Shermans vs Panthers/Tigers

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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