Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > War and Military History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

War and Military History War and Military History Forum - Warfare, Tactics, and Military Technology over the centuries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old March 6th, 2018, 05:21 PM   #541
Lecturer
 
Joined: Jul 2016
From: england
Posts: 285

Quote:
Originally Posted by phil1904 View Post

I have provided sources that show the testimonies of American crews who do not have great confidence in their Sherman in relation to the battles they have fought against a Tiger.
.
No sorry but you have not. And even worse US troops very rarely met any type of Tiger in NWE.
The TII in the Battle Of The Bulge were a dismal failure . They achieved very little if anything.
Tank v Tank combat was a small part of an Allied tankers war. This chart from
OR-T-117 shows the incidence of various types of targets engaged by Allied tanks with the absolute highest % of tank v Tank action in the desert. In NWE that means only 1 out of every 4 targets at the very most were panzers. The average % of tank v tank encounters was 15%.
If the average tank encounter was 15% and Tigers were 10% of German tanks that would mean less than 2% of Targets were Tigers.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg screenshot.2018-03-07 (1).jpg (19.3 KB, 11 views)

Last edited by mkenny; March 6th, 2018 at 06:04 PM.
mkenny is offline  
Remove Ads
Old March 7th, 2018, 12:49 AM   #542
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2015
From: Bye, bye
Posts: 1,550
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
mkenny
No sorry but you have not.
Yes I did and in many posts, all users can read articles #526, #502, #491, #417.
So I have provided sources that show the testimonies of American crews who do not have great confidence in their Sherman in relation to the battles they have fought against a Tiger.
And you haven't provided any source that supports your point of view.
The conclusion of the discussion on this Sherman vs. Tiger comparison in a tactical battle seems obvious
The Sherman is not as good because it is less powerful, as all Sherman tank crews say.

Quote:
And even worse US troops very rarely met any type of Tiger in NWE.
Who says U. S. fighters often met Tiger tanks?

Quote:
The TII in the Battle Of The Bulge were a dismal failure . They achieved very little if anything.
On this particular case, it is worth looking into.
Certainly the TigerII have failed in this offensive, but not certain that they have failed in their Tank vs. tank against the Sherman
What you're saying is just a personal statement that has no interest and needs to be confirmed by a source.

Quote:
Tank v Tank combat was a small part of an Allied tankers war. This chart from
OR-T-117 shows the incidence of various types of targets engaged by Allied tanks with the absolute highest % of tank v Tank action in the desert. In NWE that means only 1 out of every 4 targets at the very most were panzers. The average % of tank v tank encounters was 15%.
If the average tank encounter was 15% and Tigers were 10% of German tanks that would mean less than 2% of Targets were Tigers.
I already answered that a little bit earlier in this article by mentioning that the question is not whether the Sherman often encountered Tigers in combat.
There is a specific point to be clarified in the current debate.
The question is whether or not when they had to fight them with their Shermans tanks, the U. S. crews were not in tactical inferiority given the respective powers of their tanks.

According to the information contained in the sources quoted, according to the two books by Zaloga quoted, and according to a minimum of common sense and intellectual honesty, we can affirm the following things
Let's be a little serious

The Sherman was in fact a good medium tank and in the infantry support role and in the role of exploiting penetrations of enemy lines of defense it served well.

I would point out however that Gen. Mcnair and his insistence on the "tank destroyer" concept was the largest factor in allies not developing a true heavy tank that could deal with Tiger on anywhere close to equal terms. the British 76 mm cannon fitted to the Sherman " firefly" was the only allied armored vehicle that could hope to survive a one on one encounter with either of the German heavy's yet the american military establishment refused to allow it's Shermans to be up gunned with the British designed cannon.

Eisenhower in fact in the late summer was completely surprised by the failure of the standard american 75 and tank destroyer 76 to cope with German armor, exclaiming "why am i the last to hears of this".
Gen Bradley and the american armored corp's begged for the upgunned firefly but american industry and the Mcnair group had refused to allow the upguning of Shermans on the assembly line.
As a result there were to few of these tanks deployed to allow the type of tactical exploitation that american armor leaders like Patton, and wood envisioned.
All in all the history of American armor prior to and during WW2 is a litany of missed opportunities that resulted in many useless allied casualties.

I hope my article taught you a couple of things.
Considering you're unable to post sources that support your point of view,
Considering the sources I posted.
Considering that your personal assertions that sources should not be taken into account, cannot be taken seriously.
There is no doubt that the Sherman was clearly in a state of tactical inferiority in the fighting against the Tigers.
So the Tiger tank is not at all overestimated if we compare it as a tank of combat to a Sherman from this angle.

Case closed and in the future, less sarcasm from you about my articles.
Given the way you and @aggienation are shown in this thread between pages 50 and 53 despite the two warnings already given by Naomasa, it is a "miracle" for both of you that you have not been suspended.

Last edited by phil1904; March 7th, 2018 at 01:11 AM.
phil1904 is offline  
Old March 7th, 2018, 03:01 AM   #543

redcoat's Avatar
Hiding behind the sofa
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Stockport Cheshire UK
Posts: 7,043

Quote:
Originally Posted by phil1904 View Post
Case closed and in the future, less sarcasm from you about my articles.
Is sarcasm from the rest of us allowed
redcoat is online now  
Old March 7th, 2018, 03:12 AM   #544
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2015
From: Bye, bye
Posts: 1,550
Blog Entries: 1

If you prefer, "case closed" to me over the discussion with @mKenny on the specific topic mentioned in article #542, for the reasons specified in this article
phil1904 is offline  
Old March 7th, 2018, 04:14 AM   #545

zincwarrior's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: Texas
Posts: 5,428

Quote:
Originally Posted by phil1904 View Post
Yes I did and in many posts, all users can read articles #526, #502, #491, #417.
So I have provided sources that show the testimonies of American crews who do not have great confidence in their Sherman in relation to the battles they have fought against a Tiger.
And you haven't provided any source that supports your point of view.
The conclusion of the discussion on this Sherman vs. Tiger comparison in a tactical battle seems obvious
The Sherman is not as good because it is less powerful, as all Sherman tank crews say.


Who says U. S. fighters often met Tiger tanks?


On this particular case, it is worth looking into.
Certainly the TigerII have failed in this offensive, but not certain that they have failed in their Tank vs. tank against the Sherman
What you're saying is just a personal statement that has no interest and needs to be confirmed by a source.


I already answered that a little bit earlier in this article by mentioning that the question is not whether the Sherman often encountered Tigers in combat.
There is a specific point to be clarified in the current debate.
The question is whether or not when they had to fight them with their Shermans tanks, the U. S. crews were not in tactical inferiority given the respective powers of their tanks.

According to the information contained in the sources quoted, according to the two books by Zaloga quoted, and according to a minimum of common sense and intellectual honesty, we can affirm the following things
Let's be a little serious

The Sherman was in fact a good medium tank and in the infantry support role and in the role of exploiting penetrations of enemy lines of defense it served well.

I would point out however that Gen. Mcnair and his insistence on the "tank destroyer" concept was the largest factor in allies not developing a true heavy tank that could deal with Tiger on anywhere close to equal terms. the British 76 mm cannon fitted to the Sherman " firefly" was the only allied armored vehicle that could hope to survive a one on one encounter with either of the German heavy's yet the american military establishment refused to allow it's Shermans to be up gunned with the British designed cannon.

Eisenhower in fact in the late summer was completely surprised by the failure of the standard american 75 and tank destroyer 76 to cope with German armor, exclaiming "why am i the last to hears of this".
Gen Bradley and the american armored corp's begged for the upgunned firefly but american industry and the Mcnair group had refused to allow the upguning of Shermans on the assembly line.
As a result there were to few of these tanks deployed to allow the type of tactical exploitation that american armor leaders like Patton, and wood envisioned.
All in all the history of American armor prior to and during WW2 is a litany of missed opportunities that resulted in many useless allied casualties.

I hope my article taught you a couple of things.
Considering you're unable to post sources that support your point of view,
Considering the sources I posted.
Considering that your personal assertions that sources should not be taken into account, cannot be taken seriously.
There is no doubt that the Sherman was clearly in a state of tactical inferiority in the fighting against the Tigers.
So the Tiger tank is not at all overestimated if we compare it as a tank of combat to a Sherman from this angle.

Case closed and in the future, less sarcasm from you about my articles.
Given the way you and @aggienation are shown in this thread between pages 50 and 53 despite the two warnings already given by Naomasa, it is a "miracle" for both of you that you have not been suspended.
No. On the Allied side these systems could directly deal with tigers at some distance in June-August.

Firefly
17lber.
25lber
100 lber.
Aircraft

76mm anti tank artillery.
M10
M18
105 artillery
155mm artillery
Aircraft

M4 Sherman could penetrate at short distance.

These are what dealt with tigers in NA, Italy, and Europe. It was the wider use if Panthers than expected that caused problems.

The Tiger was a fearsome tank, but it was rare to encounter like it's namesake.

Last edited by zincwarrior; March 7th, 2018 at 04:26 AM.
zincwarrior is offline  
Old March 7th, 2018, 06:02 AM   #546
Lecturer
 
Joined: Apr 2012
From: Augusta GA USA
Posts: 255

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomar View Post
Unless you are talking specifically about Tigers (of which there were only about 2000 produced if one includes both Tiger Is and IIs) , the production figure ratio is more like : a bit less for the UK than for Germany, about twice more for the US or the USSR than Germany....

or roughly 50 000 for the brits, 60 000 for the germans, 100 000 for the US or the soviets

These figures would vary depending on what you include in them (the above includes self propelled guns) and your definitions... An AFV (armored fighting vehicle is not necesserily a tank).
My point was simply the tremendous imbalance in production man hours comparing the Germans to EVERYBODY else.
Th'AnchoriticSybarite is offline  
Old March 7th, 2018, 06:04 AM   #547
Lecturer
 
Joined: Apr 2012
From: Augusta GA USA
Posts: 255

Quote:
Originally Posted by zincwarrior View Post
Let me tell you the story of the KV that stopped the German Army for 48 hours...

WWII is full of heroics like that. I'm always impressed by tales of Soviets ramming German planes. Thats hard core.
???Soviet PLANES ramming German planes or Soviet TANKS ramming German tanks???
Th'AnchoriticSybarite is offline  
Old March 7th, 2018, 06:07 AM   #548

zincwarrior's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: Texas
Posts: 5,428

Quote:
Originally Posted by Th'AnchoriticSybarite View Post
???Soviet PLANES ramming German planes or Soviet TANKS ramming German tanks???
Soviet planes jamming German planes.
zincwarrior is offline  
Old March 7th, 2018, 10:27 AM   #549

redcoat's Avatar
Hiding behind the sofa
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Stockport Cheshire UK
Posts: 7,043

Quote:
Originally Posted by zincwarrior View Post
No. On the Allied side these systems could directly deal with tigers at some distance in June-August.

Firefly
17lber.
25lber
100 lber.
Aircraft

76mm anti tank artillery.
M10
M18
105 artillery
155mm artillery
Aircraft

M4 Sherman could penetrate at short distance.
The 6 pdr gun, towed or tank mounted, was first issued with APDS ammo in May 44, this gave it the ability to Ko Tiger Iís at over 500 yards.
redcoat is online now  
Old March 7th, 2018, 11:45 AM   #550

zincwarrior's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: Texas
Posts: 5,428

Excellent. I did not know that. Was that the gun fitted to the Churchill and Cromwell?
zincwarrior is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > War and Military History

Tags
overrated, tank, tiger



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Tortuga Tank: A Rather Strange tank (armored vehicle) Bernard Montgomery War and Military History 8 April 26th, 2013 08:58 PM
Repair of a Tiger Tank 1944 world-x War and Military History 1 September 8th, 2009 01:32 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.