Sherman 105 vs germany medium/heavy tanks

[iMolestCats]

I was wondering if a Sherman 105 could tackle German tanks and completely destroying or rendering them inoperable? If so is there any historical accounts of this happening in combat?

[DasMorbo]

If you ask me, rendering inoperable yes, taking them out no - if we talk about PzIV to PzVI. A 'tin can' you can take out with everything packing enough calibre. The reason for this would be the very slow muzzle velocity of the 105mm gun which denies any serious armour penetration capabilities. You need a FAST (800m/s+) gun to slice through late-war armor. But the enormous concussion of a 105mm shell exploding on the tank could mess up the delicate inner workings of a tank like turret race, transmission, radio and so on.

I've seen a photo of a Marder III, Ausfuehrung M having been ripped apart by a 105er Sherman but no real tanks.

Best regargds

Olf

[Pak40]

The HEAT round of the 105mm gun could penetrate about 4.5 inches of armor (114mm), at any range.

So on paper it sounds good but the HEAT rounds are slow and not flat trajectory like the AP rounds. Consequently it's harder to hit a target at a distance, especially if it's moving.

[Vanir Ausf B]

US 105mm HEAT has about the same penetration against vertical armor as US 76mm APCBC at 100 meters. But it's actually better in some ways because it's penetration does not decrease with range. And it is less affected by the slope of armor -- such as on Panther upper hull -- than most kinetic penetrators. As mentioned, its downside is that it is not very accurate.

[DasMorbo]

Ah, yeah I forgot about HEAT. o_0

[Georgie]

I played a scenario where my Sherman 105 got in a few frontal hits at close range on a Panther. Here is the video.

[womble]

I'm guessing those were HE rather than HEAT...

[JasonC]

The Sherman 105 with HEAT could certainly kill critters. But its preferred use in tank formations was as an indirect fire asset, with the full 6 in a tank battalion usually pooled in one battery and firing anywhere from 60 to 500 rounds a day on whatever targets the battalion commander designated. (Armor battalion HQs frequently led tank heavy task forces of battalion size - two tank companies to one armored infantry e.g. - and the 105s would usually go with that part of a divided tank battalion force).

They were also used for bunker busting work (and block busting in city fights) when that was called for. Anti armor use did happen occasionally but was rare. It comes up in the tactical AARs either as a side effect of bunker busting type uses being "interrupted" by German armor putting in an appearance (usually small scale), or in overall desperate circumstances where the US side tries everything (e.g. during the Bulge).

US field testing showed the 105mm HEAT was effective against the Panther front (turret hits), and I have seen combat reports of them taking out Jadgpanthers, but those may be mis IDed Jagdpanzer IV/70s. At any rate, they could kill uparmored beasts. But normally they were considered more useful chucking HE over the horizon with impunity, day after day. That much is clear from armor battalion level daily combat reports.

[Sublime]

Ive used them to kill all wild manner of German armor. Pz IVs, Panthers, Tigers, etc. As stated above they're not really as reliable as the Sherman 76s. The gun trajectory kind of lobs, and they're wildly inaccurate at range. They only have 6-7 HEAT rounds, which they often will waste on H/Ts or Kubelwagens. Front on to a German tank you need a lot of luck and you'll still usually lose, side or rear, or ambush you're probably good, especially close in.

I've done the same, though way less reliably with a Priest because it lacks the armor. This is usually either desperation or accidental, as a Priest can't fight anything tougher than infantry on its own. Its great to bring in on pinned enemy units though. It's shell as well is more inaccurate at distance due to it's lob (the same is true in fact with the German StuH 42, especially at range against enemy tanks)

The priests you have to be more careful with though - I dont know if it was situational or the armor crew is programmed to think differently for a Priest than a Sherman 105, but I had a Priest in ambush get a chance on a side shot on an enemy Panther. Instead the crew freaked out, screamed ENEMY TANK! and started trying to reverse. It was fatal, and the crew didn't bail after the ensuing fireball. I feel if I''d had a Sherman in that situation they would have stood their ground and took the shot - an option I feel would have KO'd the Panther with the Priest if they'd kept their cool.

[womble]

The priests you have to be more careful with though - I dont know if it was situational or the armor crew is programmed to think differently for a Priest than a Sherman 105...

Self Propelled Guns are decidely squirrely about enemy armour. Assault Guns less so, but still more than tanks, it seems to me.

[Vinnart]

I have had good luck with the Sheman 105mm taking out German tanks, but as others have said it is best in close (within 500m) against the sides or rear. I always try to buy atleast one. The HE is great against infantry, buildings and for area fire. The smoke rounds are more robust too for screens. The Aris mod for it is one of my favorites too.

[A Canadian Cat]

The HE is great against infantry, buildings and for area fire.

Oh I love having them along with an infantry assault. Any enemy that pops up really gets it when the 105 rolls up. They are my favorite Allied tank. I like to include one or two when I can too.

[Michael Emrys]

I've used them in attacks, but I think JasonC is right and for the most part they should be kept as an off-map resource (same goes for the M8 HMC by the way). But I think I might buy one or two for close support in urban combat. Possibly a Priest might be used that way too, but I don't like them so much for the close support role due to their vulnerability.

Michael

[womble]

Hmm. Perhaps the armoured Battalion's Sherman 105s should have an "off map" option, same as the mortars do...

Were "plain old 75mm" Shermans used in this role too, particularly in the days before the advent of the 105 version? 75mm is a thoroughly acceptable calibre for field artillery, after all, and there are even smaller calibre batteries in the Italian TO, for example, so the size wasn't considered completely useless for indirect fires.

[Sublime]

Well plus we have off map 60mm mortars anyways. They can't even reach across half of most the maps I play =)

+1 for off-board 105 option

[Michael Emrys]

Hmm. Perhaps the armoured Battalion's Sherman 105s should have an "off map" option, same as the mortars do...

I suppose you could buy a battery of Priests and pretend that they were actually M4s, but yes, it would be much nicer if the M4 105 were directly represented in the purchasing screen. It would be nice if the M8 HMC was represented too as that is how they were mostly used.

Were "plain old 75mm" Shermans used in this role too, particularly in the days before the advent of the 105 version?

Yes! Especially in Italy, but in the ETO as well they were sometimes used in that way. Sometimes bulldozers were used to build up ramps to allow them sufficient elevation. I think they were used this way right up to the end of the war or nearly so.

Michael

[womble]

Sometimes bulldozers were used to build up ramps to allow them sufficient elevation.

Ah yes. I'd seen references to that wrt Tank Destroyer batteries, so it certainly makes sense that the more durable (lower velocity) barrel of the 75mm was used in the same way.

[winkelried]

Well plus we have off map 60mm mortars anyways. They can't even reach across half of most the maps I play =)

+1 for off-board 105 option

At least we should be able to use M8 HMC, Priests, Wepse etc with indirect fire on-map too, just as with the IGs and the 88 Flak.

[YankeeDog]

At least we should be able to use M8 HMC, Priests, Wepse etc with indirect fire on-map too, just as with the IGs and the 88 Flak.

Problem with this is you'd have to add some restrictions on indirect fire to represent the vehicle registering its position for indirect fire.

Firing indirect with any degree of accuracy means not only knowing precisely where the target is on a map, but also knowing precisely where the shooter is on a map. It's also important to get the vehicle's firing platform precisely leveled etc.

Given the setup time required for on-map guns and how difficult it is to move them, it's reasonable to assume that this kind of registration is abstractly modeled in their case. But none of this applies to vehicles. It would not be realistic to allow an M7 Priest Battery to simply roll up to a location and start firing indirect immediately. Maybe it could be allowed if the vehicle had been stationary since start of scenario, and/or if the vehicle had been stationary for at least 5 minutes, or something like that.

Overall, though, given the trajectory restrictions of most SPGs, I suspect it's something most players would use extremely rarely. Many SP Howitzers (including the M7 Priest and M8 HMC) have a rather shallow maximum elevation and therefore are not capable of high-angle fire like the comparable ground-mount systems are. Therefore, modeling on-map indirect fire for them is probably extremely low on the "to do" list.

[Michael Emrys]

Given the setup time required for on-map guns and how difficult it is to move them, it's reasonable to assume that this kind of registration is abstractly modeled in their case. But none of this applies to vehicles. It would not be realistic to allow an M7 Priest Battery to simply roll up to a location and start firing indirect immediately. Maybe it could be allowed if the vehicle had been stationary since start of scenario, and/or if the vehicle had been stationary for at least 5 minutes, or something like that.

That's a good question. Batteries usually had a team of guys whose job it was to survey a prospective site and establish its location, set up aiming stakes, etc. I honestly don't know how long that typically took, probably varied some with the situation, terrain, weather, and so forth. Five minutes to me sounds awfully kind to the player. I find it hard to believe that even a first approximation could be done in less than 15 or so, and that in an emergency where it was more important to get rounds in the air than to be precisely sure where the first salvo was going to fall. It would be interesting to know how long in practice it took batteries with different levels of experience in combat to get surveyed in. I'd also bet that if that information ever got written down, it is buried somewhere that would take a lifetime to find.

In the meantime, I'd suggest as far as the game goes, on-map indirect firing should only be allowed to units that have not moved since the start of the game.

Michael

[YankeeDog]

That's a good question. Batteries usually had a team of guys whose job it was to survey a prospective site and establish its location, set up aiming stakes, etc. I honestly don't know how long that typically took, probably varied some with the situation, terrain, weather, and so forth. Five minutes to me sounds awfully kind to the player. I find it hard to believe that even a first approximation could be done in less than 15 or so, and that in an emergency where it was more important to get rounds in the air than to be precisely sure where the first salvo was going to fall. It would be interesting to know how long in practice it took batteries with different levels of experience in combat to get surveyed in. I'd also bet that if that information ever got written down, it is buried somewhere that would take a lifetime to find.

In the meantime, I'd suggest as far as the game goes, on-map indirect firing should only be allowed to units that have not moved since the start of the game.

Michael

It depends a lot on the type of system and the exact tactical situation. Setting up something like a 75mm IG or 81mm mortar just behind a rise to hit an enemy position a km or so in front of it wouldn't be such a big deal as rule-of thumb would be fine at this range and really precise laying wouldn't be necessary. In fact, ad hoc tricks could often be used for this kind of fire -- the gun captain could climb to the top of the rise where he could see the target point himself and direct the gun crew by hand signal, for example. This sort of thing isn't explicitly modeled in CM, but we can imagine it happening in abstraction within the movement and setup time restrictions currently imposed upon small guns and mortars in the game.

But once you start talking about larger, higher velocity pieces firing at longer range, things get much more complicated as even small errors in laying the gun and surveying its position can lead to very large errors at the terminal end.

[Georgie]

I'm guessing those were HE rather than HEAT...

I'm not sure either but I think that they were Heat rounds unless the loader made a mistake and loaded HE since that tank had not been in action yet so he had plenty of Heat. This was two years ago so I don't remember whether I checked or not at the time. The rounds what ever they were put the finishing touches on the Panther. That was a near disaster for me as I was playing the US side. What happened was I knew the Panther was there with his flank to the bocage. I decided to get my engineers to blow a hole in the bocage so that my m4 105 could get a flank shot at the Panther. Only problem was the Panther thought that my engineers had blown the hole for him to use and he used it, you can see the engineers scattering as the Panther comes through the hole.

[winkelried]

Problem with this is you'd have to add some restrictions on indirect fire to represent the vehicle registering its position for indirect fire.

We already have the deploy command. Why not used it for vehicles who want to set-up for indirect fire. With an appropritate time penalty.

Firing indirect with any degree of accuracy means not only knowing precisely where the target is on a map, but also knowing precisely where the shooter is on a map. It's also important to get the vehicle's firing platform precisely leveled etc.

True, or you have to know the angle of the platform to calculate the difference into the laying of the gun. But this would probably be too much.

Given the setup time required for on-map guns and how difficult it is to move them, it's reasonable to assume that this kind of registration is abstractly modeled in their case. But none of this applies to vehicles. It would not be realistic to allow an M7 Priest Battery to simply roll up to a location and start firing indirect immediately. Maybe it could be allowed if the vehicle had been stationary since start of scenario, and/or if the vehicle had been stationary for at least 5 minutes, or something like that.

See above

Overall, though, given the trajectory restrictions of most SPGs, I suspect it's something most players would use extremely rarely. Many SP Howitzers (including the M7 Priest and M8 HMC) have a rather shallow maximum elevation and therefore are not capable of high-angle fire like the comparable ground-mount systems are. Therefore, modeling on-map indirect fire for them is probably extremely low on the "to do" list.

Here i strongly disagree. On one hand we have now the possibility of maps with a length of 4 kilometers. On the other hand the larger calibre SP Howitzers M7 and Wespe, Hummel have the possibility to "play" with the charges since their ammo is split into charge and projectile. In addition their higher elevation is not that far off the elevation of the IGs. E.g. the Priest has a higher elevation of 60 degrees compared to the IGs which can go up to 73/75 degrees. The Hummel and the Wespe had 45/42 degrees. Certainly intervening hills would have to be taken into consideration.

BTW if anybody has access to fire tables it would be interesting to see what they say about minimal range in indirect fire.

But you're right. It's probably low on the TODO list

[Michael Emrys]

It depends a lot on the type of system and the exact tactical situation.

Of course.

Setting up something like a 75mm IG or 81mm mortar just behind a rise to hit an enemy position a km or so in front of it wouldn't be such a big deal as rule-of thumb would be fine at this range and really precise laying wouldn't be necessary.

Indeed. But we were discussing SPA and my comments were addressed to them.

Michael

[YankeeDog]

... E.g. the Priest has a higher elevation of 60 degrees compared to the IGs which can go up to 73/75 degrees. .

Sorry; incorrect. The ground mount M2 105mm howitzer could go up to 66 degrees, but on the WWII-era M7 Priests, the chassis limited the elevation to 35 degrees. The later M7B2 fixed this problem, but the M7B2 did not see service in WWII.

The M8 HMC had a similar issue -- it's max elevation was 40 degrees, much less than the ground mount M3/M3 75mm howitzer.

Given this limited max elevation of the SPG mounts, even taking into account the ability to use variable charges, the majority of the time, if the SPG is in defilade relative to a target on a CM map, allowed trajectories are either (a) going to fly long of the target, or ( hit intervening terrain.

There will, of course, be exceptions where things line up just right. But it's going to be a pretty limited situation and a royal PITA for the player to set up unless the game also had some sort of "trajectory guide" that would help you figure out where to place your SPGs to get indirect LOF to a given target. Would this be fun, in theory? Sure. Would it be used very often by players? Probably not, once the novelty of trying it once or twice had worn off. As such, programming time is very much better spent elsewhere.