5 Shermans 1 Tiger/Panther Myth?

Discussions on all aspects of the United States of America during the Inter-War era and Second World War. Hosted by Carl Schwamberger.
Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 6965
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: 5 Shermans 1 Tiger/Panther Myth?

Post by Michael Kenny » 20 Sep 2020 15:36

paulrward wrote:
20 Sep 2020 15:24


Here are two articles I found this morning that are worth your reading. ....................
Another lie. You posted the exact same thing back in 2015:

viewtopic.php?p=2050577#p2050577

It appears your memory is completely shot.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 6965
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: 5 Shermans 1 Tiger/Panther Myth?

Post by Michael Kenny » 20 Sep 2020 15:38

Note that fantasist Mr Ward is relying on a quote from a 'tank crewman' of the Essex Yeomanry to reinforce his fiction.


Bill was also the youngest in his tank and had a very close relationship with his crew. But they were better disciplined than those in Fury.

I was in the Essex Yeomanry, a territorial regiment. All the crew were from Essex except me. It took us a while to get along but then I trusted them implicitly with my life. We fought along side the Americans in their Sherman tanks and I found them to be very brave. We didn’t write the name of our tank on the barrel like they did in Fury or plaster the inside with photographs but we were just as proud of our tank. Ours was called Beverley and her name was written on the turret.


I will let others point out to him what this Unit did in WW2 but if Bill was engaging German tanks then clearly he had far exceeded his orders.

The cached version of the film review link(yes it is a film review) to get around the paywall.


https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/ ... clnk&gl=uk

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 4379
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: 5 Shermans 1 Tiger/Panther Myth?

Post by Richard Anderson » 20 Sep 2020 17:22

Michael Kenny wrote:
20 Sep 2020 15:38
Note that fantasist Mr Ward is relying on a quote from a 'tank crewman' of the Essex Yeomanry to reinforce his fiction.
I suppose he could have been in an OP tank, but seriously... :lol:
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 4379
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: 5 Shermans 1 Tiger/Panther Myth?

Post by Richard Anderson » 20 Sep 2020 17:41

Michael Kenny wrote:
20 Sep 2020 15:17
Or as we say plain English 'a tissue of lies'

No dear. What happened is you have been peddling this made-up story for years and you forgot to stick to your script. This latest 2020 is different from your original 2015 version and the slightly changed 2016 version. Liars need good memories and your has been found wanting. Please continue with the pathetic excuses.
The problem is that posters trolling and lying in posts at AHF, no matter how regularly or predictably, are subject to zero sanctions by by moderators. "Incivility"? Oh, heavens no, we can't have that! Blatant lying and trolling? Bring it on, since it stimulates lots of posts and lots of clicks for the site.

Thus, we have photos taken in July-August 1942 of Medium Tanks M3 of the 1st Armd Div in England, given as "proof" that those tanks were issued to the 4th Armd Div in England in January-June 1944...and then the series of regurgitated lies to back up the silliness.
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

Richard Stone
Member
Posts: 207
Joined: 21 Mar 2020 23:27
Location: USA

Re: 5 Shermans 1 Tiger/Panther Myth?

Post by Richard Stone » 20 Sep 2020 19:19

The attached report is the translation of a 1944 German Army document that discusses the significant effect of a new US shell on their Panther tanks. I believe this shell to be the HVAP round fired by the US 76 mm and 3” guns.

The report was taken from the January 1945 issue of the US Army 'Tank Destroyer Information Letter’. This publication was a monthly report that discussed tank destroyer combat and equipment.
TnkDstryInfoLettr-January 1945.png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 8858
Joined: 02 Sep 2006 20:31
Location: USA

Re: 5 Shermans 1 Tiger/Panther Myth?

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 20 Sep 2020 19:58

Richard Anderson wrote:
20 Sep 2020 17:41
...

The problem is that posters trolling and lying in posts at AHF, no matter how regularly or predictably, are subject to zero sanctions by by moderators. ...
Strictly speaking they are. But, there has been a incremental policy, which not all of us agree with. Since the change in ownership of this forum there have also been some changes in policy considered at the top, which have made things a bit ambiguous. I have discussed a time or two with you and a couple others here alternate methods. Those may be less satisfying in the short run, but do avoid wasting time & bandwidth. The old trope about not feeding what you see as a troll applies, tho I now see it more as if you think you see a tar baby , don't stop to slap it. I'd be happy to discuss that further privately.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 4379
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: 5 Shermans 1 Tiger/Panther Myth?

Post by Richard Anderson » 20 Sep 2020 20:07

Carl Schwamberger wrote:
20 Sep 2020 19:58
Strictly speaking they are. But, there has been a incremental policy, which not all of us agree with. Since the change in ownership of this forum there have also been some changes in policy considered at the top, which have made things a bit ambiguous. I have discussed a time or two with you and a couple others here alternate methods. Those may be less satisfying in the short run, but do avoid wasting time & bandwidth. The old trope about not feeding what you see as a troll applies, tho I now see it more as if you think you see a tar baby , don't stop to slap it. I'd be happy to discuss that further privately.
I understand Carl, but this is a long-standing issue that precedes the current ownership. Yes, I have taken the step of placing some posters on ignore and try only to reply to other posters relying to them, but that only serves to keep some of the constant din of the monkey gallery out of my ears. The problem remains how do you keep agenda-driven a-historical drivel based upon heresy controlled on what nominally advertises itself as a history forum?
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 8858
Joined: 02 Sep 2006 20:31
Location: USA

Re: 5 Shermans 1 Tiger/Panther Myth?

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 21 Sep 2020 19:56

Rigid vetting of the members is how. Theres a couple other forums that seem to do this, but I don't use those. The participation or activity on those is relatively low. I spend a lot of my time here reading threads/posts from 10-20 years ago on this site. It looks like the policies of the owner & mods were adequate then, but in the last decade a different sort of annoyance has emerged. Hopefully the policies will be up dated before the year is out, but I'm not predicting anything.

Delwin
Member
Posts: 109
Joined: 17 Feb 2006 18:36
Location: Warsaw

Re: 5 Shermans 1 Tiger/Panther Myth?

Post by Delwin » 21 Sep 2020 21:59

Richard Anderson wrote:
17 Sep 2020 00:57
Lastly, there is the issue of the quality of the test plates they fired at...American machined plate was more ductile than German, so that may have been an issue.
I believe the logic was simple - since our tank uses that type of plates (which must be the best option because we do it) our enemies are also reasonable and follow the suit. This makes us to questions why nobody checked what kinf of actual armor is used by Germans...

Actually, I'm not sure that would be perfectly possible, although it would be imperfectly possible. :lol: The 17-pdr Mark IV was developed to mate with the trunnions and trunnion bearing surfaces of the M34A1 Gun Mount as found on the 75mm-armed Medium Tanks M4-series, which were mounted on the inner face of the mounting. The M34A1 also had a convenient "hole for the co-axial telescope and can be readily machined in the bottom center to facilitate maximum depression". Perhaps perversely, Ordnance designed the M62 Gun Mount for the 76mm-armed T23 and M4, with the trunnions and trunnion bearing surfaces on the outer face of the mount. :roll: It is also unclear if the telescope mounting would fit. All that means that the 17-pdr Mark IV would have to be redesigned again to make it work. (In reality, the change in the trunnion design was for a good reason, it moved the gun forward in the mounting, improving room in the turret and the balance of the gun, but still... :lol: )

It's seemingly minor issues like these that can turn out to have unintended consequences.
I do not claim that 17-pdr should be "copied" - I simply state that if it was requested, the "new" 76 mm or even 3-Inch could be pushed to higher values and placed in M4 if anybody is asking. To put it simple: stronger recoil system, maybe longer breach and barrel in 76 mm and everything is OK. It was a decision.
More damning though was that American Ordnance did ZERO to improve the standard 76mm AP or APC rounds, but did for 90mm AP rounds.
Which I find extremely odd. For sure production of ABCBC ammo would be much cheaper. OK - maybe not perfect option but penetration similar to German 75 mm KWK L48 should be achieved and even slightly surpassed -especially since both velocity and weight of the projectile of M1 gun was slightly higher. The other issue is that even HVAP ammo barely (400 yards ?) was able to went through front turret of Panther.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 6965
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: 5 Shermans 1 Tiger/Panther Myth?

Post by Michael Kenny » 21 Sep 2020 23:27

Carl Schwamberger wrote:
21 Sep 2020 19:56
...................in the last decade a different sort of annoyance has emerged.
It is the belief that as everyone has an opinion then everyone must air that opinion.
Posters feel they must make a post and if they know little about the subject a quick Google will solve that problem for them.
This is a perfect example of this type of post:
paulrward wrote:
20 Sep 2020 15:24


Here are two articles I found this morning that are worth your reading. They will enrage the Sherman
Fanbois, but they are both based on interviews with actual M4 Sherman Tankers............................... these are two more, unverifiable accounts made by veterans.
The author felt he had to dig up something to validate his argument so he resurrected his 5 year old Google result. He did not bother to check the Google claims:

Bill was also the youngest in his tank and had a very close relationship with his crew. But they were better disciplined than those in Fury.

I was in the Essex Yeomanry, a territorial regiment. All the crew were from Essex except me. It took us a while to get along but then I trusted them implicitly with my life. We fought along side the Americans in their Sherman tanks and I found them to be very brave. We didn’t write the name of our tank on the barrel like they did in Fury or plaster the inside with photographs but we were just as proud of our tank. Ours was called Beverley and her name was written on the turret.


A simple check on Essex Yeomanry would have shown it to be a Field Artillery Unit equipped with 25 pdr Sextons. The only possible tanks they had would be a couple of OP tanks with wooden guns. They would never be engaging German tanks of any description.
Its a very basic error.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 4379
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: 5 Shermans 1 Tiger/Panther Myth?

Post by Richard Anderson » 22 Sep 2020 01:46

Delwin wrote:
21 Sep 2020 21:59
I believe the logic was simple - since our tank uses that type of plates (which must be the best option because we do it) our enemies are also reasonable and follow the suit. This makes us to questions why nobody checked what kinf of actual armor is used by Germans...
Actually, they did test German plate, starting with Panzer III in March 1943, but tests of Tiger and Panther were later in 1944.
I do not claim that 17-pdr should be "copied" - I simply state that if it was requested, the "new" 76 mm or even 3-Inch could be pushed to higher values and placed in M4 if anybody is asking. To put it simple: stronger recoil system, maybe longer breach and barrel in 76 mm and everything is OK. It was a decision.
And I did not say you did. No, the 76mm could not be "pushed to higher values and placed in M4"...that is the 3-inch M7. Or the first iteration of the 76mm, which had to have the barrel trimmed down. Nor does the longer breech work. Nor was the recoil system a problem, the 90mm M3 in the M36 used essentially the same recoil system as the 3-inch M10. Yes, it was a decision, but there was a reason for that decision, it wasn't arbitrary.
Which I find extremely odd. For sure production of ABCBC ammo would be much cheaper. OK - maybe not perfect option but penetration similar to German 75 mm KWK L48 should be achieved and even slightly surpassed -especially since both velocity and weight of the projectile of M1 gun was slightly higher. The other issue is that even HVAP ammo barely (400 yards ?) was able to went through front turret of Panther.
There does not appear to be any clear reason for that. My inference is they tested the German 7.5cm AP in April 1943...and by then Ordnance was already pushing for the 90mm, which Armor did not like, preferring a more powerful 75/76mm. So Ordnance did what they wanted to do, which is pursue the 90mm gun as the "simple" solution...and since 76mm would go away in 1945, there was no need for something similar to the 90mm AP T33 for the 76mm.
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

Ружичасти Слон
Member
Posts: 465
Joined: 24 Jan 2020 16:31
Location: Изгубљени

Re: 5 Shermans 1 Tiger/Panther Myth?

Post by Ружичасти Слон » 22 Sep 2020 02:23

Richard Anderson wrote:
20 Sep 2020 20:07

I understand Carl, but this is a long-standing issue that precedes the current ownership. Yes, I have taken the step of placing some posters on ignore and try only to reply to other posters relying to them, but that only serves to keep some of the constant din of the monkey gallery out of my ears. The problem remains how do you keep agenda-driven a-historical drivel based upon heresy controlled on what nominally advertises itself as a history forum?
Carl Schwamberger wrote:
21 Sep 2020 19:56
Rigid vetting of the members is how. Theres a couple other forums that seem to do this, but I don't use those. The participation or activity on those is relatively low. I spend a lot of my time here reading threads/posts from 10-20 years ago on this site. It looks like the policies of the owner & mods were adequate then, but in the last decade a different sort of annoyance has emerged. Hopefully the policies will be up dated before the year is out, but I'm not predicting anything.
Owner and forum staff must to decide what type of forum. Forum for to discuss serious real history or forum for to write agendas and fantasys and complete tosh. Or some other type like maximum views for maximum incomes.

Name on forum is Axis History Forum. So it seems somebody on start was decide for 1.option.

But after many years it seems something was change.

For to have serious history discuss must to have good moderation. I was read on ahf almost zero moderation. I was read forum staff on delete bad words but not all bad words. I was read forum staff on explain ahf not research service but mostest topics was be direct or indirect ask on other people for to give information.

One time i was comment one poster was make claim and i was ask for evidence on claim. He was make divert and more claim and evidence on other claim but never was give evidence on 1.claim. Then forum staff was write i must to accept claim is good when i not give evidence why claim must to be false! Persons must to accept unicorn exist when not give evidence unicorn not exist.

On internet can to find much fake information and fake news and agendas. Now many places decide for to give warnings about fake datas and agendas and many times delete messages and accounts. Ahf can to do same if want. It seems ahf not want.

Maybe can to change name on forum. Perhaps Axis Promoting Forum or Anything Goes Axis Chat

User avatar
Thumpalumpacus
Member
Posts: 156
Joined: 05 Feb 2016 10:09
Location: Hill Country, Tejas

Re: 5 Shermans 1 Tiger/Panther Myth?

Post by Thumpalumpacus » 22 Sep 2020 03:16

paulrward wrote:
20 Sep 2020 15:24
Hello Mr Thumpalumpacus:

Here are two articles I found this morning that are worth your reading. They will enrage the Sheman
Fanbois, but they are both based on interviews with actual M4 Sherman Tankers.

In the first one, you will find the following passage :
Fury accurately portrays how superior the German tanks were. A Sherman
provided you with protection against most enemy fire but against a Tiger it could
easily become your coffin. I remember a very near miss where an eight cm shell
from a Tiger tank went within inches of our turret and we decided not to stay
around too long after that. In open combat we never had a chance. So, like in
Fury, we always had to be one step ahead. It was only because we could call up
air strikes and had many more tanks than the Germans that we eventually won.
you can find the article at :

https://www.theguardian.com/film/filmbl ... -realistic



You should also read the following account, based on an interview with a 2nd Armored tanker named
Bromberg, which actually contains some of the incidents from the movie, ' Fury ' . You can find the
article at :

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... page=0%2C3



So, these are two more, unverifiable accounts made by veterans. Believe them or not, as you prefer.


Respectfully :

Paul R. Ward
I don't argue with veterans who were actually there. I'm pointing out that your particular anecdote is devoid of support outside of your own claim that it happened, that you understood what you were hearing correctly, and that the years haven't fogged your memory. There is a significant difference between those two types of reports that really cannot be glossed over. One is first-hand, documented, and the other is neither.

Be it known that I'm of the opinion that the M-4 series was in most marks clearly inferior in both firepower and armor to Tigers or Panthers. I'm not arguing the point you're making, just pointing out that your anecdote does not constitute reasonable support in the context of an anonymous Internet discussion.

I appreciate you taking the time to post those links, and I'll read and digest them in a little bit. Thanks.

Richard Stone
Member
Posts: 207
Joined: 21 Mar 2020 23:27
Location: USA

Re: 5 Shermans 1 Tiger/Panther Myth?

Post by Richard Stone » 22 Sep 2020 18:49

To further aid this discussion, I’ve attached a report prepared by the 644th Tank Destroyer Battalion that discusses the unit’s action against German armor during the battles at Krinkelt and Rocherath during the 1944 Ardennes offensive.

The report details the destruction of numerous German tanks and lists the weapons and types of shells used. The 644th Tank Destroyer Battalion was equipped with the M-10 Tank Destroyers during this period. The term 'BDF’ is the abbreviation for 'Base Detonating Fuse’.
644th_TD_Destruction_of_German_Armor_Dec_17-19_1944-6_pages.pdf
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 4379
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: 5 Shermans 1 Tiger/Panther Myth?

Post by Richard Anderson » 22 Sep 2020 21:18

Thumpalumpacus wrote:
22 Sep 2020 03:16
paulrward wrote:
20 Sep 2020 15:24
Here are two articles I found this morning that are worth your reading. They will enrage the Sheman
Fanbois, but they are both based on interviews with actual M4 Sherman Tankers.
So yet another perfect example of a trolling attempt and the logical argumentation of trolls.

First, they do a random Google using search terms that will "prove" their point.
Next, post a "source", any "source", without evaluating what it is. So we get a second-hand account, from a veteran, for a movie revue. Unfortunately, no actual knowledge of the subject is displayed by Mr. Respectful, so he misses that the veteran, if he was Essex Yeomanry, was unlikely to have experienced what he describes. So who dressed up the veterans account? The veteran? Or the reporter? Or the endless stream of Mythtry Channel shows that both probably have uncritically watched, as they apparently uncritically watched the execrable Fury.

Next, employ the Troll's Handbook. Use an ad hominem combined with a red herring. "Sherman Fanbois" is an obvious attempt to paint the historically literate posters with the same brush that war gamers and others paint the Nazi Fanbois, you know, the guys who cream their jeans over anything runic and silver and black. Then declare they are inside their emotional head. Mr. Respectful just knows that his posts must "enrage" people because he is so cleverly "demolishing" their arguments by posting second-hand memories. I imagine he "owns" "snowflakes" regularly as well. Enrage? Try helpless laughter at this latest attempt at "research".

None of this is about the qualities or deficiencies of the Medium Tank M4 or the Panther. Or about being a "fan" of one or the other. Or the fallibility or reliability of memory, especially wartime memory. It's about Mr. Respectful posting nonsense, then adding nonsensical "proof" on top of it, which only confirms the lies. What is it now, three or four different versions of the "same" story now over the last five years.
You should also read the following account, based on an interview with a 2nd Armored tanker named
Bromberg
Does it not strike anyone as odd that "Bromberg" apparently had no other name? Or rank? Or that he drove tanks, except when crossing rivers, so he wasn't a driver? Or that he didn't like the M26, because it was "computerized"? That Americans called German sub-machine guns "grease guns"? Or that the "M4A3E8" featured "thicker armor"?
So, these are two more, unverifiable accounts made by veterans. Believe them or not, as you prefer.
I don't argue with veterans who were actually there. I'm pointing out that your particular anecdote is devoid of support outside of your own claim that it happened, that you understood what you were hearing correctly, and that the years haven't fogged your memory. There is a significant difference between those two types of reports that really cannot be glossed over. One is first-hand, documented, and the other is neither.
Why yes, exactly. And just how this confirms Mr. Respectful's trolling lies about 4th Armd Div tankers "training" on Medium Tanks M3 in England is beyond me.
Be it known that I'm of the opinion that the M-4 series was in most marks clearly inferior in both firepower and armor to Tigers or Panthers. I'm not arguing the point you're making, just pointing out that your anecdote does not constitute reasonable support in the context of an anonymous Internet discussion.
Well, yeah, of course, but that is the red herring Mr. Respectful likes to rely on.
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

Return to “USA 1919-1945”