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

  • #61
    Originally posted by DogDodger View Post
    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.

    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.
    [/QUOTE]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.

    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. [/QUOTE]

    in R.P. Hunnicutt's book Sherman: A History of the American Medium Tank, states that penetration of armor of M62 apc at 30 degrees from vertical:
    500m -93mm, 1000m -92mm. i don't know if these figures are correct, because the 1mm difference within 500 metres. for the Kwk 40 L/48 i've found no data. i base my comments in the few combat reports and testimonials i have, from former US and GB tank crews. one of them even faced Michael Wittman's Tiger. his tank shot the Tiger 3 times at 200 yards and the shots bounced off. you say US tankers preference of short 75mm, i have no data to back this up, but you know what you say.
    anyway, thanks for correctings comments i have made.

    ______________________________________________
    Opinion is the medium between knowledge and ignorance.
    Plato

    Comment


    • #62
      Are you using the weapon data sheets in the back of the book? My copy says that the M62 could penetrate 3.7" (93 mm) at 500 yards and 3.5" (88 mm) at 1000 yards. Strange that our copies differ. The Kw.K.40 L/48 firing Pzgr.39 could penetrate 96 mm and 85 mm at the same distances and target angle according to Chamberlain and Doyle. Be aware that test plates and even the definition of "penetration" may vary from country to country, but failure of US 76 mm ammunition upon impact was reputed to have contributed to the gun's not living up to expectations.

      I appreciate the vote of confidence, but I take no offense to anyone being skeptical of unsourced claims. Gabel wrote of veteran tankers being happy with the 75 mm gun in Seek, Strike, and Destroy.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by andrewza View Post
        hell they put a 105mm in to the Sherman so a 76 should of been easy.
        They are two rather different things, though. The 105mm being a low-velocity howitzer and the 76mm being a high velocity cannon. The 76mm was larger, heavier and put a lot more pressure on the mount that did the 105mm. The 76mm also launched its projectile using a lot more pressure, resulting in much more energy being applied.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by cbo View Post
          They are two rather different things, though. The 105mm being a low-velocity howitzer and the 76mm being a high velocity cannon. The 76mm was larger, heavier and put a lot more pressure on the mount that did the 105mm. The 76mm also launched its projectile using a lot more pressure, resulting in much more energy being applied.
          Talking about the Israel Super Sherman's that could kill a T55
          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


          • #65
            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
            Please keep in mind that the lion's share of the work done by an M4 was not against other tanks. If it did meet another tank it could easily have been a Pz IV...more probable by the numbers. The 75 that everyone wants to put down did a fine job in its HE role and oddly enough could and did kill cats within the common combat range of the ETO.
            John

            Play La Marseillaise. Play it!

            Comment


            • #66
              I've got a combat report of a British 75mm armed Sherman in Normandy that knocked out 2 Panzer IV's, 2 Tigers and a Panther in a single action. The Tigers were knocked out at 1000 and 1400 yards respectively.

              Another 75mm Sherman in the same report knocked out a Panther and a Tiger. The Tiger was penetrated frontally from 120 yards.

              The Sherman was much more effective against the bigger enemy tanks than is generally assumed.
              "Looting would not be tolerated within the Division, unless organised with the knowledge of C.O.'s on a unit basis."
              - 15/19 Hussars War Diary, 18th March 1945

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Don Juan View Post
                I've got a combat report of a British 75mm armed Sherman in Normandy that knocked out 2 Panzer IV's, 2 Tigers and a Panther in a single action. The Tigers were knocked out at 1000 and 1400 yards respectively.

                Another 75mm Sherman in the same report knocked out a Panther and a Tiger. The Tiger was penetrated frontally from 120 yards.

                The Sherman was much more effective against the bigger enemy tanks than is generally assumed.
                John

                Play La Marseillaise. Play it!

                Comment


                • #68
                  I liked the Sherman very much because they were turned out in large numbers even though most were under armed and armored that would later be corrected with the "easy 8" that would come out in late 1944 early 1945. The Panzer IV on the other hand would have to be the only tank to equal the Sherman the only influence it had would be the starting point for the Tiger I tanks that would prove to be a major headache for Allied tankers.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by andrewza View Post
                    Talking about the Israel Super Sherman's that could kill a T55
                    IIRC the M51 was built using a heavily modified T23 turret, i.e. the turret designed for the 76mm. So it was not something that could "easily" be installed in the 75mm armed Sherman.

                    But it does show that the designers of the Sherman had sufficient foresight to make a package that could be expanded if the need arose.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Voted Sherman...

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        The Panzer IV- Even thought the Sherman was better (and was better post war)- the panzer IV simply did a lot more fighting.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Cult Icon View Post
                          The Panzer IV- Even thought the Sherman was better (and was better post war)- the panzer IV simply did a lot more fighting.
                          I have a hard time understanding this. Forty-nine thousand Shermans did less fighting than 15,000 PzIV's? The Sherman fought in every theatre of WWII and continued to be use all over the globe in numerous wars while the PzIV saw some use in the middle east...nothing else IIRC. Very hard time understanding this.
                          John

                          Play La Marseillaise. Play it!

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Perhaps Cult Icon means a greater duration of fighting, at least during WW2? In other words, that the Pzkpfw IV fought for the whole of WW2 whereas the Sherman fought only during the second half of it (give or take a bit)? At least, that's the closest I can get to trying to understand what he said.

                            On the other hand though, when the Sherman did fight in WW2, it did so in much greater numbers and over a larger area globally speaking; including some very substantial parts of the World that the PzKpfw IV didn't touch.

                            In any case IIRC, the total production of PzKpfw IV gun tanks was somewhere between 8,500 and 9,000; certainly under 10,000. The figure you have provided may include all other types of AFV on the PzKpfw IV chassis? So, on a purely numerical basis the Panzer 4 is even less significant than the Sherman.
                            Last edited by panther3485; 31 Aug 14, 17:25.
                            "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


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by JBark View Post
                              I have a hard time understanding this. Forty-nine thousand Shermans did less fighting than 15,000 PzIV's? The Sherman fought in every theatre of WWII and continued to be use all over the globe in numerous wars while the PzIV saw some use in the middle east...nothing else IIRC. Very hard time understanding this.
                              The Sherman was not a very good tank post WW2, except during the exploitation phase in Korea. That was before the Chinese entered.

                              It was used, like the PzIV and T-34-76, or even the T-34-85, because it was available when others where not. The PzIV was apparently used as late as 1967. That does not consider it a great tank. For the few decades post WW2, the best tank is almost certainly the Centurion .

                              What the Sherman represents is the US industrial might in WW2. It was reliable, perfect for production lines and the right size for shipping. It may be the best strategic tank of all time. It almost certainly was the best tank in the world when first employed at El Alamein. It was probably the best tank in the world until D-Day in overall ability. Post D-Day it remained a very good tank for an armoured division, but that was not was required most of the time. In the Boccage it was not a particuarly exceptional useful piece of kit most of the time, even with the Rhino conversion pre Cobra.

                              Even Patton was forced by public opinion to up armour Sherman tanks to Jumbo specifications. These had all the problems that Patton said the Panthers and Tigers had.

                              The Sherman represents in an afv all the strengths of the US in WW2 and some of its weaknesses.
                              How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                              Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                                The Sherman was not a very good tank post WW2, except during the exploitation phase in Korea. That was before the Chinese entered.
                                Mechanical reliability was the problem, from April 1951 to June 1951, 31 of 88 M26 Pershings were lost to mechanical breakdowns - 35% vs 8 combat losses over the same period. The M46 was no better, with 67 of 188 had breakdowns, a 36% with 30 combat losses. The M4A3 had a 20% breakdown rate

                                You might want to research the T-34 breakdown rate as well.

                                Then that its combat record vs US tanks was not stellar, either

                                US Losses vs. T-34 destroyed July - Sept 1951
                                M24 5 1
                                M4A3 7 24
                                M26 3 31
                                M46 1 18

                                So, what does this say? Life was better if you were not in a Chaffee or T-34, and if your Pershing kept running, it would do better than a Sherman
                                Last edited by Marathag; 31 Aug 14, 20:34.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X