What Is The Life Expectency Of A Tanker?

Discussion in 'Weapons, Technology & Equipment' started by jimbotosome, Nov 23, 2005.

  1. jimbotosome

    jimbotosome Discharged

    Does anyone know the life expectancy of the tankers of the nations in WWII? What about by tank type?
     
  2. spidge

    spidge RAAF RESEARCHER

    I had read that the life expectancy of a Sherman tank crewman in a pitched battle was about 40-50 minutes.

    Difficult graph to plot as there are way to many variables.

    Belton Y. Cooper's "Death Traps" speaks of expectancies across tank models and their weaknesses.

    He was a 3rd Armoured division ordinance officer with the forward elements and was responsible for coordinating the recovery and repair of damaged American tanks however reading some of the reviews he makes reference to other models.

    See it at http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearc...n=9780891418146
     
  3. adamcotton

    adamcotton Senior Member

    (spidge @ Nov 23 2005, 09:09 AM) [post=42017]I had read that the life expectancy of a Sherman tank crewman in a pitched battle was about 40-50 minutes.

    Difficult graph to plot as there are way to many variables.

    Belton Y. Cooper's "Death Traps" speaks of expectancies across tank models and their weaknesses.

    He was a 3rd Armoured division ordinance officer with the forward elements and was responsible for coordinating the recovery and repair of damaged American tanks however reading some of the reviews he makes reference to other models.

    See it at http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearc...n=9780891418146
    [/b]

    Yes, that dosen't surprise me! The Germans nicknamed Shermans "Tommy Cookers" because of their propensity to ignite; even American tank crews dubbed them "Ronsons" after the lighter of the same name..
     
  4. jimbotosome

    jimbotosome Discharged

    Maybe I asked the question too generically. When I say the lifespan of a tanker, I mean the lifespan of someone trained and assigned to drive tanks, not the lifespan of a tanker in a tank to tank battle. My belief is that more Germans died in their tanks than Americans did in theirs. To say a Sherman crew will not see their family ever again more than the Tiger crew would, is what I am out to prove or disprove.

    As you all know, there is a lot of mocking of Shermans, but I think (and this is what I am looking to verify), crew in Shermans were far more likely to survive and tell their families about the war because the Shermans rarely "exploded" killing all the crew because it was simply not hidden sufficiently in trees or made a mistake of shooting at a Sherman while hiding when the enemy had a radio near. The Tiger's often did suddenly explode killing the entire crew even when Shermans were not in range and the front was miles away. So, if the numbers I think are correct, then retrospectively you would much rather be in a Sherman where you had a chance of getting home again than in a Tiger where you were pretty sure you were going to die. I am just looking for the facts to back it up.

    Let’s say you have a budget as you do in wars both economically and in terms of factory output. You can build one Tiger OR you can instead build one Sherman, one fighter/bomber, and one Long Tom (Tigers are expensive). Considering relevant characteristics of tanks like survival and winning the war, is the Tiger the better tank or have we simply gotten off on a tangent in talking about irrelevant things like armor thickness and penetrating power of its gun, which most people mistakenly think allows the crew to survive against the enemy’s choices of weaponry production?
     
  5. Tom Canning

    Tom Canning WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran

    It wouild appear to be a fact that more Shermans were knocked out than Tigers or even Panthers
    but then there were more of them produced - it was not only the Americans who christened the Sherman - Ronson Lighters - as they "lit fiirst time" Tigers and panthers took much more punishment before they were killed whereas one shot usually finished off a Sherman.
    That's why I was glad all my fighting was in a Churchill - now that could take a lot of punishment unfortunately had too snall a turret ring to take the 17 pounder which was equal to their 88mm or special 75 !
    Tom Can
     
  6. sapper

    sapper WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran

    That is a difficult question, and I doubt that any serious answer is to be found. One life span I can answer is this; The average life expectancy of anyone landing on D Day was six weeks. By that time, you will be dead, or wounded, or removed from the field of battle
    Sapper
     
  7. angie999

    angie999 Very Senior Member

    To make a direct comparison between Shermans and Germans is a little false.

    US doctrine was that the role of tanks was to fight infantry, not other tanks. That was the role of tank destroyers and AT guns. Therefore, the original Sherman 75mm gun, while excellent for firing HE, was inadequate in an AT role. This is why it was superseded by the 76mm and why the British modified some into the Firefly model with the 17 pr gun. The height of the Sherman was also a disadvantage, as was armour which was too thin to withstand German tank and AT guns.

    German tanks, by 1944, were able to fight tank on tank battles, but their development owed little to the need to fight the western allies. They were developed to fight tank battles against the Red Army.

    Tiger tanks were actually not that common in the west. The Germans never produced that many in the first place and most were deployed against the Red Army. The most common tank encountered by the western allies was the later models of the Panzer IV. This was a good deal smaller than a Tiger, but the silloutette was not unlike one and many reports of Tigers were actually Panzer IVs.
     
  8. jimbotosome

    jimbotosome Discharged

    What about the Panther Angie, wasn't it seen more than even the Panzer IV on the western front? I don't think the Panther was useful on the Russian front. Probably not the the Panzer IV either. Wasn't the Panther produced in higher quantity? Do you know the answer to that?
     
  9. Gnomey

    Gnomey World Travelling Doctor

  10. jimbotosome

    jimbotosome Discharged

    Wow Gnomey, that's quite a reference. Thanks.
     
  11. Gnomey

    Gnomey World Travelling Doctor

    No problem jim.
     
  12. angie999

    angie999 Very Senior Member

    (jimbotosome @ Nov 27 2005, 03:44 AM) [post=42129]What about the Panther Angie, wasn't it seen more than even the Panzer IV on the western front? I don't think the Panther was useful on the Russian front. Probably not the the Panzer IV either. Wasn't the Panther produced in higher quantity? Do you know the answer to that?
    [/b]

    Even in the SS Panzer Divisions, the best equipped, the Panzer Regiment contained one battalion of Pz IVs and one of PZ Vs (Panthers) in most cases. Not all the Heer Panzer Divisions had Panthers. The Tigers were in special heavy tank battalions which would be attached for particular operations.

    The Panther first appeared against the Red Army at Kirsk in 1943 and was not immediately successful, but it was faster and more agile than the Tigers and its version of the 75mm gun was extremely powerful. It was more than a match for the T34 on good ground (the T34's wide tracks usually gave an advantage on soft ground).
     
  13. GarandGuy

    GarandGuy Member

    The Sherman has got an undeserved reputation lately because of the propensity of earlier variants to brew up when hit. When looking at a comparison of the M4A3 Sherman armed with a 75mm M3 gun vs the German PzKpfw IV Ausf E you have nearly an even match. The German gun is better, the Sherman has better armor, the German tank has a lower silhouette, the American tank has a better fire control system and a gyrostabilizer to allow accurate firing on the move. When you look at the best Sherman model, the M4A3E8 HVSS it is vastly superior to the best PzKpfw IV, the Ausf J. The E8 Sherman has 102mm armor at a 47 deg angle on the upper hull. The lower hull has 114 mm of armor at 34 deg angle. The turret face is 89mm@0 deg, and the turret sides are 63mm. The sides and rear of the hull are 38mm at 0 degrees. Ammunition storage was changed from dry to wet which greatly reduced risks of fire if the tank was hit. The HVSS suspension was also a big change which kept tension on the tank track no matter what which gave it great mobility and lessened the risk of throwing a track. The KwK 40 75mm gun of the PzKpfw IV could penetrate 108mm of armor at 500m. The 76mm M1A1 gun of the E8 could penetrate 134mm of armor at 500m. So against the commonly encountered PzKpfw IV of the Western Front the Sherman could perform well. Against the Panther and Tiger even the E8 had a tough time.
     

Share This Page