German tanks vs Allied tanks

[acctingman]

I know this is a war gaming thread, but I had a buddy ask about German tank quality vs allied tank quality and my answer turned out to be a lecture 

So, it got me thinking. If you had a random battlefield...no anti-tank guns, no aerial attacks....just straight up tank vs tank....how do you think it would play out?

For instance, let's take all of Germany's Panther tank production (around 5500 units?) vs US M4 production (some 44,000 units?) and "duked" it out.

Not sure what the parameters would be....maybe one battlefield is flat, another hilly, another very heavy forest......

What do you think would be the outcome? I know this is unrealistic, but it's kind of neat to think about (or, is it just me?  )

I see those 5500 Panthers taking out all those 44,000 Sherman's

[Dammit Carl!]

I think the Panthers would make a good initial go, but be halted by mechanical failures and then swamped by numbers.

[MengJiao]

I see those 5500 Panthers taking out all those 44,000 Sherman's

   On real battlefields though, apparently the Sherman with the standard US 76mm gun, was at least three times as effective as the Panther.  So things could vary some at least in reality.

http://www.amazon.com/Panther-Sherman-Battle-Bulge-1944/dp/184603292X

[acctingman]

How about if all tanks crews were equal across the board?

I know tank crews, for Germany, at the end of war were probably less experienced?

Mechanical issues have to be considered obviously. As nice and deadly as Panthers/Tigers were, they were prone to breakdowns.

[MengJiao]

How about if all tanks crews were equal across the board?

I know tank crews, for Germany, at the end of war were probably less experienced?

Mechanical issues have to be considered obviously. As nice and deadly as Panthers/Tigers were, they were prone to breakdowns.

  The problem is that reality enters the equation at so many levels.  I knew the intelligence officer of a US armored Division and to hear him tell it, a US armored division was superior at so many levels that whatever the Germans might have had...well it really made no difference.  Perhaps the most interesting thing that comes up is that US signals (radio and signit) were so superior that it was simply ridiculous.  German armored forces had developed their radio techniques before anyone else (so they did okay until mid 1942), but they never revised their signals techniques so a US force could essentially read the whole disposition of a German force right off their radios.  On the other had, an entire US armored division could vanish completely from the radio spectrum and still function.

[ArizonaTank]

To bring this back to computer gaming, you can probably run this scenario in one of the CM games.  24 Shermans vs. 3 Panthers. 

I think there are many dead Shermans, but in the end they take the field.  Some well placed smoke rounds, eight to one shooting advantage produces some disabling shots...the inevitable race to get rear / side shots on the Panthers...Shermans take it...  but my guess would be 3 Panthers and 12 Shermans dead. 

Would be interested to see someone play this in CMx1...do a youtube video

However, if these are 76mm Shermans, or Fireflys....no contest...dead kitty cats everywhere.

[Michael Dorosh]

Good answers in this thread but I'll zero in on this:

The problem is that reality enters the equation at so many levels.  I knew the intelligence officer of a US armored Division and to hear him tell it, a US armored division was superior at so many levels that whatever the Germans might have had...well it really made no difference. 

Time On Target.

Artillery killed more people than anything, and German artillery was poorly organized and equipped compared to British and American. Even the Russians got good at it, but moreover had vast quantities of tubes and ammo.

American artillery (and I think British) were able to fire several batteries at once and have all the shells land at the same instant in time, no matter what the calibres or distances to the target. This was known as a TOT and IIRC, the Germans never learned how to do it. Just one example, perhaps a better one would be the British Parham system of calling down fire.

Anyway, I know we said all things being equal, and so artillery would not be part of this theoretical exercise, but my point is that in the real deal, tank quality was a little beside the point when your side had the ability to dominate the battlefield with air power and artillery.

[sandman2575]

Agree with all the excellent points that have already been raised. For some reasons -- that are not far to find -- the myth of the all-powerful Panzer division with its all powerful Panthers and Tigers dies hard. Similarly, the myth of the woefully inadequate Sherman that never stood a chance against the German war machine persists. Yes, on a straight-up, 'all things being equal' metric, the Panther was a much superior machine to the Sherman, especially the early production Shermans. But as MD, Meng Jiao and others point out -- there was never an ideal situation of 'all things being equal'. An American armored division circa D-Day and later was far superior to any unit the Germans could muster by that period. Just compare the TOE of a U.S. armored division to a late-'44 panzer division (or I suppose, brigade, since they were barely able to field divisions at that point) and you will immediately see the sizeable edge in equipment and firepower the US Army had over the Wehrmacht or Waffen SS.

Playing a little Combat Mission can be instructive on these points. If you think your lone platoon of 4 Panthers is going to wipe the floor with a company of Shermans -- unless your Panthers are in very advantageous defensive positions -- think again.

The scenario I just played in the Kampfgruppe Peiper campaign reflects some of this. Artillery was the exemplary branch of the U.S. Army during WW2 -- they relied heavily on artillery and for good reason. My Kampfgruppe got chewed up pretty bad by arty barrages in the Stavelot bridge scenario.

[MengJiao]

For some reasons -- that are not far to find -- the myth of the all-powerful Panzer division with its all powerful Panthers and Tigers dies hard. Similarly, the myth of the woefully inadequate Sherman that never stood a chance against the German war machine persists.

  And another thing.  As games have gotten more and more sophisticated and better able to bring in more and more aspects of reality, the imagery of the all-conquering war machines have gotten a little more complex.  It would be better if this progressed even more, but we have to be happy with what we get.  For example, we no longer believe that the Germans were able to win most of the time up til mid 1942 because they had better tanks, but we have some idea that they had some combined arms and radios and what not.  We can ignore the spectacles of Australian riflemen picking the crews off of 88mm guns and at least try to be happy with the thought that the flak was thoughtfully brought up.  We can also sort of skip how the very same radio techniques that worked so well early in the war, were a bad idea later in the war.
   On a similar note -- Hoplite made it clear that the Persians were not primitives, but if anything, far more sophisticated with their flexible deployments than the clumsy Greeks and with a few alternations even Flying Colors can show you that the Royal Navy has the luxury of shooting at hulls because they got everything else right in a naval battle first, not because shooting at hulls gives you the win every time.

[mikeck]

It seems maybe you want to change the parameters until you get agreement that the Panthers win? I don't think there is any version of this where they do. Even if you ignored the likelihood that a good percentage of the Panthers would break down, they don't stand a chance. At close range, even the short 75mm can penetrate any part of the Panther. At medium ranges, the rear and even the sides could. If we are talking Sherman's with the high velocity 75 or 76 then they are cutting through that panther armor as easily as the Panther does with the Sherman's armor.

Either way, it ends badly for the Germans. The Sherman was reliable, highly mobile and -an under rated quality- had a powered turret that could be traversed quickly. That many Sherman's would have no problem maneuvering for shots.

As someone mentioned though, although the Sherman was under-gunned for anti tank duties, it's armor protection was good and it was an equal peer to the PZ IV of 1942-43. It was reliable, mobile, easily repaired, easy to manufacture, could take a beating and had decent speed. Those combined with organization made the U.S. armored divisions effective.

1 for 1 I think the Panther (late war) is far superior...but battles aren't 1 for 1 and tanks have to make it there.

[sandman2575]

I (as others have already weighed in) just want to push back on acctman's notion that U.S. or Allied armor was *grossly* inferior to German armor. That just isn't so. And there's simply no way to divorce the effectiveness of the machine itself, say the Sherman, from so many other factors: tactical doctrine, quality of crew and leadership, C&C and signals, etc. Would you take a platoon of Tigers crewed by green, hastily trained recruits over a platoon of battle-hardened veterans in Sherman '76s? I wouldn't.

Everyone can see how cool the Panther and Tiger were. They're undeniably cool. But I have a soft-spot for the trusty ol' Sherman (and an even softer spot for the Churchill -- a tank that manages to seem both completely ludicrous and completely bad-ass at the same time).

@mikeck -- sorry to piggy back on your post, which I completely agree with.

[Yskonyn]

Isn't this the basic question the commanders at the time asked themselves as well? There is a reason why there are so many variants of the same machines.
So apart from crew training and general doctrine, shouldn't the case be less general and define which variants will duke it out?

[mikeck]

I think a lot of the misinformation about differences between US and German tanks came from US Tank crews and was propagated by the Army. In June of 1944, the U.S. army had less than 2 years of warfighting experience. History shows it takes 18 months -2 years to build an effective army from scratch. Most of the troops and units had never seen combat. Meanwhile, the Germans, and particularly the officers and NCOs had a lot of combat experience.

When U.S. armor went up against German, the Germans usually had the advantage of training and experience. If you are a green 1st LT commanding a tank platoon and none of your NCOs has combat experience, things go badly when your 4 M-4s hit 1 or 2 German tanks. BUT, when the battle is over, it's always easy to believe what you want to believe. No one wants to believe that our MEN weren't as good as the Germans. Soldiers and officers don't want to believe that. Easier to blame equipment. There are WAAAYYY to many claims of US tanks being shot up by Tigers or Panthers to match up with the actual numbers of deployed Tigers and Panthers. There simply weren't very many. Yet every US tanker claims they were taken out by a Cat. After all, it's more comforting than saying "they are better trained, more experienced and better led"

After a few months, U.S. Units gained experience and the Germans continued to lose experienced tankers on both fronts...but the myth about Cats v Panthers continued

I'm not saying the Cats aren't better tanks 1v1, just that it wasn't the Cats that created the ratio of German to American tanks killed by other tanks. Most of the German tanks were PZ-4's but were better handled

[sandman2575]

I think a lot of the misinformation about differences between US and German tanks came from US Tank crews and was propagated by the Army. In June of 1944, the U.S. army had less than 2 years of warfighting experience. History shows it takes 18 months -2 years to build an effective army from scratch. Most of the troops and units had never seen combat. Meanwhile, the Germans, and particularly the officers and NCOs had a lot of combat experience.

When U.S. armor went up against German, the Germans usually had the advantage of training and experience. If you are a green 1st LT commanding a tank platoon and none of your NCOs has combat experience, things go badly when your 4 M-4s hit 1 or 2 German tanks. BUT, when the battle is over, it's always easy to believe what you want to believe. No one wants to believe that our MEN weren't as good as the Germans. Soldiers and officers don't want to believe that. Easier to blame equipment. There are WAAAYYY to many claims of US tanks being shot up by Tigers or Panthers to match up with the actual numbers of deployed Tigers and Panthers. There simply weren't very many. Yet every US tanker claims they were taken out by a Cat. After all, it's more comforting than saying "they are better trained, more experienced and better led"

Excellent points. It was absolutely the case that all too often a sighing of a PzIV got reported as a Tiger, as though by some game of 'telephone' where the initial message and the received message somehow don't match. Added to the fact that the well-warranted fear of the Tiger turned all too many panzers into Tigers etc. in the eyes of rattled green servicemen.

I recall reading in Max Hastings that the kill ratio of the Tiger to assorted Allied tanks on the Western front was something like 2.5:1 or 3:1 -- i.e. a Tiger could be expected to take out 3 enemy tanks before being eliminated himself. It was nothing like 8:1 or 10:1, though that's almost what the mythology would suggest, as though every Tiger were piloted by an ace like Wittmann.

[Michael Dorosh]

I think a lot of the misinformation about differences between US and German tanks came from US Tank crews and was propagated by the Army. In June of 1944, the U.S. army had less than 2 years of warfighting experience. History shows it takes 18 months -2 years to build an effective army from scratch. Most of the troops and units had never seen combat. Meanwhile, the Germans, and particularly the officers and NCOs had a lot of combat experience.

When U.S. armor went up against German, the Germans usually had the advantage of training and experience. If you are a green 1st LT commanding a tank platoon and none of your NCOs has combat experience, things go badly when your 4 M-4s hit 1 or 2 German tanks. BUT, when the battle is over, it's always easy to believe what you want to believe. No one wants to believe that our MEN weren't as good as the Germans. Soldiers and officers don't want to believe that. Easier to blame equipment. There are WAAAYYY to many claims of US tanks being shot up by Tigers or Panthers to match up with the actual numbers of deployed Tigers and Panthers. There simply weren't very many. Yet every US tanker claims they were taken out by a Cat. After all, it's more comforting than saying "they are better trained, more experienced and better led"

After a few months, U.S. Units gained experience and the Germans continued to lose experienced tankers on both fronts...but the myth about Cats v Panthers continued

I'm not saying the Cats aren't better tanks 1v1, just that it wasn't the Cats that created the ratio of German to American tanks killed by other tanks. Most of the German tanks were PZ-4's but were better handled

The attitude spread from the military, to the governments who procured equipment. ISTR at least one British MP who stood on the floor of the House of Commons to read reports about the Sherman's perceived deficiencies from the field, and was heckled for his troubles (I think the incident is related in Hasting's OVERLORD book).