New WWII Movie: Fury

[Wulfburk]

Just give'em a panzerfaust/shreck and its done.

[Jagdpanzer]

Seems a little ironic coming from someone named Jagdpanzer with a panzer division insignia for an avatar (), but yeah, German propaganda abounds on the interwebs. In reality most German tanks were actually easily capable of being destroyed by American ones, Tigers and Panthers were a minority, and even those were still vulnerable to the things you mentioned, as well as any Sherman with a good shot, especially the upgraded Easy Eights. And I'm not an expert but from reading vet stories and anecdotes, Allied tankers (whether Soviet, American, or British) displayed far less, if any, of the Tiger phobia so prevalent among the infantry or rear echelon troops. The most famous (but very far from the best) Tiger ace was most likely killed by a British Sherman tank.

*That I like german ww2 vehicles doesn't mean that I'm a brainless fanboy.
*German tanks were not easily destroyed by Americans. A Sherman with a good shot usually had to close in to kill a Panther or Tiger. Even a Panzer IV/lg could be a pain in the neck because it had superior firepower over a Sherman with a 75mm gun.
*Panther tanks were not a minority in the later stages of the war. Panther production in 1944/45 exceeded Panzer IV production. A Type 44 Panzer division at full strength had almost as many Panther tanks as Panzer IV tanks in its Panzer regiment. 79 vs. 81. In the autumn of 1944 and later most Panzer divisions had more Panthers then Panzer IV's.
*Panthers and Tigers were not the only problems. StuG's and Jagdpanzer IV's were too.
*Michael Wittman was killed by a British Sherman Firefly with a 17pdr gun which was superior to the 75mm L/70 gun of a Panther and certainly superior to the 75mm gun of your average Sherman.

Well damn. Too bad for Pasan the Americans weren't exactly known for their tanks capable of taking on the german tanks. We had anti-tank infantry in WW2 for a reason.

Unfortunately your anti-tank infantry sucked too.

There's no such time, the average German tank was actually inferior to the Sherman. The PzIV had to be upgunned to keep up with Shermans and especially the T-34 (which was actually what prompted the change, the PzIV originally had a stubby 75mm gun that wasn't effective against the T-34) and then their opposition got upgunned as well later on. As I've mentioned, the vaunted Tigers and Panthers were a minority of German tanks even after their introduction and both of them were so fraught with mechanical problems (Panther especially) that their effectiveness was even less than their numbers should suggest. Throughout the war the Germans relied on the PzIV and PzIII, and their most effective tank-killing AFV was actually the Stug conversions of the Panzer III thanks to its decent gun, large numbers, and low silhouette, which made it ideal at ambushing and against the Americans the Germans were largely on the defensive. And yet by the end of the war Americans maintained a higher kill ratio in tank on tank combat, something like 3:2, the Battle of the Bulge probably didn't help the Germans in that regard though there were some amazing battles like Arracourt where outnumbered American tanks destroyed larger German formations. Ironically the best time for German tanks was probably around the beginning of the war when they didn't have a clear armor superiority, since they practically caught Stalin flat-footed in '41 and made a dramatic push in Africa.

The Sherman was superior to the Panzer III and Panzer IV/Kz. When everybody else and their grandmothers upgraded their tanks the Americans stuck to their design because they feared logistic problems. It's funny that you praise the StuG III for its decent gun when it went through the exact same upgunning process as the Panzer IV tank. And the Panzer IV/lg and Panther were the most common tanks by the time the Allies landed in Normandy.
Early German ww2 tanks were designed for blitzkrieg warfare, late war designs were designed for defensive warfare.

Then why have a tank kill ratio that low if you're able to make the German designers jump headfirst through all these hoops. If the Sherman is that damn good(remember, you're the one putting it on this pedestal now) it's designed for something else. Any engineer can see the writing on the wall. And the historic analysts probably did to. The Shermans were wanted for something else, and weren't primarily designed to fight armor. It probably takes someone wanting to knee-hump the tank to say otherwise. Not shocking.

The Sherman tank was originally designed as an infantry support tank capable of defeating Panzer III and Panzer IV/kz.

US WWII AT doctrine focus on special AT battalions equipped with TD; the idea was that since blitzekrieg was concentrated armor in focus point the best way to counter it was to concentrate TD on that point. It turned out it was not the case in Western Front, but it did not matter since bombing campaign could significantly reduced the strength of a German division while the land force would give the final blow.

TD's had better firepower than M4's but still not superior to a Panther or Tiger and their armor was worse than that of a M4. The most produced TD, the M10 Wolverine, was becoming obsolete by the time the Allies landed in Normandy.

While for Gemans the casualties percentage was evenly distributed among the branches. The Americans took the vast majority of their casualties to their infantry.

Most if not all armies take the majority of their casualties to the infantry.

[Stavroforos]

I think generally there's the problem on the internet, which really stems from before the internet and old documentaries, is that people really overestimate the capabilities if German fighting forces, both men and technology. That isn't to say that they weren't good, or even the best, but their capabilities have been exaggerated.

[Påsan]

Most if not all armies take the majority of their casualties to the infantry.

I'm just quoting Anthony Beevor. He had an argument in "Battle for Normandy" that the Alllies took disproportionate amounts of casualties to its infantry branch compared to other theaters in the war.
Really not surprising considering the air superiority and bocage fighting.

[Jagdpanzer]

I think generally there's the problem on the internet, which really stems from before the internet and old documentaries, is that people really overestimate the capabilities if German fighting forces, both men and technology. That isn't to say that they weren't good, or even the best, but their capabilities have been exaggerated.

In a one on one confrontation with competent crews and no mechanical breakdowns the Sherman tank and its crew would probably loose from a Panther. German military equipment was generally better than that of their enemies but they could never produce enough of them for all their units. That's why some units were equipped with the top shelf afv's while others had to do with obsolete czech 47mm anti-tank guns mounted on French beutepanzer even in the autumn of 1944 and the reason why the Germans deployed obsolete vehicles in the final stages of the war.

You might want to reread my previous post. I have significantly added to it.

[Gaidin]

In a one on one confrontation with competent crews and no mechanical breakdowns the Sherman tank and its crew would probably loose. German military equipment was generally better than that of their enemies but they could never produce enough of them for all their units. That's why some units were equipped with the top shelf afv's while others had to do with obsolete czech 47mm anti-tank guns mounted on French beutepanzer even in the autumn of 1944 and the reason why the Germans deployed obsolete vehicles in the final stages of the war.

You might want to reread my previous post. I have significantly added to it.

Well, last I checked the best time for German tanks was Africa in 1942 when the Tigers came on the scene. But that was around their last battles that could be called a victory and not a stalling action anyway. Until the allies could actually come up with a tank that could actually deal with these things the general strategy that they had(or at least the Americans did), and while it worked, I doubt I'd call it pleasant for the operators, was otherwise describable as "drown them in Shermans and Lees", because however people want to knee-hump the later models, the earlier models didn't perform well. And the engineering takes time.

[Jagdpanzer]

I was talking about Panther vs. Sherman. Ironically the Sherman was also introduced in N-A were it performed rather well. One of the reasons why the AGF refused to switch production to the M27 was that the M4 had performed rather well in N-A and Italy.

[Garbarsardar]

I think he does.

Well, I'm glad that they stopped there. This tank could have recovered the Enigma machine (again) and prevented the assassination of Patton (didn't you know?), if only the movie was 10 minutes longer.

[Shambloc]

Propaganda? Do you seriously imply that ONE tank, crewed by 4 men and one baby, holding off (and exterminating by and large) a contingent of circa 300 German soldiers is unrealistic?

To be fair, one Infantryman in a burning Tank Destroyer did manage to kill or wound 50 Germans and stop a German force including 10 tanks:

http://www.knox.army.mil/associated/samc/moh.aspx

So four men and a tank isn't that far off.

I'm not being serious by the way.

[Hresvelgr]

*That I like german ww2 vehicles doesn't mean that I'm a brainless fanboy.
*German tanks were not easily destroyed by Americans. A Sherman with a good shot usually had to close in to kill a Panther or Tiger. Even a Panzer IV/lg could be a pain in the neck because it had superior firepower over a Sherman with a 75mm gun.

StuG's and Jagdpanzer IV's were too.
*Michael Wittman was killed by a British Sherman Firefly with a 17pdr gun which was superior to the 75mm L/70 gun of a Panther and certainly superior to the 75mm gun of your average Sherman.

I was being facetious with the first remark, hence the smiley. And while the up-gunned PzIV could obviously tear through a Sherman reliably, so too could a M4's 75mm gun take out a PzIV at roughly similar ranges. I did bring up Stugs, I'm pretty sure I said they had the most tank kills of any German AFV (despite being designed as an assault gun), and a Sherman Firefly is still a Sherman.

I think generally there's the problem on the internet, which really stems from before the internet and old documentaries, is that people really overestimate the capabilities if German fighting forces, both men and technology. That isn't to say that they weren't good, or even the best, but their capabilities have been exaggerated.

I know it often comes across like I do the opposite, but the amount of pro-German mythologizing on the internet truly is astounding and regardless of any evidence people won't drop it. As irritated as I am at some of the claims in this thread this is a pretty tame argument compared to other stuff I've had to put up with.

[/SIZE]

I'm just quoting Anthony Beevor. He had an argument in "Battle for Normandy" that the Alllies took disproportionate amounts of casualties to its infantry branch compared to other theaters in the war.
Really not surprising considering the air superiority and bocage fighting.

I've always heard though that statistically at least the worst service to be in in the US Army during the war were the bomber crews. They took rather enormous casualties.

In a one on one confrontation with competent crews and no mechanical breakdowns the Sherman tank and its crew would probably loose from a Panther. German military equipment was generally better than that of their enemies but they could never produce enough of them for all their units. That's why some units were equipped with the top shelf afv's while others had to do with obsolete czech 47mm anti-tank guns mounted on French beutepanzer even in the autumn of 1944 and the reason why the Germans deployed obsolete vehicles in the final stages of the war.

You might want to reread my previous post. I have significantly added to it.

In a wide open plain with ideal weather at long ranges with equal crews, yes, the Panther would likely win (although if the Sherman was an M4A3E2 it would be in some trouble). But that's not the reality of the situation (except maybe on the eastern front with its broad plains or steppes or whatever) and the Americans incurred fewer losses overall than the Germans in tank combat through tactics and crew experience. Also, saying the Germans had generally better military equipment is a very broad statement, broad enough for me to call it false. They had a few outstanding gadgets that are popular, some stuff however the Allies made first or used better (military night-vision devices might've actually been made first by the USSR but the USA made the most use of them in the war though the German's Vampir is somehow the most famous contemporary device).

Well, last I checked the best time for German tanks was Africa in 1942 when the Tigers came on the scene. But that was around their last battles that could be called a victory and not a stalling action anyway. Until the allies could actually come up with a tank that could actually deal with these things the general strategy that they had(or at least the Americans did), and while it worked, I doubt I'd call it pleasant for the operators, was otherwise describable as "drown them in Shermans and Lees", because however people want to knee-hump the later models, the earlier models didn't perform well. And the engineering takes time.

Don't tell me you actually believe that "swamp them in superior numbers and ignore casualties" nonsense? I've never heard any actual veteran accounts that confirm that. There's that famous book by Belton Cooper, but he's full of it. He didn't see combat AFAIK, he was a mechanic who had to work on the damaged or destroyed American tanks and therefore wouldn't have much to do with destroyed enemy equipment (meaning he didn't have much perspective) and he makes a few claims with no backing, such as the whole idea that the name Sherman was some Yankee conspiracy or whatever when the USA barely used that name during the war, the official American name was the M4 and it's referred to as such in most military documents whereas the British named it the Sherman since they had a tradition of naming American tanks that found their way to them via Lend-Lease and eventually we picked up that tradition. I'd be surprised if the US Army actually named their own equipment after Confederate generals as the Stuart, Jackson, and Lee were. Also, the M3 Lee/Grant was generally appreciated by the Americans (it seems to have had a poor reputation in the USSR based on the nickname), it wasn't used suicidally and it didn't see service past the African theater since it was only a stand-in until they had more M4s available.

But anyway, German veteran accounts I've read (including from Panther commanders and I should probably read Carius to see how Tiger crews felt) describe Americans as being very cautious generally, and very unlike the Soviets. And before you say anything about Ronsons, that slogan that's supposedly used in reference to the Sherman wasn't actually made until after the war, and the Soviets said it burned less often than the T-34, and perhaps less often than the German vehicles as well. This might be because of the wet ammo storage introduced on later models, but it might also be because the reputation stemmed from its use in British service and the Brits were, as I've heard it, more cavalier in their ammo storage than they should've been.

Basically, my point is that the Sherman (and American tanks in general) wasn't some sort of Hell-wagon that was useful only for infantry-support using and carrying five people to hell (it was actually known for being a very survivable tank should the worst happen). It was a good tank when introduced, and although the Americans were critically slow in upgrading it when they should've (something the Brits were more on the draw with when they slapped on the 17pdr that cut through Tigers like a can-opener) but by the end of the war it was still a capable AFV and it even performed valuable service in Korea, albeit against tanks made around the same time as them rather than more modern models. The German panzers were, while admittedly not the worst, not invulnerable machines that slaughtered Allied formations unless the Allies heedlessly shoved 10 or 20 tanks against each one all at once, which is a common claim used to hype up armies that lost famous wars.

And in the end, Fury is about a tank crew that finds itself in an exceptional situation, as most movies generally involve, and fights against daunting odds aren't just movie material but have happened all throughout history. Although since the movie is not yet out we have yet to see just how plausible the film actually is in the end, but the premise certainly seems plausible and also entertaining. Of course, I'm also pretty sure most of the backlash is generally anti-American sentiment, there's no indication this is another U-571.

[Gaidin]

Don't tell me you actually believe that "swamp them in superior numbers and ignore casualties" nonsense? I've never heard any actual veteran accounts that confirm that. There's that famous book by Belton Cooper, but he's full of it. He didn't see combat AFAIK, he was a mechanic who had to work on the damaged or destroyed American tanks and therefore wouldn't have much to do with destroyed enemy equipment (meaning he didn't have much perspective) and he makes a few claims with no backing, such as the whole idea that the name Sherman was some Yankee conspiracy or whatever when the USA barely used that name during the war, the official American name was the M4 and it's referred to as such in most military documents whereas the British named it the Sherman since they had a tradition of naming American tanks that found their way to them via Lend-Lease and eventually we picked up that tradition. I'd be surprised if the US Army actually named their own equipment after Confederate generals as the Stuart, Jackson, and Lee were. Also, the M3 Lee/Grant was generally appreciated by the Americans (it seems to have had a poor reputation in the USSR based on the nickname), it wasn't used suicidally and it didn't see service past the African theater since it was only a stand-in until they had more M4s available.

Wow you read a lot into my statements. Swamp them in numbers doesn't mean ignore casualties. Swamp them in numbers was sort of part of the game once the war machine in America really started going and it was always going to be part of the game until it ended. But we didn't just throw them at the Germans until there were no more Germans left. Well, we had a few generals that were like that, but they didn't last long in command, but that's neither here nor there in this discussion. It's something you can't ignore that early in America's time in the war their tanks were patently bad at fighting enemy armor. They had to be engineered up. And that's not something you can just do overnight. And you can't just take the tanks off the line. But you can use the tanks in a different fashion, and take the enemy tanks out in another way as well. But there's no way in hell you can really say with a straight face that the tanks we had in North Africa could go toe to toe with the tanks the Germans were bringing onto the scene in North Africa. And one thing I don't have to do is tolerate you reading into my statements that's blatantly not there.

And in the end, Fury is about a tank crew that finds itself in an exceptional situation, as most movies generally involve, and fights against daunting odds aren't just movie material but have happened all throughout history. Although since the movie is not yet out we have yet to see just how plausible the film actually is in the end, but the premise certainly seems plausible and also entertaining. Of course, I'm also pretty sure most of the backlash is generally anti-American sentiment, there's no indication this is another U-571.

I know what Fury is, but I'm not talking about Fury. I'm talking to you. I made that hilariously obvious in my last post to you. Or do you just conveniently skip posts not good for your points?

[Killerbee]

Oh god when did this become a tank thread ? I never got the huge appeal for tanks anyway, people fanboyjizzing all over Shermans and Tigers and whatever

[Gaidin]

Oh god when did this become a tank thread ? I never got the huge appeal for tanks anyway, people fanboyjizzing all over Shermans and Tigers and whatever

Uhhh...look at what movie this is...

[Killerbee]

Yeah I get it, it's about a tank crew. That doesn't mean you have to start the entire German vs American tank debate. It's a very unresolved topic anyway, as the people who'd actually know what they're talking about are probably dead now and/or highly incapable of using the internet, and the people talking about it were born like 40 years after it was relevant.

It's just a moot discussion that people love to start whenever they feel like it because it allows them to show off their vast knowledge of WWII documentaries

[Gaidin]

Yeah I get it, it's about a tank crew. That doesn't mean you have to start the entire German vs American tank debate. It's a very unresolved topic anyway, as the people who'd actually know what they're talking about are probably dead now and/or highly incapable of using the internet, and the people talking about it were born like 40 years after it was relevant.

It's just a moot discussion that people love to start whenever they feel like it because it allows them to show off their vast knowledge of WWII documentaries

Except look at the forum you're on. Whenever a movie like this comes out this forum is going to go nuts. And not because they're capable of just enjoying the movie for the entertainment it is. No. They're going to go nuts because the creators got the most minute details off for the sake of making a 2 hour movie flow smoother.

[Wulfburk]

If this hadnt turned into a tank thread and comparission between jerry and yankee tanks THEN something would be wrong.

[DarthShizNit]

The supreme IS2 quietly chuckles and allows a barely perceptible smirk to grace it's glorious frontal glacis plate at this heated discussion about which lowly tractor is better than the other lowly tractor.

[Jagdpanzer]

I was being facetious with the first remark, hence the smiley. And while the up-gunned PzIV could obviously tear through a Sherman reliably, so too could a M4's 75mm gun take out a PzIV at roughly similar ranges. I did bring up Stugs, I'm pretty sure I said they had the most tank kills of any German AFV (despite being designed as an assault gun), and a Sherman Firefly is still a Sherman.

Nope, the Panzer IV/lg had superior armor penetration and could take out the Sherman at longer ranges. It could penetrate the front armor of a Sherman under a 60 degree angle at 800m, the Sherman had to be within 100m to do the same thing to a Panzer IV. And you made it sound as if a regular Sherman could take out a Tiger easily.

...

I've always heard though that statistically at least the worst service to be in in the US Army during the war were the bomber crews. They took rather enormous casualties.

Correct, second worst branch to be in after the U-boats.

In a wide open plain with ideal weather at long ranges with equal crews, yes, the Panther would likely win (although if the Sherman was an M4A3E2 it would be in some trouble). But that's not the reality of the situation (except maybe on the eastern front with its broad plains or steppes or whatever) and the Americans incurred fewer losses overall than the Germans in tank combat through tactics and crew experience. Also, saying the Germans had generally better military equipment is a very broad statement, broad enough for me to call it false. They had a few outstanding gadgets that are popular, some stuff however the Allies made first or used better (military night-vision devices might've actually been made first by the USSR but the USA made the most use of them in the war though the German's Vampir is somehow the most famous contemporary device).

I don't see why a Panther would be in trouble against a Sherman Jumbo. It had better armor but still no firepower superiority. And Jumbo's were rare anyhow. I wasn't talking about exotic gadgets. My statement was based on a book on the Venlo bridgehead. It was stated somewhere that US Infantryment considered the M1 Garand rifle and the M7 Priest SPG superior to their German counterparts. In everything else they considered German equipment superior.

...

But anyway, German veteran accounts I've read (including from Panther commanders and I should probably read Carius to see how Tiger crews felt) describe Americans as being very cautious generally, and very unlike the Soviets. And before you say anything about Ronsons, that slogan that's supposedly used in reference to the Sherman wasn't actually made until after the war, and the Soviets said it burned less often than the T-34, and perhaps less often than the German vehicles as well. This might be because of the wet ammo storage introduced on later models, but it might also be because the reputation stemmed from its use in British service and the Brits were, as I've heard it, more cavalier in their ammo storage than they should've been.

Not just the Americans but also the British were generally overcautious, they had difficulty replacing their losses. That's why they preferred to let their artillery do the work and often failed to make the most of their breakthroughs.

Basically, my point is that the Sherman (and American tanks in general) wasn't some sort of Hell-wagon that was useful only for infantry-support using and carrying five people to hell (it was actually known for being a very survivable tank should the worst happen). It was a good tank when introduced, and although the Americans were critically slow in upgrading it when they should've (something the Brits were more on the draw with when they slapped on the 17pdr that cut through Tigers like a can-opener) but by the end of the war it was still a capable AFV and it even performed valuable service in Korea, albeit against tanks made around the same time as them rather than more modern models. The German panzers were, while admittedly not the worst, not invulnerable machines that slaughtered Allied formations unless the Allies heedlessly shoved 10 or 20 tanks against each one all at once, which is a common claim used to hype up armies that lost famous wars.

I know that you're not talking to me but that was never my point.

The supreme IS2 quietly chuckles and allows a barely perceptible smirk to grace it's glorious frontal glacis plate at this heated discussion about which lowly tractor is better than the other lowly tractor.

I know that you're trolling, so I'm just going to ignore you. The IS2 is even more overhyped than any German tank on the internet.

ETA: Hresvelgr, the British enjoyed their Panther tank. They praised its accuracy and crosscountry mobility.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

“Cuckoo”, a Panther G in British service

By T.J.M. Schers, The Netherlands

Published originally in “De Tank” Issue 103, August 1993.

Translated by Rob Plas, notes in text by the author

All trough the history of warfare, soldiers always knew how to make good use of captured equipment. Clothing, food, and inevitably, weapons. The latter were especially attractive if they were easier to obtain and of better quality then the ones issued to troops originally. Using the enemy’s weapons did mean on the other hand that ammunition and spare parts were sometimes hard to get, and in the case of vehicles, one had to be careful not to be shot by friendly forces.

During World War II the German forces made extensive use of captured equipment. (1) This started directly after invading Czechoslovakia and it also took place in France, Belgium and The Netherlands. I am referring to vehicles like the LT vz.38 Skoda, later used by the German 7th and 8th armoured divisions, the French Char B1bis, the Somua S-35 and the Renault R-35. [The Germans made good use of some DAF M38 armoured cars, captured in The Netherlands during the Blitzkrieg in 1940, and transported to the USSR, and deployed in the fights against the soviet partisans {RP}]
The Russian T-34 tank was used a lot by the German forces, usually with very large white Balkenkreuz markings to prevent being shot by their own comrades. In North Africa also, British and American equipment and vehicles were used by the German forces, often to compensate for the huge shortages of material.

Also in the ETO, German forces made good use of captured vehicles, a very well known example being the use of American vehicles by Otto Skorzeny’s 150th armoured brigade during the Ardennes offensive. (2)
Although not as often as their counterparts, the allied forces also used captured vehicles. First they had good, reliable resources and resupply, and more than enough armoured vehicles of their own. Second the almost impossible to get spare parts and ammunition played a role in this. Last but not least, the bigger chance to get shot by the own troops was also not an encouraging thought.
Some of the vehicles that did see action under allied flag were Sdkfz 250 and 251’s, as well as a battery of 3 - 88mm Flak 18 Anti-Tank guns, in the southern county of Limburg, The Netherlands. (3)
There was very little deployment of tanks and tank destroyers. Known is the use of a Stug III by American soldiers from the 104th Infantry Div. (4) It is therefore worth noticing that the extended use of a Pzkpfw V Panther Ausf G must be considered as a rare event. This Panther was captured and used by the British 6th Guards Tank Brigade, and often photographed. This Panther can be a very interesting subject in scale. (5)

History

In the aftermath of the failed Arnhem offensive the British 6th Guards Tank Brigade was engaged in heavy fighting to gain control of the small Dutch village called Overloon. It was during these fierce battles that tankers of the 4th Armoured Battalion - Coldstream Guards, one of the 2 tank battalions in the brigade, entered a large barn, only to find a Panther tank of the PanzerAbteiling 2, Panzer Brigade 107. This Panther was in running order and quickly put to work in the staff units of the brigade. The use of this captured vehicle was a unique event, so it appears more than once in the official history of the brigade. (6)

After some adjustments were made to the appearance of the vehicle (more about that later) this Panther was used to help the artillery barrage on the Geijsteren castle, just north of Venlo, on the Meuse River. The tank was christened “Cuckoo”, which seems to be an appropriate name for such a strange “bird”


Cuckoo is in the back of this column of Churchill tanks, normally a sight like this would cause panic amongst the british crews.

In the artillery bombardment on the castle, Cuckoo proved to be a worthy newcomer. After an infantry attack at the castle failed, the decision was made to bombard the castle with artillery. This barrage proved to be not very successful, as the relatively small target was hard to hit with artillery. The 75mm tank guns and 6-pounders were more accurate, but too light to do real impressive damage to the thick walls of the castle.
The Panther tank on the other hand did an outstanding job: “ The 95mms were a great success, but “Cuckoo”, [………], did best of all, hurling its shells through selected windows with unfailing precision.”
Later, during operation “Blackcoconuts” (In an area to the south of Venlo) Cuckoo was deployed again, now to join in on an attack on the German town called Waldenrath. Cuckoo preformed very well again, it’s mobility was especially noticeable.

The historian wrote; “The road conditions were abominable all day, but whereas the Churchill’s and the Crocodiles, with no ice bars, slid into ditches at every possible opportunity, “Cuckoo” the Panther, eight tons heavier, trundled merrily along with no difficulty at all.”

The next theatre of operations for the 6th Guards Tank Brigade,and the Panther was during operation "Veritable", better known as the battles for the Reichswald. Here Cuckoo's career ended in a sorry way. When heading towards the east of Kleve in Germany the fuel pump broke down, and due to lack of a spare pump the tank had to be abandoned.


A colour impression made by Øyvind Leonsen after reading the original version of this docomeent.

Cuckoo originally belonged to the German Panzerbrigade 107, a unit that only saw action in the Dutch county of Limburg, and the eastern part of Noord Brabant. (Roughly the area between Eindhoven, Venlo and Roermond, in the south east of The Netherlands. [RP])
After retreating behind the River Meuse (Maas) the remains of this brigade became the base where around the new 25th Panzergenadier Div. was formed.
For references about the appearance and deployment of the Panther tanks in this unit I would like to recommend the articles I wrote on the subject, and that were published in the MIP, the magazine of the Dutch chapter of the IPMS (7)
This unit mainly consisted of Panther Ausf G tanks, the earliest version. These tanks (and this includes Cuckoo) were not yet supplied with the so-called “chin” on the gunmantlet (Geänderter Walzenblende in verstärkter Abweisserleiste) nor the raised air inlet fan cover on the left hand site of the engine deck. Pictures of the tanks in this unit show them in an overall sand yellow base coat, or in a “cloud shaped” 3-colour scheme. The photographs also depict a 3-digit number on all (?) tanks, combined with a black cross.

It is not clear if, and how this Panther in British service was camouflaged, but from the original pictures it is clear that Cuckoo was painted in a single colour. Which colour is not absolutely sure. The original dark yellow (Dunkelgelb) was acceptable, presuming that nobody bothered to completely repaint the vehicle, but as there are no signs of digits and/or crosses on the tank, nor visible proof of any local shade variations, which would most certain be visible if these were covered with fresh paint, it can be assumed that Cuckoo was repainted overall in the same shade (Khaki Drab) as the Churchill’s in the unit. This would explain the lack of German markings, and a paint job like that wouldn’t be a problem at all for the brigade’s workshop units. When comparing the shades of grey on the original black and white prints I can’t see any significant differences in tone. I therefore support the idea of Cuckoo being repainted, before put to work for it’s new owners. (8) (Repainting captured vehicles was a common practice in World War II; even civilian cars got that treatment [RP])

If we let the subject of repainting rest, the first thing that was changed in the appearance of Cuckoo was applying a large white 5-pointed star in a white circle, the allied (air)recognition sign. (Often this sign was not used, or hidden, because enemy gunners used the star as a bulls-eye for easy aiming) The star was applied to both sides of the turret. The remaining markings related to the vehicles position in the British organisation: unit number, vehicle number and the name Cuckoo. The Unit serial number used by the Coldstream Guards was 153. This number was applied to the toolbox on the right hand side at the rear of the tank in white paint. Normally this number was painted on a background that consisted of a green field with a horizontal white band below it. This to show that the brigade was part of the second British Army corps.
I didn’t find any proof of these markings on Cuckoo. The tank was named Cuckoo, and this name was painted on both lower sides of the turret, in white or another light colour. On the picture the tone looks a little darker than the white star. (9)
“Cuckoo” wasn’t just made up; all vehicles in the staff unit had bird names. The CO’s tank was named Eagle, his warrant officer’s tank named Seagull. The ACV (Armoured Command Vehicle of 2nd I/C (second in Command) was called Vulture, while the troop commander drove Owl. (10)
Cuckoo was deployed to the bombardment of Geijsteren castle looking like described above. During operation "Blackcoconuts" in January 1945, the roads and fields were covered with a thick blanket of fresh snow, so the unit’s vehicles were camouflaged to cope with that.


Cuckoo in a hastily applied snow camouflage scheme

Some of the units Churchill tanks were covered with white sheets; Cuckoo received a rough coat of white chalk. On the picture you can see this, the hull seems to have got a even coat of white, whilst the turret received some broad white bands on the forward half it. Clearly visible on the original print is the side of the gun mantled, which was still in its original colour. On it’s next battles during operation "Veritable", Cuckoo is back in green again, only the serial numbers on the back seems to have disappeared totally.

There is the odd inacuracy in the info which no doubt will be picked out!!

Source: http://ukcmilhist.freeforums.org/cuckoo-t394.html

[DarthShizNit]

I know that you're trolling, so I'm just going to ignore you. The IS2 is even more overhyped than any German tank on the internet.

The IS2 does not troll, it exists, bathing the universe within it's eternal light still visible from the firing of it's holy and most sacred 122mm cannon, throwing all other tractors that dare seek to approach it into eternal darkness. The IS2 is merciful, and shall forgive your ignorance for now, but beware, it's rear facing machine gun of justice is ever vigilant when it comes to the unrepentant.

[Darkhorse]

You mean like the Brits who fought in Operation Goodwood?
I mean the Firefly was capable (the only british tank capable) of fighting the Tiger on standard range but it still had abysmal armor for a tank which was designed to go head-on-head with a heavy tank.

Operation Goodwood was actually a highly complex operation dominated by factors external to the battle and even the campaign, it had to happen and did indeed generate some results. Additionally, the presence of German armour during Goodwood, including Tigers and Panthers, was so small and dealt with so effectively that it was insignificant to the outcome of the battle.

Excluding external factors, it was a combination of a very, very, heavy but constrained preliminary bombardment and the network of anti-tank guns on the Bourguebus Ridge and in the villages surrounding it which halted the advance, although the importance of key factors such as the shortage of manpower in British and especially Canadian armies can never, ever, be understated.

Lastly, the Firefly was not the only British tank capable of fighting the Tiger either, as the M10 Achilles or any other vehicle armed with a 17Pdr gun would share that characteristic, and with specialised ammunition which I think was made from Tungsten, the 6Pdr gun was also able of piercing the Tiger's armour at a suitably distant range. The reason these guns were not rolled out across the board is because German tanks were so uncommon, therefore the most common enemy encountered was either infantry armed with portable anti-tank weapons, or hidden anti-tank guns. Both of these require high explosive to deal with, and therefore in 90% of engagements the 75mm gun fitted to British and American tanks was not only adequate for the task, but the better gun to have when compared to the 17Pdr or similar. Having 17Pdr armed tanks in a 1 to 4 or 2 to 4 (depending what point of the campaign) ratio was the ideal solution, as each British tank troop theoretically had a means to locally deal with the vast majority of threats and although I can't be sure I would imagine that once the 76mm or 90mm guns were rolled out in American units, they were allocated in a similar way and achieved a similar result.

I did bring up Stugs, I'm pretty sure I said they had the most tank kills of any German AFV (despite being designed as an assault gun)

Although the StuGs were fairly good vehicles, it is worth remembering that their success more likely stems from the fact that they were probably the most common tank like thing in German service in 1944-45. It is always worth remembering that the vast majority of these conversions were built because they were cheaper and simpler than tanks, and notable exceptions aside not because they were better than a conventional tank by any stretch of the imagination,

and a Sherman Firefly is still a Sherman.

The M10 Achilles is still an M10, except unlike its under-armed production counterpart it was very successful and enjoyed a fairly long service life in front-line British service. Although I cannot be sure as I have not found the evidence in the TNA, I'd comfortably wager that the last Achilles left British service between 1953 and 1955 when the Conqueror heavy tank replaced all previous tank destroyers in service with the regular British Army, and the purpose built Charioteer replaced all previous tank destroyers in service with the Territorial Army.

Long and the short of it is that they are only loosely alike in terms of functionality, and it is a similar story with the Sherman and the Firefly. I realise that it's a fairly long-winded way of explaining it, but the politics behind 1950s British armoured formations is genuinely interesting stuff and I just had to share

Sidenote: The term 'Firefly' actually refers to all British vehicles armed with the 17pdr gun, and arguably the Comet, with its slightly smaller version of the 17Pdr which was in 77mm IIRC.