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

  • warmoviebuff
    replied
    Tough call and I am not a big Sherman fan, but I went with it.

    Leave a comment:


  • JBark
    replied
    Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
    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.
    Thanks on the numbers, I was not on my side of the puddle when I wrote that and pulled the number out of the grey matter.

    If Cult is indeed referring to duration I would reply that 8000 vehicles fighting for 5+ years versus 49000 fighting for three years, and losing, is not more influential...IMO. The tank which played the more significant role in this comparison hs to be the Sherman.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nick the Noodle
    replied
    Originally posted by Marathag View Post
    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
    In actual tactical combat the Pershing was considered about 3x better than the M4. However, while the M26 et al was better at the tactical level, the M4 was completely superior to the M26 in the pursuit/exploitation phase.

    The one real word about Shermans in Korea was reliable. This is one of the most underrated elements of a tank I know.

    Leave a comment:


  • Marathag
    replied
    Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
    Incorrect and correct .

    Both the Washington Post and the NY Times in early 45 wrote articles damning the Sherman. Whether they were right or wrong to do so is irrelevant in this case. What is relevant is that Patton quietly allowed uparmouring by using damaged late war second generation Shermans, with welded hulls, to uparmour existing M4A3E8's to Jumbo specifications.
    Patton's workshops were turning out up armor kits after the Bulge from Belgian workshops, after tests in late Summer proved that sandbags were worthless.
    About 20% of the 4th, 6th and 11th Armored Shermans were converted by February, when the times did their story in March

    Patton was hardly influenced by newspaper reports at that point of the war, see his workshops doing field upgrades to 76mm, and co-axial 50 caliber replacing the 30, with no newspaper talking about that, at all.

    Leave a comment:


  • JBark
    replied
    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.
    We aren't discussing good. We're discussing influence and significance. If a countries obtains Shermans and wins a war then the Sherman has been influential on world events, militarily. A rating of its quality post WWII to other tanks as here we are still comparing to PzIV. Was it more influential after WWII? I would say yes.

    Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
    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 .
    We are not evaluating based on greatness. The Centurion being best or not is irrelevant.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nick the Noodle
    replied
    Originally posted by Marathag View Post
    No, Public had nothing to do with it.

    3rd Army forbade the use of sandbags and other ersatz protection that added tons of weight for little real protection

    They were still lighter than real Jumbos.

    Jumbos had 1500 miles from the drivetrain, which was 10 times better than the Panther, and the Ford GAA still outlasted the Maybach, which tended to shell out in under 300 miles
    Incorrect and correct .

    Both the Washington Post and the NY Times in early 45 wrote articles damning the Sherman. Whether they were right or wrong to do so is irrelevant in this case. What is relevant is that Patton quietly allowed uparmouring by using damaged late war second generation Shermans, with welded hulls, to uparmour existing M4A3E8's to Jumbo specifications.

    The Panthers final drive remained substandard throughout its career, with the French finding that they needed major work carried out on them after 150km's.

    Leave a comment:


  • Marathag
    replied
    Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
    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.
    No, Public had nothing to do with it.

    3rd Army forbade the use of sandbags and other ersatz protection that added tons of weight for little real protection

    They were still lighter than real Jumbos.

    Jumbos had 1500 miles from the drivetrain, which was 10 times better than the Panther, and the Ford GAA still outlasted the Maybach, which tended to shell out in under 300 miles

    Leave a comment:


  • Marathag
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nick the Noodle
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • panther3485
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • JBark
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


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

    Leave a comment:


  • Capt AFB
    replied
    Voted Sherman...

    Leave a comment:


  • cbo
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Merkava188
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X