Posted on Dec 31, 2019
George S. Patton’s Magnificent Panthers: The 761st Tank Battalion - Warfare History Network
3.11K
29
13
14
14
0
Tank Commander
WWII World War Two
Military History
Responses: 5
5
5
0
5
5
0
That is a long and wonderful article. I have read about the 761st Tank Battalion in many articles, but they never mentioned African-Americans. The legacy they have is quite remarkable as they became the battering ram for Patton to push through heavy defensive positions, decisively engage the Germans, and chase them down. Patton and his tankers were at the right place at the right time. The Shermans were inferior to German tanks, but the German army would ultimately experience a catastrophic shortage of fuel and supplies. Thank you very much for sharing.
(5)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
US AFV Development in WW2, or, "Why the Sherman was what it was"
For Youtubers: My talk at the New York Military Affairs Symposium in Manhattan, NYC. Check out their site for podcasts and upcoming subjects, http://www.nyma...
MAJ Ken Landgren - and had a disadvantage of numbers. they lacked air support in later stages of the war and US tanks could engage and pen at the average engagement range (of the western european front of 660m)with the M1 76mm utilizing the M93.
we produced just under 50,000 Shermans, 648 destroyed, 700 knocked out and returned to the field. For the Tiger, there where 1347 produced (tiger II 492 produced), in simple terms, while those tanks where "great" they where not worth their bang for buck. The sherman while "inferior" was superior due to the it's ability to fielded in numbers to better effect than the Tiger tanks.
"the chieftan" does a great job going into detail.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwIlrAosYiM
we produced just under 50,000 Shermans, 648 destroyed, 700 knocked out and returned to the field. For the Tiger, there where 1347 produced (tiger II 492 produced), in simple terms, while those tanks where "great" they where not worth their bang for buck. The sherman while "inferior" was superior due to the it's ability to fielded in numbers to better effect than the Tiger tanks.
"the chieftan" does a great job going into detail.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwIlrAosYiM
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
MAJ Ken Landgren - The Sherman came mostly in 2 variants, the 75mm (M3 gun) and the 76mm (M1 gun), we're just going to ignore the 105mm (M4 Howitzer) since it was an infantry support vehicle.
The 76mm had greater penetration than the 75mm. if equipped with the M93 HVAT round it could pen your beloved German Heavy tanks from the front. The Germans where also horrifically outnumbered and would be overwhelmed by Shermans. While in a 1 on 1 in a flat environment with no terrain, yes a German heavy tank would outdo a Sherman, but, in reality Shermans had greater numbers and could easily outflank them and pen them from their weaker side armor.
A Sherman was produced to fight in the Asia (both theaters), Europe, and Africa. It was reliable, cheap, and was effective for what it was designed to do. The Germans produced 46,274 total tanks, 8,584 where heavy (Panzer V, VI, VI B, Elefant). Therefore 37,690 German tanks (Pazner I, II, III, 38(t), IV) could be penetrated from the front by all variants of the Sherman. That's 80% of German Armor. And if you believe the Russians, they claimed they destroyed 42,000 (90%) of those tanks on the eastern front. Germany did lose 80% of it's men on the eastern front.
In short, the Sherman was a great tank, while not the greatest tank in every category, it helped us win the war on the western front..... and the pacific.
The 76mm had greater penetration than the 75mm. if equipped with the M93 HVAT round it could pen your beloved German Heavy tanks from the front. The Germans where also horrifically outnumbered and would be overwhelmed by Shermans. While in a 1 on 1 in a flat environment with no terrain, yes a German heavy tank would outdo a Sherman, but, in reality Shermans had greater numbers and could easily outflank them and pen them from their weaker side armor.
A Sherman was produced to fight in the Asia (both theaters), Europe, and Africa. It was reliable, cheap, and was effective for what it was designed to do. The Germans produced 46,274 total tanks, 8,584 where heavy (Panzer V, VI, VI B, Elefant). Therefore 37,690 German tanks (Pazner I, II, III, 38(t), IV) could be penetrated from the front by all variants of the Sherman. That's 80% of German Armor. And if you believe the Russians, they claimed they destroyed 42,000 (90%) of those tanks on the eastern front. Germany did lose 80% of it's men on the eastern front.
In short, the Sherman was a great tank, while not the greatest tank in every category, it helped us win the war on the western front..... and the pacific.
(0)
(0)
MAJ Ken Landgren
You don't have to be sarcastic. My point is in general German tanks had a greater firing range, penetration power, armor, and survivability. The water becomes muddy when you state we had a numerical superiority, thus we were able to maneuver and outflank them. Our tanks became impressive due to Patton's doctrine of using tanks as a battering ram, his tactical and strategic genius. The issue became moot when the Germans were dead in the water as they ran out of requisite logistic to continue the fight. This does not lend itself to the argument whose tanks are better. Your disrespect compels me to shut down my posts on this topic. Have a good day.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google