The Basic M4 (Sherman)

[Angus]

There would perhaps be one use for the old shermie. This one:


The Amphibious Sherman, fit for the calm seas of AHII, much more deadly than an LVT 

[USCH]

DD would be nice 

[Bronk]

There would perhaps be one use for the old shermie. This one:
(Image removed from quote.)

The Amphibious Sherman, fit for the calm seas of AHII, much more deadly than an LVT 

Great,  sinkable by .30 fire. 

[Angus]

Hehe, yes.
Unless it is allowed to spawn on land 

[dirt911]

how could it be sinkable by .30s besides the basic sherman would be effective either way amphibious or ground based

Great,  sinkable by .30 fire. 

[Angus]

Because it only takes little bullets to plonk holes into the canvas. This tank does not float like an LVT you know.
As for ground based, this would be a weaker tank than the panzer or the older T34. That is,,,,the weakest tank

[Die Hard]

Hi again. Been away on business for a while…

Do you have a firm source that says how much APCR was typically loaded into a III in the Desert (getting back to our original disagreement)?  27% of AP as the lazy, production-based approach would suggest?  50% of AP?  Surely not 100%?

No, unfortunately I do not. Choosing the ammo loadout was really the prerogative of individual tank commanders, and would vary from mission to mission depending on what opposition they were expecting.

I am uncertain why you think raw materials shortages did not limit their use?  Look at the tables again.  1942 is most certainly the peak production of APCR rounds, after which, both numbers and proportions drop off precipitously.  By 1944 I don't see any Pz.Gr.40 rounds being produced at all, for any gun.  (I am sure you will correct me if I am mis-reading something else.)  If raw materials were not an issue, and the APCR is so much more effective than the Pz.Gr.39 rounds, why do they disappear?

They “disappear” because the Germans stopped producing PzGr 40/41 shells in 1943 having switched to the PzGr 42 and 43, which are not listed on that site. However the PzGr 42/43 was not made for the 50 mm PaK 38/KwK 39 since these guns had been mostly replaced by newer 75 mm guns in the anti-tank role. The principle difference between the PzGr 40 and the 43 was that the 43’s core had half the diameter of the sleeve, while it was two thirds the diameter in the older 40. The smaller core offered higher muzzle velocity and better penetration at short range with the added production benefit of using less strategic materials. When the Germans ran out of tungsten in 1944 they used hardened steel and mild iron as core material. Not as effective as tungsten, but still better than a solid shot.

By the way:So I assume, for the sake of consistency, you would also say that by 1942 the IIIs also surpassed the T-34 as the better tank on the East Front?

That is a difficult question, but I think I’ll have to answer no, simply due to the tactical differences of the two theatres. On the Eastern Front the PzKpfw III and IV’s narrow tracks were a major disadvantage in the mud and snow. The T-34’s superior off-road capabilities and low ground pressure makes it the better tank on the Russian front. By the same token I would consider the M4 a better tank on the Russian front simply because of the mobility factor.

As I said earlier the late mark PzKpfw III has somewhat better armor (and lower silhouette) and arguably a better gun (and optics) for tank combat (if using the best ammo available), but the M4 and T-34 have better mobility and are not far behind in terms of armor and firepower. In the desert there really would be little to choose between the three tanks. The tactical situation, crew quality and luck would be far greater factors in deciding the outcome of a fight between the three than any technical differences.

[humble]

The sherman was originally designed with a high velocity gun tube. At the time the artillery officers ruled the roost and it was scrapped for a lower velocity gun with a higher life expectancy between replacements. The same type of thinking took the P-39 from a 400+ mph interceptor with a dual stage blower to a lesser plane limited to lower level engagements...

[jolly22]

we out to get red of the Av.A  no flies in it

[BigPlay]

The sherman was originally designed with a high velocity gun tube. At the time the artillery officers ruled the roost and it was scrapped for a lower velocity gun with a higher life expectancy between replacements. The same type of thinking took the P-39 from a 400+ mph interceptor with a dual stage blower to a lesser plane limited to lower level engagements...

Not sure if the Alison even with a 2 stage blower was capable of getting anything to 400 mph. I will have to do some research to make sure. As far as high velocity guns are concerned (American) even when there were Shermans with high velocity 76mm in Europe  high velocity ammo was scarce.

[Angus]

I always thought that the P39 suffered mostly from being loaded too much, - i.e. extra requirements.
That kind of thinking would have put thicker armour and perhaps a diesel engine into the Sherman, not a smaller gun....

[AWwrgwy]

I always thought that the P39 suffered mostly from being loaded too much, - i.e. extra requirements.
That kind of thinking would have put thicker armour and perhaps a diesel engine into the Sherman, not a smaller gun....

Don't think of it as a smaller gun.  Think of it as a more "efficient" gun.  As Snaphook said.  The artillery and ordnance branch of the army had the say at the time.  More rounds through the gun before it needed replacement was more important than a heavier gun that would wear out faster.  Besides, the Sherman was never designed to go head to head against enemy tanks.


wrongway

[Angus]

...which is a design flaw, since it's after all.....a tank.

[BaDkaRmA158Th]

No it is not, the sherman's were used with troop movement and support.

M-18's and other "tank destroyers" would knock out german tanks.
What people also do not understand is most american forces could call air support AND artillary WAY better than any other nation.(Ground infantry wise)


8 times outta 10, if a american G.I. spoted you,and had the ability to get to  a radio, your arse was toast within minutes.
THAT is why 9/10th of officer G.I's all knew how to operate and read maps for fire support.



We didn't need tanks that could take out other tanks, we needed tanks that could push in,rapidly push german troops OUT,and hold the ground. Like aces high shows, most ground wars where the enemy push's in makes for high death rates and lost tanks, however once the "enemy" is displaced, the ground war is virtualy won.

Look how the battle of the bulge went for germans even tho they had more tanks and A/C in that battle than they started the war with.


If it came to attacking a german tank, i would have called in fire support long before risking any single sherman in a toe to toe gun battle with any kinda german tank/gun inplacements. Corse on the other hand, most germans knew that if someone (marked) them with smoke grenades or smoke rockets, it was dooms day all over again.



Yeah yeah yeah, debateable arm chair generals, i know..i know.

[Die Hard]

Most of the German tanks on the western front were destroyed by their own crews after running out of fuel. BaDkaRmA158Th, you seem very enthusiastic, but there is a very good reason why all modern tanks are not built for infantry support like the Sherman. It didn't work. The M1 Abrams is designed for one purpose: To fight other tanks (specifically Russian tanks). The M1 is even half-German in design, sharing many design features and parts with the Leopard 2 including its main armament.