Source: http://tele.rtl.lu/emissiounen/de-journal/3020949.html
Thanks to Rollux for this one.
Hello everyone,
even though the state of Luxembourg is a very small one, it is not completely without tanks :) A passionate military vehicle collector of WW2 and post-WW2 era, De Guy Retter, acquired a Centurion Mk.3. The tank was produced during the 50′s and 60′s. It served in the Swiss armed forces until 1993. Due to moisture accumulation, the Rolls Royce engine had starting problems but fortunately there was a Sherman tank to give a little help. Over 50.000 Sherman tanks have been built but only 30 running Shermans currently exist anywhere in the world.
“only 30 running Shermans currently exist” I expected that number to be a lot higher.
Not many people care about Sherman.
Thanks History Channel.
To be fair though it does lack a lot of the glamor that is associated with the failure tanks like the Tiger.
Well, Sherman is iconic but you only need see what tanks are used today to see that Tiger was not a fail… the concept of “engage enemy as far as is possible” is today a winer over the “lets send 5 tanks do the job”
Diferent concepts and diferent ways to value them, Sherman was a MBT (and in the end it fails on this role this is why M26 appear and if USA dont had more M26 was for a logistical decision) and Tiger was on his origins a “spearhead tank” that finish as “Sniper” with armor to dominate in shorter combats.
Many people forgive that Sherman was upgrade along war unlike Tiger, Tiger in 1942 was the same as in 1945 apart some fixes in initial problems.
But in the end have a tank is not easy out of museums private collectors are not a lot.
The 5:1 Sherman:Tiger Kill ratio has already been covered by a previous blog post, and it’s unfounded.
The Tiger I was, while not exactly a failure, not really all that successful either. What parts of its design philosophy are present today has no bearing on its effectiveness in the 1940s. For that matter, safe ammunition stowage and gyrostabilizers, features present on the Sherman, are also present in today’s armor.
The fact that a tank has a successor does not mean it is a failure; otherwise, the M60 would be deemed a failure as well. The T20s were in development before D-day, and this was not due to any lack of adequacy on the Sherman’s part. M4s continued to serve in the Korean war, and would go on to feature in many countries’ arsenals after WWII, including Israel where they were upgunned to take on much more modern soviet armor, e.g. T-55s.
I dont say Tiger kills 5 tanks, i say USA tankers dont go 1 VS 1 against tigers… tiger has a morale factor very important, same with other german tanks… is not like a Tiger needs kill 5 tanks is that a Tiger inmovilize a lot of resources to deal with it.
Tiger was a failure not by a conception problem was a failure because operational favor more a tank like Panther but in the end the modern tanks are closer to Tiger/panther than to Sherman/T-34 in the end today the idea is mount the biggest firepower posible maybe this is why some tanks are forced to use missile/guided ammo because be “shermans” dont work a lot.
Israel engage tanks with a lot less support than soviet tanks and you dont say that israel use a lot L7 after 6 days war they remove 90mm guns in M48, L7 in the 50-60s is like 88mmL56 in 43/44 before appear tanks that can deal with it (IS serie.)
Ive read the 5/1 ratio in numerous sources. I believe it actually comes from someone’s personnel experience, or his units tactics. Either way, its just an average, a means to rationalize the inferiority of the Sherman in combat to the Tiger.
Im curious, if you don’t believe the 5/1 ratio, what would be your estimate of shermans to take out a Tiger, on average of course? In the Real World battle Field environment? Because in the real world, your not going to be able to drive circles around me…..
One more ? I wonder if you asked a Good Veteran Tiger Commander how many shermans would he engage if saw them 1000m out? 3, 5, or maybe 7 shermans?
What does that do to your ratios, lol.
What sources are they, History Channel documentaries? Sherman crews are not going to sacrifice their lives to zerg rush at Tigers.
“what would be your estimate of shermans to take out a Tiger, on average of course”
I never postulated my own ratio, I said the 5:1 thing is unproven. If you want an idea of Sherman vs Panther performance, there’s the book Data on World War II Tank Engagements: Involving the U.S. Third and Fourth Armored Divisions. In short, the party that spotted and engaged first usually won, and the M4 with its observational periscope, vertical stabilizer, and faster turret traverse tended to be better at that.
And in the real world, a single penetrating hit would knock out a Tiger, so HP and damage are largely out of the question.
Because you know when you look at a Leo 2, or a M1A1 they defiantly don’t have the characteristics of a Sherman, and are totally biased around the Failed Tiger tank! Wait you’r not this blind are you? The Main battle tank concept is something that combines a medium’s tank’s mobility with a Heavy tank’s firepower.
If anything the sherman contributed more to armored Warfrare in just it’s Front Drive wheel than the tiger did in it’s entire chasis.
Not a single concept from the tiger exist’s in the modern MBT, it wasn’t the first tank to have the most armor, it wasn’t the first to take out tank’s from range(anyone who think’s this lacks any real knowledge) it wasn’t the fastest. and it certainly didn’t have the biggest gun on the battlefield.
If anything the Tiger showed what you should not do when designing a tank. and if we really think about it if the Tiger was a successful tank it would have been used after the war, and it wasn’t. tank’s like the M4/T-34/IS/Pershing/Panzer 4/Stug. were all used after World war 2, because get this They were successful designs, the Tiger was not.
The impact of the 1000 tigers was incredible high if you compare numbers with problems they cause to allies… well, i think call it a fail is well, excesive, SURE was not the tank Germany needs to win a total war but to be a add-hoc design is not bad at all, again, initial idea was Tiger as spearhead y attack, and he finish doing defensive job over offensive it was used in the oposite role and well do more than a good job.
Tigers with lets see… 10.000 produced, with the support that had USA (supplies, fuel, air support etc etc) AND receiving upgrades… remember AGAIN Tigers and Panthers NEVER where update like Sherman was, Sherman change his initial gun for a better AT gun (76mm) and suffer a serious redesign with the E8 serie even more, they had the resources to have a variant like Jumbo.
Call Tiger a fail is excesive not the tank maybe Germans need to win but after 1943 they fight to dont lose and here have more or less tanks cant change a lot final result because fuel was more critical in late war for germans and they cant have the numbers they have in early war.
PD: after war Tiger or Panther receving the upgrades that Shermans receive sure could be a viable tank… Shermans where used in middle east with good results and sherman is harder to upgrade compared with a tiger or Panther hull… again, Tigers and Panthers NEVER leave stock status (panther F only receive the new turret but plans were use on it a autoloaded 88mmL71 gun) and i think they have room to improve firepower and armor.
yeah Xplato, im sure the post war usage of those tanks has nothing 2 do with the total number of produced tanks…
And srsly, who had a bigger gun than the tiger on a tank in 1942? the 105mm howitzer of the Sherman perhaps?
And the Sherman wasnt a MBT, it was just a Mediumtank, designt 2 figth against infantry…
Need modern american tanks still range finding shots to guess the distance 2 the target?
“yeah Xplato, im sure the post war usage of those tanks has nothing 2 do with the total number of produced tanks…”
Do you really think the Tiger would have been successful in Israel or Korea?
“And the Sherman wasnt a MBT, it was just a Mediumtank, designt 2 figth against infantry…”
It was designed to engage everything it encountered. The official Armored Force Field Manual makes no mention of the Sherman being exclusively an anti-infantry vehicle.
“Need modern american tanks still range finding shots to guess the distance 2 the target?”
Right, I’m sure the Tiger I had modern rangefinders.
Tigers did not account for a particularly high percentage of Germany’s tank kills. Heck, many of the tanks crews thought were Tigers were probably misidentified; it’s difficult for the untrained eye to tell the difference between a Pz. IV fitted with schurzen and a Tiger I from the side. Neither the T-34′s 85mm nor the Sherman’s 76mm were influenced by the introduction of German heavy tanks.
The E8 designation only denotes tanks with HVSS suspension, and a resign is hardly suffering.
The turret ring on the Sherman made it easier to upgrade than the Panther,. They were able to fit a 90mm on that thing, while the 88 L/71 for the Tiger stayed on the drawing board.
Its funny because I see it like this. The Abrams seems exactly just like the Tiger, its heavily armored, set up with great battlefield communications, excellent targeting, and dominating firepower. It also takes massive support, has short range, and is a very specific and valuable asset. Ive read, were the only country, US, that can support an Abrams in Effective Battlefield numbers. Which is why the Leo is considered a better buy interestingly enough.
What I see is that the Tiger concept brought or showed tactically, the first use of the modern MBT tactics. A Dominating Weapons platform to control a battlefield. Usually part of the Main Military Goal.
I think everyone I’ve read agrees, when the Tiger came out in late 1942, it changed the heavy tank concept from that point. Their is nothing before the Tiger I, it changed the standards. Just as the T-34 had in its own way, in 1941. As far using the Tigers after the war, its just a question of economics. The US is the only country that could have afforded to re design and support a Tiger. They weren’t cheap tanks for Germany to build…..! Let alone someone like Spain or Greece.
One thing the M4, and the T-34 initially actually showed, is what a reliable, fast, easy to produce medium tank unit can do for a battle field army.
The Sherman didn’t contribute anything. Nothing on that tank was either revolutionary or unique. It was, like the T34, just very easy to produce and use.
If you’re not aware of why the Tiger is so important, you probably shouldn’t even be sperging away like you are.
Let’s see:
-Observability
-Crew safety
-Safe ammunition stowage
-Ergonomics
-Upgradability
-Gyrostabilization
Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t that a Canadian Sherman Grizzly?
Oh hey, I was thinking about posting that :-)
I should probably get in touch with that guy too see if he needs any help, since I have no clue about restoring tanks, but it’s something I’d love to be doing eventually…
I presume it’s like restoring old cars, just more massive. :)
Yes, but you dont need to care about details that much.
The hammer solves more problems? ^^
I met a dude from Luxemburg aswell that was running two Pz.68 for a theater piece (that I attended btw), maybe I’ll send the pics (along with the nearby museum’s pics) to SS. :)
I guess now the amount of tanks in the country is higher than the amount of people living there :P
So he bought himself a tank, big whoop, wanna fight about it?
I might buy an AMX 13 75 (or 90) one day, in the 30km around my house there should be 4 or 5 of them :D
Do you, by any chance, live in Syria?
AMX 13s are not used in Syria…ILLUMINATI CONFIRMED
Eastern France, there are quite a lot AMX’s in junkyards, maybe even tanks in the dirt in our forrests… I live in a region that knew heavy fights during WW2 including Jagdtigers apparently!
Cool :)