Rear Shot of a Ausf G at Koblinz:
Photo of one of five Panthers Ko’d by a single Sherman Firefly under the command of a Sgt Harris of the 4th/7th Dragoon Guards at Lingevres on the 14th June 1944.
In Benton Cooper’s book “Death Traps” he stated that the Tank School at Ft Knox was closed in early 1944. They replaced their losses by going staright to the boats and pulling footsoldiers out and making them “instant” tankers…most of which died quickly. This was reminicent of what happened in WWI in the air corps. New pilots, or tankers in this case did not get time to learn and died quickly because of it.
The extent of losses is reflected by the statistics he provided, his unit received over 400% loss rate in tanks.
In the new book I’m reading the author stated that once the new Pershings came out they did not worry so much about German tanks or anti-tank guns. They would charge around corners and stamp out anything that was in their way, before they would have an infantryman peer around the corner to be sure a Pak75 or a Panzer wasn’t waiting for them.
He also stated that the Sherman was doing better since it was up-gunned to 76MM and Patton allowed the crews to “up-armor” their tanks with salvaged steel plate and sandbags, which he said Patton had not let them do before. His reason (Patton’s as told by the author) was that the extra armor would have bogged down the manouverabilty of the Sherman, but with the new suspension and wider footprint this was no longer a problem.
Panther Ausf A “225” from the I.Abteilung Panzerregiment 6 then attached as I.Abteilung to Panzerregiment 130.This is a view from the Church where a Sherman got knocked out.
The Panther weighed about as much as the IS-2. Do people feel that it was a match for this tank? The T34 was much lighter.
The Panther was a match for both russian designs, the JS-2 was better as breaktrough tank and supporting infantry however. But the Panther was never designed as a breaktrough or infantry support tank, the task of the Panther was to engage and destroy heavily armored vehicles at ranges up to 1500 meters, in that work it was excellent.
Yes the American and allied troops suffered because of a gap between the ability of existing capability (the Sherman) to fulfil the needs of the combat situation (countering heavy German tanks) before new capability (the Pershing) could be fielded. However the story of the Sherman isn’t anything special, unusual, or suprising. The Germans, Soviets, and British were all equally prone to exactly the same kind of gaps, and those gaps lasted just as long–if not longer–for the other powers as they did for the Americans.
It’s real simple–2 rules explain all of armor development in WWII. Armies don’t field new tanks until they run into something that decisively outclasses what they have already. A nation can work with a technology for a long time without deploying it. Look at how long the Germans spent working on heavy tank technology. It isn’t until a need becomes apparent that the tecnology is pushed into a production ready form. Once this process begins, it takes about a year and a half to get the new tank into battle. Part of this comes down to indecision and political wrangling, part to development time.
The US Army didn’t get an opportunity for a butt-kicking early on, but those suffered by their allies in 1939 and 1940 spurred the development that eventually led to first the M3 Grant/Lee and then the M4 Sherman. The final decision on what design to go with was made in early 1940 but the M4 didn’t enter production until late 1941.
US Sherman Development
Indecision time : not much
Development time : M2-M3-M4=about 2 years starting in late 1939/Sherman alone=1.5 years
Bureaucratic wrangling : not much
The Russians got their butts handed to them in the Winter War with Finnland, so they figured out they needed something better. They already were developing the KV so they put it into production and started work on the T-34. From winter of 39-40, until the T-34 began entering production was about a year and a half–less if you count from the first produced, almost exactly if you count when the serious teething problems were worked out.
Soviet T-34 Development
Indecision time : not much
Development time : Model 1940=1.25 years/Model 1941=1.5 years
Bureaucratic wrangling : lots
The Germans ran into Matildas and the various French heavies in the low countries and France which were impervious to the guns on any German tank and could only be destroyed by 88mm guns or air attack. Eventually they figured it was time to get serious about a heavier tank, and one which would actually accomplish something rather than just getting stuck in the mud like the ones sent to Norway. The decision wasn’t made until early 1941 however, and the Tiger was in production by mid 42, though the first “production” models were prototypes getting shakedowns in combat conditions and performing poorly as a result. It was late 42 before most of the bugs were worked out, while the improved models of Panzer III and IV were coming online over roughly the same period.
German Tiger, PzIVF2, & PzIIIJ
Indecision time : 1 year
Development time : early Tigers=1.25 years/good Tigers=1.5 years
Bureaucratic wrangling : PzIII=7 months. Hitler ordered PzIIIs be equipped with 50mm/L60 guns in fall of 1940, but the Ordinance Department didn’t start to comply until Spring of 1941, but by then it was too late to have many of the tanks ready for Barbarossa.
Total gap (Tiger) : 2.25-2.5 years
The T-34 went through a similar development cycle. Although Tigers and improved Panzerkampfwagen IV tanks began to be fielded in 1942, a serious decision to upgrade the T-34’s armament didn’t take place until Kursk, a year later. The T-34-85 didn’t enter production until early 1944.
Soviet T-34-85
Indecision time : 1 year
Development time : 9 months
Total gap : 1.75 years
American forces didn’t encounter the Tiger in battle until mid 1943. Incidently this was about the same time that the 76mm gunned T23 which would contribute the turret for 76mm armed Shermans reached limited production status. However production of the upgunned sherman didn’t begin until the beginning of 1944.
Meanwhile the Pershing didn’t reach combat forces until early 1945, but could have reached the front as early as October 1944.
Us M4 Sherman w/76mm gun
Indecision time : 8 months
Development time : nil
Bureaucratic wrangling : lots
Total gap : 8 months
US M26 Pershing
Indecision time : nil, it was already in development
Development time : 1.5 years after after encounter of Tiger in N. African and not counting –
Bureaucratic wrangling : 4 months - McNair delayed production status by that long, causing the final deployment in early 1945 instead of late 1944.
Total gap : nearly 2 years
The Sherman gets the place it does in history because A) it was American and Americans love to complain and B) The gap between capability and new development happened to coincide with practically the entire war in western europe–which lasted only a year.
Finally, German tanks weren’t the pinnacle of their era of tank development. They were simply part of a cycle of development, a tank-tech teeter-toter, if you will. Germany ended with the best tanks because the war didn’t continue long enough for the cycle to continue until their designs were matched or outclassed by allied designs such as the so-called Super Pershing and the T-44-100.
i would say the panther it had the perfect combpnation of speed firepower and armour
great weapon of war
Sorry man but you must be joking somehow with Panther being the best tank in ww2 , i think that kind of tank was knocked out so many times from the russian T-34 ( well maybe because of the numbers of the russian armor ) that it hardly can be said it was the best tank . I prefer the Tiger , for it’s time it was the best tank ever knocking out T-34’s from distance as well the shermans and with incredible armor but Germany wasn’t able to produce many numbers of it so not a chance latter in the war.
i choose the tiger I unpenetratable front armour and the Combination of 88mm gun and highly accurate sights, because tigers were reported to knock out enemy tanks at record ranges…the ranges from which any of the allied or soviet tank couldnt aim…
+it had a morale boost for the crew and a morale destruction for enemy tankers…most allied tankers would evade on facing a tiger, the allied tankers thought that the best way to confront a tiger was to confront it with a group of tanks…
and yeah…did we forget something???
perhaps Koeningstiger?
Well as some of the baled out crew are running TOWARDS the burning Sherman I think we assume that it was not a simple case of flight.
Certainly a most humane reaction but what I keep asking myself is: How would/did the US Army appraise this reaction of one of its crews, leaving a valuable tank in a situation like this?
I would think they would react the same way the Officers of sSS PzAbt 101 woukld have if they knew one of their Tiger crews abandoned a perfectly good Tiger near Fontenay-Le-Pesnel on 27.6.44. The Tiger came face to face with several Shermans. The Shermans fired hitting it several times but did not penetrate it. However the Tiger crew decided not to wait any longer and fled the tank.
Well,since they are running in all directions all over the place YOU assume that. You, Sir, got an annoying habbit of doubting any german efforts and glorifying all allied…and this is not the first forum this habbit is uncovered.
I would think they would react the same way the Officers of sSS PzAbt 101 woukld have if they knew one of their Tiger crews abandoned a perfectly good Tiger near Fontenay-Le-Pesnel on 27.6.44. The Tiger came face to face with several Shermans. The Shermans fired hitting it several times but did not penetrate it. However the Tiger crew decided not to wait any longer and fled the tank.
Tank vets report that even if a shell doesn’t penetrate your tank, the impact is hard enough to cause a serious concussion. Now try to imagine several 75 or 76,2mm shells drumming on your tank. It’s quite a difference to abandon a tank hit several times or not being shot at yet…
Sorry, at least with my computer the link leeds into the eternal nothingness.
I assume nothing. I happened to have seen the film of this incident. In the following link it clearly states that the other Sherman crew went to help the injured crewman
http://www.anicursor.com/colpicwar2.html
More:
http://www.3ad.com/history/wwll/feature.pages/bates.index.htm
You, Sir, got an annoying habbit of doubting any german efforts and glorifying all allied…and this is not the first forum this habbit is uncovered.
I have a habit of asking someone who claims the crew were ‘running away’ why one of the crew is running TOWARDS the burning tank.
Perhaps you should be questioning why you assumed they were fleeing?
You, Sir, got an annoying habbit of doubting any Allied efforts and glorifying all German…
Tank vets report that even if a shell doesn’t penetrate your tank, the impact is hard enough to cause a serious concussion. Now try to imagine several 75 or 76,2mm shells drumming on your tank. It’s quite a difference to abandon a tank hit several times or not being shot at yet…
75 mm, this was in June 1944. This is just another excuse to explain away why a much vaunted Tiger tank crew decided to abandon a tank in battle. In the case of the Tiger it can not be disputed that they crew ran away. In the Cologne Sherman the crew did not flee the scene.
Here is ‘114’. As you can see captured intact and in full working order (one of 3 lost in one day)
http://www.network54.com/Forum/619044/thread/1222671772/Tiger+114+of+sSS101%2C+unknown+marking
In After The Battle Magazine No. 104, Fred Ramage (one of the photographers present at the scene when the Sherman was hit) states:
" One man from the other American tank ran to help; another to get an ambulance"
That still left 3 men in the other Sherman.
Note in the following pics how the undamaged Sherman has gone in the second photo which was taken shortly after the tank was hit (in the words of the photographer who was there at the time). It was moved which would be impossible if all the crew ‘ran away’
An interesting modern day attempt to re-write history.
http://www.network54.com/Forum/47208/thread/1209905159/Cologne+tank-fight+(Pershing+vs-+Panther)-+A+fake-
To use your words: I assume nothing and I wasn’t claiming either. As I wrote in my original post regarding the subject: the G.I.'s abandoning their tank is not solely my impression but the version about the incident from a so-called print medium (“Frontstadt Köln” by Taylor/Niessen). Furthermore I called a reaction like this rather humane.
You, Sir, got an annoying habbit of doubting any Allied efforts and glorifying all German…
Glad, you liked the sentence. However I acclaim (and respect) western allied efforts of WW2, at least while looking out of my window I can’t see any swastika-banners flying or SA parades marching by…
75 mm, this was in June 1944.
Sorry 'bout that, since your link didn’t work I was not aware of time and place of your parable.
Here is ‘114’. As you can see captured intact and in full working order.
Actually the tank looks far from being in full working order or better “running order” as the link says. Just watch the hits on the gun mantlet and around the driver’s MG. So -spoken in your sense- the whole of the story rests on the unsubstantiated claims by british soldiers (or just yours?).
An interesting modern day attempt to re-write history.
I read about this a couple of months ago. Maybe an inconvenient attempt to correct history…
Sorry man but you must be joking somehow with Panther being the best tank in ww2 , i think that kind of tank was knocked out so many times from the russian T-34
And what probes that? The T-34 was also knocked out several times by german armored vehicles.
You going to need better arguments.
well when i compare tanks i talk about one on one and i know for a fact that you would be better off in the later panthers then a tiger considering if ur in a tiger its probably in a matenance shop
maybe but tell me in what the panther was so good ? As for the arguments well the Allies and the Soviets won the war which means that the german dream of the technical superiority was later lost in the war with tanks like Elephant , Panther and so on they wasn’t simply so good to stop the T-34 and IS-2 for example , unlike in the early years 40-42 .
The panther was rarely in matenance shop ? It runned smoothly all the time ? the tracks rarely got broken ? the armor was superior to the russian and US ?