The Tiger/Sherman Ratio [Assistance Request]

I had a conversation with a couple friends recently about what I call the Tiger/Sherman Ratio (aka the Tiger ratio). This is the premise where it took X number of Sherman tanks to successfully destroy a single tiger. In general the value of X hovers between 3 and 5, but I've heard as much as 10 down to as little as 2.

Anyone with a nuanced thought about warfare is realizes that this premise is ridiculous. The concept that a Tiger tank is sitting on one side of a giant scale and we keep adding Shermans to the other side until the scale tips the other direction isn't even suited for the most simplistic wargame.

What I found interesting is that as much as this is discussed, I'm finding a serious lack of actual published references for it, and I'd like to find some.

So if you are willing I'd love to get some assistance from the good Rogues of the WW2 Forums in finding actual published statements of the Tiger/Sherman Ratio. Your mission (should you choose to accept it), is to supply any and all references to this. Anything mentioned in any publication, major or minor, is welcome. As long as it is published somewhere, it's relevant to the research.

My thesis is that this is a poorly researched piece of pop history, and I suspect that most references will be of a pop history nature; TV, movies, fictional books, comic books and the like. If there are direct historical accounts of this they are more than likely anecdotal. I will be compiling a list of the references in post #2 of this thread. I like specifics, so please provide full reference info, scans of the statements are also fantastic.

anzerattack: :afv_sherman: :afv_sherman: :afv_sherman: :afv_sherman: :afv_sherman:

 

*saved for later*

 

The guy in my sig has some info. He was a Tiger commander, IIRC, on one of the TV shows.

The British received 78% of lend-lease Shermans, 17,184. That would leave 27,000 or so for the US and other allies. SWAG this to 50% of the Shermans being used in ETO and we get 22,000 Shermans against at total production of ~1800 Tiger I and II. That's 12 to 1 if my maffs ain't wonky.

 

I'm certainly not well versed in this, but I find it interesting in doing some online searching that most of the articles I can find are nothing more than a variety of fora similar to this one, where someone makes an unsupported claim, and others try to refute it, but with little or no factual support. I just wonder if there are reputable printed and researched sources for this. I'm curious to follow it to see.

 

This would be a good starting point: Online Bookshelves - CMH Series and Collections

 

Most of those were on the Ostfront, ja?

 

One thing to remember is that the Shermans weren't alone, of course. The Tank Destroyers, AT guns, and the mudfeet with the bazookas helped thin out the herd.

 

Eastern Front, fighting the Sovs.

 

Okay, expanding my thought here.

There were about 5,000 Panthers built. Most of those Panthers were used on the Eastern Front, if I remember correctly. I don't have the numbers for Panthers on the West Front, but my memory is that they were used more heavily on the other side.

That is just to clarify in case anybody got the impression that the Shermans had to fight 5,000 Mark V panzers.

 

This is exactly the kind of robust debate I thought this topic would generate, and while respect the relevant discussion, I didn't start this thread for discussion, it was a request for citations. I suspect the sources for direct tiger vs sherman combat ratios will be largely anecdotal, but I'm open to data indicating the opposite.

Mind you I'm not attempting to say that the sherman was a better tank than the Tiger. In an open field, one vs one I think I'd chose a Tiger over the M4, but I think this direct comparison in terminally flawed by the complexity of battle.

 

I don't mind expanding when asked. I'm terse from years of writing "reports" that need to be short and sharp. I file an average of 5,000 "reports" a year right now.

 

One of the arguments I came across claimed that the Sherman was a better offensive weapon, with faster speed and better turret. The Tiger, it claimed, was more akin to a moving pill box. More heavily armored, but slower and with a weaker turret. Since I know little, if anything, about the technology of war, can someone comment on this?