±Recent Visitors

Recent Visitors to Com-Central!

±User Info-big


Welcome Anonymous

Nickname
Password

Membership:
Latest: HighestAce
New Today: 0
New Yesterday: 0
Overall: 6648

People Online:
Members: 0
Visitors: 1007
Total: 1007
Who Is Where:
 Visitors:
01: Home
02: Home
03: Home
04: Member Screenshots
05: Downloads
06: Photo Gallery
07: Home
08: Community Forums
09: Community Forums
10: Community Forums
11: Member Screenshots
12: Community Forums
13: Home
14: Member Screenshots
15: News Archive
16: Community Forums
17: Community Forums
18: Downloads
19: Community Forums
20: Photo Gallery
21: Photo Gallery
22: Downloads
23: Photo Gallery
24: Community Forums
25: Member Screenshots
26: Photo Gallery
27: Photo Gallery
28: Photo Gallery
29: Community Forums
30: Home
31: Community Forums
32: Photo Gallery
33: Home
34: Downloads
35: Home
36: Home
37: Community Forums
38: Home
39: Member Screenshots
40: Home
41: Photo Gallery
42: Photo Gallery
43: Home
44: Photo Gallery
45: Photo Gallery
46: Photo Gallery
47: Home
48: Downloads
49: Community Forums
50: Community Forums
51: Home
52: Photo Gallery
53: Home
54: Home
55: Community Forums
56: Home
57: Member Screenshots
58: Community Forums
59: Community Forums
60: Community Forums
61: Community Forums
62: Photo Gallery
63: Member Screenshots
64: Community Forums
65: Home
66: Home
67: Home
68: Home
69: Home
70: Home
71: Home
72: Home
73: Home
74: Home
75: Home
76: Home
77: Home
78: Home
79: Home
80: Home
81: Home
82: Home
83: Home
84: Home
85: Home
86: Home
87: Home
88: Home
89: Home
90: Home
91: Home
92: Home
93: Home
94: Home
95: Home
96: Home
97: Home
98: Home
99: Home
100: Home
101: Home
102: Home
103: Home
104: Home
105: Home
106: Home
107: Home
108: Home
109: Home
110: Home
111: Home
112: Community Forums
113: Home
114: Home
115: Home
116: Home
117: Home
118: Home
119: Home
120: Home
121: Home
122: Photo Gallery
123: Home
124: Home
125: Home
126: Home
127: Home
128: Home
129: Home
130: Home
131: Home
132: Home
133: Home
134: Home
135: Home
136: Home
137: Home
138: Home
139: Home
140: Home
141: Home
142: Home
143: Home
144: Home
145: Home
146: Home
147: Home
148: Home
149: Home
150: Home
151: Home
152: Home
153: Home
154: Home
155: Home
156: Home
157: Home
158: Home
159: Home
160: Statistics
161: Home
162: Home
163: Home
164: Home
165: Home
166: Home
167: Home
168: Home
169: Home
170: Home
171: Home
172: Home
173: Home
174: Home
175: Home
176: Home
177: Home
178: Home
179: Community Forums
180: Home
181: Home
182: Home
183: Home
184: Home
185: Home
186: Home
187: Home
188: Home
189: Photo Gallery
190: Home
191: Photo Gallery
192: Home
193: Home
194: Home
195: Home
196: Home
197: Home
198: Home
199: Home
200: Home
201: Home
202: Home
203: Community Forums
204: Photo Gallery
205: Home
206: Home
207: Home
208: Home
209: Home
210: Home
211: Home
212: Home
213: Home
214: Home
215: Home
216: Home
217: Home
218: Home
219: Home
220: Tell a Friend
221: Community Forums
222: Home
223: Home
224: Home
225: Home
226: Home
227: Home
228: Home
229: Home
230: Home
231: Home
232: Home
233: Home
234: Home
235: Community Forums
236: Home
237: Home
238: Home
239: Community Forums
240: Home
241: Home
242: Home
243: Home
244: Home
245: Home
246: Home
247: Home
248: Home
249: Home
250: Home
251: Home
252: Home
253: Home
254: Home
255: Home
256: Home
257: Home
258: Home
259: Home
260: Home
261: Home
262: Home
263: Home
264: Home
265: Home
266: Home
267: Home
268: Home
269: Home
270: Home
271: Home
272: Home
273: Home
274: Home
275: Home
276: Home
277: Home
278: Home
279: Home
280: Home
281: Home
282: Home
283: Home
284: Home
285: Home
286: Community Forums
287: Home
288: Home
289: Home
290: Home
291: Home
292: Home
293: Home
294: Home
295: Home
296: Home
297: Home
298: Home
299: Home
300: Home
301: Home
302: Home
303: Home
304: Home
305: Home
306: Home
307: Home
308: Home
309: Home
310: Home
311: Home
312: Home
313: Home
314: Home
315: Home
316: Home
317: Home
318: Home
319: Home
320: Home
321: Home
322: Home
323: Home
324: Home
325: Home
326: Home
327: Home
328: Home
329: Home
330: Home
331: Home
332: Home
333: Home
334: Home
335: Home
336: Home
337: Home
338: Home
339: Home
340: Home
341: Home
342: Community Forums
343: News
344: Home
345: Home
346: Home
347: Home
348: Home
349: Home
350: Home
351: Home
352: Home
353: Home
354: Home
355: Home
356: Home
357: Home
358: Home
359: Home
360: Home
361: Home
362: Home
363: Home
364: Home
365: Home
366: Home
367: Home
368: Home
369: Home
370: Photo Gallery
371: Home
372: News
373: Home
374: Home
375: Home
376: Home
377: Home
378: Home
379: Home
380: Home
381: Home
382: Home
383: Home
384: Home
385: Photo Gallery
386: Home
387: Home
388: Home
389: Home
390: Home
391: Home
392: Home
393: Home
394: Home
395: Home
396: Home
397: Home
398: Home
399: Home
400: Home
401: Home
402: Home
403: Home
404: Home
405: Home
406: Community Forums
407: Home
408: Home
409: Home
410: Photo Gallery
411: Home
412: Home
413: Home
414: Home
415: Home
416: Home
417: Home
418: Home
419: Home
420: Home
421: Home
422: Home
423: Home
424: Home
425: Home
426: Home
427: Home
428: Home
429: Home
430: Home
431: Home
432: Home
433: Home
434: Home
435: Home
436: Home
437: Home
438: Home
439: Home
440: Home
441: Home
442: Home
443: Home
444: Home
445: Home
446: Home
447: Home
448: Home
449: Home
450: Home
451: Home
452: Home
453: Home
454: Home
455: Home
456: Home
457: Home
458: Home
459: Home
460: Home
461: Home
462: Home
463: Home
464: Home
465: Home
466: Home
467: Home
468: Home
469: Home
470: Home
471: Home
472: Home
473: Home
474: Home
475: Home
476: Home
477: Home
478: Home
479: Home
480: Home
481: Home
482: Home
483: Home
484: Home
485: Home
486: Home
487: Home
488: Home
489: Home
490: Home
491: Home
492: Home
493: Home
494: Home
495: Home
496: Home
497: Home
498: Home
499: Home
500: Home
501: Home
502: Home
503: Home
504: Home
505: Home
506: Home
507: Home
508: Home
509: Home
510: Home
511: Home
512: Home
513: Home
514: Home
515: Home
516: Home
517: Home
518: Home
519: Community Forums
520: Home
521: Home
522: Home
523: Home
524: Home
525: Home
526: Home
527: Home
528: Home
529: Home
530: Home
531: Home
532: Home
533: Home
534: Community Forums
535: Home
536: Home
537: Home
538: Home
539: Home
540: Home
541: Home
542: Home
543: Home
544: Home
545: Home
546: Home
547: Home
548: Home
549: Home
550: Home
551: Home
552: Home
553: Home
554: Home
555: Home
556: Home
557: Home
558: Home
559: Home
560: Home
561: Home
562: Home
563: Home
564: Community Forums
565: Home
566: Home
567: Home
568: Home
569: Home
570: Home
571: Photo Gallery
572: Home
573: Home
574: News
575: Home
576: Home
577: Home
578: Home
579: Home
580: Home
581: Home
582: Community Forums
583: Home
584: News
585: Home
586: Home
587: Home
588: Community Forums
589: Home
590: Home
591: Photo Gallery
592: Community Forums
593: Home
594: Community Forums
595: Home
596: Home
597: Home
598: Home
599: Photo Gallery
600: Community Forums
601: Home
602: Home
603: Home
604: Community Forums
605: Home
606: Home
607: Home
608: Home
609: Home
610: Home
611: Home
612: Home
613: Home
614: Home
615: Home
616: Photo Gallery
617: Home
618: Home
619: Photo Gallery
620: Home
621: Community Forums
622: Home
623: Home
624: Home
625: Home
626: Home
627: Home
628: Home
629: Home
630: Home
631: Home
632: Home
633: Home
634: Home
635: Home
636: Home
637: Home
638: Home
639: Home
640: Home
641: Home
642: Home
643: Home
644: Home
645: Home
646: Home
647: Home
648: Home
649: Home
650: Home
651: Home
652: Home
653: Home
654: Home
655: Home
656: Home
657: Home
658: Home
659: Home
660: Home
661: Home
662: Your Account
663: Home
664: Photo Gallery
665: Home
666: Home
667: Home
668: Home
669: Home
670: Home
671: Home
672: Home
673: Home
674: Photo Gallery
675: Home
676: Community Forums
677: Home
678: Home
679: Home
680: Home
681: Home
682: Home
683: Home
684: Community Forums
685: Downloads
686: Home
687: Community Forums
688: Home
689: Home
690: Photo Gallery
691: Home
692: Photo Gallery
693: Photo Gallery
694: Community Forums
695: Photo Gallery
696: Home
697: Community Forums
698: Community Forums
699: Community Forums
700: Home
701: Photo Gallery
702: Community Forums
703: Photo Gallery
704: Downloads
705: Home
706: Community Forums
707: Photo Gallery
708: Community Forums
709: Home
710: Community Forums
711: Home
712: Photo Gallery
713: Home
714: Community Forums
715: Home
716: Community Forums
717: Home
718: Home
719: Home
720: Community Forums
721: Member Screenshots
722: Photo Gallery
723: Community Forums
724: Home
725: Community Forums
726: Home
727: Community Forums
728: Home
729: Supporters
730: Home
731: Photo Gallery
732: Photo Gallery
733: News
734: Community Forums
735: Home
736: News Archive
737: Member Screenshots
738: Community Forums
739: Community Forums
740: Community Forums
741: Home
742: Downloads
743: Home
744: Home
745: Photo Gallery
746: Community Forums
747: Community Forums
748: Photo Gallery
749: Home
750: Community Forums
751: Home
752: Home
753: Community Forums
754: Community Forums
755: Photo Gallery
756: Member Screenshots
757: News
758: Downloads
759: Community Forums
760: Community Forums
761: Photo Gallery
762: Photo Gallery
763: Home
764: Photo Gallery
765: Home
766: Your Account
767: Community Forums
768: Community Forums
769: Home
770: Community Forums
771: Community Forums
772: Photo Gallery
773: Home
774: Home
775: Community Forums
776: Member Screenshots
777: Member Screenshots
778: Home
779: Home
780: Home
781: Home
782: Photo Gallery
783: Photo Gallery
784: Photo Gallery
785: Photo Gallery
786: Photo Gallery
787: Home
788: Community Forums
789: Community Forums
790: Community Forums
791: Home
792: Home
793: Community Forums
794: Home
795: Community Forums
796: Community Forums
797: Home
798: Community Forums
799: Photo Gallery
800: Community Forums
801: Community Forums
802: Treasury
803: Home
804: Home
805: Home
806: Home
807: Home
808: Community Forums
809: Home
810: Community Forums
811: Community Forums
812: Member Screenshots
813: Home
814: Community Forums
815: Community Forums
816: Community Forums
817: Community Forums
818: Home
819: Photo Gallery
820: Home
821: Home
822: Photo Gallery
823: Community Forums
824: Home
825: Home
826: Home
827: Home
828: Home
829: Photo Gallery
830: Downloads
831: Photo Gallery
832: Community Forums
833: Statistics
834: Photo Gallery
835: Members List
836: Community Forums
837: Home
838: Community Forums
839: Home
840: Home
841: Your Account
842: Community Forums
843: Community Forums
844: Home
845: Community Forums
846: Community Forums
847: Home
848: Home
849: Home
850: Home
851: Member Screenshots
852: Home
853: Home
854: Community Forums
855: Photo Gallery
856: Home
857: Home
858: Community Forums
859: Downloads
860: Community Forums
861: Home
862: Community Forums
863: Photo Gallery
864: Home
865: Photo Gallery
866: Home
867: Home
868: News
869: Home
870: News
871: Home
872: Photo Gallery
873: Home
874: Photo Gallery
875: Home
876: Home
877: Community Forums
878: Community Forums
879: Home
880: Home
881: Home
882: Home
883: Community Forums
884: Home
885: Community Forums
886: Photo Gallery
887: Community Forums
888: Home
889: Community Forums
890: Community Forums
891: Photo Gallery
892: Community Forums
893: Photo Gallery
894: Community Forums
895: Photo Gallery
896: Photo Gallery
897: Photo Gallery
898: Home
899: Community Forums
900: Photo Gallery
901: Downloads
902: Community Forums
903: Home
904: Community Forums
905: Photo Gallery
906: Downloads
907: Home
908: Photo Gallery
909: Downloads
910: Photo Gallery
911: Home
912: Downloads
913: Community Forums
914: Photo Gallery
915: Downloads
916: Home
917: Photo Gallery
918: Photo Gallery
919: Community Forums
920: Home
921: Community Forums
922: Community Forums
923: Community Forums
924: Home
925: Community Forums
926: Home
927: Photo Gallery
928: Community Forums
929: Community Forums
930: Photo Gallery
931: Community Forums
932: Home
933: Community Forums
934: Community Forums
935: Photo Gallery
936: Contact
937: Photo Gallery
938: Community Forums
939: Home
940: Statistics
941: Home
942: Member Screenshots
943: Home
944: Community Forums
945: Community Forums
946: Community Forums
947: Member Screenshots
948: Home
949: Home
950: Photo Gallery
951: Community Forums
952: Community Forums
953: Community Forums
954: Tell a Friend
955: Photo Gallery
956: Photo Gallery
957: Home
958: Community Forums
959: Home
960: Home
961: Photo Gallery
962: Home
963: Community Forums
964: Downloads
965: Downloads
966: Home
967: Photo Gallery
968: Community Forums
969: Home
970: Statistics
971: Home
972: Member Screenshots
973: Home
974: Home
975: Home
976: Community Forums
977: Home
978: Photo Gallery
979: Home
980: Home
981: Home
982: Home
983: Member Screenshots
984: News Archive
985: Photo Gallery
986: Photo Gallery
987: Photo Gallery
988: Member Screenshots
989: Photo Gallery
990: Downloads
991: Photo Gallery
992: Community Forums
993: Home
994: Community Forums
995: Home
996: Community Forums
997: Home
998: Downloads
999: Community Forums
1000: Statistics
1001: Home
1002: Member Screenshots
1003: Member Screenshots
1004: Community Forums
1005: Home
1006: Home
1007: Home

Staff Online:

No staff members are online!
The Sherman Tank, The Good, The Bad, and The Distorted Facts
The AFV ASSOCIATION was formed in 1964 to support the thoughts and research of all those interested in Armored Fighting Vehicles and related topics, such as AFV drawings. The emphasis has always been on sharing information and communicating with other members of similar interests; e.g. German armor, Japanese AFVs, or whatever.
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Post new topic    Reply to topic    Printer Friendly Page     Forum Index ›  AFV News Discussion Board

View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
C_Sherman
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 590

PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:09 pm
Post subject: Re: The Sherman Tank, The Good, The Bad, and The Distorted F

- Neil_Baumgardner


The 3-1 defense advantage rule is a rule of hand that dates back to Clausewitz, which can be adjusted to the particulars of any situation and may or may not have any validity. I will grant defense probably does have advantage, but whether its 2-1, 3-1, etc can vary... OTOH, there certainly have been many thinkers & generals, Patton may have been one of them, that believed in offensive advantage.



The 3-1 rule is, as you say, a rule of hand. However, it has been validated many times over in actual combat, and remains an accepted rule in military planning. It can be adjusted based on the preparation of the defense and other factors, but most often it is adjusted upwards rather than downwards. In urban terrain, the ratio is significantly larger, with the advantage to the defender. For the Allies in NWE, I would say higher is more likely, based on Allies unfamiliarity with terrain, German preparation time, and other advantages held by defending Germans.

Patton's belief in offensive advantage had nothing to do with invalidating the 3-1 rule, but spoke rather to a way of avoiding the engagement. His thesis, still in current use by the US Army (among others), is that speed in the offense will deny the enemy the opportunity to prepare a defense, and creates opportunities to avoid defensive battles altogether. Controlled speed and decisive action preserve initiative and freedom of action to the attacker, allowing him to set the time and place of the fight. Thus, it negates the 3-1 advantage of the defender by avoiding the defensive "fair fight". The advantage remains, it just doesn't apply.

However, this offensive advantage applies more at the operational level of warfare (Division and above), which was of course Patton's domain. Below that, the ebb and flow of the battlefield will inevitably result in attacks against a prepared defender, whether we want it to or not. The overall principle of offensive speed may still apply, but at some level the attacker still has to "take that hill".

Since the ratios in question are at that lowest tactical level, where a single tank or platoon of tanks stands in the way of the advance, Patton's offensive advantage is less applicable and the 3-1 rule will dominate the action. Changes in these advantages may certainly be debated, but experience shows that 3-1 is on average correct.

C

_________________
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it
will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
-Herm Albright

Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc!


Last edited by C_Sherman on Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:46 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Photo Gallery
Doug_Kibbey
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 4678
Location: The Great Satan
PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Post subject: Re: The Sherman Tank, The Good, The Bad, and The Distorted F

Further to Chuck's excellent points, a lot of the advantage to offensive operations when not avoiding the stronger defensive postions altogether, is the ability to concentrate one's forces (exercising "initiative", as Chuck mentioned) at the place of the attacker's choosing. By doing so, the attacker can assemble a numerical ratio equal to or greater than the theoretical one attributed to the defender.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website Photo Gallery
Neil_Baumgardner
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 3942
Location: Arlington, VA
PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 4:05 pm
Post subject: Re: The Sherman Tank, The Good, The Bad, and The Distorted F

- C_Sherman
- Neil_Baumgardner


The 3-1 defense advantage rule is a rule of hand that dates back to Clausewitz, which can be adjusted to the particulars of any situation and may or may not have any validity. I will grant defense probably does have advantage, but whether its 2-1, 3-1, etc can vary... OTOH, there certainly have been many thinkers & generals, Patton may have been one of them, that believed in offensive advantage.



The 3-1 rule is, as you say, a rule of hand. However, it has been validated many times over in actual combat, and remains an accepted rule in military planning. It can be adjusted based on the preparation of the defense and other factors, but most often it is adjusted upwards rather than downwards. In urban terrain, the ratio is significantly larger, with the advantage to the defender. For the Allies in NWE, I would say higher is more likely, based on Allies unfamiliarity with terrain, German preparation time, and other advantages held by defending Germans.

Patton's belief in offensive advantage had nothing to do with invalidating the 3-1 rule, but spoke rather to a way of avoiding the engagement. His thesis, still in current use by the US Army (among others), is that speed in the offense will deny the enemy the opportunity to prepare a defense, and creates opportunities to avoid defensive battles altogether. Controlled speed and decisive action preserve initiative and freedom of action to the attacker, allowing him to set the time and place of the fight. Thus, it negates the 3-1 advantage of the defender by avoiding the defensive "fair fight". The advantage remains, it just doesn't apply.

However, this offensive advantage applies more at the operational level of warfare (Division and above), which was of course Patton's domain. Below that, the ebb and flow of the battlefield will inevitably result in attacks against a prepared defender, whether we want it to or not. The overall principle of offensive speed may still apply, but at some level the attacker still has to "take that hill".

Since the ratios in question are at that lowest tactical level, where a single tank or platoon of tanks stands in the way of the advance, Patton's offensive advantage is less applicable and the 3-1 rule will dominate the action. Changes in these advantages may certainly be debated, but experience shows that 3-1 is on average correct.
C


Chuck, very good points. As a student of military history & analysis, I'm impressed. Only counterpoint or question I would make is that at what point does offensive advantage at the operational level filter or "trickle" down to tactical advantage?

Neil
Back to top
View user's profile
mkenny
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jun 10, 2006
Posts: 3

PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 7:28 pm
Post subject: Re: The Sherman Tank, The Good, The Bad, and The Distorted F

If you persist there are some very good figures in this thread.

www.feldgrau.net/phpBB...sc&start=0




For Normandy the following extract is illuminating:



"It is very difficult to determine the ‘exchange’ ratios in terms of effectiveness between two opposing weapons systems, even in a generalized sense. And the ‘ratios’ bandied about in this case are simply not relative measure of effectiveness, but rather they are relative measures of loss, which are not the same thing. In other words, if the Allies lost 300 tanks and the Germans 100, then a 3-to-1 loss ratio exists. But that does not mean that there was a 3-to-1 ratio of effectiveness. However, if we could know that that 100 Allied tanks were lost to German tanks and 100 German tanks were lost to Allied tanks, then we possibly could say that there was a 1-to-1 ratio of relative effectiveness between them. Unfortunately, as in some many cases of such historical analysis, the data simply can’t support such a conclusion one way or another and can be manipulated virtually any way one desires - all in quite a reasonable and logical manor.

Overall cause of loss for tanks varies according to time period and the reports cited. Thus, according to WO 291/1186 in the ETO it was:

Mines 22.1%
AT guns 22.7%
Tanks 14.5%
SP Guns 24.4%
Bazooka 14.2%
Other 2.1%

This may be compared to a sample of 506 US First Army tanks lost (destroyed and damaged) between 6 June and 30 November 1944.

Mines 18.2%
AT/Tank guns 46.2%
Artillery 7.3%
Mortars 1.8%
Bazooka 13.6%
Other 12.9%

Now as far as American tank losses in Normandy go we have the following data from various reports:

In terms of the cause of loss, in June of 32 tanks examined, 18 were to ‘AT guns’ (56.25%), 9 to PF/PS (28.13%), 1 to mines (3.13%), and 1 to ‘artillery’ (3.13%). Unfortunately we do not know if the AT guns were just that or if they were mounted on armored vehicles of some type. However, we do know that 6 of those 18 were lost on D-Day, so cannot have been lost to anything other than the emplaced guns of the beach defenses.

In July, of 73 examined, 41.1% were lost to AT guns, 32.88% to PF/PS, 16.44% to mines, 4.11% to mines and 4.11% to unknown causes.

In August, of 130 examined, 55.38% were lost to AT guns, 18.46 to unknown causes, 13.08% to mines, 6.15% to artillery, 5.38% to PF/PS, and 1.54% to mortars.

Overall, losses to ‘AT guns’ appear to have been somewhere around 50% in Normandy (the monthly average is 50.91%) and were not far off the ‘norm’ of 46.2%.

From 6 June to 1 July (26 days), First Army wrote off 187 M4-75mm and 44 M5.
From 2 to 29 July (28 days), First Army wrote off 208 M4-75mm, 12 M4-76mm, 4 M4-105mm, and 67 M5.
From 30 July to 2 September (35 days), First Army wrote off 237 M4-75mm, 38 M4-76mm, 6 M4-105mm, and 69 M5.
From 3 to 28 September (26 days), First Army wrote off 123 M4-75mm, 33 M4-76mm, 10 M4-105mm, and 34 M5.
From 1 August to 2 September (33 days), Third Army wrote off 221 M4-75mm and 94 M5.
From 3 to 30 September (28 days), Third Army wrote off 48 M4-75mm, 61 M4-76mm, 2 M4-105mm, and 37 M5.
From 9 September to 5 October (27 days), Ninth Army wrote off 2 M4-75mm.

Thus roughly:
‘June’ 231
‘July’ 291
‘August’ 665
‘September’ 350
Total = 1,537

From the above we could presume that roughly 780 were due to tank and AT guns. Using the WO figures, then perhaps 223 were to 'tank guns.'

For the British cause of loss in Normandy we have but a single document that appears relevant. That is O.R.S. 2 Report No. 12, Analysis of 75mm Sherman Tank Casualties Suffered Between 6th June and 10th June 1944. That document reports that of 45 Sherman tanks examined a total of 40 or 89% were lost to ‘AP shot,’ 4 or 9% to mines and 1 or 2% to unidentified causes.

British losses are given as:

June – 146
July – 231
August – 834
September - ?
Total = 1,211 (est. 1,568)

Unfortunately I have been unable to determine the British September totals, but given the overall similarity with the American figures it is probably not unreasonable to suppose that they were about 350 as well (if the proportionality with June-August were maintained, then it would be 357. If we presume that the above cause of loss was consistent for June and July, then about 336 were probably lost to ‘AP shot,’ which is probably an underestimate. If we presume that percentage applied throughout, then a total of 1,396 were possibly lost to ‘AP shot,’ which is probably an exaggeration. Using the total ‘AP shot’ weapons from WO 292/1186 (61.6) we would probably derive a more accurate estimate of 966. On the other hand, if we accept the figures from WO 291/1186 by type of AP weapon, then we can estimate that only 227 were lost to ‘tank guns’ and if that figure is applied to the Allied total loss, then perhaps only 450 were lost to ‘tank guns.’

Thus, we may estimate that the upper limit of Allied tanks lost to ‘AP shot’ (tanks, AT guns and assault guns) was perhaps 2,176, while probably the lower limit lost to ‘tank guns’ was about 450.

German losses were:

June – 1 Pz-IV(k), 124 Pz-IV(l), 80 Pz-V, 19 Pz-VI (L56) = 224
July – 149 Pz-IV(l), 125 Pz-V, 14 Pz-VI (L56) = 288
August – 49 Pz-IV(l), 41 Pz-V, 15 Pz-VI (L56) = 105
September – 12 Pz-IV(k), 581 Pz-IV, 540 Pz-V, 72 Pz-VI (L56), 23 Pz-VI (L70) = 1,228
Total = 1,845

Cause of loss for German tanks is given for a select set in O.R.S. 2 Report No. 17, Analysis of German Tank Casualties in France, 6th June 44 – 31st August 1944. In that report, for the period of 6 June-7 August a sample of 53 tanks resulted in 48% lost to ‘AP shot.’ For 8-31 August 1944 that dropped to just 11% due to the high number of abandoned tanks in that period. From that we may presume that the June-July total loss to ‘AP shot’ may have been about 246, while for August-September it may have been about 147, for a total of about 393.

Thus, using these very rough methods, we can assume that the upper limit of the ratio of Allied to German tank losses to ‘AP shot’ may have been as high as 2,176-to-393, or about 5.54-to-1. Probably closer would be an ‘AP shot’ ratio of roughly 1,746-to-393, or about 4.44-to-1. The tank-versus-tank ratios are possibly similar although it could be argued to be as low as 673-to-393, or 1.71-to-1, aboutthe same as the overall loss ratio. Nevermind that this comparison is probably irrelevent.

Overall then we may postulate a total of about 3,105 Allied to 1,845 German tanks written off, or about a 1.68-to-1 ratio of losses, again, a number that has nothing to do with the relative effectiveness of the Allied versus the German tanks. However, it is probably very relevant in terms of the overall Allied-versus-German combat effectiveness.

Of course the real upshot is that these comparisons are probably not very illuminating, nor very surprising, given that the Germans were fighting mostly on the tactical defensive, with tanks that were in general more effective than Allied types.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

So much for the 5:1 loss ratio for Allied tanks!
Back to top
View user's profile
Neil_Baumgardner
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 3942
Location: Arlington, VA
PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 8:16 pm
Post subject: Re: The Sherman Tank, The Good, The Bad, and The Distorted F

Interesting info mkenny. This is somewhat as I expected. The only way to get a real true measure would be from unit records (rather than inspections of damage afterwards), but I suspect tank crews may not have recorded kills quite as much as pilots do... The Germans probably did - since they had more focus on "tank aces," but that only gives you half the numbers...

Neil
Back to top
View user's profile
C_Sherman
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 590

PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 9:00 pm
Post subject: Re: The Sherman Tank, The Good, The Bad, and The Distorted F

- Neil_Baumgardner


Chuck, very good points. As a student of military history & analysis, I'm impressed. Only counterpoint or question I would make is that at what point does offensive advantage at the operational level filter or "trickle" down to tactical advantage?

Neil


Hi again Neil,

Your question found the seam between the science and "art" of warfare! The answer is also the key to "modern" manuever warfare.

The offensive advantage exists down to the tactical level, in a very dynamic way (dynamic, in the sense of rapid interactive and interdependant changes). The effect can be very localized, and depends greatly on the relative capabilities of the players. Basically, the offensive advantage comes from being "inside the decision cycle" of the adversary, acting before or while they react to your previous actions. Flexible, mentally nimble leaders are key to attaining this advantage, in addition to equipment that can support them.

The advantage comes when the attacker retains the initiative, and manuevers to bypass or overwhelm specific points in the defenders' arrangements.

By being where the Germans were not, or turning a flank, or focussing overwhelming force at a weak point, before the Germans could react or move their own forces, the Allies could achieve this advantage and avoid the attack against prepared defense. The Sherman actually fed this advantage for the Allies, by being faster than the German defenders could. That they did not always exploit this ability says more about the leadership than it does about the tanks and other vehicles the Allies employed.

In the defense, eliminating the advantage requires agile command and control systems and leadership, as well as mobility to counter the attackers' moves. The faster the attacker can adjust or shift effort, the more agile and responsive the defender must be.

The Germans were at a general disadvantage in the defense, most of the time. Arguably, their command and leadership was not as systemically reactive, both at the operational level (Hitler being the final authority for moving divisions), and at the tactical level. Their command and control systems were damaged and fragmented, and their tactical intelligence picture was largely incomplete. A subtle psychological handicap occurred because the Germans were accustomed to reacting to their own slower, less mechanized equipment in training. This meant that the Germans were often incapable of reacting in a timely way to Allied actions, even when those actions appeared ploddingly slow on the surface. So the Allies often achieved the offensive advantage, not always intentionally.

As currently executed by the users of the Abrams/Challenger2/Leo6-class militaries, speed and agility is a cornerstone of tactical operations. Historical narratives of the Gulf War and emerging histories of the Iraq War make it clear that the rapid actions in the attack left defenders befuddled, confused and vulnerable. Current efforts to digitalize combat vehicles and even individual soldiers are not just "gee whiz, because we can", they are designed to shorten the decision cycle even further. This serves well in the offense, and will serve to negate the offensive advantage in the defense.

Whew. Somebody please tell me all this makes sense? (See what happens when you get me going?)

C

_________________
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it
will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
-Herm Albright

Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc!
Back to top
View user's profile Photo Gallery
Roy_A_Lingle
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 1997
Location: El Paso & Ft Bliss, Texas
PostPosted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 12:14 am
Post subject: Re: The Sherman Tank, The Good, The Bad, and The Distorted F

HI Chuck! Hi Folks!

- C_Sherman

Whew. Somebody please tell me all this makes sense? (See what happens when you get me going?)


It makes sense to me! Smile
I think all that was once known as the advantage of the element of surpise.

Possible an example of your post would be the Frence during 1940. They had the best tanks in Europe at the beginning of 1940, but by the end of that year, all those tanks were destoryed or being put to use by the Germans. The Germans got inside the Frence leadership desicion cycle and the rest is history.

I think that is also an example of one can not just take one AFV and compair it's spec.s to another. Two tanks facing off at high noon on main street doesn't happien very often.

Well done everyone!

HF, you still here?
The sound bits of TV show many times leave a lot of the story out. Do you have any questions now?

Some little items:
From Steve J. Zaloga's The M4 Sherman at War, The Europena Theatre 1942-1945, page 31.
"One US tank battalion was equipment with Fireflys in Italy, but received them too late to see combat action."

From R.P. Hunnicutt's Sherman book, page 213.
"On 9 August (1944), General Omar Bradley directed his Twelfth Army Group, Armor Section to request an allotment of tanks armed with the British 17 pounder."

Didn't happien due to a shortage of reserve tanks.

"The effort to obtain 17 pounder tanks was revivied later in the middle of February 1945..."
...the Twelfth Army Group requested an initail conversion of 160 Shermans with further conversions dependent on battle experience. Later, this was cut to 80 because of limitations in the British ammunition supply. .....only the first few began to arrive in mid March (1945). These were allocated to the Ninth Army, but there is no record of their use prior to the end of the war. In fact, the Ninth Army After Action Report indicates that the delivery of 40 17 pounders tanks was expected, but it does not record their arrival."

Some notes on Pershing numbers, all from Hunnicutt's Pershing book.
Production of the T-23E3 started during the fall of 1944.
20 of the first 40 vehicles completed shipment to Antwerp, Belgium in January of 1945.
All assigned to 12th U.S. Army Group, They were past along to 1st U.S. Army, with ten each going to the 3rd and 9th Armored Divisions.
February 25th (1945) 3RD AD was ready and the 9th AD was ready three days later.

Late March (1945) 40 more arrived, going to Ninth Army with 22 to the 2nd AD and the other 18 going to the 5th AD. The 2nd AD tankers received a 45 minute briffing and then move out with their new tanks.
30 issued to the 11th AD which started operations on Apirl 21 (1945).

"The flow of Pershings to Europe continued until by VE Day there were 310 in the Theater of whch 200 had been issued to the troops." Page 38.

What does all this tell us? Once the first problem of 'Doctrine' was starting to be over come, this was the best that could be done to get 17 pounder Shermans and T-23E3 90mm gun tanks into the hands of the troops.

Someone made a comment about the Soviets did a better job of upgrading their tanks than the U.S. did.

Soviets who had been working on tank designs during the 1930s had a head start over the U.S. Army which was impacted by a shortage of funds during that time.

I think that same poster also said that the Germans did a better job of upgrading and designing tanks. Will, the Germans were forced to. They ran into the T-34 and the KV-1 tanks the Soviets where just starting to field at the start of the Eastern Front war. They saw that both better tanks and AT Gun systems were needed to counter those Soviet Tanks.

The Soviets in turn were forced to up grade their tanks to counter the newer German tanks.

The U.S. on the other hand, was still working under a bad doctrine that prevented heavier tanks being developed and fielded. Until post D-Day, the U.S. was also working under the false believe that the 76mm tank cannon could do the job. Intell and after actions reports being received back in the states from actions in North Africa and Italy supported the believe that the doctrine (with more towed and less self propelled anti-tank units) could get the job done.

I feel that all the technical problems (and they were many and they are all very real) are just smoke screens reasons for not changing the doctrine.

Sgt, Scouts Out! Smile

_________________
"You can never have too much reconnaissance."
General G.S. Patton Jr.
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
Neil_Baumgardner
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 3942
Location: Arlington, VA
PostPosted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 1:42 am
Post subject: Re: The Sherman Tank, The Good, The Bad, and The Distorted F

- C_Sherman

Hi again Neil,

Your question found the seam between the science and "art" of warfare! The answer is also the key to "modern" manuever warfare.

The offensive advantage exists down to the tactical level, in a very dynamic way (dynamic, in the sense of rapid interactive and interdependant changes). The effect can be very localized, and depends greatly on the relative capabilities of the players. Basically, the offensive advantage comes from being "inside the decision cycle" of the adversary, acting before or while they react to your previous actions. Flexible, mentally nimble leaders are key to attaining this advantage, in addition to equipment that can support them.


Very good points. This is where the Air Force's OODA (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act) loop comes from as well as the Army's "See First, Understand First, Act First & Finish Decisively."

However, having just taken a class of History of Military Operations from a real Clausewitz disciple, I can tell you this is anethema to a traditional Clausewitzian view (and possibly derided as Jominian) - although I think it can fit within Clausewitz...

Of course Clausewitz also argued that good military leaders should NOT be students of history (he seemed to believe you were either a military genius or you werent) and that weather "rarely plays a factor." Tell the latter to Napoleon (1812) & Hitler (1942)....


The advantage comes when the attacker retains the initiative, and manuevers to bypass or overwhelm specific points in the defenders' arrangements.

By being where the Germans were not, or turning a flank, or focussing overwhelming force at a weak point, before the Germans could react or move their own forces, the Allies could achieve this advantage and avoid the attack against prepared defense. The Sherman actually fed this advantage for the Allies, by being faster than the German defenders could. That they did not always exploit this ability says more about the leadership than it does about the tanks and other vehicles the Allies employed.

In the defense, eliminating the advantage requires agile command and control systems and leadership, as well as mobility to counter the attackers' moves. The faster the attacker can adjust or shift effort, the more agile and responsive the defender must be.

The Germans were at a general disadvantage in the defense, most of the time. Arguably, their command and leadership was not as systemically reactive, both at the operational level (Hitler being the final authority for moving divisions), and at the tactical level. Their command and control systems were damaged and fragmented, and their tactical intelligence picture was largely incomplete. A subtle psychological handicap occurred because the Germans were accustomed to reacting to their own slower, less mechanized equipment in training. This meant that the Germans were often incapable of reacting in a timely way to Allied actions, even when those actions appeared ploddingly slow on the surface. So the Allies often achieved the offensive advantage, not always intentionally.

As currently executed by the users of the Abrams/Challenger2/Leo6-class militaries, speed and agility is a cornerstone of tactical operations. Historical narratives of the Gulf War and emerging histories of the Iraq War make it clear that the rapid actions in the attack left defenders befuddled, confused and vulnerable. Current efforts to digitalize combat vehicles and even individual soldiers are not just "gee whiz, because we can", they are designed to shorten the decision cycle even further. This serves well in the offense, and will serve to negate the offensive advantage in the defense.


Bingo, just what I was talking about above.


Whew. Somebody please tell me all this makes sense? (See what happens when you get me going?)
C


Certainly, and I have enjoyed it. I guess my point/question is, with the US (or at least Patton) often employing this form of warfare, how often did it negate the Germans' defensive tactical advantage? You said the Germans were at a general disadvantage on the defense, does this mean they usually did not enjoy a 3-1 advantage? If so, were any "kill-ratios" that remained due to the differing capabilities of the forces/tanks, instead of defensive advantage?

Neil
Back to top
View user's profile
Howard_Thompson
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jul 20, 2006
Posts: 3

PostPosted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 2:07 am
Post subject: Re: The Sherman Tank, The Good, The Bad, and The Distorted F

Albert Speer, Nazi Minister of Armaments 1942-1945 writes in his memoirs
"Inside the Third Reich" 1969

"In October 1944, I tried once more to win Hitler over to the idea of light tanks: On the southwestern front (Italy) reports on the cross-county mobility of the Sherman have bveen very favorable. The Sherman climbs mountains which our tank experts consider inaccessible to tanks. One great advantage is that the Sherman has a very powerful motor in proportion to its weight. Its cross-country mobility on level ground (in the Po Valley) is, as the Twenty-Sixth Division reports, definitely superior to that of our tanks. Everyone involved in tank warfare is impatiently waiting for lighter and therfore more maneuverable tanks which, simply by having superior guns, will assure the necessary fighting power.
Back to top
View user's profile
Roy_A_Lingle
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 1997
Location: El Paso & Ft Bliss, Texas
PostPosted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 10:22 am
Post subject: Re: The Sherman Tank, The Good, The Bad, and The Distorted Facts

Hi Neil! Hi Folks!

I copied this from that mess I used to start this thread.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neil_Baumgardner Joined: Jan 24, 2006 Posts: 507
Posted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 2:13 am Post subject: Re: 1st Cav Museum at Ft Hood...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neil wrote:
Bob, I'll play devil's advocate for the sake of discussion...

The heavier Panther-class tanks could have been offloaded using LSTs no?

Yes, but I don't think very many LSTs would have been available for that. The time frame for available LSTs in the MTO had a big impacted on the Anzio landings do to the need to transfered all of them to England for Overlord. Then they needed to be transfered back to the MTO for the landings in Southern France, followed by another transfer to the PTO.

Any movement of M6 or other heavier tanks could only have been done by the Liberties and other types of cargo ships. As it was, the first design of the Liberties could not even load or unload the early M4 Shermans. Some time during the war, only the cranes by the hold right in front of the bridge was upgraded to lift Shermans.

Part of the delay with the 12 T-23E3s that were shipped to the PTO was the problem with getting them off the ship after it arrived.

My 2 cents on using LSTs.
Sgt, Scouts Out! Smile

_________________
"You can never have too much reconnaissance."
General G.S. Patton Jr.
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    Reply to topic    Printer Friendly Page    Forum Index ›  AFV News Discussion Board
Page 4 of 4
All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4



Jump to:  


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum