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

  • JBark
    replied
    Originally posted by kurt tank 152 View Post
    i vote for Sherman. shame on it's designers that it never had enough armour, and worst, a decent gun! pz IV, from ausf F, had the 75mm L/48 gun, and the only Sherman with a good gun was the Firefly, a Sherman IV converted to take a 17 pounder (76,2mm) gun. if a gun so powerful fit the turret ring, why US didn't upgunned the Sherman with the AA 76mm, or maybe the 90mm? great numbers are a good way to win a war, but tell this to the killed in "Tommy coocker"! nevertheless, i vote for Sherman for it's use to this day, upgunned, of course!
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • JBark
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    Mark IV. It was actually a better tank than the death trap Sherman "Tommy Cooker".
    Here in lies the problem with this poll.

    Leave a comment:


  • cbo
    replied
    This is a real challenge.

    As for influence, I dont see much from either design finding its way into other tanks, not much inspiration gathered from either by the developers of other tanks.

    The Sherman was something of a wartime expedient, designed with whatever was in the parts bin, produced using whatever technologies the manufacturers had available and designed to adapt whatever contingencies the designers could think of at the time: Large turret ring for bigger guns (a 105mm howitzers was part of the package from the start, 3" guns soon came into the picture), roomy hull for different engine types etc. But that does not appear to have been much of an inspiration for anyone designing tanks post-Sherman.

    The Panzer IV was no expedient, it was designed very carefully over many years, the first marks - Ausf. A and B - being little more than prototypes and pre-production models and the following marks being produced in very small numbers (total production of Ausf. A to F was just over 1000 machines). And still, for all that tinkering, the Panzer IV was constantly underarmoured, underpowered, undergunned and generally not very well designed. It was ecplipsed completely by the T34, resurrected by the KwK 40 and reached its zenith with the Ausf. G in 1942, the first and only time in the war when the Panzer IV achieved some degree of balance as a design, primarily because of the substantial firepower delivered by its gun. Then the tinkering started again, overburdening the design with armour and trying to compensate for all the overengineering found in a typical pre-war design.
    Nothing much to be inspired by there either! Obviously, the Germans distanced themselves from every bit and part of the Panzer IV, when they moved on to new designs after 1941, clearly showing that there wasn't much to be gained from examining the aging clanker.

    I'll give the Panzer IV a smalle edge in influence for inspiring the US Army to mount a 75mm gun in their medium tank.

    EDIT: And then perhaps not, as the US 75mm heavily influenced the British to move away from guns, heavily focused on AP to guns with a true dual capability. I.e. from 1943 onwards, they based the own 75mm gun on the US ammo and later issued a usefull HE round for their 17-pdr. So influence is a tie, really

    As for significance...

    The Sherman served everywhere from desert to jungle, from the entry of the US into the war in 1941, all through the war and a long way into the post-war era and on every front, east and west and against all enemies of the US. It was widely exported/Lend-Leased both during the war and post-war. It also formed the basis for a multitude of SP-guns in the US Army, which also saw lots of service post-war.

    The Panzer IV was around only in small numbers until 1942/43 and only survived past 1943 because the Germans couldn't afford to dump it. It paid a significant contribution to the German Army in WWII, but there were many other designs doing just as much. The Panzer IV saw no significant export succes, less than 400 being exported, and saw no combat outside Europe and North Africa, save the few that the Syrian Army dug into the Golan post-war.

    In this case, significance decides the contest and the Sherman runs the Panzer IV into the ground on that one. So Sherman for me.
    Last edited by cbo; 17 Aug 14, 08:51.

    Leave a comment:


  • Skoblin
    replied
    If cheap, more or less reliable and capable of mass production is significant and influential - then Sherman. If quality of the product is important - then PzKpfW IV.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dibble201Bty
    replied
    Originally posted by Marathag View Post
    Soviets seemed to think the Canadian built Valentines more reliable than other UK built ones
    Were the Churchills that they used made in Canada?

    Paul

    Leave a comment:


  • kurt tank 152
    replied
    i vote for Sherman. shame on it's designers that it never had enough armour, and worst, a decent gun! pz IV, from ausf F, had the 75mm L/48 gun, and the only Sherman with a good gun was the Firefly, a Sherman IV converted to take a 17 pounder (76,2mm) gun. if a gun so powerful fit the turret ring, why US didn't upgunned the Sherman with the AA 76mm, or maybe the 90mm? great numbers are a good way to win a war, but tell this to the killed in "Tommy coocker"! nevertheless, i vote for Sherman for it's use to this day, upgunned, of course!

    _____________________________________________
    War is a series of catastrophes that results in a victory.
    Georges Clemenceau

    Leave a comment:


  • panther3485
    replied
    Haven't voted yet but I'm going to think hard about this one. At the moment, these two look pretty close to me so it won't be an easy decision; although I do at present feel to be in favour of the Sherman, if only by a small whisker.

    Need time to think on it more.

    Leave a comment:


  • andrewza
    replied
    M4 it had Numbers, years of serves, range of serves and upgradbliety. Remember the firefly is a M4 and it was so good german AT gunners where told to target it above all other tanks. If only the USA mass produces 17 pounder armerd shermans with diessiel engiens.

    Leave a comment:


  • broderickwells
    replied
    Damn good design (P-4) versus catch up (M4). Damn good design wins.

    Leave a comment:


  • DogDodger
    replied
    Originally posted by Marathag View Post
    MkIV had diameter of 1650mm, low velocity 75mm

    M4 had diameter of 1753mm,medium velocity 75mm

    I'm just not seeing the influence, myself.
    For what it's worth, the 7.5 cm gun on the Pz.Kpfw.IV is specifically why the medium tanks M3 and M4 were armed with the 75 mm gun M3.

    Leave a comment:


  • Marathag
    replied
    Originally posted by Dibble201Bty View Post
    So It wasn't common sense then! And Britain would have gone on to churn out ever after, unreliable tanks like the Churchill, Cromwell and that busted flush, the Centurion if it wasn't for the Sherman?
    Soviets seemed to think the Canadian built Valentines more reliable than other UK built ones

    Leave a comment:


  • Dibble201Bty
    replied
    Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
    This is so close, it hurts.

    In the end, I went M4, because it convinced Britain that reliability was the most important element of a tank. This led to the Centurion, a tactically effective weapon that could be used in the operational role. The Centurion directly owes its reliability element to the Sherman, despite lack of specific M4 mechanical elements in its design.
    So It wasn't common sense then! And Britain would have gone on to churn out ever after, unreliable tanks like the Churchill, Cromwell and that busted flush, the Centurion if it wasn't for the Sherman?

    The Great Tank Scandal may be a good book, but Rude Mechanicals by A.J. Smithers is another to read in conjunction.

    The MkIV chassis and engine bay lent itself to many conversions and adaptations.

    Paul

    Leave a comment:


  • Marathag
    replied
    Originally posted by Arthwys View Post
    I think the PzKpfw IV was part of the influence in the M4 itself so... Pz IV for me.
    There was more French influence, castings.

    Lets start at the bottom

    MkIV tracks, Single Pin cast alloy

    M4 tracks, double pin 'live' rubber

    MkIV suspension, leaf spring

    M4 suspension, Volute spring

    MkIV Engine derived from railroad, air intake louvres on side

    M4 Engine, aircraft, intake on top

    MkIV Clutch and brake differential

    M4 Cletrac Controlled differential



    OK, the US ignored the Mk IV on the automotive side. Let look above that


    Mk IV Welded turret, side hatches

    M4 Cast turret, top hatch for loader

    MkIV had diameter of 1650mm, low velocity 75mm

    M4 had diameter of 1753mm,medium velocity 75mm

    I'm just not seeing the influence, myself.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nick the Noodle
    replied
    This is so close, it hurts.

    In the end, I went M4, because it convinced Britain that reliability was the most important element of a tank. This led to the Centurion, a tactically effective weapon that could be used in the operational role. The Centurion directly owes its reliability element to the Sherman, despite lack of specific M4 mechanical elements in its design.

    Leave a comment:


  • Arthwys
    replied
    I think the PzKpfw IV was part of the influence in the M4 itself so... Pz IV for me.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X