WW2 Tanks: Sherman v. Panther v. Tiger

[mbear]

In a thread in General Discussion, Black_Knyght asked:

The year is 3075...

You're an armchair history buff who's familiar with the legendary historic reputation of the ancient Germanic Panther and Tiger tanks.

What modern tank, in the age of 3075, do you think might might rank as a roughly modern equivalent to those great armored monsters of yesteryears gone by?

This quickly mutated into a discussion of why the Sherman/Panther/Tiger sucked or rocked. There was a lot of great info there, but it was totally off-topic. I asked if maybe we could move that info to a new thread in off-topic, and realized I could help by starting that thread.

So why did the Sherman/Panther/Tiger suck/rock?

[monbvol]

Well here is a pretty good video on at least the allied side of things and it covers a lot of the overblown myths of Shermans, American doctrine, and even talks about why some of them came about.

[Kit deSummersville]

Well, there is a tactical vs. strategic discussion to consider. As a general you don't worry about forces deploying a Tiger being able to reliably perform in the field as much as that tank crew that just spotted a Tiger on the other side of the hill.

[Matti]

Well here is a pretty good video on at least the allied side of things and it covers a lot of the overblown myths of Shermans, American doctrine, and even talks about why some of them came about.

Seen it year ago. To sum it (and other videos) up:
Early Shermans were death traps, later ones had more hatches with springs right above the heads and ammo didn't blow up (as often) anymore.
One German general had wrote report or letter, where he expresses his disappointment about unreliability of either Panther or Tiger (my memory fails here), and he'd rather have more Panzer IV instead. About half of the lost Tigers had broken down outside the combat and destroyed by their own crews.
USA encountered Tigers only 3 times between Normandy and Berlin. Most of the reported Tiger sightings were incorrect identifications.

[Sabelkatten]

In my uninformed opinion:

Tiger I: Bad idea, bad execution

Sherman: Bad idea, good execution

Tiger II: Good idea, bad execution

Both Tigers suffered from being to complex and expensive. The I also lacked armor sloping - as I understand it, it was an overgrown PzIV, yesterday's tank force-grown to make it more dangerous. The II corrected those faults but made it even more of an engineering nightmare...

The Sherman had decent speed and sloped armor, but it was still at heart an old infantry tank (it got better, thought ;) ). It was however well designed and built.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

One of the biggest flaws with German tanks, even discounting the fact that they were built using slave labor, was that they were hand-assembled.  That meant that they were much more labor intensive to repair than the assembly-line produced American tanks.  If you had an M4A1, you could be really confident that a replacement part was going to fit in and work right away.  You could cannibalize another M4A1 and use its parts in your tank with little difficulty.

Not so for the Germans: when your Tiger I broke, fixing it was an ordeal.  And because the Germans engineered their equipment for greater precision than the Americans did, they broke down a lot more.

[monbvol]

The Tiger I's armor was pretty poorly sloped.  So much so even the short 75mm with it's AP rounds could penetrate it from ranges most people wouldn't think possible if the Tiger I was square on to the Sherman with said short 75mm.  But that is the rub as Tiger crews were pretty good at angling their tanks and could penetrate the Sherman's armor from much farther away as there is no denying the capability of the 88mm on the Tiger I.

Also an interesting quote on the Hearts of Iron loading screen I see pop up once in a while is an excerpt from a Soviet manual about the use of captured Tiger tanks.  Basically it boils down to go ahead and use it until it breaks down but make no effort to return it to service.

[Scotty]

USA encountered Tigers only 3 times between Normandy and Berlin. Most of the reported Tiger sightings were incorrect identifications.

Uh, no.  Tiger ace Michael Wittmann was present in France from June to August until his death.  There was an entire Tiger battalion in Normandy and they did not sortie in large groups.

Simply put, that little factoid is completely and utterly incorrect.

[Bren]

Uh, no.  Tiger ace Michael Wittmann was present in France from June to August until his death.  There was an entire Tiger battalion in Normandy and they did not sortie in large groups.

Simply put, that little factoid is completely and utterly incorrect.

I wonder if other countries were fighting Germany in the west along with the USA ...

[Istal_Devalis]

Before we get to deep into this, keep in mind this little tidbit. Throughout all the studies  done involving tank vs tank combat, the winner usually ended being the guy who saw the other one first. The obsession with numbers tends to be a bit off because of this.

Also, I'd bear in mind that if your ONLY metric on what makes a superior tank is 'how good it kills other tanks', you're going to have comparison problems.

That said, the Panther outweighed the Sherman by a good 15 tons. It SHOULD have wiped the floor with the Sherman. The fact that it wasnt clearly superior says a lot about the problems with the design.

The Sherman had decent speed and sloped armor, but it was still at heart an old infantry tank (it got better, thought ;) ).

The Sherman was NOT an infantry tank. Infantry tanks were slow, thick armored tanks designed to support an infantry advance. The British were the only ones who built proper Infantry Tanks. It was a proper Medium tank, comparable (if not superior) to the PzIII/IV or T34.

[Challenger]

The Sherman was NOT an infantry tank. Infantry tanks were slow, thick armored tanks designed to support an infantry advance.

While that was the British/French definition, the Sherman’s explicit job was infantry support. That it was used as a medium tank highlights the holes in US tank doctrine in ww2, that it was initialy good in the role is a testiment to how well designed it was.

I’d contend that doctrine was the thing that held the Sherman back. If you look at the Firefly and later Israeli modifications there is little reason why most of the Shermans at D Day shouldn’t have been fitted with big cat killer guns. Except there was a deliberate decision made not to do so.

Challenger

[Sabelkatten]

But - at least AFAIK - the original intent was for the Sherman to clear away strongpoints to allow the infantry to advance. Engaging AFVs was for the tank destroyers.

I.e. it was an infantry tank "at heart". If it had been intended to fight enemy AFVs from the start a longer gun and lower profile would have been much more important.

But as it turns out the speed made it a useful medium tank, and once the armor, ammo storage, and gun was upgraded it turned into a useful MBT.

[Porkins]

Well, there is a tactical vs. strategic discussion to consider. As a general you don't worry about forces deploying a Tiger being able to reliably perform in the field as much as that tank crew that just spotted a Tiger on the other side of the hill.

This is awesome.

[Kidd]

Well, there is a tactical vs. strategic discussion to consider. As a general you don't worry about forces deploying a Tiger being able to reliably perform in the field as much as that tank crew that just spotted a Tiger on the other side of the hill.

Indeed, truly awesome.

Other than raw facts about tank performance, battlefield performance data has to be understood in the greater strategic context.

Perhaps its true about as many Tigers were abandoned as were destroyed by enemy fire. Quite likely they were harder to maintain than other tanks. And its very true that the German Army overall was less mechanised than the US Army.

But these are strategic considerations. A lot of Tigers were abandoned because the Germans had lost the battle. That they survived that long however speaks something about them, doesn't it? E.g. Kursk - the average Tiger present had T-34 kill scores in the double digits. Russian tanks even rammed Tigers to knock them out. But they were still lost because the Ostheer lost that battle, and abandoned much of their equipment as support infrastructure (e.g. tank recovery units) collapsed.

Other factors include that most tanks destroyed in combat were lost to artillery, antitank guns and mines; and the training and combat experience of the crews AND their support units played a major part in their performance.

The T-34 for example is acknowledged as 1 of the best if not THE best tank of WW2 taking technical as well as production factors into account. But it also suffered the greatest losses as the Soviet tank corps was inexperienced - the entire inventory was basically destroyed twice over, once at the start of the German offensive and again repelling it. Only continuous production kept their numbers up.

So in any tank vs tank matchup, consider if the facts concern the tank performance itself, or also considers that particular army as a system. I suspect for example if the Allies had the Tiger and the Germans had the Sherman things might have turned out differently... not necessarily better for the Germans.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

The T-34 is another tank with a vastly inflated reputation.  Reports of it ramming Tigers weren't intentional attacks for the most part, they were simply due to the tank having such poor optics that drivers couldn't see the Tigers until they ran into them.  Also, the controls were so stiff that drivers sometimes resorted to striking them with hammers to change gears.  The interiors were cramped to the point that it was basically impossible to escape if things went bad (and they often did), and most of them lacked radios, just for starters.  It wasn't until the T-34-85 upgrade, which was practically a new tank, that it actually started performing well.

[Ruger]

and most of them lacked radios, just for starters. 

Erm...my understanding is that this was true of many/most tanks during WW2, at least in the first few years...it's was one of the reasons Blitzkrieg was so successful...the Germans had one in every tank...

Ruger

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

The Soviets in particular stood out with a lack of radios in their tanks, from every source I've ever seen on the subject.

[monbvol]

While that was the British/French definition, the Sherman’s explicit job was infantry support. That it was used as a medium tank highlights the holes in US tank doctrine in ww2, that it was initialy good in the role is a testiment to how well designed it was.

I’d contend that doctrine was the thing that held the Sherman back. If you look at the Firefly and later Israeli modifications there is little reason why most of the Shermans at D Day shouldn’t have been fitted with big cat killer guns. Except there was a deliberate decision made not to do so.

Challenger

But - at least AFAIK - the original intent was for the Sherman to clear away strongpoints to allow the infantry to advance. Engaging AFVs was for the tank destroyers.

I.e. it was an infantry tank "at heart". If it had been intended to fight enemy AFVs from the start a longer gun and lower profile would have been much more important.

But as it turns out the speed made it a useful medium tank, and once the armor, ammo storage, and gun was upgraded it turned into a useful MBT.

That is a myth.  US doctrine says tanks fight other tanks.  It is in the video I linked to.  What really doomed the Sherman in US service is that the short 75 was good enough to take on the Panzer IIs, IIIs, and IVs that they faced in Africa but the Tiger, Panther, and some of the various TDs of the Germans proved problematic.

[Getz]

Uh, no.  Tiger ace Michael Wittmann was present in France from June to August until his death.  There was an entire Tiger battalion in Normandy and they did not sortie in large groups.

Simply put, that little factoid is completely and utterly incorrect.

I hate to argue with you Scotty, because I know you''ll argue back, but I'm afraid the original statement is completely correct.  Schwere SS-Panzerabteilung 101 did indeed fight in Normandy but it was opposed only by Commonwealth forces.  They never fought far enough west to encounter US Army forces.

There has been a lot of material published in the last fifteen years or so that goes a long way to rehabilitate the reputation of the M4 and reappraise the reputation of the Panther in particular but this isn't a zero sum game.  Whilst we might recognise that the Panther had weak crew ergonomics and failed to provide adequate visibility for the gunner and loader it doesn't suddenly lose all it's virtues - it still had excellent tactical mobility, impressive protection across it's frontal aspect and a real hot-sauce gun that could reliably poke holes in just about anything it encountered.  It was still a "Good Tank," even if it wasn't quite as awesome as it's reputation suggests.

The point of fact is that nobody built the "ideal" tank during WWII.  The Germans got the holy trinity of combat power - firepower, armour and mobility - pretty much spot on with the Panther but failed badly on the production and logistics.  By contrast, the Americans really mastered that side of things as well, but did so with a machine that only had mediocre combat power.  Meanwhile the Russians got massive numbers of good enough vehicles at the cost of horrible ergonomics, and used said massive numbers to counteract sometimes appalling reliability.

[Scotty]

I wonder if other countries were fighting Germany in the west along with the USA ...

Tigers engaged American forces at Sailly (743rd Tank Battalion), Aachen (2nd Armored Division), multiple times in the Ardennes (Wardin, Bastogne; 10th Armored Division), and near continuously until the final days of the war in Europe in the Rurh Pocket.

I hate to argue with you Scotty, because I know you''ll argue back, but I'm afraid the original statement is completely correct.  Schwere SS-Panzerabteilung 101 did indeed fight in Normandy but it was opposed only by Commonwealth forces.  They never fought far enough west to encounter US Army forces.

There were actually three Tiger Battalions in Normandy (this is something I did not know before doing research).  You're correct most of them primarily engaged British forces.  However, the assertion (not your assertion, but the one upthread) that "US forces only encountered Tigers on three occasions in Western Europe; all other incidents are false sightings" is not correct.

Indeed, truly awesome.

Other than raw facts about tank performance, battlefield performance data has to be understood in the greater strategic context.

Perhaps its true about as many Tigers were abandoned as were destroyed by enemy fire. Quite likely they were harder to maintain than other tanks. And its very true that the German Army overall was less mechanised than the US Army.

It's not really a "perhaps".  Nearly half of the Tigers that mobilized to respond to the Normandy invasions failed mechanically before they reached the lines.  The very first Tiger delivered to North Africa caught fire while they were trying to get it off the ship.  They were incredibly fine-tuned machines that routinely experienced conditions that were not conducive to fine-tuned machines (that is to say: not a road).

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

That is a myth.  US doctrine says tanks fight other tanks.  It is in the video I linked to.  What really doomed the Sherman in US service is that the short 75 was good enough to take on the Panzer IIs, IIIs, and IVs that they faced in Africa but the Tiger, Panther, and some of the various TDs of the Germans proved problematic.

And even then, Germany simply couldn't produce the Tiger, Panther, or big TDs in significant enough numbers to really matter on a strategic level.  Throughout the war, Germany managed to produce about 25,000 armored vehicles.  Roughly half of those were STuGs.  By comparison, the total production of Tiger Is and IIs combined was under 2,000 tanks while the a mere 91 Elefant tank destroyers were built.

American crews liked the 75mm gun.  When the Sherman Jumbo began arriving with the 76mm gun factory-installed, it was common for it to be replaced in the field with the 75mm before deploying the tank.  If it truly had been an inadequate gun, they would not have done that.

[Garrand]

The issue of the Sherman's 75mm cannon was one of politics. There were US observers that reported on the Invasion of Poland & especially the Battle of France. They developed a doctrine explicitly to deal with massed armored attacks & the Tank Destroyer corps were born. The US had the 76mm M1A1 as early as 1942, and the gun could be fitted in the smaller turret that housed the 75mm cannon (loads of Sherman -E9s postwar show this). However the installation was rejected as it was felt the turret was not big enough to properly work the cannon, the 76mm threw an inferior HE shell, and more importantly in 1942-43 the 75mm was sufficient to penetrate the 50mm armor of the Pz III & IV operating at the time...

Of course nothing is static & the Germans were upgrading the armor on their tanks to 70 & 80mm respectively, but nonetheless dedicated anti-tank work was the job of tank destroyers so if a tank showed up the Sherman couldn't deal with, call for support...

But the idea that the Sherman was just an infantry tank is a bit of a misnomer IMHO. THe British called it a Universal Tank, & Shermans were used just as much supporting infantry in independent tank Bns, as well as being the primary tank equipping Armored Divisions, whose glory job came in exploiting gaps in the enemy lines. The Germans were surrounded in Falaise in part because of reliable, fast Shermans were able to exploit the breakthrough at St Lo & surround the Germans in a pocket.

Finally I want to stress ultimately how important the strategic utility of tanks are in dictating the tactical situation at the cutting edge of the battle. After all, a Tiger is a fearsome tank, certainly, but if you have insufficient concentration due to breakdowns & losses due to scuttling, then that is going to have a strong impact on the tactical options German commanders will have on-hand.

Damon.

[Getz]

And even then, Germany simply couldn't produce the Tiger, Panther, or big TDs in significant enough numbers to really matter on a strategic level.  Throughout the war, Germany managed to produce about 25,000 armored vehicles.  Roughly half of those were STuGs.  By comparison, the total production of Tiger Is and IIs combined was under 2,000 tanks while the a mere 91 Elefant tank destroyers were built.

American crews liked the 75mm gun.  When the Sherman Jumbo began arriving with the 76mm gun factory-installed, it was common for it to be replaced in the field with the 75mm before deploying the tank.  If it truly had been an inadequate gun, they would not have done that.

They liked it until the Ardennes campaign, whereafter they clamoured for upgunned Shermans.  Coincidentally, the Ardennes campaign was the first time the US Army really got rough handled by German Panzers...

On the subject of numbers, The Elefants are a red herring, all ninety-one were effectively private venture construction from Porsche on the assumption he'd get the heavy tank contract.  That the German system allowed that sort of thing to happen was symptomatic of everything wrong with their arms procurement model, but it doesn't really say anything about German industrial capacity and if the Ministry of Armaments had had it's way not even one of them would have been constructed.  That they decided to do something useful with the unwanted chassis was merely thrift - and the reputation of the Elefant has undergone some rehabilitation in recent years too.  When one looks at it's combat effectiveness on the Eastern Front it seems to have a been a very effective tank killer and not many were lost to enemy action.

The Tiger II was a prominent victim of effective Allied bombing.  It only went into serial production at the end of 1943 and production was severely disrupted by repeated bombing of the factory.  The 500 odd units they did manage to produce in the space of only a year were effectively pre-production prototypes.  On the other hand, more than 5000 Panthers were constructed in the space of just two years, which - considering the conditions German industry was operating under - was no mean feat.

[Kidd]

That is a myth.  US doctrine says tanks fight other tanks.

In practice, US tanks fought other tanks. More commonly, artillery and antitank guns fought tanks. Doctrinally the Sherman is an infantry support tank, while M8s and M10s were the antipanzer vehicle of choice.

American crews liked the 75mm gun.  When the Sherman Jumbo began arriving with the 76mm gun factory-installed, it was common for it to be replaced in the field with the 75mm before deploying the tank.  If it truly had been an inadequate gun, they would not have done that.

Again, the greater strategic picture has to be considered. By this time the Allied tanks were fighting emplacements and thinner-skinned AFVs like the Stug. The HE shell was considered by far more valuable than HVAP.

But the idea that the Sherman was just an infantry tank is a bit of a misnomer IMHO. THe British called it a Universal Tank, & Shermans were used just as much supporting infantry in independent tank Bns, as well as being the primary tank equipping Armored Divisions, whose glory job came in exploiting gaps in the enemy lines.

The Sherman 75mm, very much so. The Brits employed the Sherman Firefly on Tigers and suchlike, and would commonly have only 1 Firefly to a troop of Shermans - more if enemy armour was expected.

[Kidd]

It's not really a "perhaps".  Nearly half of the Tigers that mobilized to respond to the Normandy invasions failed mechanically before they reached the lines. 

With a little help from the Dam Busters who destroyed the railway tunnel that should have transported the Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler to Normandy.

By "failed mechanically", do you mean more maintenance or repair time was required to get a Tiger ready for combat? If so then yes. Once in combat its performance was beyond doubt in most theatres. Many Tigers were not actually knocked out by enemy action but were abandoned intact by their crews after the general failure of the rest of the attack.

[Scotty]

With a little help from the Dam Busters who destroyed the railway tunnel that should have transported the Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler to Normandy.

By "failed mechanically", do you mean more maintenance or repair time was required to get a Tiger ready for combat? If so then yes. Once in combat its performance was beyond doubt in most theatres. Many Tigers were not actually knocked out by enemy action but were abandoned intact by their crews after the general failure of the rest of the attack.

No, I mean literally broke down on the road, typically in the transmission.  The transportation of Tigers to Normandy is one I already mentioned, but nearly a dozen of them flat out broke down on the trip there and had to be left behind to catch up days later.  That was not an isolated event.

[monbvol]

In practice, US tanks fought other tanks. More commonly, artillery and antitank guns fought tanks. Doctrinally the Sherman is an infantry support tank, while M8s and M10s were the antipanzer vehicle of choice.

Not according to US doctrine.  Tank Destroyers and anti tank guns were considered purely defensive options.  That vehicles like the Hellcat, Wolverine, and Jackson were getting used offensively was because they were pretty much tanks and they were being used to bust bunkers for it too.

It is in the video I linked to.

[Cannonshop]

No, I mean literally broke down on the road, typically in the transmission.  The transportation of Tigers to Normandy is one I already mentioned, but nearly a dozen of them flat out broke down on the trip there and had to be left behind to catch up days later.  That was not an isolated event.

nope, he means they were unreliable, as in "Broke down prior to encountering enemy forces."

This also happened with the Panthers at Kursk, btw.

The biggest issues with German tanks from Tiger1 through Konigstiger and Panther, was always with the advanced automotive components-that is, engines, transmission, and suspension.

It's a bit like those expensive Italian supercars-when they're running, they're great, but they don't tend to stay running for very long.  German engineering in the modern era is reliable, but in WWII they were basically about a step up from WWII era Japanese or Italian design quality.

which is to say, "More likely to fail before the enemy is encountered, and more difficult to get working again after a breakdown."

Had, for example, the German forces NOT suffered the pre-and-out-of-battle breakdown rates they did, Kursk might've turned out somewhat differently.

[Scotty]

In general, the problem with (midwar) German tanks is that they were too intricate and hard to keep working, on top of being designed for vehicles 20 tons lighter than they actually were, not that they were (necessarily) poorly designed.  One probably begets the other, but in the narrowest view of things they weren't "bad" equipment.  That said, keeping a delicate instrument working in a combat zone, or even in the gaps between combat zones, is a monumental effort even when they're not hand-built.

Late war German tanks suffered from a host of material issues and in some cases outright sabotage, which only exacerbated the problem.

[guardiandashi]

to emphasize the issue the german units had in plain English:

each tank was a precision instrument designed to never fail, and with many parts adjusted and custom tweaked  to work in that specific unit. so when it did break the replacement parts also had to be tweaked to actually work with field available tools instead of the factory tools.

the American units on the other hand were assembled out of standardized parts from numerous supply factories that ALL made them to the same specs with similar tolerances, thus any part from any (standard) source will work, some might work better than others and some might be very tight or rather loose, but they will work, and when something broke, they were actually designed with repairs in mind, so it was reasonably easy/feasible to repair them.