Author Topic: How about a Sherman Tank?  (Read 4583 times)

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24759
How about a Sherman Tank?
« Reply #75 on: December 30, 2001, 09:06:00 PM »
That was never in contention to begin with. Comparisons between the Sherman and the PzKpfw V Panther don't apply in regards to adding the Sherman (or a variant of) to the AH GV set right now. There still may be some disparity between the Sherman and the PzKpfw IV .... but not as great of one. And even with it not being a perfectly even matchup, what's the sense in not adding the Sherman based on that? How many other GVs in the game come even as close as the Sherman? How many planes are a perfectly even matchup (granted, there's more flexability to take advantage of your vehicles strengths in air combat versus ground combat)?

 Why not add the M4 .... and when AH adds the Panther, then the Jumbo Sherman would be a logical addition as well.

 Add the T-34, for that matter.

 But ..... let's be sure there's some terrain with some cover.  :)  

 
Quote
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ:

M4 Sherman was extremly vulnerable frontally to Panther fire out in excess of 3500 meters. Sherman could not destroy Panther at those ranges. Even 76mm shermans, even with HVAP.  Panther is better than Sherman.

[ 12-30-2001: Message edited by: GRUNHERZ ]

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
How about a Sherman Tank?
« Reply #76 on: December 30, 2001, 09:21:00 PM »
Im all for adding some type of representative Sherman or any other GV.

Im a bit confused, did I give the impression I was against addding it?

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24759
How about a Sherman Tank?
« Reply #77 on: December 30, 2001, 09:24:00 PM »
With all the left and right turns over technical statistics of various tanks it's hard to see where you stood on the actual thread subject.  :)

Offline chunder'

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 26
How about a Sherman Tank?
« Reply #78 on: December 30, 2001, 09:29:00 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Widewing:
I found this data table on the web.

Tank (attacker)- Failure Distance - Tank (defender)
 
JS2 - Fails @ 1500M vs Panther D
Panther D 75mm - Fails @ 400M vs JS2
JS2 - Fails @ 200M vs Tiger II
Tiger II - Fails @ 1200M Vs JS2
Sherman M4A3E8 - Fails @ 1500M vs Panther D
Panther D - Fails @ 1600M vs Sherman (M4A3E8)
Sherman M4A3E8 - Fails point blank vs Tiger II
Tiger II - Fails @ 2500M vs Sherman (M4A3E8)
Comet - Fails @ 1500M vs Panther D
Panther D - Fails @ 1500M vs Comet
Comet - Fails @ 500M vs Tiger II
Tiger II - Fails @ 2500M vs Comet
Pershing - Fails @ 2000M vs Panther D
Panther D - Fails @ 600M vs Pershing
Pershing - Fails @ 1300M vs Tiger II
Tiger II - Fails @ 1800M vs Pershing

See it yourself -  

Penetration Table

My regards,

Widewing

The table is somewhat misleading in it's layout.  By just looking at the table one would assume the tank in the left column is the one being shot at by the tank in the right column when in fact the opposite is true.  It's very interesting that with 76mm HVAP ammo the Sherman takes out the Panther from 1500m while the Panther can knock out the Sherman from 1600m... not that it implies anything resembling parity.  ;)

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8800
How about a Sherman Tank?
« Reply #79 on: December 30, 2001, 09:31:00 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ:
Yep thats my problem with it too widewing, ive never seen one not even in Hunnicuts giant Sherman book. Maybe it was just a paper project, If Hunnicut doesnt show a picture of it. Because he has just about every type of variant ever made in his in depth type specific books. I love the Pershing book, it even has details and pictures of a nasty "Jumbo" Pershing.

Thats why I doubt a Jumboed HVSS was ever made. They should have made A Jumbo HVSS Firefy, that would be a neat tank though still too heavy unreliable and underpowered.

I called a few people I know asking about this tank. No one had ever heard of it, and one of these guys was a maintenance officer with the 10th Armored. However, I did get the name and phone # of an elderly gentleman who was an Army liaison with the Baldwin Locomotive Works and spent some time at Grand Blanc. It's a bit too late to call him this evening, but I will try tomorrow.

Perhaps, just perhaps, I can get some facts beyond published data, which frequently cannot be relied upon, as we have seen.

BTW, I would love to get my hands on Hunnicutt's Sherman book. All I have is 34 photocopied pages and a request to verify some of the facts. This is proving much harder to accomplish than I expected when I took on the task. In this case, I have been trying to find people or reports that can shed light on a specific engagement (Battalion sized) and the specific Sherman models involved. So far, I have found that this unit had at least 4 different models at any given time. Moreover, some of these had been so extensively modified at repair depots that no one can be sure what version they originally were. For example, one Sherman has two completely different serial numbers! What did they do, weld two different halves together!!?? Probably a typo. Since there aren't any photos of the tanks in question, it may not be possible to identify the manufacturer or the specific version.

Anyway, I've gone through every armor resource I have and I can't find a single photo of an up-armored Easy Eight, that can be confirmed as being built that way. I have seen two where plates were obviously welded on the glacis, and sides. But, this clearly looks like depot level stuff and not factory work. Moreover, these do not have the T23 turret as did the jumbo. Well, maybe tomorrow will bring something of use. This guy lives somewhere in Maine as he has a 207 area code.

My regards,

Widewing
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
How about a Sherman Tank?
« Reply #80 on: December 30, 2001, 09:33:00 PM »
The field up armored HVSS models existed, no doubt. I really love those Shermans they look great. But were quite rare.

Offline chunder'

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 26
How about a Sherman Tank?
« Reply #81 on: December 30, 2001, 11:13:00 PM »
I found this little gem whilst looking about, rather interesting:

"An important variant of the M4 was the M4A3E2 Jumbo assault tank. This modified vehicle was heavily armored (although all initial production models were equipped with the 75mm). Few (254) were factory built, however Ordnance workshops of the US First and Third Armies successfully modified many M4s in the field to Jumbos (between January and March 1945 the Third Army alone produced 108 of these "ersatz Jumbos," it appears that about 100 additional were produced in 1944). Allocation of the Jumbo varied. Usually they were found in the armored divisions, although some First Army separate tank battalions also had them. Normally there was no more than one "Jumbo" per company, although some divisions organized them as a complete company within the battalion."

Link

Offline Pongo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6701
How about a Sherman Tank?
« Reply #82 on: December 31, 2001, 12:09:00 AM »
I have never seen from any source a claim that the Panther (any model) and the Comet had armour and gun parity. Which is what that table says.

Certainly no version of a 76mm sherman and the Panther have gun and armour parity.

The table is very suspect.

I hope we get the M4a3(75) and the T34-85....

Offline fdiron

  • Parolee
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 697
How about a Sherman Tank?
« Reply #83 on: December 31, 2001, 01:52:00 AM »
Heres an interesting fact- Most tank combat on the Western front took place at less than 400 yards.  Thats not very far at all.  Also, I will try to dig up the report on the Tiger II.

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
How about a Sherman Tank?
« Reply #84 on: December 31, 2001, 01:59:00 AM »
Well a number of those figures are higly suspect.

For example the Comet has VERTICAL 100mm thick frontal armor. The Panthers gun can easily penetrate that at over 1500 meters.

The Comets gun is the 77mm OQF gun, this is basically a compact shortened version of the 17lbr gun. It fires the same ammo but the gun tube is considerably shorter. Its a bit less powerful than the 17lbr gun, but its easier to mount, a compromise of sorts.

Even more suspect is that the chart says the M4A3E8 and Panther are almost identically vulnerable to each other, one failing at 1500 and the other 1600. Just for the sake of argument assuming equal gun power (its not), the Panthers vastly better frontal armor would give it an enormous advantage over the Sherman. The Panthers armor is both thicker and more steeply sloped.

And this chart says that the Comets shortened sub 17lbr gun fails against the TigerII at 500 meters, while the JS2s 122mm fails at only 200 meters. The Soviet 122 had the same AP power as the Panthers 75 and as the full 17lbr gun.

Another thing. If this Comets gun is so powerful vs TigerII (fails 500meters), why does the chart say it fails against Panther at 1500meters, when the M4A3E8 gun also fails against Panther at 1500mters. Yet the M4A3E8 on the chart fails against TigerII at ZERO RANGE. The comet fails at 500 meters.

 Really that chart strikes me as being rather fanciful. Very bogus and useless.

Offline fdiron

  • Parolee
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 697
How about a Sherman Tank?
« Reply #85 on: December 31, 2001, 02:12:00 AM »
The Pz Kpfw Tiger Ausf B heavy tank (also called the Sd Kfz 182 "special purpose fighting vehicle type 182," according to unified designation system used by the Germans), was developed by "Henschel" under the leadership of its chief designer Erwin Anders. It was in mass production from January 1944 up to May 1945. The tank weighed 69.4 tons, and had a power-to-weight ratio of 10.08 h.p. per ton. The hull and turret were made of rolled homogenous armor plate with low to medium hardness. 487 vehicles were produced in total.


Photo 1. King Tiger #502 at the NIIBT proving ground. "Glory to Korobov" is written on the gun barrel in recognition of the commander of the 2nd battalion, 53rd Guards Tank Brigade.

Photo 2. King Tiger #502 at the NIIBT proving ground.
The first "Tiger-B" tanks captured by Soviet forces were sent to the Chief Armored Vehicle Directorate's (GBTU) Armored Vehicle Research and Development proving ground (NIIBT) at Kubinka for comprehensive study. There were vehicles numbered 102 and 502. The very movement of these tanks to the loading station under their own power revealed numerous defects. At 86 kilometers, the left idler wheel went out of commission (when the bearings failed), as well as the left drive sprocket (when all the mounting bolts sheared). The high temperatures at the time, which reached 30 degrees Celsius (86 F), turned out to be too much for the cooling system. This led the right engine block to overheat and to continual overheating in the gearbox. The tank was repaired, but after that the right side running gear had completely failed. It was replaced with one scavenged from another tank, but this one almost immediately went out of commission again when the drive shaft roller bearings failed. Besides this, time and again it was necessary to change the track's elements, which were constantly breaking (cracking) due to the tank's colossal weight, especially when the vehicle was turning. The design of the track tensioning mechanism hadn't been completely perfected. As a result, the tension had to be adjusted after every 10-15 km of travel.
 


Photo 3. The hull and turret prior to testing.


In the end, both captured vehicles were delivered to the NIIBT proving ground, where vehicle #102 underwent further maneuverability tests. This testing encountered severe obstacles connected with the extremely low reliability of the chassis elements, engine, and transmission. It was determined that 860 liters of fuel was sufficient for 90 km of movement over an dirt road, even though the vehicle's manual indicated that this amount of fuel should have been sufficient for 120 km. Fuel consumption per 100 km was 970 liters instead of the 700 liters according to this same (captured) manual. Average rate of movement along the highway was 25-30 km/h, 13.4-15 km/h along an dirt road. The average speed when moving over rough terrain was even worse: 6-7 km/h. The maximum speed, given as 41.5 km/h in the tank's technical documentation, was never even once achieved in the maneuverability tests.


Photo 4. The hull and turret during testing.


In order to obtain an objective evaluation of the tank's armor protection, it was decided to subject to shell fire the hull and turret of the captured vehicle with turret number 502. Most of the systems and assemblies were removed for further study. The tank's armament was sent to the ANIOP for study.

The live fire tests were conducted in the fall of 1944 at Kubinka, during the course of which the following results were obtained:

"1. The quality of armor on the "Tiger-B" tank, in comparison with the armor on the "Tiger-I," and "Panther," tanks, as well as early production "Ferdinand" self-propelled gun, has sharply deteriorated. The first individual impacts caused cracks and spalling in the armor of the "Tiger-B" tank. Groups of shell impacts (3-4 shells) caused large-scale spalling and fractures in the armor.

2. Weak weld seams appeared characteristic of all hull and turret joints. Despite careful workmanship, the seams held up to shell impacts significantly worse than they did in analogous constructions on the "Tiger-I," and "Panther," tanks, as well as the "Ferdinand" self-propelled gun.

3. Impacts of 3-4 armor-piercing or high-explosive fragmentation shells from 152, 122, or 100 mm artillery pieces caused cracks, spalling and destruction of the weld seams in the tank's 100-190 mm thick frontal armor plates at ranges of 500-1000 metres. The impacts disrupted the operation of the transmission and took the tank out of service as an irrevocable loss.

4. Armor-piercing projectiles from the BS-3 (100 mm) and A-19 (122 mm) gun completely penetrated when impacting the edges or joints of the "Tiger-B" tank's front hull plates at ranges of 500-600 metres.

5. Armor-piercing projectiles from the BS-3 (100 mm) and A-19 (122 mm) gun completely penetrated the "Tiger-B" tank's front turret plate at ranges of 1000-1500 metres.

6. 85 mm armor-piercing projectiles from the D-5 and S-53 gun failed to penetrate the tank's front hull plates or cause any structural damage at distances of 300 metres.

7. The tank's side armor plates were notable for their sharply unequal durability in comparison with the frontal plates and appeared to be the most vulnerable part of the tank's hull and turret.

8. The tank's hull and turret side plates were penetrated by armor-piercing projectiles from the domestic 85 mm and American 76 mm guns at ranges of 800-2000 metres.

9. The tank's hull and turret side plates were not penetrated by armor-piercing projectiles from the domestic 76 mm guns (ZIS-3 and F-34).

10. American 76 mm armor-piercing projectiles penetrated the "Tiger-B" tank's side plates at ranges 1.5 to 2 times greater the domestic 85 mm armor-piercing projectiles."
Here, for fans of the "King Tiger," it should be said that the 122 mm D-25 tank gun mounted on the IS-2 tank was the direct descendent of the A-19 gun-howitzer. Basically, these guns were different in their breech blocks (the D-25's was semi-automatic) and in a few technical details not affecting their ballistics. Consequently, the armor penetration capabilities of both guns were the same. In addition, the 100 mm BS-3 field gun and the D-10 tank gun, mounted on the SU-100, also had the same armor penetration capabilities.


Photo 5. Penetrations in the front hull armor.


Photo 6. Penetrations in the side hull armor. Penetration #32 was made by a 122 mm sharped armor-piercing projectile at a range of 1500 metres.


During lab tests of the "Tiger-B" tank's armor, conducted at TsNII-48, it was noted that there had been an "evident gradual decline in the quantity of molybdenum (M) in the German T-VI and T-V tanks, and a complete absence in the T-VIB. The reason for replacing one element (M) with another (V, vanadium) must obviously be sought in the exhaustion of their on-hand reserves and the loss of those bases supplying Germany with molybdenum. Low malleability appears to be characteristic of the "Tiger-B's" armor. An advantage of domestic armor, as is well-known, is its high malleability; German armor has fewer alloys and is therefore significantly less malleably."

A comment should also be made here. More malleably armor results in a smaller number of secondary fragments when penetrated (these fragments intended to kill crew and to damage tank controls), and, besides this, the armor has a smaller chance of cracking.


Photo 7. The front armor of the turret. Penetration #23 was made by a 100 mm armor-piercing projectile*. Penetration #25 was made by an 88 mm armor-piercing projectile that went completely through the tank (see photo below) at a range of 400 metres.

* Perhaps a misprint. The hole #23 seems to me closer to the 76 mm calibre rather then 100 mm. I suppose it was made by an American 76 mm projectile - Valera.

Photo 8. The rear part of the turret. The exit hole of the 88 mm projectile is visible.


During testing of the weapon, the German KwK 43 tank gun gave good results in both armor penetration and accuracy, practically the same as the Soviet 122 mm D-25 gun on the IS-2 tank. At a range of 1000 metres, the following projectile impact deviations from the aiming point were observed: 260 mm in the vertical, and 210 mm in the horizontal. In comparison, for the IS-2 tank's D-25 gun the average projectile deviation from the aiming point did not exceed 170 mm in the vertical and 270 mm in the horizontal during stationary firing at a range of 1000 metres. The penetration capability of the 71-caliber long 88 mm KwK 43 gun, with its muzzle velocity of 1000 m/s for its armor-piercing projectiles, was 165 mm at a 30 degree impact angle at 1000 metres. In particular, the "Tiger-B" projectile went completely through the turret of its "colleague" at a range of 400 m. But in high-explosive power, the 88 mm projectile was 1.39 times inferior to the 122 mm high-explosive fragmentation projectile.


Photo 9. The right side of the turret.


Photo 10. The left side of the turret. Impact #43, made by a 122 mm high-explosive shell, caused the armor to fracture.


The final report of 16 February 1945 on the "Tiger-B" tests, stated the following:

"The frontal hull and turret armor is low quality. Non-penetrating damage (dents) in the armor caused cracking through the armor and large scale interior spalling. The side plates were notable for their sharply unequal durability in comparison with the frontal plates and appeared to be the most vulnerable part of the tank's hull and turret.

Shortcomings:
The chassis is complex and is not durable.
The steering mechanism is complex and expensive.
The side running gear is extremely unreliable.
The radius of action is 25% inferior to the "IS"-tanks.
The ammunition (except in the turret recess) is awkwardly located.
The excessive size and weight of the tank do not correspond to the tank's armor protection and firepower."

Pic 11. The armoring scheme and type of armor plate joints for the King Tiger. Taken from the report on the testing of the tank at the NIIBT proving ground in 1944.


Translated by:
Douglas Rauber
Sources:
"Tankomaster" #6 1999.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This page belongs to the Russian Battlefield

 Source = http://history.vif2.ru/library/bookshelf/weapons/weapons7.html

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
How about a Sherman Tank?
« Reply #86 on: December 31, 2001, 02:30:00 AM »
Well lets start with a few problems.

The Soviet 100mm was much more powerful in the AP role than the 122mm. The only reasons it was not adopted in the JS2 was its comparative rarity at the time and the 122mm vastly better HE charge. The russians knew this in WW2, why does the report lie?


Then this one is typical of Soviet lies when comparing enemy weapons to siviet ones:

"During testing of the weapon, the German KwK 43 tank gun gave good results in both armor penetration and accuracy, practically the same as the Soviet 122 mm D-25 gun on the IS-2 tank."

This is simply a lie, the Soviet 122 is not even in the same class when it comes to AP performance as is the KxK43L71. This is not a point of debate in any way its simply a fact. The 122 was rougly equal to the Panthers 75mm in AP.


The whole report is typical Soviet style, Ill let the others here rip it uas as they notice other oddities.

Dont trust the Soviets when it comes to weapons testing.

Offline fdiron

  • Parolee
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 697
How about a Sherman Tank?
« Reply #87 on: December 31, 2001, 02:38:00 AM »
If you click on the link I provided at the bottom of the report, it even has pictures of the holes that the shells made.  How could those have been faked?

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
How about a Sherman Tank?
« Reply #88 on: December 31, 2001, 03:16:00 AM »
The whole article is called "Was the King Tiger really King"

Its typicall Soviet and Russian feeling of inadiquacy thing. Its not fake tank with holes no, but its also not all honest.

Its not like they didnt test it, I just suspect their words. It just happened so often in the Soviet system. Thats all.

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8800
How about a Sherman Tank?
« Reply #89 on: December 31, 2001, 08:48:00 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ:
The field up armored HVSS models existed, no doubt. I really love those Shermans they look great. But were quite rare.

Well, I have some very good info on the Jumbo Easy Eights.

I called Mr. Glendenning this morning (9 AM here on the east coast). My friend had already given him the heads-up that I would call, apparently last evening. So, he had some time to gather his thoughts and papers together.

Here's what he could tell me:

1) Only 4 or 5 "Jumbo" Easy Eights were built. Moreover, they were modified from M4A3E8s that were on the production line. These were requested by the Army as test vehicles for the purpose of determining if the new HVSS chassis would better handle the increased weight than the VVS chassis. Initial testing was performed at the Fisher plant facility. After this, they were transferred to the Army. Mr. Glendenning believes that they went to the ETO for combat trials. It was possible to build these tanks because there existed 4 or 5 T23 turrets which were cast for the Jumbo program, but never used. Glendenning says that the serial numbers of these tanks will be hard to isolate as they were taken at random from the production line. By and large, Mr. Glendenning is working from memory and cannot be absolutely certain of much more than what he saw being built.

2)Here's where the 438 Jumbo M4A3E8 number comes from, I think.

Glendenning recalls that Fisher prepared approximately 400 - 500 appliqué armor kits for the Easy Eight. These included face hardened plates for the glacis, hull and sides. He recalls that the front plates were 3.00 inches thick (about 78mm). There were prefabricated plates for the mantlet and rolled, some kits contained curved plates for the turret sides. Plates for the side supperstructure were about 1 inch thick. Glendenning says that these were shipped to the Army's depots in late 1944, early 1945. He has no idea if they were distributed in the ETO, but figures that they probably were.
However, he also believes that many of the Jumbo modified M4A3E8 Shermans ended up in Israel, where they were converted with new turrets and again rearmed with 105mm guns.

So, that should be the end of the mystery. Reports of up-armored Easy Eights can be accounted for by depot upgrades in theater using the kits. No doubt that the upgraded Shermans were rude surprise for the German tankers who encountered them. Nonetheless, even if every kit was installed (probably not), and even if we add in all of the original Jumbos, the total number of up-armor Shermans was small enough that their effect on the outcome of the war was probably limited to localized engagements. Especially when one realizes that most of the Easy Eights didn't get into combat until after February of 1945 anyway. Too few, too late to matter much.

My regards,

Widewing

[ 12-31-2001: Message edited by: Widewing ]
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.