The Basic M4 (Sherman)

[Bronk]

Anyone else smell norsemen?

[Die Hard]

LOL, I knew somebody would say that.. LOL!!!
Russian would line up their guns hub to hub...
And fire it into an area target... LOL!!!
Their idea of skill was a WWI rollin barrage...
Skill, HAH!!!

Like a caveman, swingin a club..

RC

Skill is of no consequence in war ... killing the enemy is all that matters. The Soviets would amass more artillery for a single battle on the Eastern Front than was in service with the entire combined western allied armies. The Soviets produced more self-propelled guns than all other nations combined.

[Die Hard]

Anyone else smell norsemen?

Did you mean horsemen? What are you talking about? 

[Bronk]

Skill is of no consequence in war ... killing the enemy is all that matters. The Soviets would amass more artillery for a single battle on the Eastern Front than was in service with the entire combined western allied armies. The Soviets produced more self-propelled guns than all other nations combined.

How'd that zerg stuff work against the Finns.... hmmm?

[Die Hard]

No one can win against the Finns. They're just too awesome.

[RipChord929]

Skill is of no consequence in war ... killing the enemy is all that matters. The Soviets would amass more artillery for a single battle on the Eastern Front than was in service with the entire combined western allied armies. The Soviets produced more self-propelled guns than all other nations combined.

Yeah, and they'd line em all up, in the open, hub to hub,
ranks upon ranks of them... Monumentally STUPID....
ala, caveman and club...

American arty was scattered all over the place, but could
coordinate fire almost instantly onto a single target from
miles away, and all directions..
ala, surgeon and scalpel...

In a hypothetical arty duel, the ruskys would only get to
use those guns once LOL!!! Then their concentrated guns
would recieve a HAIL of proxi fused shells... BOOM!!!
Total Devastation!!!

Not even mentioning the orgasmic joy of allied Jabo drivers..
Looking down at massed arty, concentrated, and in the OPEN!!!
LOL, Holy Smokes...

Skill in battle DOES MATTER!!!  Unless your troops are nothing
more than cannon fodder... Or meat for the grinder!!!!

Russians, masters of the red horde yes... Artillery NO!!!

RC

[E25280]

The T-34's first major combat action was in the summer of 1941. It was a shock to the Germans and directly influenced German tank designs (most notably the Panther). In contrast when the M4 showed up in October 1942 in British service the Germans nicknamed it the "Tommy cooker".

So are you saying, when comparing tanks, we should rely on reputation and hearsay instead of facts and statistics?

[Die Hard]

So are you saying, when comparing tanks, we should rely on reputation and hearsay instead of facts and statistics?

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.

[E25280]

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.

The US had been in the war officially for less than a year when the Shermans saw their first combat, not two.  The T-34 was developed before the USSR was at war with Germany, but after Germany was at war with its neighbors.  So if you are going to call it a pre-war design, the same designation must be given to the Sherman, which was also on the drawing board before war broke out between the US and Germany.

The US did not "benefit" from lessons from such encounters as Khalkhin Gol or the Winter War to aid in directing armor development.  The US started from next to nothing in terms of tank design compared to the USSR's constant striving to upgrade its military.  As such, that the US was able to independently design a tank on par with the T-34 is, IMO, a pretty good feat.  They still had some problems to work out (ammo stowage was one of the primary ones), but did. 

And the Sherman certainly was a match for the mostly PzkwIIIs it faced in the desert.  It could not, however, stand up to the 88s and open terrain -- which no other vehicle of the time could, either, so moot point.

So, I still don't understand the condemnation of the Sherman.  It certainly wasn't an uberweapon, but was far from a "bad tank."

[Bronk]

I still don't understand the condemnation of the Sherman. 

History chanelzez.

[Die Hard]

The US had been in the war officially for less than a year when the Shermans saw their first combat, not two.  The T-34 was developed before the USSR was at war with Germany, but after Germany was at war with its neighbors.  So if you are going to call it a pre-war design, the same designation must be given to the Sherman, which was also on the drawing board before war broke out between the US and Germany.

The US did not "benefit" from lessons from such encounters as Khalkhin Gol or the Winter War to aid in directing armor development.  The US started from next to nothing in terms of tank design compared to the USSR's constant striving to upgrade its military.  As such, that the US was able to independently design a tank on par with the T-34 is, IMO, a pretty good feat.  They still had some problems to work out (ammo stowage was one of the primary ones), but did. 

That's a rather good write-up on why the M4 was inferior, except for a few mistakes: WWII started in September 1939, no matter how late America entered the war. The T-34 started development in 1937, two years before the war. The M4 Sherman did benefit greatly from lessons from the British experience with the M3 Lee/Grant. The M4 Sherman had a new turret with the M3's main gun with a modified M3 hull and chassis. The M4 was far from a "new" tank design.

And the Sherman certainly was a match for the mostly PzkwIIIs it faced in the desert.  It could not, however, stand up to the 88s and open terrain -- which no other vehicle of the time could, either, so moot point.

Actually it wasn't. The PzKpfw III's in service when the Sherman entered service in the desert were the upgraded L and M models, both entered service in the summer of 1942 (and earlier version were upgraded in the field shops) and both had the excellent 50mm KwK39 L/60 gun with better armor penetration than the US 75mm. Both also had spaced frontal armor of 70mm on both the hull and turret. While the armor was sloped only 69 degrees it was spaced 20mm + 50mm giving it greatly added protection against all but dead-on 90 degree hits. So in the anti-tank role the brand new M4 was actually inferior (albeit not by a lot) to the PzKpfw III's in service at the time.




By comparison, when the T-34 met the PzKpfw III in battle in 1941 the PzKpfw III had only 30-37mm of frontal armor and a 37mm gun.

So, I still don't understand the condemnation of the Sherman.  It certainly wasn't an uberweapon, but was far from a "bad tank."

I don't see any "condemnation" of the M4, and you're right it wasn't a bad tank, just not as good as the opposition at the time of its introduction. Unlike the T-34 which was revolutionary when it faced the Germans for the first time.

[E25280]

The M4 was on the drawing board in 1940, the standards set by April 1941, and the first prototype completed in September 1941.  The M3 Lee/Grant (which was always recognized as a stop-gap vehicle) did not see combat until Gazala in May of 1942.  You can not say that any lessons learned in combat influenced the Sherman's design in the same way that the Soviets' had combat experience with their BT-5s, BT-7s and T-26s.  "Development" for the T-34 may have begun in 1937, but the first true T-34 prototype was not completed until 1940.  The Sherman's development was lightening fast by comparison (admittedly out of necessity).

Your assertion that the 50mm had better armor penetration to the 75mm M3 is simply wrong.  About half of the IIIs at El Alemein were L/42s and half L/60s.  The penetration tables I am looking at (most I have found are very similar) show L/42 penetration was 55mm at 100m, 47mm at 500m, 37mm at 1000m, and 28mm at 1500m.  The L/60 shows 69mm, 59mm, 47mm, and 37mm at the same ranges.

The 75mm L/40 M3 gun firing AP rounds has penetration of 88mm, 73mm, 59mm, and 47mm according to the same source.

You made me look up the extra 20mm spaced armor (love it when that happens), as I thought that was calculated into the 50mm frontal armor -- and I was mistaken.  This provided extra protection to the mantlet and drivers plate.  However, lower hull was still 50mm, and as you can see from your own picture, a lot of flat surfaces for that 90 degree hit.  The Sherman had 51mm frontal armor at a 34 degree angle on the hull, 76mm on the turret front, and 89mm on the mantlet.

The extra 20mm armor gave me pause, but it still appears the Sherman is a match for them.

[Die Hard]

The lower hull almost never presents a target except at the closest of ranges due to terrain and the angle of incoming fire. And your data on the KwK 39 is only correct for the PzGranPatr 39. Also note that the Germans tested their rounds at a 30 degree angle to the armor plate, and used German armor plate rather than cast steel.

From German field tests:


5cm Panzerwagenkanone 39 L/60

Fire rate: 15 per minute

Muzzle velocity:
5cm Panzergranate 39        685 m/s
5cm Panzergranate 40       1180 m/s
5cm Panzergranate 40/1    1130 m/s
5cm Sprenggranate 39        550 m/s

Penetration at 30°:
PzGranPatr 40  /  PzGranPatr 40/1  /  PzGranPatr 39
100m:    130mm  / 116mm  /  69mm
500m:    72mm   /  76mm  /  59mm
1,000m:  ---     /  ---      /  47mm
1,500m:  ---     /  ---      /  37mm

[BigPlay]

The lower hull almost never presents a target except at the closest of ranges due to terrain and the angle of incoming fire. And your data on the KwK 39 is only correct for the PzGranPatr 39. Also note that the Germans tested their rounds at a 30 degree angle to the armor plate, and used German armor plate rather than cast steel.

From German field tests:


5cm Panzerwagenkanone 39 L/60

Fire rate: 15 per minute

Muzzle velocity:
5cm Panzergranate 39        685 m/s
5cm Panzergranate 40       1180 m/s
5cm Panzergranate 40/1    1130 m/s
5cm Sprenggranate 39        550 m/s

Penetration at 30°:
PzGranPatr 40  /  PzGranPatr 40/1  /  PzGranPatr 39
100m:    130mm  / 116mm  /  69mm
500m:    72mm   /  76mm  /  59mm
1,000m:  ---     /  ---      /  47mm
1,500m:  ---     /  ---      /  37mm



(Image removed from quote.)

Wow...... it's good to see some intelligent debates regarding tanks. I can't tell you how many of these threads have little substance. <S> to both of you and keep up with the reference material. I have to lean towards diehards opinion but slightly just based on the fact that  the German's did test there gun penetration on their own armor and not allied armor. From all that I have read German rolled armor was stronger then cast steel.

[E25280]

The lower hull almost never presents a target except at the closest of ranges due to terrain and the angle of incoming fire. And your data on the KwK 39 is only correct for the PzGranPatr 39. Also note that the Germans tested their rounds at a 30 degree angle to the armor plate, and used German armor plate rather than cast steel.

From German field tests:


5cm Panzerwagenkanone 39 L/60

Fire rate: 15 per minute

Muzzle velocity:
5cm Panzergranate 39        685 m/s
5cm Panzergranate 40       1180 m/s
5cm Panzergranate 40/1    1130 m/s
5cm Sprenggranate 39        550 m/s

Penetration at 30°:
PzGranPatr 40  /  PzGranPatr 40/1  /  PzGranPatr 39
100m:    130mm  / 116mm  /  69mm
500m:    72mm   /  76mm  /  59mm
1,000m:  ---     /  ---      /  47mm
1,500m:  ---     /  ---      /  37mm

(Image removed from quote.)

All the penetration data I listed, even for the US 75mm M3, was against 30 degree RHA plate.  The numbers are comparable.

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.

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.

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.   

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


Slightly off topic, it is interesting, though, that the "crummy" design of early German armor lent itself to being upgraded so readily, and therefore remained relevant and useful well past when you would otherwise expect.