Panther vs. Sherman - A different perspective

m1garand wrote:

On my 4th year of ROTC, I had to fill out the WISH list, I've tried to select Armor as my first choice, but my father (former infantry officer) told me about how his friend died in the tank (and then he told me to select Infantry).  That sure did convince me REAL fast to select Infantry.

On the surface, tanks seem like the place to be.  Driving around the battlefield and blowing things up does seem cool.  Then at some point then it does occur to a person that a tank on a battlefield is a priority target for the enemy, so unless your country's tanks are currently king of the battlefield, they can lose a bit of appeal.

Andy

Jesus, ugly footage. The sight of those rounds impacting is just terrible. I can only imagine something similar or worse happened to that Iraqi tank divsion when that M1 Abrams company brewed them up during the Gulf War --Battle of 89 Easting? Something named like that.

Sobering.

Speaking of the fate of those panzer crews, FieldMarshall Rommel wrote (which now is part of the book Rommel Papers) Panzer crews faced terrible and painful death. Burn to death or their bodies are shredded and bleed to death.  On my 4th year of ROTC, I had to fill out the WISH list, I've tried to select Armor as my first choice, but my father (former infantry officer) told me about how his friend died in the tank (and then he told me to select Infantry).  That sure did convince me REAL fast to select Infantry. 

In regards to the Cologne footage: I recall a history show where the actual cameraman was interviewed.  He was a Signal Corps guy and all he did was photograph and film.  He was following the unit in question and had captured the two killed Shermans on film.  In that clip, you see one of the TCs climbing out missing one of his legs.  He drops to the ground and later died of blood loss.  The cameraman said that the Pershing commander told him his plan in advance and to get to a good vantage point.  The cameraman got there and got the Panther in his reticle.  Then the Pershing comes in to engage the Panther.  Although the Panther is bringing its cannon to bear on the Pershing, the Pershing fires first while still moving with the assist of the gyro stabilized gun mount.

There are differing accounts of the fate of the Panther crew.  One has them all killed (either in the tank or while escaping).  Another version has two of them being captured.

Regardless, it's pretty terrible.  I read the memoir of one German gunner who faced a situation where a fellow crewman was facing a brew up. Once when his tank (Mk IV) was hit, he instinctively dove out despite being severely injured.  He and the driver then climbed back onto the tank to retrieve the rest of the crew.  His loader was trapped under some mangled debris and was about to shoot himself with his pistol.   The rescuers knocked away the pistol and were able to wrest him out of the burning tank.  Despite that, the loader died.  The TC and the machine gun operator died in the initial hit.  He stated that the idea to commit suicide rather than be burned alive was a prospect that the Panzermannen had spoken about beforehand...  All grim stuff.

Impressive work on the part of the cameraman. Some Joe out in the middle of a battle using a camera instead of a weapon. One hit looks like it is just over the road wheels on the suspension side armor below the sponson.  As a soldier I can appreciate the gunnery of a US tank killing it's enemy. As a human, I can feel pity for the other side. Just remember to keep it in perspective of the time it occured, it's kill or be killed. Not a whole lot different from what you can see on the news every evening nowadays.

Footage is here for anyone that wants to see it. 

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3400216787641857936&pl=true

 

Kinda disturbing if you ask me.

Thats exactly what i thought when i finished mine. And the length of the barrels....Its no wonder panthers were knockin out shermans from a long range the high velocity with extended rifled barrel aimed at a sherman 600 yards away = One less sherman

Amen .

2 cents worth,and strictly a personal view as an amateur historian and a former USMC Tanker: At the divisional level or higher,give me lots and lots of Shermans.Down at the tactical level,give me a platoon or section of Panthers.....I want to go home and bring my men with me......Mike

A LOT of interesting points made here throughout this thread. Some seem to be based on GI legend, post war revisionism, and others have good facts. Several recent books by Steven Zaloga in Concord's and Ospreys' publications point out the fallacies, facts, and such. Again, one point missing here is the crew training and experience. By the point of WWII where Shermans and Panther's really went head to head, American crews in general had a higher level of training. Also, due to unreplaceable attrition of expereinced crews on the German side, post Normandy, this only got worse.  Doctrine of the armored force can be cited too. Tanks were to be used to support the infantry, and exploit breakthroughs. Tank Destroyers had the mission of eliminating the enemy's tanks. Of course in reality this was not often the case. Overall, in almost every respect, the Panther was a superior machine. But the crews inside were the equalizer. By the end of the war, between improvements to the M4 series (heavier armor, improved guns, wider tracks,  more effective ammunition) combined with the experience gained by crews and commanders in combat, M4's were not at such a disadvantage as they had been in the earliest encounters in Italy and Normandy between the two types. 

 

I think that they is a few seconds of the footage at the beginning of the Pearl Harbor movie, when they are trying to set a background for the war in Europe.

In addition to German tank crew dying, I seem to remember a US tank crewman bailing out of a Sherman having lost a foot. Am sure that they said that he died of his wounds before anyone could help him.

A very thought provoking piece of film.

 

T26E4 wrote:

Hi Scott: I think I overreacted to your semantics earlier.  I'm sorry about that "self-righteousness".  Actually, I've found the well-known pictures of the rusted, burned out Panther in the Cologne encounter to be very intriguing too, from a modelling standpoint, too.  Not too many bright orange items on my modelling shelf, I guarantee you! Good luck w/your project, Scott.  Rgrds, Roy

No worries. 

Hi Scott: I think I overreacted to your semantics earlier.  I'm sorry about that "self-righteousness".  Actually, I've found the well-known pictures of the rusted, burned out Panther in the Cologne encounter to be very intriguing too, from a modelling standpoint, too.  Not too many bright orange items on my modelling shelf, I guarantee you!

Good luck w/your project, Scott.  Rgrds, Roy

T26E4 wrote:

While the Cologne footage of the Panther being brewed up is very startling (I dunno how "inspired" I get seeing five men killed in a vicious way -- it happened, it was typical but I don't know if I'd ever use the word "inspired"), it's not informative on a larger scale about larger effectiveness of weapons systems.

I was not "inspired" by the death of the tank crew.  I'm not "inspired" by the brutal killing, which by the way happened to millions during that war, yet doesn't seem to stop us from modelling and making dioramas of the weapons of war.  The encounter between the Pershing and the Panther inspired me to want to make a diorama of the encounter.  Nothing less, nothing more.  It will be a nice challenge for me to attempt to make the destroyed panther, complete with penetration damage, burned wheels etc.  I find that encounter interesting and a testament to the true destructive nature of war, and I'd like to try my hand at making "rubble" and damaged buildings in a diorama.

Hi Tom:

FYI: The Panther had a petrol engine just like most Shermans.  The Soviet tanks had the Diesels mostly.

As far as the term "Ronson" or "Tommy Cooker", it was discovered early on that it wasn't the fuel that gave way to quick fires once the Sherman was penetrated.  It was the ammo stowage in the sponsons of the 75mm gun tanks.  (That's why you see later armor patches on some Sherman vertical hulls). 

As a corrective, later modifications brought on "wet" stowage -- glycol filled ammo lockers which protected against hot shrapnel -- which appeared with the 76mm armed Shermans (which also re-located all the ammo to below the sponson line).    Later 75mm M4A3s got the glycol lockers too (cf. Tamiya M4A3 kit -- the armor patches are incorrect for that kit).  75mm M4A2s had the dry stowage but may have had the glycol locker upgrades during its production run too.

T_Terrific wrote:

I feel this was fairly well shown in the Henry Fonda movie "The Balle of the Bulge". Yes, Iknow the tahnks in the movie are M-48's and Chaffee's, not Tigers and Shermans, but I really like Teli Savalis' performance of "Sergeant Guffy". I got the DVD and I am gonna watch it again this weekend!   Tom T

Agreed, he was fantastic in that movie!  I love how they were still running around in their Chaffee with the Turret all blown to shreds.  Great flick, I picked it up on DVD a couple weeks ago, think I'll watch it this weekend. 

espins1 wrote:

Also, back to the original post, I know what you mean about the size comparison.  I have an M4A3 on a shelf with a Jagdpanther on one side and a King Tiger on the other.  The Sherman seems like a little pip squeek in comparison.  Up until I built those I didn't realize how small the Sherman was in comparison.  I really respect our American tankers that had to face those monsters.

In another book in my library, "Against the Panzers" which basically documents the problems the American army generrally had with the German armored divisions, it tells of a pair of Panthers literally sitting at a crossroads casually taking out every Sheman that showed up. Their main problem, unlike ours in Korea,  was resupply of ammo and fuel.

As a point of interest, the Panther was diesel powered, while the Shermans were gasoline engine driven, earning them the unofficial name of "Ronson's" with the Brits and Zippo's with the GI's-not a good sounding thing.

I feel this was fairly well shown in the Henry Fonda movie "The Balle of the Bulge". Yes, Iknow the tahnks in the movie are M-48's and Chaffee's, not Tigers and Shermans, but I really like Teli Savalis' performance of "Sergeant Guffy". I got the DVD and I am gonna watch it again this weekend!

  Tom T

FYI: the gyro stabilized gun was already in use in the M4 Sherman (albeit crews often didn't use it).  While the Cologne footage of the Panther being brewed up is very startling (I dunno how "inspired" I get seeing five men killed in a vicious way -- it happened, it was typical but I don't know if I'd ever use the word "inspired"), it's not informative on a larger scale about larger effectiveness of weapons systems.  If there existed clear footage of the first Tigers being killed by Churchills (6 pdr armament) of the North Irish Horse regiment, would that somehow indicate how inferior the Tiger was?

Anyways, I'm pretty sure that this thread has crossed the "which tank is better" line many times already. LOL

I'll make one final point: regardless of the size differential of a Sherman and a Panther, if you stand next to an M4, you'll still feel pretty small and weak.  I agree that tankers felt safe/unsafe in various tanks but regardless, "tank terror" by infantrymen isn't hard to imagine.

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've seen that footage, and the still photographs of that encounter.  Breathtaking is what it is.  I have been realy inspired by that encounter and have the Tamiya M-26 in my stash.  I plan on making a diorama one of these days to try to capture the essence of that encounter. 

Also, back to the original post, I know what you mean about the size comparison.  I have an M4A3 on a shelf with a Jagdpanther on one side and a King Tiger on the other.  The Sherman seems like a little pip squeek in comparison.  Up until I built those I didn't realize how small the Sherman was in comparison.  I really respect our American tankers that had to face those monsters.

I watch that channel all the time. I hope to get to see it.  This turned out to be a much better thread than I imagened at the start.  No more anger!

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.

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

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?

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

I would like very much to see that footage. Do you know the name of the program? TY

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.)

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

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.

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.