WriterJWA Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 Can someone provide me some good source material on German and American tanks of the time period? A friend and I (both CMx2 players) are in a quandary about an in-game match-up between baseline M4 Sherman's and PzKpfwIV's. In a loose test we ran, a company of Sherman tanks narrowly bested a company of IV's at around 750m. Overall, we just let the tanks shoot at each other, and let the AI do it's thing. Naturally this isn't the best way to determine which tank is better in-game... BUT, we did expect the Mark IV's to edge out the Sherman. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Belenko Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 Some people set up test ranges. A map with 5 or so firing lanes with hedgerows or other barrier between the firing lanes. This forces the two tanks at opposite ends to fire on each other. An excellent way to run tests. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noob Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 I ran a test comparing the PzIV and the Sherman H2H at 2000m, here is a link to the results: https://sites.google.com/site/cmx2tankvtanktests/ In my opinion the Sherman is the better tank at short and medium ranges, and as that range is more common due to the average CMx2 map sizes, the PzIV is at a serious disadvantage in most games. This disadvantage is mainly down to the Sherman's armour, which is tougher than the PzIV's, so if a Sherman hits at short/med range it will more than likely destroy the PzIV, however a Sherman can take a first hit and survive, the only time the PzIV starts to outclass the Sherman is at long range, as my test shows. So in conclusion, i would always avoid one on one confrontations with Sherman's at short/med range, and look to double up on them or flank them, also the Sherman has a gyrostabiliser, which makes it more accurate firing on the move. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 The Sherman also has a fast turret which gives it a slight but sometimes critical edge in switching targets. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 There has to be a distinction made between RL and what happens in game so what you read from war histories is not necessarily going to happen in CMx2. The gyrostabiliser that every book will quote was actually cumbersome and required a lot of calibration and maintenance. Most or a lot of crews never used it in combat due to this and the fact that tanks would virtually never fire whilst on the move. Just as an example of whether to believe everything you read: https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/1811/36137/OS_ENG_v28_i04_010.pdf?sequence=4 I would back the Shermans generally against MkIV's in game. The firing at 2000m by Noob is great but I would like to know what version of CMBN was being tested. In RL apparently Shermans were more easily spotted when firing because of the smoke on firing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 3 55. FIRING WHILE MovING.-a. General.-(1) Firing with the 75-m n gun while moving is inaccurate and causes an uneconomical expenditure of ammunition. Do it only in an emergency and at ranges of 600 yards or under. (See FM 17-30.) (2) Firing while moving requires close teamwork between driver and gunner. Drive at a constant speed; acceleration and deceleration upset the action of the stabilizer. Drive in a straight line, otherwise the gun yaws as the tank turns. The driver warns the gunner when rough terrain is ahead. When going over rough terrain, do not "fight" the gun (attempting to keep it on the target by spinning the elevating handwheel), but wait until a constant speed is regained and the action of the stabilizer has smoothed out. (3) The stabilizer will not lay the gun. It merely tends to keep the gun where it has been laid; that is, it eliminates extremely jerky movements caused by the movement of the tank. Even with a stabilizer, the gun does not hold constantly on the target. Watch the swing of the gun through the target and fire as the proper sight setting crosses the target. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WriterJWA Posted August 12, 2012 Author Share Posted August 12, 2012 Is there any anecdotal information that shows the Sherman edge over the Mark IV? The claim has been made that the Mark IV should be even if not better than the Sherman. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noob Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 Is there any anecdotal information that shows the Sherman edge over the Mark IV? The claim has been made that the Mark IV should be even if not better than the Sherman. Who claims the PzIV is better than the Sherman ? In my experience, playing CMBN at the medium to short ranges of most custom scenarios, i find the Sherman to be the more effective tank, because it's armour is better, and therefore it can take more hits before being knocked out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 The gyrostabilizer was not meant to enable firing on the move. The point about the gyro was than when you fire, then move and then stop you find your gun pointed more at the original target that you fired on during the last stop. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eltorrente Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 Well, the PZIV LOOKS a lot meaner and tougher than the Sherman, that's for sure. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noob Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 Well, the PZIV LOOKS a lot meaner and tougher than the Sherman, that's for sure. Here's a couple of links to a specs site if you want to compare the two tanks: http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/m4sherman.html http://afvdb.50megs.com/germany/pz4.html#AusfH What impressed me was the relative armour thickness of the gun mantlets, 50mm for the PzIVH, compared to 76mm for the M4A1, and 89m for the M4A3, which means when the MKIV is hull down, it is exposing the weakest part of its frontal armour. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 WriterJWA, This should help. Discussion of the issues here. http://208.84.116.223/forums/index.php?showtopic=32156 Site lists M4A1 max traverse rate as 24 deg/sec. Sherman info galore! http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/m4sherman.html This shows the very real gun advantage a Panzer IV H had over the high profile vanilla Sherman, with better penetration, flatter shooting and reduced time of flight. http://www.achtungpanzer.com/panzerkampfwagen-iv.htm Finding the traverse rate is a bear. CMBB Strategy Guide lists it as "Fast," but doesn't provide a number. This site gives the stats for all the Panzer IV models. http://afvdb.50megs.com/germany/pz4.html Finally! On another site (looked at many), I learned the Panther and the Panzer IV had the same turret traverse system. The rate given here for the former is a rather stately 6 deg/sec, which is also evidently true for the latter! http://afvdb.50megs.com/germany/pz5.html Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenris Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 It's interesting that the Sherman's (rather unfair) bum rap still exists in common thought even today. It's a good tank and older German mediums need to handle it with respect or they're going to pay. -F 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 Fenris, The problem is that the Sherman, as first issued, was flat out outgunned by the time D-Day arrived. Practically every tank and TD the Germans had, discounting the odd Panzer IV D and the UE carrier with the 37 mm AT type cases, had a much better gun, and the Shermans suffered accordingly. Don't get me wrong. The Sherman was a terror when first introduced into combat in North Africa. It arrived en masse, and the best the Germans had until Tunisia and the Tiger Is arrived was a handful of nasty Panzer IV F2s with the L/43 gun, with most of the force armed with weapons far less potent and of far shorter effective range. The Sherman was also vital because it gave the Allies the ability to put HE fire on German AT positions without turning the tank, as in the Grant/Lee situation. Shermans were fully kitted out, by the way, for indirect fire, and the crews were trained to do it. It's in the 1944 FM 17-12 Tank Gunnery that I own/hope i still have. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 The Sherman also has a significantly more powerful HE round. I also find that at least in-game the .50 M2 is very useful, with models on which it faces forward. The Sherman is a better tank in general, but not in all circumstances. The 2 things the Pz IV had over the Sherman was a main gun with better accuracy and armor penetration, and better optics. In a head-to head duel the distance at which the Pz IV begins to gain an edge over the Sherman is around 800-900 meters. That is where the Sherman's main gun begins to lose it's ability to penetrate the Pz IVs upper front hull*. * For 75mm models. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 Vanir Ausf B, This makes perfect sense, considering the additional G loads imposed on the shell wall by the considerable delta in velocity. We see much the same in the case of HE for the M10 and 76mm armed Shermans. I suspect, too, that the American shell was made of higher quality steel and may've had better explosive fill, but this is pure speculation for now. Am pretty sure we went into this in detail in one or more of the CMx1 games. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 The Sherman was a terror when first introduced into combat in North Africa. It arrived en masse, and the best the Germans had until Tunisia and the Tiger Is arrived was a handful of nasty Panzer IV F2s with the L/43 gun... And I maintain that the Sherman was slightly superior even to that. It wasn't until the Pz. IV received the L/48 gun that I think it deserves to be considered superior. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 The gyrostabilizer was not meant to enable firing on the move. The point about the gyro was than when you fire, then move and then stop you find your gun pointed more at the original target that you fired on during the last stop. Well thats news. Do you have any WW2 source or later advising this was the purpose.? This is from the earlier link I gave: Thus, for tank speeds of 15 miles an hour, over moderately rough terrain, a gunner could make better than 70 percent hits at ranges from 300 to 1200 yard March 1945 The implication appears to be that fring on the move though if you are saying what it means is the tank stops and fires as per normal and gets a better chance of being on target - provided all the conditions listed are met - then that is a change from what most people think. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 ...if you are saying what it means is the tank stops and fires as per normal and gets a better chance of being on target - provided all the conditions listed are met - then that is a change from what most people think. It's exactly what I've been thinking about it for years now. Not that that necessarily makes it so, but to me that seemed like the most realistic assumption, i.e., the gyrostabilizer enables the gunner to get back on target faster when the tank halts again. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenris Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 Fenris, The problem is that the Sherman, as first issued, was flat out outgunned by the time D-Day arrived. Practically every tank and TD the Germans had, discounting the odd Panzer IV D and the UE carrier with the 37 mm AT type cases, had a much better gun, and the Shermans suffered accordingly. Regards, John Kettler Yes but just the gun does not maketh the tank. Head to head a Sherman stands a very good chance against a PzIV of any mark. It's my opinion that many people think because it's a German tank it's superior. With the PzIV I don't think that's the case at all and it takes players by surprise when they get caught out. I play German 95% of the time btw and have learnt to never under estimate a Sherman when in a PzIV. All my opinion, YMMV -Fenris 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 Well thats news. Do you have any WW2 source or later advising this was the purpose.? This is from the earlier link I gave: March 1945 The implication appears to be that fring on the move though if you are saying what it means is the tank stops and fires as per normal and gets a better chance of being on target - provided all the conditions listed are met - then that is a change from what most people think. I'm afraid this isn't important enough for me to keep links for everything. First of all, from a physics standpoint it is obvious. There is no way that gun movement during the move is reduced sufficiently. However, this construction means the guns returns to an original elevation quickly after the bumpy move stops. Second, doing a past-post google search reveals that Steven Zaloga of all people agrees here: http://books.google.com/books?id=sSyEFsJwyqAC&pg=PA28&lpg=PA28&dq=sherman+gyrostabilizer&source=bl&ots=PrB9ch7d1-&sig=SmJNPW9BpRl2jOHblG320i0B4DY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7vIoUMeCPMTwrQeZkoDQCg&ved=0CF4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=sherman%20gyrostabilizer&f=false It might be circular reasoning but somehow I doubt he picked that up from me 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 This looks better than no source, too. http://forums.gamesquad.com/showthread.php?26432-Gyrostabilizer-Update I also think that people understimate the advantage this gyro gives you in combat, even if you still have to stop. Making the stop shorter, and this construction will make it much shorter if you want accurate fire, makes the whole formation's turn of covering and moving much quicker. There is easily a 30% total speed advantage here, meaning 30% less exposure to enemy fire. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 dieseltaylor, I'm with you on firing on the move. It's detailed in the 1944 FM 17-12 Tank Gunnery and , as I recall, was confined to pretty level and smooth roads. I further recall this is one-axis stabilization in azimuth only, not in azimuth and elevation. Zaloga would appear to be at loggerheads with FM 17-12, but provides a valuable bit of data here. The traverse rate for the Panther, thus the Panzer IV, rises to 15 deg/sec with the enegine at full power. http://books.google.com/books?id=sSyEFsJwyqAC&pg=PA28&lpg=PA28&dq=sherman+gyrostabilizer&source=bl&ots=PrB9chba9_&sig=v2uilXNhLqPexcJQReTq_bjekko&hl=en&sa=X&ei=sgEpUIs9qcTaBdzjgegH&ved=0CFMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=sherman%20gyrostabilizer&f=false Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WriterJWA Posted August 13, 2012 Author Share Posted August 13, 2012 Thanks for all the info! Lot's of knowledge here. It seems to me the game has it largely right ... that overall it is a coin toss fight between a Sherman and a Mark IV. Each tank is just as vulnerable as it is deadly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 WriterJWA, They're not, to use JasonC's expression, eggshells with hammers, but they are quite able to kill each other at normal combat ranges. In the desert or other open terrain, the Panzer IV H has the gunnery advantage, can hit and kill from ranges the Sherman can't match. In confined terrain, though, the Sherman is very nasty, can get the turret around much faster and shoot quickly because the round is so short, thus quick to load. Will see if I can scare up a comparison picture of the two principal AT rounds for these tanks. Not quite the right pic, but it does illustrate the relative cartridge length and size issues, though the Allied round shown is HE. Note how much bigger and longer the German 75mm round is than the puny Sherman round. http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/tankammo2.htm Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.