What made German Wehrmacht so Effective in WW2, 1939-42
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sure, it's popular to slam the Sherman tank vs. the Panther tank in terms of overall firepower and armor, but remember - the US could produce a whole lot of Shermans. The Shermans were also a heck of a lot more reliable, consumed less fuel, had better cross country performance, had longer tread life. Also, the US military were able to repair tanks that broke down and sent them back into battle at a higher rate.
The Sherman was not fit for purpose to face German armour. The British had no problems with using the Sherman as they, unless cornered, would not use it against Panthers and Tigers 1s. The American tanks only met Tigers 1s on three instances - one was when they were on low loders. They met more Panthers. But they had only one an infantry tank unsuited to meet Panthers and Tigers with only a 75mm gun. The British had a range of tanks to counter German armour.
Having an easy to make reliable tank that was easy to transport, does make up for not being suited to match the enemy in the field.
It was only towards the very end of the European war that the US fielded a tank that could take on the Germans and that was the Pershing. Sherman’s continued in service around the globe in third world armies for years after WWII.
The Sherman was not fit for purpose to face German armour. The British had no problems with using the Sherman as they, unless cornered, would not use it against Panthers and Tigers 1s. The American tanks only met Tigers 1s on three instances - one was when they were on low loders. They met more Panthers. But they had only one an infantry tank unsuited to meet Panthers and Tigers with only a 75mm gun. The British had a range of tanks to counter German armour.
Having an easy to make reliable tank that was easy to transport, does make up for not being suited to match the enemy in the field.
The Sherman was intended to be used as an infantry support vehicle. Hence its narrow frame, allowing it to travel down smaller roads, and smaller gun. The Tiger 1 was intended and designed to combat other tanks, hence its large 88mm gun, its wide tracks, heavy weight and thick armor. So yeah it was not fit to face German armor but it wasn't intended to be used against German armor anyways.
The American system for dealing with enemy tanks fell into the hands of Tank Destroyer Battalions who generally utilized mobile artillery or tank destroyers. What the Americans used to match German armor in the field was the M18 Hellcat which proved to be an effective against German armor and far more notable comparison then the Sherman.
The Sherman was not fit for purpose to face German armour. The British had no problems with using the Sherman as they, unless cornered, would not use it against Panthers and Tigers 1s. The American tanks only met Tigers 1s on three instances - one was when they were on low loders. They met more Panthers. But they had only one an infantry tank unsuited to meet Panthers and Tigers with only a 75mm gun. The British had a range of tanks to counter German armour.
Having an easy to make reliable tank that was easy to transport, does make up for not being suited to match the enemy in the field.
I don't want to get into a p******* match about US vs British stuff - too much of that already.
In the spirit of Anglo-American cooperation, The British adapted the Sherman with the 76mm gun (called the Firefly) or 17 pounder - which was a gun which could penetrate German armour. More of these (some 2,000) were deployed by the British Army (mainly Monty's 21 Army Group) than the Challenger tank.
As someone else mentioned, US tank doctrine wasn't about taking on tank to tank battles, but about exploiting breakthroughs in the line.
Another advantage that the SHAEF forces had over the Germans was air superiority by the time of the Normandy landings. The "Jabos" were feared by the German ground forces - and that put a crimp in German troop movements, whether equipped with Tigers, Panthers or Mark IVs.
It was only towards the very end of the European war that the US fielded a tank that could take on the Germans and that was the Pershing. Sherman’s continued in service around the globe in third world armies for years after WWII.
The Pershing was brought into service before it was tested properly. It should never have been introduced. It was heavily unreliable.
The British gave recommendations to the Americans on how to improve the Sherman, as they had great experience with this tank, then the Easy 8 emerged, the ultimate Sherman. The E8 was lacking in a gun powerful enough to take on the big German cats. The E8 was improved after WW2 then used in Korea. Too late for WW2. It ended up a roughly equiv to the Panther. But the final version of the Sherman was well removed from the original 1942, strange looking creation.
American tank doctrine was flawed. The first tank battle was French v German in 1940 in Belgium. The North Africa campaign was entirely about tank v tank. But the US doctrine was that tanks must not take on tanks, so they invented the tank destroyer. No kidding. This was a large artillery gun on tracks with an open top and little armour. The idea was that if enemy tanks are around this would be called up from the rear and 'destroy' them. If one was around of course. It never worked well. So when there was invariably a tank v tank engagement, the US only had an inadequate 75mm infantry tank. These were shattered by superior German tanks a lot of the time.
The British realised they needed a better anti-tank gun having being slaughtered by German 88mm's in Operation Battleaxe, then developed the 17-pdr, which was superior to the German 88mm and one ton lighter. They used a Sherman chassis, because the US was throwing the tank them, and mounted the 17-pdr gun calling it the Firefly. Other tanks, but in small numbers, also mounted the 17-pdr. The 17-pdr was also a highly effective towed anti-tank gun, towed by a Morris 4x4 gun tractor.
Using normal shells a 6-pdr (US 57mm, same gun) could not penetrate the frontal armour of a Tiger. But by D-Day the British had developed APDS ammunition. This meant a 6-pdr gun could knock out a Tiger. A 17-pdr using APDS shells would see off a Tiger very easily and also King Tigers. The British Churchill tanks had the same armour thickness as the Tiger. With a 6-pdr gun it could knock out a Tiger, so the British had a Tiger equivalent tank, apart from speed, but superior in reliability.
The US relied on mainly the 75mm Sherman tank. They did a few 76mm guns on some versions of the Sherman, but the gun lacked velocity to be effective enough, not a great success. The US armour lacked a lot in engaging heavy German armour.
Hence over 90% of German armour in the west was destroyed by the British.
American tank doctrine was flawed. The first tank battle was French v German in 1940 in Belgium. The North Africa campaign was entirely about tank v tank. But the US doctrine was that tanks must not take on tanks, so they invented the tank destroyer. No kidding. This was a large artillery gun on tracks with an open top and little armour. The idea was that if enemy tanks are around this would be called up from the rear and 'destroy' them. If one was around of course. It never worked well. So when there was invariably a tank v tank engagement, the US only had an inadequate 75mm infantry tank. These were shattered by superior German tanks a lot of the time.
The British realised they needed a better anti-tank gun having being slaughtered by German 88mm's in Operation Battleaxe, then developed the 17-pdr, which was superior to the German 88mm and one ton lighter. They used a Sherman chassis, because the US was throwing the tank them, and mounted the 17-pdr gun calling it the Firefly. Other tanks, but in small numbers, also mounted the 17-pdr. The 17-pdr was also a highly effective towed anti-tank gun, towed by a Morris 4x4 gun tractor.
Using normal shells a 6-pdr (US 57mm, same gun) could not penetrate the frontal armour of a Tiger. But by D-Day the British had developed APDS ammunition. This meant a 6-pdr gun could knock out a Tiger. A 17-pdr using APDS shells would see off a Tiger very easily and also King Tigers. The British Churchill tanks had the same armour thickness as the Tiger. With a 6-pdr gun it could knock out a Tiger, so the British had a Tiger equivalent tank, apart from speed, but superior in reliability.
The US relied on mainly the 75mm Sherman tank. They did a few 76mm guns on some versions of the Sherman, but the gun lacked velocity to be effective enough, not a great success. The US armour lacked a lot in engaging heavy German armour.
Hence over 90% of German armour in the west was destroyed by the British.
The 17pdr did not have HE shells in numbers, limiting its use substantially. Also, the APDS ammo was difficult to range and considered less exact by crews. It only comprised 6% of shots fired by 17 pdrs. In the final analysis the swap from the US gun was probably mostly morale boosting.
The 17-dpr was designed as an anti-tank gun, which was superior to the German 88mm (a gun with an overinflated reputation). Only the Soviet 100mm compared with the 17-dpr. High explosives was very secondary. It did fire HE shells but the charge was not that large. For HE they used the 25-pdr gun, which when using AP shells and levelled was good in the anti-tank role under 600 yds, and filled this roll in the desert when needed until the 17-dpr came along. The Germans put to use captured 25-pdrs, not in desperation, actually making shells for them, they were quite impressed with the 25-pdr gun. The 25-dpr is still used today with the shells made by the Pakistanis. Post war the 17-pdr was soon replaced by the 110mm anti-tank gun used in the Centurion tank.
Pulled by a Morris 4x4 gun tractor the 25-dpr and 17-pdr guns could be firing within a few minutes.
US Army officer Nick Moran assessing the Firefly tank with a 17-pdr. He is about the only one who ever thinks the US 76mm was an exceptional gun. The 76mm could not use APDS shells.
A great innovation was Armoured Piecing Discarded Sabot (APDS) shells. A 6-pdr gun (57mm in the USA, as they used the same gun), could not penetrate the front of a Panther or Tiger using normal AP shells. It could using APDS shells. From D-Day crews were rationed, with one in five shells being APDS. A APDS shell in a 17-pdr could knock out King Tigers.
As I wrote, Churchill tanks had the same armour thickness as the Tiger - difficult to knock out. With a 6-pdr gun it could knock out a Tiger using APDS shells, so the British had a Tiger equivalent tank apart from speed, but superior in reliability, manoeuvrability and crew accommodation. However Churchills were rarely pitted against heavy German armour.
US forces never had APDS shells. When German forces scythed through US armour in the Bulge, the US ordered all the British output of APDS shells. They never got them of course. They then ordered Firefly tanks from the British with the 17-pdr gun. A few hundred were in England waiting to be transported when the war ended. The 17-pdr in the Firefly could use APDS shells, a great advantage over the US 76mm Sherman, of which was in production at the end of WW2.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
