Sherman Tank Performance

[Zinegata]

You are claiming that the Germans lost 3-4 times more tanks in tank to tank combat with US forces in 44/45?

Nope, I am not claiming those figures are 100% accurate. As I said the Divisional numbers were not fact-checked. The BRL report does not seem to look at German loss reports but they do broadly match the number of tanks faced by the two Divisions studied.

And again we're talking about the stats for a study of two US Armored _Divisions_. Outside of those two Divisions, I agree the stats are different. The British equivalent study did have loss rates closer to 1:1, but the focus of that study was Normandy.

Lorraine was non-normal (use of low quality pz brigades while Balck stalled), just like the first week of the Battle of the Bulge (with very high US losses including the routing of 2 x USAD by a VGD) was non-normal. OP Cobra (US armor 5 x of the depleted german formations) was non-normal. The tank losses in BoB/OP NW were not that different on both sides. Then the foci of German armor went East to Hungary.

Well if Lorraine wasn't normal then when else were there large-scale tank vs tank battles in the West other than the Bulge and Normandy? The couple of battles on the Sigfried line?

If you must define Lorraine as abnormal, you must define what is normal. That said...

Most small meeting engagements in my last personal study a while back was literally 1 for 1 losses, not very insightful.
You can see what I'm getting at? I think the operational/tactical situation is the primary influence on combat. The best tankers and tanks can be put in the worst situation and perform badly.

Yes, I agree. That's why I pointed to how the BRL record is typical for US Armored _Divisions_. The experience of the British and of the US Sherman battalions supporting the infantry were different and do reflect what you said above. It was more 1:1 for them.

My belief is that the great contest between allied vs. German armor is a futile exercise as the circumstances tend to ruin I am completely unconvinced that tactical action were won by tankers or armor that were eg. 20% or 100% better. The attacker had the advantage if their formations were in better fighting condition. The lowest tactical level that I think important is the divisional level.

I don't disagree. However, that also points to how the soft stats of the Sherman were in fact more important than the joust stats. Your formations are in better fighting condition if you aren't trying to spend most of your time repairing broken down tanks.

[Cult Icon]

I think a 'normal' action in 44/45 simply a meeting engagement, as the panzer divisions were just hit & run guerrillas most of the time (just like they were on the East Front 43-45). The bigger ones got the 'press coverage' though.

They were no longer committed frequently in the grand scale as like guerrillas they are afraid of a large scale open engagement.

So the stronger side, the allies can deploy on the grand scale.

[Zinegata]

I think a 'normal' action in 44/45 simply a meeting engagement, as the panzer divisions were just hit & run guerrillas most of the time (just like they were on the East Front 43-45). The bigger ones got the 'press coverage' though.

They were no longer committed frequently in the grand scale as like guerrillas they are afraid of a large scale open engagement.

So the stronger side, the allies can deploy on the grand scale.

Well if you define the small-scale company-sized meeting engagement as typical then yes there's no disagreement from me that it was more of a 1:1 exchange in those battles; with the winner generally being decided by tactical conditions.

What I haven't seen though - and I'm bringing this up mainly to ask you for information - is whether you have any idea how many or how often actual engagements of this nature were fought? My impression is that these are still actually fairly rare as the Germans rarely deployed Panzer Divisions outside of battalion strength; and that battles of that size tend to be more of Allied tanks fighting towed anti-tank guns or self-propelled panzerjaeger.

[Cult Icon]

I lose count. The German pz unit histories (on the west there is ones such as 21.Pz, 12.SS, 1.SS, 2.SS, 116.WH) are mostly a mass of micro combat (a platoon, a company here and there to do force recon or retake a tiny piece of terrain or stall, etc.) interrupted by the major actions once in a while. The day to day combat, while individually trivial adds up to being the majority of a unit's war experience. The incidence of the 'Panzer Aces' have a lot to do with the tendency for the units to have few armor operational and having the same crews hogging the vehicles.

The situation is very different between the opponents; the Soviet and US units were sustainable while the German Pz divisions depreciated into low capability and went long periods without much reinforcement outside of a trickle. This was the case for the whole war- part of fighting a war with stressed resource constraints.

[Zinegata]

I lose count. The German pz unit histories (on the west there is ones such as 21.Pz, 12.SS, 1.SS, 2.SS, 116.WH) are mostly a mass of micro combat (a platoon, a company here and there to do force recon or retake a tiny piece of terrain or stall, etc.) interrupted by the major actions once in a while. The day to day combat, while individually trivial adds up to being the majority of a unit's war experience. The incidence of the 'Panzer Aces' have to do with the tendency for the units to have few armor operational and the same crews hogging the vehicles.

The situation is very different; the Soviet and US units were sustainable while the German Pz divisions depreciated and went long periods without much reinforcement outside of a trickle. This was the case for the whole war- part of fighting a war with stressed resource constraints.

Well, not to start an argument but this is where there seems to be the difference in our perspective. If you look at the Panzer unit histories there will certainly seem to be a lot of small-scale activity and indeed they do make up the majority of a unit's war experience. I have no doubt you are right about this.

However, that same small-scale busy work would also apply to the Heer Infantry Divisions and their panzerjaeger components. And there were far more infantry and towed panzerjaeger. So from the Allied perspective, they would not necessarily be constantly facing Panzers, but the more common and numerous infantry and panzerjaegers. The Panzers would be more of a rarity compared to the towed anti-tank guns or infantry.

[Zinegata]

So courtesy or not, just stop. And good night.

Sorry and good night.

[David Thompson]

An off-topic frivolous post by paspartoo was removed.

[Chepicoro]

And again we're talking about the stats for a study of two US Armored _Divisions_. Outside of those two Divisions, I agree the stats are different. The British equivalent study did have loss rates closer to 1:1, but the focus of that study was Normandy..

The allies had a numerical advantage in tanks around 4:1 and the loss ratio was close to 1.3:1
A Survey of Tank Warfare in Europe from D-Day to 12 August 1944
AORG Memorandum No. C6. Merriam Press, page 19.

[Chepicoro]

Argument: Minute 32:16 Chieftain says "If you want actual mathematics, the Americans estimated that the Sherman was on average 3.6 times more effective than the Panther".

Counterargument: He is ignoring the conclusions of the study that he is quoting. The study is very explicit about the impossibility to get the effectiveness of different combat systems with a small sample of cases.

First there is a more objective description of the study in the book Panther vs Sherman" by Steven Zaloga.


Then the conclusions of the study.

Data on World War II Tank Engagements Involving the US Third and Fourth Armored Divisions page 27.

[Chepicoro]

"Operational Research in Northwest Europe The Work of No.2 Operational Research Section with 21 Army Group June 1944 to July 1945" page 396.

The 'Bible' for those who disparage the Sherman. A survey done of c.45 Shermans. The people who did this report also found the Pz IV was the most vulnerable tank on the battlefield and the Pz IV and the Tiger burnt just as badly as a Sherman . I know from this posters previous half-a-dozen outings of this argument (he post word-for-word picture-for-picture the exact same argument/illustrations on every forum he uses and he never changes anything no matter how many times his mistakes are pointed out) that his argument then suddenly changes and he dismisses the reports findings on the Pz IV and Tiger as worthless.

First I changed this a lot and added information, and second, if you complain about the sample of 45 shermans why you do not talk about the size of the sample of german tanks?? 5 pz IV and 5 Tigers... it is not the place to teach you statistic, but such a small sample is not representative. The sample of shermans is not big enough to have a reasonable margin of error, however is several times more representative than the sample of german tanks, and the margin of error much lower.



By the way the Chieftain did not mention this "small" detail when talked about the Pz IV inflammability.

[Michael Kenny]

First I changed this a lot and added information, and second, if you complain about the sample of 45 shermans why you do not talk about the size of the sample of german tanks?? ..........................

And in order to refute the claim 'post word-for-word picture-for-picture the exact same argument/illustrations' you post
'the exact same argument/illustrations' you have used on the previous half a dozen outings of this argument!

[Michael Kenny]

First I changed this a lot and added information, and second, if you complain about the sample of 45 shermans why you do not talk about the size of the sample of german tanks?? 5 pz IV and 5 Tigers...

Ok then add all the German tanks together as one. 5 Tiger, 5 Pz IV & 22 Panther = 32 tanks of which 24 burned.

75% of German tanks burned compared to 83% of Shermans.

................if you complain about the sample of 45 shermans...................

There is a reason I put a small 'c' in front of the number in 45 in my earlier quote 'A survey done of c.45 Shermans'

This is because I knew it was not 45 but could not be bothered to look it up. I see now it was 40 (33+7=40) Shermans.

Thus we (now) have a sample of 32 German tanks and 40 Shermans.

[Chepicoro]

Michael Kenny

So you do not know statistics...

Ok then add all the German tanks together as one

why??

There is a reason I put a small 'c' in front of the number in 45 in my earlier quote 'A survey done of c.45 Shermans'

This is because I knew it was not 45 but could not be bothered to look it up. I see now it was 40 (33+7=40) Shermans.

Thus we (now) have a sample of 32 German tanks and 40 Shermans.

First is your word with any source (as usual). Second you still do not understand that the size of the samples is too small to be representative and have a reasonable margin of error 5% or less, however the sherman sample is several times more representative than the samples of Pz IV and Tiger tanks, and similar to the the sample of Panthers you can do the math by yourself...

[Michael Kenny]

. Second you still do not understand that the size of the sample is too small to be representative and have a reasonable margin of error 5% or less, however the sherman sample is several times more representative than the sample of Pz IV and Tiger tanks, and similar to the the sample of Panthers you can do the math by yourself...

I know that a sample of 32 German tanks is more or less the same as a sample of 40 Sherman tanks. You obviously do not like the fact one of your principle points has been completely demolished so I expect you to spend a lot of bandwith dreaming up reasons why you will not accept it.

[Michael Kenny]

First is your word with any source (as usual)

Yes I am the sort of person who, when he does not know the actual number uses the 'c' to show I am not being precise. Unlike you who despite having the data right in front of you, inflates '40 Shermans' into '45 Shermans'. Just another example of how sloppy you are with the data.