FURY: M4 Sherman Vs. Pz.Kpfw. Tiger

[Jeffbert]

O.k., I admit I have yet to watch this film, but I have seen the Smithsonian channel's TANKS OF FURY, & as such, feel it appropriate to make this topic. I do have the DVD, but hoped to wait until my brother comes up to watch it.

Anyway, this is a seriously one-sided fight, if it were one against one, given that the M4 was designed for infantry support & 5 man crew not withstanding, was not intended to fight other tanks, but that task was theoretically to be left to tank destroyers & towed guns. Yet, as the Germans used mobility as a tactic and tanks led the way (while other nations clung to the "Infantry is the Queen of Battle" tactic), the US Army was forced to use tanks against tanks. Thus, the M4 Sherman's inadequacy in that role cost many lives.

So, as I understand it, the film details the one tank named 'Fury' as its crew go into Europe and eventually go against a Tiger (in part portrayed by a pseudo Tiger & the one remaining functional Tiger in the entire world).

 

[HareBrain]

I haven't seen it either, but my understanding is that the Sherman in the film has a long-barrelled AT gun (I forget the model number, but it's the US equivalent of the British Firefly). So it could destroy a Tiger, with some luck.

 

[Jeffbert]

My brother just called, & unless his area gets snow tomorrow, he will be here Saturday, as he does snow removal among other things as a landscaper. I used to visit the US Army Ordinance Museum in Aberdeen MD, & there was a Tiger I there until about 10 years ago, when they shipped it to Germany, supposedly to make it operational. It is the subject of Tiger without a Home (http://www.amazon.com/Tiger-without-home-Panzerkampfwagen-Ausführung/dp/0964435918), oops, my bad! that book was published in 1995! Damn, its been gone for over 20 years! So, I went there, examined all those tanks, from the outside, anyway, & the German tanks' construction was such that you could tell the thickness of the various sides; I brought a tape measure once, as I recall, & the armor on the Tiger I's front hull was at least 6 inches (though the web page below says 4.7" max), though it did have a direct vision port in it for the driver, which could be opened a few inches or closed tight (The Tiger II had periscopes, thus eliminating that weakness). The gun mantlet was even thicker, it seemed like 8" or more, though I could not reach it to measure.

edit: I checked two apparently reputable web sites, & both indicate that the maximum thickness was a mere 4.7"; thus, I conclude I must have confused the Tiger I with the II as far as that goes.

http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/nazi_germany/Panzer-VI_Tiger.php
Anyway, I built tank models as a kid, never had much success, though. This was always my favorite tank.

 

[clovis-man]

Yet, as the Germans used mobility as a tactic and tanks led the way (while other nations clung to the "Infantry is the Queen of Battle" tactic), the US Army was forced to use tanks against tanks. Thus, the M4 Sherman's inadequacy in that role cost many lives.

I saw the Smithsonian feature also. Which motivated me to rent and watch Fury. I won't argue the merits of the movie except to say that the whole thing seemed to be essentially a pastiche of scenes designed to portray some aspect or other of the role of the Sherman tank in the drive to the Rhine. As such, it seemed to be reasonably accurate, based on the Smithsonian feature and the works of Stephen Ambrose, which should pretty much be required reading for those interested in this subject. Regarding the Sherman-Tiger encounter in the film, I can only relate that two advantages worthy of note for the Sherman were that it was faster and that there were a vast number of them, compared to the Tiger (or the Panther, for that matter).

 

[Venusian Broon]

I haven't seen it either, but my understanding is that the Sherman in the film has a long-barrelled AT gun (I forget the model number, but it's the US equivalent of the British Firefly). So it could destroy a Tiger, with some luck.

Didn't need luck, apparently they were quite good at it and could easily knock out Tigers and Panthers at reasonable combat distances! I had something in my mind that it was a 90mm AT gun (or thereabouts) that they fitted - but it turns out the Firefly was fitted with a 17 pounder or 76.2mm - however it was better than the dreaded 88 than the Germans had.

Don't know what the US equivalent was.

 

[HareBrain]

however it was better than the dreaded 88 than the Germans had.

Really? Hmm, I'll have to dig out my old Advanced Squad Leader counters!

I know for sure it wasn't as good as the King Tiger gun, but that had a longer barrel than the Tiger I.

 

[Venusian Broon]

Really? Hmm, I'll have to dig out my old Advanced Squad Leader counters!

I know for sure it wasn't as good as the King Tiger gun, but that had a longer barrel than the Tiger I.

King Tiger - (well, how many of them were made? Not that many...)

But for the British weapon - Higher velocity therefore better armour penetration apparently. Surely though it worked, no? In terms of general results in western Europe 1944-45?

Oh yeah, I even got my mates involved in Panzer Blitz/Squad leader and they weren't anywhere near as mad on WW2 games as me

 

[Jeffbert]

I watched the film Friday evening, & to avoid spoilers, I will just say that it was Intense!

The name Stephen Ambrose is familiar to me, but I cannot recall ever reading any of his books; I do have Kenneth Macksey's Tank Vs. Tank, & it details the armor versus gun conflict fairly well, though the tables in it do not account for angle of impact, which I have seen in web pages. Given that, it does detail far more than what the tables state. In the few minutes I flipped through the book just now, I could not find a table about the Firefly Vs. the Tiger I, though I am certain such details are in the book.

I also have a book called Death Traps, by Belton Cooper, whose job was to clean out the blood & guts from knocked-out tanks & prepare them for new crews. As the title suggests, he did not think much of the M4 Sherman. Cooper was featured in at least one History Channel program about WWII tanks, & he show sheer disgust at the US Army's willingness to send men into combat against tanks designed to fight other tanks, in tanks designed for infantry support.

I have read elsewhere that the Americans designed new tanks to be similar in firepower, armor, etc., to the enemy's tanks that were already in the field. It seems to me, that this put their crews at a constant disadvantage, because by the time the newly designed tanks were deployed, the Germans had already better tanks than those the American had used as the standards they wanted to match.

 

[clovis-man]

The name Stephen Ambrose is familiar to me, but I cannot recall ever reading any of his books.

Two books among several about WW II in Europe that describe German v. American armor encounters by Ambrose are Citizen Soldiers and The Victors. Well worth seeking out. The HBO series Band of Brothers was based on a book of the same name by him.

 

[Dinosaur]

Chances are the Tiger wouldn't even make it out of the factory in order to make its way to the embarkation area to catch a train to the fight. The things had a terrible reputation for reliability even amongst German tanks.

Still assuming the Sherman's attack the factory then they will be in serious trouble unless up against a late war model, the ones where the armour was of very low quality due to the damage caused by Bomber Command and Speers decision that any "steel" was better the low quantity of decent steel.

 

[Jeffbert]

I believe it was the Panther that had the terrible reliability, as Hitler ordered them deployed to Kursk without adequate field testing; perhaps the Tiger II?

As far as cheap steel goes, I cannot recall reading about it, in Spears' Inside the Third Reich, though as I recall, it had little about the armaments, & it was years since I read it. Maybe I will check it.

 

[Dinosaur]

I wouldn't trust Spear's propaganda piece for any reliable information about the German industrial situation. Wages of Destruction by Adam Tooze is much better.

 

[Jeffbert]

Since Speer wrote it after WWII, I would not consider it propaganda. Though his reason for writing it may be suspect, I do not see any reason he would benefit by lying in it, except as it pertained to the use of slave labor.

 

[clovis-man]

Since Speer wrote it after WWII, I would not consider it propaganda. Though his reason for writing it may be suspect, I do not see any reason he would benefit by lying in it, except as it pertained to the use of slave labor.

Having read this many years ago, when the author was still living, I can mainly remember that his portrayal of facts was not highly suspect. His portrayal of his role, however, should be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[Jeffbert]

Anyway, the Smithsonian Channel's Tanks of Fury did give the M4 at one least advantage over the Tiger, its rate of turret rotation was faster, though if the entire tank also turns, that should be negated. The other advantage that was not mentioned was that the setting of this film was in Germany, and by that time, the amount of training that the panzer crews (& everyone else) received was minimal. Add to that, the fact that by this time, the cream of Germany's soldiers were rotting in Soviet POW camps, and the standards for draftees & recruits had dropped, as there simply were few, if any who met the old standards. While the Americans had some 11,000,000 men or more under arms during WWII, it is unlikely that Germany could field even half that number.

However, given the fact that that Tiger's angle of attack was not head-on (trying to avoid a spoiler, here), and was from such a distance that should have given it all the advantages needed to destroy all the M4s in that encounter, I think the film was more than just fanciful in depicting Fury destroying the Tiger, rather than the reverse. The 4 Shermans to one Tiger destroyed theory assumes they meet face to face, rather than the Tiger lying in wait about 1000 meters off the side of the road, and firing upon the thinner armor on the sides of the Shermans. Beyond that side armor, the ammunition was stowed, and which arrangement led to the British naming it The Ronson (after the cigarette lighter that lights every time), & the Germans called it The Tommy Cooker. The tactic was to destroy the lead tank 1st, then the one at the rear. While those in the middle were trying to maneuver in the limited space between the two destroyed tanks, that Tiger had all the advantage needed to get the other two, because they had no chance of destroying it at that range, and would need to charge across the field to close the distance, and attack the rear or the side of the Tiger, which in this case, was just inside the shade of the trees. I do not think even the 17 Pdr. could hope to penetrate the frontal armor, except at very close range. Given that the Tiger's crew may have been inexperienced, it still seems very unlikely that it would lose after ambushing the three other Shermans, and destroying them on the road 1000 meters or more from the Tiger.

I realize the film depicted the american vehicles as travelling close together so that they all fit on the screen at the same time, but in reality, the idea was to keep a distance of about 50 yards between them, which would likely have given at least two of them the chance to take cover after the first two were destroyed.