Shermans and Panzers and Tigers, Oh My!

[blueprofessor]

You might want to consider, which this board often forgets, that UNC with felton, may and crew were pretty average the year before roy got there. He taught them how to play defense, and yes, they were much better defensively when they won the 2005 championship. That team was on verge of imploding before he got there. So he took an NIT team and turned it into a 33-4 team. Does he deserve any credit for that in your mind or is it all personnel?

Of course Roy is a very good coach.
He may be the Bernard Montgomery of college coaches.
Montgomery (Lord Montgomery of Alamein) would not attack Rommel until his advantage in resources was overwhelming:
in airpower and air supremacy (near total), in armor (1,100 tanks to Rommel's 550), and in men (220,000 to 110,000).

Huck Hamlet has been parachuted into 2 great programs with outstanding or phenomenal talent.
He could not, however, build a program because he would not be able emotionally to endure the losses or less than superb talent. Where would he be ,say, in the 3rd year of a rebuilding effort?
Perhaps, no longer there.

He is an exceptionally talented recruiter, so he will have his team back on top with superior resources .

Best--Blueprofessor

[BD80]

Of course Roy is a very good coach.
He may be the Bernard Montgomery of college coaches.
Montgomery (Lord Montgomery of Alamein) would not attack Rommel until his advantage in resources was overwhelming:
... in armor (1,100 tanks to Rommel's 550), ...

I like the comparison of ol' roy to Monty, does that mean Coach K = Patton?

However, I'm not sure Monty's 1,100 Mathildas and Shermans were superior to Rommel's 550 Panzers and Tigers. Of course, Monty may have been like ol' roy and just stocked up without a clue of what he was getting or without any idea what to do when it came time for battle.

[dukebluelemur]

Of course Roy is a very good coach.
He may be the Bernard Montgomery of college coaches.

I like the Monty analogy... bloated reputations, throwing his own team under the bus (denying Patton gas on the run through france), needed massive superiority (as you said) and a disaster as an ingame coach (trying to change his approach quickly... see A Bridge to Far.) And an ego the size of the old British empire.

[dukebluelemur]

I like the comparison of ol' roy to Monty, does that mean Coach K = Patton?

However, I'm not sure Monty's 1,100 Mathildas and Shermans were superior to Rommel's 550 Panzers and Tigers. Of course, Monty may have been like ol' roy and just stocked up without a clue of what he was getting or without any idea what to do when it came time for battle.

K isn't mindlessly aggressive enough to be ol' Blood and Guts, and deals with people faar too differently, I'm not old enough to compare coaching style, but as far as what I've heard about his teaching methods, I'd say "The General" Bob Knight, fittingly enough, handled his 'troops' more like Patton than K does. (Physical expressions of emotion, let us say.)

And utterly off topic, German tanks weren't qualitatively better than the allied ones early in the war, that came later, with the Heavy Panthers and Tigers (and even then they were disasters from a maintenance standpoint). What gave them the early advantage was their superior tactics. Rommel had none of the Tiger tanks, which only started rolling out in late `42 to combat the T-34 on the eastern front. Monty's tanks were definitely better than Rommel's, which were mostly older models and which were having supply issues in Africa, and half of which were actually Italian tanks.

From Wikipedia:
"249 German tanks and 298 Italian tanks. Broken down as follows: 31 Panzer II, 85 Panzer III (short 50mm main gun), 88 Panzer III (long 50mm main gun), 8 Panzer IV (short 75mm main gun), 30 Panzer IV (long 75mm main gun), 7 command tanks, 278 Fiat M13/40 variants and 20 Italian light tanks. A further 23 German tanks, that were under repair, have been excluded from the above total"

Yay History Major.

[BD80]

K isn't mindlessly aggressive enough to be ol' Blood and Guts, and deals with people faar too differently, I'm not old enough to compare coaching style, but as far as what I've heard about his teaching methods, I'd say "The General" Bob Knight, fittingly enough, handled his 'troops' more like Patton than K does. (Physical expressions of emotion, let us say.)

And utterly off topic, German tanks weren't qualitatively better than the allied ones early in the war, that came later, with the Heavy Panthers and Tigers (and even then they were disasters from a maintenance standpoint). What gave them the early advantage was their superior tactics. Rommel had none of the Tiger tanks, which only started rolling out in late `42 to combat the T-34 on the eastern front. Monty's tanks were definitely better than Rommel's, which were mostly older models and which were having supply issues in Africa, and half of which were actually Italian tanks.

From Wikipedia:
"249 German tanks and 298 Italian tanks. Broken down as follows: 31 Panzer II, 85 Panzer III (short 50mm main gun), 88 Panzer III (long 50mm main gun), 8 Panzer IV (short 75mm main gun), 30 Panzer IV (long 75mm main gun), 7 command tanks, 278 Fiat M13/40 variants and 20 Italian light tanks. A further 23 German tanks, that were under repair, have been excluded from the above total"

Yay History Major.

Thanks for the breakdown (not refering to the Tiger), guess I should research more before I post. I thought that Africa was where they started to transition to the Tiger (Panzer VI?) and that the Panzer IV (must have been the long barrel) was pummeling Monty's Mathildas which made him so "cautious". The first Tiger was an absolute maintenance nightmare (and I thought that became most obvious in Africa) and was soon replaced by a second Tiger. But none of the Allied tanks could penetrate the Tiger armor. Seeing the breakdown of Rommel's arsenal really highlights how cowardly Monty really was.

Were the Italian Fiat tanks the ones that had five speeds? 1 Forward and 4 Reverse?

[Dukeface88]

I like the Monty analogy... bloated reputations, throwing his own team under the bus (denying Patton gas on the run through france), needed massive superiority (as you said) and a disaster as an ingame coach (trying to change his approach quickly... see A Bridge to Far.) And an ego the size of the old British empire.

To be fair, Monty should have gotten priority over Patton; they just should have been used for the Canadians clearing the Scheldt estuary rather than Market-Garden. That would have opened up Antwerp and solved the supply problems that were crippling the advance.

On the subject of tanks, the Sherman is typically underrated. The early M4s were probably better than either the Mark IV or the T34/76, while the late war M4E8s were about equal to the Panther once they started receiving HVAP shells (similar AT capability, more strategic mobility and better for infantry support, but less armor). The E8s certainly proved superior to the T34/85 when they both fought in Korea.

[theAlaskanBear]

To be fair, Monty should have gotten priority over Patton; it just should have been used for the Canadians clearing the Scheldt estuary rather than Market-Garden. That would have opened up Antwerp and solved the supply problems that were crippling the advance.

On the subject of tanks, the Sherman is typically underrated. The early M4s were probably better than either the Mark IV or the T34/76, while the late war M4E8s were about equal to the Panther once they started receiving HVAP shells (similar AT capability, more strategic mobility and better for infantry support, but less armor). The E8s certainly proved superior to the T34/85 when they both fought in Korea.

The T-34 really changed the game, tho. And the other poster was absolutely right, early in the war, it was really about the tactical use of tanks that was responsible for German success, less than superior weaponry. Fortunately, there was plenty of strategic blunder to negate the tactical mastery.

Anyhoo, back to topic at hand. I'll give Roy some credit, they won a game! That way, I can gloat mercilessly when Duke takes them behind the woodshed in Cameron.

[tele]

Were the Italian Fiat tanks the ones that had five speeds? 1 Forward and 4 Reverse?

Fiat just backed into ownership of Chrysler, which produced the M3, Lee and Grant North Africa British tanks, and the M4 Sherman.

[bass-piscator]

Sorry to stay OT but how do you define "early in the war"? D-Day? My dad was there and drove a M18 Hellcat tank destroyer. I remember him telling me many times how vastly superior the German tanks were. He told me that they would lay in wait at the bottom of hills so that they could try to get a shot at the panzers underbellies, then run like h_ell. Either that or a side shot to try and take out the treads.

And the Sherman was a piece of garbage. It didn't get the nick-name Ronson Burner for no reason. We were just able to out produce the Germans.

[devil84]

In the Official piling on Roy Williams thread, post #357 by blueprofessor notes compares Roy Williams to Lord Montgomery of Alamein. An interesting discussion transpired, and I wanted to give our historians a place to hash that out. A couple posts are kept in both threads, but the military history has been pulled out here for further discussion.

[theAlaskanBear]

Sorry to stay OT but how do you define "early in the war"? D-Day? My dad was there and drove a M18 Hellcat tank destroyer. I remember him telling me many times how vastly superior the German tanks were. He told me that they would lay in wait at the bottom of hills so that they could try to get a shot at the panzers underbellies, then run like h_ell. Either that or a side shot to try and take out the treads.

And the Sherman was a piece of garbage. It didn't get the nick-name Ronson Burner for no reason. We were just able to out produce the Germans.

When I think of early in the war, I think of 1939-41 or 42. D-Day in the middle of 1944 is definitely in the "end" of the war phase, because occupation of Berlin occurred less than a year later.

When the invaded Russia, the T-34 with its sloped armor and big gun caused nightmares for german tanks, and this caused the Germans to rapidly try to retool their tank arsenals.

[Maxwell1977]

The Germans basically invented armored tactics which were fundamental in their Blitzkrieg. No surprise that their tanks were superior early on. Rommel's Afrikakorps success was 1941. By late 1942, the Brits had the superior Shermans and El Alamein II ended it for Rommel. A big decision of the Allies for DDay was do they continue use the reliable and cheap Sherman in vast numbers or go with fewer newer tanks. They chose the former. Supposedly German 88 gunners had to withdraw because they ran out of shells. Too many Shermans. Yes they did suck in 1944.

[Indoor66]

I seem to remember reading that the reason the US did not build larger tanks during WWII was the limitation of transporting them within the US over the railroads - due to the width of the RR tunnels. The Sherman was built to the limits of those railroad tunnels.

A quick check of Wiki did not provide information on this point. Does anyone else have information or opinion on this point?

[theAlaskanBear]

I seem to remember reading that the reason the US did not build larger tanks during WWII was the limitation of transporting them within the US over the railroads - due to the width of the RR tunnels. The Sherman was built to the limits of those railroad tunnels.

A quick check of Wiki did not provide information on this point. Does anyone else have information or opinion on this point?

It would not surprise me at all, if logistics played a role in the design of tanks. However, the manufacturing base of the US in the North East and Midwest (in places like Chicago and StLouis), are tunnels really an issue? There have to be ways to reroute trains to avoid tunnels.

I mean, but certainly, packing as tanks on the boats... and transporting them to Europe may have played a role.

As Germany proved, it doesnt matter how good your tanks are, if you cannot produce them quickly and in enough numbers. Also, as far as german industry is concerned, they really struggled with oil and fuel shortages toward the end of war. That mattered a great deal, and was much of the reasoning why they had to have Stalingrad (as a gateway into the oil rich Caucasus), and the ultimate goal of the North African Campaign was to gain access to ME oil.

[Olympic Fan]

This is a subject that has always interested me ... and I agree that the Sherman is a much underrated weapon.

Just one clarification before we start -- th term "panzer" is simply a German abbreviation for an armored vehicle ... hence all German tanks are panzers. Tiger and Panther are specific models of German tanks.

When you evaluate WWII tanks, you have to realize that every tank made during the war is a collection of compromises. You could load a tank with more and more armor, but you get to the point that it couldn't move. You can get around some of that with a better engine, but do you go for engine power or range? And to achieve range, do you add a bigger fuel tank (which, in turn, makes a tank more vulnerable).

The most-produced German tank in WWII was th Mark IV, which was a nice combination of mobility, protection in firepower. Except for having a better gun (more on that later), it was a good match for the Sherman. The Germans had just a few of these in 1940, when the French had some very well-producted tanks (the Char-B) which were much better armored and had better guns than even the Mark IV. But they were slow and had little range. Plus, as earlier noted, the Germans achieved tactical superiority by grouping their tanks, while th French still parceled them out in small groups.

When the Germans invaded the USSR in July of 1941, the Mark IV was more widely available and had a better gun (a long-barrelled 75 mm). But the Germans still had plenty of Mark IIIs and even some Czech tanks they liberted in 1938.

The Russian T-34 came as a huge surprise. The sloped armor gave it extra protection for its weight of armor. It had an effective 75 mm gun and, based on a chassis design by American Walter Christie, it was faster and more mobile than the Mark IV.

The tank the Germans built to counter the T-34 was the Mark V -- or the Panther. A beautiful machine -- well armored, well gunned and another step up in mobility. It's one flaw was its complexity. It was hard to manufacture and harder to maintain. When the Panther worked, it was probably the best all-around tank of WWII -- there just weren't enough of them and they didn't work often enough.

The Tiger was a different animal ... a heavy tank. It was the best protected tank of the war (well, maybe the Stalins late in the war were better) and armed with the fabled 88 mm gun (designed as an anti-aircraft weapon, it proved to be the best anti-armor weapon of the war). But the Tiger was difficult to manufacture, hard to maintain and not very mobile. As it turned out, it started to come on line just as the Germans fell back on the defensive -- it was a superb weapon for static defense.

The Matilda was a British "infantry" tank -- a heavily armored vehicle with very little mobility. I actually think Montgomery's main tank batteries in North Africa were American Grants (the pre-cursor to the Sherman, it mounted its main gun on one side, like the French Char B) and the Sherman.

The Sherman had some real strengths. It was the most mobile medium tank of the war and it was easy to manufacture -- we made more of them every German tank combined. It's armor was less effective (American tankers liked to pile sandbags on their tanks or rip up rail ties to bolster their armor).

However, the biggest problem with the Sherman was its inadequate main gun -- a low velocity 75 mm. You see, America's Army commanders saw tanks as an infantry support weapon. They didn't want tanks fighting tanks. They designed the M3 Hellcat to do that -- the "tank destroyer" ... it was a Sherman chassis with a high velocity 3-inch gun and no armor.

The British had great results taking the Sherman and replacing the main gun with a high-velocity 6-pounder. They called them "Fireflies" and they were great weapons. But it wasn't until 1945 that the constant complaints from the front convinced high command to give the troops a Sherman with a high velocity 75 mm gun. Only then could it holds its own with German armor.

By then, the war was almost over. But as improved and upgraded, the Sherman remained in service around the world for more than a decade.

But one of the points that has to be made is that all the armies developed tactical ploys to utilize their tanks. The Germans were great at using towed 88 mm guns as tank destroyers. The Germans also developed close air support -- Pete Quesada and the US Ninth Air Force took it to the next level. They became adept at using fighter-bombers to provide close-in support for our inferior tanks -- a Sherman might not be able to handle a Tiger one-on-one, but a quick radio call upstairs brought a cannon-armed P-47 or a rocket-firing British Typhoon down to make mincemeat of even the best German tank.

[Dukeface88]

Sorry to stay OT but how do you define "early in the war"? D-Day? My dad was there and drove a M18 Hellcat tank destroyer. I remember him telling me many times how vastly superior the German tanks were. He told me that they would lay in wait at the bottom of hills so that they could try to get a shot at the panzers underbellies, then run like h_ell. Either that or a side shot to try and take out the treads.

I'm not sure whether you're referring to me theAlaskanBear, but when I mentioned early versions, it would be about 1942-mid1943, and late as being late 1944-1945. There was a period between mid 1943-mid 1944 (when the Germans were deploying significant numbers of Panthers and Tigers, but the US had not begun to deploy 76mm armed Shermans) when Sherman was generally inferior. This unfortunately included the initial phases of both the Normandy and Italian landings.

Even then the heavy losses were as much a result of the terrain as anything else. Generally speaking, whichever side was on the offensive suffered lopsided casualties. The Germans suffered casualties in roughly the same proportion during their counterattacks as the Allies did during their offensives (Hill 262 and the Battle of Mortain, as well as various local counterattacks). The quality disparity was small enough that training and tactics were able to overcome it; a good example is the Battle of Arracourt in September-October of 1944, where a single American division badly mauled two Panzer brigades and parts of two other divisions. Note that this was a meeting engagement where neither side had the benefit of either the defensive or surprise, that the American division involved (the 4th Armored Division) was still equipped exclusively with 75mm-armed Shermans, and that it was the largest tank battle the US would fight until the Battle of the Bulge.

And the Sherman was a piece of garbage. It didn't get the nick-name Ronson Burner for no reason. We were just able to out produce the Germans.

This reputation was somewhat undeserved. While the early Sherman models did tend to burn easily (due to poor protection of the ammunition, not the gasoline engines as is popularly believed), this was fixed before the Normandy landing by the introduction of wet storage. The Panther and Tiger, on the other hand, were known to randomly burst into flames (the fuel lines were poorly manufactured, and had a tendency to leak on to the engine). It wasn't unknown for German tank crews to ditch their vehicles after being hit with smoke or WP rounds for fear that they had caught fire.

[theAlaskanBear]

I'm not sure whether you're referring to me theAlaskanBear, but when I mentioned early versions, it would be about 1942-mid1943, and late as being late 1944-1945. There was a period between mid 1943-mid 1944 (when the Germans were deploying significant numbers of Panthers and Tigers, but the US had not begun to deploy 76mm armed Shermans) when Sherman was generally inferior. This unfortunately included the initial phases of both the Normandy and Italian landings.

Even then the heavy losses were as much a result of the terrain as anything else. Generally speaking, whichever side was on the offensive suffered lopsided casualties. The Germans suffered casualties in roughly the same proportion during their counterattacks as the Allies did during their offensives (Hill 262 and the Battle of Mortain, as well as various local counterattacks). The quality disparity was small enough that training and tactics were able to overcome it; a good example is the Battle of Arracourt in September-October of 1944, where a single American division badly mauled two Panzer brigades and parts of two other divisions. Note that this was a meeting engagement where neither side had the benefit of either the defensive or surprise, that the American division involved (the 4th Armored Division) was still equipped exclusively with 75mm-armed Shermans, and that it was the largest tank battle the US would fight until the Battle of the Bulge.





This reputation was somewhat undeserved. While the early Sherman models did tend to burn easily (due to poor protection of the ammunition, not the gasoline engines as is popularly believed), this was fixed before the Normandy landing by the introduction of wet storage. The Panther and Tiger, on the other hand, were known to randomly burst into flames (the fuel lines were poorly manufactured, and had a tendency to leak on to the engine). It wasn't unknown for German tank crews to ditch their vehicles after being hit with smoke or WP rounds for fear that they had caught fire.

Haha, I had forgotten about that fuel line thing. Its amazing how much I learned reading some of Harry Turtledoves alternate history (one of the main characters in his World War series is a German tank commander).

[Dukeface88]

Haha, I had forgotten about that fuel line thing. Its amazing how much I learned reading some of Harry Turtledoves alternate history (one of the main characters in his World War series is a German tank commander).

And that was only the most striking problem. Both the Panther and Tiger were maintenance nightmares; the engine, tracks, road wheels, transmission and suspension all broke at an alarming rate. Most people forget that, from an operational standpoint, there isn't a huge difference between a tank that was destroyed by the enemy and one that had to be destroyed by its own crew after breaking down.

TBH, I'm not a big fan of alternate history. Most of the writers don't do much research and end up posing widely improbable scenarios, especially with regard to the logistics involved (disclaimer: this is only a generality; I've never read Turtledove and have no idea how good/bad he is with this). That's a whole separate rant though.

[theAlaskanBear]

And that was only the most striking problem. Both the Panther and Tiger were maintenance nightmares; the engine, tracks, road wheels, transmission and suspension all broke at an alarming rate. Most people forget that, from an operational standpoint, there isn't a huge difference between a tank that was destroyed by the enemy and one that had to be destroyed by its own crew after breaking down.

TBH, I'm not a big fan of alternate history. Most of the writers don't do much research and end up posing widely improbable scenarios, especially with regard to the logistics involved (disclaimer: this is only a generality; I've never read Turtledove and have no idea how good/bad he is with this). That's a whole separate rant though.

Umm, well you should stay away from his World War II series, because its based on the premise that aliens invade earth when the War is in full swing...as improbable as it gets. However, the dude knows his history.

You might look into his Great War series. It starts with a prequel call How Few Remain, and then the next book skips ahead to WWI between the US and the Confederacy. Really really cool books, but at times he jumps around to so many different characters, you really want more depth on a few.

[Olympic Fan]

Umm, well you should stay away from his World War II series, because its based on the premise that aliens invade earth when the War is in full swing...as improbable as it gets. However, the dude knows his history.

You might look into his Great War series. It starts with a prequel call How Few Remain, and then the next book skips ahead to WWI between the US and the Confederacy. Really really cool books, but at times he jumps around to so many different characters, you really want more depth on a few.

Not to hijack this thread (which has already been hijacked once), but I am a big fan of alternate history.

I actually think that Turtledove's "The Guns of the South" is one of the great alternate history novels ever written -- and it starts with a total ridiculous sci-fi premise (racists from a South African terrorist group steal a time machine in the future and go back to the winter of 1863 and arm Lee's army with the AK-47). What makes it work is Turtledove's real ability as a writer to re-create both the era, real characters (his two main characters are Robert E. Lee and a fictional sergeant in a North Carolina regiment) and his serious exploration of how his bizarre scenario would have played out.

I've been less enamored of his "Great War" series ... and his alien-invading-WWII series is (to my mind) awful.

Lately, I've been enjoying the AH novels of Robert Conroy. I especially liked "1901" which postulates a war between the Kaiser's Germany and the United States in that year (based on real German war plans and a real conflict at that time over certain Carribean properties). His "1862" (Britain declares war on the Union over the Slidell and Mason affair) and his "1945" (Japanese extremists kidnap the emperor and prevent the surrender of Japan after the two atom bombs -- based on a real plot that was foiled the night of the surrender) are also excellent -- his "1942" (Nagumo follows up his attack on the fleet at Pearl Harbor by attacking the base itself -- which leads to the evacuation of the Hawaiian Isles) is IMHO far less accurate in depicting what would have happened.

To my mind, that's the key to alternate history. I'm usually willing to accept a bizarre premise to change history, but from that point, I think the author must respect the historical characters and the historical possibilities that ensue.