Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Log in or Sign up

Myth-Buster topics - Good Idea?

Discussion in 'Counter-Battery Fire' started by Ricky, Mar 1, 2006.

Page 1 of 2

Ricky Well-Known Member

Joined:

May 10, 2004

Messages:

11,974

Likes Received:

105

Location:

Luton, UK

via TanksinWW2

Hi, when Roel & I met last weekend, we had the idea of having 'myth-busting' topics to counter our most frequently encountered myths - like the over-flammable Sherman, or the Tiger I being the best thing ever.

These posts would be sticky, and possibly locked, with a title like 'Myth-busting: the Sherman' and would be there to save us from having to counter the same old Discovery Channel arguments again & again.

So, do you think this is a good idea?

"Study the past, if you would divine the future"
-Confucius

Ricky, Mar 1, 2006

#1
Ricky Well-Known Member

Joined:

May 10, 2004

Messages:

11,974

Likes Received:

105

Location:

Luton, UK

via TanksinWW2

And here is the first draft of the first one.

Gentlemen (and Ladies, of course!), I give you "Myth-Busting: the Sherman"

The most persistant myth about the Sherman is its vulnerability to enemy action, specifically its habit of catching fire very easily – even when not penetrated by enemy anti-tank weaponry. Known nicknames such as ‘Ronsons’ or ‘Tommy Cookers’ have helped perpetuate this story.

When the M4 Sherman was first introduced to the armies of the Western Allies it was a much-heralded piece of equipment. In one package it had better armour than the British cruiser tanks, better speed than their Infantry tanks, and a bigger gun than any Western Allied – and most Axis – tanks. With the exception of the handful of Tiger I’s (and arguably the Pz.IV ‘Specials’) that the DAK received, the Sherman was without question the best all-rond tank in the North African theatre. However, the Sherman did have some drawbacks, notably its tall height, which made it an easier target for German Anti-tank gunners – who had not only long perfected the art of luring Aliied armour into areas covered by anti-tank weaponry, but also possessed weapons capable of defeating even the 78mm armour on the Matilda II tank. The explosive filler in standard German anti-tank rounds meant that there was a high chance of any tank penetrated by German anti-tank shells catching fire.

Many works will cite the fact that the M4 series used petrol (or gasoline) as fuel made them more likely to catch fire. The only issue there is that most tanks were not penetrated in the engine compartment. Furthermore, if fuel combusting was a major problem then one would imagine that the designers of the Sherman would try to solve the problem – possibly by add armour plating to the fuel tanks.

As it was, many early Shermans had applique armour fitted covering the ammunition stowage areas, and later models had wet stowage introduced – the only vehicle in WW2 to have this (wet stowage is a system where ammunition is stored in lockers that have a layer of water or fire-retardant liquid sandwhiched between the inner and outer surfaces of the locker. The system is still standard in all modern MBTs, and its presence in a Sherman is designated by a (w)). According to studies undertaken by the Americans, cases of Shermans catching fire after being hit decreased by 75% after the introduction of wet stowage.

So, most fires on the Sherman tank do appear to have been down to the ammmunition being hit. So why was this such a problem for the Sherman? The answer is simple – it was not. At least, not compared to any other tank in service in WW2. Allied tanks were more prone to being shot at by enemy guns, simply because there were more Allied tanks than German tanks, and for much of the war the Germans were fighting on the defensive – and the use of an explosive filler in the common German anti-tank shells greatly increased the risk of internal fires when penetrated.

It should also be pointed out that later Sherman models had thicker armour and less ‘shot traps’ than the earlier examples, and thus, coupled with their wet stowage, were arguably the safest Allied tank to be in on the Western Front.

Interestingly, there was actually a ‘Ronson Sherman’ – a Sherman fitted with a flamethrower designed and built by the Ronson Company. A few were produced and supplied to the USMC.

The other persistant myth about the Sherman is the ‘5 Shermans to kill 1 Tiger’ statistic, where it is repeatedly stated as fact that the Allies needed to send 5 Shermans in order to kill one Tiger I.

Again, this appears to be a myth arising from the first actions of the Sherman in North Africa, when the 75mm gun (designed to provide close support for the infantry) proved unable to penetrate the Tiger I’s armour except from the side and rear, at close range. Typical conditions in North Africa (flat and open) favoured the Tiger I, with its ability to kill the M4A1 at long range.

By the time the two tanks met again, in Normandy, things had changed. Newer Sherman models, with thicker armour and the 76mm gun with good amour-piercing qualities, were in service (although various marks of the Sherman 75mm were still in wide-spread service). The much more ‘crowded’ terrain of Western Europe was also in the Sherman’s favour, forcing closer combat ranges, and negating the long-range advantage of the Tiger I’s gun.

More importantly, there are few, if any, reports of a single, unsupported Tiger "cornered" by a group of Shermans on the Western front. Such an action would be most remarkable, as unsupported tanks on any side contitutes a tactical error, while unescorted tanks on both sides simultaneously represents a really bad day all round. In addition, by this point in the war the Allies had a whole host of weaponry that could knock out a Tiger, including the 76mm gun (later models of the Sherman), the 6dpr (57mm) gun (standard Allied Anti-tank gun, and standard gun on most British tanks), the 17pdr gun (the Allied ‘heavy’ anti-tank gun, also mounted on the Archer & Achillies Tank Destroyers, and the Challenger and Sherman Firefly tanks), the 90mm gun (mounted on the M10 & M36 Tank Destroyers), bazookas, PIATs, or literally any artillery piece. And, of course, the humble mine.

In conclusion, therefore, while the Tiger I was undoubtedly a superior tank to the M4A1,
Stories of large numbers of Shermans being required to knock out a single Tiger I are much exaggerated.

It should further be noted that the Sherman / Tiger comparison is very unfair, as the Sherman is a medium tank, and the Tiger I a heavy ‘breakthrough’ tank. The Sherman was equal or superior throughout the war to its German peer – the Pz.IV.
Click to expand...

If you have any suggestions or additions or whatever, please post them. I have deliberately stayed away from using too many specifications etc, to make it more accessable.

Most of the facts have been culled from this Forum, so if it looks familiar it probably is.

"Study the past, if you would divine the future"
-Confucius

Ricky, Mar 1, 2006

#2
FNG phpbb3 New Member

Joined:

Feb 22, 2005

Messages:

1,359

Likes Received:

0

Location:

Manchester, UK

via TanksinWW2

all sounds pretty good to me and I certianly agree with what you are saying as it's all fairly obvious and supported information.

Just as a matter of interest how many wet storage shermans saw action as I wasn't aware the numbers made a high percentage of the total figures?

Also weren't most tanks petrol with diesal being the exception rather than the rule?

FNG

UK is that wet you couldn't set fire to a car even if you filled it with petrol and gas canisters

FNG phpbb3, Mar 1, 2006

#3
Ricky Well-Known Member

Joined:

May 10, 2004

Messages:

11,974

Likes Received:

105

Location:

Luton, UK

via TanksinWW2

I'm not sure how many wet Shermans there were - but AFAIK it was not a huge percentage.

"Study the past, if you would divine the future"
-Confucius

Ricky, Mar 1, 2006

#4
Roel New Member

Joined:

Oct 29, 2003

Messages:

12,678

Likes Received:

3

Location:

Netherlands

via TanksinWW2

44% of active Shermans by the end of the war, according to Danyel Phelps.

Ricky - this poll has had nothing but "yes" votes so far, I think you can go ahead with it.

"Know your enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles you will never be in peril."
- Sun Tzu

Roel, Mar 1, 2006

#5
Ricky Well-Known Member

Joined:

May 10, 2004

Messages:

11,974

Likes Received:

105

Location:

Luton, UK

via TanksinWW2

And here is the Tiger I post, for critique

The Tiger I is strange, in that it has both positive and negative myths associated with it.

Positive:

“The Tiger I is the best tank of WW2 – it owns”

The first thing to remember about the Tiger I is this: it is a heavy tank, designed to spearhead offensive operations. As such it was built with very thick armour (100mm at the front, 80mm at the rear) and a gun capable of destroying any known enemy tank of the time.
Although its combat debut was a total failure (they were deployed in swampy terrain near Leningrad), the Tiger I was a very successful design when introduced in July 1942.

It proved superior in armour, firepower, or both to any tank that it met, on both the Eastern and North African Fronts.

In July 1942 its opponants were:

Eastern Front:
Heavy tank – KV1 (this tank had excellent armour, but mounted the same gun as the T-34 medium tank)

Medium tank – T-34 (relatively well armoured, but with a fairly weak anti-tank gun by the standards of 1942)

And a host of obsolete light and medium tanks still in service, for which the Tiger’s gun was pure overkill.

North African Desert:
Heavy tanks – None. The closest thing to ‘heavy’ tanks in the desert were the British ‘Infantry’ tanks, the Matilda II and the Churchill. Both were well armoured, but still vulnerable to the Tiger I’s gun, and both had a weaker gun than the Tiger.

Medium tanks – a host of types. The various British ‘cruiser’ tanks were all very fast, but with thin armour and inadequate gun armament. The new American M3 and M4 were better, but their 75mm guns still lacked the power to penetrate the Tiger’s armour from anything except the closest ranges – difficult to achieve in the open conditions of the North African desert.

However, despite its superiority over the current generation of enemy tanks, the Tiger I was not an unstoppable beast. Just as the Germans learned to counter the T-34, the Allies learned how to counter the Tiger I. For the British, it was discovered that their new standard anti-tank gun, the 6pdr (57mm) was capable of destroying the Tiger I, while their very newest heavy anti-tank gun, the 17pdr, could kill the Tiger I at a fair distance. The development of new ammunition (notably the discarding sabot) further increased this ability. PIATs and bazookas were both found capable of killing the Tiger I, as were Anti-tank mines.
Not only that, but new Tanks and Tank Destroyers were developed, and existing tanks were upgraded. The M4 Sherman received a new 76mm gun, capable of penetrating te Tiger I’s armour. This gun was already in service on the M10 tank destroyer in 1942; by the end of the war, tens of thousands of new-model Shermans had been built. A new British Cruiser, the Cromwell, was introduced, with the 6pdr as its gun. Specialist Tank Destroyers, with the 17pdr (Archer, Achilles, Challenger & Sherman Firefly) or the American 90mm gun (M36) were produced.
On the Eastern Front the Su-100 and SU-85 Tank Destroyers, the IS-series of tanks, and even the T-34/85 were all capable of defeating the Tiger I, as were most of their larger-calibered Anti-Tank guns (76mm and upwards).

By the end of the war, late-model Shermans with thicker armour and the 76mm gun were able to slug it out on almost equal terms with the Tiger I – not a bad acheivement when you consider that the Tiger I was a heavy tank produced in small numbers (around 1,500 were built) and the Sherman was the standard medium tank of the Western Allies (40,000 built). The Tiger I was even eclipsed towards the end of the war by the Panther, Germany’s new medium tank, whose sloped armour gave better protection and whose gun had better penetration (although a worse HE capability).

This brings us to another myth about the Tiger I – “If the Germans built only Tiger Is they would have won the war”

Rubbish. If the Germans built only Tiger Is they would have built less tanks, run out of resources faster (especially petrol) and been less capable of mounting fast advances – especially if the tanks were required to cross any but the strongest of bridges.
Remember, the range of weaponry the Allies possessed towards the end of the war that could kill the Tiger I was prolific.

“It took 5 Shermans to kill 1 Tiger”

This appears to be a myth arising from the first meeting of the Tiger I and the Sherman in North Africa, when the Sherman’s 75mm gun (designed to provide close support for the infantry) proved unable to penetrate the Tiger I’s armour except from the side and rear, at close range. Typical conditions in North Africa (flat and open) favoured the Tiger I, with its ability to kill the M4 and early M4A1 at long range.

By the time the two tanks met again, in Normandy, things had changed. Newer Sherman models, with thicker armour and the 76mm gun with good amour-piercing qualities, were in service (although various marks of the Sherman 75mm were still in wide-spread service). The much more ‘crowded’ terrain of Western Europe was also in the Sherman’s favour, forcing closer combat ranges, and negating the long-range advantage of the Tiger I’s gun.

More importantly, there are few, if any, reports of a single, unsupported Tiger "cornered" by a group of unsupported Shermans on the Western front. Such an action would be most remarkable, as unsupported tanks on any side contitutes a tactical error, while unescorted tanks on both sides simultaneously represents a really bad day all round. In addition, by this point in the war the Allies had a whole host of weaponry that could knock out a Tiger, including the 76mm gun (later models of the Sherman), the 6dpr (57mm) gun (standard Allied Anti-tank gun, and standard gun on most British tanks), the 17pdr gun (the Allied ‘heavy’ anti-tank gun, also mounted on the Archer & Achillies Tank Destroyers, and the Challenger and Sherman Firefly tanks), the 90mm gun (mounted on the M10 & M36 Tank Destroyers), bazookas, PIATs, or literally any artillery piece. And, of course, the humble mine.

In conclusion, therefore, while the Tiger I was undoubtedly a superior tank to the M4A1,
stories of large numbers of Shermans being required to knock out a single Tiger I are much exaggerated.

“The Tiger I had a 10:1 kill ratio”

This claim apparently comes from the number of Tigers we know were lost, compared with the number of tanks Tiger crews claimed to have destroyed. The most obvious problem is exactly the same as encountered with fighter pilots – kill claims are never accurate. Even kills credited are generally wrong by a fair margin.

This is simply not provable for certain either way, but the balance of probability seems to be that it is an overestimation by roughly 100%.

Negative:

“The Tiger I was slow and mechanically unreliable”

Again, the thing to remember is that the Tiger I was a heavy tank. Comparing it to a medium tank in terms of speed is unrealistic. The Tiger I’s speed was around 25mph, which is actually not bad – only 5mph behind the Sherman, for example, and slightly faster than its only real equivalent in 1942 – the KV1, at 23mph.

In terms of reliability, the Tiger did require regular servicing. As did every other tank and vehicle in service. Without regular servicing, it was unreliable. As was every other tank and vehicle in service. Comparing the Tiger I to its peers – the KV1 – is what really kills this myth. The KV1 was exceptionally prone to break down. According to some sources, more were lost to beakdowns than the enemy action. The Tiger I has a far better record than this.
Click to expand...

I'll give until tomorrow, in case of corrections.

"Study the past, if you would divine the future"
-Confucius

Ricky, Mar 1, 2006

#6
Tom phpbb3 New Member

Joined:

Sep 11, 2004

Messages:

1,733

Likes Received:

0

Location:

Michigan, USA

via TanksinWW2

Ricky, I think you have a winner here. This is a good idea.

I don't see any problems with either of the articles posted here, either.

www.mapsatwar.com

Tom phpbb3, Mar 1, 2006

#7
Cholbert New Member

Joined:

Aug 2, 2004

Messages:

674

Likes Received:

0

Location:

UK

via TanksinWW2

maybe you should add to the Tiger details that the first one to be knocked out in tank v tank combat in N. Africa was killed by Churchills

I try!
(aka chollie)

Cholbert, Mar 2, 2006

#8
Ricky Well-Known Member

Joined:

May 10, 2004

Messages:

11,974

Likes Received:

105

Location:

Luton, UK

via TanksinWW2

I have posted them, but if you have any further suggestions/alterations (or even suggestions for new topics, like the Me262) please let me know.

"Study the past, if you would divine the future"
-Confucius

Ricky, Mar 2, 2006

#9
Gunter_Viezenz New Member

Joined:

Sep 26, 2005

Messages:

1,838

Likes Received:

1

Location:

Windsor, Ontario

via TanksinWW2

So good no1 dissssagrees.

Gunter_Viezenz, Mar 5, 2006

#10
canambridge Member

Joined:

Mar 15, 2004

Messages:

1,649

Likes Received:

7

via TanksinWW2

How about one on T-34 myth busting?

canambridge, Mar 5, 2006

#11
Gunter_Viezenz New Member

Joined:

Sep 26, 2005

Messages:

1,838

Likes Received:

1

Location:

Windsor, Ontario

via TanksinWW2

That is a really good idea canambridge, but where to start?

Gunter_Viezenz, Mar 5, 2006

#12
canambridge Member

Joined:

Mar 15, 2004

Messages:

1,649

Likes Received:

7

via TanksinWW2

Gunter_Viezenz said:

That is a really good idea canambridge, but where to start?
Click to expand...

How about the myth that the T-34 was the best allied (non-German) tank of WWII.
That it was superior (by far) to the Sherman, not to mention the German Mk III and Mk IV. That the German tanks couldn't deal them until late 1942 when the first Mk IV long barrels and Tigers showed up. Gun and armor effectiveness, fabrication quality, crew ergonomics and mobility are all subjects that could use some debunking.

canambridge, Mar 5, 2006

#13
dave phpbb3 New Member

Joined:

Feb 11, 2004

Messages:

1,626

Likes Received:

0

Location:

Bristol, England

via TanksinWW2

Can we do a myth buster on the MP 38/40, because as most of you know it was called "The Schmeiser" even though the company had nothing to do with the gun until their version the MP41 was introduced.

dave phpbb3, Mar 6, 2006

#14
Ricky Well-Known Member

Joined:

May 10, 2004

Messages:

11,974

Likes Received:

105

Location:

Luton, UK

via TanksinWW2

By the way - I am not the only person who can write 'myth-busters'! Feel free to draft up your own, and then submit it to the appropriate forum for discussion.

Please don't be offended if it gets amended, or even if it is deemed not worth a 'myth buster' topic - we will only 'Sticky' whatever the Forum can broadly agree on.

"Study the past, if you would divine the future"
-Confucius

Ricky, Mar 6, 2006

#15
dave phpbb3 New Member

Joined:

Feb 11, 2004

Messages:

1,626

Likes Received:

0

Location:

Bristol, England

via TanksinWW2

=will anyone else be willing to write a 'myth buster' on the sbject I have stated because I'm sure that nearly everyone else on the forum has more knowledge on this subject than I do.

dave phpbb3, Mar 6, 2006

#16
Roel New Member

Joined:

Oct 29, 2003

Messages:

12,678

Likes Received:

3

Location:

Netherlands

via TanksinWW2

A general WW2 small-arms mythbuster could be useful, but I don't consider myself enough of an expert to write one. There are a whole bunch of minor myhts surrounding WW2 infantry weapons.

Maybe JCalhoun could shed some light on these?

I will try to write one on the T34 myself if I can find the time...

"Know your enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles you will never be in peril."
- Sun Tzu

Roel, Mar 6, 2006

#17
Boba Nette New Member

Joined:

Feb 17, 2004

Messages:

3,142

Likes Received:

0

Location:

Chicago

via TanksinWW2

I like the Myth-Buster idea.What could it hurt to try?I would like to have a Myth-Buster topic on the Bismarck.How good was it really?How much more dangerous could it have been if properly supported?

Boba Nette, Mar 8, 2006

#18
Notmi New Member

Joined:

May 1, 2004

Messages:

1,958

Likes Received:

1

Location:

Suomi Finland Perkele

via TanksinWW2

SturmTiger said:

I like the Myth-Buster idea.What could it hurt to try?I would like to have a Myth-Buster topic on the Bismarck.How good was it really?How much more dangerous could it have been if properly supported?
Click to expand...

Well, Bismarck-mythbusting really sound good.

Singing a german song sounds like reciting a tank manual aloud.

Notmi, Mar 8, 2006

#19
Man New Member

Joined:

Oct 30, 2004

Messages:

1,457

Likes Received:

0

Location:

Norway

via TanksinWW2

Aye, I would agree with that! Go ahead SturmTiger!

Man, Mar 8, 2006

#20

(You must log in or sign up to reply here.)

Page 1 of 2

Share This Page

Hello and welcome to the WWII Forums!
Sign up and join the discussion!