Sherman Vs. Panzer

Well since the "first general uprising" in Warsaw was in 1944 I guess that they did learn earlier then 1945 LOL.

 

Falkenberg

I was actually making a swipe at experience a lot earlier than 1944. 1939-1940 saw actions where the panzers were mauled by the PBI.

 

Although that's an oft-repeated claim, I've yet to see any reliable evidence that this is so.

 

Drucius

Panzers hving troublein close quarter battle against infantry is documentd in the Spanish civil war. It was thought by among others the british that it proved that the tank was not a war winning weapon. I am going to be careful to talk about the Polish campaign since I don't have ref material ready. In France armoured spearheads had to wait for infantry support on many occasions. And the Norwegian campaign saw examples of tanks being knocked out not far from here I am sitting now.

 

Most of the Man v Tank heroic propaganda was just that: propaganda. Liddle - Hart thought that most of the tanks in the Spanish Civil War that were supposedly knocked out by molotovs were in fact previously disabled by anti-tank rifles. The infantry anti-tank squads in the Winter War suffered appalling casualties (around 70%). It takes a special kind of looney to launch yourself at a tank with just a bamboo pole with a HEAT charge on it (Japan), and there just aren't that many loonies around. Ad hoc infantry anti-tank devices are notoriously ineffective and it wasn't until the invention of the Bazooka, PIAT, Panzerfaust/schreck that the infantry had an anti-tank weapon of any great usefullness.

 

That's correct, but on the other hand tanks armed with 1 hull + 1 coax machinegun, and a small calibre main gun with small HE shells weren't able to put much dent into the infantry as well, so the best they could do was pass by them. For better effect the Germans had expressly invented the Assault Gun, the Stug III with a low velocity LARGE (75mm) shell.

 

Drucius.

The lesson learned was (as I have tried to point out) that in close country the tank is near blind and deaf, and concealed infantry can defeat the tank without disclosing their positions. You need infantry to be eyes and ears for them....Period.

I'm not dragging this into a tech oriented debate.

 

Do modern US tanks still use the infantry phone box at the back?

 

They didn't for an extended period. My understanding is the newest upgrade to the M1 includes an infantry phone on the back.

 

That's only true if the enemy infantry are properly equipped with effective anti-tank devices. If they have no effective anti-tank weapons the tanks can pretty much do as they please. Which is pretty much what happened in France, 1940.

 

That is correct, but then the tanks themselves can't do much to do actual physical harm to the infantry proper. First of all their armament at the time was insufficient (no useful HE shell), then as a tank is almost blind they simply couldn't see the PBI in the first place (Le Char Ft-17 est aveugle et sourd!, ran the Aide-Mémoire de l'Officier d'Infanterie de Résèrve of 1940)

Unless they did like the American M2 Mediums (predecessor of the M3 Grant), which had oblique plates to deflect hull machine gun fire downwards into the trenches.

 

"In November 2007, General Dynamics was awarded a contract for the upgrade of 240 M1A2 SEP version one tanks to the version two configuration which has improved sights, displays and a tank-infantry phone. Work is to be completed by September 2009."

Army Technology - M1A1 / M1A2 Abrams - Main Battle Tank

 

Battle of France was not won because of anti-tank guns, nor superior tanks, as France had a greater number, and of a majority being of superior design. Their where over a hundred tank units in France, each with approx 30 or 3000, compared with the Wehrmacht around 2,000. Blitzkrieg tactics, of advanced motorcycles to locate armour, set defenses, which France was very good at, where in the most part by-passed by the armoured spearhead, anti-tank gun where battles with artillery, or Luftwaffe support planes, the units that did engage the Panzers where done so piecemeal, and annihilated 30, vs a panzer army of a thousand Mk III stands no chance

 

Worse than that. The Panzer spearheads utterly disrupted logistical and command and control structures, so that les chars were left without command, without anyone telling them to go here or there. Even when that was available, the tempo of operations was so quick that whatever orders they received were completely outated, so they were ordered to attack where the Germans were not anymore., they were left chasing ghosts!

 

Some things to remember while comparing tanks. Generally people want to compare tanks 1 vs 1. Like "who would win a fight between a mk IV and a T-34?".

Tanks were not really designed to fight other tanks. The common doctrine was that the tank was an exploitation weapon. If it could be helped a tank would not be engaging enemy tanks. That was a job better left to tank destroyers and anti-tank guns.

So I would take the view (unsupported by the conventional wisdom) that the Sherman was a better tank than even the Panther, especially when used according to armored doctrine. The Sherman was fast, HIGHLY dependable, easy to mass-produce, and able to hold its own against they majority of enemy tanks. Anti-tank guns could take them out of course but all medium tanks had this vulnerability. The mk-4 and the Sherman were very equal in most respects. The mk-4 perhaps being a little more temperamental than the Sherman but sporting a better gun.

What it comes down to is that the Sherman and the mk-4 were tanks both admirably suited to the role given them by armored doctrine. Tanks like the tiger and the panther were defensive weapons while tanks like the Sherman and the MK-4 were offensive in nature.

 

I wouldn't class the later MKIV's as an offensive weapon, that long gun made the centre of gravity way to far forward, and mobility suffered.
IMHO, all German tanks produced post-1942 where defensive. By this stage the Blitzkrieg was no more and thus speed and manoeuvrability was not necessary.

For the allies, it is a completely different story.

 

Quote:
IMHO, all German tanks produced post-1942 where defensive.

You must be joking!
The Tiger I was more like a mobile bunker, but concerning the Panther; I don't think it was designed for defensive warfare only:

Panther tank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RAM

 

Sorry, that was the stated US doctrine, not necessarily other people's.

I'm sure you mean the Jgpz IV/70, the Pz IV (long) did not suffer from this.

That's news to me. Proof?

 

Proof? Who needs proof when you have my opinion?

 

i seen pictures of mk4 panzers with large slab armour on the side ,to afford protection from infantry bazooka type wepons.did the sherman ever get this type of protection,other than logs.lee.