M4 Sherman

[Bodhi]

Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Shermans armor was on par with Panzer IV.  Jumbo Sherman had armor better than a Tiger 1, maybe even better than a Tiger II.

That is extremely inaccurate.

[Masherbrum]

Originally posted by Bodhi
That is extremely inaccurate.

You got that right.

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Masherbrum
You got that right.

I'm afraid you both have it wrong.

In some respects the M4A3E2 Jumbo was better armored than the King Tiger.

This tank was engineered as an "assault tank" and carried very thick armor. Its specially designed turret was better protected than the that of the King Tiger. 180mm on the front, 150mm on the sides and rear. Compare that to 180mm on the front and 80mm on the side and rear of the Tiger's turret.

Let's look at the hulls...

Jumbo Sherman: 100mm on the upper front, 140mm on the lower front.
King Tiger: 150mm on the upper front, 100mm on the lower front.

On the sides of the hull (above the suspension), the King Tiger had 80mm and the Jumbo had 76mm.

Only in the rear did the Tiger II have significantly better protection at 80mm vs 38mm for the Jumbo. The Tiger II was also better protected on the lower sides, behind the suspension.

So yes, the Sherman Jumbo was better protected than the Tiger I, and virtually on par with the Tiger II accepting better turret armor and inferior rear armor. Most Jumbos had the front armor sandbagged, giving it the equivalent of another 25mm of armor. About half of the Jumbos were field modified, installing the M1A2 76mm gun with HVAP ammo. That gun and armor combination meant that this Sherman was quite able to slug it out with a Panther toe to toe with a reasonable expectation of winning.

All of that taken into account, only 254 Jumbos were built and delivered. Another factor not to be ignored was the fact that the Jumbo weighed 42 tons, about 25% heavier than the standard M4A3, and was much slower and less maneuverable.

My regards,

Widewing

[Stoney74]

Originally posted by Masherbrum
The T34 series (the 34/85) was in use up until 1989.    The Tiger could have been a MBT for most countries until at least 1975.  

Yeah, either of which would have really had those M60A3 and T-72 crews quivering.

[AquaShrimp]

Thanks for that info Widewing.  

Even though the King Tiger had slightly thicker armor, maybe the Jumbo Sherman had one more benefit.  I've seen at least one Soviet report mention that the armor on the King Tiger was unacceptably brittle due to the poor metalurgical procedures in its creation (due to the lack of a certain hardening agent).  

When the Tiger II was produced it compensated by using Steel, Vandadium, and Boron. All offered similar properties but in the large thick plates as used on Tiger II the heat treating process led to very strong but brittle armor. Tiger II's had lots of problems with spalling and inferior quality welds breaking.

[Sketch]

Originally posted by Airscrew
Quintv,  no need for that, we can have fun with this and discuss it without slinging mud

Can I fling poo at Karaya?  

[Masherbrum]

Originally posted by Stoney74
Yeah, either of which would have really had those M60A3 and T-72 crews quivering.

M60?       T34/85 WAS a MBT.   No ghey smilie needed.    They were reliable, well armored, good suspension, speed and had a good range on the Main Gun.    Not too shabby for a 40 year old design.

[Masherbrum]

Originally posted by Sketch
Can I fling poo at Karaya?  

Hey bro, I'll give you a holler this weekend.

[Karash]

Don't our airborn divisions still use the sherman as its the only air "droppable" tank we have in our inventory?

[Fencer51]

Originally posted by Karash
Don't our airborn divisions still use the sherman as its the only air "droppable" tank we have in our inventory?

SHERIDAN... and I think they retired the rest of those to the NTC.

[Blooz]

M551

Very unique main gun too.

[Stegahorse]

Military Channel had an interesting discussion on the Sherman vs. the Tiger and Panthers.
The American intent was to produce more war materials than the enemy could. We could waste Shermans to the tune of 4 or 5 to each Tiger/Panther destroyed. Though the German tanks were built to higher detail, it took much longer and more resourses to build them. The Shermans were built on the same factory lines as cars and were massed produced in the same fashion, as cars. Until the "Ronson" Shermans saw action, we thought these tanks were fast enough to get reasonable kill ratio. The point was to destroy their tanks faster than they could replace them.
Reality set in and upgrades in armor and firepower were ordered.

The Show demonstrated how it took 4 shermans to take out 1 Tiger, BUT the Shermans were not totally lost as many were repaired in the field using parts from unrepairable Shermans. Tigers were individually built and had to have hand made replacement parts.

Use in the game should follow along the same lines as RL usage. i.e. teamwork. 1 Sherman is unlikely to get 97 kills as easily as a Tiger does.

AS IT SHould BE


IF YOU WANT REASONABLY CLOSE TO REALITY SITUATIONS, ATTEND THE SPECIAL EVENTS. They attempt to recreate WWII situations.

You ain't gonna find WWII reality in the Arcade Main Arenas. FYI:O

[Karnak]

Stega,

You miss the fact that we aren't getting an American Sherman.  We are gettinga  vastly upgunned British Sherman.

[E25280]

Originally posted by Stegahorse
The American intent was to produce more war materials than the enemy could.

Not really.  American armor doctrine was that Tanks (read, M-4 Sherman) were for infantry support (hence the excellent snub 75mm gun) wheras dedicated Tank-destroyer units (ex. M-10) would battle enemy tanks.  This was similar in doctrine to the early Wehrmacht, who used the PzkwIV as infantry support and the PzkwIII as the anti-armor main battle tank.

But the US found that theoretical roving TD units look good on paper, but in reality the poor infantry-supporting Tank is usually found slugging it out with enemy armor.  The other shortcoming was that the development of an effective tank destroyer lagged behind the deployment of the Sherman.   There were already signs the planned 57mm AT gun armed TDs would be inadequate, and so were scrapped without a replacement.

[Bodhi]

Originally posted by Widewing
I'm afraid you both have it wrong.

In some respects the M4A3E2 Jumbo was better armored than the King Tiger.

This tank was engineered as an "assault tank" and carried very thick armor. Its specially designed turret was better protected than the that of the King Tiger. 180mm on the front, 150mm on the sides and rear. Compare that to 180mm on the front and 80mm on the side and rear of the Tiger's turret.

Let's look at the hulls...

Jumbo Sherman: 100mm on the upper front, 140mm on the lower front.
King Tiger: 150mm on the upper front, 100mm on the lower front.

On the sides of the hull (above the suspension), the King Tiger had 80mm and the Jumbo had 76mm.

Only in the rear did the Tiger II have significantly better protection at 80mm vs 38mm for the Jumbo. The Tiger II was also better protected on the lower sides, behind the suspension.

So yes, the Sherman Jumbo was better protected than the Tiger I, and virtually on par with the Tiger II accepting better turret armor and inferior rear armor. Most Jumbos had the front armor sandbagged, giving it the equivalent of another 25mm of armor. About half of the Jumbos were field modified, installing the M1A2 76mm gun with HVAP ammo. That gun and armor combination meant that this Sherman was quite able to slug it out with a Panther toe to toe with a reasonable expectation of winning.

All of that taken into account, only 254 Jumbos were built and delivered. Another factor not to be ignored was the fact that the Jumbo weighed 42 tons, about 25% heavier than the standard M4A3, and was much slower and less maneuverable.

My regards,

Widewing

WW
I see it as this.  The Jumbo's armour was rolled and cast steel in the following amounts:

Hull (rolled sides only)
100mm on the front upper slope 47deg slope
140 to 114mm front lower slope 0 to 56deg slope
76mm upper sides 0 slope
38mm lower sides 0 slope
38mm rear 10 to 22deg slope

Turret (all cast)
178mm Mantlet 0deg slope
150mm front 12 deg slope
150mm sides 6 deg slope
150mm rear 2 deg slope


Both versions of the Tiger had forged and rolled face hardened steel.  A much better set up for armour plating.  In some respects it is considered 75% better than cast armour.  Both Tigers had the following for armour.

Tiger I

Hull (rolled face hardened)
100mm front 9deg - 25deg slope
80mm sides 0 deg slope
80mm rear 0 deg slope

Turret
120mm mantlet 0deg slope
100mm frnot 10deg slope
80mm sides and rear 0deg slope

Tiger II

Hull (rolled face hardened steel)
150mm upper front 50deg slope
100mm lower front 50deg slope
100mm sides 25deg slope
80mm rear 30deg slope

Turret
150mm mantlet 13 to 45deg slope
180mm front 10deg slope (changed after 51st turret)
80mm sides 21deg slope
80mm rear 20deg slope

The beauty of the set up on the Tiger II vs. both the jumbo and the Tiger I is that the mantlet was not the only cover on the front.  The Tiger II's also had a frontal armour plate behind the mantlet which effectively raised the frontal turret armour to 330mm thick.  In a hulldown position, the Tiger II is much better all around in it's armour protection frontally and on quartering shots.

It is my opinion that the Tiger II is extremely better armoured than the jumbo, owing to thicknesses, angles of armour and the fact that the armour is a better quality than the jumbo's.  As for the Tiger I, I still feel that while less thick, the armour is better quality and has a better ability to withstand any punishment than that of the jumbo.