"The Tiger Tank That Wouldn't Die"

[eightmillimeter]

Total fatal combat losses for the armored corps in ww2 was like 2%.

By any actual measurable standard Sherman usually ranks very high.

Tigers were tough sure, but Sherman’s were killing them even before the 76 and firefly existed.

[crusader377]

As a historian myself, I can tell you that just like engineers, too often we get hung up on the paper specs and theoretical capabilities without the Paul Harvey "REEEEEEEST Of The Story" on operational conditions that would cause under-, or on rare occasions OVER-, performance. (Like how the recently passed Ross Shulmister used to take F-106's like 5000 feet over "design" ceiling and because the engine became so much more efficient at that altitude get an extra hour's flight time.)

If memory serves, MiG-15 is evolved from Kurt Tank's unflown Focke-Wulf Ta183 "Whizzer" prototype; Sabre is a blend of Whizzer with the Navy's FJ-1 Fury carrier jet that NAA was already building. (Later-model Furies from FJ-2 on were basically navalized Sabres, having almost nothing in common with the older "Dash Ones" other than a name. Shades of Super Hornet there?)

I don't think it is a fault with historians so much as simply not knowing better because I think it is very difficult understanding the complexities and chaotic nature of war without having some experience.

I'm going back to the Panther as my example. Let's say I'm a German Brigade Commander on the Eastern Front in 1944. I have a Panther Battalion with 50 tanks along with 2 panzergrendier battalions (motorized infantry) and an artillery battalion. My Brigade is serving as a fire brigade and has orders to counterattack against a Russian breakthrough 100km north of my current location. So immediately, I have a few additional problems that my counterpart in an American or British outfit with Shermans doesn't have to worry about.

First what is my actual readiness of the 50 tanks. Is it 40%? 50%? so I'm now have 20 or 25 available tanks. So I'm conducting an attack with a greatly reduced element size. In contrast, a Sherman battalion commander can reliably count on 90-95% plus of his vehicles ready to go on any given day unless engaged in heavy combat.

Second a 100KM road march, a Panther's final drive is good for 150km so I'm going to lose 5 or 10 tanks on the Road March? My Allied counterpart with Shermans doesn't have that issue.

So now the mission that Division or Corps was expecting a full Panther Battalion of 50 tanks might only have 15 that actually show up to the fight. So now that Division or Corps commander is asking himself do I need to commit a other assets in order for the counter attack to be successful? Do I have those assets available? Can they get their in time?

War is very chaotic and good commanders are flexible but at the same time want to control as many of the many variables that they can.

Panther, altough a very good tank when it worked, simply introduced alot of added problems in the decision making process that a Sherman would not have.

[Diamondback]

An excellent example, also illustrating that hoary old Clancy-ism about "amateurs study strategy, but professionals study logistics."

The other thing that doesn't help is, by the time we enter the game there are usually none of a system left operational, few to none left alive who knew how to operate them, and cost-prohibitive to build or restore to fully operational for practical experiments. For example, they didn't exactly have hard numbers to quantify maneuverability in sailing warships of the Napoleonic era (not much better now, really) and frequently didn't record speed performance, which is a challenge trying to make sure they stack up against each other in the game my client publishes as they would have in reality. (There is literally only one ship of the line of any size left anywhere in the world, and HMS Victory is so structurally compromised she's been drydocked for a hundred years and is literally impossible to make seaworthy again--and there isn't enough acreage of English Oak left in Britain to build another.)

[crusader377]

An excellent example, also illustrating that hoary old Clancy-ism about "amateurs study strategy, but professionals study logistics."

The other thing that doesn't help is, by the time we enter the game there are usually none of a system left operational, few to none left alive who knew how to operate them, and cost-prohibitive to build or restore to fully operational for practical experiments. For example, they didn't exactly have hard numbers to quantify maneuverability in sailing warships of the Napoleonic era (not much better now, really) and frequently didn't record speed performance, which is a challenge trying to make sure they stack up against each other in the game my client publishes as they would have in reality. (There is literally only one ship of the line of any size left anywhere in the world, and HMS Victory is so structurally compromised she's been drydocked for a hundred years and is literally impossible to make seaworthy again--and there isn't enough acreage of English Oak left in Britain to build another.)

Very true indeed. Even with WW2 which there are many good records of, there are alot of myths and beliefs that simply aren't true. The further you go back in history the harder it is to put together information.

With your Napoleonic sailing warships as you mentioned, you will never know everything because like you said only HMS Victory remains and furthmore when it was Nelson's flagship at Trafalger in 1805, it was manned by an experienced crew, many sailors having spent 10-15 years at sea. We have to assume that they got very good at their job and their is absolutely no way to recreate that and how it sailed. Plus Nelson had the wind advantage but we don't know the exact weather conditions in 1805 off the coase of Spain.

[chadbag]

One side note to the Panther reliability. Later models were much better, and some sources say by mid 44 that availability was 78%. Probably lots of conflicting evidence and analyses. While a lot of the problems were fixed over time, the final drive was never overcome as a problem, though there were mitigations put in late that made things better. Also, interesting to note that the final drive as manufactured in the Panther was not what the designer had put in the original design, but due to lack of suitable machines for manufacture of gears and the like they had to substitute with a drive more suitable for mass production.

[soulezoo]

Actually, final drive (really the Panther's Achilles heel) was solved Oct 44. However, even as you allude, machinery, metals, skilled labor and etc., all conspire to undermine the game here. Hell, they couldn't even get reliably made face hardened steel by that point. Being bombed to hell and back will do that. Americans didn't have that problem. Reliable and experienced tank crews were an issue. (Like pilots for Luftwaffe at that point) The war didn't happen in a vacuum and us Monday morning QBs forget the details.

On the M4E8 quote earlier, the existing battalion commanders of the time would highly disagree. Fact is, the "Easy Eight" was best at tank vs tank engagements but took a back seat for everything else a tank was asked to do. Tank vs tank engagements were fairly rare and only a Tiger or front facing Panther provided a problem for the standard Sherman. A Panther from side or rear ( or turret) was penetrable at range with the standard 75 with AP. The Tiger was figured out by the Soviets at Kursk. The commander's cupola was especially vulnerable and could be penetrated by their big anti tank rifles.

Maintenance... German tanks required a lot of maintenance but that was accounted for in the doctrine. But when you don't have replacement parts and your mechanics were given a rifle and sent to the line, well?? Some of the criticisms are legit and real. Replace a road wheel? Interleaved wheels made that a chore... nightmare really, (but provided less ground pressure and coupled with torsion bar suspension, a better ride). Transmission replacement... fuggiaboutit. Fuel system on the Tiger? Terrible.

However, what if I told you that in the time it took a Sherman to change a transmission, the Panther could replace a whole engine? In the time it took a Panther to change a transmission, the Sherman could replace an engine. How many of you have understood that fact?

The Sherman went through a lot of growing pains and through an extensive evolution of earlier tanks (over a few years) to arrive at the product sent to Europe. Panther had not that luxury. I am not a German tank shill.... but I do feel a need to keep it real when I see some unwarranted criticisms or myths thrown around. You want a comparison, how about a 1941 T-34 or KS-1 vs anything the Germans had.

[Averageman]

Uhh you realize the hull machinegun was virtually useless on pretty much every tank that had one. So much so that by llmid 1944 US tank units in Europe largely didn’t man the position because the bodies were needed elsewhere and replacements weren’t showing up fast enough to waste a 5th man in the tank.

Point to a single MBT utilized today with hull MG mount. Hint: there are none.

Absolutely;
Without a turret mounted and a coax machine gun, it get's really dicey in MOUT.

[Diamondback]

Absolutely;
Without a turret mounted and a coax machine gun, it get's really dicey in MOUT.

This. Tech didn't exist in WWII, but if I was designing an Abrams refit for MOUT, I'd start by slapping a CROWS onto the turret bustle, maybe a full "secondary turret" like Brawl in Transformers. Probably start with CROWS retrofit; quicker, COTS and less re-engineering. Why build a cannon if all you need is a flyswatter?

[Coal Dragger]

Absolutely;
Without a turret mounted and a coax machine gun, it get's really dicey in MOUT.

The Panther had a co-ax MG34, and a turret hatch mounted MG as well.