How about a Sherman Tank?

[Widewing]

Originally posted by O'Westy:
I personally would rather see the T34/35 first.

 Maybe followed by the British Centurian?

You mean T34/85, right?  

As to the Centurian, only a few (maybe 12) evaluation vehicles made it into the warzone before the German surrender, and none saw combat. Things are better with the M-26, as it saw its first combat in February of 1945 at the Remagen bridge. Post war evaluation placed the M-26 neatly in between the Tiger I (Mk.VIE) and the Tiger II (MK.VIB) along with the Soviet IS-2. This is in terms of armor protection and gunpower, excluding mobility, which was not a strong suit of the Tigers.

Some other gentlemen have been discussing the Sherman and the M-24. In general, the M-24 was to replace the M-5 Stuart. Being slightly more mobile, better protected and armed with a lightweight 75mm gun, the M-24 stood a realistic chance of killing all but the heaviest German tanks. Indeed, it would prove to be a spectacular "breakthrough" vehicle, able to exploit a breach faster than all of its comtemporaries. It was the best light tank to see service during the war, and by a significant margin too.

Other vehicles that might be worth a look (American) are the M10, M18 and M36 Tank Destroyers. Special attention should be paid to the capabilities of the M18 Hellcat, which was probably the deadliest TD to see service during the war. Capable of road speeds exceeding 60mph (virtually all had their mechanical governors disabled by their crews, gaining 5 mph), armed with the powerful M1A1 76mm gun firing HVAP ammo, German tankers say that it was the most feared armored vehicle on the western front.
It was nearly impossible to successfully engage the Hellcat once it was moving. Moreover, it had a gyro-stabilized gun (in the vertical axis) thus making it very accurate while racing along at high speed. Its downside was its very light armor. Virtually any hit, from 50mm AP on up would penetrate. Nonetheless, the M18 maintained a rediculous kill ratio of nearly 20:1.

On the other hand, we have the M36 Jackson (also called "Slugger" by its crews). This was an M10 TD (armed with the 3" converted anti-aircraft gun), fitted with a new turret packing the M2 or M3 90mm gun. M10s and M36 TDs were built on the M4A2 chassis, with a new hull design offering a lower silhouete and better sloping of the armor. This allowed for thinner armor without loss of protection. As a result, the M10/M36 was lighter, and hence, faster and more maneuverable than the Sherman. Unfortuantely, all TDs had open-top turrets, making the crew vunerable to airbursts and infantry thrown grenades. Of course, the original concept of the TD did not include fighting infantry. However, many American combat officers insisted on using TDs as tanks, a role for which they were neither designed nor well equipped. Late war versions of the M36, specifically, the M36B2, had an armored roof added to the turret, with about a 3 inch gap all around to maintain good visibility (one advantage of the TD over the tank was its far better outward visibility). U.S. Army doctrine said that Tanks do not fight tanks. Therefore, the tanks that the U.S. employed during the first years of the war were designed to fight infantry. Tank Destroyers wer supposed to fight tanks. Unfortunately, someone forgot to inform the Germans.  

Later experience in Italy and the ETO reversed Army doctrine and thus was the T26/M26 developed.

By the way, I finally purchased a new computer. My old 233 system was not capable of running the AH software at anything close to an acceptable frame rate. Now, I have all the bells and whistles needed with a 1.7 Gig processor, 256 meg, 400 MHz RAM and a 64 Meg nVidia G force video card. I will soon be found floundering about in the general arena. Please allow me the dignity of surviving for more than 5 minutes.  

My best to all,

Widewing

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Lizard3:


Arlo, you should read Death Traps by Belton Y. Cooper, Presidio Press. He was a Lt. in charge of liason with the 3rd armored division maintenance dept. Cooper compiled combat loss reports at the front, traveled to the rear, acquired replacements and took them back to the front. This book follows the 3rd armored from D-Day through the end of the war and gives a good clear account of mechanized warfare in western Europe. It also gives a good account of the "Tragic Inferiority of the M4 Sherman Tank" in most all tank catagories to the German armor. From gun size, muzzle velocity, armor type (I believe M4 had rolled v.s. Panzer cast), weld of armor, ground bearing pressure of the tracks, suspension type to engine horse power. In all catagories the M4 was inferior to all main battle tanks the Germans had on line. The book also describes how during a demonstration sometime in Jan. 44' at Tidworth Downs of the M26 which was being geared up for production in the states was put on the back burner due to one fellow named Patton. He had a command moment and insisted that all production be geared to the Sherman for various eronious reasons, namely that the Sherman was lighter than the Pershing, despite the fact that the Pershing had a lower ground bearing pressure(wider tracks) and a stronger engine.

Cooper greatly overestimates Patton's influence. I have seen no evidence to indicate that the T26/M26 was delayed whatsoever. If you follow its development path, you will see that it took no longer than the M-24 did from testing to production, to combat.

As to the M26 powerplant: It used the same Ford V8 that powered the lighter M4A3 Shermans. Note that the M26 was rated as being 6 mph slower (road speed) than the M4A3 Shermans as should be expected when that 500 hp engine has to push another 6-7 tons of steel down the road. As it was, the M-26 suffered many more breakdowns in the drive train, indicative of being underpowered and by extention, over-stressed.

Issues with the Sherman where generally addressed during the war. Increased armor protection in the form of weld-on plates over vital areas was a commonplace field fix, and was incorporated during production as well. Patton received the majority of the up-armored M4A3E2 "Jumbo" Shermans with better armor than the Tiger I. Most of these were later refitted with the M1A1 76mm gun mounted on the M4A3E8. Wet ammo storage helped reduce the tendency to "brew up" after being hit. Another issue mentioned was
the inferiority of the 75mm gun. No doubt, it was not terribly effective at killing tanks. Yet, you must remember, it was not designed to kill tanks. Yes, the 76mm seemed not to be much of an improvement. However, there are good reasons for this. Tank units generally did not get the limited supply HVAP ammunition, which was reserved for TD Battalions. Hence, 76mm Shermans were saddled with lower capability AP and APC ammo. Not only that, but the 76mm HE shell had a far thicker casing, and hence, a much smaller bursting charge. So, the 76mm was less effective against soft targets as well. It is important to understand that the Sherman tank suffered more from poor doctrine than from any defect in design. Any argument that categorically states that the Shermans were inferior to every German tank is a red herring. In 1942-43, it was superior to all but the Tiger I in a faceoff. Many, including myself, would argue that the Sherman was clearly a better tank than the Mk.IV throughout the war. When one considers that the Mk.IV made up the bulk of German armor, this becomes even more significant. Secondly, the majority of Shermans knocked out in combat were not killed by German armor, but by anti-tank guns and shaped-charge infantry weapons, such as the Panzerfaust. Indeed, the standard PaK 40 75mm anti-tank gun could penetrate any allied tank at a range or 500 yards (up to 143mm of rolled homogenous armor at a 30º angle). So, even the mighty M26 was at risk.

As to cast or rolled armor: Germany and the U.S. used both. There are advantages to cast armor, such as being able to vary thickness as necessary. Typically, the Panther used rolled armor, welded with lap-joints. So did later models of the Sherman, but cast armor was still used on the final drive cover. The turret and hull of the M26 was cast. Likewise was the hull of the M10 and M36 TDs.
Whereas the later M36 used a cast turret, the M10 employed a welded turret. In practice, it made little difference in combat as long as the quality of the welds was good.

I have not read Cooper's book, but I suppose I will have to. Based upon what you have stated, it appears to me that Cooper has a axe to grind. Moreover, taken out of context with German losses, it is easy to portray American tank losses as incredibly severe. Inasmuch as the American forces were nearly always on the attack, it should be understood that losses will reflect this. Compare German armor losses at Bastogne to American armor losses out of context, and you might draw the conclusion that German tanks were easy to kill.  

My regards,

Widewing

[Oldman731]

Originally posted by Widewing:

"Cooper greatly overestimates Patton's influence."

Agreed.  Actually, I think Cooper's account of the Patton veto is probably an example of recounting rumor as fact.  Cooper doesn't say that he personally witnessed the event, it makes no sense anyway, and, as you say, objectively it doesn't seem to have happened.

"It is important to understand that the Sherman tank suffered more from poor doctrine than from any defect in design."

Also agreed.  Although our tank destroyer doctrine could have been disasterous for us, fortunately it was not.  Ain't no question but that the better guns went to the TDs.

"Many, including myself, would argue that the Sherman was clearly a better tank than the Mk.IV throughout the war."

In fact...does anyone actually dispute this?

"I have not read Cooper's book, but I suppose I will have to."

You should.  It's an excellent book, "must" reading for armor people.  Cooper has gotten a little bad publicity for his account of the Patton veto of the M-26, but otherwise his observations are informed and revealing.  I don't think you can fault him for hating the Sherman.  One-on-one, or even Many-on-one, there's no doubt that the Sherman v. Panther match was bound to be ugly for the Americans, and that's mostly what he saw in 3d Armored.

And, by the way....since we're discussing tanks in AH, where rare hot-rod late-war aircraft are the rule, rather than the exception....and since someone has stayed in character by observing that there actually were a dozen Centurions on the continent at the end of the war....I would like a JS-III for my tank.  Perk it, if you wish.

- oldman

[fdiron]

Heres something you will find VERY interesting.  When the soviets captured a Tiger II, they did testing on it.  The metal quality was so extremely poor, that a T34/76mm could penetrate its frontal armor from within 500meters.  Also, the Tiger II broke down at least 4 times enroute to the testing grounds.  The reason for the poor armor was due to the lack of a certain element (the name escapes me now) in the composition of the armor.

[Lizard3]

Originally posted by Arlo:
Actually, the early model of the M4s were cast .... but still, I defer to the book (even without having read it yet).
 

Hehe, thats why I said "believe". I wasn't sure which was who's, just that he thought the Germans was better. Sorry for the confusion  

[GRUNHERZ]

Thats simply not true about the Tiger II "test", German armor steel remained top quality and vastly superior to Soviet material up until last Panzer production in March 1945.

The only fault late in the war was slight tendency on SOME tanks for thinner armor to crack when hit.

That "test" is just some more Soviet propaganda lies. They lied a lot in "tests" of captured enemy equipment, nobody wanted to give Stalin and his bunch bad news.

[Lizard3]

You think? I thought Patton was a bit of a spoiled brat who got his way most of the time. Also being a "stickler for regulations", I can also see him putting his foot down for the Sherman as our tanks were not supposed to engage enemy tanks per regulations.

When the comparision at Tidworth Downs occured, the M4 sherman didn't use the Ford engine, it used a R975 Wright nine-cylinder air-cooled radial engine. Running this engine at idle speeds insured fouled plugs as it was an aircraft engine designed for a constant higher speed. Also, even with the higher horsepower Ford engine being in both tanks, the ground bearing pressure of the M26 was half that of the M4's. This being critical to offroad fighting Cooper felt it was a critical flaw.

Cooper wrote that he got the story of the demontration and Pattons rejection of the M26 from some of the 3rd armoured maintanence people detailed to help out with the demonstrations. He also sites specific points in the argument between Patton, Rose and others enough that it sounds like at least 2nd hand if not 3rd hand knowledge. I may be a dolt, but given Pattons history I would give it credence.

 

Originally posted by Widewing:


Cooper greatly overestimates Patton's influence. I have seen no evidence to indicate that the T26/M26 was delayed whatsoever. If you follow its development path, you will see that it took no longer than the M-24 did from testing to production, to combat.

As to the M26 powerplant: It used the same Ford V8 that powered the lighter M4A3 Shermans. Note that the M26 was rated as being 6 mph slower (road speed) than the M4A3 Shermans as should be expected when that 500 hp engine has to push another 6-7 tons of steel down the road. As it was, the M-26 suffered many more breakdowns in the drive train, indicative of being underpowered and by extention, over-stressed.

Issues with the Sherman where generally addressed during the war. Increased armor protection in the form of weld-on plates over vital areas was a commonplace field fix, and was incorporated during production as well. Patton received the majority of the up-armored M4A3E2 "Jumbo" Shermans with better armor than the Tiger I. Most of these were later refitted with the M1A1 76mm gun mounted on the M4A3E8. Wet ammo storage helped reduce the tendency to "brew up" after being hit. Another issue mentioned was
the inferiority of the 75mm gun. No doubt, it was not terribly effective at killing tanks. Yet, you must remember, it was not designed to kill tanks. Yes, the 76mm seemed not to be much of an improvement. However, there are good reasons for this. Tank units generally did not get the limited supply HVAP ammunition, which was reserved for TD Battalions. Hence, 76mm Shermans were saddled with lower capability AP and APC ammo. Not only that, but the 76mm HE shell had a far thicker casing, and hence, a much smaller bursting charge. So, the 76mm was less effective against soft targets as well. It is important to understand that the Sherman tank suffered more from poor doctrine than from any defect in design. Any argument that categorically states that the Shermans were inferior to every German tank is a red herring. In 1942-43, it was superior to all but the Tiger I in a faceoff. Many, including myself, would argue that the Sherman was clearly a better tank than the Mk.IV throughout the war. When one considers that the Mk.IV made up the bulk of German armor, this becomes even more significant. Secondly, the majority of Shermans knocked out in combat were not killed by German armor, but by anti-tank guns and shaped-charge infantry weapons, such as the Panzerfaust. Indeed, the standard PaK 40 75mm anti-tank gun could penetrate any allied tank at a range or 500 yards (up to 143mm of rolled homogenous armor at a 30º angle). So, even the mighty M26 was at risk.

As to cast or rolled armor: Germany and the U.S. used both. There are advantages to cast armor, such as being able to vary thickness as necessary. Typically, the Panther used rolled armor, welded with lap-joints. So did later models of the Sherman, but cast armor was still used on the final drive cover. The turret and hull of the M26 was cast. Likewise was the hull of the M10 and M36 TDs.
Whereas the later M36 used a cast turret, the M10 employed a welded turret. In practice, it made little difference in combat as long as the quality of the welds was good.

I have not read Cooper's book, but I suppose I will have to. Based upon what you have stated, it appears to me that Cooper has a axe to grind. Moreover, taken out of context with German losses, it is easy to portray American tank losses as incredibly severe. Inasmuch as the American forces were nearly always on the attack, it should be understood that losses will reflect this. Compare German armor losses at Bastogne to American armor losses out of context, and you might draw the conclusion that German tanks were easy to kill.  

My regards,

Widewing

[GRUNHERZ]

Sherman was never as good a PanzerIV after the PzIV Ausf. F2, the difference in anti-tank firepower was simply too great in the Panzers favor that it overcame any advantage the Sherman migh have had. Plus PzIV had a vastly superior shilouette, which is something people often overlook. Reliability was Sherman's advantage although Panzer IV was very reliable as well much more so than Tiger and Panther. PzIV could kill the Sherman outside the range where Sherman could kill Pz IV. Sherman had thicker side armor though, however when fitted with schurzen, as were nearly all Ausf. G-J PzIV, the Panzer nearly has the same thickness.

Sherman was a very numerous and very reliable tank, it was just not a very good one.

[Lizard3]

Originally posted by Oldman:
Originally posted by Widewing:

"Many, including myself, would argue that the Sherman was clearly a better tank than the Mk.IV throughout the war."

In fact...does anyone actually dispute this?

- oldman

I would   The Sherman may have had better maintanence and constant air superiority, but tank for tank I don't think the Sherman was any better if as good as the MkIV. I'm not a tank expert and I wasn't there but I would tend to agree with the man who was there from D-day to the end and who's business was knocked out tanks. Not to mention his engineering degree.

Gun, Armor and mobility, about the only thing that I can see that the M4 had over the MkIV was its power turret traverse. The MkIV had a manual traverse which was much slower to bring to bear than the Shermans.

 

[Widewing]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ:
Sherman was never as good a PanzerIV after the PzIV Ausf. F2, the difference in anti-tank firepower was simply too great in the Panzers favor that it overcame any advantage the Sherman migh have had. Plus PzIV had a vastly superior shilouette, which is something people often overlook. Reliability was Sherman's advantage although Panzer IV was very reliable as well much more so than Tiger and Panther. PzIV could kill the Sherman outside the range where Sherman could kill Pz IV. Sherman had thicker side armor though, however when fitted with schurzen, as were nearly all Ausf. G-J PzIV, the Panzer nearly has the same thickness.

Sherman was a very numerous and very reliable tank, it was just not a very good one.

I'll agree that there was a gap in terms of gun power, although that was rectified with the introduction of the M1A1 76mm gun in later Shermans. However, that was the only advantage. With the addition of the spaced "Schürzen" armor, it would seem that the Mk.IV had closed the armor gap, but it didn't. The "Schürzen" served only to protect against shaped charge weapons, such as the 2.75 in. Bazooka rocket. The intent was to detonate the warhead away from the main armor. This worked until a delayed fuse was developed for the rocket. Yet, in terms of adding protection against APC and HVAP, it was virtually useless. Being just 5mm thick (3/16"), and not being hardened armor, but rather mild steel plate, it provided little assistance in keeping out the standard anti-tank ammunition then in use. You can find photos where the "Schürzen" was penetrated by rifle caliber bullets.

As to silhouette, this is another case of perception rather than reality. A typical Sherman stood 9 ft tall, with a Mk.IVH measuring 8'7". What adds to this perception is the fact that the Mk.IV is nearly a foot wider. If you believe that the Sherman has a high profile, what does the fact that the Mk.V Panther was more than a foot taller than a M4A4 do to redress this thinking?

One last point. Seeing as most tank to tank engagements took place at ranges less than 1,000 yards, the Mk.IV was at risk of suffering a first shot KO by any Sherman. Typically, at 1,000 yards, the 75mm M61 APC round could penetrate about 3" of rolled homogenous armor, inclined at 30º. While it could not penetrate the frontal armor of a Panther, it could certainly punch through a Mk.IV. In most instances on the western front, individual tank battles were often decided by who got on the trigger first.

Understand that I'm not trying to justify the poor choice of gun fitted to the Shermans. Like nearly everyone else, I feel that the doctrine in place at the time was seriously flawed. Nonetheless, the Sherman was a robust, reliable and remarkably adaptable design. On the other hand, the chassis of the Mk.IV proved to be highly adaptable as well, albeit underpowered and utterly terrible on soft ground with its narrow tracks (Germany never figured out how to design a track that was as durable or effective in mud as those on American vehicles). Having entered service in 1936, the Mk.IV was an elderly design by 1944, and could not be upgraded adequately to deal with the larger, more powerful tanks being encountered on both the west and east fronts.
Indeed, it was not possible to add additional armor as the chassis was overloaded as it was.

Of course, we know that the basic Sherman chassis continued in service, being upgraded in both armor and weaponry until we see the Israeli Super Sherman with its powerful 105mm gun that was capable of killing any tank in existance in the late 1970s. Some Mk.IVs found their way into Syria via France, and fought against the Super Shermans and Centurians on the Golan. However, their slow speed and weak armor led to their being dispatched with ease.

Looking back to Korea, we find M4A3E8 Shermans taking on T34/85 and T44 tanks with considerable success. Here at least, the Shermans had the better quality ammunition.

Whereas the Mk.IV had reached the limits of its development by 1944, the Sherman had not and would go on to prove itself for another 30 years. Without question, by 1944, the Mk.IV was well on its way to being a well armed, yet obsolesent relic.

My regards,

Widewing

[GRUNHERZ]

Every figure I have seen on the Sherman 75mm APC gives a very poor 66mm-70mm penetration at 500meters. The frontal armor of PanzerIVs was at least 50mm on the Ausf F, and 80mm on the Ausf. G, H, and J. The H and G had a base of 50mm but they almost always carried a 30mm applique armor from the factory.

Shilouette is not just about heigth its about proportion and shape. Just draw yourself two tanks OF EQUAL HEIGHT on a piece of paper one very upright and "stacked" like a  Sherman and one more flat and sread out like PanzerIV, which one looks taller and stands out more? Thats what shilouette means, thats why US tankers said even Panthers were better in this way compared to Shermans even though Panthers are at least as tall  or taller than Shermans.

I never read of PanzerIV having having floatation problems, It was always a very light tank never even coming close to 30tons. I dont have my references here to be exact but IIRC the track width and contact patch were nearly the same as on Sherman.
I think we can all agree that all Shermans had severe floatation issues untill the adoption of duckbills and then HVSS suspension. Just from a logical standpoint It would make sense that PanzerIV had better floatioan than the much heavier Sherman given simmilar track width and contact patches.  

But to your general comment that Germany couldnt design a track that was effective in mud and slush as American designs. I must take offense to this. Tiger I, Tiger II, and Panther all substantially heavier vehicles had FAR SUPERIOR floatation to any VVSS Sherman. This was one advantage all allied tank crews hated about the German tanks. You see they were told that Shermans were more mobile and manuverable than heavy german tanks, but this was not the case. I have read various reports of Shermans being unable to traverse ground just recently passed by even by 67 ton TigerIIs. The Shermans just sunk in and drowned. In fact this was one of Shermans greatesed weaknesses compared to german tanks and this was the main reason  for the complicated adoption of HVSS so late in Sherman production.


Shermans great advantage was good reliabilty, the fact there were 50,000 of them, their brave crews good fighting spirit, US artilery superiority, and the USAAF.

[Lizard3]

OK, here's what Cooper says: "The original Mark IV had a short barreled gun similar to the 75mm M2 on our M4's; its muzzle velocity was fifteen hundred feet per second. THese had been replaced on the PzKw IV by a 75mm KwK41 gun with a much higher mussle velocity (three thousand feet per second), The Mark IV was a smaller lower-profile tank that weighed only twenty-two tons compared to our M4's thirty-seven and a half tons. It had four inches of armour on the verticle part of its glacis plate and a wider track than the M4,which enabled it to negotiate soft ground more easily than the M4 could.
   In the meantime, we began to recieve the M4A1 medium tank with a long-barreled 76mm gun with a mussle velocity of 2,650 feet per second. Considering that the penetrating capacity of the projectile varies as the square of the muzzle velocity, even the Mark IV out gunned both the M4 and the M4A1."

   He goes on to compare the M4's with the Mark V's, but we all know how that one went.

[fdiron]

I just cant believe that an entire evaluation report would be falsified to appease Stalin, grunhertz.  Why would Stalin need to be fed lies?  The IS3 was either about to be produced or being produced at the time of this test.  I personally think the Tiger II was a poor machine.

[GRUNHERZ]

Tiger II was very good, the new long 88mm gun was the most poweful weapon (Jagdtigers 128mm nothwithstanding) to see service in WW2. It was more or less invulnerable to frontal attack. Side armor was thicker than all but heavy tanks frontal armor. It was slow andthe final drives were overtaxed. The 88 could have been competitive into the late 1950s. The JS3 had the same underpowered gun as as the JS2, this 122mm weapon had only the AP performance of a good 75mm cannon. The JS3 was a terrible design in actuality, armor and shaping were fantasic but that made it nearly useless in combat. It was too cramped had no commandsers visiblity (only a singles scope). Its complex nose welds cracked during roadmaraches (god knows what would happend if hit by enemy fire). A T34 76mm gun has performance slightly better than a Shermans 75mm. A sherman can do some 66-70mm at 500meters.

[ 12-29-2001: Message edited by: GRUNHERZ ]

[Widewing]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ:
Every figure I have seen on the Sherman 75mm APC gives a very poor 66mm-70mm penetration at 500meters. The frontal armor of PanzerIVs was at least 50mm on the Ausf F, and 80mm on the Ausf. G, H, and J. The H and G had a base of 50mm but they almost always carried a 30mm applique armor from the factory.

I suspect that you need to look at better data, such as that available from the Aberdeen Proving Grounds.

For the M3 75mm gun, the following types listed with penetration at 500 and 1,000 yards, against rolled, homogenous armor plate inclined at 30º from vertical.

M61 APC: 84mm @ 500 yds, Up to 72mm @ 1,000 yrds. MV= 2020-2030 fps.

M-61 APCBC: 100mm @ 500 yrds, 93mm @ 1,000 yrds. MV= 2,325 fps.

Standard AP: 76mm @ 500 yrds, 63mm @ 1,000 yrds. MV= 2,300 fps.

For the old M2 gun found on the M3 medium:

Standard AP: 60mm @ 500 yrds, 53mm @ 1,000 yrds. MV= 1,860 fps.

For comparison's sake, here the same data for the M1A1 gun fitted to later Shermans and the M18:

HVAP: 158mm @ 500 yrds, 134mm @ 1,000 yrds. MV= 3,110 fps.

Armor on the Mk.IV Auf J was as follows.
80mm on the hull and superstructure front
at 15º and 0º respectively.
30mm on the sides and rear at 0º.
50mm on the turret front at 0º, and 30mm on the sides and back at 15º.

Not much when you consider that the armor on the Sherman was progressively upgraded until the M4A3E8 HVSS (and VVS) and M4A3E2 where it easily exceeded that of the Tiger 1 and Panther (more than 50% thicker than the 100mm turret front armor on the Panther).

Check this out:
ARMOR PROTECTION M4A3E2 (254 made) and M4A3E8 (exact number uncertain) HVSS, with T23A1 turret.

Hull front: 114-140mm @ 34-90°
Hull side: 38mm @ 90°
Hull rear: 38mm@68-80°
Superstructure Front: 102mm @ 43°
Side: 76mm @ 90°
Turret front: 152mm @ 78°
Side: 152mm @ 84°
Rear: 152mm @ 88°
Mantlet: 178mm @ 90°

Here's the same data for the Panther:

Hull front: 60mm @ 35°
Hull side: 40mm @ 90°
Hull rear: 40mm @ 60°
Superstructure front: 80mm @35°
Side: 50mm @ 60°  
Rear: 40mm @ 0°
Turret front: 110mm @ 79°
Side: 45mm @ 65°
Rear: 45mm @ 65°
Mantlet 100mm @ rounded

Here's the same for the Tiger II:

Hull front: 100mm @ 40°
Hull side: 80mm @ 90°
Hull rear 80mm @ 60°
Superstructure front:  150mm @ 40°
Side: 80mm @ 65°
Rear: 40mm @ 0°
Turret front: 180mm @ 81°
Side: 80mm @ 69°
Rear: 80mm @ 69°
Mantlet: 100mm @ Saukopf

Now go back and have a gander at the M4A3E8 again. This Sherman has better protection in several areas. Who'd have guessed....

So, how does the M4A3E8 stack up to the Panther? Pretty good, I'd say.

Let's compare their guns @ 2,000 yards:
Penetration @ 2,000 yards, 30° inclined armor.

M1A1 firing HVAP: 99mm
KwK 42 L/70 firing HVAP: 106mm

Damn near dead even. Except for one detail. The M4A3E8 Sherman can kill the Panther if it hits it anywhere besides the turret front and mantlet. On the other hand, the Panther must avoid the Sherman's turret and penetrate
the hull at the side or rear, probably not being able to get through the frontal armor at all. Making matters worse, refit depots were welding on 1 inch (25mm) thick plates to the sides of many later Shermans, just as they did for the early models. To kill one of these late war Shermans, you'd need an L/71 88mm to get through the frontal armor at 1,000 yards! These M4A3E8 (called the "Easy Eight") and M4A3E2 (Jumbo) Shermans were better protected than the M26.

For reference, the Soviet 122mm on the IS-2 could penetrate the Tiger II anywhere at 1,500 yards firing HEAT, and at 1,000 yards firing APCBC. Likewise, the American M3 90mm could penetrate the Tiger II anywhere out to 1,500 yards firing HVAP (3,350 fps).


 

Shilouette is not just about heigth its about proportion and shape. Just draw yourself two tanks OF EQUAL HEIGHT on a piece of paper one very upright and "stacked" like a  Sherman and one more flat and sread out like PanzerIV, which one looks taller and stands out more? Thats what shilouette means, thats why US tankers said even Panthers were better in this way compared to Shermans even though Panthers are at least as tall  or taller than Shermans.

So you agree that it really boils down to perception, right? U.S. tankers, like those anywhere else always felt too exposed.

I will be including a cobbled up image comparing various tanks, with views from the side and from the front. Draw your own conclusions.

   

 

I never read of PanzerIV having having floatation problems, It was always a very light tank never even coming close to 30tons. I dont have my references here to be exact but IIRC the track width and contact patch were nearly the same as on Sherman.
I think we can all agree that all Shermans had severe floatation issues untill the adoption of duckbills and then HVSS suspension. Just from a logical standpoint It would make sense that PanzerIV had better floatioan than the much heavier Sherman given simmilar track width and contact patches.

 

Typically, early VVS Shermans had a ground pressure of 13.7 psi. However, virtually all Shermans in France had the duckbill conversion and the HVSS models were arriving in large numbers within a few months. Ground pressure for the HVSS Shermans was just 11.0 psi. The Mk.IVH comes in at 12.9 psi. My point was that Germany never developed a track design that had anything more than a fraction of the life of those on American tanks. Moreover, as the Brits determined in actual testing, the German tracks obtained very poor traction in mud, in comparision to the Sherman, and that relates to more than simple floatation.

   

But to your general comment that Germany couldnt design a track that was effective in mud and slush as American designs. I must take offense to this. Tiger I, Tiger II, and Panther all substantially heavier vehicles had FAR SUPERIOR floatation to any VVSS Sherman.

Nonsense. Ground pressures for the Mk.VIE and Mk.VIB are 13.9 psi and 13.7 psi, respectively. Whadda ya know, equal to or greater than the VVS Shermans. The Panther was somewhat better at 12.7 psi.

This was one advantage all allied tank crews hated about the German tanks. You see they were told that Shermans were more mobile and manuverable than heavy german tanks, but this was not the case. I have read various reports of Shermans being unable to traverse ground just recently passed by even by 67 ton TigerIIs. The Shermans just sunk in and drowned. In fact this was one of Shermans greatesed weaknesses compared to german tanks and this was the main reason  for the complicated adoption of HVSS so late in Sherman production.

Ever do any off-roading? Its common for the second vehicle to bog down in the tracks of another which proceeded it. In light of the fact that the Tiger II had the same ground pressure as an old VVS Sherman, I have to assume that this was the same situation.

Shermans great advantage was good reliabilty, the fact there were 50,000 of them, their brave crews good fighting spirit, US artilery superiority, and the USAAF.

When the Sherman first came into service it was adequate for the time. However, as German tanks increased in armor and gun power, the Sherman was always on the back side of the "catch-up" curve. Finally, in late 1944, early 1945, it caught up. Unfortunately, an awful lot of Allied tankers paid the price of the U.S. Army's crash course in modern combat tanks and doctrine. Combat is not the best place to receive an education.

My regards,

Widewing

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