M4 Sherman

[Masherbrum]

Agree Bodhi

[AquaShrimp]

Bodhi, I can't accept your information.  It directly contradicts what I've read.  German armor grew increasingly brittle as the war proceeded.  Maybe in a laboratory it was exceedingly strong.

Heres more sources stating the Jumbo was an excellent tank

Retrofit kits with the 90 mm gun were also mated to the M4 Jumbo giving the Americans one of the best Allied tanks overall, with frontal armor superior to the Tiger and the one of the most powerful allied guns

Tiger II armor quality tests

 

Not only was the metal of shoddy quality — a problem not peculiar to the Tiger II, as the war progressed the Germans found it harder and harder to get hold of the alloys needed for high quality steel — but the welding was also, despite "careful workmanship", extremely poor. As a result, even when shells did not penetrate its armour the spalling was horrid and the armour plating unfailingly cracked at the welding seams when struck by heavier shells, rendering the tank inoperable.

[macleod01]

Originally posted by Airscrew
Right now the T-34 is the king of tanks in the EW...

REason? Its the only blinkin Tank in EW! No wonder its king if it has no opposition part from LVT's and M8's!

[Stoney74]

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

This is the type of non-sensical argument historians make when attempting, with 20/20 hindsight, to determine why the U.S. didn't build a "better" tank to combat the German tanks.  It also takes no account of the priorities and decisions made by the War Production Board during the war.  It would be interesting to see the original specification for the Sherman.  I haven't read it, but I would anticipate that it makes no mention regarding the "ease of manufacture" of the tank.  Not to mention that given the casualties sustained by U.S. armor units were so heavy that some opportunistic Congressman would have used this same argument when the war profiteer "witch-hunt" was conducted after the war concluded.  The Sherman was designed to match U.S. Army Armor doctrine, period.  Whether or not that doctrine was flawed given the capability of German tanks is an entirely different argument.

[MOIL]

Great work on the Shermie!!!

I personally don't care if it's under-gunned, overated or under-armored. It's a new veh and I'll take it  

P.S. I still want my Wirbelwind;)

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Bodhi

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.

Armor quality wasn't especially good according to British tests of the "Royal Tiger" and the Panther Ausf G.

"The rolled armour proved brittle and flakey, while the brittle nature of the roof plates made them vulnerable to HE and close air bursts." The hardness of the frontal armor was tested by the Russians at 262 on the Brinell scale. Hardness for the typical US cast armor was 248 (M3A5 turret) to 256 on the Brinell scale (M4A3 turret) according to Rowland and Boyd.

Inspection of Panthers and Tiger II types by the US Army Engineers from the Office of the Chief of Ordnance showed that the armor frequently cracked when hit by APCBC and HVAP. Some were discovered to have cracks that were previously welded.

Specific data on the type of rolled armor plate used on the Shermans can be found in - Welding of Armor: Summary of Ballistic Shock Test Results on 1-1/2 Inch Homogeneous Armor 'H' Plates Welded with Austenitic Electrodes and Tested at Aberdeen Proving Ground during the Period from 1 October 1942 through 31 March 1943.

My regards,

Widewing

[AWwsky]

The Show demonstrated how it took 4 shermans to take out 1 Tiger

If memory serves me right, this tactic was devised during the Africa campaign after the Allies suffered heavy losses to the Panzers.  It was the commanders and tank crews in the field that devised these tatics because 1 on 1, the Sherman was clearly no match with the panzer.  After all, Medium tanks intended for infantry support were never meant to go up against heavier tanks.  These tactics were not Army doctrine of that time, nor was it the original tactic the tankers learned.  It was learned and adapted in the field, not by training, but by experience.

Now lets concider the not so good aspects of the Tiger I and King Tiger (Tiger II) Heavy tanks.  The best attribute of these two Tanks was long range, open ground attacks.

Though the Tiger tank, both I and II, were very powerful and extrememly difficult to take out, they were also very tempermental.  Mechanical problems would most likely be the death of a Tiger and in a lot of cases, engine problems ended a Tigers advance.  Some Tigers burst into flames due to fuel system problems.

Cross country performace was disappointing.  Slow and not able to manuver across soft ground made them ineffective in battle.  Both the Tiger I and King Tiger were limited to terrain that could handle the shear size and weight.  Most bridges were off limits and the amount of fuel they used resulted in many being abanded by the crews. They were so complex that manufacturing was slow, which is the reason for the low numbers turned out and subsequent lose of the tanks.

Tiger I - 1140 built (including prototypes)
King Tiger - 485 built
Panzer III and IV - 24,000
Panther (Panzer V) - 4,800

M4 Sherman (All varients) 51,496
T26E3 Pershing - 2,350 between 1944 and 1945 - to bad only 20 out of the 200 issued to units saw combat during the ETO.

Now lets talk about the APSD tank round:  It was not the weight of the round as was stated here.  Being the first Sabot round is correct though.  In escense, it is a kinetic-engery penetrator.  There's lots of info on Sabot ordinance out there, so I won't go into the mechanics on how they work.  There was another type of AP round that made use of a cone shaped warhead, similar to a hollow point bullet, and was very effective against WWII era armor.

What ever the case though, I think the Sherman in the game is going to be an easy kill.

[AquaShrimp]

The Tiger and Tiger II had superior maneuverability compared to the Sherman because they had the ability to lock one track and rotate in place.  The Sherman couldn't do this.  In tank combat its necessary to keep the front of the tank pointed at the most dangerous threat.

According to Stephen Ambrose's book "Citizen Soldier", while the Sherman's turret could rotate faster than the Tiger's, the Tiger's turret had more stability and better optics.

[AWwsky]

Maneuverability and maneuvering in my example are totally different.   Tigers had extreme difficulty maneuvering in areas where the Sherman didn't..  I.E, a Sherman can maneuver through small towns or on narrow roads with much greater ease then a Tiger.... Speed was also a huge factor.  Still, the Sherman could not stand up to a tiger alone!!!!!

[Nilsen]

I think the Panzer will continue to be the most used tank after a few weeks.

Why?

B
e
c
a
u
s
e
:

It has a pintle gun.
It should have faster reload times than the 17 pounder in the Firefly.

[Bodhi]

WW,

While I agree with you that at the end of the war (45) the German armour did definitely suffer from lack of materials, I can not as a whole agree that it was inferior in 43 or towards late 44.  The Tiger II was produced and delivered prior to the Normandy invasion, the western front lost most of their Tiger II's in the retreat due to one major issue... mechanical break downs due to the strain placed on the transmission by the weight of the vehicle.

There are many proven cases where German Armour withstood tremendous beatings and the crew survived.  Hardly the case if it was all spalling.  I respect your opinion and information, but still feel that the Germans produced better armour until supply difficulties proved insurmountable.

[Masherbrum]

Originally posted by Bodhi
I respect your opinion and information, but still feel that the Germans produced better armour until supply difficulties proved insurmountable.

Bodhi, you keep taking thoughts out of my mind.   Stop now or, someone may think "I" am "you".  

[Willfly]

Originally posted by Masherbrum
The Sherman was a "raw, mass produced machine" with not close the engineering tolerances of the Tiger, Panzer 4.    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.  

The Sherman was a pile of cow dung, regardless of the "Firefly".   It's armor was a joke.   I'd believe a Vet THAT FOUGHT IN COMBAT with it, before a fast-food eating author.    No exaggerations are needed on the Sherman.

The 'Tiger' tank suffered from too many mechanical problems to still be in service, plus, the Firefly was a heck of a lot better at firepower because of the addition of the 17 Pounder... though the lousy armor protection was basically the Same.

Check this link for Information on the Tiger
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/germany/tanks-heavy/pzkpfw-vi-e.asp

[Charon]

The US made excellent mechanical tanks -- reliable, mobile, and technically innovative in many areas and that was certainly not the case with many countries. Germany was a mixed bag from a reliability standpoint, and Hitler led German armor development into too many types with too much weight and cost/resources.

The Brits didn't make a "adequate" tank until about the Cromwell (Sherman was still generally superior) and a good tank until the Comet. Reliability was the major shortcoming, though there were others in the key performance areas. The Centurion was, of course, the final result of lessons learned and a great tank post war.

The Russians, of course, had the JS, KV and T34 variants which had some initial shortcomings but were functionally reliable, mobile adequate to well armed and had good room to grow. Training, tactics, radio communications tended to be the major shortcomings.

The Sherman was considered an excellent tank in the desert war when it was first introduced around El Alemein in late 1942 against tanks like the Panzer III and Infantry support variants of the Panzer IV. Entirely competitive in all aspects, even gun and armor. Unfortunately, after about 1942 Germany's next generation tanks and upgrades to the Panzer IV were considerably advanced in firepower and armor.

As it has already been pointed out, our lack of response to these new developments was primarily doctrine, and I've read where that was laid at the feet of Patton. We could have invaded Europe with Pershings (or at least a lot of Pershings in the mix), and with upgunned Shermans (like the 76mm variants) from the very beginning, certainly in Italy, with more foresight IMO. There was no technological hurdle to overcome. Frankly, I'm surprised North Africa and Italy didn't provide more of a wake up call, though I guess it was figured we would just "do it right" with the tank destroyers, etc. after Overlord.

Charon

[stephen]

I know hitech and the crew know better, but we need the pershing in here, even it was thought to have worse armor than panthers, which is another tank we are mising, and a point i havent seen metiond, the americans had gyro stbilised guns and the germans didnt, that meens run and gun baby!!!:aok