Best/Favourate Tank in the west

[Doughboy]

Thank goodness doughboy was not a strategist for the US. If human lives were deemed more valuable than the strategic accomplishment, we likely would have lost the war.

I would have made the Sherman so it would run off Diesel, not gasoline....I would also make the Sherman so that it had sloped armor.

 

[Soren]

On average, it took ...
... 1.2 hits and 1.2 pens to KO a Pz IV. It also took 1.5 hits and 1.5 pens to brew a Pz IV.
... 2.55 hits and 1.9 pens to KO a Pz V. It also took 4.0 hits and 3.24 pens to brew a Pz V.
... 4.2 hits and 2.6 pens to KO a Pz VI. It also took 5.25 hits and 3.25 pens to brew a Pz VI.
... 1.63 hits and 1.55 pens to KO a Sherman. It also took 1.97 hits and 1.89 pens to brew a Sherman.

Pz IV gets the booby prize.

I'm quite sure those figures can't be trusted much at all. I for one, having read about a lot of actions on both the Western Easterin front, wouldn't put as much as a dime on their trustworthiness.

Take for example all the times that Allied tankers in vain spended as much as 10 rounds at a German tank only to observe all their rounds just bounce off German armour and then be blown to smithereens by the first return shot fired. Such instances could never be recorded in a statistic like that as there was no'one left to record it. Only the German could record that he'd used a single shot to knock out the Sherman, while the poor guys in the sherman were likely all dead and didn't live to tell how they expended maybe 10 shots or more in vain on the German tank.

Hence why such statistics are worth absolutely nothing really.

 

[vikingBerserker]

There actually were some Shermans had diesel engines.


The "Encyclopedia of Weapons of WWII" states the Panther used a Maybach diesel, then "Tanks and Amored Fighting Vechiles" by Jackson states the exact same engine but used gasoline. Oui-Fricken-Vais........

 

[vikingBerserker]

You are confusing Shermans with the 'aviation' radial engine.

Gotcha, thanks for the education.

 

[Soren]

The Maybach HL230 P45 P30 has always been and always will be a gasoline engine.

HL230 P30 specs:
Type: Water-cooled 60° 23 liter V12 gasoline engine
Displacement: 23,095 cm³
Output: 690 HP (700 PS) [515 kW] at 3,000 rpm
Torque: 1,850 Nm at 2,100 rpm (1,364 lbf)


Check out the torque! Massive!

 

[m kenny]

I'm quite sure those figures can't be trusted much at all. I for one, having read about a lot of actions on both the Western Easterin front, wouldn't put as much as a dime on their trustworthiness.

We can pick and chose what we want to believe. The figures however do not rely on leaps of faith. They were derived from the examination of actual tanks found destroyed in Normandy.

Take for example all the times that Allied tankers in vain spended as much as 10 rounds at a German tank only to observe all their rounds just bounce off German armour and then be blown to smithereens by the first return shot fired.

Yes we all know no German tank was ever knocked out, they all ran out of petrol.

Such instances could never be recorded in a statistic like that as there was no'one left to record it.

Wrong. The tank destroyed would be left on the battlefield and the one hole in it would be surveyed and included in the statistics. Also once the super-duper Panzer with the 10 dents in it was 'blown up' by the flleing crew after it ran out of petrol it too would be surveyed and the dents counted.

Only the German could record that he'd used a single shot to knock out the Sherman,

One thing has puzzled me for years, perhaps you can help me out.
If the '88' was so deadly and could get a first time hit with the super-duper German optics how come the made MILLIONS of AP rounds for it? Surely they only needed a couple of thousand for the whole war.
Where exactly did these millions of rounds go? It looks like they expended hundreds of AP rounds per destroyed tanks. Why?

Take this example:
Operation Sonnenblume 1941.
May 17 1941.
I./Flak Regiment 33
British lost 65 Matilda mk 2s and 29 Cruiser Tanks for a total of 94.
Flak Regiment "claimed" 79 of these Even tho the entire 5th and 8th Panzer Regiments were in action along with the 5th Leichte Division.
Let us accept that the 88's got all the tanks It seems they expended 1,680 AP rounds to do it. Not very efficient or 'one round one kill' is it?

For comparison AA expenditure was around 1 million rounds a month in 1944 and they calculated they fired 16000 rounds per kill.

while the poor guys in the sherman were likely all dead and didn't live to tell how they expended maybe 10 shots or more in vain on the German tank.

How could the Sherman crew be 'all dead' when the survey done on real men who experienced real hits in real tanks found an average of only 1 dead crewman per penetrated tank? Thus whilst there could be cases where the whole crew were killed this means there were 4 other tanks where no one was killed!

Hence why such statistics are worth absolutely nothing really.

Worth nothing to those wedded to myths about Uber-Panzers you mean?

 

[Soren]

Sure m_kenny, suuure...

You calmed down now?

Ok, I'll tell you what, you can make all the fairytale conclusions you want, but I don't have to do the same. alright?

If you believe that every single AP round fired was a perfectly aimed one, or that it was used against only tanks, then be my guest, but you're the one believing in myths and fairytales then my friend, not me. Also worth notice might be the fact that A LOT of the ammunition manufactured wasn't ever gonna get fired yet it was lost anyhow.

But you know what, I bet you're the guy who ran around counting dents and holes and made all the statistics, so you must know for sure how accurate they are. Oh yeah, believe in it...

Man I feel so sorry for the guy who had to walk around the battlefield with a pencil a clip board having to guess which one of those seven holes in that burned out tank knocked it out and then which one started the fire. I bet he figured it out in the end though with his powerful telekenetic mind powers!

Oh btw, I'm curious, why is it that the US have enough nukes to blow the entire planet to pieces 10 times ? Are they planning on bombing themselves as-well ?

 

[Matt308]

I would have made the Sherman so it would run off Diesel, not gasoline....I would also make the Sherman so that it had sloped armor.

You do understand that a diesel engine cannot be converted to a gasoline engine (and vice versa), right?

 

[m kenny]

Sure m_kenny, suuure...

You calmed down now?

Ok, I'll tell you what, you can make all the fairytale conclusions you want, but I don't have to do the same. alright?

Continue with your belief that:
"Take for example all the times that Allied tankers in vain spended as much as 10 rounds at a German tank only to observe all their rounds just bounce off German armour and then be blown to smithereens by the first return shot fired. Such instances could never be recorded in a statistic like that as there was no'one left to record it"

and I will just have to be satisfied with WQ 291/1186. This survey of 3700 tank casualties in Italy, N. Africa and NW Europe is the one that found that 2.2 of a Shermans crew became casualties per hit tank.

If you believe that every single AP round fired was a perfectly aimed one, or that it was used against only tanks, then be my guest,

I just wonder why it is always claimed the 88 was deadly with its first shot but they had to fire 160+ rounds per CLAIMED knocked out tank. Even if you allow for multiple hits and non-armoured vehicles the ammo expended is still going to be in the 100's per destroyed vehicle. At least you are now saying they missed a lot more than they managed to hit. The ammunition that a gun had with it was limited and thus having to fire 100+ rounds per kill would severely limit the number of kills per gun. Do you not see that?

but you're the one believing in myths and fairytales then my friend, not me.

Yes you only believe that every Sherman was blown to smithereens by the first return shot fired The first return shot mind you. Not the first 160 return shots!

I'm curious, why is it that the US have enough nukes to blow the entire planet to pieces 10 times ? Are they planning on bombing themselves as-well ?

Maybe they just realise that 'they' might miss a few times and thus need plenty of spare ammo. They obviously do not believe in 'one shot one hit' fairy tales.

 

[Soren]

Oh I see how your logic works M_kenny! According to you it took 4.26 hits exactly from 6 pdr to knock out a Pzkpfw.VI at any range from any angle.

Also every round manufactured was according to you fired and perfectly aimed and always used against another tank, there were no rushed shots in the heat of battle and no stores of ammunition ever went sky high as the result of being bombed by a/c or artillery or getting lit up inside a struck vehicle. Oh and ofcourse every shot ever made was done under ideal conditions were the target was clearly visible, with no obstructions in the way and the target didn't move and no wind was present. So therefore we can safely assume from knowing the number of rounds produced vs the amount enemy tanks knocked out, that a tank gun had exactly a 1 in 16,127th of chance of hitting anything it aimed at. Yes ofcourse that makes perfect sense!

And again I feel so sorry for that guy with the pencil clipboard, tough job for sure. I wonder how he found out which hit knocked out the tank and which started the fire... inny minny miny moe ?

Anyway, keep believing in all those home brewn fairytales you come up with m_kenny, I prefer not to.

 

[m kenny]

Oh I see how your logic works M_kenny! According to you it took 4.26 hits exactly from 6 pdr to knock out a Pzkpfw.VI at any range from any angle.

I am sorry if the scientific examination of the German wrecks found that on average each knocked out Panther had 2.55 hits(of which 1.9 penetrated). . Examination of real burnt-out Panthers showed that it took 4 hits and 3.24 pens to set it alight.
The PzIV seems to have been a death trap as only 1.2 hits KO'd it and 1.5 hits set it alight. It fared worse that the Sherman!

Also every round manufactured was according to you fired and perfectly aimed

No, that is what you say. Here is how you put it:

Allied tankers in vain spended as much as 10 rounds at a German tank only to observe all their rounds just bounce off German armour and then be blown to smithereens by the first return shot fired
I know that a lot of rounds went astray. I gave you fiigures that show a lot missed the target.

Oh and ofcourse every shot ever made was done under ideal conditions were the target was clearly visible, with no obstructions in the way and the target didn't move and no wind was present.

Strange that you never mentioned this before.

So therefore we can safely assume from knowing the number of rounds produced vs the amount enemy tanks knocked out, that a tank gun had exactly a 1 in 16,127th of chance of hitting anything it aimed at. Yes ofcourse that makes perfect sense!

If you have the survey that reached such a conclusion then feel free to identify it so we can share in your scepticism.

And again I feel so sorry for that guy with the pencil clipboard, tough job for sure. I wonder how he found out which hit knocked out the tank and which started the fire...

Operational Research is:
an interdisciplinary branch of applied mathematics and formal science that uses methods such as mathematical modeling, statistics, and algorithms to arrive at optimal or near optimal solutions to complex problems.

See here:
Operations research - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Extract:

Blackett's team undertook a number of crucial analyses that aided the war effort. Britain introduced the convoy system to reduce shipping losses, but while the principle of using warships to accompany merchant ships was generally accepted, it was unclear whether it was better for convoys to be small or large. Convoys travel at the speed of the slowest member, so small convoys can travel faster. It was also argued that small convoys would be harder for German U-boats to detect. On the other hand, large convoys could deploy more warships against an attacker. Blackett's staff showed that the losses suffered by convoys depended largely on the number of escort vessels present, rather than on the overall size of the convoy. Their conclusion, therefore, was that a few large convoys are more defensible than many small ones.

In another piece of work, Blackett's team analysed a report of a survey carried out by RAF Bomber Command. For the survey, Bomber Command inspected all bombers returning from bombing raids over Germany over a particular period. All damage inflicted by German air defenses was noted and the recommendation was given that armour be added in the most heavily damaged areas. Their suggestion to remove some of the crew so that an aircraft loss would result in fewer personnel loss was rejected by RAF command. Blackett's team instead made the surprising and counter-intuitive recommendation that the armour be placed in the areas which were completely untouched by damage in the bombers which returned. They reasoned that the survey was biased, since it only included aircraft that returned to Britain. The untouched areas of returning aircraft were probably vital areas, which, if hit, would result in the loss of the aircraft.


Map of Kammhuber LineWhen Germany organised its air defences into the Kammhuber Line, it was realised that if the RAF bombers were to fly in a bomber stream they could overwhelm the night fighters who flew in individual cells directed to their targets by ground controllers. It was then a matter of calculating the statistical loss from collisions against the statistical loss from night fighters to calculate how close the bombers should fly to minimise RAF losses.

The "exchange rate" ratio of output to input was a characteristic feature of operations research. By comparing the number of flying hours put in by Allied aircraft to the number of U-boat sightings in a given area, it was possible to redistribute aircraft to more productive patrol areas. Comparison of exchange rates established "effectiveness ratios" useful in planning. The ratio of 60 mines laid per ship sunk was common to several campaigns: German mines in British ports, British mines on German routes, and United States mines in Japanese routes]

Operations research doubled the success rate of aerial attacks on submarines by recommending a shallower detonation setting on the depth charges being dropped by aircraft. The depth charges had previously been set to detonate at the depth where the shock of the explosion would be most efficiently transferred through the water, but submarines were unable to reach that depth in the limited time available after being spotted by the aircraft. Shallower detonation depth settings reduced the distance of the detonation from the submarine: a close detonation with lower shock transmission efficiency was more destructive than a more distant detonation with better transmission.

Operations research doubled the on-target bomb rate of B-29s bombing Japan from the Marianas Islands by increasing the training ratio from 4 to 10 percent of flying hours; revealed that wolf-packs of three United States submarines were the most effective number to enable all members of the pack to engage targets discovered on their individual patrol stations; revealed that glossy enamel paint was more effective camouflage for night fighters than traditional dull camouflage paint finish, and the smooth paint finish increased airspeed by reducing skin friction.

On land, the operational research sections of the Army Operational Research Group (AORG) of the Ministry of Supply were landed in Normandy in 1944, and they followed British forces in the advance across Europe. They analysed, among other topics, the effectiveness of artillery, aerial bombing, and anti-tank shooting.



so I wish you well in your desperate ettempts to discredit OR so you can continue to believe in tall tales such as:

Allied tankers in vain spended as much as 10 rounds at a German tank only to observe all their rounds just bounce off German armour and then be blown to smithereens by the first return shot fired

I always smile when I see the Uber-Panzer fans denigrate OR when it shows German tanks burned as easily as a Sherman. They never have any problems accepting the OR Reports that show how many Shermans burned. Maybe they do not realise that it was Allied OR Surveys that established the facts?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Soren, m_kenny don't let this conversation get out of hand. So far this is a good convo with lots of info...

Don't ruin it for yourselves or for anyone else!

 

[parsifal]

I didnt know that the British used OR to analyse anti-tank defences....but it is entirely plausible.

I do know about Blacketts research into convoys. He explained his findings to a sceptical admiralty in the following terms.....(more or less)...."imagine the convoy is a flock of ducks and the U-Boat a duckhunter with a shotgun.....if the flock flys past the duckhunter and the duckhunter fires, he will kill a certain amount of those ducks. But he will only get one shot at the flock....now imagine the flock breaks up into four or five smaller flocks, separated by a few minutes. now the duckhunter gets four or five shots at the ducks, each shot does less damage, than the single shot into the big flock, but overall, the number of ducks shot is far less". Blacketts research was tested, and found to be chillingly accurate.....

 

[Soren]

Sorry M_Kenny but I'm gonna have to call the BS card on you.

There's simply no way a statistic like that can be anywhere near accurate, and primarily for the reasons below:
1.) Range is not listed
2.) The location of hits is not listed, which is problematic since Allied tankers loved to flank German tanks as quite frankly Allied tanks were usually just gun fodder for German tanks in a head on engagement.
3.) There would be no way for an analyzer to conclude which hit caused what occurence unless he was there when it happened, but sadly he hardly ever was. In short if any of these post action analyzers were to find a tank with 3 or 4 holes in it, all clean penetrations, and burned out, then they'd have no way of establishing which round KO'd the tank and which one started the fire. It might as well have been the first shot as it could've been the last one. And this alone renders the statistic completely useless in every way.

Furthermore a single tank which withstood 10 or more strikes would screw up the statistic for the next 10 ones knocked out, regardless of what caliber weapon knocked out each particular tank at each particular range at each particular angle.

Now considering these problematics would you consider such a statistic anywhere near accurate ? I can tell you this much, any self respecting intelligence officer would consider such a statistic the result of pure idiocy.

So to sum it all up the stastic is sadly worthless and a waste of time and it doesn't take much of a logical sense to figure that one out either.

But you go ahead and keep believing in your fairytale statistics m_kenny, I could care less.

 

[Soren]

I didnt know that the British used OR to analyse anti-tank defences....but it is entirely plausible.

I do know about Blacketts research into convoys. He explained his findings to a sceptical admiralty in the following terms.....(more or less)...."imagine the convoy is a flock of ducks and the U-Boat a duckhunter with a shotgun.....if the flock flys past the duckhunter and the duckhunter fires, he will kill a certain amount of those ducks. But he will only get one shot at the flock....now imagine the flock breaks up into four or five smaller flocks, separated by a few minutes. now the duckhunter gets four or five shots at the ducks, each shot does less damage, than the single shot into the big flock, but overall, the number of ducks shot is far less". Blacketts research was tested, and found to be chillingly accurate.....

Problem is that tank warfare is a fundamentally different thing all together with a whole list of problem factors which didn't exist with naval warfare.

 

[Doughboy]

There actually were some Shermans that had diesel engines.

Interesting....I didn't know that.

 

[parsifal]

I thougtht the fundamental statistic that MK had brought forward was not so much which shot had caused the "kill" rather the number of shots, on average needed to achieve that kill.

I also would not think it that difficult to determine which hit did the most damage or which hit was likley to be the lethal one. Ballistics does that sort of analysis all the time, so why would tank ballistics be so very different to just about every other field of ballistics?

What i dont understand is what benfit the alleged OR into AT statistics would yield? Did the British determine the types of shots most likley to brew a given type of tank???? was WWII tank gunnery so accurate as to be able to choose the point of impact. Perhaps the research was trying to determine the optimum range with which to engage the target. But I would have thought that sort of information could be much more accurately deduced from an analysis of the gun and armour chacteristics.

OR was a very powerful tool that yielded a great deal of beneficial, and at times crucial information to the allies. Ther is no doubt in my mind about that. But I just cant get my head around how it might help devise the right tactics to employ in a tank versus tank engagement.

 

[m kenny]

There's simply no way a statistic like that can be anywhere near accurate.....blah blah blah blah....................So to sum it all up the stastic is sadly worthless and a waste of time and it doesn't take much of a logical sense to figure that one out either.

You fail to understand the nature of the statistics. They were many other OR Reports listing such things as location of hits and size of shell holes ect. You should consult them before you burst another blood vessel
Nothing can change the fact that the broken hulls of Pz IV's, Panther and Tigers were examined in detail. You simply do not like the result. Now there is a suprise!

I thougtht the fundamental statistic that MK had brought forward was not so much which shot had caused the "kill" rather the number of shots, on average needed to achieve that kill.

Quite correct.

What i dont understand is what benfit the alleged OR into AT statistics would yield? Did the British determine the types of shots most likley to brew a given type of tank????

One thing they found that Shermans took hits in the ratio of:
55% were side hits
29% were frontal hits
15% were rear hits.

Let us suppose doubling the frontal armour would reduce casualties by 50%. Now they have the data to work out that this 50% reduction in frontal hits would only save 15% of losses rather than halve the total.
In effect they know it is not going to be the answer to the problem.

But I just cant get my head around how it might help devise the right tactics to employ in a tank versus tank engagement.

The whole of NATO's response to the percieved Soviet Tank Steamroller was the product of these OR Studies.

Perhaps the research was trying to determine the optimum range with which to engage the target. But I would have thought that sort of information could be much more accurately deduced from an analysis of the gun and armour chacteristics.

A number of studies did look at ranges and force ratios to work out how to counter any Soviet advance.

 

[Soren]

I thougtht the fundamental statistic that MK had brought forward was not so much which shot had caused the "kill" rather the number of shots, on average needed to achieve that kill.

I also would not think it that difficult to determine which hit did the most damage or which hit was likley to be the lethal one. Ballistics does that sort of analysis all the time, so why would tank ballistics be so very different to just about every other field of ballistics?

Parsifal this is not like some crime scene from a murder case, there's no blood spatter, there's no biological evidence such as time of death etc etc as tanks aren't living beings. All you have to work with is an armoured shell with holes in it and so how on earth are you going to conclude which hit caused what occurrence at what time ? You wouldn't even be able to conclude which of the holes was caused first.

Hence why the effectiveness of different ammunition and armament types was established on the testing range where you can control exactly where to hit at what range and therefore know exactly what to look for. In such tests the true accuracy destructive power of a weapon can be explored.

Knowing you're a smart person with a lot of knowledge, which I respect, I'm sure that you will agree with me on this Parsifal.

You fail to understand the nature of the statistics. They were many other OR Reports listing such things as location of hits and size of shell holes ect. You should consult them before you burst another blood vessel
Nothing can change the fact that the broken hulls of Pz IV's, Panther and Tigers were examined in detail. You simply do not like the result. Now there is a suprise!

M_kenny, then for goodness sake why weren't they applied to the statistic ?? I'll tell you why:

1.) Cause nothing worthwhile could be concluded from it. There was simply so many different ways of destroying a tank that looking at a knocked out tank and counting the dents and holes on it would most of the time yield no answer at all as to which shot knocked it out of action and which one set it ablaze.

2.) The statistic would be way too long and complicated to be of any worth.

 

[m kenny]

then for goodness sake why weren't they applied to the statistic ?? I'll tell you why:

HALT!
They were applied to the statistics

Here is WO 171/601 Detailing Panther penetrations.

Upper Glacis.................... 1
Mantlet and turret front ...2
Turret and sides ............10
Hull sides ......................23
Turret rear ....................1
Hull rear ........................5
Total of 42 penetrations.

Non-penetrating hits
Upper Glacis.................... 7
Mantlet and turret front... 2
Turret and sides .............4
Hull sides........................1
Turret rear.....................0
Hull rear........................ 0
Total of 14 hits that glanced off.

For comparison here is a list of aspect hits for the Sherman v The Panther. It is not part of the original report and I just think it is revealing.

Sherman and Panther hit comparison

.........................Panther hits.................................Sherman hits
Frontal hits...............12 (22%)......................................29%
Side Hits..................38 (67%)......................................55%
Rear hits..................6 (10%).........................,..............15%

It looks like side hits were the real killers and the Panther had thin sides!