Myth buster threads: comments

post subject

possibly not the point of the subject, (I've lost that) but the point I'm trying to make to ilija is this, the Sherman was the tank that won the war because... American tank production was far before the German and so we could afford to lose tanks where the Germans could not, nothing to do with them losing tanks in the east! It's the same as the Russians could afford to lose thousands of men, they had plenty more but the Germans were down to old men and school children.
OK ilija, your call. :roll:

 

canambridge u got me completly wrong.I newer say that sherman was poor tank,i just say that he was not so good.It was decent,and certanly best tank in western allys arsenal,but geman and USSR got slight betther tanks in those days by my opinion.Anotther factor was that sherman newer had equal quantity oponent on battlefield,where german and russian armor made their reputations.But i just need one info if somebody can provide it to me.Price of sherman and T-34.And anotther thing,T-34 had more powerwful engine,mobility,range,speed and it was diesel engine (it does not burn so easy like gasoline,and it is cheaper then gasoline) and his power to weight ratio was betther.

 

The price doesn't really matter, since the SSSR was a communist rule, and could therefore set the price themself.

It isn't true that diesel does not burn as easily as petrol. Diesel and petrol burn at around the same temperature, it's only the petrol fumes which burn at lower temperatures. The temperature of a shell impact would be warmer than the combustion temperature of both petrol and diesel.

Besides, some Medium Tank, M4s did use diesel engines.

 

I never said that it was terrible tank but some stories liked we or not are true.

The reason why Germans were able to out perform their war opponents was becouse they had the best army in the world at that time.

Once again I say that for me all these 3 tanks were equal.

His poor reputation is because his performance against german armor.

What do you think what would have happened if German army instead Russia went to Africa,I hate to bring you this but the war was lost and won in the East.

 

Ilija, first of all, what point are you trying to make? If you've already conceded that the Sherman was not inferior to the T34 or the Panzer IV then why are you still arguing? This, after all, is the whole point the mythbuster thread tries to make, and you already seem to have accepted it.

When you're quoting sources, please mention them...

Also, what are you trying to say with the above? This is exactly what has been stated in earlier posts, the Sherman suffered from internal ammunition explosions due to thin armour just like any other tank with armour that thin would do (like the Panzer IV). Like Canambirdge pointed out, the Germans were only capable of dealing with Shermans so easily because much of their armoury had been upgraded to deal with T-34s.

Again, mention your source, and what are you trying to prove? This is all about the early version of the Sherman which was (predictably) not comparable to late and relatively uncommon types of German armour. It does not even consider the massive upgrades made to the Sherman, and as such it is a typically flawed source regarding the Sherman tank.

The Tiger, which you now begin to bring forth, is completely irrelevant to this discussion as it is an altogether different class of vehicle that no medium tank should be required to compete with (even though the late-war Sherman had a lot less trouble with Tigers).

Why would we stop bringing up a veteran's account of his experiences with the Sherman tank? He used this tank himself, in action, against German armour. That is quite different from the second-hand account of the actions of what was arguably the best German tank ace of the war (and therefore not representative of anything) manning a vehicle of, and I say this again, an altogether different class of vehicle than any medium tank. While the stories of Wittmann say nothing about the value of his tank (since it was the quality of his crew that mattered) nor of the quality of the tanks he faced (since he manned a vehicle of a different class than his enemies and he led a crew that was far above average in skill), the story of Loza says a lot about the realities of fighting with the Sherman tank.

The Tiger cannot be compared to the Sherman on any level with even the faintest hope that the Sherman might come out on top, simply because the Tiger was a different type of vehicle meant for a different purpose. One can only hope that for almost twice the weight the Tiger should be better than the Sherman.

At first, you said it was nowhere near the Panzer IV and T-34 in quality. Since neither of these tanks were exactly top of the line at the end of the war, it's arguable that you did say it was a terrible tank; in any case you weren't exactly praising it. Since then, we have been telling you which stories aren't true. I'd like to know which stories giving the Sherman some credit are not actually true.

This had nothing to do with technology, though. When the Germans first encountered the M3 Medium they were greatly impressed by its firepower, for which they had no vehicle-mounted equal in North Africa; the M4 carried that very same gun that had caused such a disturbance among the Germans.

Which, in turn, was caused by the T-34 and the KV-1 forcing the Germans to step up in their armour development.

Where and by whom he war was won is an entirely different debate and if I were you I wouldn't crack it open, it's off topic here.

Canambridge: regarding the use of the word "broadly", I think my understanding of its meaning was incomplete or flawed, so I apologize for the misunderstanding. What I meant was that there were some elements (notably armour) in which the T-34 was superior to the early Sherman.

 

Actualy i think that diesel is much harder to ignite (u can try it with open flame) then a gasoline.Diesel engines make combustion under high pressure,and gasoline engines use spark.Direct hit in fuel will probably ignite bouth,but in situations where is only a leak,diesel cant ingnite by themself,and gasoline can,especialy where is spark plug active.

 

Because not all what you people wrote in those myth buster threads stands,you say there was no reason for calling them "Ronsons"but yet the history shows otherwise,you say 5 Shermans story is a myth well it is not those are things that happened in WWII.So far from what i saw you simply like to see things that you like to see.Tell me once more what makes you smarter than all those people who wrote all those history books.

But noone says that Panzer IV or T-34 were "Ronsons" .

So you find one men says that T-34 would start to burn faster than Sherman or that Sherman was better than T-34 and you are writing myth buster threads. :roll:

Well allmost every tank would go to Eastern Front ,so for what were they suposed to fight against them.

So what are you trying to say,than if I enter in some fight that has allready started and when in the end people say that other one did more I should blame other ones becouse my poor performance.

 

How exactly does history show that the nickname of "Ronson", of which the origin is a mystery, is justified? No matter how many books and sources mention this nickname (and they all do), if they can't bring up any facts to support the word, and if they can't tell you exactly who came up with the name, when and where and why, then it is worthless. And since there is no other reason for the nickname other than thin armour, which wasn't actually any thinner than that of contemporary German medium tanks, there is no reason to declare the Sherman particularly likely to burn out when hit.

The same goes for the 5 Shermans for a Tiger story. It is quoted and mentioned everywhere but I have yet to see even one example of this actually occuring anywhere on the battlefields of WW2. Certainly I've never seen this tactic actually described anywhere, or quoted from any particular American or Allied field manual. Again, no matter how many sources "say so", as long as they can't point at any reference to it in the primary sources of the day, it is worthless.

You say I only see what I want to see, but honestly: have you ever seen anyone supporting the statement that the Sherman was called Ronson and that it took five of them to take on a Tiger, rather than just mentioning it as accepted fact? Because that's exactly what happens all the time. I will not make any claims to superior intelligence over the men who wrote books on tanks but I can tell you with certainty that whoever calls the Sherman a Ronson without any remarks about its upgraded versions or any real reasons as to why it earned such a nickname, is merely copying the words of others and not thinking or considering any facts. Now, as you've seen earlier in this thread, there are serious sources who mention the Sherman's vulnerability issues but they all blame the thin armour and no other cause whatsoever. Therefore there is no reason to keep repeating these senseless and groundless myths concerning the Sherman that continue to give it a worse reputation than it honestly deserves.

See above. Who calls the Sherman "Ronson", anyway? Have you heard that from a first-hand account, ever?

The facts say that the Panzer IV was just as vulnerable to enemy fire as the Sherman; later on in the war, it was actually much more vulnerable to enemy fire than the Sherman. The same goes for the T-34. As you can see, the undeserved reputation of the Sherman takes none of these facts into consideration.

One actual tank commander who has served with both tanks said this. The facts and figures of the two tank types support his opinion. I have never heard any accounts of the Sherman being more likely to blow up than the T-34 from any commander who has served with both tanks, have you?

The mythbuster thread is not based exclusively on the memoirs of Loza.

The DAK was given mostly the same equipment as the Eastern Front divisions. When the M3 Medium appeared, these were predominantly outdated Panzer III mediums and Panzer IV "heavies" with the short-barreled 75mm L/24 gun. These were no match for any version of the Sherman.

I'm saying Canambridge is right. I didn't know we were supposed to assign blame on anything or anyone, where did that come from?

It is a fact that the Germans, being forced to alter their AT capabilities to confront Russian T-34s and KV-1s, had an edge over American tanks once their new models began to arrive at the front. Practically the only reason for this edge is Russian tank development.

 

Do you have information what material was used for armor plates on all these 3 tanks and how was hardened,do you know that late war Panthers had same armor thickness but diffrent material was used for armor plates and this made them more vulnerable.Sherman's (early models)were called "Ronsons" for reason,the reason was that they would start to burn more often than the other tanks.

I answered to this one so many times and I won,t again it all comes to what you want to see or not.

But they all say in their books that after they improved armor protection and introduced wet stowage they were "ronsons" no more.

The men who drove Shermans and complained about them were fishermans and the men who wrote "Death Traps" was what?No my friend so far I see that you see what you want to see and you accept what it suits you.

But in what numbers were they present there.

So from this i can conclude that German tanks were beter than the American ones.

 

post subject

Errrrr! I thought there were a few Germans in North Africa, I think they were called the 'Afrika Korps', at least that's what my 'Desert Rat' friends said, but, once again, could be wrong!

 

Crucially the man who wrote Death Traps was not a Sherman crewman. So I suggest you retract your agressively worded counter-statement.

The account in Phelp's post is from a Soviet Sherman crewman and it counters your own argument, I'd suggest it is you that sees what you want to see. Wittman's score is well noted and documented, however it is the account of an individual, not necessarily representive of an army or type as a whole. It is all very well to quote such individual circumstance out of context. It is equally very well to make such baseless accusations. Try reading Belton Cooper's book before you make comments about it.

 

It should be noted that in Wittmann's last battle, it was Sherman tanks which accounted for 5 Tiger Tanks including Wittmann's, without loss to themselves

 

sinissa
Petrol engines work by igniting the fumes, not the petrol itself. Diesel does not have the same fumes to be ignited. The ignition temperature of both types is around 530 Kelvin, or about 260 degrees Celcius.

See http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2005/EileenTang.shtml and http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/Sha ... pher.shtml

 

sinissa: Sorry if I misunderstood you, it seemed to me that you were arguing that the Sherman was a much worse tank than the T-34. In my opinion ther is little to choose between them, both were good tanks, quite capale of dealing with 2/3 of the panzer weapons deployed against them, and the T-34 was clearly superior to anything else one on one in 1941.

Roel: My apologies to you as well, there are defintiely some elements of the T-34 design were better than the M4. I'm don't think there were enough, or of a great enough difference, to let one clearly say the T-34 was a much better tank than the M4.

ilirja: I honestly don't know how to take your comments. Things like "Tell me once more what makes you smarter than all those people who wrote all those history books" are personal and argumentative. Then you dismiss history books like "that Dmitri Loza story", you can't have it both ways.
Whether I am or am not smarter than all those people who wrote those history books is irrelevant, but there are a lot of history books about the Sherman out there that I have read that deal directly with the myths of "ronsons" and "five to one" kill ratio. Just to apply some simple logic, if the 5:1 were true than it would mean that virtually all allied tanks on the western front were knocked out by Tigers and Panthers alone, given the numbers involved. Only about 40% of US tank losses were to all types of AT guns (tanks, assault guns, SP, and towed guns). About 40% of those were repaired, leaving about 25% as total write offs (to put on even terms with the German loss accounting). I would assume British losses were from roughly equal causes. In any case, the myth usually goes that "it took five Shermans to knock out one Tiger (or Panther)", not necessarily that all five were lost. With all due respect to the veterans, wartime memoirs are not the most effective source of statistical evidence or accounts of tanks burning up. Western soldiers (and press) approached the war differently and were told they would have the best equipment possible, and they were relatively free to discuss the shortcomings. This was definitely not the case in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union, either during or after the war. Nationalism also enters into it, as the Soviets wanted to downgrade any reference of help from the west and to belittle the quality of what the west supplied. Even the Brits may have been a little stung by the fact that their best tank after 3+ years of war was American designed and built, making them a little more likely to play up any weak points.
The Sherman was not as good as the Panther or Tiger in one on one fights, but neither was the T-34. The Sherman was roughly equal to the Mk IV or StuG III, and these two types made up 60%+ of German AFV strength from mid war on.

I would say this comment applies to your posts.

 

I did post here things said by American generals who said enough about Sherman and his 76mm gun and how good he was but no you don,t want to see them or take them for true,then if some american soldier who worked on Shermans writes bad or negative about him he is not right and he speaks lies.You can,t rewrite history like you want.

 

I take exception to the implication in your more recent posts, there is a difference between re-writing history and re-exploring accepted myths. You don't have to be disagreeable to disagree.

The explanation for this has been provided though, initially it was down to problems with the ammunition not the gun itself, but then you chose to ignore that.

Try reading Cooper's book first before you pass judgement on him or his opinions. Cooper has a huge agenda against the Sherman, his book and comments should be judged in that light. Equally you have to appreciate his role, he was to follow up the armoured units noting which destroyed tanks were salvagable. Of course he'll have a poor opinion of the tank as by definition he only sees the wrecks and dead crew. His opinions should be carefully weighted with that in mind. To be honest I doubt his book would have been much different if the US was equipped with T-34s instead.

Equally you dismiss the comments from the Soviet officer who served in Lend-Lease Shermans as not being indicative of the two types just an individual case, yet site Wittman (An individual case) as proof of how poor Shermans were. You cannot have it both ways.

I'd be careful before I accuse people of re-writing history. Re-evaluating accepted myths is very different and is the whole point of the myth-busters. No-one is claiming that the Sherman was the best tank of the war, just trying to show that many of the accepted "facts" about it don't stand up to scrutiny.

You don't want to accept that or consider it, :roll: that's up to you, but I don't think you have presented a single piece of irrefutable evidence to contradict the myth-buster as a whole. On the other hand your initial post on this thread has been comprehensibly disproved. Accept it and move on.

 

It is farry tale redcoat,nobody really know how Witmann and his crew died.All what is positive is that his tank was blown off,and cupola splitted from hull,but most common thinking was that he was knocked on air attack.Some sherman crews claimed that they killed Whitmann,but his death is unclear like Red Baron death.

 

Sinissa, There has been much discussion of Wittmans death in action over the years and the consensus is that it was by Firefly and not Typhoon rocket. One of the leading lights in all this is a chap called Michael Kenny who has a wealth of knowledge on the subject.

May I direct you to the following thread over on the Axis History forum.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=30551&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
This form that thread.

 

Whell,like i say nobody really know,it is just guessing.And i heard bouth story,but i really doubth it that.As i remember,story was that Withmann did not know that firefly is in the area so he pushed to agressivly (how can anybody know what withman know r not?)
Again,none story was really confirmed.

 

The truth is Michael Wttmanns death was seen by a number of men from his own unit, and in the book, Michael Wittmann And The Tiger Commanders Of The Leibstandarte by Patrick Agte there are a number of eye-wittness accounts of the action, all these German accounts agree that Wittmann was killed by anti-tank fire from hidden British and Canadian tank positions.

There are other accounts which back up this theory,
"Panzers in Normandy -Then & Now" {a little dated and still claiming 5 Shermans and only 4 Tigers}, + p.46-53 "After the Battle" mag no. 48 - "Michael Wittmann's Last Battle" - which even has transcripts of British I/C and radio traffic describing the incidents).
No Holding Back: Operation Totalize, Normandy, August 1944 by Brian A. Reid.



* The eyewitness from the Leibstandarte were SS-Hauptscharfuhrer Höflinger, SS-Hauptsturmführer Rabe, SS-Sturmmann Alfred Bahlo.


Now you might take British and Canadian claims with a pinch of salt, but German eyewitnesses from his own unit ?

The only thing which is uncertain today, is whether it was a Canadian or British Sherman Firefly which fired the fatal shot.