German view of the Sherman tank

[Uncle Joe]

How did German tank experts view the Sherman? Jentz´s Panzertruppen has German reports on the T-34, but e.g. his Panzertracts book on captured tanks has no comparable reports on the Sherman. So, anyone with such reports?

[Carl W Schwamberger]

I've never heard or read of any. Have seen parts of British and Soviet documents on the subject, but nothing from the Germans or Italians. They captured the very first examples in late 1942, so they must have compared favorablly with the standard MkIII & MkIV models current with the Germans then. Of course the Panther prototypes were available for comparison then.

[Reb]

In "sledgehammers" ( a book about Tigers as a weapons system) the author says the Germans in the Tiger units in Italy loved the captured Shermans they'd converted to recovery vehicles because they were so reliable. It's anecdotal of course.

I did see a documentary where Carius and a British tank soldier compared the Sherman to Tiger and both agreed that the Tiger was a big, clumsy, mechanically unreliable hunk of junk compared to Sherman. However... when asked which tank they'd prefer to fight in both said immediately "Tiger!" I think that speaks to how both German and Allied soldiers viewed the Sherman.

cheers
Reb

[brevity]

Hi

Going by the DAK KTB, the first evidence of the presence of Shermans in Africa has been obtained right on time, I would say, on 2 November 1942, at 11:30 a.m.:


“The number of enemy tanks, that broke through our position, is estimated at about 300. Almost all of them are heavy American-built tanks, including not seen before vehicles with stronger armor and armament. They have an advantage over the German tanks, because they can successfully conduct a firefight at distances of over 1000 meters. Despite this, the enemy already lost about 60 tanks today, as estimated by the 15.Pz.Div.”

I didn't find any other references to the “new American tanks” in the DAK Diaries from November 1942 and January 1943. I guess they had other things to care about.

The Allied Units sent to Tunisia in November 1942 didn't have any Shermans with them. They only had Stuarts (U.S. 1st Bn, 1st Armd Regt and 1st Bn, 13th Armd Regt), Lees (U.S. 2nd Bn, 13 Arm Rgt) and a mix of Crusaders and Valentines (British 17/21 Lancers). U.S. 2nd Armored Division in Morocco had plenty of Shermans, but never fought in Tunisia.

According to Ryan Atkinson, „An Army at Dawn”, 5 Shermans were taken from 2nd Armored Division and sent as replacements to Tunisia, arriving there in early December. He goes on to say that all of them were lost in combat at Djebel el Guessa on 6 December 1942.

On 28 December 1942 the War Diary of Ic (Intelligence Officer), 5. Panzer-Armee contains an interesting note:

While analyzing captured enemy documents it turned out, that already in mid-December a number of new tanks “M IV” (General Sherman) appeared, and 4 of them have been knocked out in combat NE of Medjez el Bab. The additional details will be given by Major Rohweder from Waprue.I, who was already conducting investigation in the mentioned area. The penetration tests are planned. Obtained informations will be sent to O.B.S. Ic, Fremde Heere West and to the General den schnellen Truppen at Ob.d.H.

And here is the report:



source: NARA 313/418

Unfortunately, the report doesn't include any opinions, but they must have been impressed with what they found.

Hope it helps
Jerry

[phylo_roadking]

The Allied Units sent to Tunisia in November 1942 didn't have any Shermans with them. They only had Stuarts (U.S. 1st Bn, 1st Armd Regt and 1st Bn, 13th Armd Regt), Lees (U.S. 2nd Bn, 13 Arm Rgt) and a mix of Crusaders and Valentines (British 17/21 Lancers).

....more by force of circumstance than any other reason http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Run_for_Tunis

[Reb]

History of course is time sensitive. At Gazala the M3 Lee/Grant was considered a new and terribly dangerous 'super heavy' allied tank by the Germans who were being hit from ranges exceeding anything the British had thrown at them previously. Sherman made a similar impression at Alamein.

The Brits thought of the upgunned and uparmoured Pz III as a very scary tank. A year and half later it was considered obsolete. Its always about who is telling the story and when. Some accounts are written by men who believed what they wrote but it just didn't didn't happen to be true.

My favorite is the Germans fear of the multi barreled British anti-tank gun. See Hubert Meyer and a Stackpole book on German Panzers in Normandy featuring Hans Eberbach who also mentions the gun.

Have also read of the 'special' shells used in Normandy by the Brits (Eberbach called them 'glass' shells) that kept the German's heads down but didn't really explode - just seemed to, so the Brit infantry could get forward under cover of the barrage.

That was for you Phylo - I know you like the little bits of what others might call trivia!

Merry Christmas
Michael (Reb)

[Carl W Schwamberger]

My favorite is the Germans fear of the multi barreled British anti-tank gun. See Hubert Meyer and a Stackpole book on German Panzers in Normandy featuring Hans Eberbach who also mentions the gun.

Have also read of the 'special' shells used in Normandy by the Brits (Eberbach called them 'glass' shells) that kept the German's heads down but didn't really explode - just seemed to, so the Brit infantry could get forward under cover of the barrage.

Those remind me of the story about German artillerymen taken prisoner asking to see the American or British "Automatic Artillery". not yet been able to track down the origin of that one, but am still trying.

[phylo_roadking]

My favorite is the Germans fear of the multi barreled British anti-tank gun

I wonder....

....if they had a heard a rumour about the revolving chamber (Colt style) Mark Two Northover Projector???

Seriously...

[Reb]

Carl

Alexander McKee notes this in "Caen: Anvil of Victory." Shell shocked German prisoners ask to see the "belt fed twenty five pounders." McKee was on the scene and his book (still a classic - just bought a new copy) was way ahead of the curve for showing both sides.

Cheers
Michael (Reb)

[phylo_roadking]

Hmm...

Shell shocked German prisoners ask to see the "belt fed twenty five pounders."

I wonder if - in the circumstances....the sheer weight of Allied supporting artillery fire...we have a situation like the British rifleman's "Mad Minute" at Mons and the Germans thinking they were facing MG fire???

[Reb]

Probably. A Time on Target can be pretty awe inspiring. They had cute codenames for different levels of mayhem and numbers / calibers of guns - the one that comes to mind immediately is 'serenade.'

cheers
Michael (Reb)

[ReinhardH]

Well, at least one guy who's never had a single positive word to say about the Sherman tank is my very own father, who's unit had to face off with them more than once in the latter months of the war Every time he sees one parked as a monument in front of some local armory here in the US, he can't help but make a snide remark about it … most frequent is how it usually took at least four or five of them to match one German tank, but the most notable complaint is always about the danger it was to it's own crew.
Even the German enemy became so disgusted with how easily the Sherman tank caught fire when it was hit that the running word among their troops was, "the bastards who designed those things should have been the first ones to ride them into battle"...

[michael kenny]

When it was introduced it was roughly compatable with the Pz IV.
Both were still in service in 1945.
The Sherman was no better or worse that the most numerous German tank in service.
Ergo if the Sherman was crap then so was the standard German tank.
There is not the slightest evidence that the Sherman was more deadly to its crews than any WW2 tank.
All tanks burned when hit and the Sherman burn rate of 80% stands against the Panthers 60%
The Tiger was also found (in a small sample) to be no better at burning (80%) than a Sherman-it just took more hits to penetrate a Tiger.
In the surveys done on tank wrecks in Normandy the worst performer wa the Pz IV. It came just below the Sherman in the number of hits needed to knock it out.
Thus the late war bobby prize goes to the PzIV.

[Reb]

Michael

Sorry - don't agree. Sherman had lots of good features but was drastically undergunned for anything but infantry suport work. The Pz IV had a weapon that could penetrate any western tank at that time (possible exception was Churchill from the front). Sherman was only just getting a 76 mm that would (with other improvements such as wet ammo storage, wide tracks, Easy 8 mods etc) make it a contender. (and of course 17pdr on Firefly)

To your point - one German officer (1 SS Pz) is quoted by Ron Tout as saying they (the German crews) called Pz IV the "can opener." They were underwhelmed by the protection it offered. But then, they were in a force that also fields the big cats which may have made them feel vulnerable.

Pz IV, like Sherman was extremely upgradable. But in a scrap, the gun really counts. Pz IV had to fight Sherman which it could outshoot - about equal in most other respects. Sherman had to fight Pz IV, Panther, Tiger and various big TDs against which the 75mm med velocity weapon wasn't particularly effective.

cheers
Michael (Reb)

[michael kenny]

ORO-T-117 found that tank targets in WW2 were:


Table XXVI
Fortifications-- 21.2%
Buildings--17.3%
Personel--15.5%
Tanks--14.2%
Art--12.8%
Wheeled vehicles--8.2%

85% of all targets were NOT tanks.

Table IX

Tank hit distribution

Front 37%
side 60%
Rear 3%

Thus an invulnerable front aspect is not a decisive factor.

Too much has been made of tank v tank encounters and in all other aspects the Sherman was more than capable of fulfilling its role.