Sherman Tank Performance

[Chepicoro]

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.

Well you showed that you can not into math, or at least are ignorant about basic statistics since you clearly do not understand concepts like margin of error or representativeness.

[Chepicoro]

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.

And apparently you can not even read well.


Total tanks casualties analysed 45

But 40 or 45 Shermans it is almost the same, in any case the sample is not representative enough to have a reasonable margin of error for the total population of Shermans that fought at Normandy.

[Michael Kenny]

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.

Well you showed that you can not into math, or at least are ignorant about basic statistics since you clearly do not understand concepts like margin of error or representativeness.

#

Please explain why a collection of data on 32 knocked out German tanks is not a valid sample of knocked out German tanks.

[Michael Kenny]

And apparently you can not even read well.


Total tanks casualties analysed 45

Yes that is another table. The original table (Table VIII) you posted says 33+7= 40.

You are all over the place.

[Chepicoro]

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.

Well you showed that you can not into math, or at least are ignorant about basic statistics since you clearly do not understand concepts like margin of error or representativeness.

#

Please explain why a collection of data on 32 knocked out German tanks is not a valid sample of knocked out German tanks.

Of course after you present the sources I requested through the thread... I asked first, but the information you need is on the wiki.

[Chepicoro]

And apparently you can not even read well.


Total tanks casualties analysed 45

Yes that is another table. The original table (Table VIII) you posted says 33+7= 40.

You are all over the place.

And the data from Table VIII came from this other table as is explained in the study, in fact all the tables on the report No. 12 are based on the first one...

[Chepicoro]

Argument At minute 38:53 Chieftain talks about the casualties produced in the Sherman in comparison with the Cromwell and the American and British perspective about the safety of the Sherman´s crews. He concludes that was much safer to be a tanker than a rifle man and was nothing extraordinary about the casualties of the Sherman´s crews.

Counterargument: The Chieftain is right, the Sherman was not a Death Trap, however at least from the British experience a penetrated Sherman always produced slightly more casualties than other allied tanks.


"The comparative Performance of German Anti-tank Weapons During World War II" H.G. Gee editado por Merriam Press, page 20.

....................................Average..........Sherman.......Difference
Mines...............................21.8%..............24.6%........+.2.8%
Anti-tank guns.....................40%................41.4%........+1.4%
Tanks...............................46.5%..............60.5%.........+14%
Self propelled guns...............48.4%...............54.3%.........+5.9%
Bazooka............................38.6%................44.7%.........+6.1%
**Maybe these little percentages were important for the crews.

In theory the table includes all the combat of the British tanks throughout the war.

[Michael Kenny]

And the data from Table VIII came from this other table as is explained in the study, in fact all the tables on the report No. 12 are based on the first one...

They are 2 seperate reports. They share some data. Did you not notice that one is a report on Sherman casualties and the other German casualties?

[Michael Kenny]

however at least from the British experience a penetrated Sherman always produced slightly more casualties than other allied tanks.
In theory the table includes all the combat of the British tanks throughout the war.

A 1945 detailed sample of 214 AP/HC penetrated tanks (75mm M4 x 76, 17pdr m4 x 30, Cromwell x 46, Comet x 46, Challenger x 7 & Stuart x 9 ) produced a table of casualties
76 x M4 75........ 46 KIA, 41.5 WIA, 25.5 burnt = 30%
30 x M4 17pdr..... 17 KIA, 18 WIA, 9 burnt = 38%
46 x Cromwell.......20 KIA, 33 WIA, 10 burnt = 29%..
46 x Comet...........31 KIA, 30 WIA, 14 burnt = 33%
7 x Challenger.......4 KIA, 8.5 WIA, 2.5 burnt = 40%.
9 x Stuart.............5 KIA, 10 WIA, 0 burnt = 40%

If a man was WIA and burned he was counted in both.

[Michael Kenny]

however at least from the British experience a penetrated Sherman always produced slightly more casualties than other allied tanks.

It appears otherwise.


I have no idea how this table was compiled.

Here a 1945 attempt to count mine casualties.

Note in the above a transcription error in the Sherman column line 5 where a '5' has been made into a '3'

[Chepicoro]

Michael Kenny

Do you understand the meaning of "mean values"??... check the column

Type of tank........Mines
Sherman.............24.6%
Mean Values.........21.8%

As everyone can read the Sherman was above average, in the case of mines and in every case of the table.

[Michael Kenny]

Michael Kenny

Do you understand the meaning of "mean values"??... check the column

Type of tank........Mines
Sherman.............24.6%
Mean Values.........21.8%

As everyone can read the Sherman was above average, in the case of mines and in every case of the table.

I understand that you wish to use only the survey that shows results better suited to your mindset . The 'mined' numbers I posted contradict it and even go so far as to state ' the risk is least for Sherman crews who are very rarely injured by anti-tank mines
The AP/HC penetrated figures I posted show that the Sherman did not have the highest number of casualties per penetrated tanks and thus your claim ' a penetrated Sherman always produced slightly more casualties than other allied tank' is false.

All you can say is in your cherry picked source (picked I say because it is the result you want) shows the Sherman was above average, in the case of mines and in every case of the table.
I have produced much more detailed evidence that completely refutes your argument.

[Michael Kenny]

From 'The comparative Performance of German Anti-tank Weapons During World War II" H.G. Gee':

'As an example, a total of 127 killed and wounded were recorded to 103 cases in which Sherman tanks were mined.

WO 205 1165 a detailed survey of 43 Shermans in NWE gives 43 Shermans producing 5 casualties.

The casualties are 12 times larger in Gee.

WO 205 1165 lists in detail the actual mine damage to the tanks, type of mine, if the floor was sandbagged and even the WD number of every tank.

WO 205 1165 was done in 1945 by 2 doctors who examined nearly every tank they used.
Gee wrote his paper in 1950

[Chepicoro]

Michael Kenny

A penetrated Sherman produced in the British experience slightly more casualties than the average of the allied tanks. Was not a "death trap" and probably by the end of the war was one of the safest tanks available.

All you can say is in your cherry picked source (picked I say because it is the result you want) shows the Sherman was above average, in the case of mines and in every case of the table.
I have produced much more detailed evidence that completely refutes your argument.

Nope it is not cherry picked since Gee´s study is not a sample of 43 Shermans, but a study of thousands of British tanks casualties throughout war, being much more representative than 43 tanks from a population of several thousands.

Also thanks to post your source this time http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.u ... r/C3186871, that is interesting, useful and was the purpose of the thread.

Also in the book "British Armour in the Normandy Campaign" by John Buckley, this source is used in his chapter "The tank gap", his conclusions are interesting.

[Cult Icon]

That's why drawing broad, sweeping conclusions from tank data in the west are largely moot for any firm observations. (yet authors and wartime researchers still did it). Similar research could be done in other areas and draw dramatically different conclusions.

Well you showed that you can not into math, or at least are ignorant about basic statistics since you clearly do not understand concepts like margin of error or representativeness.