Myth buster threads: comments

For the same reason that everybody always develops newer, better designs.

1) rough parity with your competitor is not enough. Superiority is better
2) your competitors will be producting a newer better design
3) in this case, Allied Medium tanks still had problems against German heavy tanks (as you would expect )

Nothing, and that is exactly the point I was making. Individual actions where tank type A kills X amount of tank type B are statistically meaningless, yet are almost always dragged out to show how superior German tanks are. I'm glad we agree on this point!

Uhm, firstly, I don't think the myth-buster says otherwise, it simply points out that the 'superiority gap' is far smaller than is popularly believed (and may not even exist).

Secondly...

Depends what particular piece of allied armour. By D-Day the majority of Allied tanks were Shermans, and the majority of Shermans were still armed with the 75mm gun. This gun did have big problems with the frontal armour of Panthers and Tigers.

However...

76mm Shermans were not a very small majority, and every new Sherman off the production line had a 76mm gun. The 76mm gun had few problems with anything smaller than a Tiger II at typical combat ranges in NW Europe.

British tanks (Churchills, Cromwells, Valentines et al) had either the 6pdr gun (only 57mm calibre but a decent performer in armour penetration) or a 75mm gun that was essentially a bored-out 6pdr (so reasonably good armour-penetration and good HE).

Trouble is, 'better' is such a wide term. We have so many 'best' tank arguments, with such a range of factors.
Armour
Gun
Manouverability
Reliability
Ease of Maintenance
Cost
Logistical strain
etc etc.

75mm Shermans were excellent tanks when fighting infantry, as that is basically what they were designed to do. They were not so good at fighting later models of German tanks, because they were never intended to fight tanks (although in North Africa they were the best tank out until the Pz.IV Special arrived).
76mm Shermans (and any other tank with a high-velocity gun) was better at fighting other tanks, but worse at fighting infantry (HE shells shot from high-velocity guns need thicker casings, so proportionally less HE filling)

Which is why there is such a debate. As I've said before, the 'Top 3' is generally:

1) Panther

Tied second place) T-34/85 and late-model Sherman

I did not say that.

1) Use of Strategic airpower in tactical situations (which is what I discussed in my post above, answering your remark about what was supposedly necessary to allow the Allies to break out of Normandy) is a big waste of everybody's time and resources - except the enemy's.

2) Use of tactical airpower to destroy enemy tanks is useful, but produces (in WW2 anyway) little actual results (beyond the obvious psychological effects on tank crews and making moving at night the only viable option, plus the morale-booster for the friendly soldiers)

3) Use of tactical air power against the logistics network is very useful, as you highlight above.


Not meant offensively, but as friendly advice - never add an extra dimension to somebody's comments that does not exist, like turning a post dealing with the carpet-bombing of a battlefield into "To say that allied air supremacy didn,t help a bit in the Normandy campaign".

This is bad debating technique, and most people would get quite angry, and there is a high chance that they would either use it as an argument to ignore everything you say or would just brand you an idiot and then things will go downhill. I don't believe you're an idiot (you make damn good posts and force me to think hard).

 

To be honest when it comes to the question who was using their armor properly I don,t think that germans were in some advantage in that field.When one sees how germans were using their armor we have to agree that if they used properly their armor forces then chances to throw allies back at sea were realy great,but like history shows they were commited piecemeal and their potential was never used in a way it should have or should be.I think that the main reason why British suffered so much tank losses was that they had the luck to fight against best troops in Normandy.

Let me see about this one,if i am not wrong ,when Operation Cobrabegan first over the skys were 550 P-47 Thunderbolts and other fighter planes, then came 1500 B-17 and B-24 bombers that dropped more than 3000 tons of bombs followed by 380 B-26 bombers that dropped another 1400 tons of high explosives,after this the ground atack started.One also has to know that from this atackPanzer Lehr suffered badly it did lost armor and in great numbers.German counteratacks that followed were destroyed or stoped by allied air power.Also when one sees the numbers of tanks on both sides it clear that the german armor was realy superior and if airsuport was not so big for allies than I don,t know what or when the Normandy story would have ended.At the places were elite german armor was advances were impossible or when they ocured the result would have been in little ground taken at expense of huge losses.


About the myth that 5 Shermans were needed I can only say that allmost in every book what I read, I read that allied had to develop strategy were some Shermans would engage heavy german armor from front while others would go around.But since the start of this debate i tryed my best to search more about Sherman tanks I have to admit that I was pleasantly supriused about the history of this tank model.But i also find out that the versions that could or could try to coup with best German armor were or to short in numbers or were introduced to late in the war.So for me this story seems real enough.

About the myth that Shermans were nicknamedRonsonsbecause the alarming ability to burn,well I did run to one of the stories,the place was Norrey-en-Bessin and in this battle great number of the atacking Shermans, 46 of the started to burn rapidly after they were hit.I will try to dig more about this one before I make conclusion.

Also from what I have read so far I learned that M4A1(76mm) was no solution to Panther problem and the Allies had to use the strategy that i mentioned several times before even with this 76mm equipped Shermans.

When told of the ineffectivness of the M4A1(76mm) against Panther,Eisenhover bitterly remarked"You mean aour 76 wont,t knock this Panthers out.Why,I thought it was going to be the wonder gun of the year.....Why is that I am the last to hear about this stuff.Ordnace told me this 76 would take care of anything Germans had.Now i find out you can,t knock damn thing with it."

 

Firstly, you are mixing the more normal tactical air support with the highly irregular use of stategic bombers. Though fair point, as you did not specify either in your original post. Secondly, 550+1500+380=2430 not 3300

Yes, the bombardment caused losses. All bombardments cause losses. However it also gave the attackers a more difficult and dangerous area to advance into.

And sometimes by Allied soldiers, with AT guns, and the occaisional Allied tank...
Actual tanks actually killed by actual aircraft is a very small number... And yes we do know the number, because the RAF Intelligence guys went round the battlefields and counted them. And were rather disappointed with the result!

No, it shows that the Germans were on the defensive in good defensive terrain, and that German tanks typically had guns capable of killing Allied Armour at Normandy-type combat ranges. Hoe effective was German armour after Normandy? Less so. Did it suddenly get worse?

Which is a very sound tactical strategy in any situation. It means that you outflank your opponant, have a higher chance of killing him and a lower chance of getting high casualties yourself. It is a strategy that has been used since the dawn of warfare, and does not imply any inferiority on the part of the attacker, just that he has the brains to do something clever.

Glad to hear you're learning more, that was one of the main reasons for the Mythbusters - and the big reason for this forum!

And yes, the 75mm Sherman remained common right up until the end of the war, thought the ratio of 75mm to 76mm did gradually increase in favour of the 76mm as the war progresed.

Firstly, idividual stories? Again?

Lots of tanks burn when they are hit, especially when the enemy use HE-filled AP rounds. However, the Sherman was no more or less prone to catch fire than anything else. Until wet stowage was introduced, when it became the most fire-proof tank on the battlefield. See also my comments in the myth-buster about Belton Y Cooper's testimony about Germans repeatedly firing on KO'd Shermans until they caught fire...

The first Tiger I to be captured in Normandy was captured after a 75mm shot (from a Sherman) struck it near an observation slit, and red hot splinters entered the tank, causing a fire. Nobody ever calls the Tiger 'Ronson'

I already covered the Strategy...

Do you have a source for Patton's quote, and do you kow the circumstances in which the 76mm did not penetrate the front of a Panther?

The Panther did have a thick glacis, but at normal combat ranges it should (in theory!) be penetratable by the 76mm. Maybe it failed to kill with a long shot and somebody got upset?

 

It's nonsensical to assume that the Allies had nothing capable of dealing with Panthers since there are plenty of examples of them knocking out many of them with arguably inferior equipment, which does not even carry the 76mm gun. The 57mm M1 AT gun, standard towed AT gun of the Allies in the ETO, was capable of knocking out Panthers, as was the early Sherman's 75mm gun. The 76mm gun only made this easier. Of course, the glacis is the hardest part of any tank to penetrate save for the mantlet, but the 76mm gun was capable even of this at the right ranges and with the right ammunition.

If the 76mm was such a disappointment, why did Patton's 3rd Army make sure to field-fit it in every vehicle they possibly could?

 

The number above is for the number of planes that took on 25 July,but you know that Operation Cobra was scheduled for 24 July and when you add those planes also you will see how many planes released their load.I know that planes were ordered to come back but great number of them did so after they dropped bombs.

Hmm,yes but surley less difficult and less dangerous than before the bombing.

Hmm,I think that P-47 Thunderbolts of 405th Fighter group managed to destroy 122 tanks in a single day(I won,t tell you what else did they destroyed).

Well the situation before Operation Cobra began was like this.

Panzer Lehr had 80 tanks,from this only 16Panthers and 15 Pz IV were operational.

2nd SS Panzer Division "Das Reich" had 37Pz IV,41 Panther and 25 Stug Assault guns.

In all Seventh Army had somthing like 357 tanks and assault guns.

And now the Allied number.

2nd Armored had 236M4 and 158M5A1.

3rd Armoredhad241M4 and 158M5A1.

4th Armoredhad 165M4 and 83M5A1.

In all US First Army had 1269M4 and 694M5A1 and in addition they had 288 M10 3in. and 36 M18 76mm.

How effective your armor can be in conditions worse than this.

Or maybe this is the only way that you can destroy the enemy armor in front of you.

This can,t be ranked in individual story ,number is to great.

I wonder why they introduced wet stowage .

It was Eisenhover quote and i found it in Osprey New Vanguard M4(76mm) Sherman Medium Tank 1943-63.

Or maybe it failed to many people and they all started to complain.

Maybe because it was far better than 75mm(but not enough for Panther).

Look people when I speak of 76mm Sherman I speak only what i have read so far and in all books so far it says that its performance against Panther was disappointing.

 

Only according to their own claims - not according to reality. The total number of tanks destroyed and damaged on that day was 121, which included those destroyed by fighter-bombers, artillery and Allied ground units.

 

The text says this.

The next day P-47 Thunderbolts of the 405th Fighter Group arrived to discover "fighter-bomber's paradise"of about 500 vehicles jammed together.From mid-afternoon to nightfall,fighter-bombers pummeled the columns.A total of 122 tanks,256other vehicles and 11 artillery pieces were later found destroyed or abondened in the "Roncey pocket".

Source: Osprey Campaign - Operation Cobra

 

The text doesn't say anywhere that the P-47s destroyed all the vehicles. The destroyed vehicles weren't found until two days later, when other Allied units had also had their go at them.

Granted, the text does conveniently forget to mention the fact that other units heavily contributed to the destroyed units, and one could consider the formulation a more or less deliberate attempt to convey more importance to the fighter-bombers than they really had.

In reality, fighter-bombers rarely destroyed German armour en masse.

 

You mean fighter-bombers were not the ones that were destroying German armor and other vehicles at Falaise.

Well when i was reading Steel Rain-Waffen SS Battles in the West 1944-45 Tim Ripley i didn,t get this information.

 

The text say that the columns were pummeled by fighter-bombers from mid affernoon until nightfall and I am sure that the pilots were not blind.

 

A few points overall, first even that text doesn't attribute all those losses to the fighter bombers, it simply mentions that the column was attacked and that when Allied troops advanced through 122 tanks were destroyed. Unless you have a detailed breakdown for the causes of the loss of each vehicle against other causes you cannot use this as an argument to indicate the effectiveness of air attack.

They might have destroyed every vehicle there, they might have destroyed none, they probably destroyed a number somewhere in the middle.

In any case a single Fighter-Group of around 36 aircraft aren't going to be able to mount that many attacks over such a relatively short period and the cover isn't going to be continuous, aircraft will need to routinely break off to refuel and rearm.

No the pilots certainly weren't blind, however as is implied by your source, fighter-bomber attacks were inherently inaccurate, they needed a fairly large concentration of targets to stand any realistic chance of having an impact on armour, ideally where the inevitable misses would have at least a chance of striking something else by accident. In general as an anti-tank weapon, air power was extremely poor.

I really don't see why you are so surprised that Allied tankers would try to attack German armour from the side where possible, attacking an enemy where they're weaker is tactics and it's something that every military should be attempting. It doesn't necessarily indicate an inability to engage head on, somply that you have the commonsense to attack where you have a better chance of success. Attempting a flanking attack doesn't by definition mean that you are doing so because a head on attack is hopeless.

As for wet-stowage, this again is no evidence that Shermans were particularly fire-prone, it simply made them safer but that does not mean necessarily that they were especially unsafe to begin with.

 

No, I was making a general statement. The text you quoted was about the Roncey Pocket, by the way, not the Falaise Gap. As for Falaise, the Fighter-Bombers did cause more damage than usual, as can be seen below:

Code:

                  Rockets  Bombs  Cannon  Abandoned          Total
                                          Destroyed by crew
AFVs              11        4      18     100                133
Motor transports   4       43     278     376                701
Guns               -        -       1      50                 51
Total             15       47     297     526                885
Per cent           1,7      5,3    33,5    59,5

Source: GOODERSON, Ian. Allied Fighter-Bombers Versus German Armour in North-West Europe 1944-1945: Myths and Realities. (Article in The Journal of Strategic Studies).

Yes, but the text doesn't say that the fighter-bombers didn't actually do all the damage.

 

Especially in Normandy, examples of opening bombardments that remained almost entirely without effect are plentiful. The assault on Omaha Beach, for one thing, should have been almost totally unresisted due to the naval and aerial bombardment that preceded it; in practice, most of the enormous amount of shells and bombs that hit the German defences had missed or failed to destroy their targets. Another example is Operation Goodwood, which began in good British tradition with a massive artillery barrage aided by many aircraft; when the troops advanced, they soon found that the German defences were largely intact. They lost more than 250 tanks to German AT guns in a few days.

Like Simon and others have said, there's no reason to assume that going for the flanks means being unable to destroy your target from the front. Flanking attacks have many advantages over frontal ones that have little to do with armour thickness.

Because the Americans, as the only country during WW2 to do this, actually decided to decrease the chances of ammunition fires by introducing wet storage. Through some strange twist in historic thought, many people nowadays blame the Americans for starting out with a tank that supposedly blew up more easily (which it didn't), rather than rightfully blaming the Germans and other nations for never bothering to prevent such a thing from happening, even though it was just as common for them as it was for the Americans. Can you see the irony?

It was indeed far better than the 75mm - and enough for the Panther.

Penetration of armour sloped at 30 degrees using M93 HVAP ammunition:
457m: 157mm
914m: 135mm
1371m: 113mm
1828m: 98mm

That is enough to penetrate the Panther's armour anywhere at ranges up to 1400 meters - and that's considering the effect of slope. Its performance against the Panther was disappointing mostly because standard APCBC rounds performed much less admirably, but that says little about the potential of Shermans to deal with Panthers, and therefore it says nothing about their relative quality.

 

I wonder why Hawker Typhoons and P-47 were called tank busters.I mean when you read what they wrote about this two then you here have more material for myth buster themes.

To be honest I am not suprised why would they try to outflank them,from what i read so far this was the only way to deal with Panthers head on.

Fire hazard from hits in the engine,ammunition compartment and fuel tanks was major shortcoming to M4 series in order to deal with these among other things they introduced wet-stowage.

Source:British and American Tanks of WW2-Peter Chamberlain and Chris Ellis.

Well most of the times things in the field don,t came same like the ones in paper or in testing grounds.

 

Mainly based off the claims off the pilots, heck, I've even read about how P-47 pilots were apparently able to bounce .50 calibre bullets off the ground into tank's weakly armoured underbellies... Don't get me started on that one though... :roll: :kill:

The thing is the pilots would make a pass, see a nice explosion, lots of debris, maybe even some fire and fly off at 400mph believing they'd killed a tank. What'd they'd actually done was kicked up a lot of dust, sent bolted on equipment flying and torched a jerry can but left the tank itself intact.

Fire is a hazard in any tank being hit in the fuel tanks, engine or ammunition area. It was only in the Sherman that they chose to protect against it, and then only in the ammunition bays. I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong but Wet stowage would protect the ammunition storage from fire, but how would it stop the fuel tanks or engine from catching fire? Correct me if I'm wrong but by the time the heat has got enough to cook off the ammunition the crew are either long gone or cooked themselves.

A simple analogy, I make sure my wife's car has a fire-extinguisher in it, yet I don't bother with one myself. Does this mean by a similar logic that my wife's car is more likely to catch fire?

 

A very interesting piece of selective quoting there my friend. What the book actually says (page 117 of my edition if you want to check) is this:

(My emphasis.)

In other words, the Sherman wasn't any more prone than other tanks to catching fire when hit; its problem was not that its ammunition or engine or fuel tanks would blow up when tapped gently, its problem was only that its armour wasn't thick enough. Even though, and it's worth pointing out here, the early Sherman's armour was just as thick as that of the contemporary Panzer IV versions.

If we follow this reasoning then the whole debate is pointless. Without field testing of the actual gun with actual ammunition against actual steel, we have absolutely no facts by which to accurately judge the performance of guns. If you're willing to defend this point then I will tell you that no German gun ever penetrated an Allied tank; prove me wrong without showing me penetration tables, please.

My point is, the late Sherman's gun was capable of penetrating the Panther's armour, and that's a fact. Moreover, Panthers have been destroyed by more humble weapons, such as the 6pdr and the 75mm M3.

 

Read what I wrote. WET-STOWAGE was AMONG the things that were introduced to help M4 not to start to burn so rapidly.

Well for one it shows that you like your wife very much or maybe that she is driving car that is more expensive.

 

By they wrote that MAJOR shortcoming of M4 series was the fire hazard. .So for some reason the Shermans were starting to burn more often then the others.

Well T-34-85 destroyed Panthers,Tigers and King Tigers but that doesn,t mean that they could deal with then on equal conditions.

 

Spot on, infact in this case my wife's car is more expensive than the fire extinguisher and mine probably isn't (but that's a different matter entirely ). Yet in a way that sort of proves the point, my Wife's car is no more likely to catch fire yet she and it are much more worth saving, why cannot the same be true of a Sherman?

According to Belton Cooper, trained tank crews were in much shorter supply in the ETO than tanks themselves. Why not do everything you can to ensure the crews survival? Germany did this by progressively up armouring her tanks, the US adopted a different but apparently effective approach and the USSR arguably simply produced a much greater number, but then manpower was one of the great strengths of the Soviet Union.

Who's said they did? What has been said and the point that I believe was tried to be made by the Myth-buster is that the gap between the Sherman and the T-34 is no where near as great as is popularly supposed (T-34 all conquering, Sherman caught fire if a German soldier sneezed in the wrong direction), later models could be comparable and that certain suppositions such as the "Ronson" myth do not largely bear up to actual fact.

 

I am working like truck mechanic ,it should also be pointed that i work only on the truck engines and when some new model apears it has some flaws, people coplain about some things and with the time i spend working on them I am able to see what can be improved.Data about those flaws are sent to MAN and people who design those trucks introduce new things that will overcome some of the flaws or problems.Same goes for Sherman tanks,they had problems with fire, people reported about them and manage to overcome them.

But i did allready admit that now I see that T-34-85 and late model Shermans are on same level.I have 28 years and there is so much to learn,until now I was mainly interestd in German armor but with this debate going I spend some time digging information about Allied tanks and i was plesently suprised by some things.But then again some things stand and i can go against history records.