"Greatest Tank Battles"

I have been watching this series, and I'm not a big fan of the show. They cover the breakout campaign into the fall of 1944 thru the Battle of the Bulge, and they don't cover the American arsenal with much detail. For instance, the Tank Destroyers such as the M18 and M36 were important components of the American counter-attack during December, but they aren't mentioned or talked about. The up-gunned 76mm Shermans were more prominent on the battlefield from the fall of 1944 on, and they are never mentioned, nor are the assault fun 105mm tanks that were all over the battlefield. They always portray the Sherman as the 75mm version that was always out-gunned and the underdog. They portray the German arsenal in more detail, including many of their variants of assault guns, SP guns, and tank versions. The show could have had more detail.

 

I watch it for the flora. Great trees . To be serious for a minute. Given the state of digital graphics , the availability of data, maps, etc, really good programs could be produced but it has to have a large rating to be financially successful...One day......Gaines

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsaQdYmTPtY
Well, a victory against a superior enemy is honourable.
At least, the testimonials of the veterans are credible.
It is the truth that Tiger or Panther tanks are superior to the standard Sherman. When they work and had fuel...

 

Only seen a couple, and think Gaines nails it.
One day... Maybe, but this bit of chewing gum for the eyes is not the program the subject may deserve in many of our eyes.

 

And, there is the interesting question-which no one has been able to clarify-: what is a tank battle ?

 

I don't see why that should be important .

 

It seems the plot of the series, the good but weak allies against the bad but strong germans.
That's why GS86 started the thread and complained about the choice of equipment which is portrayed.

It isn't wrong that the usual M4 was an inferior tank in late 1944 but only part of the truth.

 

Inferior to what ?

 

What I'm saying is they are generalizing and aren't being factually accurate. By late 1944 there were a variety of TDs and M4 variants that were deployed in numbers that had the better armament to take on German tanks, and they aren't talked about period.

 

Maybe they had wehraboos on the production staff.

 

Did you even watch the series?

 

There is no such thing as an inferior tank :the Tigers of 1944 would not have done better in may 1940 than the PzIII,maybe they would have done worse .

 

Maybe you should look at the "Sacred cows and dead horses" thread on this forum and especially on "Those poor old Shermans " (by Sheldrake ) .

 

The Tiger was a waste of ressources and unreliable but if i had to choose between a Tiger and a M4A3 in a tank duell, i wouldn't hesitate a second.
GS86 is right when he complains about the choice of tanks, the usual Sherman was already dated in winter 1944 and the allies had better answers to the new generation of german tanks.

 

But tank duells were an exception: tanks were not built to fight against each other .

 

It might help if you provided a link, given there is no thread by either name "on this forum".

 

The following figures are from "Allied tank casualties in the ETO and German ATWeapons "

Britain lost some 3000 tanks in NWE after D Day.

Causes were (non combat causes are not mentioned)

Mines 22.1 %

AT Guns :22.7 %

Tanks : 14.5 %

StuG,etc : 24, 4 %

Bazookas (Panzerfaust/Schreck ) 14.2 %

This means that German tanks destroyed some 450 British tanks (mostly ? Sherman );as the number of Panther and Tiger was very low, this means that it was exceptionally that a Sherman tank encountered a Panther/Tiger.

The figures for US tank losses are going in the same direction .

 

If one opens the page on WW2f.com, one will see General discussion ,and the last part is : sacred cows and dead horses,with as last subject : Those poor old Shermans and the last post is from Sheldrake (in september 2014 )

 

How is his comment about amphetamine use relevant? Specifically to your comment to OhneGewehr's remark, "It is the truth that Tiger or Panther tanks are superior to the standard Sherman."? How does Sheldrake's comment "help"?

 

Which is actually a horrid mish-mash blog post from WoT.

No. UK (i.e., 21 Army Group) tank losses in NWE were:

433 Stuart
2 Chaffee
2,712 Sherman
609 Cromwell
26 Comet
656 Churchill
4,438 Total (note, the RAC also included 39 Challenger as "tanks" in its loss compilation)

Also "not mentioned" was how the analysts were able to differentiate between cause of loss by "AT Guns, Tanks, and StuG, etc". The answer is they simply relied on what the respective war diary stated, which is problematic. The US Army analysis was a bit more circumspect, identifying cause of loss as "artillery" (i.e., 75mm gun or larger) or "antitank" (i.e., smaller than 75mm).

No, it means if you accept the British figures at face value, then 643.51 British tanks were written off due to action by German "Tanks". However, a more reliable figure is that 2,733.808 British tanks were written off due to German gunfire.

BTW, an odd comment regarding Panther availability, since as late as 5 February 1945 there were 219 in the West compared to 110 Panzer III/IV and 61 Tiger. Even as early as 1 June 1944 they made up about one-third the total in the West.

The comparable American figure for gunfire losses is actually 58.66%, but includes both write off and repairable. Then again, in Coox and Naisawald, Survey of Allied Tank Casualties, 6, it is given as 54%.