Panther vs. Sherman - A different perspective

Well... it is proof that the Sherman was not really in the same class as the Panther. Although the Panther was often referred to as a MEDIUM tank by the Germans, it was IMHO more or less a HEAVY tank if analyzed from the point of view of the Allies.

Just think of it, the Panther weighs at about 45-46 tons. That is just a little short of the combined weight of  a Sherman (30 tons) and a Hellcat (18 Tons).

The problem is......did his 3 fire commands go   plink....plink....plink, while the Panther's one went Ka-BLAM!!

The biggest differenc eis in the width.  That panther has a fat butt.

Jmcmenamin wrote:

The biggest difference in MHO is the GUN!

Yeah! That would be the biggest difference in the soldier point of view!!!!!!

cj95 wrote:

The problem is......did his 3 fire commands go   plink....plink....plink, while the Panther's one went Ka-BLAM!!

Yes, in fact it literally took a point-blank shot for a Sherman to do any harm to a Panther, and that is where the Panther's longer gun barrel became a disadvantage, but getting that close in the first place presented a headache for the Sherman crew. In fact more Panthers were knocked out by Allied AT gun crews, frequently with small arms, then by Sherman tanks. Otherwise the often overlooked M-26 Pershing would have not been produced to counter them.

Bgrigg wrote:

The biggest difference is the Sherman was on the winning side.

Sorry grigg, the now outdated tactic of overwhelming numbers alone is no longer considered the smartest way to fight a war, and in fact was not popular with the Sherman crews back then.

  Tom T

Bgrigg wrote:

The biggest difference is the Sherman was on the winning side. The size of your gun doesn't matter if you end up surrendering...

Bah, they were on the winning side yes, but the Sherman VS Tiger/Panther strategy never amounted to anything better than what the Russians had; throw an overwhelming number of Shermans against a numericaly inferior Axis force.

Interesting to see those photos.

zokissima wrote:

Bah, they were on the winning side yes, but the Sherman VS Tiger/Panther strategy never amounted to anything better than what the Russians had; throw an overwhelming number of Shermans against a numericaly inferior Axis force.

Now you can play the Milton & Bradley game: Axis & Allies.

Bgrigg wrote:

The biggest difference is the Sherman was on the winning side.

T_Terrific wrote:

Sorry grigg, the now outdated tactic of overwhelming numbers alone is no longer considered the smartest way to fight a war, and in fact was not popular with the Sherman crews back then.   Tom T

zokissima wrote:

Bah, they were on the winning side yes, but the Sherman VS Tiger/Panther strategy never amounted to anything better than what the Russians had; throw an overwhelming number of Shermans against a numericaly inferior Axis force. Interesting to see those photos.

Jeeze guys, calm down. It was only a joke...

I agree that the Panther (and Tiger) were superior weapons. But whether or not the US/Soviet strategy of tossing large amounts of resources at the problem was a good one or not, it won the war. I'll argue that sending a numerically inferior, but technologically superior force against overwhelming odds had it's downside as well.

Bgrigg wrote:

Jeeze guys, calm down. It was only a joke...

I guarantee that my heart-rate remained perfectly steady during that post. And with the above analogy of the single shot, vs the machine gun, guess that personal touch does make a good point

zokissima wrote:

Bgrigg wrote: Jeeze guys, calm down. It was only a joke... I guarantee that my heart-rate remained perfectly steady during that post. And with the above analogy of the single shot, vs the machine gun, guess that personal touch does make a good point

Jmcmenamin wrote:

Unless of course you are in one of the many Sherman tanks knocked out by German Tigers/ Panthers. You could always take comfort that the US had thirty more.

This is basically the problem I am seeking to point out.

This "overwhelming numbers" myth was soundly disproven in Korea when the U.S. sent a group of U.S.M.C. M-26's to confront the Russian T-34's that the North Koreans had after they had overrun and decimated the U.S. Army Shermans.

These M-26's were leftovers that we had sitting around from WWII.

The result was upon the first shot, the M-26 gunner could not tell that he even hit the T-34 because the 90mm AP round went completely through the T-34, gutting the chassis, engine and all, the round going on to strike a distant hill-side! They found that the M-90's HE rounds could do just as well by blowing their turrets off.

After that initial battle, they went on to fight and destroy every T-34 they encountered.

Oddly enough, the massed swarms of Chinese soldiers gave them more of a headache then the enemy T-34's. This was because they fired directly into the tanks gun muzzles right after the tank gunner fired, often with the rifle round entering the tank through the gun's breech and tehn zinging around inside the tank.

The problem was in WWII Patton was the first to be offered the M-26 but he turned it down, preferring the old WWI way of fighting using massed numbers of M-4 "Ronsons" (Shermans) over superior firepower. So, you see, it was not a matter of availability, hence the saying "Old blood and guts, yeah our blood his guts". Later on we did manage to get the M-26 into Germany and it did see limited action.

So if I am asked to do a "tank vs. tank" scenario, I want my M-26 Panther killer!

Tom T

 With Memorial Day approaching (here in the States) all the more reason to remember all those who gave the ultimate sacrifice as well as those who continue to serve our nation.

May God bless all the troops who are standing everywhere to protect freedom.

                                                                                                                                Joe

T_Terrific wrote:

Jmcmenamin wrote: Unless of course you are in one of the many Sherman tanks knocked out by German Tigers/ Panthers. You could always take comfort that the US had thirty more. This is basically the problem I am seeking to point out. This "overwhelming numbers" myth was soundly disproven in Korea when the U.S. sent a group of U.S.M.C. M-26's to confront the Russian T-34's that the North Koreans had after they had overrun and decimated the U.S. Army Shermans. These M-26's were leftovers that we had sitting around from WWII. The result was upon the first shot, the M-26 gunner could not tell that he even hit the T-34 because the 90mm AP round went completely through the T-34, gutting the chassis, engine and all, the round going on to strike a distant hill-side! They found that the M-90's HE rounds could do just as well by blowing their turrets off. After that initial battle, they went on to fight and destroy every T-34 they encountered. Oddly enough, the massed swarms of Chinese soldiers gave them more of a headache then the enemy T-34's. This was because they fired directly into the tanks gun muzzles right after the tank gunner fired, often with the rifle round entering the tank through the gun's breech and tehn zinging around inside the tank. The problem was in WWII Patton was the first to be offered the M-26 but he turned it down, preferring the old WWI way of fighting using massed numbers of M-4 "Ronsons" (Shermans) over superior firepower. So, you see, it was not a matter of availability, hence the saying "Old blood and guts, yeah our blood his guts". Later on we did manage to get the M-26 into Germany and it did see limited action. So if I am asked to do a "tank vs. tank" scenario, I want my M-26 Panther killer! Tom T

dkmacin wrote:

T_Terrific wrote:  Jmcmenamin wrote: Unless of course you are in one of the many Sherman tanks knocked out by German Tigers/ Panthers. You could always take comfort that the US had thirty more. This is basically the problem I am seeking to point out. This "overwhelming numbers" myth was soundly disproven in Korea when the U.S. sent a group of U.S.M.C. M-26's to confront the Russian T-34's that the North Koreans had after they had overrun and decimated the U.S. Army Shermans. These M-26's were leftovers that we had sitting around from WWII. The result was upon the first shot, the M-26 gunner could not tell that he even hit the T-34 because the 90mm AP round went completely through the T-34, gutting the chassis, engine and all, the round going on to strike a distant hill-side! They found that the M-90's HE rounds could do just as well by blowing their turrets off. After that initial battle, they went on to fight and destroy every T-34 they encountered. Oddly enough, the massed swarms of Chinese soldiers gave them more of a headache then the enemy T-34's. This was because they fired directly into the tanks gun muzzles right after the tank gunner fired, often with the rifle round entering the tank through the gun's breech and tehn zinging around inside the tank. The problem was in WWII Patton was the first to be offered the M-26 but he turned it down, preferring the old WWI way of fighting using massed numbers of M-4 "Ronsons" (Shermans) over superior firepower. So, you see, it was not a matter of availability, hence the saying "Old blood and guts, yeah our blood his guts". Later on we did manage to get the M-26 into Germany and it did see limited action. So if I am asked to do a "tank vs. tank" scenario, I want my M-26 Panther killer! Tom T Patton didn't want his tanks getting into tank vs tank battles, in his view that is not what they were for. Don

I believe that Patton favored manueverability and speed to firepower, getting behind the enemy and therefore scuttled the Pershing.

Going back to the verbal conflict of mass Shermans and T-34's being on the winning side, this is true, but it might have been a different story if they didn't have overwhelming air superiority.

Therefore I came into a conclusion that it takes more styrene to mold a 1/35 Panther kit than a 1/35 M4 Sherman kit.

OK I'll shut up now.

T_Terrific wrote:

After that initial battle, they went on to fight and destroy every T-34 they encountered. Oddly enough, the massed swarms of Chinese soldiers gave them more of a headache then the enemy T-34's. This was because they fired directly into the tanks gun muzzles right after the tank gunner fired, often with the rifle round entering the tank through the gun's breech and tehn zinging around inside the tank.

I'm trying to picture this here.  were the Chinese performing Human pyramids to get up 'eye-level' with the Pershing muzzle?

I dont have the exact figures, but the barrel of most tanks are quiet a bit above most peoples heads.

Add in the distinct problem that to fire 'down a muzzle'......the aforementioned muzzle has to be pointing directly AT YOU.    Bit of a problem especially if they 'waited for the Pershing to fire first."

Or were they shooting down barrles from a distance?  Nice shooting for a 90mm target that bounces around and is shooting back at you.

Now THATS a diorama I have to see!!!!!

(Note this is writtne in good humor...i dont doubt your reference....it just makes a funny picture....especially at 2am.)

dkmacin wrote:

Patton didn't want his tanks getting into tank vs tank battles, in his view that is not what they were for. Don

Although officially he may not have wanted it, it had a funny way of "happening" under his command. Remember the scene from the George Scott Patton movie, when the U.S. tanks ran out of gas and literally "slugged it out" with the Germans in a night battle? He kissed the surviving officer. But since he was a brilliant egotistical, delusional megalomaniac who was a genius at the best use of armored warfare we had, he was also most capable of denying the results he got were those that he truly wanted whenever it was convenient 

  Tom T

tigerman wrote:

Going back to the verbal conflict of mass Shermans and T-34's being on the winning side, this is true, but it might have been a different story if they didn't have overwhelming air superiority.

Actually that's a very good point too. How much of an impact did complete air superiority have on the tank vs tank battles?

cj95 wrote:

I'm trying to picture this here.  were the Chinese performing Human pyramids to get up 'eye-level' with the Pershing muzzle? I dont have the exact figures, but the barrel of most tanks are quiet a bit above most peoples heads. Add in the distinct problem that to fire 'down a muzzle'......the aforementioned muzzle has to be pointing directly AT YOU.    Bit of a problem especially if they 'waited for the Pershing to fire first." Or were they shooting down barrles from a distance?  Nice shooting for a 90mm target that bounces around and is shooting back at you. Now THATS a diorama I have to see!!!!! (Note this is writtne in good humor...i dont doubt your reference....it just makes a funny picture....especially at 2am.)

For your reference, I recommend the book United States Marine Corps Tank Balles in Korea. It makes a geat read, especially showing the strengths of the M-26.

As our guys crossed over into North Korea they eventually encountered the massed counter-attacking Chinese Army that was a completely different animal from the North Korean army.

They were astonished that they seemed to take no concern for getting killed like the North Koreans did, and they literally swarmed over the tanks like ants, firing into the gun muzzles at very close range in spite of the muzzel blast.

Needless to say, overall this tactic was not very effective against our tanks, but it helped kill a lot of Chinese soldiers as our guys shot them off the tanks.

The description of them refueling the tanks while the gun was firing was interesting too. This is where the man pouring fuel from a drum was ignited by one muzzel blast to have the next muzzel blast "snuff out" the burning fuel. Made for an interesing time, eh?

  Tom T

Tracysw wrote:

Has anyone seen the WWII film footasge of Pershings in Cologne? There was a Panther that was eating up shermans and anything else it saw until a pershing showed up. Up til then the Germans had never encountered gyro-stabilized main gun sights which the Pershing had. Made a mess out of the Panther, 3 quick shots and the panther was done for. you could see the fire inside the Pasnther through the shell holes

I saw that footage just the other day. Just tune into the Military channel every now and then and you'll catch it.After the first hit a couple men bail out and another after the second hit, then it really starts to flame up. Amazing to see the fire through the holes in the side.