Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rnd 3 Grp A - PzKpfw IV (Germany) vs M4 Sherman (USA)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    Mark IV. It was actually a better tank than the death trap Sherman "Tommy Cooker".
    I agree that the Mark IV was the better of the two tanks, but I think the Sherman meets the "influential" part of the equation better than the Mark IV meets the "significant" portion. So I voted for the Sherman by a mouse hair.
    My worst jump story:
    My 13th jump was on the 13th day of the month, aircraft number 013.
    As recorded on my DA Form 1307 Individual Jump Log.
    No lie.

    ~
    "Everything looks all right. Have a good jump, eh."
    -2 Commando Jumpmaster

    Comment


    • #32
      I think they were well matched, Panzer IV gets my vote, but only just.

      Low silhouette combined with decent armour and a good gun, it also served as a base for the successful sturmgeschütz.

      Perhaps my favourite "tank" of the war.

      If it hadn't it been for the drawback that the Sherman flamed so easily I would have voted for the Sherman I think, but I couldn't do that, just couldn't. I couldn't dooo it captain.

      There's no doubt though, that the Sherman was a good design that really began to shine once fitted with the English 17-pounder, for the first time it had a gun that was worthy of the tank itself.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by walle View Post
        I think they were well matched, Panzer IV gets my vote, but only just.

        If it hadn't it been for the drawback that the Sherman flamed so easily I would have voted for the Sherman I think, but I couldn't do that, just couldn't. I couldn't dooo it captain.

        There's no doubt though, that the Sherman was a good design that really began to shine once fitted with the English 17-pounder, for the first time it had a gun that was worthy of the tank itself.
        It seems you have your information wrong as the M4 did not burn at a rate greater than comparable tanks in battle at the time. The U.S. also developed wet ammo stowage to reduce the frequency of ammo fires so you should give the M4 higher marks in this area.

        IF WE THINK BEYOND WWII we see that the M4 was fielded with very powerful 75mm and 105mm guns by the Israelis. If you need to limit yourself to WWII then the M4 carried a 75, 76 and very powerful 105 howitzer. It could have been fitted with the 90mm of the Pershing.
        John

        Play La Marseillaise. Play it!

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by JBark View Post
          It seems you have your information wrong as the M4 did not burn at a rate greater than comparable tanks in battle at the time. The U.S. also developed wet ammo stowage to reduce the frequency of ammo fires so you should give the M4 higher marks in this area.

          IF WE THINK BEYOND WWII we see that the M4 was fielded with very powerful 75mm and 105mm guns by the Israelis. If you need to limit yourself to WWII then the M4 carried a 75, 76 and very powerful 105 howitzer. It could have been fitted with the 90mm of the Pershing.
          Agree and disagree.

          The Panzer IV was not an influential tank in WW2. It was the Panzer III and 38t that really secured the early victories for the Nazis, and the Cats were certainly more influential afterwards. The Panzer IV was one of the best tanks of WW2, but as far as this poll is concerned, needs to be discarded, just like the Churchill, M24, M26 and IS-2.

          In WW2 the Sherman was an extremely capable tank, and influenced almost every major theatre of that war. It was definitely one of the most significant tanks of WW2, in both numbers, and in its performance when considering its positive attributes suitability for an armoured division.

          Its alleged ability to brew up more often than other tanks has been proven to be erroneous. However, ammunition placement may have meant it brewed up faster in the earlier models. Turret crew hatches were also a fault in early Shermans. These faults were corrected during the course of the war.

          Firepower was exceptional in one area, and that was the lethality of the 75mm HE round, which I have recently read had a better shrapnel effect than that of the US 90mm. It had such a significant impact that the British almost re armed all their tanks at one point to cater for this HE effect.

          However, it should be pointed out that post WW2 the Shermans significance/influence was next to nothing, just like the T-34.
          How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
          Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
            Agree and disagree.

            The Panzer IV was not an influential tank in WW2. It was the Panzer III and 38t that really secured the early victories for the Nazis, and the Cats were certainly more influential afterwards. The Panzer IV was one of the best tanks of WW2, but as far as this poll is concerned, needs to be discarded, just like the Churchill, M24, M26 and IS-2.

            In WW2 the Sherman was an extremely capable tank, and influenced almost every major theatre of that war. It was definitely one of the most significant tanks of WW2, in both numbers, and in its performance when considering its positive attributes suitability for an armoured division.

            Its alleged ability to brew up more often than other tanks has been proven to be erroneous. However, ammunition placement may have meant it brewed up faster in the earlier models. Turret crew hatches were also a fault in early Shermans. These faults were corrected during the course of the war.

            Firepower was exceptional in one area, and that was the lethality of the 75mm HE round, which I have recently read had a better shrapnel effect than that of the US 90mm. It had such a significant impact that the British almost re armed all their tanks at one point to cater for this HE effect.

            However, it should be pointed out that post WW2 the Shermans significance/influence was next to nothing, just like the T-34.
            Good points though I don't agree with the assessment of the post war M4. The use of the Sherman in fifteen wars after WWII, and 37 countries in its history is a significant point in world history, IMO. Further the fielding of the M4 (with very powerful high velocity guns) by the Israelis shows an aspect of the design of the M4 in which the Pz IV was lacking. I find the versatility of an AFV to be an important part of its influence on the battlefied.
            Last edited by JBark; 17 Aug 14, 15:49.
            John

            Play La Marseillaise. Play it!

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by JBark View Post
              Good points though I don't agree with the assessment of the post war M4. The use of the Sherman in fifteen wars after WWII, and 37 countries in its history is a significant point in world history, IMO. Further the fielding of the M4 (with very powerful high velocity guns) by the Israelis shows an aspect of the design of the M4 in which the Pz IV was lacking. I find the versatility of an AFV to be an important part of its influence on the battlefied.
              The Pz IV post WW2 has absolutely no value in this poll.

              The fact that the M4 was upgunnable is useful, but post WW2 it was no Centurion.
              How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
              Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

              Comment


              • #37
                The Sherman, for its battlefield durability.
                "I dogmatise and am contradicted, and in this conflict of opinions and sentiments I find delight".
                Samuel Johnson.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by kurt tank 152 View Post
                  why US didn't upgunned the Sherman with the AA 76mm, or maybe the 90mm?
                  The US did arm the Sherman with a gun ballistically equivalent to the 3" gun, which was derived from the 3" AA gun. The 3" ordnance itself was too cramped for the medium tank turret, however, so the 76 mm gun was designed instead. See here for more details. The 76 mm did not fare well against Panther or Tiger derivatives, but it was more than a match for any other German vehicles, and even the Panther from anywhere but the front.

                  Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
                  I don't think the poll is the problem.
                  User error.

                  Originally posted by Marathag View Post
                  As I said earlier the US was more influenced by the French than what the British or Germans were doing in 1939 and 1940

                  The dedicated CS tanks were not doing the job for the British any more than the Mk IV Ds were doing for the Germans.
                  The design of the medium tank M3 was similar to that of the Char B. As Claus reiterated, however, the Pz.Kpfw.IV was the impetus behind the 75 mm gun.

                  Hunnicutt: "...staff studies of intelligence reports from the fighting in Europe were concerned with the use by the Germans of the 75mm gun in the Panzer IV. A meeting between Ordnance and General Chaffee, commanding the new Armored Force, concluded that a 75mm gun was a prime requirement for the new medium tank."

                  Zaloga: "Ideally, most American tankers wanted a design comparable to the most powerful German tank of the day, the PzKpfw IV."

                  Baily: "Germany's use of 75-mm weapons on its tanks early in the war convinced the Ordnance Department and the Chief of Infantry in 1940 that something would have to be done with the M2."

                  Gillie: "The use by the Germans of a medium tank armed with a 75mm...indicated the need for a more powerful medium tank than the M-2."

                  Ogorkiewicz: "The US tanks with which a number of British as well as the US armoured formations were equipped were principally the M4 Sherman medium tanks. These tanks owed much of their origin to the use by the German armoured forces of the Pz.Kpfw.IV with its 75mm gun, from which the US Army drew the very sensible conclusion that it required a medium tank with a gun of the same calibre."

                  CS tanks weren't doing the job for the British because they were mostly concerned with laying smokescreens.

                  Originally posted by walle View Post
                  Low silhouette combined with decent armour and a good gun, it also served as a base for the successful sturmgeschütz.
                  StuG IV wasn't produced until December 1943, and only 1138 in total were built. Compare this with sturmgeschütze derived from Pz.Kpfw.III, which were first constructed in January 1940 and saw over 9000 constructed.

                  As far as armor goes, Pz.Kpfw.IV never really had good armor. Its hull was eventually armored to 8 cm, with the lower front angled at 14 degrees from vertical, but its turret was never thicker than 5 cm (5 cm mantlet at 0-30 degrees, turret front was 5 cm at 10 degrees). Compare that with the M4, which had a hull upper front of either 5.1 cm at 56 degrees or 6.4 cm at 47 degrees (both are thicker than the Pz.Kpfw.IV's LOS thickness) and the 75 mm gun turret shield was 8.9 cm thick and turret front was 7.6 cm at 30 degrees while the 76 mm gun turret had an 8.9 cm thick gun shield and a turret front of 6.4 cm at 40-45 degrees. Mark Hayward cites a small British sample of tanks in Falaise that found Pz.Kpfw.IV took 1.2 hits and 1.2 penetrations to be knocked out, while the Sherman took 1.63 hits and 1.55 penetrations.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by JBark View Post
                    If I could remind you the Sherman had more armor than the Tiger.
                    The Sherman had a 75mm, 76mm, 105mm, 17pdr and could have been gunned with the 90mm of the Pershing. Post WWII the Israelis mounted a high velocity 75mm CN 75-50 and a more powerful French 105mm Modele F1. I don't understand discussing the Shrman as though it was fielded with only one gun.
                    The concept of the Sherman as burning more than any othr tank has been overdiscussed here and everywhere to the extent that it should be a warning sign when it is brought up. Did the PzIV have wet stowage for ammo to reduce fires?

                    well, are you joking, don't you? Sherman was heavily produced, more than 38 times the Tiger production, but say it had more armour than Tiger?
                    WW2 Shermans had a short 75mm, a not so short 76mm, a short 105mm howtizer, and the might 17 pounder. what type of gun of this list the least produced (converted)? the 17 pounder. all of the other guns it used in WW2 were crap against Tiger, unless very short range or great lucky in shot placement were involved. i think US could and should ungunned the Sherman, good guns weren't in short supply, like the AA 76mm, the 90mm, or even the 17 pounder, via reverse lend lease. trying to shoot Tigers with those crap guns tell me 2 things: one that the US tank designers care for the final user (tank crews) was zero, and two, most important, Sherman crews had guts and courage facing the german cats with it.
                    upgunned shermans are used to this day, and Pz IV last use was in Siria, 1967 IIRC.

                    __________________________________________________ ________
                    The two most powerful warriors are patience and time.
                    Leo Tolstoy

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by DogDodger View Post
                      The US did arm the Sherman with a gun ballistically equivalent to the 3" gun, which was derived from the 3" AA gun. The 3" ordnance itself was too cramped for the medium tank turret, however, so the 76 mm gun was designed instead. See here for more details. The 76 mm did not fare well against Panther or Tiger derivatives, but it was more than a match for any other German vehicles, and even the Panther from anywhere but the front.
                      i liked your very informative link, but how come 3 inch AA gun was too big to fit in the same turret the 17 pounder could? the 76 mm turret for Sherman (designed for T-23) was bigger than short guns previous models. i'm not saying you're wrong, i'm thinking WHY US couldn'd do the upgunning easily done by the British with the Firefly.

                      ________________________________________
                      The two most powerful warriors are patience and time.
                      Leo Tolstoy
                      Last edited by panther3485; 18 Aug 14, 02:55. Reason: Repair quote tag

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by kurt tank 152 View Post
                        i liked your very informative link, but how come 3 inch AA gun was too big to fit in the same turret the 17 pounder could? the 76 mm turret for Sherman (designed for T-23) was bigger than short guns previous models. i'm not saying you're wrong, i'm thinking WHY US couldn'd do the upgunning easily done by the British with the Firefly.
                        Thanks. The 17 pounder didn't really fit any better. The 17 pounder had to be rotated to one side, still leaving a cramped turret; the bow machine gunner had to be eliminated in favor of more ammunition; and for whatever reason the British insisted only M4s and M4A4s would work for the conversion (however, the US did convert a few M4A3s). Although it would be dispensed with in modern designs, US tankers interviewed after the war unanimously desired a bow machine gun. Anyway, the US found the 76 mm gun in the 75 mm gun turret was ergonomically poor in early 1943, while the British had their backs against the wall with the Firefly conversion, which they discovered was possible in October of that year when the Challenger was floundering.

                        Originally posted by kurt tank 152 View Post
                        well, are you joking, don't you? Sherman was heavily produced, more than 38 times the Tiger production, but say it had more armour than Tiger?
                        WW2 Shermans had a short 75mm, a not so short 76mm, a short 105mm howtizer, and the might 17 pounder. what type of gun of this list the least produced (converted)? the 17 pounder. all of the other guns it used in WW2 were crap against Tiger, unless very short range or great lucky in shot placement were involved. i think US could and should ungunned the Sherman, good guns weren't in short supply, like the AA 76mm, the 90mm, or even the 17 pounder, via reverse lend lease. trying to shoot Tigers with those crap guns tell me 2 things: one that the US tank designers care for the final user (tank crews) was zero, and two, most important, Sherman crews had guts and courage facing the german cats with it.
                        JBark is apparently referring to the M4A3E8 when talking about armor thicker than a Tiger.

                        The link to my earlier post tried to show that the US did upgun the Sherman--in a timely manner relative to other countries--and with a gun that the Ordnance Department claimed could destroy Tiger Ausf.E from 2000 yards away. Those tests were sadly incorrect, but the effort had been put in to give the Sherman a decent armor-piercing gun, even though when the project was initiated the Panther hadn't even been produced (and after it had entered production it was thought that it was just another heavy tank that would see limited production), and despite the fact that the demand from the troops wasn't there: When queried in late 1943 about which versions of the T20 series were preferable, the European Theater of Operations replied that they would desire the 76 mm gun versions, but would like work to continue on the 90 mm gun versions. The North African Theater of Operations, commanded at the time by Gen. Eisenhower and containing the only two US armored divisions that had yet seen action, wanted the 76 mm gun versions only and thought that the 90 mm gun versions would be too heavy and stow too few main gun rounds.

                        Reverse lend-lease for the 17 pounder? Once it was obvious that the Fireflies had better armor-piercing performance than the US 76mm guns, the US Army became interested and requested a number in August 1944. A shortage of the proper type of Sherman tank (M4 and M4A4) required for the conversions shelved the idea until March 1945. The US was then able to acquire eighty Fireflies, including some based on the M4A3. By this time, 90mm gun tanks had become available, and this combined with a shortage of 17 pounder ammunition (especially high-explosive) to end the American Firefly program. Also keep in mind that high-explosive would always be the most common round fired.

                        While 70 years of hindsight provides us with somewhat obvious answers, it simply wasn't that clear or easy at the time.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Sherman!
                          "A foolish man thinks he knows everything if placed in unexpected difficulty; but he knows not what to answer, if to the test he is put."

                          --Hávamál

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by DogDodger View Post
                            JBark is apparently referring to the M4A3E8 when talking about armor thicker than a Tiger.
                            Don't you mean the M4A3E2 "Jumbo"? And that's what we get when we click on the link anyway.

                            Other than the typo, great post there mate! +1.
                            "Chatfield, there seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
                            Vice Admiral Beatty to Flag Captain Chatfield; Battle of Jutland, 31 May - 1 June, 1916.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by DogDodger View Post
                              ......and for whatever reason the British insisted only M4s and M4A4s would work for the conversion (however, the US did convert a few M4A3s)........
                              The first British Firefly was a MkIV Sherman, ie a M4A3. This is because the Yanks would only give us one. It was the traverse mechanism iirc that only allowed Shermans 1, IV and V to be converted. Source David Fletcher .
                              How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                              Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Sherman by a hair here..

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X