I just finished reading Willi Fey's book, "Armor Batlles of the Waffen SS 1943-45," and have never even heard of so many "lop-sided" battle accounts...especially with the battle for Kurstin and fighting in/around Berlin with KoenigsTigers against T-34's and JS II's......???Where exactly can I find any statistical ratio's (i.e. - kill ratio's) of German vs. Russian and Western Allied forces armor battles???

here´s something on the eastern front:

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/prod.htm

__________________

suggest finding the book Tradgodie of the Faithful by Wilhem Tieke through JJF pubs in Canada. The book is also known in the original German. Has some materials on the SS Schwere Panzer Abt. 503 actions besides Will Feys book. Also Wilhelm Tieke's little book on Korps Steiner " Nachträge zu den Truppengeschichten" Nordland-Nederland.

In the case of 1945 battles on the Ost front it is still quite a forgetful time. many of the kills of the Wehrmacht/W-SS still cannot be confirmed as many of the vets were KIA and records were destroyed. But there is no doubt in my mind having a good vet friend serve in the Ost that the fighting was brutal......with no quarter given.

Thanks Kai...just printed a buncha stuff!

This wold lead us to the extreme... but remember that Italian armoured divisions with German and good Italian junior officers under Rommel performed quite well in North Africa.

And with adequate tactics and leaderships, even with lousy tanks, 350.000 Italians could have smashed 30.000 British and the Greek Army.

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

Italien tanks now ? OT guys get back on topic please.......

Aw, c'mon, Erich. I like it when a topic goes off on an odd tangent.

Yours,
Paul

IMO the Sherman was copied from the Canadian Ram.

I think the Mk IV was the better tank. Overall, with what it faced on the battlefield, more often than not (atleast western front) it would face an inferior adversary while the Sherman had to contend with all sorts of tanks it couldn't hope to win against. Plus the Sherman's 75mm was a piece of tar. I think Sherman is more on par with the Mk III.

The 76 was a better tank, more of a match for the Mk IV.. and who says the Mk IV wasn't versatile? It was sure dependable.

On the Ram: Your opinion is incorrect. The Ram was a "Britishized" Sherman. The M-4 was developed from the M-3 Lee / Grant and that from the M-2 medium. All were original US designs.

As far as the Pz IV v. Sherman goes, re-read this thread more carefully. As far as it goes, whatever the technical shortcomings of the Sherman were with respect to the heavier German tanks (Panther / Tiger) it was more than a match for the rest and performed quite well against them. As for its performance against the Pz III, it is instructive to read the comments of German Pz III crews in N. Africa who were shocked that their 50/60 rounds wouldn't penetrate the Sherman's armor at normal combat ranges while they were being shot to pieces in return.
By late 1944 (August / September) the vast majority of Shermans in US armored divisions had the 76mm gun fitted (about 75 - 90%). If HVAP rounds were available, this put the Sherman on par with the Panther in firepower if not mobility and protection.
To somehow make the claim that the Sherman was greatly inferior to the armor it faced is spurious at best.

AFAIK the Ram was a "Britishized" Lee/Grant, it also had still a riveted hull.

Maybe in penetrating force, but definitely not in range. While the Sherman is usually underrated (this poll is a good example), I think you tend to overrate it. There is a lot of record that Allied tank crews were very scared to face German tanks, and for good reason. If you say the Sherman was an equal match for Panther/Tiger, do you deem the Firefly superior?

__________________
If someone tries to remove the speck in your right eye, will you turn to him the other also?

OMG look what i started!

__________________
Goto wwiif.cjb.net for a new wwii forum.

I stand corrected. The Ram is derived from the M-3 Medium. It had a cast hull but, the turret face was bolted on. It was the Grizzly that was derived from the M-4.

HVAP shot was good to about 1500 meters and gave roughly equal performance with the US 76/50 to the German 75/70. Both tanks (the 76mm Sherman and Panther) had equivalent sighting systems and, the Sherman 76 had a slight advantage in accuracy, particularly at longer ranges. This was due to the German 75/70 experiancing more vibration during firing and barrel droop due to its length.

Well, but the Panther was effective to up to 2000 m. And if you're right that the 76/50 was equal to the 75/70, this raises the question whether the Firefly was actually important?!

__________________
If someone tries to remove the speck in your right eye, will you turn to him the other also?

Maybe in penetrating force, but definitely not in range. While the Sherman is usually underrated (this poll is a good example), I think you tend to overrate it. There is a lot of record that Allied tank crews were very scared to face German tanks, and for good reason. If you say the Sherman was an equal match for Panther/Tiger, do you deem the Firefly superior? [/quote]

I'm trying to realistically asses each vehicle to the others. For example, I think the mobility of the Sherman overall is grossly inferior to German and Russian tanks. Even with the 23 inch track and HVSS suspension it is barely adequite and then only equal to the Pz IV while still inferior to the Panther and Tiger I.
Likewise, against these heavy German tanks (I tend to think of the Panther as a heavy tank with a small gun rather than a powerful medium tank)the Sherman was inferior in protection. But, so were the T34/76 and 85.
The Sherman with the 17pdr and 76 using HVAP shot (not just 'regular' APCBC / APHE shot) was a match for the Panther in firepower. These two weapons had nearly equal performance to the 75/70.
I never stated that the Sherman was an "equal match for Panther/Tiger" only that with other organizational and operational considerations it proved superior (even if much of that superiority was due to reasons not related to the Sherman's technical characteristics).

[ 08. January 2004, 05:11 PM: Message edited by: T. A. Gardner ]

I didn't want to imply this, sorry for the inexact wording.

__________________
If someone tries to remove the speck in your right eye, will you turn to him the other also?

As far as I can remember the Ram was developed before the M4, the M4 being developed after American tank engineers had seen a preview of the Ram in Canada. More of an inspiration than a direct copy, cttoi.