German Wündertanks vs Shermans

Bloody Hell! That looks like something straight out of Flash Gordon!
Well we had our own:


What is interesting is both weapons begin to show the need for tactical mobility and small size, while retaining the knockout punch against tanks. what's even more amusing is the views on the Bombard from back then comapred to when I showed its stats to a modern weapons designer.
 
Well we had our own:


What is interesting is both weapons begin to show the need for tactical mobility and small size, while retaining the knockout punch against tanks. what's even more amusing is the views on the Bombard from back then comapred to when I showed its stats to a modern weapons designer.
That post led me on a little Google hunt. You Tube has a few shorts showing the Blacker Bombard - one of them from 1944, showing it being fired (by the look of it, it's in the African bush, because the firers are definitely African colonial troops), but you can hunt those down yourselves :) . . .

. . . . the one that really caught my eye was this one on the PIAT. It looks like the B+W footage in it was filmed in combat. Even if it wasn't, it's instructive to watch the firer's face each time he pulls the trigger.

When I wastched it just now, the next film in line was about the Panzerschreck. I'm saving it for later.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
That post led me on a little Google hunt. You Tube has a few shorts showing the Blacker Bombard - one of them from 1944, showing it being fired (by the look of it, it's in the African bush, because the firers are definitely African colonial troops), but you can hunt those down yourselves :) . . .
The bombard gets a bad rep around the internet and there's so much inaccurate information published about it, its unbelievable. About one sentence in ten contains correct information. There again that applies to most of the WWII spigot stuff (hence why I'm currently writing a book on it). I've yet to see a Bombard or PIAT article which has contained 100% accurate information.

. . . . the one that really caught my eye was this one on the PIAT. It looks like the B+W footage in it was filmed in combat. Even if it wasn't, it's instructive to watch the firer's face each time he pulls the trigger.
There's a very good reason for that. Some earlier PIAT projectiles had a habbit of firing shrapnell out the back of the shell when you pull the trigger.
 
Last edited:
The bombard gets a bad rep around the internet and there's so much inaccurate information published about it, its unbelievable. About one sentence in ten contains correct information. There again that applies to most of the WWII spigot stuff (hence why I'm currently writing a book on it). I've yet to see a Bombard or PIAT article which has contained 100% accurate information.
I do find that Dr Atwater ill informed on most of the stuff he gives off. There was a Bombard pit outside Applepie many years ago (probably housing now) and the trunnion was as good as the day it was put into the concrete.

Any idea on publishing date?
 
Not so much documentary evidence of use though, I could probably find the tables for the 84mm Carl Gustav Illum but we never used it!
Plenty of evidence in contemporary newsreels and books. with no air threat of note, their high rate of fire and HE frag shells proved very useful for annoying dug in troops.
The guns were very much in demand once their radar VT fuzes were cleared for use against ground targets late in 1944, these proving particularly deadly to dug in troops. They played a major role in the Po River operation.

Found this, worth a read

3.7in AA gun NOT used as AT gun
 
Last edited:
That post led me on a little Google hunt. You Tube has a few shorts showing the Blacker Bombard - one of them from 1944, showing it being fired (by the look of it, it's in the African bush, because the firers are definitely African colonial troops), but you can hunt those down yourselves :) . . .

. . . . the one that really caught my eye was this one on the PIAT. It looks like the B+W footage in it was filmed in combat. Even if it wasn't, it's instructive to watch the firer's face each time he pulls the trigger.

When I wastched it just now, the next film in line was about the Panzerschreck. I'm saving it for later.

Everyone picks on the PIATs weaknesses, but tend to omit its advantages. A high rate of fire after the first round, and almost no back blast allowing it to be used within cover.
Not an ideal weapon, but it worked and was available. Arguably more useful than the puny 60mm Bazooka.
 
The Sherman had at least the same & more often greater thickness armour over the frontal area & at a similar slope. Its turret was thicker, as was the hull floor. Sides were similar thickness.
On top of this, the quality & uniformity of the armour was also superior.
There's a side by side test of both out there on the www somewhere using 57 & 76mm A/T & the Sherman consistently fared better in almost all circumstances.
It's interesting how, across this and other threads, the myth of the T-34 has been deconstructed. Equally, it's interesting to see how the Sherman has gone up in the rankings, as it were. I don't doubt the cases made. It's interesting though to see how rumour and a good propaganda team can cement things in people's minds.
 
I do find that Dr Atwater ill informed on most of the stuff he gives off. There was a Bombard pit outside Applepie many years ago (probably housing now) and the trunnion was as good as the day it was put into the concrete.

Any idea on publishing date?
The bombard trunnions are literally a bit of bent scaffolding in concrete, so its a bit hard to go wrong. AS to publishing date, no idea, I've not even started the manuscript. I've got my first book out in October, and I'm awaiting a resposne on a second book on early cold war British tank developments. However publishers seem to take a year or more to get a book out, so that will hopefully be end of next year. Then its the bombard/PIAT/hedgehog book.

British engineering at its apogee, verily :)
Nope, law of unintended consequences. We didn't realise this situation would arise, and when it did the fault was engineered out.
 
It's interesting how, across this and other threads, the myth of the T-34 has been deconstructed. Equally, it's interesting to see how the Sherman has gone up in the rankings, as it were. I don't doubt the cases made. It's interesting though to see how rumour and a good propaganda team can cement things in people's minds.

The Sherman’s ‘failings’ when you dig down through the facts seem to stem from their initial employment in a North Africa.
Yes it had some design failings, ready use shells clipped to the turret basket. Very bad, no cutout in the basket to let the driver, co driver bail out through the turret. But those design issues were very quickly corrected.
What BOTH users, the US Army and British Atmy both identified though was the inflammability was mostly down to operators filling the tanks up with extra ammunition and crap - even cans of petrol!

I’ll try and find the tests they did in the US to see ‘what was wrong with the Sherman’. After all these reports of them burning. A couple of Shermans were stocked and fitted with all the correct loads of ammunition and kit as per the regs and shot to pieces on a range and found to be distinctly disinclined to catch fire.

It’s notable that the Russian who were very scathing of the infamability of the M3 Grants they were supplied were perfectly happy with the Sherman.

If you wanted a death trap tank....the Tiger, a penetration into the side sponson almost invariably caused a catastrophic detonation of the ammunition and it’s crew went straight to Valhalla.
 
@Listy I think we are talking at cross purposes. I mean this shinny item that looks like new 70 years on.

 
It's interesting though to see how rumour and a good propaganda team can cement things in people's minds.
@California_Tanker once said that books have a long half life. Then you get Belton Cooper trotting his work out, and suddenly Sherman's are a pile of ass for the next 20 years. Especially in the public mind.

Equally I suspect the T-34 had a bit of a reputational boost. Soldiers, at least in the WWI period always seem to over estimate the abilities of the enemies weapons. Mainly due ot the human mind. A soldier can see the effect of an enemies weapon on his own side, but often will not register his weapons having an effect just because he can't see it. You also have the effect of memory bias, where the small amount of times something happens are remembered but the larger number of times it doesn't happen are forgotten.

Thus the T(rash)-34 becomes an unkillable shell bouncing machine to the German veterans mind.

Now ask yourself with the Iron Curtain where did we in the west get our source info for combat on the Eastern front from?
Add in the way Russia reveres the T-34 as a mythical saviour of the motherland, and you get a perfect storm.
 
@California_Tanker once said that books have a long half life. Then you get Belton Cooper trotting his work out, and suddenly Sherman's are a pile of ass for the next 20 years. Especially in the public mind.

Equally I suspect the T-34 had a bit of a reputational boost. Soldiers, at least in the WWI period always seem to over estimate the abilities of the enemies weapons. Mainly due ot the human mind. A soldier can see the effect of an enemies weapon on his own side, but often will not register his weapons having an effect just because he can't see it. You also have the effect of memory bias, where the small amount of times something happens are remembered but the larger number of times it doesn't happen are forgotten.

Thus the T(rash)-34 becomes an unkillable shell bouncing machine to the German veterans mind.

Now ask yourself with the Iron Curtain where did we in the west get our source info for combat on the Eastern front from?
Add in the way Russia reveres the T-34 as a mythical saviour of the motherland, and you get a perfect storm.

Well Herman the German in his post war memoirs isn’t going to admit most of the Heers tanks in 1944 was obsolescent pre war designs with thin armour and not terribly awesome guns.
 
@California_Tanker once said that books have a long half life. Then you get Belton Cooper trotting his work out, and suddenly Sherman's are a pile of ass for the next 20 years. Especially in the public mind.

Coopers book needs to be taken with a strong pinch of salt. He has some interesting numbers, but doesn’t seem aware that German tankers were taught to keep firing at a tank until it caught fire or blew up. A burnt or blown up tank was an unrepairable tank. A suspect many of the crews of the burnt Sherman’s were in a ditch watching some daft German carry on shooting at their immobile tank.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
ExREME..TECH The NAAFI Bar 12
smeg-head The Book Club 0
smeg-head The Book Club 31

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top