Monday 4 March 2013

Sherman vs Tiger

I have talked at some length about how Soviet guns were perfectly capable of dealing with German armour, so let's talk about the Americans for a bit. In popular history, the Tiger effortlessly cleaves through dozens of Sherman tanks at a time. Let's see what happens when the Sherman's gun is pitted against the Tiger's armour in a more rigorous test than hearsay and memoirs.

CAMD RF 38-11377-12

This test was performed firing a 75 mm M3 gun from an M4A2 Sherman with M-61 and M-72 rounds. Here are the results:

Side, shell type M-61, distance 400 m. Result: penetration, spalling inside in an area of 300 mm by 300 mm
Side, shell type M-72, distance 625 m. Result: penetration, minor spalling on entrance and exit.
Side: shell type M-72, distance 625 m. Result: same as above.
Turret: shell type M-61, distance 650 m. Result: dent 50 mm deep, 140 mm diameter. Penetration of the turret platform.
Turret: shell type M-61, distance 650. Result: dent 40mm deep, 120mm diameter.
Side: shell type M-61, distance 650. Result: Penetration. Shell knocked out a cork-like section of armour.
Side: shell type M-61, distance 650. Result: same as above.

The photo for this particular test is missing, but here's the Tiger after the other tests.

CAMD RF 38-11377-12

As you can see, the Allies' guns in general, and the Sherman's gun in particular, were very capable of dealing with the Tiger in 1943. The more observant of you will notice that the turret is no longer on top of the turret ring. This was a common side effect for German tanks that were being shot at by Soviet 122 mm and 152 mm caliber guns. 

82 comments:

  1. Thanks for this. My friend buys into the whole "invincible tigers" myth. I'm sure this will change his mind.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What about the Soviet propaganda myth? How else are you going to get your dumb peasants to take on the Tigers in their cheap and nasty coffins?

      Delete
    2. This test wasn't performed for tankers or civilians to see. It would be counter productive to falsify them.

      Delete
  2. Not too much doubt that th gun could pen the armor. The problem faced was that the Sherman had to get that close to penetrate, while the Tiger could get a catastrophic kill at a thousand and pen at 2k.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Research indicates that the average engagement range was only several hundred meters. Shots from over 1 kilometer were either rarely taken, or rarely reached their target.

      Delete
    2. The tiger was pretty much indestructible when it was introduced. Only around 1944 did the allies developed anti tank weapons effective against it frontally

      Delete
    3. The fist Tiger lost by an allied gun was by a British 6 pounder in the begging of 1943, which was fairly common gun.
      The Soviets had the T34/85 which can pose a threat to the Tiger, not to mention the SU-152, SU-122. In 1943 the Tiger was fearsome tank but not invulnerable by any means.

      Delete
  3. so what your telling me is they took a tiger just out the factory with no need for any repairs to anything on the tiger and they did ONE test with one shot on each side of the tiger and these are the results?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Red Army had no shortage of perfectly functional Tigers that were ditched by their crews. The results of each shot are recorded, if that's what you mean by "just one shot on each side".

      Delete
  4. You can pretty much rig results in your favor but when it came to actual combat, the Tiger totally destroyed the Sherman. Having listened to many eye witness reports from US and British tankers talking, they wanted nothing to do with the Tiger. As one US commander put it, "we needed 5 Shermans to knock ! Tiger out". Most of the crews of the Shermans were not given the better armor piercing shells as they were sent to the tank destroyer units.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is Archive Awareness, not Uncited Myths Awareness, please understand the difference.

      Delete
    2. The 5 Shermans to knock out one Tiger is a half-truth. It took five because shermans worked in groups of 5, whereas Tigers were usually solo or duo. The Panzer Lehr had 6 functional Tiger II tanks in Normandy, and no Tiger Is. The 503rd Heavy Panzer Abt. had 24 Tigers, mostly Tiger IIs. Most Tigers were sent to the eastern front, and the panzer armies in Normandy were about 2:1:1 ratio Panzer IV, Panzer V, and SPGs (varying between StuG IIIs and JgPzr IVs) On top of that, there were only two combat instances of US vs. Tiger tanks. The first time, the M26 Pershing lost, the second time, the Shermans won. (there was a third time, but the tigers were being loaded onto rail cars, so it wasn't really a fair fight ;))

      Delete
    3. You are correct about Shermans not getting very many of the HVAP rounds. They were highly prized by tankers, and most went to the TD Bns. This is mostly due to the standing order for all US tanks to immediately withdraw if they encounter enemy armor, which proved to be the best tactic. In every stat available, the defending tanks had the advantage and scored more kills than the attacker every time, including Panther tanks vs. any allied tanks.

      Delete
    4. I'm glad you saw the video I shared bellow.

      Delete
    5. "(there was a third time, but the tigers were being loaded onto rail cars, so it wasn't really a fair fight ;))"

      There was a fourth time: a T26E3 knocked out a Tiger with two shots at 900 yards, the first of which (T30E16) sheared off a final drive and the second of which (T33) penetrated the gun shield and entered the turret.

      Delete
  5. Is this website run by Russian patriots dedicated to proving the allied machines, infantry, tactics etc. were superior to those of the Germans? Sorry if I have inferred incorrectly, but I have read many articles here which are about the inferiority of German soldiers, German armor, the unreliability of German records etc. etc. Sometimes the only sources are original Russian records too, which strikes me as quite odd considering the dubious validity attributed to Russian records by most professional historians.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's interesting that you post this comment on an article that makes the Americans look good. I'm sure that Soviet propaganda did not exactly have that as their objective.

      Which historians question Russian records? Glantz and Zaloga, for instance, use them extensively.

      Delete
    2. The Germans convincingly LOST the war and here are some of the technical tactical reasons. Don't believe all the bull you read from German apologists with their sweeping kill ratio bullshit.....

      Delete
    3. damn, you blew him up like he's a panther's transmission at 151km.

      Delete
    4. lol you really hate the german vehicles of WW2 don't you?

      Delete
  6. Why would it be interesting? I said it looked to be run by Russians about the Allies, not an unreasonable assumption considering your name, sources and the majority of articles.
    I'm certain you would know of the criticisms of Soviet history, such as revisionism, and furthermore you would have come across specific examples of such, from Yezhov's picture to the Katyn Massacre. But since you asked, you would probably know of Antony Beevor.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The heck are you babbling about?

      Delete
    2. Read the previous comment, which this is a reply to. The "babbling" is a good criticism of a biast site, which believes doubtful Soviet-era records unquestioningy.

      Delete
    3. Is he any relation to Justin Bieber?

      Delete
  7. This is great information! However, since the tests were only against the sides and turret, it seems like the front is still impenetrable by the 75mm M3 L/40.

    ReplyDelete
  8. After being shot at a few dozen times, I think many tank guns would be able to penetrate armor plate. It does weaken the plating after a dozen or so shots.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I totally agree.

      Delete
    2. Faulty tests... and what you should do in real fights.

      Delete
    3. The Soviet gun tests at Kubinka were a crock. I guess they tested their T72s there and told their users they could kill Abrams too.....

      Delete
    4. Again, these reports were not for other tank crewmen or civilians to view, what would be the point of falsifying these tests? If your gonna claim faulty tests, please give some counter-evidence.

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    6. It's funny how people can complain about foreign propaganda while they take their own as a total true.

      Anonymus who writted in December 10, I'll tell you a secret, Abrams can be killed with another non Abrams tank. To peform this action you don't need a saboted osmium alloy unicorn horn, fired from a 460mm L127 wootz steel cannon with an atomic bomb as a propellant, you can kill it not only with a tank but also with a man portable launcher.

      Delete
  9. That is Tiger "121" of s.Pz.Abt.502, captured when the Russians broke the siege of Leningrad.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Gotta love how some people will never let go of German invincibility xD my old friend ML-20S has plenty to disagree on the subject :p

    ReplyDelete
  11. Great stuff. Really surprised that they had and tested M72 rounds. I believe the US declared those rounds limited standard in 1942 (I wish all these documents were dated).
    The results are absolutely consistent with American ballistic/performance tests at about 0 degrees. The key being "at zero degrees obliquity"...

    ReplyDelete
  12. You do realize that Tiger's main gun can shoot accurately for over 3km and just one shot is enough to take out a Sherman, right?

    The only way Sherman can win against a Tiger in open field is just swarm with numbers. Charge and pray that someone can get behind that tiger before all were taken out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Something tells me you have read neither this article nor any of the others. Effective shots at even two kilometers with any 8,8 cm gun (including the King Tiger's gun) represented a whopping half a percent of the total. http://tankarchives.blogspot.ca/2013/08/combat-performance-of-75-cm-and-88-cm.html

      Delete
    2. Being able to knock out anything at 3km isn't much help when the average combat ranges in Western Europe were 600m or less!. It's also worth noting that when the German tanks were on the offensive, their losses rates went up proportionally.

      Delete
  13. The Soviet tactic of charging towards a lone Tiger with 50 T-34/76 tanks blazing away wildly crops up even on TV interviews with former Soviet tank commanders.

    With such a volume of fire somebody is going to score a lucky hit.

    By 1945 the US Army had M.93. APCR pattern shot availible in increasing supply for 75mm., 76mm. and 90mm. guns.

    The US Aberdeen range test maximums versus vertical plate @ 100 yards were:

    75mm. = 127mm.,
    76mm. = 208mm.
    90mm. = 246mm.

    Note that these tests were square on idealised tests that one would be unlikely to uncounter on the battlefield.

    The 90mm. M.304. APDS shot also became available in 1945 to selected frontline units.

    According to the Aberdeen range tests it could manage up to 270mm. square on (0 Degrees) @ 100 yards.

    Most of the mproved ammunition arrived just when finding a German tank to shoot at was growing hard and the main threat was from hand held RPG, rocket launchers and AT grenades.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Interesting to see all the grousing here. Frankly I
    am GLAD Peter Samsonov has gone to the effort
    of putting this up. Have any of YOU done any
    translating...? Thanks again

    ReplyDelete
  15. IIRC, the 75mm Shermans were all that common until right at the end of the war. Problems with the ammo, logistics and retraining slowed their adoption. So, while the test are likely valid, they probably didn't translate strongly into the battlefield.

    It's also important to note that American doctrine called for an "organic" attack on major systems like the Tiger tank. An organic attack means attacking the system over entire life cycle form raw materials, to design, to manufacturing, crew training and moral, deployment, supply, repair etc. as well as spoofing intellegence and even targeting. In a very real way, having to put a round through a tank to kill it represented an overall failure of the doctrine and in any case aircraft were more cost effective at tank killing than other tanks.

    The strategy was successful. German tanks were fragile from material shortages and manufacturing defects from interruptions from bombings. Fuel shortages took out more tanks than weapons.

    American statisticial managers quickly determined that trying to field sufficient numbers of large, heavy gunned tanks would be to slow while at the same time, the long logistics train and available manpower meant no soviet style tactics either. Instead, they just whittled the german tank force (and all other forces) organically at every single point they could strike.

    Doesn't make for a good video game but it did work.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Excellent stuff. Its good to see this revisionism gaining traction. I've often wondering if German equipment and personnel were so outstanding how did the allies beat them; and certainly in the west with lower casualties than the Wermacht. I think they 4 or 5 to one myth came from a worst case planning estimate by the brass hats - which many have demonstrated was never got anywhere near in reality.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The 4-5 Shermans to 1 enemy tank came from US tactical doctrine. The smallest tank unit you sent to engage an enemy is a platoon - consisting of 5 tanks! So even if its just an enemy halftrack, they still sent out a platoon.

      Delete
  17. Excellent stuff. Its good to see this revisionism gaining traction. I've often wondering if German equipment and personnel were so outstanding how did the allies beat them; and certainly in the west with lower casualties than the Wermacht. I think they 4 or 5 to one myth came from a worst case planning estimate by the brass hats - which many have demonstrated was never got anywhere near in reality.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. allies beat the germans because of numbers
      if the germans had as many tigers and et cetera with the kind of numbers that the allies had or if hitler hadn't tried to command the military personally we'd be speaking german right now

      Delete
    2. Ah the old wehraboo myth (put it in google if you don't know what it is) of a magnificently trained and equipped army overcome by rabble hordes. Tigers cleaving through masses of Shermans and T34s before being finally overwhelmed. Its not true. Certainly final victory was certain because of the allies's greater resources but they understood far better the old adage of amateurs talk tactics experts talk logistics. The Germans were busily designing Tiger tanks whilst still supplying their armies by horse and cart. As for the 5 to 1 Sherman to Tiger myth its long since been knocked out (look up Chieftain's Hatch)

      Delete
    3. Crouts and japs lost when they were stronger, at Moscow,Stalingrad,midway, guadalcanal, kokoda and elsewhere. The Germans lost (twice) hands down, fair and square. In both world wars they were outsmarted, outfought and out managed. The story of them being efficient is a joke. I say that responsibly as I live and work among them. When everything works well and there is enough time to prepare and execute something, all is great. Come some unexpected factor it all falls apart and its all over from the start. They generally cannot think on their feet and ability to improvise is zero. That last can be regarded as a definition of war. They were winning simply because they prepared for war when everyone else was not (or started too late). Notwithstanding that they attacked almost everyone without declaring war, making surprise attacks one country at a time. Waging a global war without preparing for winter...without ever thinking of changing your codes...without making any kind of strategic air capability...how stupid do you have to be? Blind belief in that uber alles bull####, that's how. Von Paulus surrendering with his pudle pet dog with infantrymen starving, that is the German military for you.
      If they were producing Sherman's or t34s, AND had them in large numbers they would have lost just the same. As for if they had as many tigers as the other guy has shermans: if my aunt had a penis she would be my uncle.

      Delete
  18. Also another fun fact on WW2 history, M4 Shermans only encountered Tigers 3 times during the war. One instance was the Battle of the Bulge, another was when Tigers were loaded and/or being loaded onto rail road cars so the Americans had the advantage and the third one im not so sure on. You may think this is made up and fake, well, tankers in WW2 when they thought they seen a Tiger they were actually looking a Panzerkampfwagen IV, since the Panzerkampfwagen IV and VI have the boxy structure and roughly the same profile and the fact they were far away from the tank they couldn't distinguish if it was Pz.Kmf. IV or a Tiger, and no tanker when confronting a tank is gonna sit and say well the tiger has this and that but this tank doesn't, they are going to make a quick guess and kill it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. American Shermans, yes. British and Soviet Shermans fought a lot more Tigers.

      Delete
    2. >> "..Shermans only encountered Tigers 3 times during the war.."

      We should all check our references, and not rely on our memories.

      The truth is, AMERICAN-crewed Shermans met Tigers only 3 times during the NORMANDY TO GERMANY campaign.

      American Shermans met Tigers many other times in Tunisia, in Sicily, and in Italy.

      British, Canadian, Russian, New Zealand and other people's Shermans also fought Tigers.

      Delete
  19. is this supposed to prove something? I don't doubt that people think that a Sherman with improved ammunition can probably penetrate the side of a tiger's turret from 600 meters..
    and apparently what actually happened in a war is 'hearsay and memoirs' while a test in a controlled environment is a better study of what would actually happen in a battle? I don't mean to hate but I don't think that the soviet's method of just getting battles down to the numbers was the best way of doing it. if you want to say that the tiger didn't kill a lot of Shermans, that's not really true either. Top two reasons that tigers died were artillery and airstrikes, and I doubt that the third one was not mechanical..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You really need to get out more old lad: refer to previous. Some facts - as I say look up http://ftr.wot-news.com/2013/07/28/please-dont-use-the-5-m4s-1-panther-myth/
      The majority of Shermans were killed by AT guns not other tanks.
      Only about 20% of a Tank's time is spent fighting other tanks - the rest is supporting infantry (so a great advantage to your infantry if you've got lots of tanks)
      Artillery doesn't really knock tanks out its HE not AP, nor does airstrikes (too inaccurate) they both do knock out the tank's supplies (logistics again) and supporting infantry.

      Delete
  20. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  21. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I'm sure main Tiger killer wasn't the IS2, German retired their loved and idestructible (as their manual shamesly teached to any new operator) kitties when they detected that beast in the same front sector. If in the occidental front they feared kitties, what would it happen if they had to fight what kitties feared?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The main Tiger killer was probably the humble ZiS-3.

      Delete
  23. "more rigorous test than hearsay and memoirs"
    What you are saying is "Yes, I will totally discount all memoirs of veterans, I mean who cares what they think?" I prefer to believe first hand accounts of S.V. Radley-Walters (google him), who visited the Cdn armour school and the regiments quite readily. Your sentence completely disrespects General Rad and all veterans many of us who have spoken to in the past as part of our our military experience.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, I know who Radley-Walters is. I have the utmost respect for veterans, but memory is a very fragile thing, especially in a dangerous combat situation where a participant can't exactly calmly reflect on what's going on and might have a very limited view of the situation.

      Delete
    2. My grandfather faught all over the Pacific and swore by the M1 ping myth.

      I actually purchased an M1 rifle and demonstrated to him that there is no way in heck you're hearing a clip ping after being exposed to the report of a battle rifle. After years of arguing he simply said "I suppose you're right".

      Along those lines for a time it seemed like every GW vet was on the receiving end of a SCUD. Kind of odd since somewhat less the 1% of American soliders came under attack by a SCUD.

      I'm a vet so I can appreciate what all of these guys have gone through but come on, guys who never came within hundred miles of "Tiger" talk as if every time they engaged the Germans they came under attack by SS troops fielding tigers supported by hordes of '88s.

      Delete
  24. Good god, I really need to check my comments when writing them on a phone. Hopefully one can figure out what I was saying through all the grammar errors I incurred.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Quite interesting video about the topic,
    https://youtu.be/bNjp_4jY8pY

    ReplyDelete
  26. 75mm gun had a shorter range to damage a Tiger, but the issue is what was the most common combat range for tank combat ?

    About 785 yards, so the extra reach of the Tiger was useful but far less than is often thought.

    Also it seems that most M4 detractors have the belief that most tank battles were head on front to front, which does happen no doubt but by no means the only engagement.

    Panther only had 40mm of armor on sides so nearly any hit from a 75mm will penetrate it.

    Yes it would be nice to have a gun that can always penetrate the frontal armor of the enemy but neither side had that every time (yes 88's have failed to penetrate M4 front)

    As an aside on memoirs it is a good posabilty that many Tiger I sightings in the west were Mk IV's

    mK IV
    http://ww2live.com/en/content/world-war-2-35-images-panzer-iv-ausf-h-most-competitive-version-german-tank

    tiger I
    http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/Tiger1-2002-Picz/tiger1_scheme.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  27. I believe that many Sherman tankers preferred the short 75mm. It was far easier to use in confined spaces & fired a good HE shell, good for dealing with dug in infantry & AT guns. As for what the "occidental" allies would have done if they faced what the "kitties" were afraid of, well 3000+ heavy bombers would have come in handy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 3000+ Heavy Bombers wont make your shitty little tank batter tho it's still a shitty little tank no matter how superior your air force is

      Delete
    2. M4 was not any "shitty little tank" though. It arguably was the all-around best tank in the war.

      Delete
  28. The report seems to indicate a 90 degree orthogonal attack. In other words, there is no obliquity to the shot angle. many here would be surprised what a side angle of 30 degrees would do to the results. The US tested M72 against the sides of the Tiger.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you have a scan of the US tests? I only have the Soviet and British tests.

      Delete
  29. Seriously, stop believing the obvious lie which you so desperately cling to. Fire up war thunder. Make a custom battle against historical Sherman and the Tiger. Use historical M62 ammunition. You will quickly see reality of the combat and will be less inclined to personal delusions about the "glories of 75mm" peashooter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So War Thunder is more historically accurate than history? That's one hot take.

      Delete
    2. information from a video game>information from the men who actually had the real damn things, apparently

      Delete
    3. Being able to penetrate the enemy tank from the side isn't impressive in the slightest Capitain. This whole comment section is full of Wehrmach haters who circle jerk each other "We can penetrate the Tiger from the side at a good angle. Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee"

      Delete
  30. To the Wehrmacht enthusiast commenters still trickling into this post: have you considered buying a shirt that proudly shows your Überright opinion on this subject for all to see? Consider this fine uniform for your next IRL street meeting!

    (PS I am not associated with or make money off this, I just like it)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ehhh.... you can penetrate the Tiger from the side.. yepeeeeeee... great news.. if you manage to flank the enemy fire at a good angle... which wasn't easy to do.. but yeah the Sherman was perfectly capable of dealing with the Tiger.

      Delete
  31. Lol this is pathetic. The sherman main gun was able to penetrate THE SIDE of the Tiger at perfect 90 degree angle therefore the The Sherman was perfectly capable of dealing with the Tiger?? Hhahahah yeah perfectly capable if it managed to flang it and fire at that sweet 90 degree angle.. which isn't easy to do when that thing can take you out at 1,5 kilometers. How does this disprove "the myth of Tiger superiority" ???

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why don't you read up on Tiger 131, where it got knocked out by Churchill 6pdrs.

      Or the Battle or Arracourt where Patton traded 25 Shermans for 86 Panthers and Pz IVs because Shermans in the fog OP.

      But hey, let's not forget one of the two times the US faced a confirmed Tiger, the Shermans shot it a bunch and it died. The second time a Tiger killed a shitty M26 and then died to getting shot by a Sherman.

      There was also this one time some Canadian Shermans totally rekt Whittmans Tiger and all his Tiger buddies.

      Delete
    2. ... yes, Fireflies with QF 17 pounder.

      Delete
    3. Shermans in Soviet service knocked out Tigers, and those didn't have 17-pounders at all. In Radley-Walters' famous ambush, the non-Firefly Shermans also claimed two Tiger kills.

      Delete
    4. I was referring only on fight when Wittmann was killed, when fatal hit was by Firefly's 17 pounder after multiple blows of 75's.
      Would US army ordnance bother at all with introduce and logistic of new 76mm cannon with 50% higher muzzle velocity and capability of firing (very rare) tungsten AP shells if the old M3 L/40 was reported as sufficient on the battlefields against German armor?

      Delete
    5. The introduction of a 76 mm gun was planned long before anyone has seen a Tiger. Same thing with the Soviets, upping divisional artillery and medium tanks to 85 mm was planned even before Operation Barbarossa.

      Delete
  32. I had many conversations with my late Father, a Purple Heart Veteran, landed on Utah Beach 3rd day of the Normandy invasion. His service was with the 3rd Armored Division, Recon. Co., as an A4E8 Sherman driver. He was on his 3rd Sherman (and crew) when he was severely wounded in the left leg and evacuated to England. He said they seldom saw German tanks except killed ones, and they were rare then. The other Shermans he (and his crew) luckily bailed out of were hit, he believed, by 88mm guns. He said “ the damn things were pre-positioned on every road and intersection and the
    Germans could shoot them like sniper rifles. They’d let you get so close they couldn’t miss and at those distances, they’d penetrate anything every time.” He always said “he believed his tank was hit by 88 ( Flak) gunfire because he ( and everybody else he ever talked to in theater that went through similar encounters) had no idea WHAT hit them. They just knew they were still alive and if they wanted to continue to stay that way, they had to get as far as possible away from the now immobile target. He said the knocked out German armor and light vehicles all appeared to have been hit from above ( heavy strafing by Thunderbolt fire) or artillery rounds from above. Everybody, German and American, shunned tank on tank slugout contests as the usual outcome, in his observation, was you killed each other. You fought from ambush, and if you were lucky enough to survive the next 5 minutes after you fired the main gun rounds that stopped your opponent, you had better be heading at top speed away from the area because every available piece of artillery was going to be firing in your direction. A hit in the top rear engine area by artillery shrapnel (it didn’t have to be a direct hit) would either stop immediately or badly damage any powerplant, be it Maybach or Wright and if you stopped after attracting your opponent’s attention you were dead. He repeated this on many occasions. He did say the Germans seemed to not have any vehicle resources or replacements, and their gas and ammo was usually moved by horse-drawn wagons. He saw thousands (his words) of dead horses, still hitched to whatever they had been pulling, with the drivers bodies nearby. That was from artillery or aircraft, but on rare instances, infantry or armored vehicle fire as well. But he always repeated “ We didn’t stop to examine anything because stopping meant dying.”

    ReplyDelete
  33. In another US document the Navy ballistic limit for the 76mm M62 APC shell was determined as 1774fps. For 75mm M61 APC shell it would be just a little bit higher at 1781fps equivalent to 750m(!).
    I went to check the report of this trial and there you go: the initial velocity for the M61 shell is listed as 564m/s(1850fps)!

    The actual distances for the 75mm M3 gun w/ 2030fps muzzle velocity would not be 400m and 650m but 950m and 1200m respectively.

    ReplyDelete