Military Cable Channel: fact or fiction? Famous Tank Battles of wwII

In the Normandy battles they were two instances when a lone Sherman took out five Panthers in a single action...mind you , they were Fireflys

 

Actually I think the numbers I've seen indicate the pre wetstorage Sherman was about as likely to catch fire if penetrated as the German tanks were. Once it had wet storage it was better, of course along with not having wet storage American tankers had a tendency to carry extra rounds. I suspect that once the flamability problems were pointed out that became less common as well. Certainly the US tanks had no tendency to self immolate like some of the German designs. I'm not sure how much difference the gas vs diesel made or where the T-34 stood in this regard. Their tendency to carry fuel externally may have overcome any benefits that diesel provided.

 

I was wondering when someone would bring up the Firefly, or even the Easy 8.

 

Depends which German tank you are referring too.
The Panther had a bad a reputation for burning if penetrated as early Sherman's did.

 

I have just read a little passage about German tank crews in Italy in October 1944 talking to Speer about the relative merits of German and Allied armour.

The consensus was that they liked the Sherman for its reliability, power to weight, climbing ability and cross country capability on soft ground, all of which their tanks lacked.
They were asked what type of tank they would like and told Speer they would like lighter more manoeuvrable tanks with a weapon that gave them the advantage they require.
This was in response to Speer looking to see how to manage Germanys dwindling resources. Less Heavy tanks versus lighter tanks with thinner armour but still a big gun. The crews preferred more of the lighter tanks but still with a big gun.

 

Going from the numbers I remember seeing the Sherman, MkIV, MkV, and MkVI were all around 80% plus or minus about 5% as far as there probability of burning given a penetration. Given the relativly low numbers used in coming up with those averages I don't think there is a statistically significant difference.

 

Engagements like this could and did happen. The Panther tank's side armor was only 45-mm thick and easy enough for US 75-mm to kill. Good frontal armor is irrelevant if the hits are not at the front. If Fritz Langanke was involved, it was probably the same engagement reported in Zaloga's Panther versus Sherman book. The German tanks drove into an ambush and were wiped out by Shermans firing at their flank from a village. The surviving Panther later ambushed a US armored column with good success.

 

I have read quite a few combat reports from German tanks crews who said that they still lost tanks in engagements with Shermans, Cromwells and Churchills (who could not penetrate their frontal) armour due to mobility kills, tracks, final drives, optics, guns all were still vulnerable to being destroyed by a MV 75mm (the Sherman did not have a LV gun). Crews also baled out of working tanks after a few hits due to shock and panic, especially true with the newer inexperienced crews being fielded later on.

Never mind that the tanks may have been engaged from the sides or rear where they were weaker and the 75mm MV weapon could penetrate. Then depending on date they may have been engaged by 76mm Shermans or if facing the Brits 17 pdr both of which are much better AT weapons (as is the 6 pdr still fitted to some British tanks).

 

Reading after action reports compiled by armored divisions gives the strong impression that in NW Europe, armored combat that resulted in heavy tank losses were usually one-sided slaughters inflicted by ambushers on the ambushed. Entire tank companies from all sides had been wiped out by 4 or 5 armor pieces firing from advantageous positions. No medium or light tank was likely survive flank hits from tank or anti-tank guns, even heavy tanks like Joseph Stalin or Tiger were vulnerable to such attacks by high velocity guns otherwise incapable of penetrating their main armor.