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

  • #46
    Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
    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 .
    I think it was more what was available in the unallocated tank pool. Sherman I, I hybrid and V were converted. The Canadians converted a few Grizzlies (Sherman II licence-built) and the conversion had to start with the 75mm turret.

    Comment


    • #47
      At a first glance this was a hard one...
      But after reading all those posts, it was actually an easy vote.
      The M4 beats the P4 in significance (numbers, operating in all theatres) and also in influence.
      Maintenance intervals, reliability, production simplicity, variability etc. are inalienable factors for a successful Tank or modern MBT. And they all go to the M4. They also guarantee high operational/combat readiness. The M4 could also be upgraded and was therefore competitive long after the War.

      M4 for me.
      Last edited by Hanov; 18 Aug 14, 07:09.
      One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic.

      Comment


      • #48
        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.
        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
        As I see folks far better informed than I (but not quite as good looking) have let you know that a variant of the M4 existed that was more heavily armored than the Tiger. I point this out because I see endlessly on this forum that a discussion of the M4 usually seems to refer to one fielded in 1942. If you are going to be fair, IMO, and do the tank justice you need to consider all its variants. If you are going to include the Stug in praise of the Pz IV then include all the AFV's built on the M4 chassis. Remember as I've tried to point out that the M4 carried many guns in its long carreer, the fact that pencil pushers in the states only put three guns in the tank during WWII doesn't mean all that much. The fact that the 17pdr. was a British modification should be more points FOR THE M4, not points against it as it shows the versatility of the machine, the influence on the battlefield and in the war.

        You concentrate, as so many do, on the WWII performance of the M4 against one tank , the Tiger, which is a horrible way to judge an AFV. The Sherman would prove itself as any tank "should", against infantry, fixed guns, soft targets. Remember that tanks carry a lot of HE for a reason...to blow stuff up.

        Remember also that the Sherman would serve for decades after WWII in numerous wars and would see numerous modifications, carry various guns, and of course influence events.
        John

        Play La Marseillaise. Play it!

        Comment


        • #49
          The 76mm Gun was based on the 3" AA Gun. People forget that the Israelis kept some of their Shermans with 75mm main guns as well as long 75mm's derived from the Panther's main gun as well as 105 soft recoil main guns. They certainly had them long enough to convert them all.

          Pruitt
          Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

          Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

          by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by JBark View Post
            As I see folks far better informed than I (but not quite as good looking) have let you know that a variant of the M4 existed that was more heavily armored than the Tiger. I point this out because I see endlessly on this forum that a discussion of the M4 usually seems to refer to one fielded in 1942. If you are going to be fair, IMO, and do the tank justice you need to consider all its variants. If you are going to include the Stug in praise of the Pz IV then include all the AFV's built on the M4 chassis. Remember as I've tried to point out that the M4 carried many guns in its long carreer, the fact that pencil pushers in the states only put three guns in the tank during WWII doesn't mean all that much. The fact that the 17pdr. was a British modification should be more points FOR THE M4, not points against it as it shows the versatility of the machine, the influence on the battlefield and in the war.

            You concentrate, as so many do, on the WWII performance of the M4 against one tank , the Tiger, which is a horrible way to judge an AFV. The Sherman would prove itself as any tank "should", against infantry, fixed guns, soft targets. Remember that tanks carry a lot of HE for a reason...to blow stuff up.

            Remember also that the Sherman would serve for decades after WWII in numerous wars and would see numerous modifications, carry various guns, and of course influence events.

            ok Jbark, looks like you missed my point. i vote for Sherman in the poll (check the scores), Sherman won the war, as quantity has a quality on it's own. my poin is that US COULD and SHOULD upgun it. as DogDodger point out, they tried, and missed. of course it's easy to point their mistakes now, so it's easy to forget the risks suffered by Sherman tank crews when they face the german cats. Britain could upgun Sherman readly, why US, having an industry larger than the rest of world at that time, couldn't do that?Mustang had a British engine, why Sherman hadn't a British gun?


            ________________________________________
            One is left with the horrible feeling now that war settles nothing; that to win a war is as disastrous as to lose one.
            Agatha Christie

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by kurt tank 152 View Post
              ok Jbark, looks like you missed my point. i vote for Sherman in the poll (check the scores), Sherman won the war, as quantity has a quality on it's own. my poin is that US COULD and SHOULD upgun it. as DogDodger point out, they tried, and missed. of course it's easy to point their mistakes now, so it's easy to forget the risks suffered by Sherman tank crews when they face the german cats. Britain could upgun Sherman readly, why US, having an industry larger than the rest of world at that time, couldn't do that?Mustang had a British engine, why Sherman hadn't a British gun?
              All due respect sir I didn't think you made one. You want to offer that the British gunned M4 is not an M4, I don't agree. You want to ignore that the M4 was fielded in many variants, one a heavily armored "breakthrough" tank, I think this is not correct. You state that the possibility of combat with the Tiger tank justified upgunning the M4 at some point during WWII and I don't agree with this at all. You point out that the M4 had a measly 75mm gun (highly regarded during WWII) but for some reason ignore ALL the guns it did go to war with and that these should be considered when rating this tank (and the fact that this versatile machine could have gone to battle with the turret and gun of the M26.)
              So what "point" did I miss?
              That industry, btw, was pretty busy arming the world, cut it a break if it didn' do all you think it should have.
              John

              Play La Marseillaise. Play it!

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by JBark View Post
                All due respect sir I didn't think you made one. You want to offer that the British gunned M4 is not an M4, I don't agree. You want to ignore that the M4 was fielded in many variants, one a heavily armored "breakthrough" tank, I think this is not correct. You state that the possibility of combat with the Tiger tank justified upgunning the M4 at some point during WWII and I don't agree with this at all. You point out that the M4 had a measly 75mm gun (highly regarded during WWII) but for some reason ignore ALL the guns it did go to war with and that these should be considered when rating this tank (and the fact that this versatile machine could have gone to battle with the turret and gun of the M26.)
                So what "point" did I miss?
                That industry, btw, was pretty busy arming the world, cut it a break if it didn' do all you think it should have.
                Outstanding post, John.

                +1.

                If I was to add anything at all, it would only be to say that the Tiger tanks probably (by my own "guesstimate") accounted for no more than 1 percent (if that) of the Sherman's engagements in WW2. So far as German tanks in the 1944-45 period are concerned, PzKpfw IV and Panther were both much more common. Then there were the very many other types of AFVs in the German OOB. Then the AT guns; then the enemy strongpoints; then the concentrations of enemy infantry and so it goes on.

                In any case, this particular poll is on the significance and influence of the German PzKpfw IV compared with that of the M4 Sherman so the Tiger isn't even a question here.

                ... and I'm still rather inclined towards the Sherman.


                Edit: I see PzKpfw IV as a very worthy opponent in this Round, but for me it's gonna be the M4 Sherman. Locked in.
                Last edited by panther3485; 18 Aug 14, 11:50.
                "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


                • #53
                  Originally posted by JBark View Post
                  All due respect sir I didn't think you made one. You want to offer that the British gunned M4 is not an M4, I don't agree. You want to ignore that the M4 was fielded in many variants, one a heavily armored "breakthrough" tank, I think this is not correct. You state that the possibility of combat with the Tiger tank justified upgunning the M4 at some point during WWII and I don't agree with this at all. You point out that the M4 had a measly 75mm gun (highly regarded during WWII) but for some reason ignore ALL the guns it did go to war with and that these should be considered when rating this tank (and the fact that this versatile machine could have gone to battle with the turret and gun of the M26.)
                  So what "point" did I miss?
                  That industry, btw, was pretty busy arming the world, cut it a break if it didn' do all you think it should have.
                  all due respect also, i've made my point, not by putting words in your mouth as you put on mine. when i said Firefly isn't a M4? never. never said that M4 hadn't many variants. the possibility of combat with Tiger, Panther, and even Pz IV from ausf F and on (because the Kwk40 L/48 was much more powerful than any gun it used but 17 pounder), of course justified upgunning the M4. i said it's easy to point out mistakes now, what i keep in mind is how brave M4 crews were facing these tanks i've mentioned with it. i'm not underrating Sherman, i'm criticizing US tank designers and industry for not managing upgunning the Sherman. Sherman won the war, i vote for it.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    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.
                    The US had a 76mm armed Sherman in 1942. As DogDodger points out, they just didn't like the way it performed. As the users did not really want the 76mm armed vehicle at this point, they settled for the longer development leading to the 1944 Sherman with the larger turret and 76mm gun.
                    The British, on the other hand, had their back to the wall in 1943 and had to come up with something to get the 17-pdr in a tank, hence the Firefly.

                    In 1952, the US Army faced a similar crisis, suddenly experiencing a massive demand for tanks to arm its many new allies through the MDAP program. The plans for stuffing a 76mm gun into the 75mm turret was dusted off and the modified tanks were shipped to some NATO countries, Yugoslavia and Pakistan.

                    As it turns out, the 76mm gun in the 75mm turret is not nearly as cramped as the 17-pdr in the same turret and could easily have worked in 1942/43 IF someone had pushed for it. But no one really did until 1944 and at that time, the upgraded Sherman was already comming off the production line.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by cbo View Post
                      The US had a 76mm armed Sherman in 1942. As DogDodger points out, they just didn't like the way it performed. As the users did not really want the 76mm armed vehicle at this point, they settled for the longer development leading to the 1944 Sherman with the larger turret and 76mm gun.
                      The British, on the other hand, had their back to the wall in 1943 and had to come up with something to get the 17-pdr in a tank, hence the Firefly.

                      In 1952, the US Army faced a similar crisis, suddenly experiencing a massive demand for tanks to arm its many new allies through the MDAP program. The plans for stuffing a 76mm gun into the 75mm turret was dusted off and the modified tanks were shipped to some NATO countries, Yugoslavia and Pakistan.

                      As it turns out, the 76mm gun in the 75mm turret is not nearly as cramped as the 17-pdr in the same turret and could easily have worked in 1942/43 IF someone had pushed for it. But no one really did until 1944 and at that time, the upgraded Sherman was already comming off the production line.
                      hell they put a 105mm in to the Sherman so a 76 should of been easy.
                      you think you a real "bleep" solders you "bleep" plastic solders don't wory i will make you in to real "bleep" solders!! "bleep" plastic solders

                      CPO Mzinyati

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
                        Outstanding post, John.

                        +1.

                        If I was to add anything at all, it would only be to say that the Tiger tanks probably (by my own "guesstimate") accounted for no more than 1 percent (if that) of the Sherman's engagements in WW2. So far as German tanks in the 1944-45 period are concerned, PzKpfw IV and Panther were both much more common. Then there were the very many other types of AFVs in the German OOB. Then the AT guns; then the enemy strongpoints; then the concentrations of enemy infantry and so it goes on.

                        In any case, this particular poll is on the significance and influence of the German PzKpfw IV compared with that of the M4 Sherman so the Tiger isn't even a question here.

                        ... and I'm still rather inclined towards the Sherman.


                        Edit: I see PzKpfw IV as a very worthy opponent in this Round, but for me it's gonna be the M4 Sherman. Locked in.
                        Thank you. Damn glad to see someone put a number on it. Thanks for that too.
                        John

                        Play La Marseillaise. Play it!

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by kurt tank 152 View Post
                          all due respect also, i've made my point, not by putting words in your mouth as you put on mine. when i said Firefly isn't a M4? never. never said that M4 hadn't many variants. the possibility of combat with Tiger, Panther, and even Pz IV from ausf F and on (because the Kwk40 L/48 was much more powerful than any gun it used but 17 pounder), of course justified upgunning the M4. i said it's easy to point out mistakes now, what i keep in mind is how brave M4 crews were facing these tanks i've mentioned with it. i'm not underrating Sherman, i'm criticizing US tank designers and industry for not managing upgunning the Sherman. Sherman won the war, i vote for it.
                          Apologies. Certainly didn't want to put words in your mouth. Sorry you think I did. You had lamented the designers that the Sherman never had enough armor or a decent gun so of course I wonder why since the designers made a machine capable of being uparmored beyond that of the Tiger and receive guns of extreme power. When people throw in the 17pdr as a side note as you did it seems they are not crediting the Sherman with carrying this gun. Simply saying the M4 needed to be upgunned because you felt it would meet certain tanks X number of times is not justifying, in my book. Give some data that really makes this point. Please do some reading, neither the US tank designers nor the industry kept the M4 from getting the gun you think it needed...this decision was made by the army. As I've pointed out the M4 could and did take a gun more powerful than the 88 of the Tiger I.
                          Part of the problem I see in this discussion is you limiting your view of the M4 to WWII. Agreed, you voted for the M4 here but your description of a weak gunned Tommy Cooker is not doing this tank justice. If you do some reading you will come to find that that puny little 75 tore a big ass hole in the Wermacht.
                          John

                          Play La Marseillaise. Play it!

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            The American Army made the decision to keep producing large numbers of M-4 Shermans instead of stopping production or retrofitting better main guns. The Ordinance Department did have several proposed modifications including a better main gun. It was felt by the guys in charge that large numbers of slightly inferior tanks would negate any advantage small numbers of better German tanks in the field. The same guys also stated the Panther would not be produced in large numbers and was just another heavy tank. They thought it would be produced at a similar rate as the Tiger.

                            None of these guys ever went and fought in a Sherman in a combat unit. That might have changed their mind!

                            Pruitt
                            Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

                            Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

                            by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
                              The American Army made the decision to keep producing large numbers of M-4 Shermans instead of stopping production or retrofitting better main guns. The Ordinance Department did have several proposed modifications including a better main gun. It was felt by the guys in charge that large numbers of slightly inferior tanks would negate any advantage small numbers of better German tanks in the field. The same guys also stated the Panther would not be produced in large numbers and was just another heavy tank. They thought it would be produced at a similar rate as the Tiger.

                              None of these guys ever went and fought in a Sherman in a combat unit. That might have changed their mind!

                              Pruitt
                              You are absolutely correct.

                              The Sherman was an exceptional strategic weapon, great at the operational level, and still tactically effective.

                              What the Sherman actually represents is the US WW2 economy's ability to win a war. There was no way the US was going to lose WW2. The Sherman represents the US economy's strengths, just like the Mustang.
                              How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                              Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
                                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.
                                Ah, you are of course correct; thanks for catching the mistake.

                                Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                                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 .
                                Where does Fletcher say this? Thanks. Fletcher has a picture of the prototype Firefly, based on an M4A4, in The Universal Tank, complete with wooden gun barrel. M4A3 (of which the UK received a grand total of 7 through lend-lease) may have been used as a mockup or test example, but the type was considered "not acceptable" for Firefly conversion. The list of requirements according to the Ministry of Supply included "Wide mantlet, petrol driven engine, hydraulic traverse, and M34A1 mount. If a tank does not have all these essentials, it cannot be converted to 17-pdr." The Oilgear traverse mechanism was preferred specifically.

                                Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
                                The American Army made the decision to keep producing large numbers of M-4 Shermans instead of stopping production or retrofitting better main guns. The Ordinance Department did have several proposed modifications including a better main gun. It was felt by the guys in charge that large numbers of slightly inferior tanks would negate any advantage small numbers of better German tanks in the field. The same guys also stated the Panther would not be produced in large numbers and was just another heavy tank. They thought it would be produced at a similar rate as the Tiger.

                                None of these guys ever went and fought in a Sherman in a combat unit. That might have changed their mind!
                                The better gun was produced. Those "guys" asked the users what they wanted, as referenced, and the armored divisions that had actually seen combat didn't want a 90 mm gun; they essentially got what they asked for. Even on the eve of the Normandy invasion, veteran tankers were happy with the 75 mm gun M3 and were loathe to replace it with the 76 mm, which fired a weaker HE shell; had larger ammo which meant less stowed rounds and more difficulty in handling; and had an almost blinding muzzle blast. Ordnance tests on the 3"/76 mm guns were wrong, but the users were not exactly putting pressure on the designers for more powerful guns until after Normandy. By then, of course, the 76 mm had already been in production for half a year.

                                Originally posted by kurt tank 152 View Post
                                because the Kwk40 L/48 was much more powerful than any gun it used but 17 pounder
                                The muzzle velocity of the Kw.K.40 L/48 was 790 m/s when firing Pzgr.39. The 76 mm gun M1 series fired the M62 APC projectile at a 2600 ft/s, which is essentially equal when the metric conversion is applied.

                                i said it's easy to point out mistakes now, what i keep in mind is how brave M4 crews were facing these tanks i've mentioned with it. i'm not underrating Sherman, i'm criticizing US tank designers and industry for not managing upgunning the Sherman.
                                See above. The industry provided a higher-velocity gun that the users provided some resistance to. In the end the 76 didn't live up to expectations, but it was a large improvement over the 75 mm gun as far as armor penetration goes.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X