German tanks vs Allied tanks

[FarAway Sooner]

To answer the OP, which I think is an interesting and thougth-provoking question:  I think it'd depend which point in time you picked.  Each side at the height of their training and doctrine effectiveness?  Early 1942?  Early 1945?  It also depends on terrain and frontage (i.e., if the American 44,000 tanks had to attack across a valley 10 miles wide, it's very different than if they had the entire Russian steppes for maneuver).

As has been noted above, German tanks were technically superior (if prone to breakdown) but the mythology of that superiority got overblown.  My sense is that if you put them all in a flat field 1,000 miles on a side, the Shermans would eventually win the same way that armies everywhere won in WW II:  They'd find a soft spot and get into their rear areas. 

Taking things a step further, it's hard to isolate the role of doctrine, because neither side had a pure tank-fighting doctrine.  All employed combined arms to varying degrees, and with varying degrees of success.  The P-47 Thunderbolt didn't chew up many Panzers, but it sure chewed up (and thus immobilized) all the fuel trucks, staff cars, and motorized infantry that accompanied panzers into battle.  So trying to untangle the vehicles and doctrines from all the other weapons involved is problematic.

If the two sides had to drive towards each other firing blindly, I suspect it'd be a bloody mess but the German would eventually lose. 

[jomni]

German tank vs allied tanks?  Of course the Russians always win.  O0

[Greybriar]

German tank vs allied tanks?  Of course the Russians always win.  O0

The Russians have the best tanks. Just ask anyone who works for Wargaming.net. ;)

While playing Patton Strikes Back: The Battle of the Bulge, the only way my Sherman tanks could kill a German tank (that was so long ago that I do not remember if they were Panthers or Tigers) was to surround one with four Shermans and shoot it from front, rear, and both sides simultaneously. How historically accurate that is I do not know. But if the Sherman tank in World War II was the equal of a German Panther tank, it goes against everything I have ever read about them.

[panzerde]

Zaloga's Armored Thuderbolt, which covers the development and evolution of the Sherman series, does a great job at debunking the myth of the "grossly superior" German tank versus the Sherman on the Western front. Really definitely worth the read: Zaloga knows more about the nuts and bolts of tanks than any three other people, I suspect. Reading that certainly changed a lot of my perceptions - and gave me some great ideas of how to better use Allied armor in games.

Certainly there were instances and times where the combat experienced German crews, regardless of which variety of Panzer they were equipped with, achieved overwhelming success versus Allied armor. There were Sherman equipped units in Tunisia that had to go back to using M3s because they'd had all of there M4s destroyed and M4 production wasn't up to speed yet. Worse, the Allies, Americans in particular, had to re-learn the fundamentals of things like infantry-armor coordination in every theater. They often paid a steep price before they got it right again, and to the point above it's easier to blame the equipment.

Yes, in a one-on-one fight the Panther and Tiger were better tank killing machines than the M4 series. They ought to be; the M4 was never conceived of as an anti-tank weapon. US doctrine called for that role to be handled by anti-tank guns, both towed and self-propelled. It was the proper role of the M-10 and M-18 to engage Panthers and Tigers, not the role of the Sherman. The Sherman was there to support infantry by destroying fortified positions and to conduct exploitation once a breakthrough had been created. It was never a tank killer.

And in that role, the Sherman was certainly the best tank on the Western and Italian fronts. Mechanical reliability is mentioned above as "a consideration." More like this was one of the main consideration with the Sherman versus the German cats. Shermans ran hundreds of miles without maintenance, Panthers and Tigers would be lucky to cover 150 miles before breaking down and requiring extensive refit work. Given that most Sherman crews never even saw a German tank but most definitely were involved in infantry support combat and exploitation drives over very long distances, the mechanical reliability issue is far more important than the Sherman's ability to go toe to toe with a Tiger.

Automotively, there just wasn't a better tank than the Sherman. Even the vaunted T-34 wasn't as good in terms of low-maintenance cross-country performance. Admittedly, the T-34 was a better anti-tank weapon and the better all-around tank - but suffered the entire war from poor quality tank crews that again paint Allied armor in a very favorable light.

Finally, as very correctly pointed out, combined arms is the name of the game, and the Sherman was part of a more comprehensive system made up of anti-tank weapons, infantry, excellent American artillery, and the incredibly powerful Allied airpower. It was designed to function as part of this system, supported and supporting the other components. It makes no sense to consider the Sherman as a weapons system outside of that versus a German tank outside of the doctrine and system that gave rise to those designs. It's like asking if your large intestine is better at fighting than your neighbor's foot.

And now, to make the connection to another thread acctingman started earlier this week - this is one of the cool things you can learn about and experiment with when playing wargames. You don't have to accept the conventional wisdom, or even the writing of experts like Zaloga. Given a well designed game, you can test it out in various realistic and unrealistic scenarios. And you get to blow shit up while doing so. That's a win-win.

[acctingman]

Speaking of air power.....someone correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Il-2 destroy more German armor than all other allied aircraft combined?

[mikeck]

German tank vs allied tanks?  Of course the Russians always win.  O0

The Russians have the best tanks. Just ask anyone who works for Wargaming.net. ;)

While playing Patton Strikes Back: The Battle of the Bulge, the only way my Sherman tanks could kill a German tank (that was so long ago that I do not remember if they were Panthers or Tigers) was to surround one with four Shermans and shoot it from front, rear, and both sides simultaneously. How historically accurate that is I do not know. But if the Sherman tank in World War II was the equal of a German Panther tank, it goes against everything I have ever read about them.

I wouldn't say a Sherman with the short 75 was the equal of a panther at all...not in a fight anyway. But a late model Sherman with a high velocity 76mm gun...absolutely. Similar armor (although American steel was superior to German steel at that point. Same gun ballistics, similar speeds and mobility. Very close. Where the Panther has an advantage is profile. Sherman's are just to easy to see and hit.

The "Panther/tiger can't be beat" is a similar myth to the "Lost Cause" theory of the U.S. Civil war; inasmuch as one side denies they were outfought or out-led and instead blames failures on things out of their control. wW2 would be tanks...in the civil war it would be northern production. So the fact that computer games depict Tigers as invincible is as common as U.S. Civil war games that depict Union troops as having lower morale or ability. Just based on reading the same myths.

Edit: great post Panzerde! I think The Heer would have been much better off had Hitler ordered factories to produce 1 medium tank instead of 2mediun (PZ-IV, V), heavy (tiger) and multiple turretless tank killers. They should have just produced the PZ-IV until mid 1944 when the Panther had most of the kinks worked out. The PZ-IVg was -I'm my opinion- a superior tank overall to the Panther and Tiger based on cost/materials/ease of production and performance

[acctingman]

Gotta say that I love reading everyone's comments. I don't have any close friends that are even remotely interested in ww2 

[panzerde]

Edit: great post Panzerde! I think The Heer would have been much better off had Hitler ordered factories to produce 1 medium tank instead of 2mediun (PZ-IV, V), heavy (tiger) and multiple turretless tank killers. They should have just produced the PZ-IV until mid 1944 when the Panther had most of the kinks worked out. The PZ-IVg was -I'm my opinion- a superior tank overall to the Panther and Tiger based on cost/materials/ease of production and performance

This, in spades. The IVg may not have had the raw firepower or the armor of the Panther/Tiger, but IVgs produced in quantity would probably have gone a long way, at least in the West, to addressing the imbalance in sheer numbers and given the Heer a much more reliable tank. 


I understand the desire for a tank in the East that could dominate the T-34, but they were never going to produce enough of them, and the mechanical issues are even more of a problem considering the distances in Russia/Ukraine. I don't think the Germans ever got the same sort of automotive performance out of the Panther/Tiger in the East that they got out of the Pz III/IV during Barbarossa. I've never really studied it so that's a guess, but it feels right.


Honestly, in the East they probably have been better off producing as many Panzerschreck and Panzerfausts as they could rather than more tanks. Combined with train loads of 88s.

[Boggit]

Zaloga's Armored Thuderbolt, which covers the development and evolution of the Sherman series, does a great job at debunking the myth of the "grossly superior" German tank versus the Sherman on the Western front. Really definitely worth the read: Zaloga knows more about the nuts and bolts of tanks than any three other people, I suspect. Reading that certainly changed a lot of my perceptions - and gave me some great ideas of how to better use Allied armor in games.

Certainly there were instances and times where the combat experienced German crews, regardless of which variety of Panzer they were equipped with, achieved overwhelming success versus Allied armor. There were Sherman equipped units in Tunisia that had to go back to using M3s because they'd had all of there M4s destroyed and M4 production wasn't up to speed yet. Worse, the Allies, Americans in particular, had to re-learn the fundamentals of things like infantry-armor coordination in every theater. They often paid a steep price before they got it right again, and to the point above it's easier to blame the equipment.

Yes, in a one-on-one fight the Panther and Tiger were better tank killing machines than the M4 series. They ought to be; the M4 was never conceived of as an anti-tank weapon. US doctrine called for that role to be handled by anti-tank guns, both towed and self-propelled. It was the proper role of the M-10 and M-18 to engage Panthers and Tigers, not the role of the Sherman. The Sherman was there to support infantry by destroying fortified positions and to conduct exploitation once a breakthrough had been created. It was never a tank killer.

And in that role, the Sherman was certainly the best tank on the Western and Italian fronts. Mechanical reliability is mentioned above as "a consideration." More like this was one of the main consideration with the Sherman versus the German cats. Shermans ran hundreds of miles without maintenance, Panthers and Tigers would be lucky to cover 150 miles before breaking down and requiring extensive refit work. Given that most Sherman crews never even saw a German tank but most definitely were involved in infantry support combat and exploitation drives over very long distances, the mechanical reliability issue is far more important than the Sherman's ability to go toe to toe with a Tiger.

Automotively, there just wasn't a better tank than the Sherman. Even the vaunted T-34 wasn't as good in terms of low-maintenance cross-country performance. Admittedly, the T-34 was a better anti-tank weapon and the better all-around tank - but suffered the entire war from poor quality tank crews that again paint Allied armor in a very favorable light.

Finally, as very correctly pointed out, combined arms is the name of the game, and the Sherman was part of a more comprehensive system made up of anti-tank weapons, infantry, excellent American artillery, and the incredibly powerful Allied airpower. It was designed to function as part of this system, supported and supporting the other components. It makes no sense to consider the Sherman as a weapons system outside of that versus a German tank outside of the doctrine and system that gave rise to those designs. It's like asking if your large intestine is better at fighting than your neighbor's foot.

And now, to make the connection to another thread acctingman started earlier this week - this is one of the cool things you can learn about and experiment with when playing wargames. You don't have to accept the conventional wisdom, or even the writing of experts like Zaloga. Given a well designed game, you can test it out in various realistic and unrealistic scenarios. And you get to blow shit up while doing so. That's a win-win.

Excellent stuff, Panzerde. One thing I haven't seen mentioned in the discussion generally are the different ammunition types like APDS that the Allies had developed by 1944, which greatly increased the AT capability of guns, which hitherto had not functioned so well against the big cats.

[Tinkershuffle]

 

Take a look at that you allied fanboys!  ^-^

[magnus]

I was going to reply with chapter an verse,but I don't feel like looking up all the different sources.

If the Allied tanks were so good, why did all the tankers I have ever seen quotes from, state that they would rather have been in German tanks?

I am not discussing the different infrastructures etc.. I am just discussing a straight up tank battle, as in the OP's question.

As far as the Germans being able to defeat the Allies once they were ashore it was never going to happen anywhere, not because of our tanks, but because of our anti-tank guns.

Anytime a German tank group of any size tried to attack a defensive Allied line, they were shot to pieces.

I am not saying a quick counter attack against Allied defenders who hadn't had a chance to get sorted out yet.

One or two tanks that were invulnerable to the their enemies, were shown during the war to do wonders.

Look at the KV II that stopped an entire division for a week if not longer on AGN's road to Leningrad.

[mikeck]

I was going to reply with chapter an verse,but I don't feel like looking up all the different sources.

If the Allied tanks were so good, why did all the tankers I have ever seen quotes from, state that they would rather have been in German tanks?


As far as the Germans being able to defeat the Allies once they were ashore it was never going to happen anywhere, not because of our tanks, but because of our anti-tank guns.

Anytime a German tank group of any size tried to attack a defensive Allied line, they were shot to pieces.

Well any story from a tanker is anecdotal. But see my first post: many blamed their tanks for their loss instead of their lack of combat experience. In other words, it was easier to say "my tank sucks" than "the other guys are better than us". Also, soldiers tend to overrate firepower they can see and underrate things like reliability, comfort, turret speed and things they just expect. So I think most privates and such would say I would rather be in a tiger, but there weren't many tigers and panthers and frankly, most of the tanks that scorched them were PZ-IVs. Those were equivalent in armor and firepower to the Sherman

By June of 1944, the vast majority of German combat units had years of combat experience. An equal percentage of American units had none. Tankers paid the price when time and time again they were outfought by the Germans. Look at France 1940! The French tanks were superior in every way except radios. It was their deployment and handling that caused them to get mauled.

Anyway, I'm not saying German tanks aren't better and I'm not saying they are. I'm saying that the disparity in favor of German armor is not a result of the tank itself, but training, experience and leadership.

I don't thing Germany had a chance as if June 6 1944 because the Russians would have bled them white. In the west, no one...no one (even according to a number of German generals) does logistics like the Americans. Americans were able to deliver mass amounts of troops and equipment anywhere...and supply them. Once the allies had a foothold, it was inevitable

[magnus]

Reliability I will give you.

However, I would not want to fight in a "Ronson" or a "Tommy cooker".

[acctingman]

Love the discussion here gents. Much appreciated. You all are convincing myself that I need to expand my horizons and start reading some good books on battles and tactics used in WW2.

Any suggestions?

Tinkershuffle.....that video was fun as hell to watch. I struggle with the learning curve of the CM x2 games, but damn, that inspired me.

Also, on a side note here.....My fiancee' has generously agreed for us spend 2 days at Tank Fest in Bovington England next year as part of our belated honeymoon trip!! It's still a year away, but good lord, will I ever be a 10 year old kid at a toy store.

[Staggerwing]

Reliability I will give you.

However, I would not want to fight in a "Ronson" or a "Tommy cooker".

The M4A3 from mid-production on had wet stowage to reduce ammo ignition on penetration and this was continued on later models. As a result the percentage of M4 burnups reduced dramatically, down to approx. 10% from 80%.