slightly angry" at a "disgustingly stupid" tid-bit is not just hyperbole, but mostly based on where he was born! I would also question his assertion that Cooper's claims go "well beyond his understanding": I am supposed to believe that a 21st century WoT armchair video warrior has a deeper understanding of all this than a contemporary, in-theatre, officer. Again, seriously!??

Lorza – Commanding the Red Army's Sherman Tanks – Part 1: Hunting with Borzois – describes the tactic. He was published in English in 1996, 2 years before Cooper. So that's probably where the 4:1 ratio comes from. However, following the logic of some posters to this thread, nothing he writes can be valid, as he's a commie, and the original manuscript was written in Stalin's Russia, so – as he must lying somewhere – everything he writes must be wrong … :) :)

The OP also seemed to have missed the entire point of Death Traps: Cooper's platform is that US tanker's lives were unnecessarily lost due to poor decision making at government, industrial and senior military levels, as they were forced to operate with a below-par tank in 1944. Nothing in the original article addresses these points. So much for understanding. Our article's author seems to have forgotten (if he ever knew) some fundamental research questions:-

Who is telling me this?

Why are they telling me this?

Then you can start your analysis.

Lots more points … but later :)
Kev

It is from 2013 and reflects its period. Apart from the fact its wrong Cooper did not start the (4:1/5:1/10:1 pick your preference) myth. It was well established by 2000 and as such was a basic tenet of all online WW2 Forums. Woe betide anyone who dared challenge it or ask it to be referenced. You would be relentlessly attacked by the fools who chanted 'all German kill claims are validated' and you could even get yourself a ban if you persisted in asking why the Emperor was naked. Times change and research has proved it wrong. Quite why anyone would think such an old, outdated and factually worthless blog entry was worthy of a link is beyond me.

Fair points all, Michael. I wonder where it did start, that it became such a basic tenet then? – I don't frequent many WW2 fora, nor intend to, so I'll take your word on that one. I quite like a challenge though, and the Emperor's New Clothes is one of my favourite analogies! :) The ultimate conclusion from the OP would therefore seem to be "Come on Armand – up your game, mate!" :)

Kev