[Shawn 507]

Originally Posted by MoMo

Lots of interesting exchanges here.

This is a broad church discussion, and I would like to see some contributions from members who have any knowledge about R&D in the UK and US in the mid-war years.

Remember, for good or ill, the Panther was designed, built and went into production within a very short time-frame.

The philosophy of German tank design was seen by the Germans as having become bankrupt when it was proved that the Russians had developed and produced tanks of a revolutionary capability and performance. Shocked to the core, the Germans had to admit that they had been wrong to assume that the war against Communism would be fought with existing designs and turned on their heels and pride to produce the Panther, a direct tip of the hat to the T34.

I still can't appreciate the lack of foresight and paucity of imagination in Allied quarters on this subject. I am amazed that such a rigid regime as Nazi Germany could swallow its pride and admit that they would have to crank up their game, and produce armour capable of meeting the threats from a brand new family of Russian armour, as well as an endless supply of Allied armour.

The German answer to all this was the wrong one, but a fascinating topic for any student of Industrial Design to delve into! We all know that you can over-engineer a vehicle to meet the perceived threat. We are all aware that the German designs were impressive, but did not address the realities of Russian and American production rates!

I'll have to examine the available and surviving ideas on this matter.

The early Shermans still stay in the top 10 ( worst! )

It was more Hitler pushing the heavies ( Tiger, Panther, King Tiger, Jadgs, Maus etc...) than the German Army. The Panthers debute during Kursk says alot for rushing an un-completed product off to war. They didn't perform well, nor did the Tiger sway the battle. Even Geuderian preferred the Panzer III to most of the newer tanks coming out, but what did he know? Finally, the Soviet / German struggle called for tank on tank fighting. There were very few tank on tank engagements in the west. There was one and I'll have to research it, where an American Tank Division handed the Germans their collective tail ends.

[MoMo]

Why don't you get back to us on that..... Top Hat

I will !

Meanwhile, as I sit here, I can hear cries of dispair from ex-patriot English football fans as Germany are beating them 2-1. England snatched an early lead in the 9th minute, but have conceded two goals since then.

Cries of dispair are wafting through the air from the numerous pubs round here. I have heard some cheering from the Scottish supporters though. I can't think who they'd be supporting.

It was about 26 degrees C and 77 F this afternoon. It was 80 degrees in my teaching room! There was no air. I had to order the students out.

It's summer, at last!

[MoMo]

It was more Hitler pushing the heavies ( Tiger, Panther, King Tiger, Jadgs, Maus etc...) than the German Army. The Panthers debute during Kursk says alot for rushing an un-completed product off to war. They didn't perform well, nor did the Tiger sway the battle. Even Geuderian preferred the Panzer III to most of the newer tanks coming out, but what did he know? Finally, the Soviet / German struggle called for tank on tank fighting. There were very few tank on tank engagements in the west. There was one and I'll have to research it, where an American Tank Division handed the Germans their collective tail ends.

Let us know when you find the engagement to which you refer Shawn.

[Shawn 507]

Found two examples, one the battle at Lorraine and the other at Arracourt.

http://www.themilitarybookreview.com...aine1944.shtml

Arracourt, this from noted armor writer/historian Steven Zaloga:

" From 19 to 22 September 1944, the 4th Armored Division (US) fought elements of the German 5th Panzer Army near Arracourt in the largest tank vs tank battles since the German Army stopped the British 21st Army Group at Caen in Normandy in July.
Even though the German force included a substantial number of new Panther tanks, the more experienced 4th Armored Division decisively defeated the German attack, destroying 107 tanks and 30 StuGs for a loss of 14 M4 tanks and 7 M5A1 light tanks."

You figure what the loss rate was in favor of the 4th AD. The 4th BTW was still equipped mostly with the M4 75mm gun tank and a few new M4A3 76mm gun tanks at this time. But I know all the Tigers were in the British Sector, and Monty was giving them a good what for.
- Shawn

[Aircrafty]

Originally Posted by Shawn 507

Found two examples, one the battle at Lorraine and the other at Arracourt.

http://www.themilitarybookreview.com...aine1944.shtml

Arracourt, this from noted armor writer/historian Steven Zaloga:

" From 19 to 22 September 1944, the 4th Armored Division (US) fought elements of the German 5th Panzer Army near Arracourt in the largest tank vs tank battles since the German Army stopped the British 21st Army Group at Caen in Normandy in July.
Even though the German force included a substantial number of new Panther tanks, the more experienced 4th Armored Division decisively defeated the German attack, destroying 107 tanks and 30 StuGs for a loss of 14 M4 tanks and 7 M5A1 light tanks."

You figure what the loss rate was in favor of the 4th AD. The 4th BTW was still equipped mostly with the M4 75mm gun tank and a few new M4A3 76mm gun tanks at this time. But I know all the Tigers were in the British Sector, and Monty was giving them a good what for.
- Shawn

A book review is not an ideal source of information, and using The Lorraine Campaign as an example of US military superiority is as useful as using the Battle of Little Bighorn as a "how to do it" guide for fighting injuns. The bulk of the German forces at Lorraine were third rate being mainly old guys and those with stomach complaints etc, and still the US forces found them tough to beat. Yet at Caen and beyond the Brits and Canadians were up against several SS Panzer Divisions and supporting first line infantry troops and still managed to get through them in a reasonable time.

When Americans acknowledge these facts rather than Hollywood legends we'll all be better off.

[Shawn 507]

Originally Posted by Aircrafty

A book review is not an ideal source of information, and using The Lorraine Campaign as an example of US military superiority is as useful as using the Battle of Little Bighorn as a "how to do it" guide for fighting injuns. The bulk of the German forces at Lorraine were third rate being mainly old guys and those with stomach complaints etc, and still the US forces found them tough to beat. Yet at Caen and beyond the Brits and Canadians were up against several SS Panzer Divisions and supporting first line infantry troops and still managed to get through them in a reasonable time.

When Americans acknowledge these facts rather than Hollywood legends we'll all be better off.

And using some anglefire.com webpage "is the premiere source". The book in question was also written by Steven Zaloga. As I know the guy and his dedication to getting it right and fair, I'll go with his assessment over yours.
Additionally, noone said or used the word "Superiority" when using the Lorraine Campaign as an example. I mentioned one, and found two examples of where the M4 came out on top of the Panther. And since the discussion is on armor vs armor, those were appropriate.
Afterall the Germans had the better tank right? They should have come out on top no matter what right??? The Panthers should have more than made up for the effects of the sick, lame and old. Which I don't believe were manning the Panzer forces anyways.
We've discussed why the British and Commanwealth forces were engaged by the SS. The SS were in position to meet the perceived threat/invasion at Calais. And since the Gold, Juno, and Sword beaches were closer to the stagging area of the SS, the Brits had to deal with them. If Caen was a D-Day or D+1,2,or 3 objective, and it didn't fall until late July / early August. I'd hardly call that "reasonable time".
This isn't a discussion on who had the harder fight, which you have twisted it into. We were discussing the merits of the Sherman. I provided two examples of Shermans coming out on top of the Panther. And you want to twist it into something else. Yes the British, Canadians and Poles did a wonderful job on their end and had a tough fight. Noone is taking that away from them. However thats another topic all together.
On movies that cover US tank battles in France, I'm not aware of any but the brief engagement in the movie Patton. But please do tell me about these other Hollywood movies, I always liked a good tank flick.
I got it that you hate the Sherman. But you still haven't answered the one question I've asked you twice. If not the Sherman then what after 1942???
Also, I'm sorry that somewhere, some American kicked sand in your cereal. I dont know what to tell you. Don't eat on the beach?

[MoMo]

before another Flame-War breaks out, I guess we'll all have to " reserve our opinions" for a bit.

Shawn has produced evidence that the early Shermans were successful in an engagement ( but I'd like to know how many German tanks were drawn into A.T. crossfire traps ) while Aircrafty keeps batting them back by undermining Shawn's evidence.

Meanwhile, every other Tank-Head in the Forum stands on the by-line and watches the flack fly.

Let's call an Armistice for a few posts while we gather more evidence, for and against.

PAX.

[Shawn 507]

Originally Posted by MoMo

Shawn has produced evidence that the early Shermans were successful in an engagement ( but I'd like to know how many German tanks were drawn into A.T. crossfire traps ) while Aircrafty keeps batting them back by undermining Shawn's evidence

It doesn't matter how they were beaten, good equipment using sound tactics can beat great equipment. Aircrafty hasn't batted anything, he keeps changing the subject and refuses to answer which tank on the drawing board (US or UK) would have been a better successor to the Sherman after 1942.
- Shawn

[Aircrafty]

Originally Posted by Shawn 507

It doesn't matter how they were beaten, good equipment using sound tactics can beat great equipment. Aircrafty hasn't batted anything, he keeps changing the subject and refuses to answer which tank on the drawing board (US or UK) would have been a better successor to the Sherman after 1942.
- Shawn

I'm not changing the subject, I'm merely replying to several other posts at once, you're not the only member here Shawn.

If a country has sufficient motivation they can design and produce a necessary tank PDQ, not in days or weeks of course, but certainly faster than what the US did. The Germans built the Tiger in response to the KV1 and the Panther to match the T-34. The fact that the US did not take up the challenge earlier was mainly due to their useless and entirely mistaken tank doctrine of heavy tanks being BAD and enemy tanks to be destroyed by SP anti-tank guns in open topped turrets. A 90-mm gun being "undesirable in a tank, since it would encourage tank units to stalk enemy tanks"

Despite this doctrine the US did play around with several heavy tank designs but it wasn't until the Battle of the Bulge where the US tanks came up against German heavy tanks that the need for a heavy tank FINALLY become a priority - we want those M-26 Pershings ASAP. Of course the British knew the Sherman was under gunned and lacked armour from D-Day onwards when they came up against the Panzer Divisions at Caen etc but apparently the Americans didn't worry TO MUCH until THEIR tanks guys were getting killed - go figure. And as everyone knows, Panzer Divisions (unlike German Infantry Divisions) were fully mobile and could be moved to where-ever the main threat was, so it didn't matter where they were beforehand

The British recognised the value of a heavier tank but were under direct attack and had limited natural resources, yet they still managed to produce the Churchill which was a superior infantry tank to the M4 (considering the overfondness of some Americans for the M4 it's ironic that the Sherman was built to meet an early British request.) Even those backward Aussies were able to produce a tank from paper to production in 22 months: http://www.mheaust.com.au/Aust/Resea...sentinelmk.htm

But back to the list of ten worst tanks. The M4/Sherman was one of the better tanks in 1942 and no-where near a worst list situation, but by the end of the war it certainly was, and that's all I have to say on this matter as people will tend to believe what they want despite what logic others may produce.

[jim]

Originally Posted by Aircrafty

A book review is not an ideal source of information, and using The Lorraine Campaign as an example of US military superiority is as useful as using the Battle of Little Bighorn as a "how to do it" guide for fighting injuns. The bulk of the German forces at Lorraine were third rate being mainly old guys and those with stomach complaints etc, and still the US forces found them tough to beat. Yet at Caen and beyond the Brits and Canadians were up against several SS Panzer Divisions and supporting first line infantry troops and still managed to get through them in a reasonable time.

When Americans acknowledge these facts rather than Hollywood legends we'll all be better off.

If Lorraine had been there with her Battison No4 the German armour would not have had a chance.
In fact when Lorraine gets angry its best for all combatants to run for the hills.

I have just finished a book called Amoured Guardsmen. A good read that includes the battles against the SS Panzers.
An interesting point is made about the 17 pounders, there were so few of them that they were shared out one to a troop of six standard Shermans.