# Allied Tank Aces



## Vassili Zaitzev (May 11, 2009)

From the Best Tank Commander thread by Lucky, there was talk of allied tank aces. Well, I was looking at the wiki page on the Sherman Firefly, when I came across this tidbit of info: 



> Despite this, the Fireflies increased firepower was much valued by British and Commonwealth tankers, and during many engagements, the Firefly proved its worth, knocking out the feared Tigers and Panthers at long range, as well as less formidable tanks like the Mark IVs and StuGs.
> 
> One example of this increased firepower was displayed by Lt. G.K Henry's Firefly during the defense of Norrey-en-Bessin on 9 June against an attack by the 3rd Company of the 12th SS Panzer Regiment of the 12th SS Panzer Division. Determined to capture the town in preparation for a larger offensive to drive the British and Canadians back into the sea, Kurt Meyer ordered an attack by 12 Panthers of the 3rd Company and infantry to attack Norrey-en-Bessin and drive the Canadians out of the town. The attack got underway at 1300 hours with the Panthers racing to the town at full speed only to stop to fire their guns, quickly outrunning their infantry support. Within 1,000 m of the town, 9 Shermans of the 1st Hussars opened fire into the advancing Panthers flanks. Lt. Henry's gunner, Trooper A. Chapman, waited until the Panthers "lined up like ducks in a row" and quickly knocked out five German Panthers with just 6 rounds. The attack was repulsed with the loss of 7 of the 12 attacking Panthers, the majority credited to Lt. Henry's single Firefly. [7].
> 
> Another similar example occurred on 14 June, during Operation Perch, Sgt. Harris of the 4th/7th Dragoon Guards, along with three standard Shermans, set up defensive positions along with the infantry after successfully driving out the Germans in the village of Lingèvres, near Tilly-sur-Seulles. Looking through his binoculars, Sgt. Harris spotted two Panthers advancing from the east. He opened fire at a range of 800 m, knocking out the lead Panther with his first shot, and the second Panther with his second. Relocating to a new position on the other side of the town, he spotted another three Panthers approaching from the west. From his well-concealed flanking position, he and his gunner Trooper Mackillop eliminated all three with just three rounds. Harris and his gunner had knocked out five Panthers with as many rounds, once again demonstrating the potency of the Firefly, especially when firing from a defensive position on advancing enemy tanks.[3]



Here's another website I found going further into detail. 
The Panzers and the Battle of Normandy (2)

Apparentely, all the aces I found, who at least scored five tank kills, were using the Sherman Firefly. As for allied tank aces on the Russian front, unfortunately I haven't found anything yet.


----------



## Amsel (May 11, 2009)

Nice info! It would also be interesting to know about any Marine tank aces. The Japanese used armor a bit.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (May 12, 2009)

Thanks. From what I read about Japanese tanks, they were outmatched by the Shermans.


----------



## GrauGeist (May 12, 2009)

The Japanese didn't really have anything in the way of heavy armor, but relied more on light medium types that the Sherman could easily handle.

Not sure why, and I don't recall reading anything regarding thier philosophy on armored warfare.


----------



## Ferdinand Foch (May 13, 2009)

Grau, wasn't it that Japanese tanks were so lightly armored, that a .303 calibre bullet could penetrate it? Even heard that you could jam that turret by sticking a bayonet in it.


----------



## Juha (May 13, 2009)

IIRC US Army had at least one senior NCO tank commander who had ca. 100 AFV kills.

Juha


----------



## comiso90 (May 13, 2009)

great info!

I'd like to know if this is corroborated by German records.. All mention is of Panthers.. how about Tiger and King Tiger?

Too bad the FireFly's gun was standard issue.


----------



## timshatz (May 13, 2009)

Only Marine tank battle I know about was on Peliliu. Japanese armor counterattacked Marie positions on the Airfield. Marine Shermans versus Japanese light tanks. Marines had to switch from AP to HE in the middle of the fight 'cause the rounds just went right through them. 

Also some Tank on Tank at Saipan but not large battle. Little here, little there. 

Brits tanks ran into them in Burma. Said the Japanese didn't seem to have any idea how to deal with tank on tank fighting. Japanese tanks tended to fight isolated actions or just stop wherever they were, acted confused. 

Perhaps Japanese troops were never taught a doctine for tank on tank.


----------



## Juha (May 13, 2009)

Comiso
one Firely most probably got a KingTiger on the first day of Goodwood, claimed a Panther where a KingTiger was knocked out by a AP hit.

Juha


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (May 13, 2009)

Good info Tim. Comiso, I'm not sure, I'll look on the web for German tank losses on that date in Normandy.


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 13, 2009)

From "Tanks and Armored Fighting Vehicles" by Robert Jackson

*Japanese Tanks*:
Type 89B had max armor of 17mm
Type 95 HA- GO had max armor of 12mm
Type 97 TE- KE had a max armor of 16mm
Type 97 CHI- HA had a max armor of 25mm
Type 1 CHI- HE had a max armor of 50mm 


M4 Sherman had 62mm.
Panther had 80mm
T34 had 65mm
Churchill had 102mm

If I recall, the Japanese tanks mainly supported infantry.


----------



## BombTaxi (May 13, 2009)

On reporting of tank types in Normandy:

I have read in various places that British tank crews often reported MkIVs as Panthers, Panthers as Tigers, and Tigers as King Tigers. Given the view (or lack thereof) out of a buttoned-up Sherman or Cromwell lurching around the battlefield trying to avoid being brewed-up, such mis-claiming is understandable. I would imagine all sides had difficulty positively identifying enemy tanks in combat - the problem also beset naval forces, and even aircrews to a certain extent.

On Japanese armour:

My understanding is that the Japanese viewed armour as recon and infantry fire support, and not much else. I don't think the Japanese ever really developed a doctrine for tank vs tank warfare, nor did they develop mass armoured formations like the Allies and Germany did. Experience in China and in the early days of the Second World War probably convinced the Japanese that they had little need of armour, and the arrival of tanks built for the European war (i.e the Sherman and Churchill, etc.) must have been a very rude awakening for them.


----------



## timshatz (May 14, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> If I recall, the Japanese tanks mainly supported infantry.



Read that also. According to the Marine Infantry (who were hugely suprised to see Japanese Tanks coming at them), the Japanese were "hanging all over the tanks". Also, the Marine tanks were not the only weapons used on the Japanese Tanks. Bazookas and Artillery got in the act. Probably some NGFS as well. Pretty much threw everything in the inventory at them.


----------



## timshatz (May 14, 2009)

BombTaxi said:


> On Japanese armour:
> 
> My understanding is that the Japanese viewed armour as recon and infantry fire support, and not much else. I don't think the Japanese ever really developed a doctrine for tank vs tank warfare, nor did they develop mass armoured formations like the Allies and Germany did. Experience in China and in the early days of the Second World War probably convinced the Japanese that they had little need of armour, and the arrival of tanks built for the European war (i.e the Sherman and Churchill, etc.) must have been a very rude awakening for them.




I think (not positive but IIRC) the Japanese also had the bad luck of running into formations that had fought in the dessert or had plenty of vetrans from the desert in them. Not only did the Japanese have inferior tanks and no training or doctirne, they were up against troops that got their training from Rommels Panzer force.


----------



## parsifal (May 14, 2009)

One thing to note about the japanese use of armour, and they proved very adept at using armour in rough terrain . They were the first army to realize that armour could be employed in the Jungles, which is something the US forces in the Jungle did not grasp as a concept until well into 1943. The Australians had encountered Japanese tanks in the Malayan Jungles and their 2 pdrs had dispatched them in an impressive style, at Jitra I believe. 

I do know that the Brits used Shermans in the 1945 offensive into Burma and had also used armour (but not Shermans) during Imphal and Kohima battles. But it was the Australians who were the first allies that used armour in the Jungle, at Gona and Sanananda in late 1942. The armoured support afforded by the Stuarts proved decisive, enabling the Australian Infantry to keep forward movement against the heavily entrenched Japanese Bunkers, whilst the Americans fighting beside them could not keep advancing, and in fact fell back at one stage. Despite this, the Americans still refrained from employing support armour in any of their jungle campaigns, and as far as I know did not use armoured support in thir amphib landings until Pelieu. they certainly did not use tanks in their initial assaults at Normandy to anything like the scale the british did, and one of the results of this was the debacle at Omaha.

The Americans did not extensively employ heavy armour in the Pacific until late in the war. During the war, they mostly employed light tanks against the Japanese, Stuarts mostly, They were again amazed to find the Australians in 1945 using heavy armour in the thick jungle of Bougainville in 1945. This was a technique repeated in Vietnam, using Centurians.

The Japanese Shinhoto Chi Ha was armed with a 47mm gun that was adequate against the Stuart, or even an M3 Grant, but was hard pressed against a Sherman. however at wars end they had a 75mm gun version of the Chi Ha, which they were busily stockpiling in the Home Islands. Against a T-34-85, the Shinhoto Chi Has had no chance . It also could not cope with the Australian Matildas


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (May 14, 2009)

Interesting info Parsifal, thanks!


----------

