76mm Sherman V.S. Panther

[Nemisis]

T34 had sloped armor, and is definitely superior to the Sherman.  The Germans didn't call the Sherman "Tommycooker" for no reason. 

They gave it that name because it caught fire easily. Not because it was easy to kill. The Panzer was about as likely to catch fire after having its armor penetrated fewer times on average than the sherman was. And if the issue is armor, its better than the panzer. The sherman actually has SOME slope to it.

For me, the real attraction is the 76mm cannon, and the .50 at a lower cost than the firefly and possibly the T-34/85.

[E25280]

You are completely correct.  I guess the poster was comparing armor thickness rather than slope, which is to his own undoing.  Slope is what made the -34's armor effective, at least when compared to the "Tommycooker".

By the time the 76mm Shermans were widely available, wet stowage of the ammunition made the Sherman no more likely to burn than any other tank.  The same German guns that were ripping the Shermans to shreds were doing just as well if not even better at mauling Soviet T-34s.

Side armor for the T-34/76 is sloped on the hull, but the sides of the turret are virtually identical to the Sherman, the slight slope of the T-34/76 not being much more effective than the rounded Sherman armor.  Add to that the notoriously poor quality of Soviet steel, and yes, I would still call the armor comparable, and give an edge to the Sherman when taking fire from the front.  And that's before the later '44 versions of the Sherman that had an extra half inch of front hull armor, something the T-34/85s did not enjoy.

Try this link to see what at least one Soviet tanker thought of lend-lease Shermans vs. the domestic offerings.

[W7LPNRICK]

Saw the Panther in a low budget war movie yesterday. Didn't know what it was. 

[Bodhi]

E25280 made a good point.  The Germans were shredding both T-34's and Shermans with ease (after the initial 1941 debacle with the T-34's).  The argument is silly.  The introduction and improvements of on the Sherman with the 76mm version makes it a very competitive tank.  Further while it carries sloped armor, the Panther is very killable by a 76mm armed Sherman, as are most other tanks.

That said, I have always liked the Panther.

[BigPlay]

I think both tanks would make an impact on the game.  The Panther of course would be the first choice due to the better gun and slightly better armor.  But the 76mm Sherman would be a worthy opponent.  The 76mm could penetrate the Panther if the range was close enough from the front and without a doubt from the flank.  Either tank would be fine with me.  Though the Panther would be vulnerable to the IL-2 due to the thin top armor on the rear deck.

If ........ The simple fact is that fewer then 100 76mm armed Sherman's landed at Normandy of which I am sure many were disposed of rather quickly. Also the AP ammunition that this gun used was always in very short supply even to the last days of the war. Most of this game involves standoff range shots of which the Sherman is vowfully at a disadvantage. Any Sherman IMO would be a waste in any arena and not even competitive within the current tank set. Since the 76mm armed version ( the only one worth a dam)would not be included in EW or MW. The Panther would be in MW as well as the main arena. One other thing is the Panther's armor is much more then slightly better. It's night and day better.

[Nemisis]

Actually E252980, the sherman's armor was increased to compensate for the reduction in armor slope when the made the change from welded to cast hulls. The seams were weak spots in the armor. At least this is what i gather from reading multiple web pages.

[Volron]

By the time the 76mm Shermans were widely available, wet stowage of the ammunition made the Sherman no more likely to burn than any other tank.  The same German guns that were ripping the Shermans to shreds were doing just as well if not even better at mauling Soviet T-34s.

Side armor for the T-34/76 is sloped on the hull, but the sides of the turret are virtually identical to the Sherman, the slight slope of the T-34/76 not being much more effective than the rounded Sherman armor.  Add to that the notoriously poor quality of Soviet steel, and yes, I would still call the armor comparable, and give an edge to the Sherman when taking fire from the front.  And that's before the later '44 versions of the Sherman that had an extra half inch of front hull armor, something the T-34/85s did not enjoy.

Try this link to see what at least one Soviet tanker thought of lend-lease Shermans vs. the domestic offerings.

Well remember, the armor here isn't "crappy".  We don't have to worry about the quality of armor vs in WW2.  So the T-34 actually has better armor quality here than in actually did in real life.  I found that link to be an interesting read and it would seem Dimitry really liked the Sherman.

I'm curious to how fast they would make each of the tanks.  The Sherman did 25-30 MPH while the Panther did 34-29 MPH.  Of course, it varied with each variant, but I still wonder.

[E25280]

Well remember, the armor here isn't "crappy".  We don't have to worry about the quality of armor vs in WW2.  So the T-34 actually has better armor quality here than in actually did in real life.  I found that link to be an interesting read and it would seem Dimitry really liked the Sherman.

I'm curious to how fast they would make each of the tanks.  The Sherman did 25-30 MPH while the Panther did 34-29 MPH.  Of course, it varied with each variant, but I still wonder.

Fair point on the armor.  In game I seem to have no more trouble killing T-34s as Fireflys and vice versa, so going by that, we can probably assume that would continue to hold true with any other Sherman.

In regards to the speeds, I think they do a fairly good job at using best-available published maximum speeds.  What is a little "gamey" about AH is that all of our ground is apparently hard as concrete since nothing seems to suffer any kind of "off road penalty" to that top speed.

[Nemisis]

would have to make more, and straiter roads for that to work.

[E25280]

If ........ The simple fact is that fewer then 100 76mm armed Sherman's landed at Normandy of which I am sure many were disposed of rather quickly. Also the AP ammunition that this gun used was always in very short supply even to the last days of the war. Most of this game involves standoff range shots of which the Sherman is vowfully at a disadvantage. Any Sherman IMO would be a waste in any arena and not even competitive within the current tank set. Since the 76mm armed version ( the only one worth a dam)would not be included in EW or MW. The Panther would be in MW as well as the main arena. One other thing is the Panther's armor is much more then slightly better. It's night and day better.

100 landed at Normandy is irrelevant to the discussion as about half of Shermans produced in late '44 and '45 were equipped with 76mm guns.

I have no idea where you get the idea AP was scarce for this gun.  It wasn't.  HVAP was scarce, but that is true of all specialty ammunition.

Not sure how you can say it wouldn't be competitive when it has already been stated that it would be nearly equal to the T-34/85 and is in every way equal if not superior to the PzkwIV we have in game, both of which are used in abundance in the LWAs.

[Nemisis]

There was a 76mm M4A2, so could be a MW tank. It would be equivelant to the T-34/85, wich is definatly superior to the panzer IV.

[BigPlay]

There was a 76mm M4A2, so could be a MW tank. It would be equivelant to the T-34/85, wich is definatly superior to the panzer IV.

1944 isnt considered MW


Fighting against Panther tanks in Normandy quickly demonstrated the need for better anti-tank firepower, and the 76 mm M4s were deployed to First Army units in July 1944. Patton's Third Army started with 75 mm M4s and accepted 76 mm M4 Shermans only after the Battle of Arracourt against Panther tanks in late September 1944.[24]

High Velocity Armor Piercing (HVAP) ammunition, standardized as M93, first became available in August 1944 for the 76 mm gun. The projectile contained a tungsten core penetrator surrounded by a lightweight aluminum body, which gave it a higher velocity and more penetrating power. However, this new projectile was still unable to penetrate the glacis plate of the Panther tank although it could penetrate the turret mantlet of the Panther at longer ranges than standard ammunition; it brought the U.S. 76 mm gun closer in performance to the British 17 pounder using standard APC ammunition. Because of tungsten shortages, HVAP rounds were always in short supply. Distribution was prioritized to U.S. tank destroyer units; most Shermans carried only a few rounds and some units never received any.

[save]

penetration panther vs different opposing tanks, and allied tanks vs panther

http://dietmagic.tripod.com/panther.html

[BigPlay]

100 landed at Normandy is irrelevant to the discussion as about half of Shermans produced in late '44 and '45 were equipped with 76mm guns.

I have no idea where you get the idea AP was scarce for this gun.  It wasn't.  HVAP was scarce, but that is true of all specialty ammunition.

Not sure how you can say it wouldn't be competitive when it has already been stated that it would be nearly equal to the T-34/85 and is in every way equal if not superior to the PzkwIV we have in game, both of which are used in abundance in the LWAs.

Here's some info on the ammo needed to compete with the the panther and Tiger. Regular AP was inept against these types. Also The T-34/85 did have better armor then the M4 Sherman. I don't have my penetration charts in front of me but standoff penetration between the two guns I would say the T-34/85 has an edge .
Because of tungsten shortages, HVAP rounds were always in short supply. Distribution was prioritized to U.S. tank destroyer units; most Shermans carried only a few rounds and some units never received any.

100 76mm equipped Shermans does matter to me since it was introduced with only 10 months of the war remaining. By then the Panther already had 2 model upgrades .

Now maybe in the game it will have all tungsten ammo . Then it would be competitive., but as stated if you want to add another tank then at least add one that will at least span a couple of arenas . The 76mm armed Sherman would  only be available in the LW arena and IMO would not really do much to enhance that arena.

[Demetrious]

Oh, sorry wrong way. From here it looked like you were saying we should read those, and that if we did, we wouldn't start threads like this.

And thats smart cthulhu, get out of whatever protection you have, and use a bazooka. If bazookas were more effective, why not just mount those on a tank then?

Sup.

They gave it that name because it caught fire easily.

That was only true of the early Shermans that hit the beaches in Africa and some of the ones in Normandy. Shortly thereafter they were modified with "wet storage," where the ammunition was kept in water-filled bins, and that solved the burning problem.

The 76mm armed Sherman would  only be available in the LW arena and IMO would not really do much to enhance that arena.

On the other hand, it wouldn't be terribly taxing to add.

The 76mm gun Sherman was a formidable tank, but since the Tiger was in the game and there was a clear need for a non-perked ride that could waste Tigers, it's clear to see why HTC just cut to the chase and added the Firefly.