German tanks vs Allied tanks

[Michael Dorosh]

The reason the M4s "brewed up" was because the gunners would improperly stow the ammo around the turret for easier access. But yeah, if your going to narrow it down to which tank I would rather be inside of if I was shot by another tank, I would take the tiger or Panther. But my point is that doesn't make them better tanks and as to the OPs question, doesn't mean that a group of panthers could defeat 4 times their number in Sherman's. Of course, it's anyone's guess

Also, the early M4s had unarmoured ammo bins, just sheet metal. The propellant in the shells was what brewed up - the old myth is that the Germans had diesel tanks and the Americans gasoline, and that the fuel was the cause of the rapid vehicle fires. They started putting applique armour over the ammo bins, and all no doubt know about the wet stowage (stowing shells in ethylene glycol and water to suppress propellant fires). Though as mikeck points out, the wet stowage doesn't help much if gunners are cramming shells into every nook and cranny because they're overloading their tanks.

[Boggit]

You always have to keep in mind logisitcs also.  The cargo ships could haul more than 3 Shermans for the weight of two Pershings.  If the majority of your combat is offensive operations,  a middling tank that has good mobility and good HE power is good.  And having 33% more of them is better.

And then there is manufacturing change over and crew training.  Its easy for us to look back in hindsight on decisions to not replace the Sherman, but even the US didn't have unlimited resources.  They had carriers, trucks, fighters, and bombers to make also.  Not upgunning the Sherman was a bad decision, but you should underestimate the logistics of those types of decisions when looking back.

All good points. O0

Although combat reality eventually caught up and Sherman's were upgraded with the 76mm and later variants. But you're right it would have been a big thing to re gear the factories en masse for a new tank model.

[FarAway Sooner]

It's not talking about tank battles, but a fascinating look at the intersection of equipment, doctrine, and soldiers who fought the ground war in the South Pacific can be found in Eric Bergerud's Touched by Fire.  Bergerud has a similarly excellent treatment of equipment, doctrine, and fighting men for the air war in the South Pacific during that same time frame.

The South Pacific from 1942-1943 makes for a very interesting historical sample.  It was about the only time in the war when the Allies and the Japanese fought on anything near equal terms, and it was also the only time in the war when they had vaguely comparable levels of expertise in their soldiers or particularly in their pilots.

Atkinson's Liberation Trilogy makes for fine reading (the first book is better than the last, I fell) and I certainly learned some things along the way, but it doesn't provide much insight into tactical, tank-by-tank battles.  Atkinson does a great job of looking at interactions between the different commanders, if that's of interest to you.

[MengJiao]

Here is the pdf version of the SMALL UNIT ACTIONS DURING THE GERMAN CAMPAIGN IN RUSSIA book...

http://www.history.army.mil/html/books/104/104-22-1/CMH_Pub_104-22-1.pdf

btw, I see a lot of myth and legend thrown around here. 

   There's some interesting deconstruction of some German myth-making in Glantz's six-book Stalingrad trilogy.  In volume 2 of book 3 (Endgame at Stalingrad), the editors
finally just let Glantz go and he spends a lot of time demonstrating how German accounts seriously misrepresented what happened.  He also tries to explain what went on
as each German account got assembled and how they scrambled most events and omitted any discussion of any real operational disasters (rather like the Russian Army-level accounts where commanders tended to gloss over areas where things didn't work out -- but the Russian accounts were command summaries, not final books).  As usual, Glantz ends up making his points by massive accumulation rather than by incisive writing -- but in this case it kind of works.

[Boggit]

I struggle to read Glantz.

I have his 'Before Stalingrad' book, which does huge credit to his research both in terms of detail and breadth. His research is outstanding, and hard to fault (even down to small stuff like when Sgt Schulz of the 112th Regiment farted on the night of 12th August 1941  ;) ). I'm joking on that last bit, but in all seriousness while I find his research great, I find his writing style so dry that he is difficult to enjoy reading. It's interesting that he managed not to bore you to death with 'Endgame at Stalingrad'. Do you recommend it?

[sandman2575]

As usual, Glantz ends up making his points by massive accumulation rather than by incisive writing -- but in this case it kind of works.

Put another way -- Glantz employs Red Army tactics in writing about the Red Army...   ;)

[magnus]

I have read all of his books, but to me there is a problem.

He is a fanboy of the Soviets as bad as some authors are of the Germans.

Take one thing as an example. When writing about Kursk, he hammers home the point that the Soviets " made " the Germans turn to Prokhorovka.

The only thing is that their are numerous examples of Hoth saying long before the battle started that he was going there. These are not written accounts long after the battle.

[MengJiao]

I struggle to read Glantz.

I have his 'Before Stalingrad' book, which does huge credit to his research both in terms of detail and breadth. His research is outstanding, and hard to fault (even down to small stuff like when Sgt Schulz of the 112th Regiment farted on the night of 12th August 1941  ;) ). I'm joking on that last bit, but in all seriousness while I find his research great, I find his writing style so dry that he is difficult to enjoy reading. It's interesting that he managed not to bore you to death with 'Endgame at Stalingrad'. Do you recommend it?

  I cannot recommend Glantz as an enjoyable read.  I could not really get what was happening in Endgame until I played some games on the topic while reading it.  Perhaps the very, very worst and most unforgivable thing about the Stalingrad "trilogy" is the maps.  There are a few that are readable but for most you need some other method to figure out what is what where and when.

[MengJiao]

I have read all of his books, but to me there is a problem.

He is a fanboy of the Soviets as bad as some authors are of the Germans.

Take one thing as an example. When writing about Kursk, he hammers home the point that the Soviets " made " the Germans turn to Prokhorovka.

The only thing is that their are numerous examples of Hoth saying long before the battle started that he was going there. These are not written accounts long after the battle.

Yes, the Kursk book is perhaps the most irritating of all....but I blame the editors.  The fact is the Stalingrad trilogy does fashion a new picture of the whole event, and not by making any sense, but by pouring on the layers of his working through all his sources.  But you have to use some outside maps to get anywhere and watch what happens day-by-day.
I've only read about half of the trilogy (3 out of 5 of the narrative books).

[mikeck]

It's a lot like reading books on the American Civil war. Certain authors have biases. Only way to really overcome that is to read books from different authors; both pro confederate and pro Union. Then draw your own conclusions

[ArizonaTank]

For grins, I just ran a scenario in CMAK.  24 M4s (75mm), vs. 3 Panther As.  On a flat field, 1500 meters by 1500 meters.  Result, M4s put down smoke on the Panthers, and charged.  Eventually, the Shermans got some side shots.  3 dead Panthers and 17 dead Shermans.  I'll do a video next time.

[acctingman]

For grins, I just ran a scenario in CMAK.  24 M4s (75mm), vs. 3 Panther As.  On a flat field, 1500 meters by 1500 meters.  Result, M4s put down smoke on the Panthers, and charged.  Eventually, the Shermans got some side shots.  3 dead Panthers and 17 dead Shermans.  I'll do a video next time.

Cannot wait to see this! Thanks AT  :D

[acctingman]

For grins, I just ran a scenario in CMAK.  24 M4s (75mm), vs. 3 Panther As.  On a flat field, 1500 meters by 1500 meters.  Result, M4s put down smoke on the Panthers, and charged.  Eventually, the Shermans got some side shots.  3 dead Panthers and 17 dead Shermans.  I'll do a video next time.

I'd pay the $200+ for all the CM2 titles to have the ability to do a ton of tank vs tank fights....if I could bring myself to learning how to play that beast of a game! 

[magnus]

That sounds about right.

I think several people worked it out as five Allied tanks to one German.

They were however on the defensive, and the attacker most always takes more casualties.

[Sir Slash]

Way back when I set-up a fight in CM 1 with a bunch of Shermans--chosen by the game vs a couple of Jadgtigers. The Shermans did surprisingly well with the terribly slow rate of fire of the Jadgtigers and the speed of the Shermans, they were able to get close enough to kill both of the Jadgs with side shots. I was completely surprised. I hadn't thought about it until I started reading this thread. I wonder if the same would happen with CM 2 engine?