The Sherman in WWII

You can't really make reliability comparison unless both vehicles receive the same level of service and usage.

Panther and Tiger had great K/D ratios vs Shermans, they where reliable.

the panther's final drive was a known issue never fully fixed. The french used the panther post ww2 and noted its poor reliability.

the panther's final drive was a known issue never fully fixed. The french used the panther post ww2 and noted its poor reliability.

Any issues Panther might or might not have does not change the fact that the Panther changed the Tank warfare landscape and made "infantry support tanks" and "heavy tanks" obsolete.

Any issues Panther might or might not have does not change the fact that the Panther changed the Tank warfare landscape and made "infantry support tanks" and "heavy tanks" obsolete.

medium tank were already getting generally heavier, with progressively more armor and heavier gun onto better Powertrain. All the german did was overshooting the capability of their powertrain.

Heavy tank was basically a sacrifice of reliability and logistical capability in exchange for better combat power. The various armies eventually realize the reliability problem was not worth it.

The notable exception to the reliability issue was the is-2 series, and even in the MBT era they maintained a "two tier" tank concept.

medium tank were already getting generally heavier, with progressively more armor and heavier gun onto better Powertrain. All the german did was overshooting the capability of their powertrain.

Heavy tank was basically a sacrifice of reliability and logistical capability in exchange for better combat power. The various armies eventually realize the reliability problem was not worth it.

The notable exception to the reliability issue was the is-2 series, and even in the MBT era they maintained a "two tier" tank concept.

I disagree.

1) The their where heavier tank than Panther so the Panther was not an overshoot.

2) The reason other types of Tank become obsolete has to with simplicity. Having different types of vehicle each design for a specific job creates a logistic nightmare. Having a single vehicle that can do all roles adequately is much more efficient.

The point remain Panther was a superior tank to the Sherman.

the soviet t34 itself worked on similar idea as a medium tank. The kv-1 itself were also plagued with various problem. Is-2 was actually reliable but joined the war late.

the t34 and sherman were vehicle built within the technology capable at the time. The germans had to stretch the technology to make the panther.

and ironically the German reached the zenith of its expansion using the panzer 3, a medium tank. The invasion of France was done mainly using the pz38t.

They didn't start using the tiger and panther until they were losing.

Where do I even start?

This was the number of tanks used in the attack on france:
Panzer I : 523
Panzer II : 955
Panzer III : 398
Panzer IV : 280
Panzer 38t : 228
Panzer 35t : 118

So NO the main battle tank of the attack on france was NOT the Pz38t but Panzer II and III.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westfeldzug#Deutsche_Panzer

Now regarding the T34. It was just as unreliable as the Panther/Tiger. More than 50% of T34s broke down with mechanical failures in the first months of their service. They even had to carry a additional transmission around because the transmissions were so poorly designed.

"Our armored forces and their units frequently suffer greater losses through mechanical breakdowns than they do in battle. For example, at Stalingrad Front in six days twelve of our tank brigades lost 326 out of their 400 tanks. Of those about 260 owed to mechanical problems. Many of the tanks were abandoned on the battlefield. "

"Soviet tests on newly built T-34’s (15) showed that in April 1943 only 10.1% could complete a 330km trial and in June ’43 this went down to 7.7%"

http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.de/2012/07/wwii-myths-t-34-best-tank-of-war.html

The Germans also didn´t lose the war because of the Panther. They lost it despite the Panther.

Post #67 is invised because it was not written in English.

The post was in fact reported for excessive flaming, but I don't have to consider that aspect, because the post fell at the first hurdle.

This is an English language board: please write your posts in English.

Where do I even start?

This was the number of tanks used in the attack on france:
Panzer I : 523
Panzer II : 955
Panzer III : 398
Panzer IV : 280
Panzer 38t : 228
Panzer 35t : 118

So NO the main battle tank of the attack on france was NOT the Pz38t but Panzer II and III.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westfeldzug#Deutsche_Panzer

Now regarding the T34. It was just as unreliable as the Panther/Tiger. More than 50% of T34s broke down with mechanical failures in the first months of their service. They even had to carry a additional transmission around because the transmissions were so poorly designed.

"Our armored forces and their units frequently suffer greater losses through mechanical breakdowns than they do in battle. For example, at Stalingrad Front in six days twelve of our tank brigades lost 326 out of their 400 tanks. Of those about 260 owed to mechanical problems. Many of the tanks were abandoned on the battlefield. "

"Soviet tests on newly built T-34’s (15) showed that in April 1943 only 10.1% could complete a 330km trial and in June ’43 this went down to 7.7%"

http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.de/2012/07/wwii-myths-t-34-best-tank-of-war.html

The Germans also didn´t lose the war because of the Panther. They lost it despite the Panther.

the number you posted is for tank composition on jun 10, nearly at the end of the campaign. The numbers and composition would be different at the start of the campaign.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_35(t)

the 6th is stated to have 132 pz35t at the start of the compaign, but their number would slowly dwindle.

In any case, the panzer 3 during the battle of france didn't have much advantage over the pz38t. The p3 was still using the 37mm and wearing the early 30mm armor during france. It wasn't until after France that they received armor and gun upgrade.

and I will admit I was mistaken about the t-34's reliability. I had thought the t-34 was as reliable was the sherman, cromwell, and comet.

I'd just like to point out that even though the T-34 broke down quite a bit too, it was comparably much easier to repair or replace due to both its simple design and the abundance of replacement material available in the Soviet Union made possible through both its own vast industry and through lend-lease, whereas if a Panther broke down, the complex design and lack of spare parts made the impact of the break down far more pronounced than that of T-34s, or really any allied tank in general post 1943. If an allied tank broke down, it was a non-issue. If an axis tank broke down, it was a big deal. This likely biased crews into blaming engineers for designing an "unreliable" piece of pudding, and is probably part of the reason why the German tanks were often cited as having reliability issues or high down time from mechanical breakdown. It's not that the vehicles were that unreliable to begin with (other than Panther Ausf. D, which was rushed off to Kursk before they ironed out issues), but its that they took much longer to repair and were progressively harder to get parts for.

Also, I feel like a point in crew quality that is widely understated is that the German tank crews were in the war from 1939-1945 whereas the Soviets and US only fought from 1941 onward. For example, Dmitry Lavrinenko as an allied ace scored ~50 vehicle kills, but only had 3 months to do it (as he was killed by a stray mortar fragment), whereas most German aces had 5 long years to rack up their total kill counts of ~150. That's 20 times longer for a result that was roughly only 3 times as impressive. Additionally, keep in mind that throughout the war, veteran allied crews and vehicle count steadily increased as veteran axis crews and vehicle count steadily decreased. By the end of the war, the Panzerwaffe was so helplessly outnumbered that there was never a shortage of targets to choose from, whereas for the allied tank divisions, panzer targets became increasingly uncommon. Finally, the US, UK, and the USSR did not promote the idea of tank aces due to doctrinal differences, and did not formally recognize or award tank aces for their achievement (at least not for being an ace specifically; awards were given for heroism and other accomplishments) unlike Germany, whom actively promoted the idea of becoming an ace. This likely also skewed how enthusiastic crews were for claiming kills for themselves rather than to their supporting arms.

...Finally, the US, UK, and the USSR did not promote the idea of tank aces due to doctrinal differences, and did not formally recognize or award tank aces for their achievement (at least not for being an ace specifically; awards were given for heroism and other accomplishments) unlike Germany, whom actively promoted the idea of becoming an ace. This likely also skewed how enthusiastic crews were for claiming kills for themselves rather than to their supporting arms.

This will also explain why there are more "dramatic" and martial pictures in the "post pictures" thread of the German units. The Germans needed propaganda to survive. Bad news is not allowed in totalitarian regime where a lot more of it can be tolerated in a democracy that has chosen to fight.

To be sure there were some things that were hidden on the allied side (the one that comes to mind is the attack on amphibious exercises that killed a few hundered US troops prior to D-Day). But for the most part the press was still free, setbacks were still reported, and the troops were portrayed as heroic albeit everymen. The most popular cartoons at the time included the "Sad Sack" strip.

As opposed to that it was important for the Germans to always portray their troops as supermen, their kit as wondrous technology, and all their battles were victories. Of course the public still followed the real progress by noting the "victories" seemed to be closer to the fatherland each time.

Crew quality after you took out the exceptional veterans who had learned how to survive was quite poor. For good troops you have to train. The more, the harder, the better, almost regardless of the starting qualities. Without oil or ammunition to spare that can't be done.

This will also explain why there are more "dramatic" and martial pictures in the "post pictures" thread of the German units. The Germans needed propaganda to survive. Bad news is not allowed in totalitarian regime where a lot more of it can be tolerated in a democracy that has chosen to fight.

as good as Erich Hartman or Wittman was, producing one or two great pilot or tank commander is not how you win a war.

The Germans also didn´t lose the war because of the Panther. They lost it despite the Panther.

the panther and tiger are still impractical tank. The powertrain technology at the time is just not advanced enough to supporting a 45+ ton tank. There was also no truck capable of carrying a 45+ tank by itself.

the French in post war cite the panther G as needing frequent maintenance. The final drive had an average life of 150km and the engine itself 1000km.


The panther G in late war might not spontaneously combust, but it still require frequent maintenance.

as good as Erich Hartman or Wittman was, producing one or two great pilot or tank commander is not how you win a war.

+100

You don't win wars with a Wittman. Wittman was killed, and by tankers with "inferior" kit and records.

the panther and tiger are still impractical tank. The powertrain technology at the time is just not advanced enough to supporting a 45+ ton tank. There was also no truck capable of carrying a 45+ tank by itself.

Likewise you don't win by making semi-mass-producible and semi-reliable "futuristic" tank designs. In fact, the late model Shermans are a better example of modern tank design. The optics are stabilized, the gunners have optics that are MUCH more suitable for target acquisition, the design is made for ease of maintenance in the field. For its time the late model Shermans were MBTs. Their armor was robust but didn't sacrifice mobility/reliability, their guns were dual purpose and good enough to defeat any enemy tanks (given that there would always be enough of them due to production and design), they were about as survivable as any tank of the war at that time. All the production kinks were ironed out.

The US had many other designs that were of the type that wehraboos usually fantasize. Big guns, heavy, advanced drive systems, impervious armor, etc. Prototypes were built and tested. They were all rejected as insufficient/inappropriate for actual war-fighting.

snip

Just a quick question, I think I remember reading it somewhere but I'm pretty sure you'd guys know better than me.

Isn't it true that the US liked to produce a lot of extra parts for their tanks? While the Germans generally didn't as all their industry was needed in building the actual tank instead of spare parts.

Hitler believed the future of tank warfare were super heavy behemoths, hence the building of super heavies by the Germans in ww2

Also I believe the US Army was very finicky with introducing new tank types without substantial field testing. In which they generally preferred the battle tested Sherman over late war prototypes being implemented.

The answer is yes, a lot of design flaws in the Sherman in the first couple years were field repaired by their own crews and such improvements and suggestions were rolled into production over that time. On D-Day the Sherman.

If you aren't counting variants like the 8 or Jumbo the effective armor on the front of the Sherman stayed around 90-100mm which angled at 30 degrees was sufficient to bounce tiger rounds according to this book: https://ospreypublishing.com/tiger-1-heavy-tank-1942-45-pb which is quoting a kraut military analyst from the war.
And for a panther to penetrate it would need to be in the 150 meters range in a similar situation.

All things considered the Sherman was equal to if not better than German armor it encountered in France. The reason you don't hear that bidbit about the Tiger gun is because the allies only encountered one crewed Tiger tank in the west. (Tiger II's however they saw in mild numbers)

As an added bonus it didn't have a shot trap like most of the early panther models did, which spelled doom for the poor krauts.


From a combat effectiveness standpoint the sherman served just as it was intended, but from a production, tooling, cost, repair, and all that other industrial jazz point of view it was leagues superior to any other tank.

On its own it wouldn't have won the war though, american doctrine was much more flexible. Close Air Support anti-tank rockets and the like were what but enemy tank crews in the graveyard, tank for tank comparisons in a fight are primitive ways of thinking in this case, as we've seen, armored wonderweapons with big guns don't win the fight.

Thankfully the sherman's service in the war ended at the same time it became completely obsolete.

Any issues Panther might or might not have does not change the fact that the Panther changed the Tank warfare landscape and made "infantry support tanks" and "heavy tanks" obsolete.

(Sorry for doublepost)

I think this is relevant as well, but the panther was only classed as a medium tank by the germans at 50 tons over the original 30 tons design (In the 30 ton design it would have been a nearly copy of the T-34), by allied standards of tank making it was a heavy tank. It had a 3-5 km/h reverse speed as well.

(Sorry for doublepost)

I think this is relevant as well, but the panther was only classed as a medium tank by the germans at 50 tons over the original 30 tons design (In the 30 ton design it would have been a nearly copy of the T-34), by allied standards of tank making it was a heavy tank. It had a 3-5 km/h reverse speed as well.

at 45 ton the panther was as heavy as the pershing and the is-2 field by the allies, and the is-2 was clearly a heavy tank.

the original vk20 and vk30 tank project was meant to be a successor to the panzer4/3 hence the medium tank designation despite its weight.

The final drive was a victim of this shift in weight. It was designed to be cheap enough to produce and meant to support a 30 ton tank. A final drive strong enough for the 45ton would have significantly increased its cost.

Rolewise, heavy tank were meant to carry an assault. The idea is that those superior tank would be used at the point of breakout. They were not meant for wide deployment and cost was less of an issue.

The panther tank tried to combined the cost of a medium with the combat power of a heavy tank, but the end result was a tank with inherent mechanical problem.