Ah ha it seems that I may have found the little pebble in my shoe......

I forgot about the gasoline engines in Panthers and Tigers......


GO T-34's and IS Series!

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

I got the 'info' from Richard Anderson and it is, as I said earlier. primary documentation.

Rich is usually very reliable as a source unless you veer off into higher math and statistics with him. But, I excuse that as he is far more a historian than a mathematician or engineer.

__________________
Truth is stranger than bullshit!

Excellent thanks guys!

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

Were the US vets you interviewed, men you knew and were they tankers or infantry?


So you base this on 2 interviews

What dismissal of wet stowage?

The reality was the Tiger and Panther were a better tank than the Sherman as was the T-34.

Well now you've lost all credibilty because you can't even get your posters and quotes correct

That's the guy not me
Your right, for once, I won't,........ ask Pact of Steel

You are making incorrect assumptions again, that was merely a quip concerning our resident tank expert with the bunker fetish.


I just mentioned that the Sherman was an inadequate medium tank basically because of its lack of armor and lesser firepower than the Mk V, VI and Tiger II. The tankers called them Ronsons among other things due to the problems with earlier models but then later in general because they weren't satified with their performance and you see that in the development of the T-24 and T-26.

You were rather generally smug in your original comment and once again did not read what I said, before your Britannia's Typhoons to the rescue comment.

Well you couldn't be more wrong, it was an Allied effort, but see you have a chip on your shoulder about that and other things my long haired friend. If I was so Gung Ho about the US Army winning the show wouldn't I then say the Sherman, the best tank of the war....certainly not. And Hollywood, really, you should know me better than to think I believe anything from Hollywood. I would say America shouldered a major part of WWII and would be correct I saying so.

There's that chip again, maybe you should change your brand of Vodka

Wrong again Adam

__________________
Coir a glaive

Nemo me impune lacessit

How much more likely was a Panther or Tiger to burn compared to a Sherman?
There is an interesting quote in Hayward's Firefly book (page 93) where he mentions that in Normandy 82% of Shermans and 63% of Panthers burnt when hit. For the PvIV and Tiger it was 80%!
To cause it to 'burn' a Tiger averaged 3.24 penetrations. The Panther 3.25, A Sherman 1.89 and the PzIV 1.5.

To be knocked out the average was:
Tiger.........4.2 hits, 2.6 penetrations.
Panther.....2.55 hits, 1.9 penetrations
Sherman....1.63 hits, 1.55 penetrations.
PzIV...........1.2 hits, 1.2 penetrations.

The data is conflicting but you get the idea. The PzIV was worse than the Sherman.

What is with the uber literalness with you guys? (Do you actually think that when I said German Tanks I meant all German Tanks, I,II,III,IV....very bad form)First it seems there was a perception that I was supporting that Pact of steel guys comment on the III and IV model, I was not. Next your own data, supports that comment made by me that the Sherman was not as good a tank as the Panther or Tiger. The Ronson comment(the burn problem with earlier models) was one that stuck with the tankers refering to the Sherman as a less than desirable tank, according to veterans that I know. The Firefly with the 17pdr was capable of destroying either the Panther or Tiger but that's if the crews, numbers, position, and traverse rates were favorable in the equation.

__________________
Coir a glaive

Nemo me impune lacessit

Some people seem to think the forum revolves around them and everything is addressed to them personaly.

Now even the crews are inferior!

So, German losses have never been quantified...how depressing. An hard statistic would have been nice, but would have been impossible at the same time.

Thank you.

Oberst, you said "German Tanks". You didn't say German heavy tanks, nor did you say German Tigers or Panthers. Your statement implies all German tanks. If you meant otherwise, make your statements clearer.

And, if I were you, I'd recheck that statement about crew training. It's off by a lot, you see.

That's a foolish assumption.

__________________
Coir a glaive

Nemo me impune lacessit

German numbers for the start were admitted as half assault guns, and half tanks. Losses were probably the same percentage (a guess)(by me). What they mean by that you can only guess. I'll bet anything with "tracks" was counted, as was anything with armor. This we know does not make it a tank, or assault gun (for sure). Self propelled artillery, anti-tank and the like are not distinguished/separated in the numbers.
So a total, hour by hour loss rate for "Tanks" is also a guess. (AFV might be a better moniker).
Who knows, maybe even Universal Carriers and that American "job" the Weasel, prime movers, etc. were in the numbers as well.
One site did say that the U.S. First & Third Armies lost 471 "Medium" tanks by the end of December.
Great numbers m kenny! I've not seen these before.
In these numbers I see are included TD's. These are not tanks, and when used against Infantry suffer badly from no co-axial/bow machine gun, open top, thinner armor, and limited elevation of main gun to engage (urban) higher floor/roof targets. Most of the same applies to "Marders", Wespes, Hummels, StuGs, etc. M-8 Armored cars aren't much better without Infantry support.
Almost any answer/analogy can be (partially) backed up to the point of believable. Pick one.

__________________
"Danger Will Robinson!"

Here is a better example of a 'foolish assumption'

Acting like this on a posting basis, will get a visit from da PP ;/

__________________
Time is only enemy you'll never get rid of.

Herr...

That isn't foolish. If it isn't quantified and is written in overly vague sentences, what choice is there but to assume what the sentence meant?

English Clinic 101:

"The soccer balls are round. The golf balls are white."

That means all soccer balls for a specified location/time/place/whatever are round. Same with the golf balls. That is what "the" does.

What's more foolish than my assumption? His lack of grammar.

Back on topic.

You've got that right.

__________________
Best Regards,
JW

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vince Noir
Sadly I wasnt there. But I have interviewed a number of German and Allied tankers.

Were the US vets you interviewed, men you knew and were they tankers or infantry?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Vince Noir

Both agree that the Sherman, despite its faults, was an excellent tank.
.

So you base this on 2 interviews


I think you may have misread what he wrote. He meant that BOTH German and Allied tankers agreed. Not just 2 interviews.

__________________
For the first time I have seen "History" at close quarters,and I know that its actual process is very different from what is presented to Posterity. - WWI General Max Hoffman

Thanks for answering for me... I kinda lost the will to bother with it.

__________________
"The Americans will always do the right thing ... After they've exhausted all the alternatives."

Winston Churchill

No problem . I think in his haste he may have misred or misunderstood your statement.

__________________
For the first time I have seen "History" at close quarters,and I know that its actual process is very different from what is presented to Posterity. - WWI General Max Hoffman

Absurd claim: