Shermans and Tigers

I heard it took four Shermans to kill a Tiger, and the Americans always had the fifth. Was that true, or was someone lying?

 

It only takes one grenade to take out any tank, as long as it does the job right. There are many sayings like this (some saying four, some eight, some ten), but it is rediculous, considering that one tank may very well take out more enemy tanks than ten others.

Christian

 

I think it is a statistc drawn from the loss figures. In that the allies 4 times as many shermans as the germans tigers. However that as a statistic would be worthless

You have to remember that the two tanks were very different. The sherman was a solid reliable and mass produced medium tank which served the allies very well.

The tiger was a prescision built heavy tank which when maintained and working was a formible enemy of any thing on the battlefield. But in general it was a bitch to run and very expensive for what edge it gave.

It also doesn't take into account that assulting tanks will alway suffer heavier losses against defending tanks.

FNG

 

If the Sherman losses are four times as large as the Tiger losses, and it took on average sour Shermans to take out a Tiger, it would mean that no Shermans were destroyed by Pz.Kpfw.IVs, Panthers, anti-tank guns, etc.

 

To answer the origional question - maybe, on occaision, this kind of encounter happened. But not usually.

 

The Allies had more like 25 Shermans for every Tiger, but as said, this statistic means very little. The average Sherman crew would never meet a Tiger because it was a rarity in the German arsenal, under 1500 being made in total during the war of which the majority was used in the East. And of course it is pointless to deduce the course of tank battles only by looking at the total losses of only two tank types suffered during the entire war.

 

What I think he is eluding to is a representation of tactics in killing a Tiger. NOT actual losses or percentages.

I have heard the phrase "It took 4 Shermans to kill a Panther."
Meaning that if four Shermans engaged a Panther, it would destroy three of them before the fourth could manuver to knock-out the Panther from the rear.

The second phrase was "It took FIVE Shermans to kill a Tiger." Same scenario... one more smoking Sherman on the battlefield. The Tiger was weak in the arse as well.

Tim

 

There were no tactic calling for the intentional sacrifice of three or four Shermans to take out a Tiger or Panther. The tactics for dealing with German tanks was rather to generally avoid engagements between German tanks and Shermans, and rather leave it to the anti-tank units to deal with them (which were better capable of doing so, owing to their high-velocity weapons).

In either case, there would be no point in engagin the Tiger from the rear, when the side presented just as vulnerable a target.

 

This kind of thing is why I hate the History channel as much as I do. Seriously.

 

I saw an advert for a programme they have made on the Crusades, and spent a happy 5 minutes pointing out all the little innacuracies in just that one picture. Well, I was happy...

 

So what if the scenario did come true. 4 British driven Shermans against one Tiger I in the city of tobruk. The Tiger is defending. Who would win, or rather not lose???

I think this could happen but it would have to be an early production Tiger I.

 

In a closed-in, urban environment?

The Shermans - easy. The Shermans have the advantages of speed (I think?), size, and faster turret rotation. Plus in an urban environment the long-range abilities of the Tiger's gun is no longer a factor, and the combat ranges will likely be within the range where the Sherman's 75mm can kill the Tiger.


If they were caught out on the open by a hull-down Tiger I then the early model Shermans (and pretty much every other Allied tank in N Africa with the possible exception of the Churchill) would be effectively sitting ducks - it becomes a race between whether the Tiger crew can knock out all 4 tanks before the Shermans get close enough to return effective fire.

 

I don't think it could happen because the defenders at Tobruk were Commonwealth troops who didn't have tanks, and Rommel didn't have Tigers until early 1943 IIRC.

 

Re engagement range with the Sherman and Tiger: At what range could a Sherman with a 75 mm gun penetrate the frontal armor of a Tiger I? At what range could a Sherman with the 76 mm gun penetrate the frontal armor of a Tiger I? Aftger WW II, the US Army did a study which showed that the typical engagement range in battles involving Sherman's and any German tank was 700 yards. Does anyone know if this rather short range was primarily due to penetration ability, optics or doctrine? Obviously, terrain is going to play a role, but that factor should even itself out. Another US study found that a tank force attacking another tank force frontally was going to lose at least 1 tank for every tank knocked out regardless of the attacking force's numerical superiority.

 

Within 500 meters but only when using APCBC rounds of a specific late-war type, M61. With any other type of ammunition this would be impossible.

1500 meters using HVAP or within 500 meters using APCBC.

I reckon the engagement range in the West, where open terrain was rare, was determined mostly by the simple fact that the enemy wasn't spotted earlier than when it had come within 700 yards of friendly positions, or that LOS wouldn't allow fire beyond 700 yards.

 

The only widespread affect the tiger had on allied tank crews was fear. Fear that they might have the misfortune of running into a tiger.

 

The 4-1 ratio has sort of become accepted as fact, but in my readings the tank commanders felt that 3-1 would usually get the job done. The root of the problem was the lack of confidence U.S. tankers had in their 75mm and even 76mm guns to penetrate either a Tiger's or a Panther's front glacis. Even at ranges on the order of 100 meters, there were multiple instances of 75mm rounds just bouncing off the front (and then of course the crap really hit the fan). Now these were probably just hits that occurred in the worst places to get a kill, but it doesn't take word long to spread. Until the M36 Jackson came on the scene (of course the Brits had the 17 pdr) and later the M26 Pershing, U.S. troops had nothing they could have almost absolute confidence could kill either a Tiger or a Panther at anything but point blank range from the front.

 

I was liek playing bf1942 (PC game) and well owning rite, 4v1. These guys all got in tanks (3 Shermans, and one Priest). So liek i got in a Tiger, and well to keep this sort I owned 2 of the Shermans and the Priest. But liek the other Sherman got behind me and i was n00bified.

Well my point is, if it did get into the situation the Tiger's crew would have had to be pwnage in order to kill all three or four Sher's.

 

Eh, Founderer, comparing the real world with a PC game is futile. Much worse is to compare the real world with a game as shitty and unrealistic as BF1942. Please don't consider your own post anything of a serious argument in our debate on the capacities of the Tiger tank.

SgtBob: like I said, the 76mm gun with the right ammunition definitely had a good chance of penetrating the Tiger's frontal armour. The same goes for the 57mm gun the Americans also used.

 

If there was only one guy, how did he manage to drive multiple tanks? Did he suffer from virtual schizophrenia?

If you owned them, then why did this scizophrenic guy drive them? Did he steal them from you?

safkasj723ro48r9q374q3ouir44309q8p43h