Jump to content


Panther vs Sherman: The Real Story


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
397 replies to this topic

Zinegata #1 Posted Aug 01 2012 - 09:48

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 9922 battles
  • 5,425
  • Member since:
    07-27-2010
http://books.google....zUC&redir_esc=y

A fun little book I dug up while searching for the mythical source of the "It takes 5 Shermans to kill a Panther rumor", which is increasingly looking to be a total myth.

Money quote from Zaloga (who has weird opinions but awesome research), who did a painstaking study of actual Sherman and Panther losses during the Bulge:

Quote

At the end of two weeks of fighting, the Panther regiments in the Ardennes were shattered, losing about 180 tanks or 43 percent of the starting force of about 415 Panthers. Of the remaining 235 Panthers, only 45 percent were operational, and the remaining 55 percent were dead-line with mechanical problems or battle damage. In the case of the US First Army, which bore the brunt of the Ardennes fighting, by the end of December in had lost about 320 Sherman tanks of which about 90 were M4A1/A3 (76mm), equivalent to about one-quarter of its average daily strength that month. Due to continual reinforcements, First Army had about 1,085 Shermans on hand at the end of December 1944 with about 980 operational and only 9 percent deadline with mechanical problems or battle damage.

Some key facts:

- In order to meet the mythical Panther kill ratio, the Panthers needed to have killed 900 Shermans because they lost 180 Panthers. The First Army only lost 320 Shermans total.

- This isn't even a 2:1 kill ratio in favor of the Germans because so far we've only counted the Panther losses - and the Germans lost many more other tanks like the MK IV, Tiger, etc (their total losses were around 600 tanks and SPGs). Not to mention that most US tank losses were not even necessarily Panther kills - the majority were lost to ATGs and panzerfaust kills.

- If we take "unserviceable" tanks into account, the "kill rate" is even more catastrophic. A total of nearly 310 Panthers would have been out of action, compared to 425 Shermans out of action! That's not even 1.5:1, which is the weight ratio of the Panther vs the Sherman.

- Finally, the average daily strength of the First Army was about 1,200 tanks fighting 400 Panthers. That's a 3:1 ratio in favor of the Shermans and well below the stupid idea that "it takes five Shermans to kill a Panther", much less the even more stupid notion that the Allies "lost five Shermans for every Panther".

Edited by Zinegata, Aug 01 2012 - 09:51.


slapdown #2 Posted Aug 01 2012 - 09:53

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 21136 battles
  • 409
  • Member since:
    02-15-2011
You're assuming that the saying "It takes 5 Shermans to kill a Panther" means that all the Shermans have to be destroyed. My guess on this is that this saying is a generalization taken out of context.

Timbrelaine #3 Posted Aug 01 2012 - 09:53

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 1667 battles
  • 288
  • Member since:
    04-05-2011
You might be interested in the Chieftain's article here.

Particularly:

"There is a common belief that the allies needed a 5-to-1 advantage to fight the Panzers. If this had been true the allies would have been thrown back into the sea, as there was no time during the campaign when they had so great of an overall advantage, and the restrictions of the terrain made it very difficult for them to use their superior mobility to concentrate forces at that level on individual battlefields. But fortunately this old saw is nothing but a myth.  The British Army Operations Research surveyed the tank battles of Normandy and came to some interesting conclusions on this issue.  Their Memorandum C6 (W/O 291/1218) examined all of the tank engagements from D-Day to 12 August, 1944, and observed that, in a tank vs. tank engagement, the allies always achieved victory when they held a 2.2-to-1 numerical advantage or better.

But that did not mean less than a 2.2-to-1 ratio resulted in a loss. The Germans, despite being on the defensive and having heavier tanks, needed a 1.5-to-1 numerical advantage to ensure their own success. In between those ranges it was a mixed bag dependant on many tactical considerations."

Zinegata #4 Posted Aug 01 2012 - 09:56

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 9922 battles
  • 5,425
  • Member since:
    07-27-2010

View PostTimbrelaine, on Aug 01 2012 - 09:53, said:

You might be interested in the Chieftain's article here.

Particularly:

"There is a common belief that the allies needed a 5-to-1 advantage to fight the Panzers. If this had been true the allies would have been thrown back into the sea, as there was no time during the campaign when they had so great of an overall advantage, and the restrictions of the terrain made it very difficult for them to use their superior mobility to concentrate forces at that level on individual battlefields. But fortunately this old saw is nothing but a myth.  The British Army Operations Research surveyed the tank battles of Normandy and came to some interesting conclusions on this issue.  Their Memorandum C6 (W/O 291/1218) examined all of the tank engagements from D-Day to 12 August, 1944, and observed that, in a tank vs. tank engagement, the allies always achieved victory when they held a 2.2-to-1 numerical advantage or better.

But that did not mean less than a 2.2-to-1 ratio resulted in a loss. The Germans, despite being on the defensive and having heavier tanks, needed a 1.5-to-1 numerical advantage to ensure their own success. In between those ranges it was a mixed bag dependant on many tactical considerations."

Yeah, the Chieftain's article was nice, but I decided to post this one as it covered a different big battle - the Bulge.

And if anything, the ratio for the Allies was actually getting better.

Zinegata #5 Posted Aug 01 2012 - 09:57

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 9922 battles
  • 5,425
  • Member since:
    07-27-2010

View Postslapdown, on Aug 01 2012 - 09:53, said:

You're assuming that the saying "It takes 5 Shermans to kill a Panther" means that all the Shermans have to be destroyed. My guess on this is that this saying is a generalization taken out of context.

I've seen the articles that claim this - and they specifically say that five Shermans are destroyed. Yet they don't cite sources except for some unspecified "US Army Ground Force Statistics".

lieutenant_pickles #6 Posted Aug 01 2012 - 10:25

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 7216 battles
  • 244
  • Member since:
    04-28-2011
When they say "it takes 5 shermans to kill a panther" they are referring to a base model M4 Sherman without a 17 pounder gun modification or added welded armour. A panther mounting the 75mm/L70 with 80mm of sloped armour will generally defeat 4-5 shermans if engaged in a favourable distance (800m+) which is outside the Sherman's operational gun range. The Shermans used during the battle of the bulge offensive were modified to fit bigger guns and more plate armour that was welded on by the crew in order to increase protection. You are also forgetting the fact that German vehicles were plagued with mechanical problems due to a shortage in spare parts, over-engineering parts, poor part quality due to scarce resources and lack of field equipment to repair the tanks.

Zinegata #7 Posted Aug 01 2012 - 10:36

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 9922 battles
  • 5,425
  • Member since:
    07-27-2010

View Postlieutenant_pickles, on Aug 01 2012 - 10:25, said:

When they say "it takes 5 shermans to kill a panther" they are referring to a base model M4 Sherman without a 17 pounder gun

As already quoted by Zaloga, none of the US Shermans have the 17 pounder gun and only very few had the 76mm gun; making your attempt to save this lie completely pointless and incorrect.

The 5:1 Panther kill quote is again, a complete fabrication without ANY supporting sources ever. It never happened with any kind of Sherman.

Edited by Zinegata, Aug 01 2012 - 10:37.


blurr91 #8 Posted Aug 01 2012 - 20:25

    Major

  • Players
  • 17475 battles
  • 2,555
  • Member since:
    05-21-2011

View Postlieutenant_pickles, on Aug 01 2012 - 10:25, said:

When they say "it takes 5 shermans to kill a panther" they are referring to a base model M4 Sherman without a 17 pounder gun modification or added welded armour. A panther mounting the 75mm/L70 with 80mm of sloped armour will generally defeat 4-5 shermans if engaged in a favourable distance (800m+) which is outside the Sherman's operational gun range. The Shermans used during the battle of the bulge offensive were modified to fit bigger guns and more plate armour that was welded on by the crew in order to increase protection.

Now you're addind more and more conditions to achieve that 5-1 kill ratio.  Shermans had to be stock, armed with 75mm gun, engaging a Panther from long distance, and so on.  Real combat isn't like that.  The enemy will try his very best to negate your advantage.  He will use the terrain, mobility, add-on armor, adverse weather, to figure out a way to achieve victory at the lowest cost possible.  Panther is great in a 1v1 long range gun duel in daylight on flat terrain where no one is moving.  But who fights like that?  Germans built a super tank for unrealistic conditions.

View Postlieutenant_pickles, on Aug 01 2012 - 10:25, said:

You are also forgetting the fact that German vehicles were plagued with mechanical problems due to a shortage in spare parts, over-engineering parts, poor part quality due to scarce resources and lack of field equipment to repair the tanks.

No he didn't.  He's been saying Panthers and Tigers were over-weight, over-complex, over-engineered, mechanically fragile, pieces of garbage since the beginning.  They were great if they worked.  The problem was they rarely worked.

Action_Hero_John_Cusak #9 Posted Aug 02 2012 - 04:29

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 34277 battles
  • 518
  • [-IN-] -IN-
  • Member since:
    03-06-2012
This probably comes from experience shooting at Panthers, and is less a quantitative statement than a qualitative statement - a feeling held by the crews that in closing  on a german tank, you had better concentrate fire because your sherman tank will be one shotted and they will take hit after hit until you flank them. 5 is a generally high number. It's also a good meme to scare new tank gunners/commanders so that they don't go all Leeroy Jenkins on german lines. It's not a fact, it is a suggestion. In that way it is more true than such a bland statement as "if the germans have 1.5 for every 1 allied tank they are garaunteed victory." I doubt the germans ever held a 1.5 to 1 numerical advantage except in very limited circumstances.

So a sherman encounters a panther on the defensive which just shot at them from 1500 meteres and missed. The Sherman guy goes, "it takes 5 to 1 to take these guys out. Let's back out of line of site and call for backup." Or he says, I'm in a xxxxxx tank, and this war, Charge!!! And 3 shermans are dead because they attacked someone with the advantage of armament, initiative, position, and etc. Get it yet, you nerds?

Profanity. Warning issued.
~SgtGrunt

Edited by SgtGrunt, Nov 06 2012 - 04:08.


Zinegata #10 Posted Aug 02 2012 - 06:02

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 9922 battles
  • 5,425
  • Member since:
    07-27-2010
Actually, if you read Zaloga's full book he notes it most US and German tank kills were accomplished at almost the same ranges too. There were very few German tank kills at over 1,000 meters, much less 1,500.

HostileTankCommander #11 Posted Aug 03 2012 - 19:53

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 1340 battles
  • 13
  • Member since:
    05-02-2012
*sigh*, it's more like 3-1 for GB idea....... 5-1 if you use the U.S. spam in a can idea


BRITISH PLAN-Normandy

Because the Firefly was so "NEW" it wasn't in big numbers, so they decided....hey let's have two regular MK. whatevers and a Mk.Vc Firefly combination and see how it goes...well it worked tremendously well...well except the other shermans got wrecked.

What would happen is the 2 regular shermans would pincer the Tiger or Panther and then the Firefly would snipe the engine after it got into position

and it was effective because the Tiger couldn't be built fast enough and with enough numbers.....

Lezt #12 Posted Aug 04 2012 - 17:25

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 9706 battles
  • 424
  • [WWIII] WWIII
  • Member since:
    01-19-2011

View PostZinegata, on Aug 01 2012 - 09:48, said:

http://books.google....zUC&redir_esc=y

A fun little book I dug up while searching for the mythical source of the "It takes 5 Shermans to kill a Panther rumor", which is increasingly looking to be a total myth.

Money quote from Zaloga (who has weird opinions but awesome research), who did a painstaking study of actual Sherman and Panther losses during the Bulge:



Some key facts:

- In order to meet the mythical Panther kill ratio, the Panthers needed to have killed 900 Shermans because they lost 180 Panthers. The First Army only lost 320 Shermans total.

- This isn't even a 2:1 kill ratio in favor of the Germans because so far we've only counted the Panther losses - and the Germans lost many more other tanks like the MK IV, Tiger, etc (their total losses were around 600 tanks and SPGs). Not to mention that most US tank losses were not even necessarily Panther kills - the majority were lost to ATGs and panzerfaust kills.

- If we take "unserviceable" tanks into account, the "kill rate" is even more catastrophic. A total of nearly 310 Panthers would have been out of action, compared to 425 Shermans out of action! That's not even 1.5:1, which is the weight ratio of the Panther vs the Sherman.

- Finally, the average daily strength of the First Army was about 1,200 tanks fighting 400 Panthers. That's a 3:1 ratio in favor of the Shermans and well below the stupid idea that "it takes five Shermans to kill a Panther", much less the even more stupid notion that the Allies "lost five Shermans for every Panther".

LOL,

How does tank lost ratio translate to tank to tank kill ratio?

an example to illustrate:

lets say 5 panther were lost to shermans, 15 to fuel and 20 to mechanical failure; 20 sherman was lost to panthers, 10 to panzerfausts, 20 to Tigers

The loss ratio will be 40 panthers to 50 shermans

The Panther/Sherman kill ratio will be 5:20

you can claim that the majority of the losses sherman had were to panzerfasts or stugs. Why don't you consider the majority of panther losses to bazookas and P47s?

How does total tank strength translate to an engaged tank strength ratio? Simply that having panthers at a lower ready rate than sherman will skew the ratio in favor of the panther in the engaged ratio.

Why are you using an average number of tanks in the US 1st army vs a total number of panthers that the germans had at the begining of the campaign? Basically the average number of panthers available was 100~ as Zagola said what around 40% were lost and 50% of the the remaining were not operational? you are throwing ~1300 shermans against ~100 panthers?  And that average rate includes replacements for the shermans.

So in short, you are only reading the statistics as you want to see them,

The_Chieftain #13 Posted Aug 04 2012 - 18:18

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 19516 battles
  • 10,015
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011
The other question is whether or not that 5:! ratio is on a per-engagement basis, the answer to which I don't actually have. Although the 21st Army Group may have counted 220 tanks and 22000 infantry vs 100 German tanks and 10000 infantry and come up with a win every time, that doesn't mean to say that they may not have been able to create a local superiority of 5:1 when a specific group of British tanks met a single Panther (assuming all German tanks were Panthers, of course). There's a similar issue over on the Russian front: The Russians never had a 13:1 numerical superiority over the Germans on the Eastern Front, but they were very good at concentrating their forces to make a huge local superiority so that some poor German found himself facing 13 opponents.

So from the operational/war-winning perspective, absolutely, 5:1 was complete nonsense. 2:1 was quite acceptable. That may not have been, however, much consolation to the 2 sherman tank crews meeting the Panther when they took a left turn at Alb Uqu'erque who would much rather have had a full troop of five tanks dealing with the one Panther they could see, while the Panther's friend was on the other side of the village and unable to interfere.

And, of course, you also have the effects stated by Lezt of the other warfighting functions. You just can't take the data in a vacuum, a point that Zaloga actually makes in the Operation Think Tank videos.

Zinegata #14 Posted Aug 06 2012 - 05:25

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 9922 battles
  • 5,425
  • Member since:
    07-27-2010

View PostLezt, on Aug 04 2012 - 17:25, said:

How does tank lost ratio translate to tank to tank kill ratio?

It doesn't, but it doesn't actually matter.

Because if a Panthers wins one engagement in and kill three Allied Shermans, but four Panthers broke down on the way to the Allied battlfield, that's a win for the Allied forces. The US lost 3 Shermans in battle, but the Germans lost 4 due to breakdowns. In total the Germans actually lost more tanks.

Therefore any honest comparison of "kill ratio" never looks at a single skirmish. It looks at the total operational losses; which Zaloga did.

But let's be honest here Letz. You'd whine every time somebody says something bad about the Panther and accuse them of being a "Sherman" fanboy or a "T-34" fanboy. Actually learning the truth is not your concern.

Quote

So from the operational/war-winning perspective, absolutely, 5:1 was complete nonsense. 2:1 was quite acceptable. That may not have been, however, much consolation to the 2 sherman tank crews meeting the Panther when they took a left turn at Alb Uqu'erque who would much rather have had a full troop of five tanks dealing with the one Panther they could see, while the Panther's friend was on the other side of the village and unable to interfere.

The main point though, is to dispel the myth of the 5:1 kill ratio. The Panther never achieved this overall. There will be exceptions (i.e. Wittman killing 7 tanks at Villers Bocage), but extrapolating these extreme cases as the norm is not in any way an accurate reflection of the Panther's performance. It'd be as silly as claiming the T-34 had a 3:1 kill ratio because of what Oskin did against Tigers.

The reality, as Zaloga showed in the Bulge, is this: For every Panther lost (due to all causes), the Allied would lose about 1.5-2 Shermans (from all causes). That is totally NOT 5:1 as bandied about in some sources (i.e. Achtung Panzer! website) and that's not even a good exchange ratio in terms of resources spent (The Panther is a 45 ton tank, the Sherman is 30 tons).

It was a loser's tank for the kind of war World War 2 actually was - more expensive but not actually delivering an improved kill ratio to justify the resources spent. The Germans were better off spending their resources elsewhere (especially in tube artillery)

Edited by Zinegata, Aug 06 2012 - 05:51.


Lezt #15 Posted Aug 06 2012 - 11:13

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 9706 battles
  • 424
  • [WWIII] WWIII
  • Member since:
    01-19-2011

View PostZinegata, on Aug 06 2012 - 05:25, said:

It doesn't, but it doesn't actually matter.

Because if a Panthers wins one engagement in and kill three Allied Shermans, but four Panthers broke down on the way to the Allied battlfield, that's a win for the Allied forces. The US lost 3 Shermans in battle, but the Germans lost 4 due to breakdowns. In total the Germans actually lost more tanks.

This is not the point you originally had, you said:

Quote

A fun little book I dug up while searching for the mythical source of the "It takes 5 Shermans to kill a Panther rumor", which is increasingly looking to be a total myth.
So in your example, it might still have lost 3 shermans to kill that one panther that didn't break down, the ratio is still in favor of the panther even if more broke down.

View PostZinegata, on Aug 06 2012 - 05:25, said:

Therefore any honest comparison of "kill ratio" never looks at a single skirmish. It looks at the total operational losses; which Zaloga did.

But let's be honest here Letz. You'd whine every time somebody says something bad about the Panther and accuse them of being a "Sherman" fanboy or a "T-34" fanboy. Actually learning the truth is not your concern.
Did I accuse anyone of being any fanboy? quote me? I can quote you calling people panther or tiger fanboy.

My favorite tank of the war is actually a T34. My only issue with you is that you seem to only think that anything made in the USA is good. The panther had flaws, tank to tank, I am sorry, it is just a better tank. Had the USA built panthers and the Germans built shermans, The outcome of the war will still be the same only that the Germans will likely lose it faster.

What you continue to fail to realize is the difference between the flaws of a design Vs. the issue of manufacturing and the circumstance of war.

View PostZinegata, on Aug 06 2012 - 05:25, said:

The main point though, is to dispel the myth of the 5:1 kill ratio. The Panther never achieved this overall. There will be exceptions (i.e. Wittman killing 7 tanks at Villers Bocage), but extrapolating these extreme cases as the norm is not in any way an accurate reflection of the Panther's performance. It'd be as silly as claiming the T-34 had a 3:1 kill ratio because of what Oskin did against Tigers.

This is what you said in the first post:

Quote

A fun little book I dug up while searching for the mythical source of the "It takes 5 Shermans to kill a Panther rumor", which is increasingly looking to be a total myth.

it was not a 5:1 kill ratio that you were originally talking about; you talked about how many shermans is needed to kill a panther. And no, we should not base our understanding on anecdotal evidence such as German tank aces or Arracourt.

Honestly, if you say that it takes 3 panthers to take on a sherman in a defensive position as the Wehrmacht was defending, I would not disagree. From Sun Tzu to Napoleon; Strategists have always gone for a 3:1 advantage for an attack to succeed.

View PostZinegata, on Aug 06 2012 - 05:25, said:

The reality, as Zaloga showed in the Bulge, is this: For every Panther lost (due to all causes), the Allied would lose about 1.5-2 Shermans (from all causes). That is totally NOT 5:1 as bandied about in some sources (i.e. Achtung Panzer! website) and that's not even a good exchange ratio in terms of resources spent (The Panther is a 45 ton tank, the Sherman is 30 tons).

It was a loser's tank for the kind of war World War 2 actually was - more expensive but not actually delivering an improved kill ratio to justify the resources spent. The Germans were better off spending their resources elsewhere (especially in tube artillery)

We already have shown that the panther cost around the same price as a Sherman tank to make. but why are you so stuck on the loss ratio? the victor who takes the field always have a lower total loss rate as they can recover tanks. The russians lost a shyt load of T34 during Barbarossa and I am sure most people agree that a T34 is a better tank than a Pz III. The fact remains that more German tankers survived to fight another day because of the better armor that the Panther had. That because they abandoned their vehicles as Russians had done to their better armored KV1 and T34 during Barbarossa  due to lack of fuel or spare part is a testament to the fact that the vehicle was survivable to the threat it faced. The same cannot be said had the Germans been fielding tanks which can be easily destroyed by the allies.

This is coupled to the fact that Germany did not have enough trained men to man all of those extra tanks; even if they have more tanks.

Zinegata #16 Posted Aug 07 2012 - 04:06

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 9922 battles
  • 5,425
  • Member since:
    07-27-2010

View PostLezt, on Aug 06 2012 - 11:13, said:

This is not the point you originally had

No, my point is that the 5:1 kill ratio was a myth. Which has been dispelled.

You try to make excuses for the Panther by going "That's not tank vs tank losses!" but that only shows why your opinion is pointless. The only honest way to judge loss ratios is by counting total losses, because tank vs tank combat was so rare that it is almost a statistical blip!

So again, what's a more complete picture:

Panther kills three Shermans, yay Panther!

Or Panther killed three Shermans, but four other Panthers broke down on the way to the battlefield. Hence, four Panthers lost for three Shermans, yay Sherman!

The latter is the more complete picture. That you keep failing to understand this exceedingly simple method of evaluation boils down to your constant refusal to acknowledge any fact that may detract from your precious Panther. You lack objectivity.

Lezt #17 Posted Aug 07 2012 - 06:03

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 9706 battles
  • 424
  • [WWIII] WWIII
  • Member since:
    01-19-2011

View PostZinegata, on Aug 07 2012 - 04:06, said:

No, my point is that the 5:1 kill ratio was a myth. Which has been dispelled.

You try to make excuses for the Panther by going "That's not tank vs tank losses!" but that only shows why your opinion is pointless. The only honest way to judge loss ratios is by counting total losses, because tank vs tank combat was so rare that it is almost a statistical blip!

So again, what's a more complete picture:

Panther kills three Shermans, yay Panther!

Or Panther killed three Shermans, but four other Panthers broke down on the way to the battlefield. Hence, four Panthers lost for three Shermans, yay Sherman!

The latter is the more complete picture. That you keep failing to understand this exceedingly simple method of evaluation boils down to your constant refusal to acknowledge any fact that may detract from your precious Panther. You lack objectivity.

Who lacks objectivity?

Lets spin it into another perspective with your example;

Panther kill 3 sherman, lets say both crews are all casualty KIA or WIA; that is 5 Germans for 15 Americans

or panther kill 3 sherman; 4 panther break down, you sill have 5 German casualties and 15 American casualties.

A tank for all argument sake is easier to replace than well trained men. Testament to the Merkerva's design principle.

Zinegata #18 Posted Aug 07 2012 - 14:52

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 9922 battles
  • 5,425
  • Member since:
    07-27-2010

View PostLezt, on Aug 07 2012 - 06:03, said:

Who lacks objectivity?


You do, because you're still playing pointless games.

Rather than accept that loss ratios must accounts for losses of all causes, you play further games revolving around "But you lose 2 more Sherman crews!" Ignoring the fact that - again - the vast majority of tank losses are not due to tank vs tank combat. More Shermans were lost due to Panzerfausts/schrecks than to tanks.

Tanks are what we're talking about, not their crew losses. A Sherman crew killed by a Panzerfaust is just as dead as one killed by a Panther.

This is an extremely easy concept to comprehend. That you continually fail to understand this only reflects your blatant biases. You do not want the truth, you just want to wank over Panthers successes and ignore their shortfalls.

Edited by Zinegata, Aug 07 2012 - 15:06.


The_Chieftain #19 Posted Aug 07 2012 - 16:24

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 19516 battles
  • 10,015
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011
I think you're all mixing up your arguments.

"5:1" can be taken two ways. It can be taken as "when tanks of the opposing sides met, it would on average take five M4s/Shermans to kill one Panther", or it can be taken that "A force which was big enough to happen to have five Shermans when it met a force of the German army which happened to be of a size only to warrant one Panther was required to defeat the latter"

Now, rare though the event may have been statistically, there is no doubt that on occasion, a force of M4s did meet a force of Panthers. It is my belief that when the 5:1 claim is made, it is usually in a discussion of the relative merits of the tanks, not the supporting comined arms. In such a case, the 5:1 ratio may be correctly applied. And, frankly, I'm inclined to believe it is true if the Panther is not taken by surprise or crewed by substandard crews (eg Bulge), though I confess to never having gone specifically looking for supporting evidence.

The bottom line, though, is that though the 5:1 tank on tank ratio may be true, in the large scheme of things, it didn't matter, as entire armies and corps were clashing, the tank v tank issues were just a statistical blip. As a result, the 5:1 claim is being misapplied, I believe greater specificity is required when the claim is made. So, Zinegata, you are correct that in the big picture, the 5:1 ratio is not to be relied upon, but I think you just demolished an argument that wasn't being made in the first place.

codextero #20 Posted Aug 07 2012 - 17:05

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 28595 battles
  • 245
  • Member since:
    11-04-2011

View PostLezt, on Aug 07 2012 - 06:03, said:

Who lacks objectivity?

Lets spin it into another perspective with your example;

Panther kill 3 sherman, lets say both crews are all casualty KIA or WIA; that is 5 Germans for 15 Americans

or panther kill 3 sherman; 4 panther break down, you sill have 5 German casualties and 15 American casualties.

A tank for all argument sake is easier to replace than well trained men. Testament to the Merkerva's design principle.

except the casualty rates for Sherman crews was quite low, 1.16 casualties per tank quoting the report from Chieftain's "us guns, German armor part 1" article. moreover, at that point, the US was on the strategic offensive, knocked out tanks that were not write-offs could be recovered and repaired (something that could be done quite easily with the Sherman IIRC, as bogie suspension may not require a factory overhaul to repair, something that could not be said of torsion bars) , a comfort the Germans rarely had, if a vehicle could not be recovered quickly, it was destroyed by the crew so advancing allied forces could not make use of it.

A question for the chieftain, do you know what ratio the effect of trained crew to available equipment had on the effectiveness of the armies? were there lots of Sherman crews waiting for a new tank after their old one was knocked out? panther crewmen doing the same? you said the panthers in the Ardennes were poorly trained? is that because experienced crewmen had been captured, or because the panther had a bad crew survival rate? or was Germany churning out more tanks than they had the facilities to train crew.

Edited by Awesomecopter, Aug 07 2012 - 17:10.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users