Desert Camo Gives Vehicles Away

[Raubvogel]

A scheme like this would work.

 
 http://www.achtungpanzer.com/

------------------
Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps

[Fishu]

 

Originally posted by Voss:
The 'Ronson Lighter?' I realize this was not a Panther, but the Pz. IV was superior to the Sherman in every respect save top speed. A Panther (PZ. V) would make Sherman's nearly useless in AH.

Umm.. more likely they were fairly equal tanks.
Both has a cannon that could kill each other with one hit.
Plus sherman wouldn't have yellow camo.

[Jigster]

And the Sherman has thicker armor. (Better all around against aircraft attacks)

Keep in mind the German were far more into using foliage cover then most other countries, so they could get away with the outlandish colors.

Still better the the platoon schemes of some of the British tanks...like the red and blue cruisers used in North Africa.

[GRUNHERZ]

First there were no panzer gray Panthers, they came out during the Kursk Battle in summer of 1943, by which time all new German AFVs were painted panzer yellow.

As for comparisons of Panther and Sherman, well there is no comparison- sorry folks sherman was hopeless in a direct comparison vs Panther.

Panther was actally a bit faster.
Panther had much better floatation.
Panther had an infinately superior gun.
Panther had much better armor.
Panther was invulnerable frontally vs Sherman, US 75mm and 76mm could NOT penetrate Panther frontally at any range! Not even at ZERO METERS, the only sherman variant that had a decent gun in WW2 was the British Firefly with the 17pdr.
Panther had somewhat better optics, even at the end German optics were first class.
Panther could penetrate sherman frontally at over 2500meters, and side armour at over 4000meters.

The only areas where Sherman had advantage over Panther are.

Faster turret traverse.
Better reliability.
50,000 Shermans vs 6,000 Panthers.
USAF

No way around it folks Sherman was very poor in comparison to Panther, the US ordenance folks really screwed over thousands of US tank crews by allowing this unfortunate mistake to go uncorreted until March 1945 when the 20 Zebra mission T26E3 Pershings came into service.

BTW Soviet S53 85mm gun was also unable to penetrate Panther frontal armor at any range, not even 0 meters.

There are valid reasons why Panther is widely considered the best WW2 Tank, and also as the prototype for the MBT concept.

[This message has been edited by GRUNHERZ (edited 04-10-2001).]

[Voss]

Ah, but the comparison was Sherman Pz. IV. Obviously the Panther was superior.

I thought the Pz. IV was superior in armor, turret traverse, crew training, vehicle reliability, and even ease of maintenance. The only area I thought the Sherman had a slight advantage was in speed (28mph vs. 25mph). The problem was, once they caught a Panzer, what could they do about it? Very sad.

I would like to hear what Grunherz has to say on that comparison (my information biased by source).

------------------
Voss
13th TAS

[Fishu]

Grunherz, Panther is Panzer V, we're talking of Panzer IV H

Shermans cannon does have without a doubt enough punch to kill PZ-IVH.
Later variants does even have better cannon.
You could almost improvise sherman to PZ-IVH fight just by putting up a battle between two PZ-IVH, not much difference, both are very scared of each others cannons, which could easily kill with one hit or cause bad damages.

PZ-IVH doesn't have that much armor compared to Sherman though.

Sherman M4A2 has 75L38 and 76L54 cannon versions, with armor being almost equal and if not even better than in PZ-IVH.
side and back might be tougher, only front hull might be weaker than in PZ-IVH
I should just bother to find some source for exact armor thickness for both.

[GRUNHERZ]

Fishu

I obviously know that Panther is PzKpfwV.

As for Shermans M3 75mm/L37 main gun, it isnt even close to the KwK40/L48 of the Panzer IVH. The 76mm is a little bit better but it too was an unsatisfactory gun. For example it (76mm M62AP) couldnt penetrate 100mm of verical armour at ranges exceeding 50meters (Tiger I glacis).

As for armor values comparing  a late 47 degree glacis welded hull M4A3 Sherman and PzrIVH:

The Sherman has 63.5mm frontal armour angled at 47 degres.

The PzrIVH has 50mm+30mm nearly vertical frontal armour. Total 80mm.

Advantage slightly with Sherman due to deflection, though in reality this isnt so significant since Sherman presents a much bigger frontal target.  However Sherman 75mm cannot penetrate the PzrIVH 80mm plate at ranges exceeding 500meters, while the Kwk40/L48 is effective vs Sherman front at ranges out to 1000 meters. Thus the ultimate advantage is clearly with PzrIVH in any frontal engagement especially at ranges exceeding 500meters.

As for side armor again comparing late welded hull M4A3 vs PzrIVH.

The Sherman has 38.1mm vertical armour on the sides.

The PzrIVH has 30mm side plates, plus 8-10mm Schurzen.

Total advantage, none- both are vulnerable to each others side fire from long ranges. But PzrIVH still retains a significant shiloutte advantage, ie Sherman is as tall as house and sticks out terribly in terrain.

Again German tanks had better optics and much much better AP ammunition. The Kwk40/L48 is vastly superior to US75mm and significantly better than US76mm. It is also better than soviet S53 85mm. Most soviet guns were rather poor AP performers for their size for example the D25T 122mm of the IS2 had roughly simmilar AP performance as 75mm Kwk43/L70 of the Panther- and has to use bulky inconvenient 2 piece ammumition.

Shermans were excellent from an automotive standpoint but severly lacking as effective combat vehicles. The US ground succes in WW2 Europe was due to overall vast superiority in artillery and aircraft and in numbers of tanks but certainly not in Shermans combat ability. It was an excellent tank at El Alamein but it simply did not keep up with Europen developments in the next two years- though it was the best tank in the Pacific.

Shermans biggest problem was in its basic design and certain early war US requirements, such as a 35ton weight limit of shipping cranes.

It was very tall due to its use of a Wright R-975 9cyl radial engine, and its tall VVS suspension.
This meant a great deal of surface area had to be armored thus reducing ability to increase armour to keep up with developments, (a few Jumbos notwithstanding).

Go compare a Sherman and a Pershing to see what I mean by tall and surface area.

Shermans also suffered from high ground pressure and narrow tracks thus making it difficult to move over rough/wet and muddy  terrain without sinking in. Even the 67 ton Tiger IIs were better in this respect. This was helped a bit by fitting "duckbill" extensions and finally fixed with introduction of the HVSS suspension and T66 wide tracks in 1945.

Sherman was very useful in WW2 but overall a poor and compromised design that cost many many US crews far too much.

[Jigster]

And yet, the 270 some odd M4A3E2's, half of which eventually got upgraded to E2-76's, designed exclusively for Operation Overlord still mananged to include a 6 inch cast turrent (enroaching on the Pz VI-B's very high levels in the turrent) and nearly as much armor on the sides when including the rounded hull armor can be argued as the best US tank during the later part of the war. Couple this with basically the same mobility, minus a 2 mph... down to 32mph road speeds. Ammunition storage in the turrent of the E2 was far safer then the regular A3's due to sheer armor. The 76mm using APCBC rounds like the majority of the German guns absloutely sucked, but with the inclusion of the APCR it worked well enough on heavy armor, but the lack of these shells for the most part on the 76mm Shermans in favor of the M10's caused many many problems... the APC and APCBC did work on frontal shots at close range provided the gunners had enough skill in hitting the weak points. Namely, the gun manlet on nearly every heavy German tank.

I find truely unbelieveable the US had the capability of producing more Jumbo Shermans and never persued it. Then again, it is not so hard to understand when looking at the US armor doctrine on armor engagements...the TD policy alone is evidence of complete idiots in the higher levels of the chain of command.

Pershings were good medium tanks, but nothing more. The closest the US ever got to a deployed heavy tank were parhaps the E2's and E2 hulls used to make a few Sherman Blades. Some of the prototypes were rather amazing...some nearly as large as the 205 Maus.

[GRUNHERZ]

Jumbos were actually pretty bad as far as mobility was concerned, they weighed over 42 tons which is pretty close to Pershing weight and still only powered by the 500hp ford GAA V8, Pershing too was terribly underpowered GAA V8 500hp US tankers actually preffered HVSS M4A3s in Korea due to Pershings low power to weight. The Jumbo's actuall speed went all the way down to 22mph. But what really killed them was floatation even when fitted with 4 inch duckbills the VVSS suspension and narrow 16 inch tracks didnt provide adequate mobility over wet terrain and mud. But it had excellent armour, though most were fitted with the useless 75mm and the 76mm was only
a field mod. The only way to kill the big German tanks with the 76mm regardless of ammo was a side shot or really really well aimed shot at the turret or MG kugelblende. The real shame of this was of course the best US AP ammo wasnt officially given to tanks but to the TDs, in accordance to the stupid US policy that only TD were to kill tanks. The tankers had to bargain or trade for it or simply steal it from the TDs.

The whole Sherman affair was a sad bit in US army history as far as Im concerned. Too many guys died because of US Ordenace Beauro's reluctance to accept the truth about German tank advancements and the idea that tanks should fight tanks.

[Fishu]

Damnit... I was playing Steel Panthers: World at War and were assaulting against yanks.
There were one stinking M4a1 which took 3 tigers stacked in column 4 hexes away (50 yard hexes?) and darn, did that sherman take alot hits from those all mighty 88L58 cannon  
(..and in the next game I blew up couple dozen shermans from 25 hexes away like picking peas)

Quit talking about Shermans, its causing me to have problems with my SP:WAW's 3rd reich plans against inferior yanks  

Ps. no, im not saying its supposed to be tough because 20 hits of all-mighty 88L56 in a such game didnt kill a sherman  

Though, Sherman isn't that weak either, fairly well armored.


[This message has been edited by Fishu (edited 04-11-2001).]

[Jigster]

 

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ:
Jumbos were actually pretty bad as far as mobility was concerned, they weighed over 42 tons which is pretty close to Pershing weight and still only powered by the 500hp ford GAA V8, Pershing too was terribly underpowered GAA V8 500hp US tankers actually preffered HVSS M4A3s in Korea due to Pershings low power to weight. The Jumbo's actuall speed went all the way down to 22mph. But what really killed them was floatation even when fitted with 4 inch duckbills the VVSS suspension and narrow 16 inch tracks didnt provide adequate mobility over wet terrain and mud. But it had excellent armour, though most were fitted with the useless 75mm and the 76mm was only
a field mod. The only way to kill the big German tanks with the 76mm regardless of ammo was a side shot or really really well aimed shot at the turret or MG kugelblende. The real shame of this was of course the best US AP ammo wasnt officially given to tanks but to the TDs, in accordance to the stupid US policy that only TD were to kill tanks. The tankers had to bargain or trade for it or simply steal it from the TDs.

The whole Sherman affair was a sad bit in US army history as far as Im concerned. Too many guys died because of US Ordenace Beauro's reluctance to accept the truth about German tank advancements and the idea that tanks should fight tanks.

Grun it's all in the engine torque. The Panther only had 725 HP in the A and G versions.

Where as the Panther weighs 44 tons, the E2's only weight 37 tons. And still the E2 has more armor on every side (excluding the rear) then the Panther. They are about neck in neck in effect thickness however, because even the Jumbos did not use the high deflection degrees on the Pz V and Pz VI-B.

Had the US put these tanks into mass production INCLUDING a gun like the 17 pdr, it would of really saved alot of US crews.

As it was used, it had the armor and decent mobility, but with such a weak gun it was really no better then any of the other US tanks. Albeit a Jumbo with a good crew, upgunned to the 3inch AA gun, and firing APCR rounds was a real terror. That combination, however was rarely seen  

But no tank really comes close to the Pz V in power and mobility, effective armor thickness, AND firepower. In all other applications, one was given up for the other two.

[This message has been edited by Jigster (edited 04-11-2001).]

[GRUNHERZ]

 I have the M4A3E2 Jumbo's weight at 84,000lbs which is 42 tons US. And top speed at 22mph, due to increased weight and new transmission gearing vs the M4A3 while using the same Ford GAA V8 500hp engine. BTW 76mm HVAP(APCR) was really nice but somewhat tempremental and extremly rare even somewhat for the TD guys, but especially for the regular tankers. I really cant figure out why the US didnt pursue armor advancements as quickly and intelligently as they did aircraft. There was even a chance to mount 90mm guns on Shermans in late 1943. Why didn't US do with the 17pdr like they did with Merlin? There was even apparently wholesale  rersistance to the entire T26 program and the 20 Zebra mission T26E3 Pershings barely made it to the actuall war in March 45.  Really sad.

Jigster ill recheck the Jumbo weight and speed this weekend , but im pretty confident in the 2 sources I have on hand that give 42tons and 22mph.  But it makes sense anyway, M4A3 weighs about 32-33 tons. Add double armor around all the vertical sides, add the more than double thickness new cast final drive housing and the new Jumbo turret which is similar in overall shape as the 76mm's larger T23 turret but with more than double armor (max 153mm) and 42 tons is quickly a very logical weight. Anyway ill double and triple chack that, but im very confident of 42tons and 22mph.

It would have been great to see an HVSS 17pdr Jumbo, ill have to do one in 1/35 some day.....

[Jigster]

I can't remember exactly but I'm fairly certain the 90mm could not be mounted on a A3 frame due to size and weight restraints for the turrent ring (which is why only one company produced the Jumbo).

The only thing I can think of regarding the 17 pdr goes back to the high command on armor doctrine...one look at that and it's easy to explain every other BS call they made  

I checked the weight and speed...yours are right plus or minus a few (It looks like the numbers I got were from a M4A2 with the field armor kit).

However as I was looking into the Jumbo, the later VC Firefly's only used the Chrysler engine that only allowed for about 23-24 mph...a little slow, the same weak armor...ouchies  

[GRUNHERZ]

Really sad thing is there were a few specially built late M4A3 Fireflies for US evaluation but nothing came of it.

Most Fireflies were Vc based on the M4A4 with the Chrysler A57 multibank contraption  , but there were also some Hybrid Hull Ic with R-975s.  

The 90mm Sherman experiment was abandoned due to lack of enthusiasm and offical support. However Sherman could mount really really big guns as Israel showed by mounting a French copy of the Panther's Kwk42/L70 in the M50 and a giant French 105mm in the M51HV. Of course it would not have been an ideal tank, too top heavy and unbalanced but a 90mm would certainly have saved US tanker's lives if it existed in large numbers during Normandy...