A couple of weeks ago, I saw a show on The History Channel, concerning a battle that I knew nothing about. A huge armored engagement that took place in the Lorraine region of France in September of 1944.
It is referred to, in some writings, as the Battle Of Arracourt, one of the towns involved in the engagement. It is actually a series of battles that took place over a huge area of France, and several towns were up for grabs.
The reason this story fascinated me, is because it completely changed my thoughts about the American M4 Sherman as a fighting weapon. And that's because, at Arracourt, the German tank Brigades got their butts thoroughly kicked.
I've always thought that in a tank versus tank battle, you had no chance in a Sherman. At Arracourt, the 4th Armored Division managed to get it's tanks amongst the German Panzers in a close in battle where the German tanks, mostly Panthers, were not able to take advntage of their superior gun range. When it was all over, the German Army had lost 285 tanks, the majority being brand new Panthers, while the 4th Division lost 25 tanks!
At one point, an American tank commander took good advantage of the Shermans speed. As the German tanks fled the field, he rushed his tanks ahead, positioned them on some high ground, and pounded the Panthers as they arrived on the scene. In another instance, 4 M-18 Tank Destroyers stopped a German attack. 3 of the M-18 Hellcats were knocked out, but 9 Panthers were in flames, and the survivors retreated.
This was the largest tank engagement for the U.S. Army, until The Battle Of The Bulge. And it actually took place over a larger area. The French know it as "The Battle Of The Tanks."
Obviously, the Sherman had it's problems. Light armor, low velocity gun. But, when it could get in close and manuever, it could be a dangerous vehicle.

I recently saw that same show.
I thought to myself 'here we go,watch the Shermans get whooped' but no!
The performance of the Hellcats was particularly impressive.

Yes, that M-18 was a real performer. It was the fastest tracked vehicle of World War Two. It could hit 60 M.P.H.! Great shoot and scoot tank. Fire that 76 mm gun, and run like Hell. And you better run, 'cause they were lightly armored. And to make matters worse, they had the open turrets, which was common to all American tank destroyers.
This is a fascinating battle, and I've been googling it to find out more. The Germans made a lot of mistakes, not the least of which, was not sending out reconnaisence to scout ahead of their tanks. They would have been more aware of the opposition they were facing. But it seems that the Generals in charge of the German offensive had been serving on the Easrern Front. They had little or no experience against the Western Allies. The same tactics did not apply.
They expected their tank breakthrough to smash through the American lines and cause a route, as they had seen done against the Russians. Instead, the 4th Division quickly counterattacked.

Well, the Wiki sites a book which has different numbers:



(Steven Zagola, Armored Thunderbolt (2008)).

The German tank crews were green and had almost no infantry and AA support. The weather was foggy and the Pantherīs could not use their long range guns. And after the fog the US Airforce stopped the tanks.

The view we have of tanks during WW2 is quite deformed because everyone compares everything to the T34 and Tiger.

Now if you remove the heavies of the Germans - the Sherman ain't that bad. We might be also talking about an upgunned Sherman?

Hell, I'm reading Panzer Battles now and in Late 41 both the British and the Germans think great of the Grant tank!

As far as the losses in the engagement go, I am reading different numbers. The History Channel quoted the 385 figure, as did a website I went to after googling the battle. Another website quotes the wiki numbers and says that the Germans only sent 262 tanks (well, I shouldn't say ONLY 262. That's a lot of tanks!) into the fight. Yet another says that the German losses are unknown.
Whatever the numbers, the fact is, the Germans Panzer units took a Hell of a beating. And it wasn't from fighter-bombers. Fog kept the P-47's out of it until September 21st. That's when the 405th Fighter Group got airborne and attacked the retreating German forces. But the damage had already been done, by the 4th Armored Division. The Thunderbolts only added some more to the numbers. This battle was won by American tankers, not the 9th Air Force.

Multiple sources (most recently notable Antony Beevor) not that P-47s and Typhoons were much less effective against actual armored fighting vehicles (as opposed to unarmored support vehicles) than is often claimed by both sides . . . the number of tanks knocked out by airpower was miniscule compared to those lost through other reasons.

It should also be noted that alot of the Sherman's bad reputation owed to the pre-combat hype it was given on the Allied side. American tank crews (the same as pre-war US F4F and P-40 pilots) had been lead to believe that their AFVs were much better than those they would face. So when they ran into Panther's and Tigers (the M4 was designed to beat the Panzer III), it was a nasty shock, the same as it was for US pilots against the Zero . . . not so much that the they were helpless against superior Axis hardware, but that the advantage expected was not there . . . and nobody likes fighting "fair," and especially not at a slight disadvantage, in a real war.

Besides, my own personal belief is that equipment superiorty, barring a mismatch of "generation" (i.e. Grants vs Tiger II or Gladiator vs Me-262), having slightly better hardware does not seem to mean all that much in the grand scheme of things. The French in 1940 and the Russians in 1941 had AFVs equal or better than the Germans, but were soundly beaten. The Germans, on the other hand, generally fielded better tanks from than the western Allies from 1942 onwards, but still managed to lose almost every campaign, and at the height of German technological superiroity (1944-1945), they were being consistently routed by both the Russians and the Germans.

Tactics, training, and leadership mean alot more than better tanks, and by 1944 the German army did not have a significant advantage in any of those categories.

U.S. Army armored doctrine is what made the Sherman the vehicle it became. Actually, it wasn't designed to kill Panzer MKIII's... tank destroyers were designed for that.
It isn't generally known, but the U.S. felt that tanks should not battle tanks. They were designed to break through enemy strongpoints, and cause havoc behind their lines. Army training had tanks destroying infantry positions and machine gun nests...etc. When enemy tanks were encountered, the tank destroyers were to be called in. Of course, this is fine on paper but seldom worked in reality.
The army's belief in this system caused the Sherman to be light and fast. They would perform the duties of the old horse cavalry. Their thin bodies were designed to run down roads and city streets with the infantry and for ease of crossing bridges. Also to make transporting quicker and easier. A unit of Tigers was a nightmare to get to their destinations compared to the M4 Sherman .
The tank destroyers were built even lighter and faster. The M-18 Hellcat is still one of the fastest tracked vehicles ever built. It could hit 60 miles per hour. But they were vulnerable as Hell. The U.S Army wanted it's TD's to have open turrets. This helped keep the wieght down, and also gave you terrific visibility when fighting tanks. But the crews were exposed to enemy fire, and the elements. Still, they were well liked, and a well trained crew could get three rounds into a Panther, before the German crew could turn it's slow moving turret to bare on them.
The Army finally realized it needed a heavy tank. And so was born the Pershing. Too late to really have any real effect on the way, though. Those that did meet German tanks did well, however.
For what it designed for, the M4 was actually a really good tank. Fast, maneuverable and relatively comfortable, it's unfairly treated by history becuase it was thrown into the knid of fighting it wasn't intended for.
And yeah, tactics , training and leadership. At Arracourt, the Panzer units were short of all of those things, and paid the price.

There is an excellent article concerning the first Pershing's exposure to combat in 'After the Battle' magazine. Don't remember all the particulars except for a couple. At the end of hostilities in Europe, only one Pershing was not operational. It badly damaged and was being used for parts source since it was repairable but not in European theater; a Nashorn 88 round pentrated the lower frontal armor and passed between the driver's legs without injuring him. The round started a fire in the turret and burned it out, but all the crew escaped. On Pershing killed a Tiger with 4 shots and then three more (MKIV?) with three shots.
First Pershing engaged was disabled by a Tiger but the Tiger got hung up while backing up and had to be abandoned. The Pershing was repaired.