The Basic M4 (Sherman)

[Masherbrum]

It could be used for psychological value. A 30 M4 mission comes into a field, you might not get a chance to find out if its the Sherman or Firefly. Not sure what role it would fill. Tiger there if you wanna be somewhere for awhile, kill in 1 shot, and want to avoid getting bombed by a plane. T34 for a fast, well armored tank; and if you want to have a big gun you take the -85. The panzer is in between T-34 and M4 in speed, has a better gun, and descent armor. Then theres the M4. Its only .5 Km/H faster than a Tiger, thin armor, and a gun that, at least in the war, required very close engagement ranges. Camping a spawn it might get you a few kills. I'll agree a non-perked American tank would be nice. I remember the FSO in December where with 30 min to go Fireflys and Tigers were disabled, leaving the U.S. Side with M8s only versus Panzers. The M3 and M5 were the only other American Tanks I know of, and would fair even worse in here, leaving U.S. Tank Destroyers like the M10, M18, or M36. If one day every tank will be in the game, I'd say wait for the "plain" M4 and get a T.D. like the M18 or M36.

 .     This is from a post on Shermans back in August.   You tell us, which is more detrimental to your "psyche."

My grandfather (USMC PTO - 43-46) worked with a fellow who was in 3rd AD.    In France he recalled of a story that puts one in the driver's seat, per se.    He often stated: "The Sherman was a joke."   

Here's one of his encounters while in a Sherman:

"One day we're East of Paris and we get a call over the radio that two Tigers have stalled the line.   I move forward and had time to count 76 burned out Shermans.   I order the driver to proceed cautiously and we immediately get hit.   We jumped out and watched our Sherman go up with a second round fired at it.   I hop into another tank and we try and get it reversed in enough time to try and flank their position.   Nope, by the time the Sherman rolled backwards, another hit.    We jump out and I commandeer another Sherman to try again.   Nope.   Yet another round hit the track of this Sherman destroying the Main Drive Sprocket on top of it.   We again hop out and now move rearward on our line and I order the remainder of my unit to flank the two Tigers' positions.  We were surprised when the crews exited as they had exhausted their ammo.   He was able to talk to one of the crews while waiting for someone to escort them rearward as POW's."   He said "They displayed more class and honor than we were expecting, from the amount of carnage they caused.   The gunner in the Tiger on the South position had graduated from Harvard."   


He said he personally lost two more Shermans that day alone.   All of that carnage caused by a mere two Tigers hunkered in depressions.

[Saxman]

Of course, the US was ALSO using a Medium Tank as if it were a heavy tank. That's sort of the result you'd expect.

It's almost exactly like the British sending battlecruisers up against full-fledged battleships, and Hood shows how effective THAT was.

[Masherbrum]

Of course, the US was ALSO using a Medium Tank as if it were a heavy tank. That's sort of the result you'd expect.

It's almost exactly like the British sending battlecruisers up against full-fledged battleships, and Hood shows how effective THAT was.

Exactly the stance I usually take.   He mentioned Tigers, I replied with a true account based on someone's actual experience in an M4, versus the Tiger. 

[AWwrgwy]

U.S. Tank doctrine called for tanks to break through a front and wreck havoc behind the enemy lines while the infantry capitalized on the breakthrough with an advance.

U.S. tanks weren't designed to fight other tanks.  They were designed to be fast and mobile in order to exploit their breakthroughs.


wrongway

[Die Hard]

I did not use the PzGr.40 because it is an APCR round.  I personally never compare the specialty ammunition, especially on German tanks, because raw material shortages limited their use.  Generally, if available at all, they had only a few rounds per tank, unlike the more standard steel shot-type rounds.

That assumption is wrong. The Germans started producing hartkern (tungsten core APCR) shots very early and used them more extensively than any other nation... Even to the point of arming their anti-tank aircraft with hartkern firing cannons (Ju 87G, Ju 88 and Hs 129 primary).

For example, this site shows the raw production values of the ammunition, and that the PzGr.40 was only 14% of all 50mm AT rounds produced in 1942 (and that was the peak).  However, it does not give information as to when and where that ammunition was deployed.  I would imagine most of that specialty ammunition would have gone to the East Front where the Germans were encountering more and heavier armor, but I am "imagining" and can't find any information either way.  If you have a source that gives any insight, I would be interested in reading it.

Your math is way off. Using the numbers from the site you used the Germans produced 1,938.3 thousand Pzgr. 39 shells and 721.8 thousand Pzgr. 40 shells in 1942. Even if we assume that the Pzgr. 40/1 is included in that number the portion of hartkern rounds is 100 / ( 1938.3 + 721.8 ) * 721.8 = 27.1 %

The Sprgr. is a HE shell, not an AT round.

For every four 50mm AT shells produced in 1942 one was a hartkern APCR round.

But using the 14% figure, and assuming a 50/50 load out of AP to HE, the IIIs in the desert would have at best 6 or 7 rounds per tank.  If you want to base your gun comparisons on first round only, assuming that round will hit, etc. etc., that is your prerogative, but I prefer to use a common round approach.  (Suppose I could have used solid shot for the Kwk 39 as well, since it was more common thatn the PzGr.39, which would have decreased the penetration by a couple mm's, but I was feeling generous.)  If you want me to say the German gun was better 14% of the time, but the US gun was better 86% of the time -- well there, I've said it.   

If we overlook your erroneous mathematics you are still wrong. You see, the tanks got priority for the hartkern ammunition. Especially since the PaK 38 AT gun had some incompatibilities with the round.

2,452 PzKpfw III Ausf. J/L/M were produced. That's 294 hartkern rounds produced per tank in 1942.

So, no, you still haven't convinced me the Sherman was inferior to the IIIs it faced.

I get the feeling your mind was made up a long time ago. Trying to convince you otherwise is probably a futile gesture, but hey... I got nothing better to do right now.

[Die Hard]

U.S. Tank doctrine called for tanks to break through a front and wreck havoc behind the enemy lines while the infantry capitalized on the breakthrough with an advance.

U.S. tanks weren't designed to fight other tanks.  They were designed to be fast and mobile in order to exploit their breakthroughs.


wrongway

You can't break through the enemy lines and not expect to run into enemy tanks. That's exactly what the Germans used their heavy tank units for: Plugging holes in their lines.

[BigPlay]

U.S. Tank doctrine called for tanks to break through a front and wreck havoc behind the enemy lines while the infantry capitalized on the breakthrough with an advance.

U.S. tanks weren't designed to fight other tanks.  They were designed to be fast and mobile in order to exploit their breakthroughs.


wrongway

Both the US and the Brits tank warefare was out of date when entering WW2  . Also their use of infantry with armor was a disaster. The Brits got their heads handed to them during the tank battles that followed the Normandy landings which almost cost Monty his command. The Russians didn't fair much better and rather than relying on coordinated armor assaults they used the massive wave of attack philosophy resulting in HUGE loses in both man and machine. The two things that witled down German armor especially  during and after the invasion was airpower and artillery. Allied armor was useless in achieving any real results against late war German armor.

[Die Hard]

Well, there was the Sherman "Firefly" which had an excellent gun on par with the Panther's KwK 42.

[BigPlay]

Well, there was the Sherman "Firefly" which had an excellent gun on par with the Panther's KwK 42.

True but there never was enough of these to make an impact as well as the American 76mm which was also a good gun

[Masherbrum]

U.S. Tank doctrine called for tanks to break through a front and wreck havoc behind the enemy lines while the infantry capitalized on the breakthrough with an advance.

U.S. tanks weren't designed to fight other tanks.  They were designed to be fast and mobile in order to exploit their breakthroughs.


wrongway

I suggest you read "Army at Dawn", it best explains how fragile and close to defeat the Allies were in North Africa.   Sure the Allies won, but it blows your post out of the water.   

[AWwrgwy]

I suggest you read "Army at Dawn", it best explains how fragile and close to defeat the Allies were in North Africa.   Sure the Allies won, but it blows your post out of the water.   

I didn't say the doctrine worked as planned.  It explains why they chose a lighter, faster tank over a heavy, slow tank like the Tiger.


wrongway

[Die Hard]

I didn't say the doctrine worked as planned.  It explains why they chose a lighter, faster tank over a heavy, slow tank like the Tiger.


wrongway

The Tiger I wasn't exactly slow by the standards of the day: 24 mph compared to the M4's 25 mph.

[E25280]

I get the feeling your mind was made up a long time ago. Trying to convince you otherwise is probably a futile gesture, but hey... I got nothing better to do right now.

Nothing is futile.    
I know what I know, and I know it until someone proves to me I don't really know what I know, after which what I know becomes what I thought before I knew what I know.  Or something like that.   

For instance, the 20mm spaced armor on the front of the III. 

Another for instance:

Your math is way off. Using the numbers from the site you used the Germans produced 1,938.3 thousand Pzgr. 39 shells and 721.8 thousand Pzgr. 40 shells in 1942. Even if we assume that the Pzgr. 40/1 is included in that number the portion of hartkern rounds is 100 / ( 1938.3 + 721.8 ) * 721.8 = 27.1 %

The Sprgr. is a HE shell, not an AT round.

I obviously did not read the chart carefully enough.   The title was "AT Gun Ammunition", which I read as "AT Ammunition", and as a result I thought they were referring to a solid shot AP round (as opposed to the capped or APCR rounds), and not the HE round.

I was wrong -- my bad.

You see, the tanks got priority for the hartkern ammunition.

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%?

If you don't know, I'll keep looking . . . but not tonight.  My head hurts.

That assumption is wrong. The Germans started producing hartkern (tungsten core APCR) shots very early and used them more extensively than any other nation... Even to the point of arming their anti-tank aircraft with hartkern firing cannons (Ju 87G, Ju 88 and Hs 129 primary).

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?


By the way:

No. The fact is that the M4 and T-34 are fairly equal in performance (I believe I said that in my first post), but the T-34 entered the war in a critical stage and at a time where it was superior to the German tanks. The M4 arrived much later and was no match to the German tanks being fielded at the time.

The Spitfire I and 109E were fairly equal designs, but if the Spit I had entered service in late 1942 everyone would have considered it inferior. The T-34 was a pre-war design, that the M4 matched its performance two years into the war is not a badge of merit.

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?

[BigPlay]

The Osprey soft back book series on tanks are a decent source of facts that can be used to get at the facts of the subject matter without spending hours in larger books . many have decent penetration charts as well.

[dirt911]

yeah but the standard m4 would prove effective against lighter armor \panzer/m8
also effective on base assault