Shermans vs Panthers/Tigers

Well Joe, I know that Panthers were produced at about 4 times the rate of Tigers(3x if you include Tiger II), so my best guess is they met more of them. Location is probably correct also, but Panthers were more numerous all over. The British met Tigers in North Africa in Tunisia. I'm sure the Americans met some. The Panther G was the most numerous of the series and accounted for about half of all Panther production.

"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."-R.E.Lee

A Sherman crew was more likely to meet Pathers and Panzer IV's on the western front. Tigers were there, but in small groups and not seen often. King Tigers were even rarer on the Western Front.
Most Tiger I and II's were sent to fight the Red peril.
Sherman crews were so panic at facing Tiger's, that every tank they saw became a Tiger in their sights, leading to so greatly exagerated kill numbers.
Lots of Tiger I in Italy, few Tiger II's

The veterans I've talked to mentioned encoutering Mk IV's and MkIII 'Stug's the most often. The Mk IV was well respected, but the Stug and I'd imagine anything that looked like one, was seen as an annoyance to be outflanked and destroyed.
I also talked to an M10 / M36 veteran who considered any tank but the Panther to be fair game... hit and run .. FAST! He'd destroyed a Tiger I by allowing it to traverse onto a buddy, then hit it's turret side before its gunner could fire. Ambush tactics.... heh, heh, heh!
So, I think in the end, everybody respected the Panther and tankers respected anything better than a MK III. And that both Tigerman and Issah are right about the frequency of encounters.

Ron.

I think odds are that more shermans faced Panthers. If you look at the numbers there just weren't that many Tiger I's made. They really made a lasting impression though. I read the same thing as the others. The Tiger was so feared that reports of them in battle were exagerated. When a bunch of tanks were destroyed they'd sometimes just assume they were attacked by Tigers since sometimes you didn't see your attacker if they were hidden well enough.

I really don't know much about Panthers. I'm hoping to learn more about them.

I'd guess that most shermans would have faced Mid and Late Tigers. I think most Early Tigers were in Russia or Africa.

I saw a couple documentaries on TV where they interviewed WW2 tank commanders. I remember a US sherman tank commander talking about how it would take 10 shermans to kill a Tiger. Trying to face a Tiger at long range in an open area was terrifying. And I saw a WW2 german tank commander on TV not that long ago. It was kind of strange but he remarked that they would destroy 10 shermans but the americans always seemed to have an 11th. I didn't get to see the entire show. But just happened to catch that part.

I read somewhere that the only tanks that had a reasonable chance of facing and defeating a Tiger was a Firefly or a JS.

An M26 could go head to head with a Tiger also, too bad they didn't put T26 turrets on Sherman hulls like they were conisidering. Then, a hull down Sherman with a 90 could take on a Panther or Tiger without problems.

Oh well, what if's don't count, do they!

Ron

in a book ive got on the Sherman Firefly it mentions Tiger 1s were easyer to knock out than the Panthers or kingtigers, i supose it was to do with the slopeing armour

I remember reading that sloping armor is as twice as thick as vertical armor in principal. Thus 2 inches of sloping armor would be equivilant to 4 inches of vertical. Thus in sense, the Panther's armor was greater than the Tiger I.

Also, the Panthers long 75mm Kwk L/70 gun was more lethal than the Tiger I's 88mm KwK 36.

"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."-R.E.Lee

I read that Shermans have meet Panzer IV's more frequently than Panthers or Tigers. Also, Shermans will only have the "unfortunate" advantage when they have superiority in numbers or during city-fighting where the long-barrelled German tanks have difficulty in maneuvering.

Hey Dwight!
Do engineers make 'mulfunctions', multi-functions or malfunctions?

Glenn

Hi Glen,

Thanks for the tip. It should be malfunctions.

Correction done.

Yes, they did meet Panthers and Stugs more often than Tigers. Tiger ll's were even a greater rarity.

Hello again,
Thanks for the replies.
I do have a question or two that arises from tigerman's statement that the Panther's 75mm was more lethal than the
Tiger's 88mm. Why was this? I think that some of it probably has to do with the muzzle velocity. What determines muzzle
velocity? Would the 75 have been as effective at longer ranges as the 88?
Also get the impression that the Panthers probably were to be feared more than the Tiger (not only because of the gun
but also mobility and the sloping armor).
Regards,
Joe

Muzzle velocity is a factor of meters per second a round travels when it leaves the muzzle. This, of course, decreases as soon as the projectile leaves the tube. The size of the charge (powder in the casing in a tank round), length of the barrel, rifling, taper (if any) and quality of the propellent all determine muzzle velocity, not to mention temperature, all determine muzzle velocity.
Added to muzzle velocity is penetration. Obviously, mass and kenetic energy have a lot to do with this: Example, an 88mm round traveling at 3,000 feet per second will have a lot more penetration ability than a 37mm round at the same speed.... The 155mm HE rounds an artillery piece fires almost literally lob onto a target, but they'll go through a LOT of armor, just due to weight!
I don't have any reference material here, but at long ranges an 88 would retain more penetration ability than a 75 just due to mass.
All 'round, the Panther is acknowledged as a better tank than the Tiger I (and M26 I believe). Power to weight was better, reliability was better and armor disposition was better. Its gun couldn't 'reach out and touch' someone as well as the 88, but all in all, I'd take a Panther over a Tiger, if I were a German tanker.
If I remember, I'll take a look at some specs for the 75 and 88 tonight, as well as the 90 on the Pershing. Also, if I'm not mistaken, the 75, 88 and 90 were all better than the early JS series 120mm (it was a 120, wasn't it?) due to quality of propellent.

Any help from y'all who know more about German armor?

Ron.

I also heard that Ordnance told Eisenhower (before D-Day) that the 76 on the Sherman could take care of a Panther.... I'm sure some Colonel or General at Aberdeen was fried for that one!

Poniatowski,
If the size of the charge, barrel length and quality of the propellant contribute to muzzle velocity, were any of these things incorporated
into the Sherman? It looks to me as if the length of the barrel (at least on the 75's) remained unchanged. If barrel length could help improve muzzle velocity, why didn't the U.S. do this? I'm not questioning the accuracy of your statement (because you've already shown you know much more about this than I), but these things all seem like things that could have been done to help give the U.S. 75 a bit more destructive force.
Regards,
Joe

The British incorporated their 17pdr. into a Sherman and dubbed it Firefly. Had about the same impact as a Panther's gun, Perhaps better.

The Panther's 75mm had a muzzle velocity of 3068 ft. per second against 2600 ft. per sec for the Tiger's 88. This is according to Ewe Feist in his book Deutche Panzer 1917-1945.

"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."-R.E.Lee

The Firefly was the nickname of the gun, due to the blast effect when the gun fired APDS rounds, which could pierce King Tiger armour.

Canadians in Normandy faced Tiger I's and II's, 4 Heavy Tank Battalions, along with about 4 SS Panzer Divisions, and 9 or so Wermacht Divisions.

The US did increase the lenght of there barrel for better muzzel velocity. They did that when they intorduced the 76mm gun.

What is an APDS round? What would a 17pdr. translate to in milimeters? How much better were the Sherman guns at the end of the war
compared to the start of the war?

According to penetration figures i have (pulled from charts of a strategy book for the game combat mission barbarosa to berlin - their armor thickness charts are close to what my other references say, so hopefully the penetration chart is pretty accurate too)

For the panther 75mm KwK42 L/70 max penetration with AP rounds is at: 100m - 176mm, 500m - 160mm, 1000m - 142mm, 2000m - 112mm
For the tiger 88mm KwK36 L/56 max penetration with AP rounds is at: 100m -154mm, 500m - 142mm, 1000m - 129mm, 2000m - 105mm

I only have reference for German and Russian armor, almost nothing on the allies. Any one have penetration information on the various guns shermans got equipped with?

APDS stands for armor piercing discarding sabot. Have a look at http://www.ciar.org/ttk/mbt/15.munitions-apfsds.html they describe it much better than i ever could, have a look at the -APFSDS Shedding its Sabot In-Flight- picture, give you a good idea on how it works; it’s the same thing for apds minus the fin stabilized part

Panther44

APDS means "Armour Piercing Discarding Sabot". Plenty of resources on the net about these, but for a brief description see
http://www.periscope.ucg.com/terms/t0000040.html.
(This is just the first entry after a Google Advanced Search on "SABOT APDS")

The British 17 Pounder Mk IV was approximately 76.2mm

Like the main guns of most nations, the experiences of WW2 combat ensured that Sherman gun development was always an imporvement on what went before. The later Sherman guns were vastly superior to the early war guns, not that an early Sherman couldn't still mix it with a stug or Panzer IV. Basic principle - don't bring a knife to a gun fight.

Happy Modelling
Peter

This has turned into a nice discussion about armament! The US did upgrade the 75mm from the M2 (common on Lee's and Grants) to the M3 for the later M3 mediums and M4's. The 76 was supposed to be the US's answer to the German 75.
For some odd reason, the US has always lagged behind in tank weapon development. The 17 pounder was better than the 76 in the Shermans, the M60's incorporated a British designed 105mm and the new 120 on the M1A1, A2, etc, is a smooth bore by Rhinemetal (I believe).
APDS is usually referred to simply as 'Sabot' by tankers (easier to say in fire commands) and is a nice, kick butt type of round. You can really feel the difference between a HEAT (High Explosive Anti Tank) round and a Sabot when you send it... YAHOO!!!! GUNNER! SABOT! Two tanks! Right tank first! (Identified.... Up!) FIRE! Onth'way! BOOM! A nice sensation as the sights are pressed back against your forehead and the driver feels like a giant has just slammed the front plate with a hammer!!! ( the front road wheels rock off the ground)

TARGET! LEFT TANK!!! ...

No wonder football bores me.

I miss my tank.

Ron.

Sorry, got carried away.

I believe it !


Just a quick little flashback there, huh, Ron


Nice desription - I got the mental picture

APDS?? Sorry, I got very little tecno-speak when it comes to tanks!

Bill

Wow! Ya'll are overwhelming an "ignernt ol' man". I refer back to page one with teddtA's post about the Firefly firing the APDS round and piercing the King Tiger's armor, I did not know they had this type of round at that time. I thought this was some modern developement that was used only with today's smooth bore guns.
I was thinking in WW2 they had the armor piercing or high explosive rounds only.
Will some one elaborate on this a bit more? Thanks to all who have responed to this point. I'm very gratefull to all of you for your time and kindness.
Regards,
Joe

Thanks PantherLehr, I know I have penetration charts somewhere, but I couldn't locate them. Maybe we should start a Tiger vs Panther thread. LOL

"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."-R.E.Lee

Several countries had developed Sabot rounds, mostly using Tungsten penetrators.

i'll see what i can find for you tonight panther 44 , i got a whole bunch of links at home dealing with armor thickness of different afv's, penetration , armor and infantry tactics, guns and munitions etc etc. i do remeber seeing a nice chart with all the differences between different types of afv munitions i'll see if i can find it again when i leave work.

Panther 44,

The US didn't immediately start putting the British 75mm gun in our own Shermans because they didn't want a foreign gun in their tanks!
This line of thought didn't last long, but it did hinder the early Shermans. The Soviets' JS tank was indeed formidable, but I think one
of its drawbacks was that its shells weren't one piece. I think they had to load the projectile and the powder separate; something like
a ship's large main guns.

Roy

As well as two piece ammo, the ammo itself was huge, couldn't store more than 20 rounds.