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

[Michael Kenny]

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.

Here another example of US tankers not being able to knock out a Tiger II and the tank retreats completely unharmed-or was it?

Some quotes from Duel in the Mist 3 by Haasler, Vosters, and Weber; a small engagement on 22 December 1944 involving a tank of Task Force Lovelady and a tank of Kampfgruppe Peiper in the Belgian town of Parfondruy:

US veteran Charles R. Corbin recalls:
Quote:
...I went upstairs in a house on a hill behind us to observe better. There under our nose was a large German tank in some trees. After telling Plummer and Edmark we got artillery on it and flushed it out where one of Company D's tanks had a clear shot at it, and shoot it he did, but three balls of fire bounced off of it and it backed away never moving its turret. It had to be a Mark VI Tiger. It made us all wonder and I know the tank gunner was shaking his head, feeling helpless, as it backed up the railroad on our left flank. I had seen our 75s bounce off Mark V tanks before, the last time near Roetgen where they wiped out several of our tanks...
The tank was indeed a Tiger Ausf.B, number 133 of 1./s.SS-Pz.Abt.501. TC SS-Oberscharführer Werner Wendt relates his side of the engagement:
Quote:
...I started again in the direction of Stavelot trying to give my best. About fifty meters in front of the edge of the town my driver suddenly swung around our tank. The interphone isn't working, I don't know what happened. The driver drove back at full speed, passing the command post in the direction of Petit Spai. About 100 meters in front of the bridge we drive into the ditch. Only now can I see the reason for the sudden turn-around of the driver. We have received a hit into the turret ring. The shell had bounced downwards into the hull, torn off the hatch of the radio-operator, and killed the radio-operator...Fragments had destroyed the steering gear and the gearbox, oil was leaking. As the driving mechanism and gear shift was conducted by oil pressure the failing oil pressure caused the tank to run out of control. The Tiger was totally immobilized.

And was blown up because it could not be recovered.

[Michael Kenny]

The tank was hit multiple times doesn't mean it needed those hits.

...but a Tiger wreck with (say) 5 hits was only knocked out by hit 5.
Makes perfect sense....to you!

[Michael Kenny]

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

If you gave me a date/location then I will find a photo of this Tiger. Any tank with 30+ hits is going to be distinctive.
Details please.

[Michael Kenny]

Your argumentation remains the same................

That the 'puny' Sherman Armies utterly destroyed the Uber-panzer Armies. Yep that story will never change because it is exactly what happened.

[Christianmunich]

Kenny this is not how any of this works. I say there are very little examples of Shermans remaining combat active after hits and there are many German vehicles being described that way. Saying "but here is one where this didn't happen", is no argument at all. I am not even sure what you are attempting to say.

The quotes I have given are clear the tank sustained 2 hits at least and kept manoeuvring and firing. That is all I said. It happened so often nobody even argues against this. Wittmann was hit as well and kept moving. My argument is pretty basic in nature, if you "believe" in your vehicle you are more motivated to remain in combat. The Sherman did not offer this protection and the crews knew.

Tigers being hit and remaining combat active just happened quite frequently compared to let's say Shermans. Check the British sample of the 100 Shermans only a single one was described as retaliating against opposing forces.

The British sample of Shermans is a fundus of actual empiric evidence and the suspicious lack of "research" into it this by most of the known historians
is telling in my opinion. The sample shows clearly the Sherman offered nothing over a light tank that would justify the massively increased weight et cetera.

nobody has anything to say about the data I shared? Quite interesting, isn't it?

...but a Tiger wreck with (say) 5 hits was only knocked out by hit 5.
Makes perfect sense....to you!

Nobody said this. But if a Tiger sustained two hits and kept manoeuvring or firing it was not knocked out of combat. Are you getting agitated by the first proper analysis of the samples? Shermans were nearly always knocked out after a single impact. It is how it is.

If you gave me a date/location then I will find a photo of this Tiger. Any tank with 30+ hits is going to be distinctive.
Details please.

It was at Rheindahlen either 22ish March or February. I had it connected to the entry in Schneiders book but didn't write it down. Btw nobody said the Tiger sustained 30 hits. The war history of the 5th armour said more than 36 rounds were fired at the Tiger not how many of them hit. They said at least two rounds hit.

That the 'puny' Sherman Armies utterly destroyed the Uber-panzer Armies. Yep that story will never change because it is exactly what happened.

Repeating a false argument doesn't make it more correct. Like I said they could have employed bycles in their armoured divisions and would have still won. makes no difference, your argument is poorly constructed.

[Richard Anderson]

And was blown up because it could not be recovered.

But it was not destroyed by a penetration of the glacis so doesn't count...or something.

[Duncan_M]

CM, you're like Hitler reincarnated.

Germans desperately need an updated medium tank after 40-42 concerns. They take a decent medium tank design and Hitler orders they add additional glacis armor putting it to 45 tons, which it's drive train can't handle it. Which made a medium tank as heavy as a heavy tanks. Like him, you don't seem to understand the problem with that. The repercussions for him is he got to figure out what a Walther barrel tastes like. While you get ridiculed and banned from forum after forum.

So no shit the M4 Medium wasn't as strong as a Panther. Because it was a medium tank. So why not keep adding more armor to the point its invulnerable to a frontal glacis shot from a PaK/KvK 40 or greater? Because, as actual history shows, it wasn't necessary. They got the job done fine without uparming to heavy tank weight. They most certainly did better than heavy ass Panthers that had crap operational mobility because of crap reliability and terrible fuel consumption, which is kind of important when Germany was obsessed with maneuver warfare and had limited supplies.

[Christianmunich]

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

I missed the actual intention of the question. Yes there are plenty of Sherman out of combat without hits penetrating into the crew compartment.

The marked column shows all entries where the tank appeared to have been knocked out without a projectile penetrating crew compartment.

[Michael Kenny]

That the 'puny' Sherman Armies utterly destroyed the Uber-panzer Armies. Yep that story will never change because it is exactly what happened.

Repeating a false argument doesn't make it more correct. Like I said they could have employed bycles in their armoured divisions and would have still won. makes no difference, your argument is poorly constructed.

Good luck with your crusade to re-write the history of WW2. Poorly constructed arguments or not if it is based on solid historical fact it will always prevail over those who want to change the definition of 'winning' to mean losing less tanks than your enemy. It is really really significant that 20 of the 2,000 T-34 tanks pumping shells through the streets of Berlin get knocked out by Umpastumpa fuhrer Heinz von Beanz. That sort of brave deed sure take the sting out of the fall of Berlin!

[Christianmunich]

So no shit the M4 Medium wasn't as strong as a Panther. Because it was a medium tank. So why not keep adding more armor to the point its invulnerable to a frontal glacis shot from a PaK/KvK 40 or greater? Because, as actual history shows, it wasn't necessary. They got the job done fine without uparming to heavy tank weight. They most certainly did better than heavy ass Panthers that had crap operational mobility because of crap reliability and terrible fuel consumption, which is kind of important when Germany was obsessed with maneuver warfare and had limited supplies.

That is not the argument. The argument is the Sherman was misconstructed and a failure in regards to armour. They made it 32 tonnes for no protection, either make it heavier with pak 40 protection or lighter for mobility reasons. Pretty straight forward argument. The Sherman was one of the heaviest mass produced tanks and offered close to no protection.

Also the fuel argument is false and easily refuted with basic math. A Sherman army required more fuel than comparable German armies. A Tiger might use more fuel per unit but also offers more combat value per unit. The Sherman actually offered a horrific fuel effenciey. Imagine fueling 10k of those things because you already lost thousands of them destroyed.

Just basic math. And here we see how the "scientific" field needs actual experts. How people can believe the Sherman was fuel effecient is beyond me. How much fuel was used during Goodwood to lose a couple hundred tanks? Obviously a Tiger consumes more fuel but you also needed fewer of them. On a good day a handful of them together with some Grenadiers destroy the British Columbia Regiment filled with Shermans, in a bad month 10k Shermans achieve nothing over the whole front. All about numbers. German units required the fraction of supply compared to Allied units obviously due being more efficient.

Sherman wasn't even fuel efficient compared to other tanks, it consumed quite a lot because it was totally useless 32 tonnes heavy while offering no protection to its crew.

Comparing a Sherman tank fuel consumption to a German heavy is like comparing the fuel consumption of a destroyer to a cruiser ( obvious hyperbole ). If you want to understand fuel efficiency you have to calculate fuel per "combat impact". Here the Tiger one was likely one of the best. Imagine how few galons of fuel could stop you the advance of the entire 11th Armoured division with nearly 200 Shermans.

Just numbers.

[Christianmunich]

That the 'puny' Sherman Armies utterly destroyed the Uber-panzer Armies. Yep that story will never change because it is exactly what happened.

Repeating a false argument doesn't make it more correct. Like I said they could have employed bycles in their armoured divisions and would have still won. makes no difference, your argument is poorly constructed.

Good luck with your crusade to re-write the history of WW2. Poorly constructed arguments or not if it is based on solid historical fact it will always prevail over those who want to change the definition of 'winning' to mean losing less tanks than your enemy. It is really really significant that 20 of the 2,000 T-34 tanks pumping shells through the streets of Berlin get knocked out by Umpastumpa fuhrer Heinz von Beanz. That sort of brave deed sure take the sting out of the fall of Berlin!

But there is no solid historical fact that supports your claim. None at all. You simply conflate winning with having better tanks, your argument is obviously without any basis. You have made the same claim hundreds of times as well, the basic premise you erect is "winner had better everything". The argument has no value.

The Brits also didn't have a superior squad machine gun or LMG however you wanna call it and they still won the war. This is the formal destruction of your argument. I have shown winning does not equate having better equipment. Your premise is invalid. You have never constructed an argument to support your claim the Allied tanks were "superior". Never

[Richard Anderson]

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

Um, since I doubt you will get a coherent response, perhaps I can explain. The "survivability myth" is that the data does not support the idea the Medium Tank M4 was survivable. As witness the data cribbed from WO 205/1165, which of course shows that...drum-roll please, the Sherman and Sherman 17-pdr performed in the exact same range as the Comet, Challenger, and Stuart tanks, and marginally worse than the Cromwell. Mind you, those figures were incorporated into the findings of ORO T-117 as well as the findings from FUSA, which in comparison showed in 274 tanks and 1,370 crewmen, the chance of being a casualty was about 50.8% as opposed to 32% (although I'm still trying to figure out how someone gets "half-wounded" and "half-burned")? And the chance of being killed was about 12.5% as opposed to 13%. Anyway, given that in many cases we don't know if the casualty resulted in or out of the tank and that we do know that the casualties varied greatly by cause, I think we can all take it as read that the the idea that such a "myth" exists is likely a figment of living in a coked-out fantasy world.

[Christianmunich]

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

I posted the data for non penetrating knock outs.

In regards to the survivability myth, it is now a common trope that the Sherman was designed to feature high crew survivability with spring loaded hatches a roomy interior and easy exit paths. This is shown to be bollocks. The Sherman had the same numbers as tanks that described as difficult to exit et cetera, even more fascinating the Cromwell has the Sherman beat in that sample.

You might see this line of argumentation in Chieftain videos which to my knowledge are the most viewed "tank podcast".

Extremely fascinating is that several of the design elements supposedly chosen to increase crew protection have no effect at all. A myth or hoax whatever you wanna call it, the Sherman despite its spring-loaded hatches et cetera was beaten by the Cromwell. Comparable to realibility. The Sherman has the best PR crowd beyond that not much.

Be careful with Mr Andersons numbers he does not properly present the sample. Different causes of tank casualties resulted in different casualty ratios. His sample includes mines for example which lower the overall numbers and therefore don't allow comparisons between gunfire samples.

[Richard Anderson]

That is not the argument. The argument is the Sherman was misconstructed and a failure in regards to armour. They made it 32 tonnes for no protection, either make it heavier with pak 40 protection or lighter for mobility reasons. Pretty straight forward argument. The Sherman was one of the heaviest mass produced tanks and offered close to no protection.

Yep...and the exact same argument holds for the Panzer III, Panzer IV, T34, and et cetera. They were designed for a certain weight and protection and were then overmatched by improvements in enemy weapons. The Panther maintained its edge because its frontal protection overmatched almost every enemy weapon, but it required a 45-ton platform to do that...and woefully vulnerable flanks and rear. Tiger I and II did the same somewhat better, by increasing weight while decreasing reliability.

[Michael Kenny]

But there is no solid historical fact that supports your claim. None at all.

Rubbish. I just checked my 'WW2 for Dummies' and it clearly says the Allies totally destroyed the Tigers and Panthers in Normandy and sent the survivors scuttling back to Germany. Indeed so panic-stricken were the defeated Germans that started destroying their own tanks and calling that a victory!