Tom from Cornwall wrote: ↑
02 Mar 2019 22:30
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.
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.
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.
Since we are on it, here a list of "non-penetrations"
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 )
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
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.