Picture of a Sherman withstanding a clean hit of a pak40 or better

[Michael Kenny]

I have studied the British late war sample in-depth, nearly any hit immediately knocked out a Sherman even glancing blows. My interpretation was that soldiers in general tend to leave the vehicle if under fire and hit which was exacerbated by knowing you were in a zero protection vehicle. ............Quite a bummer that no such data exists for German vehicles, I would assume the urge to survive was strong in every soldier of any army but I wonder if knowing your tank is downright garbage in terms of protection changed the behaviour of the occupants. Even non-penetrating hits prompted the crews to abandon the tank frequently.

Read Stuart Hills By Tank Into Normandy page 108 for a Panther that was engaged as it passed in front of Shermans and the Panther crew bailed out as the tank continued moving. Kershaw's 'Tank Men'
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0340923490/ ... th=1&psc=1

has other German example including (from memory) a Panther crewman who got out and refused to get back inside the tank and stayed on top of it.

[Michael Kenny]

Very hard to tell but the British late war sample most certainly shows where the rift between empiric evidence ( 10k destroyed Shermans, slow advanced ) and recent opinions ( war winner ) lays.

11 weeks from landing to the complete destruction of the German Army in France and 11 months from landing to The Elbe. I don't have to add anything to that sentence because it says everything.

[Christianmunich]

No need to get emotional again. Tankers on all sides were humans and wanted to survive the shit they had to live through. I am not saying British folks loved to jump out of their tanks while German tankers were sitting in their mythical tanks eventually switching to their knives defending their iron coffin to death. I have studied the British sample at it is obvious that Shermans were left pretty fast and I raised the theory that tankers being aware of the defensive properties of their vehicle were more willing to ditch the tank once hit, totally normal human reaction. If you know your tank doesn't do shit even if you are standing 1000 yards out perfectly with your front to the enemy. And that is the point.

I have a good chunk of personal notes and war diary entries of Allied soldiers detailing how they hit Germans tanks which returned fire, I have very little seen from Allied soldiers, and I am believing this is entirely due to the Sherman. The ripple effects I have spoken about. Just knowing your tank doesn't protect you will affect your decision making in combat.

No doubt German tankers ditched their tanks, that is not the point, I am wondering and kinda claiming knowing your tank is "weak" will negatively affect your combat performance. One of the major points I raised in the 5:1, the heavy armour allowed to create crews that kept their cool in combat situations due to surviving hits and "trusting" their vehicle. I assume you would not deny that there are dozens hundreds stories of German Tiger crews getting hit and staying in combat. Strong armour created experienced calmer crews.

11 weeks from landing to the complete destruction of the German Army in France and 11 months from landing to The Elbe. I don't have to add anything to that sentence because it says everything.

Your way of measuring performance is known and there is little to add. It does not withstand scientific debate, never did. People will also explain how the Red Army was tactically superior which is proven by their eventual victory. Defeating faulty arguments is all folks like me can do, people will chose to stick with their old arguments anyways. How many tanks were destroyed before break out? About 1k? If they didn't have the numbers their army would have been spend. Just a numbers game. Everything the Sherman did, better vehicles would have done better. They lost like 10k tanks just in the ETO finishing off the Wehrmacht. Numbers don't lie and speak a clear language.

The actual performance facts are clear and rarely talked about. The British sample shows nearly every Sherman hit in combat was immediately out of combat it was literally no real tank. It had the clumsiness of a medium tank and the protection of a light tank.

[Tom from Cornwall]

CM,

You are correct in your assumption about none penetrating hits that knock out. I have studied the British late war sample in-depth, nearly any hit immediately knocked out a Sherman even glancing blows. My interpretation was that soldiers in general tend to leave the vehicle if under fire and hit which was exacerbated by knowing you were in a zero protection vehicle. The British sample was really quite enlightening to me, nearly any hit and the Sherman was out of combat. This goes so far that sometimes the tank was left before impact or when another tank was hit.

The sample also shows the "shoot until it burns" myth to be false, Shermans in this sample in most cases got a single hit, multiple hits were rare. The Sherman was tank basically offered no protection and hits were the end of the mission for the crew, not all of those were eventually destroyed but Sherman crews remaining in combat after sustaining a hit was really rare. Quite a bummer that no such data exists for German vehicles, I would assume the urge to survive was strong in every soldier of any army but I wonder if knowing your tank is downright garbage in terms of protection changed the behaviour of the occupants. Even non-penetrating hits prompted the crews to abandon the tank frequently.

"frequently"? It would be great to see the evidence upon which you base this sweeping statement.

Anyway, I thought you didn't believe in non-penetrating Sherman hits.

And what is the "shoot until it burns" myth? Not heard of that before.

Regards

Tom

[Tom from Cornwall]

And again:

I assume you would not deny that there are dozens hundreds stories of German Tiger crews getting hit and staying in combat. Strong armour created experienced calmer crews.

Hundreds of stories? Really?

I have a good chunk of personal notes and war diary entries of Allied soldiers...

Don't be coy, why don't you post them up so we can all read them!

Regards

Tom

[Michael Kenny]

I am wondering and kinda claiming knowing your tank is "weak" will negatively affect your combat performance.

It the later half of WWII Panzer IV crews gave it the nickname 'Rotbart der Hauchdunne' (redbeard the thin-skinned). On account of it lack of sloped armour.

Source: Panzer IV and its variants / Spielberger, Walter.


This is a pun on many levels. 'Rotbart' was the most popular type of razor blade in WW2 Germany. Thin razor blade/thin armour. Redbeard/rusty.

Screenshovvvt_3.jpg

[Christianmunich]

CM,

You are correct in your assumption about none penetrating hits that knock out. I have studied the British late war sample in-depth, nearly any hit immediately knocked out a Sherman even glancing blows. My interpretation was that soldiers in general tend to leave the vehicle if under fire and hit which was exacerbated by knowing you were in a zero protection vehicle. The British sample was really quite enlightening to me, nearly any hit and the Sherman was out of combat. This goes so far that sometimes the tank was left before impact or when another tank was hit.

The sample also shows the "shoot until it burns" myth to be false, Shermans in this sample in most cases got a single hit, multiple hits were rare. The Sherman was tank basically offered no protection and hits were the end of the mission for the crew, not all of those were eventually destroyed but Sherman crews remaining in combat after sustaining a hit was really rare. Quite a bummer that no such data exists for German vehicles, I would assume the urge to survive was strong in every soldier of any army but I wonder if knowing your tank is downright garbage in terms of protection changed the behaviour of the occupants. Even non-penetrating hits prompted the crews to abandon the tank frequently.

"frequently"? It would be great to see the evidence upon which you base this sweeping statement.

Anyway, I thought you didn't believe in non-penetrating Sherman hits.

And what is the "shoot until it burns" myth? Not heard of that before.

Regards

Tom

Like I said I analysed the British late war sample. Shermans sustained very little hits on average, tanks were just done after the first hit, regardless of where it hit the vehicle. The tank was just offering nothing to sustain combat beyond small arms and artillery.

I will give you some numbers I have found.

wo1.jpg

Here you see the number of hits sustained by the Shermans and below you see how many hits it took to make the Sherman a casualty. I have no checked all the numbers through like I would for "publishing" but this will give you a good idea. Casualty status was assumed due to descriptions or in the case of a single hit, this hit was assumed to have casued the casualty. The sample specifially mentions some instanced of soldiers remaining in the tank after hit only a single Sherman was reported to have returned fire after hit, this tank got immediately got another 5 or so impacts to finish it off. The numbers nicely show something that people kinda knew. German gunners put one round in and move to the next target, there was no need for more in most cases. Those were just Shermans.

Notice how little Shermans were viable after a singular hits, close to non. When historians tell interested listeners/watchers/readers that the Sherman was actually well armoured because it had xxx effective armour and was heavier armoured than xyz, this is how their theories looked in praxis. It is just meaningless blabla, tanks have to be armoured towards a specific threat profile. The Sherman was the opposite of that, maximum weight minimum protection.

Also interesting is the "survivability" myth. Shermans didn't really perform that much better and were in this sample outperformed by the Cromwell. As seen with the "reliability" most of the upsides of the Shermans are made up to sell books or video games. All the actual existing data disputes those claims quite easily. Same with performance 10k destroyed yadda yadda. Claims are difficult to refute if people want to believe.

wo2.jpg

Since we are on it, here a list of "non-penetrations"

wo3.jpg

Here you nicely see how the "there is a sample where only xx%penetrated" is a misrepresented pseudo factoid. Everything glancing the tanks was considered "non-pens". Even hits into guns et cetera.

The good old Stuart had a better rate then the Sherman, which obviously doesn#t say anything because the metric of "non-pen" in this sample doesn't say anything about protection:

See the following numbers:

Here you see the distribution of hits and how they on average performed ( scoop or pen )

wo4.jpg

Notice how the turret roof has excellent numbers. Why is that? Gunships were not a thing and impacts rarely came from above so they can't penetrate, those are glancing blows or hits towards the exterior like MG mounting or hatches et cetera. The same with hull roof. It is meaningless.

Always important to understand what the numbers actually show. Sometimes you are lucky and get a guy like me who correctly puts data into perspective without giving it a biased spin.

If somebody wants to research this on their own here are all non-penetrations which their corresponding entry in the British sample which can be found at ww2talk

wo5.jpg

[Christianmunich]

I am wondering and kinda claiming knowing your tank is "weak" will negatively affect your combat performance.

It the later half of WWII Panzer IV crews gave it the nickname 'Rotbart der Hauchdunne' (redbeard the thin-skinned). On account of it lack of sloped armour.

Source: Panzer IV and its variants / Spielberger, Walter.


This is a pun on many levels. 'Rotbart' was the most popular type of razor blades in WW2 Germany. Thin razor blade/thin armour. Redbeard/rusty.

And nobody ever claimed the Panzer IV was well armoured in the late war and there lies the difference. The Panzer IV was obsolete and used as stop gap and couple tonnes lighter than the Sherman. I feel Sherman fans are just more emotional. The Sherman armour was horribly designed and did nothing, the Panzer IV was obsolete and nobody denies that..

The Panzer IV was nothing more than a gun platform that allowed sustaining combat against infantry, at least a bit. The same for the Sherman. That is why the Allied armies felt so slow post Normandy, their tanks were unable to force breaches, every hit a kill. A single pak40 could negate the movement of a Sherman troop. That is why 15k ( ?!?!? ) AFVs were sitting on the German border in late 1944 getting nothing done.

[Tom from Cornwall]

CM,



You are correct in your assumption about none penetrating hits that knock out. I have studied the British late war sample in-depth, nearly any hit immediately knocked out a Sherman even glancing blows. My interpretation was that soldiers in general tend to leave the vehicle if under fire and hit which was exacerbated by knowing you were in a zero protection vehicle. The British sample was really quite enlightening to me, nearly any hit and the Sherman was out of combat. This goes so far that sometimes the tank was left before impact or when another tank was hit.

The sample also shows the "shoot until it burns" myth to be false, Shermans in this sample in most cases got a single hit, multiple hits were rare. The Sherman was tank basically offered no protection and hits were the end of the mission for the crew, not all of those were eventually destroyed but Sherman crews remaining in combat after sustaining a hit was really rare. Quite a bummer that no such data exists for German vehicles, I would assume the urge to survive was strong in every soldier of any army but I wonder if knowing your tank is downright garbage in terms of protection changed the behaviour of the occupants. Even non-penetrating hits prompted the crews to abandon the tank frequently.

"frequently"? It would be great to see the evidence upon which you base this sweeping statement.

Anyway, I thought you didn't believe in non-penetrating Sherman hits.

And what is the "shoot until it burns" myth? Not heard of that before.

Regards

Tom

Thanks for your long post - none of which shows what your evidence is for your statement that:

Even non-penetrating hits prompted the crews to abandon the tank frequently

Nor did you tell me what your understanding of the "shoot until it burns" myth is? Can you point me to a source for that?

Instead you introduce a "survivability" myth. Again, what's your source for someone peddling that "myth"?

Regards

Tom

[Michael Kenny]

That is why 15k ( ?!?!? ) AFVs were sitting on the German border in late 1944 getting nothing done.

That is the proof the Sherman is crap?
That they all reached the German border in 'late' 1944?
I can't stop laughing, my flabber has never been so gasted.

[Christianmunich]

Yes that is pretty strong proof. The collapse of the German army in July/August was achieved by gigantic force ratios that are rarely display even in such huge conflicts. The numbers were mindboggling. After that the German army was send in hasty retreat which led to major land grabs, after the German forces consolidated a new defensive line the gigantic allies armies were again bogged down. Sherman armies were highly ineffecient and relied on material superiority that was difficult to achieve.

I am surprised how much difficulty this simple argument creates for people. The Allied armies in October November achieved hardly anything against an enemy that should be swept aside on paper.

Kenny your argument is as simple as it is refuted. Your argument since years remained the same "the Allies won therefore any tactic/equipment/doctrine use was superior". This argumentation is false and hardly an argument at all. The Allies would have won the war with M5s only or maybe even without tanks. It didn't matter.

What matters is actual battle analysis. The British have shown how Sherman armies fare against enemies that are heavily outnumbered. They have shown a Sherman army has to drastically outnumber the enemy forces.

Since you have studied Normandy battles too such a degree I am surprised you haven't come to the same conclusion. Goodwood, Bluecoat et cetera didn't convince you?

[Michael Kenny]

Who said the Sherman was 'weak' This example needed 7 hits to defeat it.

M4 Sherman graveyard, Bray (5).jpg

Not an isolated example either. See 6 hits needed here:

screenshot.2018-09-17 (6)bb.jpg

If you think a Tiger or Panther with 4 or 5 hits is proof that it needed 4 or 5 hits to knock it out then it follows Sherman with 6-7 hits is proof it needed 6-7 hits to knock it out.

[Michael Kenny]

Yes that is pretty strong proof. The collapse of the German army in July/August was achieved by................

..........the total destruction of the Panzer Arm in Normandy.

[Christianmunich]

And again:

I assume you would not deny that there are dozens hundreds stories of German Tiger crews getting hit and staying in combat. Strong armour created experienced calmer crews.

Hundreds of stories? Really?

I have a good chunk of personal notes and war diary entries of Allied soldiers...

Don't be coy, why don't you post them up so we can all read them!

Regards

Tom

Sure why not. Here is one from a likely King Tiger 506th:

Unit history 5th AD

"We fired eight rounds to the direct front," said Sgt. Galpin. The Kraut tank was maneuvering around, backing up and coming forward to fire, but I know we hit it at least twice."

While Sgt. Galpin and his crew were firing to their right flank, an enemy anti-tank gun opened up from the left flank and knocked out their tank.

"More of our tanks were moving up behind us, and when ours was hit, the other really poured it into that Tiger tank," said the platoon sergeant.

The Mark VI was finally knocked out by a round from the tank commanded by Lt. Shirley J. Duran. More than 36 rounds had been fired at the enemy tank before it was destroyed.

This is obviously anecdotal by nature. But in your experience of reading books unit diaries et cetera, have you ever seen a Sherman in late war being described as sustaining hits keeping firing on German forces?

Assuming this to be half true we can at least see the tank crew remainged in their hit tank kept moving and firing. Have you ever read about a Sherman sustaining a hit and keep going leave alone multiple hits? The German crew in this case was certainly influenced by their knowledge to sit in a King Tiger wouldn't you agree? Knowing the power of your vehicle influences the behaviour of the crew.

[Christianmunich]

Who said the Sherman was 'weak' This example needed 7 hits to defeat it.

M4 Sherman graveyard, Bray (5).jpg

Not an isolated example either. See 6 hits needed here:

screenshot.2018-09-17 (6)bb.jpg

If you think a Tiger or Panther with 4 or 5 hits is proof that it needed 4 or 5 hits to knock it out then it follows Sherman with 6-7 hits is proof it needed 6-7 hits to knock it out.

This is false Kenny. The tank was hit multiple times doesn't mean it needed those hits. The British sample shows multiple tanks that were abandoned after the first hits but sustained more hits after. Being hit 7 times does not mean it needed 7 hits, very important distinction. Like I said the numbers are out there I have shown my "research".


I will give you an example. Sherman A.32 was hit a total of 8 times but the first hit had already ko'ed the tank:

Shot a) or e) was the first to hit, and injured the Driver and caused the crew to bale out.

The tank was done after the first hit, which actually did not penetrate into the crew compartment. The amount of hits on the vehicle does not say how many it took to take it out. Besides that nearly two-thirds of all Shermans got only hit a single time.

..........the total destruction of the Panzer Arm in Normandy.

Your argumentation remains the same. The Allied won therefore everything they did, produced et cetera was superior. A weak argument and a wrong one. "total destruction" of a small enemy is no major feet on its own. The totally destroyed Wehrmacht tank force was still smaller than the tank force destroyed in the Allied ranks. Your argument is simple and mostly window dressing. The Allied lost more than 10k AFVs destroyed in the ETO exceeding the amount of German equivalent vehicles. If you lose so much while destroying the weak enemy you might were just not as effective as possible.