Originally posted by Warspawn
You're comparing Sherman armor to a Panzer IV-H or the T-34?
Everything I've read pointed towards the Sherman's defensive armor to be virtually useless against most of the dedicated anti-armor weapons of the time. Even the Pak36(t) 47mm anti-tank gun would penetrate and light 'em up. I'll go look up some of the details in a bit...
*edit* the Sherman had 2" front armor, while the Panzer had 80mm hull (over 3 inches). 50% more armor on the hull seems like a significant advantage to me. This is before comparing the actual 'type' of steel used and the hull slope. I'm sure there are plenty more folks here with better resources to check the assumption you're making that the Sherman had equivalent armor to the T-34 and PZ-IVH.
Try this site for a quick and dirty view of Sherman armor thicknesses.You'll notice the early version M4A1 listed shows the often-cited "only 2 inches of armor" statistic on the front hull. You will also notice, however, that the turrets were 3 inches thick in the front, even on the earlier versions. Later versions have thicker armor in the hull. Also note the slope of the frontal armor. A slope increases the "effective thickness" vs. shooting a horizontal metal plate. By comparison, although the frontal armor of the late PzkwIVs was a bit thicker, there was virtually no slope to the armor. So in terms of protection, there was little difference.
Hope that helps a bit.
