re: How were German armored divisions so much more elite than their US counterparts

quote:

---

Went to see Fury and they portray the German tiger tank as nearly impenetrable by US tanks

---

The M4 Sherman was a lightweight compared to the Panzer IV or the Tiger. They were deathtraps.

3 am. Drunk. Not reading 7 pages. Op Almost sounds like a troll. Not gonna bother with that, but can we safely say that this unrealistic bullshite WWII movie ended very disappointingly?

Eta:

quote:

---

Wildthang

---

Do you even Gettysburg bro? How can you say that.

There was a scene in the movie toward the end that was one of the dumbest most unlikely things I have ever seen in a movie, won't say it so no spoiler.

quote:

---

If England falls, there is no way we evict Germany from Western Europe.

---

Meh. There were options to open the theater in Greece, and through the Black Sea (Ukraine) with Soviet assistance, among others. I mean we did open Italy, after going to North Africa and then Sicily. The Alps would have been a challenge and that would have been more difficult/time-consuming without England, but it could have/would have been done, regardless.

quote:

---

British Navy falls

---

Well, that wasn't going to happen. If Germany had invaded the British Isles, the Royal Navy would have evacuated to North America as a last resort. Probably operated independent task forces under the USN umbrella until such time as England could have been liberated. And British resistance/partisans would have been brutal on the German occupation. It would have tied down at least a dozen divisions that Hitler couldn't spare.

The US tanks at the beginning of the war were outclassed in the armor/main gun area. What was so great about the US tanks was manufacturing, maintenance and ease of use, all of which outclassed the Germans. Later in the war the M4E8 with the high velocity 76mm gun helped make the Sherman a more formidable tank. The Brits Firefly Sherman faired pretty good as well.

The Panzer IV was considered to be the M4's counterpart, essential a light/medium tank. The Tiger and Panther tanks were much larger then the M4 and thus performance of armor and gun systems showed here.

Panther below which many consider the best design of the war.


In reality, most German divisions were never at full strength, in fact the US infantry divisions many times had more tracked vehicles then the a German tank/armor division could field in late 44.

The weight of the Tiger II (King Tiger) helped limit its success as off road travel became almost impossible. We must also remember that the Germans could not produce new equipment like the US could. As the Allies pushed across Europe we did so with air superiority. Heavy German tanks were then regulated to act as hidden defensive positions as the risk of air attack was becoming to great.

I briefly touched on a few points here, in reality one would need a few hours to answer the OP's question and this is all I will muster at the moment.

Pershing did see limited combat, why we did not produce more was an issue with certain Generals and procurement/tactics.

Following the war the M60 was a great tank, seeing service with the US in the first Gulf War in '91 and still in service with other militaries around the war.

Sherman next to Tiger


Sherman passing Panzer IV


The images are to illustrate the size differences in these tanks. Which should help folks understand a bit of the difference with out going into a 15k word essay here.

quote:

---

Hell, if they hadn't been there most of Western Europe probably would have fallen under the Soviet block.

---

Read Cross of Iron by John Mosier, you may change your mind about how you view the eastern front. Without US involvement, the NSDAP wins the war.

quote:

---

Hell, if they hadn't been there most of Western Europe probably would have fallen under the Soviet block.

---

Completely untrue.

quote:

---

The Panzer IV was considered to be the M4's counterpart, essential a light/medium tank.

---

I agree with all of the above.

I think that a very common misunderstanding about this topic relates to the quality of the US tanks vs. German tanks. Most would say that, overall, the German tanks were better. That's probably accurate.

But, most people stop right there and give the matter no further consideration. I say that because, the truth is that the US tanks were not as bad as the stories we all have heard.

One must really look at each model of US tank and compare it to a particular enemy tank. Also keep in mind that the "Sherman" was not just one kind of tank because it had many significant upgrades.

We know that even the Sherman 75mm that saw action in North Africa was good enough to penetrate the frontal armor of the German Panzer IV tank. The German panzer divisions in late 1942 were better than the US due to relative combat experience, not because of great superiority of equipment. Sure, the Tiger I tank made its first appearance in North Africa and it ruled there, but, it did not appear in great numbers.

The lowly US tank with the 37mm gun was a pretty good tank in North Africa in 1941. The British used it in combat at that time. The 37mm US tank was fast and that 37mm gun had excellent power for its light caliber.

So, talking about WW2 in generalities is fraught with peril, whether we are talking about tanks, armored divisions, etc. For example, we say that the German tanks were overall better. On the other hand, we know that the Sherman Easy Eight was probably a better tank than a mainstay of the German panzer forces: the Panzer IV.

I think that the movie "Fury" takes place mostly in 1945. If that is so, the relative quality of the US armor divisions vs. the German panzer divisions had flipped, because, by 1945 it is safe to say that the US armored divisions were better than their German counterparts. The German armed forces were used up and exhausted by then. The were short on equipment, tanks, fuel and ammo. They were short on experienced tank crews -- short on even TRAINED tank crews.

If you have a half-trained crew with very little experience, even the best tank in the world is not going to perform like the best tank in the world. Conversely, a crack tank crew in a mediocre tank is going to make that tank look like a great tank. This truism goes far to explain why the relative combat effectiveness of US vs. German armor units flipped between late 1942 and May, 1945.

Seems reasonable that the country that started the war would be more prepared at the start of it.

I doubt that after the "war to end all wars" there was much will in the U.S. to build a top-notch military, so we had some catching up to do at the start of WWII.