US 37th Armored Regiment at Arracourt. "The Battle of the Tanks"

Thouhght I would quiote T.A. here from another thread

"
Wheatcroft is wrong. I doubt you could find more than one or two cases of Panther tanks achieving that ratio (5 to 1). The only two that I know might fit that category have far more to do with crew quality than the tank. Both of those involve Ernst Barkmann, a tank ace. Once in Normandy and once in the Bulge at Manahy he achieved those ratios.
In most cases throughout the Lorraine campaign and the US sweep across France the ratio was better than 1 to 1 in favor of the Sherman. 4th US AD around Nancy in the September battles against Panther heavy panzer brigades virtually always got more Panthers than they lost in Shermans.
As Steven Zaloga puts it in Lorraine 1944: Patton vs. Manteuffel "The popular myth of the superiority of German tanks in combat in north-west Europe is belied by the record of their actual performance. In an engagement of the type seen around Arracourt, with both sides in an offensive posture and neither side enjoying particular numerical advantage, panzer units were overcome by superior American training and tactics." (emphsis mine)
I could dredge up the individual after action reports for dozens of tank on tank battles in NW Europe. The US gives as good or better than they get in, easily, 90% of them. The Panther has little advantage in the rolling, vegitated, heavily urbanized landscape of western Europe. All-to-often engagements are fought at 500 yards or less where the Panther has no armor or gun advantage. At those ranges even the US 105mm firing heavy wall HE rounds can stove in the glacis of a Panther with catastrophic damage. "

 

Just like in Aerial warfare sometimes having a "Superior" and "Better" vehicle doesn't mean squat unless you have the tactics,experience and training to go along with it.

 

One small correction here, the 4th Armored Division at the time of the battle did not have a 37th "Armored Regiment". Lt Col Creighton Abrams commanded the 37th Tank Battalion. The 1943 reorganization of the Armored divisions from "heavy" to "light" removed the regimental level (2 x Armored Regiments, 1 x Armored Infantry Regiment). A US Armored division in 1944 had three tank battalions, only the 2nd and 3rd Armored Divisions maintained the "heavy" configuration after July 1944. The 1st in North Africa and Italy was the only other division to go into combat with Armored Regiments, and it was converted to the light configuration in July 1944.
The artillery support (for heavy or light divisions) was provided by three battalions, each equipped with 18 x M7 HMC (total of 54 for the division).

 

I guess I should read all four pages of the topic before posting the same info provided two years ago!

Sorry about that.

 

"Here is a description of the 37th actions around that time:

The 37th spent those days spreading confusion and terror in the German rear areas. From 19 September through 22 September 1944 the Germans tried to push the 37th back across the Moselle. It was one of the largest tank-to-tank engagements of the war, at Mayenvie, the 37th lost 14 Shermans while knocking out 55 Panthers and Tigers. Needless to say, the German counterattack was unsuccessful."

"knocking out 55 Panthers and Tigers" . No Tigers deployed at that area when I checked Tiger operational history. Could be that lookalike Panzer IV. I suppose.
Could Anyone please find out?

 

Sure anyone could look these up in the official history, here:

HyperWar: US Army in WWII: The Lorraine Campaign

Those numbers seem to match US Army official history which should have used the 37thTB records. There were no mention of Tigers.

Excerpts which mention the 37thTB, (kills by tank destroyers not included in my survey):

 

In reading the personal writings of U.S. infantry veterans, I've noticed that some would call any German tank a Tiger and would also refer to any German field artillery as 88's. This generic treatment extended even to the chain of command, as any level above Division was simply called SHAEF.

 

Do you really think that 300 Panthers is a 'lack' of vehicles? C'mon Sturm, just admit it, the Germans lost this battle because they had been outfought, regardless of how many and of what type of tanks they had, and just as what has been mentioned by the other members of this forum, one sherman with a well-trained and experienced crew can, and often did, bring down the Germans vaunted tigers and panthers, so enough with this silly myth!

 

A very good read JC, well done! :tennisclap:

 

Even if the German troops had been better trained and more experienced, they would have still been routed, as they would have still been hampered by a lack of support and vehicle recovery equipment, artillery, reconnaissance, impaired by fog, and would have faced American forces who were very experienced, and used the terrain to their advantage.

 

Arracourt is a battle whoich needs to be considered whenever anyone mentions the relative qualities oif the Sherman v German late war tanks. It demonstrates that it was not tank v tank, but armoured force v armoured force and the mix of weapons, the men who served them, the tacitcs employed and the marale of the men who fought, It demonstrated that a well handled US armopured force coudl take on a German armoured force and beat them. The Panther was a good tanke and superior to the M4, but the mix of M4, M10, M36 adn M7 Sp guns and , when the mist lifted airpower could defeat a much larger force. The 4 AD was well trained, experienced and well led. The Combat commander was Bruce C Clarke ,

The Germans they faced were hurriedly outfitted units with insufficient time to train.

This a very good battlefield to visit. You need the help of a local guide who ammassed a huge number of ophotograp-hs showing where each engagement took place. Or copntact me and I can set up a visit.

 

While the Panther certainly had the edge in firepower and frontal armor(Though its sides were thin-skinned), the Sherman did have some advantages over the Panther, such as a superior turret traverse rate and a gyro stabilizer that enabled it to shoot while on the move, but I do agree with you overall, training, tactics, and leadership matter more than having "better" weapons.