"it took 5 sherman to destroy 1 tiger"

Discussions on the vehicles used by the Axis forces. Hosted by Christian Ankerstjerne
Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: "it took 5 sherman to destroy 1 tiger"

#31

Post by Michael Kenny » 10 Mar 2019, 17:34

Yoozername wrote:
10 Mar 2019, 17:10

Your Nelsonian Knowledge ......................is quite extensive.
The trick is to always ensure the patch is only covering the 'bad' eye.

Note that none of the deniers has come straight out and said my claim (that 75% of all hits on a Panther penetrated) is incorrect. Many excuses advanced as to why 75%of hit penetrated but no straight denial of the fact.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2615
Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
Location: Colorado

Re: "it took 5 sherman to destroy 1 tiger"

#32

Post by Yoozername » 10 Mar 2019, 17:40

No, you ignore arguments. Basically, you are trolling. You are, again, off topic, and advancing your simplistic view of a subject.


Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6350
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: "it took 5 sherman to destroy 1 tiger"

#33

Post by Richard Anderson » 10 Mar 2019, 18:10

Avalancheon wrote:
10 Mar 2019, 06:26
Fascinating. So we finally have confirmation that the legend actually has its origins in the war itself, and that it wasn't a postwar construct (as others have claimed). The numbers are different, of course, but some variation is to be expected as per the Chinese whisper. A three to one myth during the war became a five to one myth after the war, as it spread among more people and became subject to permutation.
Yes, fascinating indeed. We have confirmation that whatever number is offered up is confirmation for those who like to myth-make. So two is the same as three is the same as five or perhaps six, just so long as it is conveyed in a Chinese whisper. Fascinating.
Nothing surprising about that. Legends that spread by word of mouth are nebulous things, which mutate as they are transmitted from speaker to speaker. Its never easy to trace their origin unless you have something in writing, which you have thankfully provided. The exact number of Panthers/Tigers specified in the myth is less important than the fact that the Allies believed their tanks were that much inferior to the German cats.
To be precise, a newspaperman in Washington D.C., working for what was at that time an anti-Democratic Party paper (my how times change), keyed off of editorials from the New York Times, in order to level criticism at the government's conduct of the war...the American version of the Hansard debates found by Sheldrake (thanks Sheldrake BTW, very interesting to get the British perspective).

What is ever so much more interesting though than the numbers in the myth, is just how long it took for it to take root (at least from the American side). The controversy that exploded (although in the end at the time it became a tempest in a teapot) began in early January 1945 and extended to March before petering out and was a consequence of six months of growing frustration capped by the battles in the Ardennes and Alsace. I.D. White's letter was cumulative frustration...there was no such expressions made that I have been able to find until the stalemate of fall and winter...it took until late November to convince the tank battalions of 4th AD to accept the 76mm for example.
That General White sure was a real jerk. How dare he make a mountain out of a molehill and investigate the non-existent superiority of German heavy tanks. All he did was give rise to rampant speculation among anti-war journalists and cause the public to question the War Department. Not to mention discouraging the troops. He should have been court martialed for that little stunt!
Gee, nothing like a good red herring to troll a thread with, is there? Where exactly did I criticize White or imply he was a jerk? Where did I imply the lack of superiority of "German heavy tanks"?

BTW though, you may want to work on your basic knowledge and understanding of what went on. White's letter went to Eisenhower, not to "anti-war journalists" (who weren't that, they were anti-Roosevelt's administration and pissed that he had been re-elected again). Eisenhower received White's letter on 26 March 1945, but the controversy effectively died on 28 March, when the War Department released Patton's letter to General Handy, which essentially was the end of it until it got resurrected 25-odd years later...when Eisenhower's wartime papers were printed in 1970. The actual document was declassified about the same time.
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6350
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: "it took 5 sherman to destroy 1 tiger"

#34

Post by Richard Anderson » 10 Mar 2019, 18:13

Yoozername wrote:
10 Mar 2019, 16:03
Perhaps taken out of context...but it mentions his maths in regards to force ratio...the guy that writes this is a bit of a yahoo...
Yahoo... :lol: No, very much in context, more proof of American's cheating to win. :D
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: "it took 5 sherman to destroy 1 tiger"

#35

Post by Michael Kenny » 10 Mar 2019, 18:15

Yoozername wrote:
10 Mar 2019, 17:40
No, you ignore arguments. Basically, you are trolling. You are, again, off topic, and advancing your simplistic view of a subject.
Simplistic?
Hmm........perhaps you are on to something.

A simple message is the best message and you can not get more simpler than '75% of all hits on a Panther penetrated'.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2615
Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
Location: Colorado

Re: "it took 5 sherman to destroy 1 tiger"

#36

Post by Yoozername » 10 Mar 2019, 18:58

Richard Anderson wrote:
10 Mar 2019, 18:13
Yoozername wrote:
10 Mar 2019, 16:03
Perhaps taken out of context...but it mentions his maths in regards to force ratio...the guy that writes this is a bit of a yahoo...
Yahoo... :lol: No, very much in context, more proof of American's cheating to win. :D
It is a bit of Entomology from where this 'bug' stuck in people's ear. Tanks become Tigers...No mention of Panthers, etc.,...simplistic retellings, over and over, become 'facts'. Next thing you know, History Channel cements it into people's limited knowledge of WWII...and then a bad Brad Pitt movie is made...

Of course, Albin, in between post war shots of his whisky rations, is making a Reader's Digest version of a very multifaceted, combined arms story that is decidedly a one-eyed look at a donkey's rear...looking for a sore throat. The guy did live long, Maybe those rations ain't so bad.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6350
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: "it took 5 sherman to destroy 1 tiger"

#37

Post by Richard Anderson » 10 Mar 2019, 19:11

Yoozername wrote:
10 Mar 2019, 18:58
It is a bit of Entomology from where this 'bug' stuck in people's ear. Tanks become Tigers...No mention of Panthers, etc.,...simplistic retellings, over and over, become 'facts'. Next thing you know, History Channel cements it into people's limited knowledge of WWII...and then a bad Brad Pitt movie is made...
Yep...and we modern, internet-accessing geniuses always know better than they. Mac MacDonald said it best when I "corrected him" regarding his ID;ing first Tigers, then Panthers, in different editions of Company Commander. After telling him with great confidence they were actually Jagdpanzers and not tanks at all, he said, "to an infantryman it doesn't make much difference; if it has a big gun and armor its a tank".
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2625
Joined: 12 Jan 2015, 14:34
Location: On the continent

Re: "it took 5 sherman to destroy 1 tiger"

#38

Post by MarkN » 10 Mar 2019, 19:28

Yoozername wrote:
10 Mar 2019, 18:58
It is a bit of Entomology from where this 'bug' stuck in people's ear. Tanks become Tigers...No mention of Panthers, etc.,...simplistic retellings, over and over, become 'facts'. Next thing you know, History Channel cements it into people's limited knowledge of WWII...and then a bad Brad Pitt movie is made...

Of course, Albin, in between post war shots of his whisky rations, is making a Reader's Digest version of a very multifaceted, combined arms story that is decidedly a one-eyed look at a donkey's rear...looking for a sore throat. The guy did live long, Maybe those rations ain't so bad.
Some people spend a lot of their time, effort and money on researching, analysing and evaluating primary documentation because they're interested in historical reality.

Some people love a good a story and are not particularly bothered whether it is accurate or not - but spend an inordinate amount of their time winding up others with their nonsense.

A wartime comment that it took three Shermans to defeat a Panther is proof that the 5:1 Sherman:Tiger ratio is not a post-war myth. The critically acclaimed Chinese Whisper Permutation Theorum trumps all other analytical tools. :lol:

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2625
Joined: 12 Jan 2015, 14:34
Location: On the continent

Re: "it took 5 sherman to destroy 1 tiger"

#39

Post by MarkN » 10 Mar 2019, 19:31

Richard Anderson wrote:
10 Mar 2019, 19:11
Yep...and we modern, internet-accessing geniuses always know better than they. Mac MacDonald said it best when I "corrected him" regarding his ID;ing first Tigers, then Panthers, in different editions of Company Commander. After telling him with great confidence they were actually Jagdpanzers and not tanks at all, he said, "to an infantryman it doesn't make much difference; if it has a big gun and armor its a tank".
Who cares what Old Mac thinks and believes when the internet-accessing geniuses can always find a free book online to confirm their bias. :lol:

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2615
Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
Location: Colorado

Re: "it took 5 sherman to destroy 1 tiger"

#40

Post by Yoozername » 10 Mar 2019, 20:31

How long till this gets locked up? I have no Idea what MarkN is even saying?
"to an infantryman it doesn't make much difference; if it has a big gun and armor its a tank".
Actually,they thought they were all a Tiger tank....

Tom from Cornwall
Member
Posts: 3211
Joined: 01 May 2006, 20:52
Location: UK

Re: "it took 5 sherman to destroy 1 tiger"

#41

Post by Tom from Cornwall » 10 Mar 2019, 21:40

Although loathe to intrude on this regurgitated thread with an actual primary source I thought might be of interest, I cannot help myself... :lol: :lol: :lol:

By a coincidence I found this in the war diary of a British Sherman-equipped regiment for July 1944 describing the lessons learned from an operation in which they had closely co-operated with British infantry:
The argument that Shermans must “sit back” because of their “thin skin” is open to question, as no allied tank nowadays can rely solely on its amour to provide protection. Even Churchills will be penetrated without difficulty at the short ranges common in most parts of NORMANDY if they are not properly supported by artillery...
Regards

Tom

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6350
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: "it took 5 sherman to destroy 1 tiger"

#42

Post by Richard Anderson » 10 Mar 2019, 22:20

Yoozername wrote:
10 Mar 2019, 20:31
Actually,they thought they were all a Tiger tank....

It's actually an interesting point. Probably the most accurate id's on the battlefield were by the Yes, followed by armor, then infantry and artillery, but the worst was probably the Airedales. The infantry seemed to have called everything a tank as much as they called them Tigers. The 106th Infantry was convinced the nearly unarmored SP 37mm and 20mm AAA halftracks were tanks and the 99th ID thought the Stummels were as well.

At army-level, TUSA compiled reports of enemy armor lost as heavy - Tigers and Panthers - and medium, which was pretty much everything else. They also trended to use US terminology for German stuff, sometimes lumping StuG with JgPz as SP artillery...along with SP field artillery and infantry guns. Lots of room for confusion and misunderstanding.
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

User avatar
Mobius
Member
Posts: 645
Joined: 12 Jan 2005, 21:45
Location: Glendale, CA
Contact:

Re: "it took 5 sherman to destroy 1 tiger"

#43

Post by Mobius » 11 Mar 2019, 19:26


User avatar
warriorant
Member
Posts: 86
Joined: 30 May 2004, 22:15
Location: Cheshire, ENGLAND

Re: "it took 5 sherman to destroy 1 tiger"

#44

Post by warriorant » 11 Mar 2019, 23:50

Mobius wrote:
11 Mar 2019, 19:26
Some interesting comparative videos.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-cFP4S7bc4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj0AzL95Weg
Nice videos, thanks for sharing :thumbsup:
Ex Nord West Kampfgruppe (Leighton Hall, UK)

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6350
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: "it took 5 sherman to destroy 1 tiger"

#45

Post by Richard Anderson » 12 Mar 2019, 01:03

Mobius wrote:
11 Mar 2019, 19:26
Some interesting comparative videos.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-cFP4S7bc4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj0AzL95Weg
The first is interesting...especially trying to figure out who was doing the testing of the two. Germans or British? :D
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

Post Reply

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