Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

Discussions on the vehicles used by the Axis forces. Hosted by Christian Ankerstjerne
Christianmunich
Banned
Posts: 801
Joined: 26 Nov 2018 17:37
Location: Germany

Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

Post by Christianmunich » 07 Dec 2018 20:06

You quite frequently here about how the M4 wasn't totally unequipped to deal with Tiger tanks because it eventually got the 76mm gun as main armament. That the Tiger and the 76mm were kinda from different periods becomes obvious when we see the Tiger I production ceased in August 1944. After reading pretty often how the M4 76mm now was able to properly deal with the Tiger I noticed I was unable to find such cases. Long story short I personally have not found a confirmed kill of a 76mm gun versus a Tiger, be it in a Sherman or in a M10. This is not to say it never happened but I never saw a specific case.

This is fascinating given the standard trope of M4s being not "impotent" against the Tiger is mainly based on the upgrade of the main weapon. It appears tho that nearly all Shermans whichever fought against Tiger Is were indeed 75mm versions. So I ask has anybody of you seen a confirmed case, or even a good lead?

After some comments on Reddit I was digging through some possible cases the best I found is the following:

Anzio bridgehead end of February eastern sector.

The 601st TD claimed 7 tanks knocked out on 29th February in a skirmish that undoubtedly included Tigers from the 508th, they admitted the total loss of at least 4 but all mentioned losses are due to mines and heavy artillery fire, even a Sherman. Unconnected losses exist but no further evidence for the M10s being the killer. The M10s apparently did not claim any specific type of tank. Other tank units operated in this area, namely the 26th Panzer and the HG, losses unknown to me. The account from the German side is mostly detailed in Wilbecks Sledgehammers, from the looks of it the Tigers were driving through a minefield and hit heavily with artillery which led to the abortion of the attack. The only vehicles mentioned are a Sherman which was knocked out, which likely belonged to the 753rd which exactly at this position admitted a loss against Tigers.

A Russian biography with 76mm Shermans claims to have killed a Tiger but well...

Does somebody find a good case or have more info regarding the 29th February?

User avatar
Cult Icon
Member
Posts: 1457
Joined: 08 Apr 2014 19:00

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

Post by Cult Icon » 07 Dec 2018 21:05

https://www.amazon.com/Igor-Nebolsin/e/ ... 998&sr=8-1

IIRC 1st GTA was had many Shermans. Not sure which units had the 76mm gun but I know what soviet memoir you are referring to. The unit history on it is not released yet over here.

A problem is that the Soviets constantly misidentify german tanks as 'tigers'

Christianmunich
Banned
Posts: 801
Joined: 26 Nov 2018 17:37
Location: Germany

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

Post by Christianmunich » 07 Dec 2018 21:21

Cult Icon wrote:
07 Dec 2018 21:05

A problem is that the Soviets constantly misidentify german tanks as 'tigers'
Exactly, I think the Eastern Front is a good bet I am not inclined to research it myself, Soviet unit diaries are rare on the internet and cross verifying such skirmishes is far more difficult than on the Western Front.

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 2155
Joined: 28 Apr 2013 17:14
Location: London

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

Post by Sheldrake » 08 Dec 2018 13:08

Christianmunich wrote:
07 Dec 2018 20:06
You quite frequently here about how the M4 wasn't totally unequipped to deal with Tiger tanks because it eventually got the 76mm gun as main armament. That the Tiger and the 76mm were kinda from different periods becomes obvious when we see the Tiger I production ceased in August 1944. After reading pretty often how the M4 76mm now was able to properly deal with the Tiger I noticed I was unable to find such cases. Long story short I personally have not found a confirmed kill of a 76mm gun versus a Tiger, be it in a Sherman or in a M10. This is not to say it never happened but I never saw a specific case.
Are you looking for a specific kind of 76mm gun or any old 76mm gun?

There was a difference between the following 76mm ordnance:
  • 3" Gun M1918 - mounted in the M10
    76mm M1 - mounted in the M4 and M18
    Ordnance QF 17-pounder mounted in the Sherman Firefly and the M10 "Firefly"
    77 mm HV - mounted in the Comet.
There is plenty of evidence for the 17 pounder knocking out Tiger tanks.
The British anti tank units had a proportion of 17 pounder equipped M10s in the Normandy campaign. On D Day this amounted to 24 total for thw two army corps. The war diaries do not always make a distinction between a 17 pounder armed M10 - an M10 "firefly" and an ordinary 3" M1918 equipped M10.
119 Battery claimed a Tiger near Gavrus on 29 June 1944. The same day Sergeant Wolley of 21st Anti-tank Regiment manoeuvred his M10 to within 200 yards of what his MM recommendation describes as a Tiger tank which he knocked out with his first shot.

10,July Hill 112

10 SS Panzer Division, concerned that they might lose the key to their position, committed the Tiger tanks of 102 SS Heavy Tank Battalion and stopped the advance on the crest line. Sgt Cummings, No 1 of an M10 of 86th Anti-tank Regiment was asked to assist 7th RTR deal with this new threat:

“I was told by a sergeant from the tanks that they had a problem for me to sort out. Four Churchills had been knocked out by a Tiger and that was hull down a few hundred yards away. So I recced the way forward, decided the range was 400 yards, went back and under cover gave orders to the driver and layer. We went out steadily and the layer spotted it right away. I gave the order to fire and we got the Tiger with first shot. We went back but were later called forward to have a go at some machine guns nests that were holding up the infantry.”

The M10s of 340 Battery rendered valuable assistance to the infantry, some giving close support, others standing back and destroying targets as they appeared. K Troop on the right flank destroyed two Tigers, a Mk IV and a recce car and L Troop on the left destroyed three Tigers and a Fw190.

From Eterville to Chateau de Fontaine the infantry and 17-pounders of 59th Anti Tank Regiment stood firm. Four or five Tigers were knocked out
Feel free to nit pick and offer alternative accounts of these engagements. This is just the Gunner's side of the story

Christianmunich
Banned
Posts: 801
Joined: 26 Nov 2018 17:37
Location: Germany

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

Post by Christianmunich » 08 Dec 2018 16:32

76mms deployed by US forces. M4 and M10. Also those weapons if used by other forces, like M4 76mm Shermans employed by the Red Army. So basically M10s and M4s wherever they fought. British M10s don't count if they had 17pdrs aka Achilles.

17pdr has many confirmed kills on Tigers.

Christianmunich
Banned
Posts: 801
Joined: 26 Nov 2018 17:37
Location: Germany

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

Post by Christianmunich » 08 Dec 2018 17:14

In regards to the M10s in British service which knocked out a Tiger at Hill 112 ( Tiger Endemann ) and the one possibly around Gravus, were those equipped with 17pdrs or regular M10s?

edit: "Only" ~124 M10s were converted to 17pdrs before Normandy so a good chunk of the M10s have to have been regular versions.

Avalancheon
Member
Posts: 143
Joined: 23 Apr 2017 06:01
Location: Canada

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

Post by Avalancheon » 10 Dec 2018 03:16

Christianmunich wrote:
07 Dec 2018 20:06
You quite frequently here about how the M4 wasn't totally unequipped to deal with Tiger tanks because it eventually got the 76mm gun as main armament. That the Tiger and the 76mm were kinda from different periods becomes obvious when we see the Tiger I production ceased in August 1944. After reading pretty often how the M4 76mm now was able to properly deal with the Tiger I noticed I was unable to find such cases. Long story short I personally have not found a confirmed kill of a 76mm gun versus a Tiger, be it in a Sherman or in a M10. This is not to say it never happened but I never saw a specific case.

This is fascinating given the standard trope of M4s being not "impotent" against the Tiger is mainly based on the upgrade of the main weapon. It appears tho that nearly all Shermans whichever fought against Tiger Is were indeed 75mm versions. So I ask has anybody of you seen a confirmed case, or even a good lead?
Its certainly true that the Americas were behind the R&D cycle with regards to tanks and anti-tank guns. By the time of Normandy, their latest tanks were flat out inferior to their enemys latest tanks. Its somewhat embarrassing to consider that the Sherman tank saw its combat debut at the same time as the Tiger tank, in December 1942. Its even more perplexing to realise that 76mm equipped Shermans didn't even see service in any numbers until August 1944, literally the same time the Tiger was going out of production. (As you noted)

The Americans were way behind the ball in this regard. Ironically, they were more likely to encounter the even more formidable Tiger II than they were to see the aging Tiger I. (Wolfgang Schneider details a few of these engagements in his book) By the time they got a good enough gun to handle the Tiger I from the front, it was too late to really matter.

The British situation was different. They were facing off against some of the best divisions in the German army, and the lions share of the heavy tank battalions. That meant they were routinely having encounters with the Tiger Is, but they at least had a weapon that could handle them from the front. The British had plenty of 17 pounder guns and Sherman Fireflys.

They might have envied the massive material superiority the Americans possessed, but they were never as badly off as their Allies WRT the tank and anti-tank deficiencies.

User avatar
Cult Icon
Member
Posts: 1457
Joined: 08 Apr 2014 19:00

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

Post by Cult Icon » 10 Dec 2018 03:49

The book on that subject is "Tigers in Normandy". According to Schneider the three tiger battalions reported 500 tank kills, and around half to the 102 SS tigers, which came in after the 101 SS tigers . For the 102 SS Tigers, they reported 600 in 44/45.

for comparison,eg. 21.Pz reported over 300 kills sometime in July, 12.SS reported 600 in Normandy.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 5868
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

Post by Michael Kenny » 10 Dec 2018 04:50

Avalancheon wrote:
10 Dec 2018 03:16
Its somewhat embarrassing to consider that the Sherman tank saw its combat debut at the same time as the Tiger tank,
It always amazes me that the Germans managed to fit a much bigger gun and substantially more armour on a tank that was only 25 tons heavier than the M4.

Does anyone know how how on earth they managed to do it?

Avalancheon
Member
Posts: 143
Joined: 23 Apr 2017 06:01
Location: Canada

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

Post by Avalancheon » 10 Dec 2018 07:44

Michael Kenny wrote:
10 Dec 2018 04:50
It always amazes me that the Germans managed to fit a much bigger gun and substantially more armour on a tank that was only 25 tons heavier than the M4.

Does anyone know how how on earth they managed to do it?
The Americans have no one to blame for that but themselves. The U.S. army believed their own BS about armored warfare, especially their notion of using a 'one size fits all' formula. They thought they could leave their heavy tanks back in the States and simply fill the gap with more mediums, without suffering any adverse consequences. Experience was to prove them wrong.

Its all well and good to design and build heavy tanks like the M26, but if you aren't actually going to use them, then they won't do you any damn good. The Americans falsely believed the medium Sherman was all the tank they needed, which is why they ended up so heavily outclassed by the Panthers and Tigers.

In an academic sense, yes, its unfair to compare the 'Cats' to the Shermans. But those are the only tanks the U.S. army had to fight with in Normandy and beyond, because they didn't bring anything heavier. Hence, the Tigers and Panthers had an unfair weight advantage that made a stand up fight a tough proposition.
Michael Kenny wrote:
10 Dec 2018 04:50
It always amazes me that the Germans managed to fit a much bigger gun and substantially more armour on a tank that was only 25 tons heavier than the M4.

Does anyone know how how on earth they managed to do it?
The Americans produced alot of very impressive equipment during the war. Their R&D work was definitely better executed than the German work. But there were some areas where it clearly flopped. Tank design being one of them.

Their early attempts at designing a heavy tank were embarrassing. The M6 was a white elephant that weighed as much as the Tiger, and had inferior armor and firepower. Lets ask your own question in reverse. How could they build a 57 ton tank with nothing better than a 76mm gun, Mr. Kenny? Bad design, thats how. Lack of inspiration. And lack of imagination.

What was the point of a heavy tank that carried the same gun as a medium tank? The Soviets made the exact same mistake with the KV-1. The Sherman could carry a 76mm gun, and in fact could do even better! The British fit the 17 pounder gun into it. The Americans even jammed a 90mm gun into the tank (although the pragmatism of this was somewhat questionable). Its all a matter of how the tank is designed.

antwony
Member
Posts: 162
Joined: 30 Jun 2016 09:14
Location: Not at that place

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

Post by antwony » 10 Dec 2018 11:25

Christianmunich wrote:
07 Dec 2018 20:06
You quite frequently here about how the M4 wasn't totally unequipped to deal with Tiger tanks because it eventually got the 76mm gun as main armament. That the Tiger and the 76mm were kinda from different periods becomes obvious when we see the Tiger I production ceased in August 1944. After reading pretty often how the M4 76mm now was able to properly deal with the Tiger I noticed I was unable to find such cases. Long story short I personally have not found a confirmed kill of a 76mm gun versus a Tiger, be it in a Sherman or in a M10. This is not to say it never happened but I never saw a specific case.
You're looking in the wrong places. 76mm M1 was used in enormous numbers. I do sympathise with your situation as the Allie's weren't so concerned with creating Panzer Aces and didn't keep such detailed, largely erroneous records of "victories" and there hasn't been thousands of fanboi-esque fantastical tales published based on, but often exaggerating, that Nazi propaganda.
Christianmunich wrote:
07 Dec 2018 20:06
This is fascinating given the standard trope of M4s being not "impotent" against the Tiger is mainly based on the upgrade of the main weapon. It appears tho that nearly all Shermans whichever fought against Tiger Is were indeed 75mm versions. So I ask has anybody of you seen a confirmed case, or even a good lead?
Have no idea where you came up with this "trope". Theoretically, I suppose you could be reading a great deal of primary source material i.e. internal memos of the US Army circa 42-45. But, given the only source you've given is Reddit.com, I' m going with Youtube comments.
Cult Icon wrote:
07 Dec 2018 21:05
https://www.amazon.com/Igor-Nebolsin/e/ ... 998&sr=8-1

IIRC 1st GTA was had many Shermans. Not sure which units had the 76mm gun but I know what soviet memoir you are referring to. The unit history on it is not released yet over here.

A problem is that the Soviets constantly misidentify german tanks as 'tigers'
That's a good point. The Wallies had a similiar situation, apparently the Pz.IV in particular, was misidentified.

From what i understand, the majority of Shermans the Soviets received had a 76mm, not a 75mm.

Cult Icon wrote:
10 Dec 2018 03:49
The book on that subject is "Tigers in Normandy". According to Schneider the three tiger battalions reported 500 tank kills, and around half to the 102 SS tigers, which came in after the 101 SS tigers . For the 102 SS Tigers, they reported 600 in 44/45.

for comparison,eg. 21.Pz reported over 300 kills sometime in July, 12.SS reported 600 in Normandy.
According to A.A. Milne “People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.” Suppose your post is a good example of the level of information the OP is probably basing his opinion's on. But fantasy, make believe books are best left unmentioned on serious history forums
Christianmunich wrote:
08 Dec 2018 16:32
76mms deployed by US forces. M4 and M10. Also those weapons if used by other forces, like M4 76mm Shermans employed by the Red Army. So basically M10s and M4s wherever they fought. British M10s don't count if they had 17pdrs aka Achilles.

17pdr has many confirmed kills on Tigers.
As Shelldrake pointed out; the 76mm M1 used on the M4 (and M18) was a bit different from the 3-inch M7 used on the M10. The 3 inch M5 AT gun used, I think, the same cartidge as the M7 and possibly was the US weapon system that destroyed the most Tiger I's. The US destroyed ~17 Tiger I's in Sicily and possibly a few (but certainly not many) in Normandy. From what I understand, the Tiger I's used in the Battle of the Bulge were part of some second wave and I have no idea what happened to them. But, that may have been the occassion when the US fought the largest numbers of Tiger I's.

You're query is a semi "strawman" argument as the US army fought very few Tiger I's so there wont be much supporting data.

Also, the Polish army in Normandy and the British in Italy used 76mm Sherman's. So you might find some Tiger kills there.
Avalancheon wrote:
10 Dec 2018 07:44
Michael Kenny wrote:
10 Dec 2018 04:50
It always amazes me that the Germans managed to fit a much bigger gun and substantially more armour on a tank that was only 25 tons heavier than the M4.

Does anyone know how how on earth they managed to do it?
The Americans have no one to blame for that but themselves. The U.S. army believed their own BS about armored warfare, especially their notion of using a 'one size fits all' formula. They thought they could leave their heavy tanks back in the States and simply fill the gap with more mediums, without suffering any adverse consequences. Experience was to prove them wrong.
There is the not insignificant fact that the US was on the winning side.
Avalancheon wrote:
10 Dec 2018 07:44
Its all well and good to design and build heavy tanks like the M26, but if you aren't actually going to use them, then they won't do you any damn good. The Americans falsely believed the medium Sherman was all the tank they needed, which is why they ended up so heavily outclassed by the Panthers and Tigers.
In retrospect, serial production and issuing of the M26 to combat formations earlier seems like a good idea, but see above comment.

The only combat reports I've read of American's vs Tiger I's were in Sicily when yes, the 82AB with their bazooka's were "outclassed" by Tigers. Which occassions are you thinking of were American tanks were "clearly outclassed" by Tiger I's? Panthers didn't stop the Americans in the Bocage, and got hammered in OP Lüttich, Cobra, the Bulge and that OP in Alsace.
Avalancheon wrote:
10 Dec 2018 07:44
Their early attempts at designing a heavy tank were embarrassing. The M6 was a white elephant that weighed as much as the Tiger, and had inferior armor and firepower. Lets ask your own question in reverse. How could they build a 57 ton tank with nothing better than a 76mm gun, Mr. Kenny? Bad design, thats how. Lack of inspiration. And lack of imagination.
Aren't an expert on the history of American tank production. But, from my little knowledge, understand that America produced several hundred (thousand???) FT-17's and Mark VIII heavies, with production ending in the 1920's. These (or perhaps just the FT-17's) were the tanks America had in 1939.

I'd describe the M6 as a reasonable first attempt, certainly not an embarrasment. Given the data they had of the effectiveness of the 75mm in the M2 Lee/Grant in North Africa, along with the initial reports of Sherman, going even bigger with a HV 3-inch certainly isn't an embarrasment.

Although, I guess we are probably going to disagree on this as your comments on the KV-1 strike me as pretty stupid. In 1940, when the KV I entered service it's 76.2 was, by some margin, the most powerful (in an AT sense) gun ever mounted on a tank. That short 75 in the Char B1 I guess would be second. The Russians, probably could have come out with the KV 85 sooner. But, as I was saying about the Americans, the Russians were on the winning side and any of their "failings" should be viewed through that prism.

Christianmunich
Banned
Posts: 801
Joined: 26 Nov 2018 17:37
Location: Germany

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

Post by Christianmunich » 10 Dec 2018 11:52

Michael Kenny wrote:
10 Dec 2018 04:50
Avalancheon wrote:
10 Dec 2018 03:16
Its somewhat embarrassing to consider that the Sherman tank saw its combat debut at the same time as the Tiger tank,
It always amazes me that the Germans managed to fit a much bigger gun and substantially more armour on a tank that was only 25 tons heavier than the M4.

Does anyone know how how on earth they managed to do it?
This can be played both ways. It is amazing that US managed to create one of the heaviest mediums, outweighting Panzer VIs and StuGs and T-34s as the most produced vehicles of other armies while being unable to bring in a suitable gun or protection. Sherman fans do seem to forget that the Sherman was extremely heavy for what is brought to the table.

The Tiger was heavy but brought a gun that sliced through everything that was used by its opponents and an armour that withstood the vast majority of currently available anti tank guns in the Allied armies. THe Sherman was heavy with low mobility for what exactly?

I honestly think the weight argument was misunderstood for too long I would argue the Sherman was one of the worst if not the worst offenders for unnecessary weight. 33 tonnes for no protection. Well...

Christianmunich
Banned
Posts: 801
Joined: 26 Nov 2018 17:37
Location: Germany

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

Post by Christianmunich » 10 Dec 2018 11:58

Avalancheon wrote:
10 Dec 2018 07:44
I have no argument so there can't be a strawmen. I am aware of the rough numbers of Tiger I encounters that is specifically why I ask. The strawmen is that the M4 Sherman wasn't "bad" against the Tiger because it eventually got the 76mm which seems to be completely irrelevant if people are unable to find even a single case of such encounters. The 75mm M4 tho saw plenty of combat with Tiger Is. I am inquiring if somebody knows confirmed cases of Tiger Is getting destroyed by M4 with 76mm or M10s with 76mm. Pretty basic question.
Which occassions are you thinking of were American tanks were "clearly outclassed" by Tiger I's?
When they were decimated in the Eastern parts of Normandy. Unless you mean by "American" tanks only those who were crewed by American soldiers

antwony
Member
Posts: 162
Joined: 30 Jun 2016 09:14
Location: Not at that place

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

Post by antwony » 10 Dec 2018 12:31

Christianmunich wrote:
10 Dec 2018 11:52
Michael Kenny wrote:
10 Dec 2018 04:50
Avalancheon wrote:
10 Dec 2018 03:16
Its somewhat embarrassing to consider that the Sherman tank saw its combat debut at the same time as the Tiger tank,
It always amazes me that the Germans managed to fit a much bigger gun and substantially more armour on a tank that was only 25 tons heavier than the M4.

Does anyone know how how on earth they managed to do it?
This can be played both ways. It is amazing that US managed to create one of the heaviest mediums, outweighting Panzer VIs and StuGs and T-34s as the most produced vehicles of other armies while being unable to bring in a suitable gun or protection. Sherman fans do seem to forget that the Sherman was extremely heavy for what is brought to the table.
Fans??? What kind of term is that to use? You are 14 aren't you?

Presuambly you meant PzIV, not VI. Pz IV's, StuG's, T34's and Shermans were all of a very similiar weight.
Christianmunich wrote:
10 Dec 2018 11:52
The Tiger was heavy but brought a gun that sliced through everything that was used by its opponents and an armour that withstood the vast majority of currently available anti tank guns in the Allied armies. THe Sherman was heavy with low mobility for what exactly?
The Tiger was almost twice as heavy as the Sherman. It's in a completely different category.
Christianmunich wrote:
10 Dec 2018 11:52
I honestly think the weight argument was misunderstood for too long I would argue the Sherman was one of the worst if not the worst offenders for unnecessary weight. 33 tonnes for no protection. Well...
No protection... OK, So you are a 14 year old troll. Enjoy my reply, this will be my last interaction with you. M.Kenny's point, as an adult would understand, wasn't purely about weight.

Christianmunich wrote:
10 Dec 2018 11:58
Avalancheon wrote:
10 Dec 2018 07:44
I have no argument so there can't be a strawmen. I am aware of the rough numbers of Tiger I encounters that is specifically why I ask. The strawmen is that the M4 Sherman wasn't "bad" against the Tiger because it eventually got the 76mm which seems to be completely irrelevant if people are unable to find even a single case of such encounters. The 75mm M4 tho saw plenty of combat with Tiger Is. I am inquiring if somebody knows confirmed cases of Tiger Is getting destroyed by M4 with 76mm or M10s with 76mm. Pretty basic question.
Which occassions are you thinking of were American tanks were "clearly outclassed" by Tiger I's?
When they were decimated in the Eastern parts of Normandy. Unless you mean by "American" tanks only those who were crewed by American soldiers
Commonwealth crewed American built tanks most certainly took loses in Normandy. The only units decimated, however were (all of the) German formations. Try and read a book some time that's written for adults.

Your making your semi strawman argument into an actual strawman. M4's with 75mm, the most common American tank used by the Commonwealth don't count for you. American made tanks with 17lbs-ers, the 2nd most common type of American tank used by the Commonwealth also don't count. Only the statistically small number of M10's, with a 3inch M7, used by the Commonwealth suit your constructed criteria

Christianmunich
Banned
Posts: 801
Joined: 26 Nov 2018 17:37
Location: Germany

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

Post by Christianmunich » 10 Dec 2018 12:47

antwony wrote:
10 Dec 2018 12:31
Fans??? What kind of term is that to use? You are 14 aren't you?
Fan is pretty perfect word for this actually if you think about the actual meaning of "Fan"
Presuambly you meant PzIV, not VI. Pz IV's, StuG's, T34's and Shermans were all of a very similiar weight.
Yes I did mean the PzIV. Similiar weight is just a different way of saying the Sherman was far heavier than most of the other main AFVs of other nations and for this it offered zilch. This is a good example of what I mean by "Fan". The Sherman depending on version weighted 33% more than the main tank of Wehrmacht, which also was able to carry a powerful gun. Saying "similar" weight just tries to underplay that the Sherman was very heavy for a "medium".
The Tiger was almost twice as heavy as the Sherman. It's in a completely different category.
So what? A P51 had far higher weight than Bf 109, a Sherman had far higher than a StuG III. People "build" those categories only when it suits their argument. If people would compare the Sherman with its zero protection and inadequate gun to a StuG III people would say "but this is a turretless AFV". So what?

Perfect description of what I mean by fan. Compare a Sherman to a Tiger it is not "fair" because one was a "heavy" tank compare a Sherman to a Stug III and now they are "similar" weight despite the Sherman weighting 50% more.

No protection... OK, So you are a 14 year old troll. Enjoy my reply, this will be my last interaction with you. M.Kenny's point, as an adult would understand, wasn't purely about weight.
The Sherman actually offered the same protection as light tanks. Nearly the entire AT arsenal of the Wehrmacht would easily defeat the Sherman, for a Pak 40 it didn't matter if the opposing tank was a Sherman or an Stuart. That is the fun part about the 32 tonnes. The Sherman only really offered protection against artillery, small arms, and the occasional rare low caliber hits of 20mm flaks et cetera.

Before you now start explaining how this is not true you should check out which weapons were actually against Shermans. For the majority of cases the Sherman offered the same protection as light tanks. 32 tonnes of no protection. They build a 32 tonnes tank that was just not heavy enough to withstand high vel 75mms.
Commonwealth crewed American built tanks most certainly took loses in Normandy. The only units decimated, however were (all of the) German formations. Try and read a book some time that's written for adults.
This is just semantics, if you consider units getting hundreds of replacement tanks as not "decimanted" then so be it. Sherman forces suffered appaling losses against Tigers.
Your making your semi strawman argument into an actual strawman. M4's with 75mm, the most common American tank used by the Commonwealth don't count for you. American made tanks with 17lbs-ers, the 2nd most common type of American tank used by the Commonwealth also don't count. Only the statistically small number of M10's, with a 3inch M7, used by the Commonwealth suit your constructed criteria
what? No idea what you are trying to say. I was asking if somebody knows a M4 76mm which has a verified kill on a Tiger. What do you mean by "doesn't count"??

Return to “The Ron Klages Panzer & other vehicles Section”