5 Shermans 1 Tiger/Panther Myth?

Discussions on all aspects of the United States of America during the Inter-War era and Second World War. Hosted by Carl Schwamberger.
ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
Location: Mississippi

Re: 5 Shermans 1 Tiger/Panther Myth?

#106

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 05 Dec 2016, 15:40

Kingfish wrote:
ChristopherPerrien wrote: In close in terrain, it is far easier to get on a flank on an enemy position than open terrain.
Not if the terrain restricts the opponent's ability to execute the flanking maneuver, which is what the bocage tended to do with regards to allied armor.
Compartmentalized terrain all the same, Bocage just the most extreme example, IMO. What caused the most problems was neither side knew exactly where they were in the Bocage as being able to know exact map locations was about zilch, and also what was going on the next hedgerow over. And each little hedge row square could in effect become its own fort (If there were enough defenders). Yea, course of flanking maneuvers were difficult in the bocage as no-one knew what they would run into or what was in the next hedge row over, but if the next hedgerow was "empty", then that defensive position was perhaps compromised, if not enough defenders covering the flank. Which is what I was talking in relation to SP guns, they have issues with covering their own flanks most especially in "close in" terrain.My comments were not meant towards covering the entire apsects of mutliple arms combat in the Bocage(a large area of Normandy) , only the difference between tanks and SP/Assualt guns being used in such terain and their effectiveness, which is the area of this topic.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: 5 Shermans 1 Tiger/Panther Myth?

#107

Post by Michael Kenny » 05 Dec 2016, 16:59

These 2 air views are representative of the terrain. The first fields in the St Lo Area. The second the area south of Caen
West 1...jpg
west 5.jpg
The field size is much smaller on the west than in the east.

The area of BLUECOAT (early August and to the left above) is the only Commonwealth ground that could be called 'bocage'.
Last edited by Michael Kenny on 05 Dec 2016, 18:38, edited 1 time in total.


User avatar
Nickdfresh
Banned
Posts: 224
Joined: 27 Jul 2007, 14:59
Location: United States

Re: 5 Shermans 1 Tiger/Panther Myth?

#108

Post by Nickdfresh » 05 Dec 2016, 17:31

Richard Anderson wrote:
Nickdfresh wrote:My head is spinning, but relevant to the thread: has it been mentioned yet that German tank destroyers probably killed more Shermans than actual panzers did?
Yes, numerous times, just not in this thread. For example, the cause of tank losses in the ETO (according to WO 291/1186)

Mines 22.1%
AT guns 22.7%
Tanks 14.5%
SP Guns 24.4%
Bazooka 14.2%
Other 2.1%
...s.
Thank you for this...

User avatar
Nickdfresh
Banned
Posts: 224
Joined: 27 Jul 2007, 14:59
Location: United States

Re: 5 Shermans 1 Tiger/Panther Myth?

#109

Post by Nickdfresh » 05 Dec 2016, 17:51

ChristopherPerrien wrote:Yea, all kinds of bad things and confusion happen when you put a turret on an SP Gun and forget it is not tank or when you put a SP gun in a tank unit and think it is one. :lol:
I would say that I see the humor in your post. But as for the American experience in Normandy, it's rather "gallows (or GI) humor." In the bocage, American soldiers and commanders alike expected that since TD's were AFV's that they be employed as tanks in hard fighting throughout the hedgerows. Sometimes this worked well as the higher velocity 76mm was more effective against hardened bunkers, etc. But the American TD limitations became apparent with the open tops being a German sniper's paradise...

paulrward
Member
Posts: 665
Joined: 10 Dec 2008, 21:14

Re: 5 Shermans 1 Tiger/Panther Myth?

#110

Post by paulrward » 05 Dec 2016, 21:53

Hello All ;

Mr. Nickdfresh wrote:
But the American TD limitations became apparent with the open tops being a German sniper's paradise...
Consider the following British entry into the Tank destroyer field: The A30 Avenger.
A30 Avernger.jpg
A30 Avenger

Surely, considering that the U.S. Army had added so many Culin Hedgerow cutters to their tanks in June of 1944, using nothing but oxy acetylene torches and salvaged German Beach Obstacles, it would not have been too hard for them to scrounge up some 1/4" mild steel and some angle iron and cobble together a similar lid for the turrets on the M-10 and M-36 Tank Destroyers ?

But, then again, since the T.D.s were part of the Field Artillery, the senior Cannon Cockers must have insisted that their guns be open to the sky.... and the Snipers...... and the occasionaly passing Pigeon......


Respectfully ;

Paul R. Ward
Information not shared, is information lost
Voices that are banned, are voices who cannot share information....
Discussions that are silenced, are discussions that will occur elsewhere !

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: 5 Shermans 1 Tiger/Panther Myth?

#111

Post by Michael Kenny » 05 Dec 2016, 22:24

paulrward wrote:
Surely, considering that the U.S. Army had added so many Culin Hedgerow cutters to their tanks in June of 1944, using nothing but oxy acetylene torches and salvaged German Beach Obstacles, it would not have been too hard for them to scrounge up some 1/4" mild steel and some angle iron and cobble together a similar lid for the turrets on the M-10 and M-36 Tank Destroyers ?
I will let Steve Zaloga explain it from over a decade ago:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/47208/message/1123785035

The M10 roof applique was peculiar to one unit (813th Tank Destroyer Battalion) which developed the idea in Sep 1944. The rest of the battalions in the 5th TD Group rejected its use at first, but then later in the war (after Feb 45) some had a change of heart and the added armor spread to a few other battalions. These units were with US Seventh Army in Alsace at the time, and it would definitely not be seen in Normandy as it was both too late, and in a different Army. I found the technical report on this project at NARA a few years back, and details are in the Osprey NVG on the M10.
M36aa.jpg

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6350
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: 5 Shermans 1 Tiger/Panther Myth?

#112

Post by Richard Anderson » 05 Dec 2016, 22:32

paulrward wrote: Consider the following British entry into the Tank destroyer field: The A30 Avenger.
Ah yes, the other entry in the A.30 program, which was even less useful than the A.30 Challenger. At least Challenger managed to get into the war. In both cases, given a choice, the RA opted for the M10.

Un-armored weather covers were also developed for the M10, M18, and M36, but were almost never used because they reduced visibility and situational awareness, but more importantly made it almost impossible to work inside the turret. Check out a few photos of a crew inside the turret of an M10. It was so cramped in the M36 that they were modified in the field to shift the periscope locations so as to enable the gunner to access his gunsight.
Surely, considering that the U.S. Army had added so many Culin Hedgerow cutters to their tanks in June of 1944, using nothing but oxy acetylene torches and salvaged German Beach Obstacles, it would not have been too hard for them to scrounge up some 1/4" mild steel and some angle iron and cobble together a similar lid for the turrets on the M-10 and M-36 Tank Destroyers ?
The Culin was first fitted in large numbers to the tanks of the 2d AD in the third week of July...and meanwhile, yes, many TD battalions experimented with field fixes, but none were regularly adopted for the same reason the purpose-designed ones weren't.
But, then again, since the T.D.s were part of the Field Artillery, the senior Cannon Cockers must have insisted that their guns be open to the sky.... and the Snipers...... and the occasionaly passing Pigeon......
No, the Tank Destroyer's were not "part of the Field Artillery". General Marshall specifically ordered their creations separate from the Field Artillery.
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 3726
Joined: 28 Apr 2013, 18:14
Location: London
Contact:

Re: 5 Shermans 1 Tiger/Panther Myth?

#113

Post by Sheldrake » 05 Dec 2016, 23:09

paulrward wrote:Hello All ;

Mr. Nickdfresh wrote:
But the American TD limitations became apparent with the open tops being a German sniper's paradise...
Consider the following British entry into the Tank destroyer field: The A30 Avenger.

A30 Avernger.jpg


Surely, considering that the U.S. Army had added so many Culin Hedgerow cutters to their tanks in June of 1944, using nothing but oxy acetylene torches and salvaged German Beach Obstacles, it would not have been too hard for them to scrounge up some 1/4" mild steel and some angle iron and cobble together a similar lid for the turrets on the M-10 and M-36 Tank Destroyers ?

But, then again, since the T.D.s were part of the Field Artillery, the senior Cannon Cockers must have insisted that their guns be open to the sky.... and the Snipers...... and the occasionaly passing Pigeon......


Respectfully ;

Paul R. Ward
The A30 was a an RAC equipment - a tank optimised for killing other tanks, like the Sherman firefly

The Royal Artillery manned the British "tank destroyer" equipment. The feedback from the units in Normandy was that they really liked the M10 , but it would be even better with a machine gun that could be used under cover and a turret top.(RA Notes 19 or 20?) This requirement could have been met with the Sherman Firefly :) However, the RA decided to opt for the Archer which was trialed in Normandy and introduced into service in late 1944.
Image
This used the same 17 pdr as in the M10, but in a fixed mounting rather than turret. This was a similar design to the improvised early Panzer Jaeger and abandoned by the Germans by 1943. However it offered the Gunners several advantages over the M10:-

- Lower silhouette
- Used the British valentine chassis so it would not need to be returned under lease lend
- Much harder to use as a tank. Certainly to remind the anti tank gunners to do their job not someone else.
- Driving something that definitely wasn't a tank made it less likely that the RAC would take over of the Anti tank role. (This eventually happened but not until 1983)

User avatar
Nickdfresh
Banned
Posts: 224
Joined: 27 Jul 2007, 14:59
Location: United States

Re: 5 Shermans 1 Tiger/Panther Myth?

#114

Post by Nickdfresh » 05 Dec 2016, 23:44

paulrward wrote:Hello All ;

Mr. Nickdfresh wrote:
But the American TD limitations became apparent with the open tops being a German sniper's paradise...
Consider the following British entry into the Tank destroyer field: The A30 Avenger.

A30 Avernger.jpg


Surely, considering that the U.S. Army had added so many Culin Hedgerow cutters to their tanks in June of 1944, using nothing but oxy acetylene torches and salvaged German Beach Obstacles, it would not have been too hard for them to scrounge up some 1/4" mild steel and some angle iron and cobble together a similar lid for the turrets on the M-10 and M-36 Tank Destroyers ?

But, then again, since the T.D.s were part of the Field Artillery, the senior Cannon Cockers must have insisted that their guns be open to the sky.... and the Snipers...... and the occasionaly passing Pigeon......


Respectfully ;

Paul R. Ward
I think the "hedgerow-choppers" came later than June and was part of an intricate system involving sappers using explosive entry as well. I guess I'm getting at the fact that the choppers are a bit overrated by places like The History Channel...

AFAIK, the American TD's had open tops (or at least unarmored ones and they sometimes had tent like covers) because of the mentality Gabel writes about - the idea that the tank destroyer men were expected to be hunters and the open top gave them better visibility in a fight against tanks. Of course this left them vulnerable to air bursts and snipers as well as infantry chucking grenades. I guess the latter wasn't really much of a problem. But it was a severe handicap when used as close support assault guns for infantry.

The British had a different doctrine regarding TD's seeing them as essentially mobile antitank guns to support infantry, which to some extent US TD's became as well. That being said, there were instances where having an open turret did give US TD men some advantages - notably at the Battle of Arracourt for instance...

The final American Tank Destroyer, the M-36 Jackson "Slugger" did have an add-on top armor piece, but not sure if that was post war or not...

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6350
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: 5 Shermans 1 Tiger/Panther Myth?

#115

Post by Richard Anderson » 05 Dec 2016, 23:59

Sheldrake wrote:The A30 was a an RAC equipment - a tank optimised for killing other tanks, like the Sherman firefly
Yep. A.30 Challenger was classed as a Cruiser Tank and so was part of RAC kit. It was built by Birmingham R&W and was based on the A.27M. A.30 Avenger was classed as SP AT and so was part of RC kit. It was built by Leyland and was also based on the A.27M. Al part of the dogs breakfast that was British tank development for much of the war. :D
The Royal Artillery manned the British "tank destroyer" equipment. The feedback from the units in Normandy was that they really liked the M10 , but it would be even better with a machine gun that could be used under cover and a turret top.(RA Notes 19 or 20?) This requirement could have been met with the Sherman Firefly :)
Yes, the RA went down the same blind alley the Tank Destroyers did in that sense. :D
However, the RA decided to opt for the Archer which was trialed in Normandy and introduced into service in late 1944.
This used the same 17 pdr as in the M10, but in a fixed mounting rather than turret. This was a similar design to the improvised early Panzer Jaeger and abandoned by the Germans by 1943.
Not so much "abandoned" as "developed" I think. Part of the problem was the sole chassis production available was the Panzer II and Panzer 38 (t), both of which had size issues. PzJg 38 (t) was pretty nigh unworkable. Meanwhile, the PzJg-IV production basically took away chassis from tank production. Ill considered, but they had few other workable options.
However it offered the Gunners several advantages over the M10:-

- Lower silhouette
- Used the British valentine chassis so it would not need to be returned under lease lend
- Much harder to use as a tank. Certainly to remind the anti tank gunners to do their job not someone else.
- Driving something that definitely wasn't a tank made it less likely that the RAC would take over of the Anti tank role. (This eventually happened but not until 1983)
But only a Gunner could love it. :D The postwar M56 90mm GMC always reminded me of the Archer and was also too much gun for too little vehicle.
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

User avatar
Nickdfresh
Banned
Posts: 224
Joined: 27 Jul 2007, 14:59
Location: United States

Re: 5 Shermans 1 Tiger/Panther Myth?

#116

Post by Nickdfresh » 06 Dec 2016, 00:08

Image

Image

Image

The M-36 with the armored cover, probably post war but possibly made it into the tail end of WWII. The M-36 was the only TD to last much past the end of 1945 in US service IIRC. It was used in Korea...

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6350
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: 5 Shermans 1 Tiger/Panther Myth?

#117

Post by Richard Anderson » 06 Dec 2016, 00:10

Nickdfresh wrote:AFAIK, the American TD's had open tops (or at least unarmored ones and they sometimes had tent like covers) because of the mentality Gabel writes about - the idea that the tank destroyer men were expected to be hunters and the open top gave them better visibility in a fight against tanks.
It wasn't mentality so much as practicality. The turret crew were cheek by jowl as it was. And the open top did give them much better situational awareness than a tank.
Of course this left them vulnerable to air bursts and snipers as well as infantry chucking grenades. I guess the latter wasn't really much of a problem. But it was a severe handicap when used as close support assault guns for infantry.
I cannot find a single case where they were used as "close support assault guns for infantry"? It was invariably overwatch where the TD took advantage of its range and accuracy to "shoot in" the infantry. Essentially the opposite of the separate tank battalion, which was the intended close support assault gun for infantry.
The British had a different doctrine regarding TD's seeing them as essentially mobile antitank guns to support infantry, which to some extent US TD's became as well. That being said, there were instances where having an open turret did give US TD men some advantages - notably at the Battle of Arracourt for instance...
The main difference between the two was that in the American Army every antitank gun 57mm or smaller was manned by infantry as an assigned part of a division, while larger were manned by the TD's as an attachment. In British practice the 6-pdr was manned by infantry in the battalion, while the AT Regiment RA manned the 6-pdr and 17-pdr in batteries as part of a regiment assigned as part of a division and a standard corps.
The final American Tank Destroyer, the M-36 Jackson "Slugger" did have an add-on top armor piece, but not sure if that was post war or not...
Without checking I believe it was developed during the war but never fielded. I think the Yugoslavs got the cover with the M36 they got postwar?
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

User avatar
Nickdfresh
Banned
Posts: 224
Joined: 27 Jul 2007, 14:59
Location: United States

Re: 5 Shermans 1 Tiger/Panther Myth?

#118

Post by Nickdfresh » 06 Dec 2016, 00:28

Richard Anderson wrote:..

It wasn't mentality so much as practicality. The turret crew were cheek by jowl as it was. And the open top did give them much better situational awareness than a tank.
It was both. If you read Gabel, I'm pretty sure he states this concisely, clearly, and often. Tank destroyer personnel were regarded as almost antitank specialist ninjas that were to be ready to dismount and kill panzers by any means necessary, including using Molotov Cocktails! Certainly there was a practical extension of the open top, but it was also an extenuation of the "big game hunter" mentality that TD'ers were supposed to be ingrained with. This of course was in response to the virtual frozen panic the Fall of France sent throughout the US gov't and military...
I cannot find a single case where they were used as "close support assault guns for infantry"? It was invariably overwatch where the TD took advantage of its range and accuracy to "shoot in" the infantry. Essentially the opposite of the separate tank battalion, which was the intended close support assault gun for infantry.
Well, they were used in the Norman hedgerows as hedge-choppers. I think one would be hard pressed to be more infantry support than that!
Image
... American Army every antitank gun 57mm or smaller was manned by infantry as an assigned part of a division, while larger were manned by the TD's as an attachment. In British practice the 6-pdr was manned by infantry in the battalion, while the AT Regiment RA manned the 6-pdr and 17-pdr in batteries as part of a regiment assigned as part of a division and a standard corps.
I was speaking in terms of Tank Destroyers, at least the actual application of them in the field doctrine-be-damned! :)
Without checking I believe it was developed during the war but never fielded. I think the Yugoslavs got the cover with the M36 they got postwar?
I think so, but I'm 99% positive the M-36 was fielded with the cover in Korea at least...

(crikey fuck! I'm in quote hell again :( )

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 3726
Joined: 28 Apr 2013, 18:14
Location: London
Contact:

Re: 5 Shermans 1 Tiger/Panther Myth?

#119

Post by Sheldrake » 06 Dec 2016, 01:24

Richard Anderson wrote:
Sheldrake wrote:
The Royal Artillery manned the British "tank destroyer" equipment. The feedback from the units in Normandy was that they really liked the M10 , but it would be even better with a machine gun that could be used under cover and a turret top.(RA Notes 19 or 20?) This requirement could have been met with the Sherman Firefly :)
Yes, the RA went down the same blind alley the Tank Destroyers did in that sense. :D
Steady on!

I wouldn't say it was a blind alley. The British anti tank doctrine worked pretty well as evidenced by El Alamein and Medennine and Normandy. There was more than one way to deal with tanks. The best anti tank weapon isn't always another tank - despite clankie propaganda.

Until the 1980s the RA operated the Swingfire missile system on FV438 and Striker CVRT. This wire guided system had a range of nearly 4,000m and could be launched semi indirect, with the launcher behind cover and the operator controlling the missile using a remote. No launch flash to alert the target - Unlike MILAN, Sagger or TOW. General David Richards was a captain in a Swingfire battery.

The RAC picked up the role in 1983 and it seemed that they dropped the concept within a couple of years. It wasn't a popular troop command.

You can't do shock action with an SPATGW ;)




RAC had a patchy record for combining with other arms in the first half of WW2 and were obsessed with the idea of the tank v tank duel.

User avatar
Dwight Pruitt
Member
Posts: 448
Joined: 26 Aug 2002, 06:53
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana
Contact:

Re: 5 Shermans 1 Tiger/Panther Myth?

#120

Post by Dwight Pruitt » 06 Dec 2016, 02:35

paulrward wrote:


But, then again, since the T.D.s were part of the Field Artillery, the senior Cannon Cockers must have insisted that their guns be open to the sky.... and the Snipers...... and the occasionaly passing Pigeon......


Respectfully ;

Paul R. Ward

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Post Reply

Return to “USA 1919-1945”