cannon Posted August 25, 1999 Share Posted August 25, 1999 Can anyone give the army designation for a Sherman Jumbo. I can't find Jumbo in my reference books and I wanted to refresh my memory on this tank. All this talk of a US tank with heavy armor has really got me incredulous... especially after having read Death Traps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted August 25, 1999 Share Posted August 25, 1999 I believe the designation on the Jumbo was M4a3e2. Please somebody correct me if I am wrong. Is it also correct that there weren't that many of them, and even fewer with the 76mm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dano6 Posted August 25, 1999 Share Posted August 25, 1999 The sherman jumbo M4A3E2 was produced only once and delivered to the ETO in July 1944. Only 254 were made and all arrived by late August or early September 1944. The jumbo was an up armored version of the M4A3 as an assualt tank. The tank was rearmed unnoficially with the 76mm l53 gun starting as soon as their arrival in the ETO, because the turret was the same internal shape as the T23 turret. Additional armor included 2 inches over the front glacias giving at total of 4.5 inches. The turret front and close side were upped to a maximum thickness of 7 inches and the gun mantlet was 8 inches thick.(Some of these values could be off by a fraction as I am going from memory). If you want a description from steve or charles look in the resources section under penetration values comparing the tiger 2 to the jumbo. Overall the jumbo was a very tough tank to kill for almost every german tank that wasn't armed with the super-high velocity guns: 75mml70 or 88mml71. All other guns had almost no chance to penetrate the front at longer ranges. 500m+ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted August 25, 1999 Share Posted August 25, 1999 The Jumbo was an uparmoured version of the Sherman. It had added armour but everything else was pretty much the same. They were delivered armed with 75mm guns but were often uparmed with 76mm guns in-theatre. Two things occur when talking about Jumbos: 1. People forget they were heavily armoured and assume they are crap and 2. People assume they are proof vs anything other than a King Tiger. End result is a misappreciation of the Jumbo. The Jumbo 75 might survive several hits BUT its ability to kill German tanks was limited (if firing at frontal armour). The Jumbo 76 is a good tank.. it has enough armour to survive a couple of hits and can strike back effectively. I'd rate it as roughly the equivalent of a Panther. Fortunately there were VERY, VERY few of them available to the US armies. FWIW the Jumbos main fault is that it suffers from poor side armour and that it still, generally mounted a 75mm gun. Overall an American player getting a Jumbo in battle will be very pleased. I've played Martin in a game in which his Jumbo wreaked havoc on me but, on the other hand, I've also knocked out multiple Jumbos with a bit of luck and good planning. Conclusion: It's just another tank. it has more armour than other US tanks and sometimes the 76mm gun BUT its still eminently killable. Its EXTREMELY high silhouette is a huge handicap. It's as tall as a house and difficult to miss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted August 25, 1999 Share Posted August 25, 1999 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Jumbo 76 is a good tank.. Fortunately there were VERY, VERY few of them available to the US armies.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Fortunately? Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted August 25, 1999 Share Posted August 25, 1999 Hey, I'm in German tanker mindset here .. I get damned scared every time I run into a Jumbo 76 so I'm VERY happy they're so rare.. If Martin had a couple of Jumbos in this game I'd still be hiding my Panther in the treeline .. Like I say, I rate it as the equivalent of a Panther and a survivable Panther in a good position can stall an enemy attack all by itself (as I know very well from playing Martin before LOL ). You remember the test scenario in which I lost 4 or 5 Panthers to a Sherman Jumbo 76 as they crested a hill don't you ? Grrr... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted August 25, 1999 Share Posted August 25, 1999 Yep, I still remember the good times back in the old days... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted August 25, 1999 Share Posted August 25, 1999 LOL... Neither of us could co-ordinate an attack worth a damn back then since we were so used to other games remember? And I still kept talking about advancing to the next "hex" hehe ... It seems so long ago now.. but it really wasn't. Amazing how your mind can shift gears quickly.. although I still sometimes make stupid mistakes cause I'm so used to how things are modelled in other wargames which "let me away" with unrealistic tactics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Smith Posted August 25, 1999 Share Posted August 25, 1999 I was just wondering: earlier, someone said the Jumbo was an M4A3E2. In my memory (GI, Anvil of Victory? Some other wargame that I've forgotten?) I remember the jumbo as being the M4A3E8 Jumbo. Am I mistaken? What is the E8? Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted August 25, 1999 Share Posted August 25, 1999 Yep, you really have to "unlearn" first and start more or less from scratch. Intuitive players will be more successful with this than old grog's that became too used to exploit the weaknesses of a particular game engine. CM is not a comuterized simulation of a boardgame that deals with war, it's a simulation of war - and shows how much has been done wrong by most of the games so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dano6 Posted August 25, 1999 Share Posted August 25, 1999 1. The jumbo, if I am not mistaken, actually had more side armor than almost any german tank in WW2. It also more side turret armor than almost any tank out there. 2. The EXTREMELY HIGH sillouette is only 10 inches taller than the low slung panther or 5 inches taller than the tiger2. While the sherman was not as wide as the others it wasn't that much taller either. This gives the impression of a tall vehicle. But as for hull down, 10 inches isn't that much on a rolling landscape. While the sherman is tall, it isn't that much taller to get the EXTREMELY word, maybe "really" instead. 3. As for survivability, the jumbo is as good as a panther from the front, a king tiger in the front turret, and a tiger on the sides. As the panther was an easy kill in the side for anything. As for an equivalent for the 76mm jumbo: I would say a panther-tiger2 mix, with the armament of a 75mml48 and the mobility of a sherman. The 76mm jumbo indestructable-no, but a match for almost any german tank-yes . dano6 [This message has been edited by dano6 (edited 08-25-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dano6 Posted August 25, 1999 Share Posted August 25, 1999 damn I hope no one saw that, what a complete idiot I am if you guys did, if not no harm no foul. dano6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted August 25, 1999 Share Posted August 25, 1999 Steve - the Jumbo is indeed the M4A3E2. The M4A3E8 is the "Easy Eight", whose real designation was the "M4A3(76)W HVSS". The Jumbo side armor: tremendously thick on the turret side (6 inches) and very good though not invincible on the hull side (3 inches, but with zero slope). The Jumbo silhouette is large-ish but not "EXTREMELY" high. As dano6 says, it's not that long so it gives an impression of being taller than it is. Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted August 25, 1999 Share Posted August 25, 1999 Maybe but look at the slab-sided hull there. My point is that a good German gun can STILL penetrate the Jumbo's side from a fair distance off... People talk too much in generalities when they think of tanks.. There's no such thing as an invulnerable or very strong tank. There's a tank with strong frontal armour or side or rear but you have to specify aspect. Anyways protection = armour x slope.. Sherman's suffer from poor sloping on the sides and the front isn't all that hot either... Thus its armour isn't as hot as a quick look at the figures might suggest. In a 9 foot tall tank (which has 5 feet of its hull hidden by terrain) only 4 feet will be visible and hittable by the enemy. An extra ten inches to the size of that tank is IN EFFECT a 25% increase in hittable target. That sort of thing must be borne in mind when comparing tanks. Thus my statement that it's sillhouette is extremely large.. Compare it to Hetzers and StuGs and I bet you the Sherman is about twice as likely to be hit as a Hetzer purely because of its size. 76mm Jumbo = a Panther/Tiger II mix? No way.. the 76mm gun was close to the Panther's 75mm L70 but there is no way its even anywhere near an 88 L 71.. Likewise the Jumbos armour is nowehere near the Tiger II. I'll give you that a Sherman Jumbo is roughly equivalent to a Panther but no more than that. On consideration I take back the extremely but I still say that those 10 inches make a big difference when hull-down. Combine that with very poor ballistic shaping and you end up with a tank that's more vulnerable than its armour thickness would make you think. Also when comparing Sherman to German tanks you've got to take into account that German guns were, on the whole, more powerful than US guns so a Panther with 80mm of side armour might be as survivable as a Jumbo with 120mm since they faced different guns. Anyways, all in all, if I face a Jumbo 76 I become VERY careful since I need to respect them. When I face a Sherman 76 I just try to ensure I can hit it from long range since then I can kill it while it will have trouble killing me and lastly, when facing a Sherman 75 I laugh and blow it away . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted August 25, 1999 Share Posted August 25, 1999 First off, this "10 inches" thing is wrong. A Jumbo is 116.3 inches tall, measuring to the top of the cupola (source: Hunnicutt's "Sherman"). A Panther is 117.3 inches tall (also measured to the top of the cupola, I believe, source: Doyle, Chamberlain, Jentz, "Encyclopedia of German tanks of World War Two"). So the Jumbo is one inch shorter than a Panther. Perhaps you guys are measuring the Jumbo's height to an AA machinegun mount? Fionn said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My point is that a good German gun can STILL penetrate the Jumbo's side from a fair distance off...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> True, but this is also true of any tank ever made, including the King Tiger. 80mm of side armor is about as thick as it ever gets, and the Jumbo has 76mm. Certainly not invincible, but no one's side armor is invincible, and the Jumbo's ranks up there with the heaviest. And side armor is rarely heavily sloped, with 30 degrees being a rough maximum. So the Jumbo's flat sides are a disadvantage but not a huge one. No one is saying that the Jumbo has the best side armor available, just that it's near the top. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>76mm Jumbo = a Panther/Tiger II mix? No way..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> dano6 qualified that by saying "with the armament of a 75mm L48" so I think he's referring to armor only, which I agree with. The Jumbo eaasily beats the Panther for armor, and is very close to the Tiger II. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Likewise the Jumbos armour is nowehere near the Tiger II.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually it is. Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darstand Posted August 25, 1999 Share Posted August 25, 1999 Its discussions like this one that make casual war gamers like me, want to run for the hills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dano6 Posted August 25, 1999 Share Posted August 25, 1999 In my comparison, I said it would compare to a panther/tiger2 mix armed with a 75mml48 gun. As for a panther, any US gun could kill it with a side shot at long ranges. Its armor only is only 55mm adjusted to the small sloped angle. This armor is nothing compared to the thick armor on the side of the jumbo. And for comparing turret side armor the panther it doesn't even come close to the 6 inches that the jumbo had. No german gun other than the 75mml70 or 88mml71 could even penetrate this armor. So as for the comparison to the panther, the frontal armor is about the same, except for the turret, which is more like the tiger2. The sides of the hull more or less resemble a tiger1, and the turret is armored more than a tiger2. The 76mm gun is about the same as the 75mml48 german weapon, very close penetration values. Except by the end of the war the APCR-T ammo was getting common making the gun comparable to the 75mml70 with normal ammo. I think this makes the tank more than just a panther. Of course misuse of the jumbo can get it killed, but again it is more than match for most german tanks, a panther is its equal in a head to head brawl, but from the side it is still harder to kill, even for most german weapons, than a panther. Sorry Charles for the error, my quick Janes reference is wrong(at work you know). You are right on the height thing. And thanks for the backup, everyone loves german tanks. dano6 [This message has been edited by dano6 (edited 08-25-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted August 25, 1999 Share Posted August 25, 1999 I have to disagree strongly... I HATE German tanks... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted August 26, 1999 Share Posted August 26, 1999 Dano6... Oh, don't get me wrong.. I'm not one of these people who thinks that the German tanks were the be all and end all of tank design. I've always admired Soviet designs a lot for example and certainly don't think that a battle pitting 4 Shermans vs 4 Panthers is a foregone conclusion. I didn't check my data re: the Jumbo etc before answering so I apologise for that since I let the 10 inches thing slip and went off on that tangent. I still stand by my statement that given the relative strengths of the various nation's tanks the Jumbo 76 was the equivalent of a Panther.. I'll GLADLY take 4 King Tigers vs 8 Jumbo 76s and I think most people could toast the 76s with the King Tigers. 4 Panthers vs 4 Jumbo 76s is another matter entirely (hence my comparison). The Jumbo 75 was well-defended but defence in the absence of potent offence isn't all that good.. Still, like I said, the jumbo 76 is a very good tank and the equivalent of a Panther IMO.. And the Sherman 76s (without added armour) are very effective if handled properly.. If you take care to create good fields of fire etc they are more than capable of stopping a German attack. Anyways, I just wanted to make sure you realised I wasn't one of these people who was blinded to shortcomings of german tanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dano6 Posted August 26, 1999 Share Posted August 26, 1999 Well this is good to hear, now back to the war and informing us of how it is going, hehehe. When is the next turn going to be up? Man am I itching with anticipation. dano6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cannon Posted August 27, 1999 Author Share Posted August 27, 1999 Hey guys thanks for the information. It was very informative. I wasn't aware that we had actually gotten any tanks into the war that were as capable as the Jumbo. It's just too bad we didn't produce a hell of a lot more of them. Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tss Posted August 27, 1999 Share Posted August 27, 1999 If I had to choose between 4 King Tigers and 8 Jumbos my choice would heavily depend on the situation. If someone was arranging a single set-piece battle between the Tigers and Jumbos I'd go for felines any day. However, if I were a commander of a front line unit I'd choose Jumbos. The reason: reliability. A tank that is broken is as good as no tank at all when the enemy attacks. I don't have any hard data at hand right now, but I'd guess that the commander of the Shermans would have 7-8 tanks available at any time while his German counterpart could consider himself lucky if two of his tanks were running at the same time. A King Tiger with experienced crew could be terribly effective in combat, but the problem was to get it to the battlefield. Even then, it was not invulnerable. When the first King Tiger batallion (sPs.Abt 501) was sent to battle in July '44 the results were quite disasterous for Germans. The batallion lost 17 tanks (I'm not certain if all were Tigers, however) in a couple of days without destroying a single T-34. In the first encounter a T-34/85 single-handedly destroyed three King Tigers from an ambush and in the second encounter a Soviet company surprised a German tank unit when the tank crews were out of their vehicles, destroying or capturing 14 tanks. I have seen a detailed account of the first ambush on the net somewhere, but I couldn't find it again when I just tried to search for it. -Tommi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted August 27, 1999 Share Posted August 27, 1999 Tss: Good post.. That just shows that its the man and not the machine that matters. While the Sherman 75 was, to put it technically, crap vs heavily-armoured tanks they did sometimes kill Tigers since they might manouvre around them and get flank shots. Its like anything. No matter how heavily armoured and armed your tanks are if they are deployed stupidly they WILL die. FWIW a lot of the reasons Tigers couldn't be repaired were as follows: 1. The Germans fought defensive battles and often had to retreat. In a retreat an immobilised Tiger II is a lost Tiger II. For the Americans an immobilised Sherman was a combat-capable, crewed Sherman the next day. 2. Hitler refused to build sufficient spare parts. The wehrmacht wanted a 20% reduction in total production of tanks to allow for sufficient spare parts to be available. hitler said no so that's another reason why they didn't often repair tanks but instead cannibalised them to repair others. My example only works if both sides have sufficient fuel, parts and equally good commanders in a meeting engagement. Of course, the chances of that happening in war are miniscule so its really only a theoretical statement. Good counterpost though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts