World War II in colour

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[BigDick]

The advantages of the Sherman were speed, ...

tiger I ( and even tiger II) has around the same top speed as a sherman (38 KM/H) panther is even faster (46 km/h)

[gamesguy2]

We're not arguing about whose tactics and training were better. You were stating that German tanks were not as superior machines as people think.

In what matters during a fight, they were. Where they lacked was in logistics for those vehicles.

I'm stating both.   Allied training and tactics were superior as well as German tanks were often not better than allied ones,

Given equal numbers, training and command, you would have a German victory.

No it would end with Berlin being nuked.

As seen when the Germans fought the British and French in the Battle of France, it wasn't lack of training or a difference in equipment that proved the defeat of the French and British, it was their strategic use of the tanks.

Exactly, the French and British lost because they were still fighting WWI.  The equipment itself doesnt matter as much as training, tactics, logistics, etc.

[AmPM]

The advantages of the Sherman were speed, ...

tiger I ( and even tiger II) has around the same top speed as a sherman (38 KM/H) panther is even faster (46 km/h)

Except at those speeds, on a road, they tend to break down....

We won't talk about their field speeds.....

The Panther is agile, but has light, and I mean light, sides and rear armor for its size.

The Tiger and KT got to be really slow in muddy fields....

[gamesguy2]

Lol, sherman optics weren't better than the german tanks ones, until 1943 the sherman optic was really bad, with a lot of stabilizing problems. Then the M-70 was developed, it had an effective range of 1000m, and it had many problems to use if was poiting next to the sun.
The german optic mounted on PIV TZF 5f (2,5x24º) was made of 2 mobile parts, escaled for Gr34 and the Mg from (0 to 3400m).

Nice of you to leave out the rest.  The Sherman's gunner had a secondary periscope that can be used to find targets prior to engaging.  The Panther lacked secondary sights and as a result, the Sherman almost always fired first in tank engagements, and the first shot is usually decisive.

More than 6000 sherman tanks were lost during the campaing, some units as the 3rd Armored Division suffered 580% of its strenght looses.

And how many panzer IVs and stugs and panthers were lost?   More than the shermans I'll bet.

tiger I ( and even tiger II) has around the same top speed as a sherman (38 KM/H) panther is even faster (46 km/h)

The tiger would fall apart after a mile at that speed.  That goes for the panther too.  The top speeds for heavy german tanks were purely theoretical.  In practice they never reached those speeds and if they tried they would fall apart due to mechanical problems.

American tanks often did reach their top speeds and maintain it, the M18 was famous for its insane speed and the ability to actually use that speed in combat.

[brn4meplz]

Gamesguy, until you re-read what I've been writing in my posts I'm not going to continue beating my head against a wall. Your ignoring what I'm actually saying and taking what the words are and cutting out parts to fit your views. You yourself cited a piece of quipment as key to the Shermans ability yet you say equipment means nothing. Where as I'm saying you put a Gamesguy in the top AFV ever created and it'll be as useless as the best trained guy riding a bicycle. Nothing is independent of anything in warfare. Yet you seem to stress the importance of one thing over another.

[gamesguy2]

Gamesguy, until you re-read what I've been writing in my posts I'm not going to continue beating my head against a wall. Your ignoring what I'm actually saying and taking what the words are and cutting out parts to fit your views. You yourself cited a piece of quipment as key to the Shermans ability yet you say equipment means nothing. Where as I'm saying you put a Gamesguy in the top AFV ever created and it'll be as useless as the best trained guy riding a bicycle. Nothing is independent of anything in warfare. Yet you seem to stress the importance of one thing over another.

You need to re-read what I said again.  I said the most important factor in any war is training and tactics.  My second point was that American tanks were not inferior to every way compared to panthers the way some people here seem to think they were.

And history says you are wrong, Shermans maintained positive kill ratios vs panthers.   

Also, an excellent read on shermans vs panthers.

http://books.google.com/books?id=SWwRkr_6mzUC&pg=PT28&lpg=PT28&dq=sherman+vs+panther+optics&source=bl&ots=J_xgkI_gRk&sig=Sz6dnemQzZQrZgv55j1ZLHRbv4U&hl=en&ei=zbgZSpucM6LwswOq9uHZCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPT33,M1

The difference between sherman reliability and panthers were enormous.  For example at the start of the battle of the bulge, brand new straight from the factory panthers suffered 42% breakdown rates, where as the newer 76mm shermans suffed a breakdown rate of 5.9%.

Shermans were also much better strategically speaking.  They could drive a hundred miles to reinforce another position and arrive there with nearly full combat strength, panthers would need a new transmission on arrival were they to attempt it.  In fact their reliability was so bad that for longer distance travel they were shipped by train and commanders were discouraged from making long distance tactical manuevers.

The conclusion of that book is the panther was a failure that was unable to significantly impact the outcome of the war due to a combination of unreliability, declining quality of tank crews, poor decisions by German high command, shortages on production and fuel for such a complex machine, etc.   Where as the Sherman was a success because it "part of a well-trained combined arms team fighting alongside determined infantry and supported by superb field artillery and ample tactical air support operating within the context of more sober tactical decision-making".

[BigDick]

The advantages of the Sherman were speed, ...

tiger I ( and even tiger II) has around the same top speed as a sherman (38 KM/H) panther is even faster (46 km/h)

The Panther is agile, but has light, and I mean light, sides and rear armor for its size.

doubled armor compared to sherman

[AmPM]

Panther only had 40-50mm of armor on its sides.

Very very light for its size.

Sherman had 63mm Front hull armor.

If we want to get into this more, we should try finding a battle with roughly equal numbers, no air support, equal logistics, and crews.

May have to look at Italy.

[BigDick]

panther had 40 rear and 40-50 side armor
sherman had 19 rear and only slightly more side armor

[AmPM]

As BigDick continues to be unable to read the entire post.

Did you not see the part about "for its size" or are you just trolling again. Oh wait, nm, its you, so trolling.

[perfil02]

The difference between sherman reliability and panthers were enormous.  For example at the start of the battle of the bulge, brand new straight from the factory panthers suffered 42% breakdown rates, where as the newer 76mm shermans suffed a breakdown rate of 5.9%.

Shermans were also much better strategically speaking.  They could drive a hundred miles to reinforce another position and arrive there with nearly full combat strength, panthers would need a new transmission on arrival were they to attempt it.  In fact their reliability was so bad that for longer distance travel they were shipped by train and commanders were discouraged from making long distance tactical manuevers.

Particular cases don't explain everything. I don't remember the panther average avability but it was about 70%, it's not fair to compare the production effectiveness of the most powerfull economy at the moment with a country wich was suffering massive bomb raids and lots of raw materials shortage, that made the quality of the products decrease (no the quality of the desing).

Tanks are always shipped by train to travel large distance (they are not cars, and they consume tons of fuel).
It's difficult to do long distance tactical manouvers with an enemy total air superiority, it's just some kind of suicide.

[gamesguy2]

Panther only had 40-50mm of armor on its sides.

Very very light for its size.

Sherman had 63mm Front hull armor.

If we want to get into this more, we should try finding a battle with roughly equal numbers, no air support, equal logistics, and crews.

May have to look at Italy.

It doesn't matter either way.  Sherman even with its 75mm gun will penetrate a panther's side armor, and the panther will penetrate a sherman always.   So it makes little difference in tank battles.  

As for your second point, panther was much more expensive and logistically demanding compared to the sherman, so equal numbers and logistics favors the panther.   A much better comparison would be equal crews, no air support, and basically the same amount of logistical support.  You wouldn't end up with the same numbers because panthers cost more to begin with, and they broke down much more often.  The result is panthers were almost always outnumbered at a fight.

In addition, all reliable data basically points to one thing, the tank that fired first in any engagement usually won.   And shermans almost always fired first compared to panthers.   The first shot advantage was simply huge, more important than firepower or armor.

[gamesguy2]

Particular cases don't explain everything. I don't remember the panther average avability but it was about 70%, it's not fair to compare the production effectiveness of the most powerfull economy at the moment with a country wich was suffering massive bomb raids and lots of raw materials shortage, that made the quality of the products decrease (no the quality of the desing).

Tanks are always shipped by train to travel large distance (they are not cars, and they consume tons of fuel).
It's difficult to do long distance tactical manouvers with an enemy total air superiority, it's just some kind of suicide.

I don't believe you.  Panther availability was much lower than that.   

I'm not comparing production effectiveness, I'm comparing the reliability between the two tanks, panther divisions could expect to lose half its combat strength to mechanical problems, sherman divisions lost 10% if that.  In fact German high command concluded they often lost more panthers to mechanical breakdown than enemy action.

Panthers were physically unable to do long distance manuevers, they would breakdown halfway through.  Shermans could and was used in a such manner.   There are incidences of whole sherman divisions being force marched 100 miles or in a couple of days to reinforce another position.  Panthers were never capable of that kind of manuevers.

The entire American doctrine was based on fast, reliable tanks that can rapidly reposition to support infantry.  This extended to their tank destroyers.   M18s were extremely good at this role, they were ultra-fast, had enough firepower to knock out even tigers(although maybe not from the front), and very reliable.

German tank doctrine by 1944 was behind basically everyone else.  Ironic considering they pioneered armored tactics at the start of the war.

[AmPM]

If you want to see an example where allies get mauled, look at Goodwood.

[Akranadas]

While GoodWood itself was a failure, Monty knew his continual pressure on that flank would keep the much stronger SS Panzer divisions from moving to positions to halt the American advance.

[gamesguy2]

If you want to see an example where allies get mauled, look at Goodwood.

Goodwood was a breakthrough attempt against dug in defenses over unfavorable terrain, of course the British suffered huge losses.  Strategically it was a success, as it caused the Germans to shift most of their reserves to the British front and leave their front facing the Americans thinly defended.

Subsequently the American divisions broke through their front and encircled the entire German army in Normandy, ending the campaign in a crushing victory.

[Akranadas]

Well that was the thing about Monty; He could see the plans further then just the operation in front of him. Hell; the guy predicted the Allies would take France in 90 days; they took it in less.

[brn4meplz]

Not all battles are fought to win. sometimes the goals are less tangible. Also, Having clearance to the Ultra decryptions goes a long way for winning fights. I mean if you want to look at something crazy Monty planned the Dieppe raid in '42. It was just Mountbatten that decided to re-launch it. The plan was still flawed. The only place your going to see crazy tank clashes of epicness is on the eastern front. Kursk had several very large ones and the ranges the tanks fought at we're in the region of Knife fight to nut hugging so CAS wasn't an option.

By the final months of the war(mid'44 and onwards) the Panther comprised just over half the total Armoured strength of the Wehrmacht. The Panthers initial debut was devastating mechanically. Much like the Tigers initial set backs. The later model Panthers were much more reliable. the only problem is alot of the Line units were simply refits of previous versions.

[Piotrskivich]

Tarrif.net has some interesting interviews of WW2 soldiers, including a Panther leader.

It also has a wealth of information on practically everything used in WW2.

[Mgallun74]

wow.. look at all this..

Germany (Hitler) made 3 mistakes that sealed his fate...

1.  Dunkirk -- nearly all the BEF and some French were they, by failing to kill or at least capture them he allowed them to be a threat later, manily in africa.

2.  Not finishing off the British, mainly the RAF, they were running rather low on pilots, and were within weeks of being able to put up the fight, Hitler got impatient and caught up in the bombing of cities, thus, allowing the RAF time to rebuild, and well they did...

3.  Invaiding Soviets without a defeated GB... didnt want a two front war he said, and well he did it right there.. started the invasion too late etc