Q: how come sherman tank had weak gun

[deagle]

I was watching Band of Bros again, and was wondering if Allies knew what kinda gun the german tanks were using, and if so, how come they didn't outfit the shermans with more power. I'm thinking the Allies manufactered the tanks after the germans got theirs rolling out, so Americans woulda had something to go by. ANy help is appreciated. Thanks !

[Luno]

please correct me if I am wrong but the first 75 mm cannon, was not even intended for anti-tank work but it did work fine on the old german tanks But against the Tiger I with its nasty 88mm gun it would have problem

[JoaMei]

I was watching Band of Bros again, and was wondering if Allies knew what kinda gun the german tanks were using, and if so, how come they didn't outfit the shermans with more power. I'm thinking the Allies manufactered the tanks after the germans got theirs rolling out, so Americans woulda had something to go by. ANy help is appreciated. Thanks !

The "Tommy cooker" or Sherman whatever you prefer were constructed for easy sea transport and cheap manufacturing, after all they had to ship them to europe... They usually outnumbered the german tanks by 20:1 so the planners didnt see the urge to develop better models.

[Roaming East]

didnt the 76mm HV cannon on the later models make the sherman rather deadly to anything to actually get shot by it though?

[ogukuo72]

And the original 75mm gun was a good AT gun in 1942 (just not in 1944).

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Because re-tooling the factories to produce better armed tanks did not make any sense. Especially considering that by 1943 the Shermen was pretty much obsolete.

So just make a ****load of old tanks and hope numbers prevail of technology

[deagle]

it did work out that the shermans outnumbered the german tanks, but was that kept in mind during manufacturing ? From some reading, they never said that they KNEW the sherman gun wasn't as powerful, and they just hoped to outnumber the adversary. I was wondering if there was any knowledge of what the germans were packing.

[deagle]

and thanks for the responses so far

[Lanton]

Because re-tooling the factories to produce better armed tanks did not make any sense. Especially considering that by 1943 the Shermen was pretty much obsolete.

So just make a ****load of old tanks and hope numbers prevail of technology
Plus the Shermans were easier to maintain and repair (towards the end of the war, the Germans often had to abandon armour, even if they'd only broken a tread). The Allied forces in Europe (from D-Day onwards) had more armour at hand than the Germans, the Sherman's gun could traverse at a faster rate (which meant it could usually get the first shot off in a duel with a German tank) and, like Minardiau said, the Germans couldn't afford to lose armour, whereas the Allies could easily replace lost armour.

[JoaMei]

Plus the Shermans were easier to maintain and repair (towards the end of the war, the Germans often had to abandon armour, even if they'd only broken a tread). The Allied forces in Europe (from D-Day onwards) had more armour at hand than the Germans, the Sherman's gun could traverse at a faster rate (which meant it could usually get the first shot off in a duel with a German tank) and, like Minardiau said, the Germans couldn't afford to lose armour, whereas the Allies could easily replace lost armour.

Actually the most german Tanks were abandoned because of the fuel shortage.

[Lanton]

Actually the most german Tanks were abandoned because of the fuel shortage.
Yeah, but I was making the point that when their tanks did break down, in many cases they just abandoned them because they didn't have the capabilities to repair them on-site or haul them back to repair sites.

[JoaMei]

Yeah, but I was making the point that when their tanks did break down, in many cases they just abandoned them because they didn't have the capabilities to repair them on-site or haul them back to repair sites.

Actually they had the capabilities, but when moving backwards under constant artillery fire and airstrikes you dont have the time to do so.

[Lanton]

Actually they had the capabilities, but when moving backwards under constant artillery fire and airstrikes you dont have the time to do so.
Well that's not exactly true; the Allies had the capabilities to recover and repair vehicles on the fly, whereas the Germans simply did not. Remember that on the Western front, the Allies were still bogged-down in Northern France up until the late summer break-out and then the fighting bogged down again in November.

[FallenAngel]

The reason the Sherman didn't have a bigger gun?

At the time US factories were only capable of casting turrets so large. THey could not cast turrrets bigger to house bigger guns.

Plus, later in the war (1944/45) the Shermans were augmented with tanks with bigger guns (M10 Wolverine, M18 Hellcat and M26 Pershing.)

[Ea$y-8]

The Sherman was a really a infantry support tank with a bit more firepower. The reason it stayed around for so long is because it never came into serious contact with the Tiger and Panther until after June 6th 1944. A lot of Shermans got destroyed by Tigers and the Americans began trying to build bigger and better tanks to deal with them. It took like 5 or 6 Shermans to kill one Tiger and most of the time only one Sherman made it back to base.

[CSAR]

But weren't Shermans used against Tigers in North Africa around 1943? I find it hard to believe that the Allies wouldn't know about the shortcomings of Sherman before 1944. But perhaps it was just Brits who really understod the potential of German armor, and started developing versions with heavier armament while Americans were hopeful that their tank destroyers would be able to deal with Tigers.

Does anyone know why US Army didn't just start manufacturing and using British 17-pounder but developed an own 76mm with inferior performance instead? The British gun was already used with great success since 1943 and was well proven desing, so why on earth start developing an own system from scratch with pretty much the same caliber ?

[Ea$y-8]

Yes the Sherman did run into Tigers in Africa. But the US thought that Kasserine Pass was "just one battle" and not a sign of things to come and were proven very wrong after the landings at Normandy.

[DANJANOU]

The British 17 pdr was mounted in Shermans. British and Commonwealth armoured units had on average 1 ( later 2 ) Sherman Firefly ( the name for 17pdr equipped Shermans) per troop (platoon of 3-4 tanks) from Normandy on.

The US also developed a Sherman with a 105mm and fielded it in limited numbers.

Yes the Allies started meeting Tigers in Tunisia and of course had reports from the Eastern Front on how the Soviets were encountering Tigers and Panthers with their T-34/76s and Lend lease Shermans.

However it takes a while to develop and field a new tank, which is why the heavier tanks, British Comets, Centeurs, and later Centurians and US Perishings did not show up until almost the end of the war or shortly after. It was decided to run with one type of tank the Sherman (although there were different versions) for ease of Production and logistics. For Example by 1943 all Canadian tank produuction had been converted from Valerntines, Matildas and Rams to Shermans (Called Grizzlies) to equip the four Armoured Brigades Canada had deployed in Europe.

As noted it was easier to keep building what was already available rather than to tool up something differrent. I've seen some who suggest that had the Germans not diverged and built Panthers and Tigers but concentrated on turning out Pnz IVs, which was both their main tanks and a fairly good one on a par with the Sherman and T-34, then they may have been able to match the Allies tank for tank. Add in better training and tactics and who wins the tank battle.

Western allied doctrine was to use Tanks as breakthrough (think Patton) and as Infantry support. To deal with the Uber German tanks they field specialist tank Destroyer units equipped with the lightly armoured Tank Destroyers such as the M-10, M-36 and Achilles equipped with 90mm or 17 pdrs.

[JoaMei]

Here is a good link about this issue:

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1-02.htm


30,000 M4 Shermans versus 600 Tigers and King Tigers and 1500 Panthers.

http://www.2worldwar2.com/sherman.htm

[Lokos]

I was watching Band of Bros again, and was wondering if Allies knew what kinda gun the german tanks were using, and if so, how come they didn't outfit the shermans with more power.

Because WA tank doctrine utilized self propelled tank destroyers for combating other tanks, not Shermans (with the exception of the British Firefly).

Nonetheless, the 76mm gun fitted on many late war Shermans was more than adequate against Panthers - and did not underperform against Tigers, either.


They usually outnumbered the german tanks by 20:1 so the planners didnt see the urge to develop better models.

You're saying that the Germans were tactically/operationally outnumbered 20:1 in armoured forces on the Western Front, as a rule of thumb? This is something I hope you have a source for.


didnt the 76mm HV cannon on the later models make the sherman rather deadly to anything to actually get shot by it though?

Yes, it was an effective weapon.


Especially considering that by 1943 the Shermen was pretty much obsolete.

It was as 'obsolete' as the T34 or the PzIV; not very. The Sherman remained a viable AFV well into the post-war period.


From some reading, they never said that they KNEW the sherman gun wasn't as powerful, and they just hoped to outnumber the adversary.

The WA had intelligence as to what they'd be seeing from the Germans, in terms of the Tiger, from about September 1942, after they were used against the Soviets for the first time. WA tank designers did not envision the Sherman to function as an AT platform. Most Shermans remained highly mobile infantry support vehicles, doctrinally. This you must COMPREHEND, before engaging with the topic any further. A surprising number of people just don't grasp the fact that the Sherman was never meant to be fighting Tigers.


and, like Minardiau said, the Germans couldn't afford to lose armour, whereas the Allies could easily replace lost armour.

The loss of trained tank crews was more keenly felt than that of individual armoured vehicles. German tank production continued rising until December 1944.


Actually the most german Tanks were abandoned because of the fuel shortage.

That's a bold statement - and one that is untrue. Only in the Ardennes campaign were significant numbers of AFVs abandoned for lack of fuel.


Actually they had the capabilities, but when moving backwards under constant artillery fire and airstrikes you dont have the time to do so.

Have you actually seen workshop repair records of the panzer divisions engaged on the Western Front? I'm not sure you entirely understand the nature of mobile warfare in that theater of operations.


Plus, later in the war (1944/45) the Shermans were augmented with tanks with bigger guns (M10 Wolverine, M18 Hellcat and M26 Pershing.)

They were not 'augmented'. These vehicles were the ones meant to be engaging German AFVs in the first place - not acting in support of Shermans doing so.


The reason it stayed around for so long is because it never came into serious contact with the Tiger and Panther until after June 6th 1944.

Rubbish. Much like the Germans and the 'venerable' PzIVG, the WA continued using the Sherman as a mass produced, task customizable medium tank that retained excellent tactical and operational mobility, was simple to use, cost little to produce and presented a formidable arsenal for infantry support. It stuck around because of those qualities - not because it hadn't come into 'serious contact' with the Tiger and the Panther before June 6th 1944. As a matter of fact, it had done so on both accounts, in North Africa and Italy, respectively.


It took like 5 or 6 Shermans to kill one Tiger and most of the time only one Sherman made it back to base.

I cannot begin to tell you how flawed your information is. Seriously.


Does anyone know why US Army didn't just start manufacturing and using British 17-pounder but developed an own 76mm with inferior performance instead?

Because there was no doctrinal need for every US tank to be able to engage the Tiger on an equal basis.

I don't think many people here are aware of just how few Tigers there actually were...

It was a cheaper and more cost effective solution to produce the 76mm and the 75mm Sherman in vast quantities for infantry support, whilst also churning out specialized SPAT formations to be deployed where it proved necessary.


30,000 M4 Shermans versus 600 Tigers and King Tigers and 1500 Panthers

What's the timeframe you're talking about?

600 Tigers and King Tigers represents, roughly, 1/3rd of all Tigers produced between 1942 and 1945. 1,500 Panthers represents nearly 1/4th of all Panthers ever produced.

30,000 M4 Shermans represents about 92% of all M4s ever manufactured. If you throw in the M4(76) that percentage drops to some 75%.

The following, for example, is idiocy:


I don't have the exact division of tanks to the various war fronts, but if we conservatively assume that 3/4 of the Shermans faced 1/3 of the German tanks (the other tanks went to the Pacific front and to the Russian front respectively), these are the numbers we get, which are not exact, but very clear: 30,000 M4 Shermans versus 600 Tigers and King Tigers and 1500 Panthers.

The Germans, after all, produced a vehicle known as the PzIV, too - with operational parameters that were almost identical to the Sherman. They made about 7,394 of them. And some 1,208 Jagdpanzers (with another 769 of the normal IV version, as opposed to the more numerous /70 version). As well as 8,593 Stug IIIs and 1,141 Stug IVs. Not to mention 3,022 Hetzers (tank destroyers based on the Pz38 chassis).

Do these tanks not figure into any equation? Is the site implying that these tanks were not, in fact, the majority of the German AFV assets in the West, as well as the East?

Ridiculous, sensationalist propaganda.

Lokos

[JoaMei]

Lokos, perhaps you should have read the sources I have provided first... :cantbeli:

I was talking in generally about the western front, not east.

And once again you are pulling "facts" out of nowhere without any source.

[Lokos]

Lokos, perhaps you should have read the sources I have provided first...

I was talking in generally about the western front, not east.

And once again you are pulling "facts" out of nowhere without any source.

Not only did I read your site, I quoted from it.

And I didn't mention the East.

EDIT: Therefore, everything that is contained in my previous post still stands.

If the basis of your 'East Front' objection is me saying 'the majority of the German AFV assets in the West, as well as the East', just ignore the 'as well as the East'. It doesn't actually change a thing.

Lokos

[JoaMei]

An oft-quoted statistic for weapons systems is the kill ratio. Against the Soviet and western Allied production numbers, even a 10:1 kill ratio would not have been sufficient for the Tigers. Some Tiger units exceeded the 10:1 kill ratio, including 13. Kompanie/Panzer-Regiment Grossdeutschland (16.67:1), schwere SS-Panzer-Abteilung 103 (12.82:1) and schwere Panzer-Abteilung 502 (13.08:1).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_I#Combat_history

Its pretty hard to find exact sources how many Tanks were standing against each other in the field, but this official "D-day" site says "vastly outnumbered".

http://www.junobeach.org/e/4/can-tac-arm-she-e.htm

Lokos, you still provided nothing but your usual "facts" that are pulled out of...

[deagle]

Cool, I didn't know the US had trouble casting a larger turret, though I think thats probably due to time contraints, as they wanted to get tanks out the door ASAP. Does the sherman fire more rounds per minute than their german counterparts ? I guess that would be another advantage to shoot more little pot-shots than 1 kill shot.

In ep6 - replacements, the paratroopers ran into a fight in a holland town, and they knew there were tanks. But one of the troopers bazook'd a MG in the 2nd story of a house. I thought that'd be weird considering the shermans were already running away at the sight of the german tanks, but then again, a trooper probably wouldn't run out and try to bazook a tank with enemy infantry around.

[Lokos]

Lokos, you still provided nothing but your usual "facts" that are pulled out of...

LOL.

What do you want sourced? It's not a problem. Unlike some (say, you), I can back up every word I type.


An oft-quoted statistic for weapons systems is the kill ratio. Against the Soviet and western Allied production numbers, even a 10:1 kill ratio would not have been sufficient for the Tigers. Some Tiger units exceeded the 10:1 kill ratio, including 13. Kompanie/Panzer-Regiment Grossdeutschland (16.67:1), schwere SS-Panzer-Abteilung 103 (12.82:1) and schwere Panzer-Abteilung 502 (13.08:1).

I'm sorry, this apparently has something to do with the discussion at hand? In what respect?

Now, since you seem to like little quotes that use specificities that you then turn into generalities, here's an interesting one:


4th Mechanized Corps, under the command of Major General V. T. Vol'sky, was committed in a thrust straight down the Don River valley toward Rostov during the Donets Basin operation of December-January in the winter of 42/43. This thrust was only halted by the premature commitment of Germany's then-newest wonder-weapon: the Tiger (PzVI) tank - formed into the first, half trained battalion of such vehicles. A short, savage engagement at Zimovniki on 7 January left 18 T34s and 20 Tigers out of action.

Source: Glantz, David - 'When Titans Clashed: How the Red Army Stopped Hitler' pg 142. Glantz attributes the information to Earl F. Ziemke and Magna E. Bauer 'Moscow to Stalingrad', pg 74.

Does this mean the T34 was a better tank?

There are plenty of other instances of Soviet tanks achieving superior kill rates, if you want to read up on some, by the way.

Does this mean that the Soviet tanks were better? Of course not - at least not tactically speaking. For most people (and I include myself in this group) don't mix bombastic nationalistic rubbish with historical and historiographical military science. German tanks DID achieve overall favourable kill ratios. Did that matter? Not particularly. Unless one simply seeks to stroke one's ego vicariously. Is one that insecure?

One would have to be, to compare the superheavy Tiger and Tiger II to the medium Sherman M4 or T34, and then say 'Look, my twenty tonne heavier, six times as expensive, less durable, harder to maintain and harder to fuel beast designed solely as a defensive measure can knock out your highly mobile infantry support platforms at a greater rate'.

Hey, kudos to you for that. It sure could.

This, of course, begs the question: when comparing overall numbers of AFVs on the Western Front (in regards to which your previous post implied that there was a grand total of 2,100 German tanks facing 30,000 WA ones) what does the kill/loss ratio have anything to do with the price of tea in China?

Your lame - nay, pathetic - attempt at diverting the issue is duly noted.

Unlike Kitsune, you don't even really have the background knowledge required to participate in this debate on any meaningful level. Bow out, at your leisure. I'm happy to take the time and the effort to destroy any argument you wish to put forth.

Lokos

[JoaMei]

You are really comparing one incident where the T-34 had a better kill ratio (for well known reasons in this case) to the overall statistical kill ratio?

Sorry, but this time only you are looking stupid.

[Lokos]

You are really comparing one incident where the T-34 had a better kill ratio (for well known reasons in this case) to the overall statistical kill ratio?

Sorry, but this time only you are looking stupid.

LOL.

Why don't you, uhh, read what I wrote again? This time, word for word. I know, it's nuanced stuff, but still, I'd like to see some effort.

For example, did you notice this:


Now, since you seem to like little quotes that use specificities that you then turn into generalities, here's an interesting one:

In layman's terms, that means 'since you seem to like little quotes that use [specific instances and contexts] you then [turn into generalizations to back up an unsupportable argument]...'

This was then followed by:


Does this mean that the Soviet tanks were better? Of course not - at least not tactically speaking. For most people (and I include myself in this group) don't mix bombastic nationalistic rubbish with historical and historiographical military science. German tanks DID achieve overall favourable kill ratios. Did that matter? Not particularly. Unless one simply seeks to stroke one's ego vicariously. Is one that insecure?

So tell me again how I have ended up looking stupid.

Lokos

[ogukuo72]

But weren't Shermans used against Tigers in North Africa around 1943? I find it hard to believe that the Allies wouldn't know about the shortcomings of Sherman before 1944. But perhaps it was just Brits who really understod the potential of German armor, and started developing versions with heavier armament while Americans were hopeful that their tank destroyers would be able to deal with Tigers.

Does anyone know why US Army didn't just start manufacturing and using British 17-pounder but developed an own 76mm with inferior performance instead? The British gun was already used with great success since 1943 and was well proven desing, so why on earth start developing an own system from scratch with pretty much the same caliber ?

There are several issues here:

1) If I remember correctly from reading the Osprey book on the 76mm Sherman (an excellent book by the way that addresses a few myths concerning the Sherman), it was not because of any Not Invented Here Syndrome, but because the British had difficulty producing enough 17-pounder to equip its own tanks, let alone equip American tanks as well. Remember, the British themselves didn't have enough to equip more of their tanks, the lack of a good HE shell aside. 17-pounder equipped tanks (both Fireflys and Challengers) were equipped roughly at a ratio of 1-in-4 through most of the battles of 1944.

2) Is the 76mm really that weak? Not really. There's no doubt that using the APC shell, it is unable to penetrate the frontal armour of a Tiger tank. So, it is weak relative to the Tiger's armour. But it worked well against almost any other tanks, such as the much more numerous Pz Mk IV. And when Shermans confronted T-34 tanks in Korea, its 76mm guns firing HVAP performed well.

3) I don't think that the Americans had been foolish in sticking with the 75mm gun rather than equipping their Shermans with a higher velocity gun. They believed that 75mm Shermans were sufficient to counter German tanks, based on their experiences in North Africa.

In any case, I'm not sure that their experiences in Europe disproved their initial assessment. The heavy Allied tank losses in Jun/Jul 44 might be attributed to the inexperience of the crew and the commanders. In any case, the Bocage country was hardly ideal tank terrain, where large tank formations could be maneuvred around strong points. Rather, it was ideal tank ambush terrain.

The 75mm performed well when the Sherman was fought right. My favourite example is the decimation of several Panther equipped Panzer brigades by American and French forces in Lorraine in the summer of 44, when most of these forces were still equipped with 75mm Shermans. Another example was that the armored losses during the Ardennes Offensive was about the same on both sides - despite the fact that the majority of American tanks were still 75mm Shermans and the Germans had Tiger II available.



4) There are logistical and industrial processes involved with building a new weapon design. So, the manufacturing of a new design like the 17-pounder would have to be weighed against other production priorities. It will also take time to set up production. Given the late date at which the Americans realised the need for a higer-velocity weapon, this might not be worth the effort.

[GazB]

Is the 76mm really that weak? Not really. There's no doubt that using the APC shell, it is unable to penetrate the frontal armour of a Tiger tank. So, it is weak relative to the Tiger's armour. But it worked well against almost any other tanks, such as the much more numerous Pz Mk IV. And when Shermans confronted T-34 tanks in Korea, its 76mm guns firing HVAP performed well.


Of all the battlefield targets the Americans came up against Tigers would not be the most common. For each tiger they would come up against probably three Panthers and hundreds of Panzer IVs, not to mention thousands of MG positions or bunkers. And that is on the western front in Europe... in the pacific the M4 reigned supreme simply because the enemy had no viable heavy tanks.
If you came across a Tiger in an M4 then you used your radio to get air support, warned all your buddies what was there and then tried to get up close for a nice flank shot at him.
Reality is that it doesn't matter what you were in there were always things on the battlefield that could kill you... I'd probably be more afraid of mines than of Tigers. At least you can see Tigers.

[ogukuo72]

I'd probably be more afraid of mines than of Tigers.
Don't forget the Panzerfaust!:) That's one of the cost-effective weapons the Germans produced, although you have to use them at almost suicide-range.

[Limeyfellow]

The Sherman was put into its role underpowered compared to the German tanks because of George Patton and a few other generals famously convinced everyone that tanks would never be involved with fighting other tanks and only there to give support against infantry. Cost a lot of people their lives too.

[wormie]

It took like 5 Shermans to take out 1 German tank, they would all make their way for the rear of the German tank, and whichever one made it would fire the fatal shot.

[Lokos]

It took like 5 Shermans to take out 1 German tank, they would all make their way for the rear of the German tank, and whichever one made it would fire the fatal shot

The hell it did.

Lokos

[ClydeFrog]

Now, since you seem to like little quotes that use specificities that you then turn into generalities, here's an interesting one...
I don't see how a statistic showing the overall war record of a company using a specific tank would qualify as a "little quote turned into generalities". It comprises countless encounters and not a single incident. Of course for a more valid comparison we'd also have to take a look at the kill-ratio of the less successful Tiger units, or even better all, but for a quick comparison that statistic's pretty useful: If the best units achieved a ratio of about 10:1, i guess the average would easily turn into something around 5:1.


EDIT:
But to the question at hand: The Sherman was an infantry support tank. American tank doctrine didn't emphasize tank vs. tank encounters, they relied on tank destroyers for that.

[Luno]

It took like 5 Shermans to take out 1 German tank, they would all make their way for the rear of the German tank, and whichever one made it would fire the fatal shot.

So you are saying that it took 5 Sherman to destroy a PzKpfw IV or a PzKpfw III p-) ? the Tiger I or panther where quite rare on the battlefield

[Kilgor]

EDIT:
But to the question at hand: The Sherman was an infantry support tank. American tank doctrine didn't emphasize tank vs. tank encounters, they relied on tank destroyers for that.

Airpower, and destruction of lines of communication. Any supply cars where often screwed over by horders of wanding typhoons, mustangs and jugs.

[GazB]

If the best units achieved a ratio of about 10:1, i guess the average would easily turn into something around 5:1.


10 to one tanks and 5 to one tanks or 10 to one and 5 to one shermans?
I'm not so well read on the western front but on the eastern front the Soviets had thousands and thousands of light tanks used for battlefield recon and later artillery tractor roles. Considering in their primary mission they were armed with 37mm or 45mm guns killing 10 of those before you lost a tank seems rather easy if you are in a Tiger. Like the US with their light anti tank gun vehicles the Russians didn't intend their standard tank to engage enemy tanks in an anti tank role. The T-34 was mostly direct fire artillery for troops where a 76.2mm gun was easily good enough at the start of the war, and later it was upgraded to an 85mm gun that was more comparable to the 75mm gun of the Panther than the 88mm gun of the Tiger. It was adequate but not exceptional. On the T-34 chassis they developed the real tank hunters, the Su-100 and on the JS-II chassis the ISU-100 and ISU-122 and ISU-152s for tank hunting... in fact that made more JS-II hulls for these vehicles than they did for actual JS-II turreted tanks during the war.
The Americans seemed to follow a similar route in having dedicated Gun Motor Carriages (GMCs) for the tank killer role, with heavy guns on light chassis, though the US vehicles had turrets rather than the fixed superstructure designs of the Soviet vehicles.
Of course my Fav Sherman didn't have a weak gun... nothing weak about the 17 pdr.

[ClydeFrog]

What I meant to say was, that if the best Tiger units had a kill-loss-ratio of better than 10:1 tanks I assume all Tiger units together could have a ratio of 5:1 tanks.

I'm not a tank expert, but afaik most of the Soviet light tanks, infantry tanks and cavalry tanks were destroyed in 1941 (like the BT7, T26 etc...) and from '43 on they were pretty much gone. If we don't take into account the SU-76, which was built on a T70 chassis, not a single of the soviet light designs was produced from '43 on, as opposed to the Germans which deployed a number of Pz.IIs even as late as the battle of Kursk.

The Tiger saw its first use on the eastern front in when? December '42? By that time the dominating Soviet tank was already the T34. So most of the Tiger's Kills on the eastern front should have been either T34s or one of the several self-propelled guns which also predominantly use the T34 chassis (or in case of the ISUs even the Iosef Stalin chassis). Also it should be noted that the total number of SUs and ISUs is around 10.000, compared to around 57.000 T34s alone (not even including the IS-2).

To conclude: Yes, I think I can safely say the major "prey" of the Tiger was the T34. I doubt trucks or armored cars like the BA64 are taken into account when it comes to kill-ratios.

EDIT: Also it's not like Germany didn't have its tank hunters: Jagdpanzer IV and Hetzer were very capable vehicles too.

[Para]

The British converted the Sherman to take a 17 pounder gun which would stop a Tiger and this gun could be fitted into a standard Sherman turret, mind you it was a bit of a squeeze. The only problem was once the Germans saw the larger gun on a Sherman Tank that was the the tank they would take out first. The Sherman at this stage would still brew up with any hit it took, the British name for this conversion was the Firefly. The Americans did not take this up as it was not an American gun.
The Sherman Tank when it first came into service was great and the gun at that time was first class, the problem was there was great reluctance to upgrade the tank which meant they might have lost a couple days production, so the tank crews paid dearly for these short sighted actions

[wormie]

Well, that's what the document on the History Channel said about the Sherman.

[foxtrot023]

Well, that's what the document on the History Channel said about the Sherman.

The history Channel often does committ mistakes in the information it gives. Books are still by far a much better and reliable source of information.

[Syncmaster]

This document contains an evaluation of the information contained in documents provided by Steve Zaloga concerning the development, production and use of the batch of Sherman Fireflies allocated to US Forces in the European Theatre of Operations (ETO) 1944-45. The author graciously acknowledges the US National Archives (USNA) and Mr Zaloga for unearthing this vital new information.


This new information confirms information found in the UK Public Record Office (PRO) on the US programme. The confirmed facts are:
Production of the Firefly took place at, at least three locations, which have been confirmed by two independent documents, one in the USNA and one in the PRO. The documents note that the British were converting Shermans at "four (4) arsenals". Production was up to 250 per month as at June 1944 and interestingly it notes that "work at two of the arsenals will probably be discontinued because of the shortage in the supply of the necessary tanks to the arsenals." In the PRO information in Sherman Firefly the four were still in work in December 1944. So if the work did cease it was sometime in January 1945 or later. Tellingly the same letter notes that the British facilities "are not operating to capacity at the present time."
The programme was delayed into 1945, after having been requested in summer 1944, due to the lack of suitable 75mm Shermans from either US or British stocks. US 75mm Sherman tank production having been cut back as the US saw the war ending sooner than it did in Europe and an over reliance on the new tanks coming on stream such as the 76mm Shermans and the 90mm armed T26E1.
Ammunition shortage was always a factor and the one that fatally delayed the programme and caused the proposed numbers to be as limited as they were.
The end of the war dealt the final death knell to the programme as the M26 came into service and the need for tanks evaporated.
The number of conversions was 100, with 80 being provided equally to First and Ninth Armies. Third Army does not seem to be down for any, due to Army level objections. The other 20 were to be given back the British. The total programme had been for 160 conversions. The unconverted 60 were also to be passed back to the British. These were to be given back and used for such things as crab mine tank conversions.
The new information provides the following startling facts:

The US converted not only 75mm M4's and M4 Hybrids not distinguished in the text, but confirmed by the only known photo published in AFV News in the 70's, (but unavailable for use in Sherman Firefly) but also 75mm M4A3's of the dry hull form and the late wet hull (often referred to as the 47 degree glacis hull). This is a major discovery, but as yet no photographs have come to light. Alleged M4A3 Fireflies (Sherman IVC using British nomenclature) in photographs are M4's with British serials. The only possibility is that the vehicles shown could be one of the prototypes with a British serial on it, but this remains conjecture. Perhaps in a private collection somewhere one of these rare beasts is depicted in a photo.
US conversions only seem to have been called, Sherman M4 and M4A3 17 Pounder. Firefly is not mentioned once in the documents. This is consistent with official British and Commonwealth practice, where the name also does not appear. As discussed in Sherman Firefly the name is only used in two captions at the IWM and in unit war diaries and soldiers recollections.
US conversions differed in detail from British ones, the main change being the radio box, which was slightly bigger to allow for US radios. The difference is 1.5mm in 1/35th scale with the difference being described thus in the conversion instruction:
"Remove radio and radio mounting base and relocate (on half inch spacer) in armoured box on the rear of the turret. Armoured box should be 2 and a half inch longer and 3/4 inch wider than the box currently employed. A 2 inch increase in the length of the box should be obtained by decreasing the thickness of the end plates of the box from 2 inch to 1 inch. The front top mounting strip of the box should be narrowed half an inch and the bottom edge bevelled approximately one half of the thickness of the plate. Two handles should be provided on the top plate."

Note that this document seems to be British as it is written in "UK English", rather than "American English". The classification stamp also seems "British" rather than American. I can not prove this, but it seems likely based on the style and spellings used in the documents I have examined at the PRO and from elsewhere. If so the detail that runs to four typed pages may be the first full description of the process needed to convert a Sherman into a Firefly. The document confirms that water protected ammunition hulled M4A3's were to be used. It is a very significant find.

The M4A3 wet hull was preferred as it saved production time (20-30 percent less man hours). This suggests that the water/glycol bins could be adapted to take the 17 Pounder ammunition, despite its larger size, compared to the 75mm rounds. This is very significant. Even if it was preferred, both wet and dry hulls seem to have been used.
One document states (Inter-Office Memo from AFV&W Section, HQ ETOUSA to Chief AFV&W Section, dated 11th March 1945):

"The British had never converted a 75mm gun tank with water protected ammunition stowage. The are very pleased with the prospect of converting these tanks. It is estimated a wet tank can be converted in 20-30 percent less man hours than the earlier model tank. This type of tank also provides a superior 17-pdr tank for US troops since complete stowage bins are provided in the sponsons for American equipment.

M4A2's are excluded, M4A1's mentioned in one letter in 1944, but not thereafter as are M4A4's. Certain restrictions applied to suitable Shermans and ones without the correct features were in one case recorded as being returned. The key features were hydraulic Oilgear traverse, M34A1 wide mantlet.
The US conversions were all made in British workshops, by British labour, with British supplied conversion kits and 17 Pounder guns.
The sites concerned were Woolwich arsenal and Hayes, Middlesex in greater London. The third factory at Nottingham is mentioned, but does not seem to have been used for the US conversions.
Unconverted hulls were to be provided to the British for conversion to mine clearance duties, i.e. Crabs with the name being specifically mentioned.
After the war ended the tanks were not required for combat use in other theatres and were to be offered for occupation duties in Europe.
A complete list of Tank, Gun, Breach, Recoil numbers are provided of all eighty conversions along with some of them picked out as M4A3. I am not sure if the tank number is the one that appears on the hull side. I tried to match the M4 Hybrid appearing in the photo with one of the numbers, but could not do so. Based on this it would seem that at least fifty of the 80 conversions issued were M4A3's.
The AFV News photo's location is narrowed down to one of the factories (Hayes or Woolwich), Southampton, where they seem to have been shipped to the Continent from or at the holding area in France or Belgium.On flash of inspiration this weekend. I was very puzzled why the tank in that photo does not appear in the list's of the eighty tanks sent to France for US use. At first I thought the tank numbers might not the ones painted on the tanks, but then I reviewed the documents again and one late ref is very hard to read, but I had a real close look and it clearly states that the 20 not required for the US out of the 100, were in storage at Hayes, London, pending probable disposal to the British. Also another document notes that a radial engined conversion was swapped for an M4A3 so that it could be given to the British. As the vehicles in the photo seem to be M4 or M4H and the background looks a bit "English" I am speculating that this photo might be off the 20 tanks earmarked for the British at Hayes. I am almost tempted to drive to Heye's have a look round to se if I can see the house in the background, that could easily still be extant. If this is so then it does explain why the front tank can not be seen in the lists in the documents. I have just been told (19th Feb) that the photo was taken in England, so this helps the idea of it being Hayes. It's a bit tortuous I know, but if its true, then it does tie up some loose ends about the photo. The photo may appear in a new book by another author later this year, more news as I get it.
As stated in my book Phil Dyer provided me with details of **** Harley's discovery of a photo of US Fireflies, published in "AFV News" Vol 24, No 1 and a copy of the photo. This shows what appear to be IC Hybrids and IC's in a tank park. Some have the US vision cupola for the commander and other late war US features, such as widened sand shield supports. The location is not given. Regrettably it was not possible to obtain permission from the copyright holders in the USA to use the photo in this book. For other information, see Vol 24 No 3 of the same publication by Phil Dyer and Vol 25 No 1 by Steve Zaloga. Also see Hunnicutt's classic "Sherman". As above it now seems likely that these tanks are the "spare" twenty conversions left over from the US programme. All this seems to confirm that while the US did get some Fireflies they never saw any combat. Their post war fate is not recorded, but they probably did not last long as the US standardised on the M4A3 76mm W and the M26 series. Mr Zaloga was kind enough recently to pass me a copy of the original signal concerning the US unit that was apparently given Fireflies, but most interestingly this was in Italy! This contradicts accepted wisdom, which would have only units in 12th Army even having the possibility of an allocation. The unit was the 555th Tank Battalion (not the 553 as noted in AFV News) and the unit was most certainly in Italy as part of the US 5th Army. "9 May 1945, Cameri, Italy...C Company is to turn in its 17 pounded tanks"("pounded" is a direct quote, not my mistake!). It said that the Company was "hoping to do a lot of good with them". Combat report reference; "755-3-Diary May 45". It never got the chance to use them, much to the disappointment of the crews. No details of numbers or the date when it got them are recorded. A check of the figures I found for Italy at the PRO shows that 5th Army only had 12 Fireflies in April 1945, so if any were given to C Company of the 555th Tank Battalion then it sheds a whole new light on the level of co-operation and interoperability between Allied forces in Italy. This is a mystery that may never be solved. It is however likely, based on information from Mr J DeMarco that these Italian front Fireflies came from Commonwealth stocks. Italy truly was a front where the UN was put in to practice, before the organisation was formally set up. This is a corrected version of the paragraph in the book, at which time I had assumed that the Fireflies in the photo were the actual ones taken into US service.

I just got this from Joe Demarco and it's from the USNA and is a report from the Battalion Records:

On April 19, upon completion of operations with Eighth Army, the battalion reverted to Fifth Army and was re-equipped with the following types of tanks:

1 Med Company -- M4 and M4A4 w/ British 17 Pounder Gun

1 Med Company -- M4 Series

1 Med Company -- M4A3 w/ 76mm gun

1 Light Company -- M24

Source; HQ Fifth Army Armored Section, 6/15/45"

Jo say's "With the inclusion of M4A4's, these Fireflies were more likely from British stocks & NOT US-converted Fireflies." Given the well known official US aversion to the M4A4, this shows how much they wanted 17 Pdr tanks and how much practicality could overide policy! The supplies guys might not have been so pleased, having to support all these spares.

The programme started in March 1945, with the first tanks arriving back from the continent on 9th March. Continental stocks of 80 tanks were the first to be used, with the remainder coming from the USA. The work seems to have commenced on or about 19th March, after some delay. The aim was to complete the 160 tank programme by 5th May. Oddly coincidental given that the war in the West had virtually ended by then with the unconditional surrender signed two days later, but no one in March was making any optimistic assumptions after the nasty shock Herbstnebel delivered in December 1944. The first three conversions were shipped from Southampton on 26th March. Of the 80 to be sent to the continent the last seems to have departed Southampton on 4th May with the other 20 not required, but completed still in the UK. Thus if the full original 160 had been desired the programme would not have been converted on time against the original timetable. On 12th May a signal clearly states that the amended programme had been completed.
The documents contain information on the breakdown of the conversions. Woolwich was to convert 110 starting at 14, moving up to 18 then back to 10 for the last week. Hayes was to convert 50 at a rate of 6 per week at first moving up to 10 towards the end of the timetable in May. It is not clear how many were converted at each location of the 100 conversions made. This is well below capacity noted in June 1944 for 150 per week for all four arsenals then converting Shermans to 17 Pounder Fireflies.

A series of three tables listing the US conversions, by production number, then by serial, then by shipping date. Version 1, to be checked and updated.



What does the new information not reveal:
If the US conversions were included in the total conversion number of 2139 recorded in British documentation.
What happened to the 80 issued vehicles post war.
What if any operational use the vehicles were put to.
How a unit apparently on the Italian front came to be issued with some.
Modelling US Fireflies.

This new information opens up some new possibilities from available kits:

M4 rolled plate hull. This can be modelled using Tamiya's quite acceptable M4 kit with one of the many available Firefly conversion sets or scratch building.
M4 Hybrid, including the option of the late high bustle turret. This can be modelled using either a conversion set or the Dragon IC Hybrid kit.
M4A3 dry ammunition stowage hull. This can be converted from the Tamiya M4 kit with deck details from the M4A3 kit.
M4A3 wet stowage hull. This can be converted from the Tamiya kit or from one of Italeri's issues. If the late hulls were used, then it seems feasible that late VVS with the upswept return roller bracket can be used. As I typed this up I have just got my Vol. 31, No 15 Dec 2001-Jan 2002. Military Modelling. This has a review of the new Tamiya M4A3 kits. The revised turrets may help with the conversion and the opening loaders hatch is a nice bonus. I hope that the kits have been revised with the thickened turret cheek armour that is essential to a depiction of the late turrets, but if not it will be easy to add. A simple option one way or the other is for the new Castoff Models late high bustle turret to be used, when it comes out in the new year.
M4A3 wet stowage HVS. This can be made using a Dragon M4A3 HVS model or with a conversion set and a Tamiya or Italeri hull.
For all of the above the rectangular top deck tool stowage bin developed for the Sherman IC conversion can be used, but the rear plate blanket bin (the greatcoat bin shown in the Tank Museum stowage diagrams?) was not to be used on the US conversions. That said, in the only photo the bins do not appear to have been fitted. In fact I have only seen one or two photos with the greatcoat bin visible. For details see Phil Dyers 2001 article in Military Modelling on the Dragon ICH. The conversion will be a little easier than British ones as the US vehicles do not need the British rear deck fire extinguishers. The small increase in the radio box is not really noticeable, given the tolerances most modellers work to (me included!), but some suggestion can be given by revising the joins of the boxes plates and adding the two handles to the lid (these may have appeared on some British versions). From the single photo some vehicles had the late US commanders cupola for another variation.

Bandai's kits can also be used as they made a series of Shermans including a late hull M4A3 105mm tank along with 76mm versions, so this should be possible for the dedicated model maker in this scale, especially if Frog/Fuman issue the appropriate kits. The M4A3 US conversions making these kits far more useful as well.
In the smaller scales Esci's little gem in 72nd/76thish comes into play. This is a nice little kit and its rather nice that it along with the rather similar Tamiya model can be used for a representative Firefly at last. The HVS can come from Matchbox's M40 GMC kit. MMS's great little M4A3 75mm W can also be used (kit number 936). Cromwell's solid M4A3 76MM W HVS can also be used with a high bustle 75mm turret from MMS as another option. Hasegawa's old kit is not very good, but could be used at a pinch, with a new turret.
In the larger scales the £45.00 21st Century Models M4 in 1/18th (similar, but twice the size of the Tamiya M4) can be converted. If one can do the VVS then a 1/16th scale model is not out of the question from the big and pricey Tamiya kit. The HVS examples make the kit very easy to use, however. Now if only someone would donate one to a good cause!
This means that much of the book will have to be rewritten in detail, but the above provides the basics of the new information. As time allows I will type up the material along with the appropriate quotes so that readers do not have to take my word for the above statements and this will appear on the web site.
Summary. This is very significant and Mr Zaloga has done a great service to researchers and modellers for putting this into the public domain. It shows that this old story many thought was done and dusted is in fact still very much alive. I don't think it invalidates my book, but shows, as I suggested that in archives I did not have access to, that there was significant new material out there. The old books of thirty years ago are now shown to have been correct in talking about M4A3 conversions, but for the wrong reasons! One point is what do we call these. I think that Sherman IC, Sherman IHC and Sherman IVC are wrong as this was a British designation system. M4A3C does not sound right, so I intend to stick to the name in the documents of Sherman M4 and M4A3 (17 Pounder) and variations. Now has anyone got the photos!
The information contained also helps with some of the other mysteries about the Firefly. The fact that M4A2's do not seem to have been desired (not a US standard version, except for the USMC in the Pacific) ties in with the MOS letter to K A Usherwood unearthed by David Fletcher at the Tank Museum in 2001. This letter stated very clearly that 17 Pounder conversions must be on a petrol engined Sherman. The point about the M34A1 gun mount and the Oilgear traverse gear may offer a clue to the vexed issue of M4A1 conversions (the fabled and Unicorn like Sherman IIC, so beloved of model makers and writers from the 1950's onwards). What if the only available 75mm M4A1's (we know that 76mm T23 turret tanks were excluded as the turret layout precluded the installation of the 17 Pounder gun, within the time-scales and industrial capability available in 1944-45) only had electric traverse and or M34 mantlets. The earlier mantlets do not have the holes in them as the M34A1 does, this could be the reason it was required. There must have been some sort of shortage as many Shermans in US and Allied service kept the ealier mantlets and mounts until the end of the war. Showing that it must have been a major upgrade. If so this offers a simple solution to the issue of why none seem to have been converted. Add in the small number of 75m M4A1's given to the British and we have a series of good reasons, plus the interior hull space problems identified by D P Dyer for them not being converted. What also if the M4A2's available were of the wrong type. Perhaps that was a factor. I doubt if we will ever know, but Steve's discovery gladden's my heart and perhaps some where the facts are lurking in a dusty file!
Below is a conjectural model of a possible US M4A3 HVS Wet stowage 17 Pdr conversion. This model is to about 1/76th using an Esci hull and turret as the base. The HVS comes from Matchbox's M40 GMC. The 17 Pdr and mantlet from Matchbox/Revell's VC Firefly, with details from MMS (MG), US cupola (Hasegawa) and stowage from Skytrex. The base is the Matchbox SdKfz 251 with a wall cast in plaster from a mould made using brick pattern plastic. The idea is to suggest the possible use of US conversions in occupation duties as suggested by the new documents. If this happened I don't know, but it gave an excuse for the little base and the authentic Nazi graffiti. I apologise to anyone offended by the Swastika, but I do not think it is appropriate to let political correctness get in the way of historical accuracy. The abomination to humanity that was Nazi Germany will not be prevented from occurring again by trying to hide its symbols and images. T66 track is more likely for this period, but I did not have any around in this scale. Note the .50 HMG stowage brackets on the radio box, a sure way of identifying a US conversion if any should by some miracle survive into 2002. Keep looking everyone!

http://freespace.virgin.net/shermanic.firefly/usnew.html

[Para]

The Firefly tank were in action on D Day

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b351/LeEnfield/Firefly.jpg

[ogukuo72]

Thanks Syncmaster. That's a lot of info, I would need some time to digest it. :)

A camoufledge scheme was developed for the Fireflys to disguise their longer barrels. Anyone know who the guy who developed it was?

[mattnwnc03]

the americans had a hard time trying to mount the gun in the turret.thats why the first version of the sherman had the gun mounted on the side.so mounting a bigger gun would have probaly been a challenge.it took at the time 380,000 bucks to research mounting the gun in the turret, which at the time was alot of money

[kawaiku]

Here is an interesting read considering both fronts from a German tanker perspective. Im sure some of you read it. It was very fun and informative about how the tanks wroked and operated and how they fought the western allies as opposed the the Russians. Im not much of a tank guy but hope this helps.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0811729052/qid=1145928574/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/102-0431812-5344162?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

O yea and this is also a good one to look at. Haven't given it a good look at yet but it seems interesting.
http://homepage.mac.com/yeide/Homepage.htm

[ogukuo72]

Another interesting book is "Tigers in the Mud" by Otto Carius about his combat experience as a panzer commander of Tiger tanks on the Eastern Front. Good read about combat operations in a Tiger, but the chapter on his meeting with Himmler made for uncomfortable reading. The author came across as naive and an enthusiastic Nazi.

[kawaiku]

I almost baught that one but the 12th SS books look very good. Anyone read those? Looking for reviews before I buy

[Lanton]

the americans had a hard time trying to mount the gun in the turret.thats why the first version of the sherman had the gun mounted on the side.so mounting a bigger gun would have probaly been a challenge.it took at the time 380,000 bucks to research mounting the gun in the turret, which at the time was alot of money
Where'd you get that information from?

[chuckster]

The US had a gun that was effective against a Panther, but it was a 90mm gun. I don't believe that gun could be fit into a Sherman turret, but it was carried by the Pershing. I'm looking at a gun table in one of my reference books right now and it says a Pershing can penetrate a Panther D at greater than 2000 meters and a Tiger II at 1300 meters. However, the Sherman 75mm gun fails at point blank! Unfortunately, the Pershing did not appear untill 1945 and by this time the war was decided anyway.

One more factor, I read somewhere that the 75mm gun was tested against armor of the approximate thickness of German armor, but the test shots were fired at a 90 degree angle. By not taking into account the slope of the opposing armour, the 75mm gun appeared to have greater penetration.

The best hope the Americans had to destroy Panthers and Tigers was with airpower, which the Allies greatly outnumbered the Germans in. I believe the Germans on the West Front found it nearly impossible to move in daylight during good weather.

Didn't the M-10 or M-36 carry a 90mm gun? Wasn't there a US tank destroyer that featured an open turret? Perhaps this allowed it to mount a 90mm gun.

[ogukuo72]

Yep. The M36 carried a 90mm gun. It came in time for the Ardennes Offensive, and was usually attached like a platoon to an armoured battalion etc.

But it will be wrong to think that only the 90mm gun killed Panthers and Tigers. Other calibre guns also did their fair share of killing. Even the 57mm anti-tank guns in the infantry tank destroyer platoons could kill tanks with the right ammo - in particular, the British sabot anti-tank ammo (which could be used in the 6-pdr AT gun as well). Of course, there were never enough of such ammo.

[Roaming East]

Must have made panzer crews nervous. Is that the 75mm sherman we dont have to worry about or the 76mm with that super penetrator ammo?

[ogukuo72]

Cancelled. Double post.

[Atlantic Friend]

Must have made panzer crews nervous. Is that the 75mm sherman we dont have to worry about or the 76mm with that super penetrator ammo?

IIRC, picking them apart was pretty easy, as the 76mm gun was much longer than the initial 75mm one and had a different muzzle. But the 76mm gun was certainly something to wince about for most Panzer crews.

[ogukuo72]

Found the following at this website: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/stories/06/a2187506.shtml



A new radically different ammunition was given to the crews of Churchill tanks, Sherman Fireflies and Infantry and Royal Artillery Anti-tank units.

Unlike any previous anti-tank ammuntion this type comprised of 1) the Sabot, a light metal "holder" with of same diameter as the gun calibre, and 2) the much smaller diameter tungsten Armour Piercing round held within the Sabot. On being fired the air resistance on the Sabot detached it from the Armour Piercing round which then travelled on to the target.

Strangely, only two calibres of APDS were ever issued, 57mm for the 6 Pounder and 76.2mm for the 17 Pounder. However, the most numerous main gun in most British, Canadian or Polish tanks was 75mm, and the crews of these lacked any reliable way of knocking out the German Panther (except for the side and rear if close and lucky) or the Tiger Mk 1 and Tiger Mk2 because their armour was of significantly better quality and design. APDS was not isssued to American units which were in a worse situation because their new 76mm gun had a very dissappointing performance compared to the 17 Pounder.

APDS was introduced in June 1944 for 6 Pounder 57mm guns and had a significantly higher penetration performance over any previous types of AP ammunition, in fact its performance was about twice as good/deep (140mm compared to 84mm at 500 yards) although it lost accuracy over long ranges (1000 yards plus) because of slight variations in the way that each Sabot detached from the Armour Piercing round about 100 yards after leaving the muzzle of the gun barrel.

The earliest account for 17 Pounder (76.2mm) APDS that I have found seems to be in October 1944 and possibly not for the Firefly but only for Royal Artillery Anti-Tank Regiments.
I also understand that just before Normandy Churchill tanks with 6 Pounder Guns were converted to the new British 75mm Ordnance Quick Firing gun and thus were unable to make use of APDS's potentially firefight winning properties. However, some Churchill units may have retained or converted back some of their tanks to 6 Pounders to specifically use this ammunition.

The infantry were luckier in that they kept their 6 Pounder Anti-tank guns and by mid June 1944 I understand that they may have recieved some APDS rounds to use.

Today's tank crews make use of an updated version of this round, APDSFS, the FS stands for Fin Stabilised.

Can any veterans recall their use of APDS?

Julian Shales
The gun mantlet armor on the Tiger is 120mm thick, and the upper front hull armor is 100mm thick (set at 9 degrees). If the 6-pdr round can penetrate 140mm ...

I recall that in the book "A Time for Trumpets" by Charles B. Macdonald, he described the epic defence of the Elsenborn Ridge during the Ardennes Offensive when outnumbered American infantry held out against overwhelming German attacks. 57mm AT guns organic to the infantry regiments had a small number of sabot rounds that was used to great effect in knocking out supporting German tanks.

[foxtrot023]

I almost baught that one but the 12th SS books look very good. Anyone read those? Looking for reviews before I buy

read ¨steel inferno¨

[LtVacan]

One of the primary tank killers (and killers of vehicles of all sorts) on all fronts were fighter-bombers in close air support.

[ogukuo72]

read ¨steel inferno¨

Read that. Not bad too. It emphasises only one one segment of the Battle for Normandy. Good illustration of what happens when inexperienced commanders and crews come up against battle-hardened enemies.

[OldRecon]

The reasons behind the US Army dragging it's feet on tank gun development during WW-2 compared to Germany, Soviet Union and Brittain are pretty well explained in the Osprey publications on the Sherman tank, 76mm gun Sherman tank and the M10/M36 tank destroyers.
Reasons given in those publications are:

1) US inexperience on the pace of tank development (as relative latecomers to the war and as producers of tanks).

2) US Army doctrine at the time viewed taking on enemy tanks as not a proper tank mission, depending instead on specialy designed tank destroyers (like the M10) to deal with enemy tanks.

3) The US Army did not encounter the Pz VI Tiger in large numbers in Tunisia and Italy, and thus felt that it was not worth the effort diverting resources on yet another tank besides the M-3/M-5 light tanks and the Sherman medium, specialy tailored to deal with the Tiger. In connection with the small numbers of Tigers (and in Italy also Pz V Panthers), the US Army did not expect to encounter the Panthers in any larger numbers than the Tiger. Given the size and complexity of the Panther matched the Tiger pretty well also.

4) The 75 mm gun of the basic Sherman tank fired a HE round superior to the HE round of the 76 mm "long" gun. Besides the selection of other ammo types (smoke, illumination etc.) was wider with the 75 mm gun than the 76 mm one.
Also it was more difficult to observe fall of shot from the 76 mm gun because of the flash/smoke properties of that gun compared to the 75 mm one.

5) 75 mm Sherman was sufficiently armed to deal with the Pz IV.

[foxtrot023]

Read that. Not bad too. It emphasises only one one segment of the Battle for Normandy. Good illustration of what happens when inexperienced commanders and crews come up against battle-hardened enemies.

It focuses on the 1ss Pz corps, as he did ask about the 12ss. On the other hand while many commanders of the 12ss were veterans, the majority of the division was green. Not being facticious here btw....

[ogukuo72]

I don't remember reading that the majority of the 12SS was green. Looks I re-read the book. Still, the British forces were green and fighting on the offensive. IF the 12SS forces were green as well, they still had the advantage of fighting in the defence.

[foxtrot023]

I don't remember reading that the majority of the 12SS was green. Looks I re-read the book. Still, the British forces were green and fighting on the offensive. IF the 12SS forces were green as well, they still had the advantage of fighting in the defence.

Yeah, the div was raised in 1943, and the regular Joe (or Franz) was 18-19 yrs old in 1944 and had no combat experience. However the leaders were from the 1ss Pz and they were veterans.

You correctly mention the british (and Canadian troops) as green, except for some divisions like the 7th armored div and perhaps the 50 highland div (not sure about this one) and others, but still the majority was green as you point out.

[ogukuo72]

Yes, you're right. I've just referred to the book. The 12SS was green in so far as the majority of its personnel had not been in action previously (in fact they were very young, drawn from the Hitlerjugend), although many of their commanders were battle veterans from the East Front. The other division was the 1SS Panzer Division.

[kawaiku]

Since we are on the topic of the Sherman I have some requests!
Im just started a project about inventions and me and my partner are doing US tanks and how they have impacted the US today. I am having difficulty finding some good sights about US tank history and development starting from World War I to World War II. Any and all help would be very much appreciated. A couple other questions that are giving me problems are: What other inventions have been made off of the tank, what is the tanks future, what are negative effects(i.e. costs of production and not killing people) of the invention and positive(i.e. a form of self protection for certain countries, and not killing people effiecitnly). The italics are what I need most help on the the other questions are areas I am struggling in.
Also which German ATG had difficulty penetrating Sherman armour? Mainly from the front.
Thanks, Kawaiku

P.S. this is the best sight I have found but not quite what I was looking for:

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/main.html
The stuff on that sight is amazing! I recommend looking at the TigerII info. The first pic blew my socks off!

[Ea$y-8]

Yes, you're right. I've just referred to the book. The 12SS was green in so far as the majority of its personnel had not been in action previously (in fact they were very young, drawn from the Hitlerjugend), although many of their commanders were battle veterans from the East Front. The other division was the 1SS Panzer Division.

Correct, many of the soldiers in the 12th SS PD where under 18. In the 1st Battalion, for example, 65 percent were under 18 years old. Only 3 percent were over 25, and almost all of these older soldiers were officers and NCOs. It was not uncommon for people as young as 16 to be in the division. For the most part they were green with the expection of hardened veterans of the Leibstandarte (1st SS PD) who were the officers and NCOs.

[Rifleman]

the americans had a hard time trying to mount the gun in the turret.thats why the first version of the sherman had the gun mounted on the side.so mounting a bigger gun would have probaly been a challenge.it took at the time 380,000 bucks to research mounting the gun in the turret, which at the time was alot of money

That research also failed as they could not figure out a mechanical system to rotate the turret. The Ord Dept had a lunch meeting with the head engineer at Allison Engine and as a side note mentioned the problem to him and showed him the plans.

He grabbed a few napkins and drew out the system that was used right there.

[OldRecon]

Correct, many of the soldiers in the 12th SS PD where under 18. In the 1st Battalion, for example, 65 percent were under 18 years old. Only 3 percent were over 25, and almost all of these older soldiers were officers and NCOs. It was not uncommon for people as young as 16 to be in the division. For the most part they were green with the expection of hardened veterans of the Leibstandarte (1st SS PD) who were the officers and NCOs.

The men of the "green" Allied units did not have the benefit of x numbers of years of brainwashing in the Hitler Jugend like the men of the "green" 12th SS Pz. div.
With Hitler youth behind them the recruits forming the 12th SS allready knew how to march in step, so they mostly dropped the square bashing phase of training and used time on weapons handling, tactics and fieldcraft.
Training of the better Waffen SS divisions, like LAH, Das Reich and HJ also had more in common with that given to Allied elite light units like commandos/paras/airborne than that common to most Allied line divisons in 1944.

[Para]

I have just looking at some old film footage of the Sherman T14 of which just over 200 were ever made, it was nearly twice the weight with a far bigger gun, the tracks were also twice as wide to carry this weight and they in action from 1944 onwards

[foxtrot023]

The men of the "green" Allied units did not have the benefit of x numbers of years of brainwashing in the Hitler Jugend like the men of the "green" 12th SS Pz. div.
With Hitler youth behind them the recruits forming the 12th SS allready knew how to march in step, so they mostly dropped the square bashing phase of training and used time on weapons handling, tactics and fieldcraft.
Training of the better Waffen SS divisions, like LAH, Das Reich and HJ also had more in common with that given to Allied elite light units like commandos/paras/airborne than that common to most Allied line divisons in 1944.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ea$y-8
Correct, many of the soldiers in the 12th SS PD where under 18. In the 1st Battalion, for example, 65 percent were under 18 years old. Only 3 percent were over 25, and almost all of these older soldiers were officers and NCOs. It was not uncommon for people as young as 16 to be in the division. For the most part they were green with the expection of hardened veterans of the Leibstandarte (1st SS PD) who were the officers and NCOs.




Easy 8, the majority of the 12ss soldiers were 19 or perhaps 18 at the normandy landings, not 17. The call up was for guys that would be 18 or more at the time they got enrolled.

What draw the attention was that the 12ss was based of these youths.

OlRecon, while I agree that the HY program helped to integrate the youths into the 12ss and gave them some military skills, it must be said that SS training was focused less on marches and formation and more on team sports, field manouvers and shooting.

[ogukuo72]

To give some perspective of the context of "Steel Inferno", here's a quote from the book "Defeat in the West" by Milton Shulman.


And to add emphasis to this dismal report von Kluge [note: sent to Hitler on 30 Jul 44, shortly before von Kluge's suicide] might also have pointed out that of about 700,000 Germans committed to battle almost 80,000 of them had become prisoners-of-war since the Allied landings and personnel casualties in dead and wounded were about that much again.

Of a total of 1,400 tanks thrown in against the bridgehead he had already lost some 750. It may be relevant to examine this latter figure because of recent carping criticism about the conduct of the battle of Caen. Against the British on the left side of the Allied front 1SS, 9SS, 10SS, 12SS and 21 Panzer Division were in constant action. Two armoured formations 2SS and 17SS, were always used against the Americans. Two others - 2 Panzer and 17SS - had shifted their attentions between the British and American sectors. The newcomer, 116 Panzer Division, had hardly been committed at all by the end of July.

By correlating the statements of German commanders of the these divisions and captured documents, it is safe to say that at least 550 of the 750 tanks destroyed in Normandy by this date met their fate on the Caen front.

So the British faced five to seven panzer divisions on their front, while the Americans faced only two to four. The British had three armoured divisions in the area of Caen.

However, this can be deceptive. Although there seemed to be about nine panzer divisions overall, between them, they possessed 1,400 tanks (there's no breakdown of figures between the much more numerous Panzer VI and the Panthers and Tigers), while the British alone possessed 2,200 tanks.

This figure in turn can be deceptive. While the British had that many tanks, there were not really that many tanks manned during the battles. A portion was in reserve, with no crew. Apparently, the British had PLANNED ON LOSING TANKS in their offensive operations, and always had a ready stock of tanks ready on hand for crews of knocked out tanks to man to maintain the offensive. I didn't know THAT!

Another interesting titbit was that a quantity of 88mm had been moved to the Caen area to helped stem strong British offensives in that area, and it was these 88mm that caused many of the casualties. (An important point made was that infantry-armour cooperation was poor in the British army at this point in time, and it remained poor during Operation Market Garden, only improving towards the end of 1944 when the British Army had a chance to retrain before the final push into Germany).

It was also interesting that there was a constant struggle between von Kluge and the Luftwaffe commanders (who controlled the 88mm), such that the 88mm's kept being switched between AT and AA roles. There weren't enough 88mm's around to do both.

[mattnwnc03]

Where'd you get that information from?
i seen it on the history channel.

[OldRecon]

Easy 8, the majority of the 12ss soldiers were 19 or perhaps 18 at the normandy landings, not 17. The call up was for guys that would be 18 or more at the time they got enrolled.

What draw the attention was that the 12ss was based of these youths.

OlRecon, while I agree that the HY program helped to integrate the youths into the 12ss and gave them some military skills, it must be said that SS training was focused less on marches and formation and more on team sports, field manouvers and shooting.

Well I did write:


"...With Hitler youth behind them the recruits forming the 12th SS allready knew how to march in step, so they mostly dropped the square bashing phase of training and used time on weapons handling, tactics and fieldcraft..."

Didn't I? ;)

[Sayeret]

Many of the older German tanks had 75mm cannons and although Panthers and Tigers get most of the attention most of the German tanks were still pre-World War II, so the Sherman tank's 75mm usually was enough.

[Durandal]

You're saying that the Germans were tactically/operationally outnumbered 20:1 in armoured forces on the Western Front, as a rule of thumb? This is something I hope you have a source for.

You're right, he's wrong, it was higher than 20:1...

Especially when you qualify with "armored forces"...

[Lokos]

You're right, he's wrong, it was higher than 20:1...

Especially when you qualify with "armored forces"...

And how about YOU give me a source for that? The other guy couldn't quite manage the feat.

Or is the source in question your ass?


Many of the older German tanks had 75mm cannons

Only the early PzIV had a short barrelled gun. The later ones had a long barrelled one. The 75mm gun the Shermans were facing in France and beyond were not the S versions. As an anti-tank weapon, the 75mm gun on the stock Sherman was not adequate. Of course, since it wasn't supposed to be used as an anti-tank weapon, the question is moot.

Lokos

[Durandal]

And how about YOU give me a source for that? The other guy couldn't quite manage the feat.

Or is the source in question your ass?


You need a source for production and deployment? Are you serious?

I mean, you said ARMORED. That includes ALL tanks, tank destroyers, gun carriages, armored cars, halftracks...

If you look at British, Russian, AND American totals both in production (not all of which was deployed of course) and DEPLOYMENT, you are looking at ratios as high as 100:1...or even higher...

There were MORE Shermans of all variants produced than ALL of the German tank types combined...

U.S. Light Tanks @ 22, 000
U.S. Light AFVs @ 8, 000
U.S. Medium Tanks @ 50, 000
U.S Medium AFVs @ 13, 000
U.S. Heavy Tanks @ 2, 000

This does not include armored cars, amphibious vehicles, or half tracks...and ONLY the United States. There were over 17, 000 M2 halftracks produced alone...

[Lokos]

*sigh*

1) AFVs, by just about every technical definition, include 'tanks'.

2) A halftrack never has been, isn't and never will be defined as an 'AFV' or constitute an 'armoured force'.

3) Since the question at hand is the ratio of AFVs on the Western front, Soviet vehicles have nothing to do with the price of tea in China.

Now:

The Germans manufactured a grand total of 50,439 'tanks'. This includes the Pz I, Pz II, Pz III, Pz IV, Pz V, Pz VI and the Elefants. This does not include any tank destroyer, self propelled gun or other AFV.

The US produced a grand total of 82,589 - similarly not counting SPGs, HMGs, GMCs etc.

If, for a moment, we assume that the production ratio of the excluded AFV classes remains the same, how do you come up with an overall '20:1' AFV ratio?

Lokos

[Para]

Lokos.....You are of course assuming that no other country is building tanks apart from Germany and America

An interesting site about the Sherman Tanks

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/usa/tanks_medium/m4_sherman.html

[Lokos]

You are correct, I'm not counting British and Canadian-built Shermans and other AFVs (we are most definitely not counting the Soviets, as that is outside the scope of the discussion). But let's for a moment assume that the US produced MOST of the Shermans that were deployed, and the greatest proportion of all other WA AFVs.

Even if we effectively double the figures (exceedingly unlikely), we are left with a ratio that looks more like 3:1 - 4:1 if we really stretch our imagination.

Now to account for the other 16.

Lokos

[Freibier]

*sigh*

1) AFVs, by just about every technical definition, include 'tanks'.

2) A halftrack never has been, isn't and never will be defined as an 'AFV' or constitute an 'armoured force'.

3) Since the question at hand is the ratio of AFVs on the Western front, Soviet vehicles have nothing to do with the price of tea in China.

Now:

The Germans manufactured a grand total of 50,439 'tanks'. This includes the Pz I, Pz II, Pz III, Pz IV, Pz V, Pz VI and the Elefants. This does not include any tank destroyer, self propelled gun or other AFV.

The US produced a grand total of 82,589 - similarly not counting SPGs, HMGs, GMCs etc.

If, for a moment, we assume that the production ratio of the excluded AFV classes remains the same, how do you come up with an overall '20:1' AFV ratio?

Lokos Your numbers are for chassis Production, as most tankhunters and Stugs are based on Panzer chassis, your numbers include StugIII, IV, Hetzer, Jagdpanther, Wespe, Nashorn, Möbelwagen, Ostwind, Grille and Elefant, etc production and this also inlcudes prewar ...

[Lokos]

Doh. My mistake, I was reading the data tables wrong.

In any case, the ratio isn't catastrophically changed if we include WA SPGs, GMCs and HMGs.

I'd still like to see exact accounting for anything approaching '20:1'.

Lokos

[Durandal]

If, for a moment, we assume that the production ratio of the excluded AFV classes remains the same, how do you come up with an overall '20:1' AFV ratio?

OK, easy enough.

We delete the number of tanks converted to SPGs (mainly pzrIs, IIs, and the 38s, and and some pzr III. Vehicles originally designated as tanks converted later in the war

We also delete attrition associated with campaigns in Poland, France, Balkans, Africa, Norway, and early Russia (assuming the U.S. enters in tank to tank opposition with Germany in 1942).

We also delete catastrophic mechanic failures that resulted in parting the machine out.

We finally delete the number of tanks destroyed or broken down on the Eastern front and never recovered.

I'll, at this point, allow you to include both the vehicles left top Germany at that point regardless of what front they served as well as reduction in the numbers of the U.S. tanks sent to the pacific, though not including those taken from Western Europe and issued post V-E day to the Pacific.

*exaggerated sigh*

Now, if we were to also reduced the vehicles not destroyed on the Eastern front that fled to the west to surrender to the Western Allies rather than Russians, the numbers are even lower...

So yeah 1:20 is a fairly safe number. It might be +/- a point or two, but fairly close...

[Para]

There were also the British produced tanks like the Cromwell, Comet, Black Prince and the Churchill plus quite a few others

[Lokos]

We delete the number of tanks converted to SPGs (mainly pzrIs, IIs, and the 38s, and and some pzr III. Vehicles originally designated as tanks converted later in the war

Why are we deleting these? Unlike halftracks, they are AFVs.


We also delete attrition associated with campaigns in Poland, France, Balkans, Africa, Norway, and early Russia (assuming the U.S. enters in tank to tank opposition with Germany in 1942).

Can we also delete the Shermans/Lees/Valentines sent to the Soviet Union, as well as those that were never deployed (a fairly huge number), and those deployed only against the Japanese?


We finally delete the number of tanks destroyed or broken down on the Eastern front and never recovered.

As well as the Shermans and other WA AFVs that suffered similar fates in North Africa, Italy and the Eastern Front.


So yeah 1:20 is a fairly safe number. It might be +/- a point or two, but fairly close...

Your argument holds no water. In order to prove that the WA had a 20:1 operational and tactical AFV advantage you're going to be needing unit-to-unit, theater comparisons - not overall production figures. Those figures, in any case, do not support anything approaching '20:1'.

Lokos