Thread: question regarding Sherman variant

Originally Posted by Triple C

Z,

The 4th AD did not engage many crack German armor units either. Its largest battle was fought against two Pz Bde's that were not well-trained. It fought 1st SS PzD in Bastogne but the 1st SS was burned out by that point.

The 3d AD on the other hand was consistently the spearhead unit for the First Army and had to handle some deeply unpleasant missions such as frontal assault against the West Wall, and had the misfortune of having a poor division commander during the Normandy campaign. I think successfully containing KG Peiper, 2d SS and 116th PzD plus a VGD at the same time should earn the 3d AD some respect.

Do I rate it as highly as 2d or 4th AD, probably no. But compared to 7th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 14th ADs? 3 AD's performance was a last above average.

The 10th (Tigers) did not enter combat until November 44, assisting in the final capture of Metz (ironically for this discussion as the 17th SS left). The unit then broke the west wall and entered Germany on November 16. When the Battle of the Bulge started the 10th AD's CCB was sent to Bastonge and was the only defending unit there against 8 German divisions. Later when the divisions was once again in Germany the German's named it the Ghost division for the way it appeared out of nowhere.

17th SS was another new unit, yet unlike a lot of mid-war on German units it didn't break or fold and managed to stay in the fight. It gave gallant service in the defense of Metz but will forever be stained by the war crimes it committed.

Originally Posted by clackers

Steve Zaloga puts the blame on both the machinations of the Ordnance Branch, and the deliberate strategy imposed by the AGF's Lesley McNair to restrict it ... a 'battle need' requirement that unlike other nations systematically delayed any innovation or upgrading. What was possibly the best tank in the world in 1942 changed very little up to D-Day, even as new threats appeared.

As I read on another forum, a post by an officer in the ACR, "show me a field manual in which it states that a tank should not engage an enemy tank but to let dedicated anti-tank units engage it."

There wasn't one. No army field manual has ever stated that tanks shoudln't fight tanks.

If you can find one, let me know. I'll show him that he was wrong.

Originally Posted by clackers

Zaloga ends his history of the Sherman with a spirited defence of the vehicle, saying:

"Like the Energizer Bunny, the Sherman just kept running, and running, and running. This was not luck, but the result of deliberate AGF policy that placed a premium on durability. The Wehrmacht did not place the same value ... and its panzer units suffered from high breakdown rates, especially in the last year of the war ... Most American tankers would have preferred to be sitting in a more powerful tank likethePanther,but no commander would have been content to substitute his many Shermans for a much smaller number of Panthers."

Panthers and other advanced German tanks were great on paper. The problem was they broke down too often due to their complexity. Most advanced German tanks were lost due to mechanical break down than anything else. The most dependable late war German tanks were Pz IV. Shermans were more likely to encounter a Pz IV than a Panther or a Tiger.

I'd rather have a mediocre tank that moved than an advanced paper weight.

Originally Posted by gunnut

Panthers and other advanced German tanks were great on paper. The problem was they broke down too often due to their complexity. Most advanced German tanks were lost due to mechanical break down than anything else. The most dependable late war German tanks were Pz IV. Shermans were more likely to encounter a Pz IV than a Panther or a Tiger.

I'd rather have a mediocre tank that moved than an advanced paper weight.

The Tiger and panther ended the war as very reliable platforms, the breakdown was often not the tanks but the support they received. Much has been made of the ability of the German's for form impromptu battle groups. But what happens when the battle groups maintenance assets are from a Pz IV regiment but a third of the groups tanks are Panthers? Even the Sherman would breakdown under those conditions.

German late war commanders don't seem to be particularly good at establishing logistic lines or maintaining road discipline. It sure looks like some of their problems with keeping POL flowing and their tanks functional are self-inflicted.

The Germans were hurting at the end of the War; whereas in 1944 they were running out of trained pilots/tankers, by 1945 they had the personnel but not the equipment (or the fuel). Several hundred German AFV's were abandoned in 1945 due to insufficient ammunition and/or fuel supplies; the tanks couldn't fire and/or move, so they were simply abandoned.

The Panther (though not necessarily the Tiger) was a VERY reliable platform, (except for the final drive on the Panther), especially toward the end of the War when they had (mostly) solved the engine fire problem (better engine compartment ventilation); there's a reason the Russians captured as many Panthers as they could for use against their former owners. Apparently, the Panther and the Tiger II were VERY popular with Russian crews due to their excellent protection and firepower (apparently, something they weren't used to).

The Russian army's official policy was to operate captured Panther tank until it breaks down, after which it is abandoned without attempting to recover or repair it. It was probably honored more in the breach than the observance. I am have seen photographs of captured Tiger Bs too, even though official policy said it was verboten to use this breed of unreliable tanks. If memory serves, the 3d Armored Division tankers were very interested to use Peiper's abandoned tanks in la Gleize, but it turned out they had all been rendered inoperable. One of the British armored regiments actually used a captured Panther tank for infantry support missions where its flat shooting gun and good armor was much appreciated. l sometimes wonder why the Americans never used captured German tanks as "Judas Goats" for infiltration.

Originally Posted by Triple C

The Russian army's official policy was to operate captured Panther tank until it breaks down, after which it is abandoned without attempting to recover or repair it. It was probably honored more in the breach than the observance. I am have seen photographs of captured Tiger Bs too, even though official policy said it was verboten to use this breed of unreliable tanks. If memory serves, the 3d Armored Division tankers were very interested to use Peiper's abandoned tanks in la Gleize, but it turned out they had all been rendered inoperable. One of the British armored regiments actually used a captured Panther tank for infantry support missions where its flat shooting gun and good armor was much appreciated. l sometimes wonder why the Americans never used captured German tanks as "Judas Goats" for infiltration.

Post war the French used a number of Panther tanks in the French army.

Here is a trivia question, what weapon manufactured in WWII Germany is still seeing combat today?

Originally Posted by Triple C

l sometimes wonder why the Americans never used captured German tanks as "Judas Goats" for infiltration.

Sort of like the ersatz M-10's the Germans constructed for Operation Greif in 1944?