Myths of American Armor (food for thought)

I put this here because it has nothing to do with the game.



Afterthoughts? (If you actually watched the entire 45ish minutes)

"Sherman bounced 75mm shells more often than not"

"American TD doctrine was strictly DEFENSIVE"

"Pershing sucks"

"17 pounder sucks" (well, he doesnt say that, but he points out its awful accuracy)

And this especially:

IL-2 and whatever other german ground attack plane were very effective because they were designed to kill armor. Typhoon, P47's etc were not quite so effective at all (numbers to show) because they were FIGHTERS

"Americans engaged only 3 Tiger I's. First time the shermans won. Second time the Pershing lost. Third time wasnt fair as it was in the process of being loaded onto a flatbed"

Also, no one called the m10 the wolverine, so the name randomly came out of somewhere XD

Very interesting, thanks for the post.

Interesting.

Nice video. I will allow myself to post link to forum thread of a fellow game with tanks that busts some more ww2 myths.

Funny, the Pershing was reported to outfight both the Panther and Tiger.

I put this here because it has nothing to do with the game.



Afterthoughts? (If you actually watched the entire 45ish minutes)

"Sherman bounced 75mm shells more often than not"

"American TD doctrine was strictly DEFENSIVE"

"Pershing sucks"

"17 pounder sucks" (well, he doesnt say that, but he points out its awful accuracy)

And this especially:

IL-2 and whatever other german ground attack plane were very effective because they were designed to kill armor. Typhoon, P47's etc were not quite so effective at all (numbers to show) because they were FIGHTERS

"Americans engaged only 3 Tiger I's. First time the shermans won. Second time the Pershing lost. Third time wasnt fair as it was in the process of being loaded onto a flatbed"

Also, no one called the m10 the wolverine, so the name randomly came out of somewhere XD

This was awesome!

Thanks!

You forgot to add other takeaways from this:

- The Shermans arriving by mid-44 were damn fine tanks that were well designed, extremely survivable, posed a real threat to Panthers, and were probably a superior tank at that point to any version of the PIV. (Late model M4 > late model P4)

- The US armored command was by no means brain-dead and was wise enough to say "No" to any sexy bit of kit that was designed.

- US tankers suffered some of the lowest rates of combat deaths of any nation in the European theater.

I haven't watched the video yet (since I'm at work) but will later.

I've read a lot of Steven Zaloga's work on his research of armor - probably not best to base most of my in-depth WW2 tank knowledge on one writer but I can only read so much and I like the way he writes.

I'd like t point out another myth that often gets overlooked about german/US armor that often gets overlooked. Most sources state that the Panther was the "best tank of WW2". In terms of armor/gun it was really good - for fighting other tanks. Mechanically it was inferior though (some of this was due to the state of german industry)

Sherman had a number of advantages over the panther - In battle of the bulge nearly HALF the panthers were sidelined for mechanical failure only 2-3 days into the campaign, while only 10-15% of shermans were sidelined for mechanical failure during the entire campaign.

A lot of tank analysis in popular sources is in terms of tank vs tank, which was actually not nearly as common as the average consumer would think. In terms of vs infantry/fortification combat the Sherman was actually better due to it's extremely potent HE shell.

There is also a rather interesting fact that in more or less equal tank duels (so even if it was panther vs panther). The attacking tank force would lose approx 3x as many tanks as the defender. (This is based on testing done by both the brits and the US after WW2, and data losses recorded from tank vs tank actions in the later part of the war).


So a Giant myth is that Tiger/Panther were roughtly 4-5x as effective as a sherman. What people get that from is that the shermans were often on the attacking side. In the rare cases the germans attacked (Avranches, Lorraine, battle of the bulge) In scenarios where shermans (and similar tanks/TDs) were in defensive positions they inflicted ballpark 3:1 casualties on the attacking forces. It's just that in 1944-45 German attacks/counter attacks were so rare, and tank on tank was not common that those encounters are relatively few.

On the other side, I do think it's interesting that the Panther and Tiger had better ground pressure than the early-mid production sherman (meaning that despite their heavier weight they could navigate soft terrian more easily). Late production shermans had modified tracks that did help the issue, and modifications were made to the tracks of existing shermans. but still..


Anyways, i'll check this video out.

- US tankers suffered some of the lowest rates of combat deaths of any nation in the European theater.

Surely this is also because they fought the least tank battles or tank led attacks on heavily defended positions rather than a difference in quality of equipment or doctrine?

Surely this is also because they fought the least tank battles or tank led attacks on heavily defended positions rather than a difference in quality of equipment or doctrine?

I agree with this!

Surely this is also because they fought the least tank battles or tank led attacks on heavily defended positions rather than a difference in quality of equipment or doctrine?

Only in part. A lot of tanks of all nations were still lost to AT guns. But in the video he shows that there was a lower killed-crew-to-tank-destroyed ratio in M4s than other tanks and a lower ratio in US Shermans than in British Shermans (Brit crews did not wear helmets while in the tank).

Part of this was that by mid-44 every Sherman coming off the production lines was much better designed for survivability. They had wet storage in the hull, US ammo cooked up less easily than that of other countries, and the tanks were designed for more ease of exit.

The lecturer has other videos showing how hard/easy it was for a driver to enter or exit the driver's hatch of various tanks and the Shermans' hatch is by far the easiets (even coming with a spring loaded hatch).

So yeah, they lost fewer men (in fact remarkably few) but they also lost fewer men per lost tank than other countries, and your argument can't account for that.

Thanks for the reply with the context. I recall one statistic from a documentary focusing on a British tank regiment north of Caen holding an exposed hill. If I remember it was an 80 tank unit. During the battle they received 900 replacement Shermans.

Thanks for the reply with the context. I recall one statistic from a documentary focusing on a British tank regiment north of Caen holding an exposed hill. If I remember it was an 80 tank unit. During the battle they received 900 replacement Shermans.

A link or citation would be nice. That statistic (1100% turnover in one engagement) would be completely astounding for a single battle even if by "battle" you mean all the operations until the British broke through Caen.

It is not astounding for a wartime operation. The 3rd Armored from Normandy through to the end of the was lost 650 tanks and had another 700 tanks knocked out and restored to operations, out of a TO&E of 232 tanks. So 580% turnover in 10-11 months. But the knocked out tanks equals less than 300%.

This was the series and it was episode 2

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/world-war-ii-the-last-heroes/episode-guide

I think it will be hard to find YouTube versions have been deleted by copyright owners.

It is just a documentary so taken with a pinch of salt but the episodes were all based on the recollections of veterans including the commander of this unit.

My recollection is a little hazy so my facts may be off But I'm pretty sure on the numbers though the regiment may have been bigger. As the the time period I'm tempted to say the whole battle of Normandy but my recollection was that it was for a key 2-3 week period. I do recall the veteran saying he was shot out of two tanks in one day

I found the video but I can't find the section making me think it was a different documentary. This does have some interesting perspectives but is a bit populist

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xz7i1p_world-war-ii-the-last-heroes-e2_shortfilms

As to British tank losses rate. They had a particularly high tank loss due to the tactics they employed. It was pretty typical that for every Sherman tank knocked out an average of only 1 crew member would die.

Given that British had a manpower deficiency, commanders would frequently use Sherman tanks to spearhead the more dangerous missions. At least that's what I've read.

Here is the correct documentary its BBC and features interviews with veterans so is fairly reputable. He gives the quote at 43 minutes in. The unit had 150 tanks and received 1073 replacements but he doesnt give a timescale though the implication is that it is post dday and during the 4 week battle for Tilly

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8cO66nTMs0

I guess it is just plain normal in the annals of veterans recollections that you saw the defficiencies in your own equipment and the strengths of the enemies.

US tankers will remember vividly every on-target bounce, but not take as natural that their tank is able to reverse out of the fight reliably. Heck, they probably think every bounce was lucky even though many might have stories of such "luck".

Likewise German veterans would be astounded at the availability of reinforcements, artillery and reinforcements. While the recollections are of heroism and ability to withstand they assuredly would hve rather been in the opposite situation, having the equipment, fuel, ammunition, support, etc themselves.

think of this story, that 1100 vehicles could be replaced for one Regiment in 4 weeks is in itself astounding. The German units in Normandy had lost 1/3 of their fighting strength by that time, while their opponents were only getting stronger and figuring out the tactics they would need.

think of this story, that 1100 vehicles could be replaced for one Regiment in 4 weeks is in itself astounding. The German units in Normandy had lost 1/3 of their fighting strength by that time, while their opponents were only getting stronger and figuring out the tactics they would need.

The second documentary I posted says exactly this - it is a 'reassessment' (not exactly - this view is not new) of the battle puncturing some myths and claiming that the losses and 'failures' were just part of this plan.

Must finish the rest of the OP's video post though. New data is always good

I guess it is just plain normal in the annals of veterans recollections that you saw the defficiencies in your own equipment and the strengths of the enemies.

+1 This


It feels like over the last couple of years alot of the stuff I've read have all been very much focused on the individual accounts, and as you point out and is said in the video these might be quite inaccurate. (All guns are 88s all tanks are Tigers sort of thing)

I still enjoy reading it but I think the best (Historically speaking) stuff I've read is the stuff researched by historians and not interviewed by journalists.