Customer Reviews

Panther vs Sherman: Battle of the Bulge 1944 (Duel)

5 star:		(9)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Even as the author of the previous volume in the Duel series, Panther vs. T-34: Ukraine 1943, I still learned a great deal in Steven J Zaloga's first addition to the Duel series, entitled Panther vs. Sherman: Battle of the Bulge 1944. As usual, the author manages to impart new data and fresh insight even into familiar subjects, such as tank battles in the Ardennes. This volume focuses on actions involving the German Panther Ausf G model tank versus the M4A3 (76mm) Sherman during the period 16-31 December 1944. Although there is plenty of technical detail in this volume, this is far more than a simple comparison between two tanks and readers looking for a glib assessment of which tank was `better' than the other will not find it here. Overall, this is another great volume in the Duel series.

The volume begins with sections on the design and development of both tanks, which does not significantly overlap material in earlier Osprey volumes. As the author explains, the design of the Panther Ausf G was seriously compromised by poor quality materials and lack of spare parts, all caused by Allied bombing. In regard to the Sherman, he states that, "the Panther threat began to be realized too late to have an impact on US Army decisions for its 1944 tank program" and there was no strong demand from American armor officers for tanks with improved anti-tank capability until after D-Day. The section on technical specifications in sub-divided into protection, firepower and mobility, with direct comparisons between the two tanks embedded in each of these areas. Herein, the author notes that, "the Panther had significantly better armor protection than the Sherman" and that "the Panther had superior firepower to the M4A3 (76mm) in tank-versus-tank combat." However, the Sherman had significant advantages in terms of mobility and mechanical reliability that had a major impact on their contribution in Ardennes campaign.

The section on the combatants is also quite good in describing the functions of the Panther and Sherman crews. In this section, it is clear that the Sherman enjoyed some subtle advantages that greatly increased its chances against the Panther, such as a commander's turret over-ride, better gunner's sights and better machineguns. German tank crew training was also seriously undermined by late 1944, with new crews getting only minimal driving and live fire experience due to fuel and ammo shortages. The author factors all these variables into the assessment of the combat capabilities of both tanks, which gives a far more dynamic comparison than mere statistical tables. There are also sidebars on German and American `tank aces.' Perhaps the only disappointing section is the one on the Strategic Situation, which outlines the German Wacht Am Rein offensive and provides a map depicting corps/army dispositions. This section didn't really integrate well with the other sections and the map would have been more relevant if it depicted the locations of the battalions that had Panthers (8) and those that had Sherman M4A1/3 tanks.

The section on Combat comprises 14 pages of text and covers actions at Krinkelt-Rocherath and Freyneux, but the heart of this narrative is the detailed account of the Panther vs. Sherman duel at Freyneux on 24 December 1944. Readers may be surprised to see that the Shermans performed creditably against the Panther, particularly in the opening stages of the action. The end result was 5 Panthers and 5 Shermans lost, which was a poor trade for the Germans. This section has a nice 2-D diagram of the action (with notes), a battle scene by Howard Gerrard and views through the gunsights of the Panther and Sherman. The author concludes, "nearly all of the tanks knocked out in the fighting were hit before they were even aware of the presence of enemy tanks, reaffirming the rule of `spot first, engage first, hit first.' One item that probably should have been mentioned in the section on the action near Celles is that Meinrad von Lauchert was in charge of the Panthers in the spearhead (the man who led them into action at Kursk) and that had the Panther been equipped with a diesel engine as Hitler originally insisted, the Panthers would not have run out of fuel 7 miles short of their objective.

The real lessons of this book are delivered in the concluding sections on statistics and analysis. Contrary to what readers conditioned to war movies or computer games might expect, the author notes that actual statistical data indicates that most tank vs. tank battles were small, involving only 4-9 tanks on each side. The data also indicates that the defender had a distinct advantage, since they usually got to fire first. Despite its vaunted post-war reputation, the author uses data from 29 engagements involving Shermans and Panthers to conclude that, "the popular myths that Panthers enjoyed a 5-to-1 kill ratio against Shermans or that it took five Shermans to knock out a Panther have no basis at all in the historical records." Further, he states that, "in a head-to-head duel, the Panther Ausf G was clearly superior to the M4A3 (76mm)...[but] tactical considerations were often paramount." Also, "the Sherman offered a better balance of mass and quality than did the Panther." The statistics that the author provides indicate that the Germans committed about 416 Panthers to the Ardennes offensive and lost 180, while the Americans committed about 600 M4A3 tanks and lost about 90. However, these statistics do not break down how many tanks were destroyed by other tanks as opposed to lost to mines, A/T guns or mechanical breakdown. Thus, the Shermans likely inflicted more damage on their opponents, but the actual results of the duel are left a bit murky.

In this readable, carefully-researched book, author Steven Zaloga carefully picks apart the conventional view that the Panther was superior to the Sherman. To begin with, the primary role of tanks was not tank-to-tank combat. When tank duels occurred they were decided more by who got the first shot than by gun power or armor protection. By late 1944, American crews generally had an edge in experience and training. The Sherman had a better secondary armament than the Panther. The Sherman typically had a faster engagement cycle than the Panther because the Sherman's turrret traversed faster, and the Sherman's gunner had his own periscopic sight; the Panther's gunner, whose head barely fit in the turret, sat blind until he had orders to begin looking for the target. In combat, tank engagements were usually small, quick and decisive; victory went to the side that saw the enemy first, and fired first.

By late 1944, the majority of Panther crews were relatively green and inadequately trained. Fuel scarcity aggravated the problem of deficient crew training, and imposed limitations in combat, too. The Panther's armor was often brittle because the vital alloy molybdenum was increasingly scarce in Germany's war-ravaged, bombed-out manufacturing economy. Foreign workers may have sabotaged fuel and lubrication systems in Panthers. For these reasons and more, the Panther's brilliant design was more a matter of theory than reality.

If, like me, you are something of a tankaholic, you will savor this vintage bottle as a rare break from the cheap stuff. And if someone you love is a tankaholic, there could be no better gift than this fascinating glimpse of late World War II armored warfare.

First, I'll admit a prejudice towards Steve Zaloga's works. He is one of my favorite authors on military history and technology. In this volume Zaloga has added another excellent volume to his works on WW2 US armored forces. Other Osprey volumes include Battle Orders series books on US tank battalions, US armored divisions, and tank destroyer battalions, a Warrior series book on US tank crewman, Vanguard books on the M4 (76mm), and other vehicles. Each book adds more material to the overall story of American armored troops in World War Two. Taken together Zaloga's volumes add up to a massive history of the US military forces in Europe that faced the German army. This "Duel" series volume deals specifically with the use of the later editions of Sherman tanks against the massive German attack know as the Battle of the Bulge. Both vehicles are examined from the technical standpoint as well as their use in the tactical situation on the battlefield. Mr. Zaloga defrocks the myths that only superior US numbers won the war or that it always took five Shermans to kill a German Panther tank. This book looks at the various factors that allowed the Germans to win the statistics (bigger, heavier, etc.) but allowed the US Army to win the war. This book is well written and very readable. The pictures are clear and in many cases uncommon. The color illustration add appropriate content to the text. More than worth the money, highly recommended.

I wish I had had this book fifteen years earlier before I constructed my table-top game of the Bulge (12' x 6', several tiers, HO scale trees, tanks, and soldiers on stands). The students would moan and groan (those driving the Shermans ,1/72nd scale tanks)when the German tanks would clobber their thinclads at extreme ranges. In reality, the book confirms that. But one needed to take into account the heavy forested areas that impaired line of sight during this winter onslaught by the Germans.
Overall, this is an extraordinary book that explains the advantages and disadvantages for the two armoured fighting vehicles. This is an outstanding book for the WWII armor enthusiast, as well as for the wargamer. This is another book that I will be passing along to my grandson.

I was surprised to discover how much interesting information was contained in this little book. Before reading this book, I was one of those who just assumed that the Panther could beat anything the Allies could put against it. I was wrong. When the Germans invaded Poland in 1939, the Germans did not have good tanks as is assumed. It was a myth. What got the German victories were their tactics. Radios in all of the tanks etc. The French and Russians actually had better tanks with bigger caliber guns but used them poorly.

By the end game, it was the Germans who had better tanks (in theory) but had poorly trained crews and used them incorrectly.

I highly recommend this book for the serious WWII historian.

This is one of those Osprey books, this time in the "Duel" series. The duel here? Sherman tanks versus Panthers in the Battle of the Bulge.

On paper, the Panther was a superior tank, so the so-called duel would seem to have been one-sided. However, as the book argues, there were simply more Shermans than Panthers and American tank crews were better than the depleted German tankers. As a result, the Sherman tanks ended up, as a group, doing well. The author notes that (Page 4): "On the face of it, the contest between Sherman and Panther seems preordained in the Panther's favor." But, obviously, the Panther did not carry the day for the German forces as they launched their surprise attack in the Ardennes, precipitating the Battle of the Bulge.

The book features many photographs, specifications of the competing tanks, and maps. The book considers a number of factors, from the technical specifications of the two tanks, to the tank crews who fought one another, to the strategic situation, to the nitty gritty of combat. The Conclusion notes why the Panthers did not perform better. The legacy of these tanks? The book concludes by noting that (Page 75): "It can certainly be argued that the Panther was the forebear of the modern main battle tank concept."

After a shaky beginning, Osprey's 'Duel' series is really hitting its stride, courtesy of series' entries like Steven Zaloga's PANTHER VS SHERMAN volume. Noted armor authority Zaloga's book provides an insightful comparison between the two armored mainstays of the American and German armies, the Sherman and the Panther. It makes for fascinating reading.

Though Zaloga's book contains a fair share of combat, it is less concerned with WHAT happened in Panther-Sherman encounters than WHY the encounters turned out as they did. He examines factors such as crew arrangement within the tank , ammunition storage, quality control and crew training, factors which played important roles in the combat performance and success of the two adversaries. Along the way he disposes of various myths surrounding both tanks (i.e. it took five Shermans to kill a Panther, etc.). I've read a number of books on tanks and tank warfare but seldom has an author produced such an illuminating summary as Zaloga in this 2008 Osprey volume.

Though other reviewers haven't commented on this point, I found the illustrations in Zaloga's book quite instructive. The artwork depicting the turrets of each tank and especially the gunsight view from each added a visual dimension to the mano-a-mano story I found fascinating.

In short, PANTHER VS SHERMAN has a lot going for it. Every armor buff needs to add this insightful, well-ilustrated volume to their collection. Highly recommended.

In recent years, it has become common to read all sorts of stuff about how the M4 Sherman was an inferior tank that cost American lives in WWII against "superior" German tanks. Probably the most egregious of these writings has been "Death Traps" by Belton Cooper. As a tank repair liaison officer, Cooper's WWII experience was undoubtedly skewed towards seeing only Sherman tanks that had been punctured and burned out by German anti-tank fire, but his book is nevertheless filled with omissions of fact and historical inaccuracies. In spite of this, "Death Traps" has come to be quoted increasingly by amateur historians who portray the M4 Sherman as an inferior tank.

And so, this book by Steven Zaloga comes as a welcome antidote to address many of the myths that have sprung up about the M4 and its supposed inferiority to the German Panther and Tiger tanks.

The M4 obviously had less armor and less cannon firepower than the Panther and Tigers. But it did destroy or disable a great many of both tanks in countless nearly forgotten small unit tank battles. It had many advantages over the German tanks, most importantly its greater numbers, greater reliability, and faster firing cycle.

Zaloga also points out many of the myths of Panther superiority. Chief among the Panther's weaknesses was the weak side and rear and top armor. The Panthers also stored their ammunition in the side sponsons, which could be penetrated by M4 cannon fire, and result in catastrophic ammunition fires (Zaloga points out that ammunition fires/explosions were the main cause of all tanks "brewing up" - catching fire - not the use of gasoline engines; German tanks had gasoline engines also). The Panther was far less reliable, and most importantly, the Germans never mastered the ability to produce it in great numbers, all of which reduced its overall effectiveness because there just weren't very many of them and they couldn't travel very far before breaking down.

This book points out the often ignored improvements made to the M4 Shermans as the war progressed, which improved its survivability and firepower. The 76mm cannon was better than the 75mm cannon, and late in the war, some high velocity anti-armor rounds became available (although not in great number) that were even better. Wet storage reduced the chances of a Sherman "brewing up" with a catastrophic ammunition fire as the result of a penetrating hit from 60-80% to 10-15%. Introduction of the "duckbill" treads reduced ground pressure and improved traction. The ultimate form of the M4 was the M4AE8, which had wider tracks and extra armor as well as the 76mm gun.

Zaloga describes some of the combat during the Battle of the Bulge. There were numerous engagements in which the American tank crew spotted the Germans first and so were able to "fire first" and take out a number of the Panthers. Conversely when the Germans spotted the American tanks first, usually the American tanks were knocked out. Real tank to tank combat thus had less to do with technical tank superiority than with which tank spotted the enemy first and was able to get off the first shots. No tank ever does well in an ambush, in other words. American tank crews frequently had an advantage in being much better trained than the great majority of the German tank crews, who had the bare minimum in training due to the general lack of fuel and ammunition in Germany at the time.

There is only a brief mention in this book of the series of tank battles at Arracourt in September 1944, which Zaloga says was the largest U.S. tank engagement in WWII. It is now a nearly universally forgotten battle, considered only to be a part of Patton's successful drive through the south of France, and Zaloga does not go into the details of this battle here (Zaloga covers this battle in one of his other books). At the Battle of Arracourt, U.S. 75mm Shermans of the 4th Armored Division took on a counterattacking force of over 300 German tanks, most of them Panthers. They ended up destroying some 285 German tanks and armored vehicles, losing 25 tanks and 7 tank destroyers.

Those are the sort of numbers that the detractors of the M4 have conveniently forgotten, and explain why the M4 was so important to the U.S. victory in Europe, and why it was not the helpless victim of superior German tanks, as is so often incorrectly stated nowadays.

Osprey offers excellent books. Their graphics are nonpareil, and information outstanding. This book outlines the pros and cons of two tanks fighting it out in 1944 Europe, the American Sherman and the German Panther.

Missed by some commentaries on tank action in Europe is simply that the Sherman's job involved attacking fixed fortifications manned by infantry. The Sherman hit the infantry line and broke through, then a different allied tank, the Tank Destroyer with a larger gun, came up and defeated the German (or whomever) tank's counter attack. After that, the Shermans took off and ran around behind the lines shooting everyone up and making the breakthrough stick. Thus, the Shermans were not supposed to fight other tanks very often. This was the theory. In practice, things seldom worked according to the theory.

The Panther development stemmed from German dismay at the Russian T-34. General Heinz Guderian set forth the necessary requirements which were not filled. Because of political infighting, the best design lost out. Then Panthers were rushed into production, hampered by design changes on the fly, and other problems encountered because of Nazi mismanagement. Panthers improved as the war went on, but many basic design flaws remained throughout its production.

Osprey covers all the Panther's production problems; however, they fail to mention the tactical differences in the theory of the Sherman's use and its actual use. I view this as a major oversight.

The author, Steven J. Zaloga, does outstanding work in showing how the Sherman's strengths are overlooked, while the Panther's weaknesses are often ignored. It seems the tanks were each blessed and cursed, but the blessings could be an overwhelming advantage at some points, but overcome by the curses at others. For example, high fuel usage by the Panther, coupled with Germany's inability to produce enough fuel, proved a major shortcoming; however,its optical sights were superior to the Shermans, and coupled with the excellent 76mm high velocity gun,they enabled the Panther to destroy Shermans at long range. So, what is more important, high fuel usage (a negative) or long range striking power? As Germany's fuel shortage was acute, that disadvantage gains importance. Also, the Sherman detailed in the book is the 76mm gun version. Superior to the 75mm low velocity gun originally mounted.

In the end, it seems a toss up on some levels. You, the reader, can decide. My conclusion is the Sherman comes off better than expected.

I took another star away for a sophomoric error by an excellent company: the stats for the Sherman are in feet and inches while the measurements for the Panther are in metric units. Now I have to do conversions. Uncool. Please use only one unit of measurement. Mixing the units is simply unacceptable.

AD2

Something that's been "common" knowledge in the wargamer/studiers of history arena is the superiority of the Panther while the Sherman was kind of a mediocre vehicle. When I saw this book awhile back I was intrigued because I wanted to see how Mr. Zaloga analyzed these two combatants.

The analysis was presented in a simple and direct fashion; development of the Sherman and Panther, their crews (their training and experience levels in 1944), and engagements between them during the Battle of the Bulge (there is some mention of other battles). Each section is done very nicely with good analysis and presentation. The analysis is direct and to the point, presenting the pluses and minuses of the vehicle for the item its being assessed against. For analysis of combat performance, Mr. Zagola looks at one engagement where Shermans (76mm) and Panthers fought directly against each other. Other engagements (including the use of Panthers at Krinkelt-Rocherath, as Mr. Zagola calls it, the Panther Graveyard) are included. Most sections are direct and to the point in typical Osprey fashion. Their tables in the Statistics and Analysis section are a little weak. The pictures, as usual for most of Osprey's books are very good.

I'm calling this one a weak 4 star book. Mr. Zagola does a good job presenting here with the Osprey format but there's not enough depth or story to call this one strong due to the constraints of Osprey's format (in and out in 80 pages or so, a different format would have enabled more opportunity for Mr. Zagola to assess things). This is an interesting story for wargamers and studiers of history, especially since Mr. Zagola assessment is of something most wargamers and studiers of history would consider this a forgone conclusion.