m4a3 sherman and some others

[Die Hard]

In many cases in Normady like 40% were abandoned by their own crews.  Seems odd for such a perfect weapon. 

Now, why do you think that was? Do you think they broke down?

I dispensed with the rest of your post because it was just opinionated bull.

[Die Hard]

The 76mm gun on the later shermans had no trouble at all with the Panzer 4.

Yes it did.

[Angus]

The Firefly has more firepower than the PZIV.
The Sherman however has a problem with getting hit by the PZIV.
The Firefly can also make serious trouble to Panthers and Tigers. The gun allows a shootout, but the armour doesn't.
Probably opinionated bull though 

[BigPlay]

See Rules #4, #2

[BigPlay]

The Firefly has more firepower than the PZIV.
The Sherman however has a problem with getting hit by the PZIV.
The Firefly can also make serious trouble to Panthers and Tigers. The gun allows a shootout, but the armour doesn't.
Probably opinionated bull though 

This is a glaring display of how little you know about tanks,. The Firefly isn't armed with a 76mm gun it's armed with a British 17lber. At standoff firing distances the Firefly is at a disadvantage against both Tiger and Panther. At dropoff penetration distances where the 17lber where it cant penetrate frontal armor of both tanks , both the Tiger and Panther can kill a Sherman at the same distance.

[Ack-Ack]

If you want a chuckle read the thread on the Tiger and how M-8's ap rounds can pierce the Tigers Turret because they came across some combat report that said they did. There is also a pentration chart on the 37mm gun that proves it can. Funny how I have never read a thing about a M-8 taking out a Tiger. Considering that most German tanks battled with panzer grenadiers and other like tanks I can't imagine a M-8 even attacking a Tiger without bringing a world of hurt down on them.

For someone that claims to be some sort of historical expert on World War II, you really should think about updating your resource library.

The story about the M8 did happen and is well documented. That engagement along with others in the Battle at St. Vith is used by the US Army as an example of armor in the defense. 

The Battle at St. Vith Belgium 17-23 December of 1944:  An Historical Example of Armor in the Defense  U.S. Army Armor School

Though, I'm sure you'll dismiss this as you do with everything else when you've been proven wrong.


ack-ack

[Die Hard]

Ack-Ack, I've read that book as well, but I have several reservations against the description of that particular engagement. First of all the Tiger's rear armor is described as "thin", when in fact it was as thick as the side armor at 80 mm. I've asked around for some form of confirmation of this engagement, but have found little or nothing to support it. While I don't really doubt the engagement happened I think it is far more likely the M8 ambushed a PzKpfW IV rather than a Tiger. A fact lost on many is that in France the Americans and British often referred to all German tanks as "Tigers".

If you have more substantial information on the engagement I would love to read/see it. At least if I were that M8 commander (and if the battle conditions allowed for it) I'd take a picture of that kill!

[Angus]

This is a glaring display of how little you know about tanks,. The Firefly isn't armed with a 76mm gun it's armed with a British 17lber. At standoff firing distances the Firefly is at a disadvantage against both Tiger and Panther. At dropoff penetration distances where the 17lber where it cant penetrate frontal armor of both tanks , both the Tiger and Panther can kill a Sherman at the same distance.

I didn't say Panther or Tiger, It's PZ IV, Panzer IV, our AH Panzer, which is why the Firefly is perked. The Firefly outguns the Panzer IV. And the gun will  kill a panther and a tiger, depending on range or angle. They are not safe from a Firefly unless they kill first.

[BigPlay]

For someone that claims to be some sort of historical expert on World War II, you really should think about updating your resource library.

The story about the M8 did happen and is well documented. That engagement along with others in the Battle at St. Vith is used by the US Army as an example of armor in the defense. 

The Battle at St. Vith Belgium 17-23 December of 1944:  An Historical Example of Armor in the Defense  U.S. Army Armor School

Though, I'm sure you'll dismiss this as you do with everything else when you've been proven wrong.


ack-ack

The reason I have trouble believing the story AkAk  is because books I have read made mention to Tigers being hit 30 times in a single tank engagement from tanks with larger caliber guns then a 37mm. I am sure that these tanks we using AP rounds as well and the hits were not just the front of the tank but the sides of the turret as well as the chassis. Now, maybe this m-8 somehow disabled the motor  and was claimed as a kill on a Tiger but I seriously doubt that the armor was penetrated in this engagement. Many claimed tank kills were nothing more then a tank being disabled not destroyed. The Germans didn't consider it a tank kill unless the tank was destroyed. As far as everyting I have read about typical tank engagements regarding the Tiger and the typical order of battle that was common at that time and area makes me have a difficult time believing this story. It appears that DieHard isn't sold on this story either.

[Die Hard]

It is more basic than that BigPlay... Any author who describes the Tiger's rear armor as "thin" should not be taken very seriously, because he's already proved himself ignorant of the reality of the situation.

[GtoRA2]

I don't know about the rest of these guys, but I will take the words of the men who were THERE over the words of some dude on a forum who thinks he knows more then they do.

It is great you have made up you mind Bigplay/diehard, but you act as if your the last word on the subject and we should all just listen to you as if you know anything. Granted you seem to know a fair amount but I think your judgment is clouded by an unreasonable need to defend German stuff. Stop taking history so personally and try and have a bit of an open mind.


And if you going to question the reports of US Soldiers who were at the scene, back it up with more then just your opinion of why its impossible. Post a report from the german side showing a tiger wasn't lost or something. No one cares (no one with any ability to reason) that you THINK it couldn't have happened.

Your opinion is just what you keep pointing out in others. An opinion. Duh.

[Die Hard]

Oh, I seriously doubt the author of the book The Battle at St. Vith was "there". No actual report has been produced by the author or anyone here.

[GtoRA2]

Yes it did.

Front armor Panzer 4 80MM   Source (http://www.wwiivehicles.com/germany/tanks-medium/pzkpfw-iv-ausf-h.asp)

Armor Penetration 76MM M62 APC 500 Meter Penetration 116MM  1000 Meter Penetration 106MM

Source M4 (76mm) Sherman Medium Tank 1943-65 Steven Zaloga.

[Ack-Ack]

I don't know about the rest of these guys, but I will take the words of the men who were THERE over the words of some dude on a forum who thinks he knows more then they do.

Especially after numerous sources were listed, including a manual written and used by the US Army.  I am also a little surprised that they keep taking the comment from the AAR about the thin rear armor out of context.  It is clear that the person in the report is comparing the thickness of the armor in relation to other areas on the tank.  So the witness was correct in saying that the armor on the Tiger is thin in the rear in relation to other parts on the Tiger.

ack-ack

[GtoRA2]

Oh, I seriously doubt the author of the book The Battle at St. Vith was "there". No actual report has been produced by the author or anyone here.

I don't really care what you think guy, your opinion is clear you keep repeating it over and over. Thanks for sharing though, maybe you can let other people share without you telling them to "read more"?