The Sherman Compared

[Vanir Ausf B]

Still, it was much cheaper vehicle than the Panther, and basically just as effective.

Panzer IV unit cost: 103,462 RM

Panther unit cost: 117,100 RM

The best argument in favor of the Pz IV is that it got better gas mileage

Edited January 18, 2015 by Vanir Ausf B

[Melchior]

It could also run its turret through a full revolution on an incline steeper than 15 degrees. The RM comparison is over simplistic. The Panther weighed 44 tons, nearly as much as an IS-2. It had the operational requirements of the tank of that weight, but not the firepower and protection. 

 

My problem with the Panther more than anything is that the damn thing just didn't seem to work. It's like they put a prototype into serial production. The Panther would burn out its final drive so quickly the Germans would throw them on trains for trips as short as 25km to save the vehicle from having to run. For the Tiger this is more understandable but for a medium tank?!

Edited January 19, 2015 by CaptHawkeye

[Vanir Ausf B]

It's like they put a prototype into serial production.

 

That is essentially what they did. The Panther did not become battle worthy until 6 months after it's combat debut at Kursk.

 

But from that point on it was generally well-liked by the Germans despite its lingering issues, and was respected by it's opponents.

 

It is true that its armor protection was not great for a tank of its weight. Having said that, the Western Allies were not rushing up-gunned Shermans and 90mm-armed TDs into the theater in late 1944-45 to counter the Pz IV

 

It is unlikely that canceling the Panther would have made any significant difference in the war, aside for saving the lives of some number of Allied soldiers. It would not have greatly increased the total number of German tanks, which they did not have enough fuel for anyways.

[Bulletpoint]

We can discuss tanks till the cows come home, but as far as I know, it was strategic bombing that brought down Nazi Germany. If Hitler had kept air superiority, the war would have been a lot different.

[womble]

We can discuss tanks till the cows come home, but as far as I know, it was strategic bombing that brought down Nazi Germany. If Hitler had kept air superiority, the war would have been a lot different.

The war-shortening effects of strategic bombing, WW2 vintage, have also been endlessly debated.

[Bulletpoint]

The war-shortening effects of strategic bombing, WW2 vintage, have also been endlessly debated.

 

Fair point, I just felt it moot to speculate if this or that tank won or lost the war. If the Nazis had won, we would proably be praising their superior tank tech, guns, optics, whatever... and felt it obvious that it had succeeded

 

Also, war-winning, not just war-shortening, as I see it.

[womble]

Fair point, I just felt it moot to speculate if this or that tank won or lost the war. If the Nazis had won, we would proably be praising their superior tank tech, guns, optics, whatever... and felt it obvious that it had succeeded.

Possibly. Or every argument praising the tech would also have the rider, "And we outproduced the lazy, decadent yankees, too."

 

Also, war-winning, not just war-shortening, as I see it.

Not an argument I'm going to get into.

[Michael Emrys]

The Germans lost because they were over matched by their enemies. This was true in many areas and grew out of the simple fact that they lacked the combined population and industrial capacity of their enemies and wherever they enjoyed technological superiority, it was not enough to make up for the shortfall.

 

And no, in that war strategic bombing did not win. Having the country invaded by huge armies until every square meter was occupied did. Strategic bombing certainly helped, and we can debate by how much, but by itself would not have won the war short of large scale use of nuclear bombs.

 

Michael

[sburke]

We can discuss tanks till the cows come home, but as far as I know, it was strategic bombing that brought down Nazi Germany. If Hitler had kept air superiority, the war would have been a lot different.

Kept air superiority?  Not sure that is actually a true statement.  Germany never even came close to the level of air superiority we in the west generally understand the term to mean.  Tactically the Germans were able to seize control over various battlefields, but they pretty much ran into a wall during the battle of Britain.  They contested the allies for air control through 1942 and decisively lost it in 1943.  German use of aircraft on the battlefield was certainly better than allied practice in 1940/41, but even that proficiency slipped away as the allies strategically won the air war.

[Michael Emrys]

They contested the allies for air control through 1942 and decisively lost it in 1943.

 

I think you are anticipating events there a little, sparky. It is usual considered by historians that Germany didn't decisively lose air superiority over the Reich until Big Week, which was in February 1944.

 

Michael

[JonS]

You're both right, in different ways. Ignoring the Eastern Front for the moment, up till 1942 the GAF was able to contest air control over France and - more significantly - over the areas of ground and naval campaigns in the Med. However in 1943 they were decisively defeated in both France and the Med, and the airforce 'withdrew' to protect Germany. They continued to hold then contest sir superiority over Germany until the first quarter of 1944, when the GAF was crushed by a significant change in tactics by 8th Air Force in their bombing attacks on Germany.

 

Incidentally, as already noted heavy bombing didn't come anywhere near defeating Germany. It caused some losses and significant structural distortions in the German armed forces, and overall helped significantly, but the war could have been won without any heavy bombers. Aside from crushing the GAF day fighter forces in early 1944, the main weight and effects of the CBO didn't kick in until well after D-Day, by which time the outcome of the war had been well and truly decided. Defeating Germany without the CBO was a practical - if costly - proposition. Defeating Germany without a ground campaign is a laughable idea.

[JonS]

dp

Edited January 20, 2015 by JonS

[John1966]

Just getting back to the tanks for a moment, I just played 130. Panzer Regiment auf dem Vormarsch. I thought (minor SPOILERS ahead) that my Panzers IVs would absoloutely cream the Shermans if I engaged them at long range because of those superior optics. They couldn't even spot them. I knew they were there because the infantry could see them but despite the Shermans apparently having no problem spotting the Panzers (there was a lot of incoming) the Panzers hardly got a shot off (comparatively speaking). After losing three Panzer IVs (and nailing only a single Sherman), I gave up the high ground and crossed the river. At medium range I did even worse (which I suppose I expected). At one point three Panzer IVs encountered a lone Sherman and by the end of the turn all the Panzers were on fire and the Sherman remained unscathed. Very frustrating and I generally think I know what I'm doing in CM!   I remain mystfied and want to do the scenario again (which I hardly ever do). Thing is, I can't help thinking I'd do the same again...

[womble]

Unlucky streak? Buttoned TCs vs unbuttoned? If you hit apparent oddness like that, don't get rid of the turns, even re-run a couple of them afterwards and see whether the same results occur over and over. But if it's a real effect, someone from BFC will need the turns to assess what's gone wrong.

[John1966]

Unlucky streak? Buttoned TCs vs unbuttoned?

 

Interesting you should say that. In the initial long range encounter I kept ordering the Panzers to unbutton but they kept closing the hatches despite them not having any sight of the enemy except the Sherman they did spot (at about 1800m).

Edited January 20, 2015 by John1966

[womble]

Interesting you should say that. In the initial long range encounter I kept ordering the Panzers to unbutton but they kept closing the hatches despite them not having any sight of the enemy except the Sherman they did spot (at about 1800m).

That's interesting/odd. Usually people complain about their TCs being too tolerant of incoming smallarms fire... Were the PzIV particularly low experience or morale? But if the Shermans were unbuttoned, they might well have the spotting advantage over buttoned IVs, so the oddness starts to shift towards, "Why were the IV TCs so chicken?"

[John1966]

That's interesting/odd. Usually people complain about their TCs being too tolerant of incoming smallarms fire...

 

Quite. I'm normally one of the complainers.  I shall check their experience etc. when I run it again. Actually I really ought to know already.  Perhaps they were just rubbish crews. That would explain their poor performance at the medium range encounters too...

[Vanir Ausf B]

Panzer IVs and Shermans have the same spotting ability in CMx2.

[General Jack Ripper]

I do seem to recall an earlier discussion, maybe a year ago on the effectiveness of Panzer IV vs. Sherman tanks.

 

After a long round of testing, Shermans averaged 4 penetrations out of 5 rounds fired against Panzer IV.

Meanwhile, the Panzer IV averaged only 3 penetrations out of 5 rounds fired at Shermans.

Any way you cut it, that's a losing proposition.

 

Something to do with comparative armor shape and quality between Panzer IV and Sherman.

Remember, the Sherman tank was initially designed to defeat the Panzer IV, and enjoys the advantages of sloping frontal armor, gyrostabilizers, and a fast turret.

 

I could try to hunt up the original discussion, but my luck using the search function on the forums is nonexistent.

 

EDIT:

I found this post here:

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/104728-need-sherman-v-mark-iv-source-material-pls/?p=1373088

And here:

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/104728-need-sherman-v-mark-iv-source-material-pls/?p=1373252

Actually that whole thread was full of good information. So did this:

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/104747-sherman-m4-late-v-pzivh-late-static-v-moving-spotting-test/?p=1373327

And this tidbit:

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/95430-armor-far-too-accurate/?p=1256637

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/94401-german-tank-vulnerability/?p=1228447

This whole thread is wonderfully chock full of words:

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/94401-german-tank-vulnerability/page-1

 

Wow, I guess I went a little search bananas there! That's the first time I actually got the thing to find stuff I was looking for.

HOWEVER, I COULDN'T FIND THE POST I RECALLED FOR THE NUMBERS AT THE HEAD OF MY OWN POST.

So, technically I found everything but the stuff I was looking for!

Edited January 21, 2015 by SLIM

[Michael Emrys]

...I found everything but the stuff I was looking for!

 

Such is life.

 

 

Michael

[Melchior]

I do seem to recall an earlier discussion, maybe a year ago on the effectiveness of Panzer IV vs. Sherman tanks.

 

After a long round of testing, Shermans averaged 4 penetrations out of 5 rounds fired against Panzer IV.

Meanwhile, the Panzer IV averaged only 3 penetrations out of 5 rounds fired at Shermans.

Any way you cut it, that's a losing proposition.

 

 

Upgrading at least kept it competitive, the Panzer III wasn't so fortunate. Ultimately the Germans squeezed just about everything they could from a pre-war 24 ton vehicle. The Panzer IV was facing much heavier opposition on average which produces a pretty inevitable result. The T-34 didn't stack up too well against the Sherman in Korea either, but that might have been more because of poorly trained crews. 

[womble]

The T-34 didn't stack up too well against the Sherman in Korea either, but that might have been more because of poorly trained crews.

What model of T-34 and Shermans were facing off in Korea? I'd reckon even the M4 with the M2/M3 75mm superior to the T-34/76, but it would lose out to the 85mm-armed version with its extra turret crew, bigger gun and extra years of refinement that the Koreans had. But most (if not all?) the Shermans in Korea were Easy-8s with 76mm guns and uparmoured, so the "technical" advantage in a 1-v-1 goes back to the american tank. Which combined with the NK level of training doesn't make for very optimistic outcomes for the commies in individual matchups.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

Easy 8's, Pershings, and M46's did quite well against T-34/85's in Korea.

[John1966]

That's interesting/odd. Usually people complain about their TCs being too tolerant of incoming smallarms fire... Were the PzIV particularly low experience or morale? But if the Shermans were unbuttoned, they might well have the spotting advantage over buttoned IVs, so the oddness starts to shift towards, "Why were the IV TCs so chicken?"

 

Just had a check and the Pz IV crews were all regular. The Sherman crews were also all regular (except one green but that didn't get any kills). There were three TDs among the Americans but to my surprise, they didn't get any of the kills, it was all the Shermans work. The Pz IVs were all early as were the Shermans. Bit of a puzzler really. The battle seems to have been lost due to the Pz IVs inability to spot the Shermans at long range (not assisted by their unwillingness to unbutton - although it appears the Shermans were also buttoned) and a surprisingly good kill ratio for those Shermans at distance. Having looked at the links SLIM posted, the fact that the Shermans had the best of it at medium range isn't that surprising (although they did seem to have an inexplicably big superiority). My instincts were to keep them at long range but if you lose three to their one (and they're moving), what do you do? Stick at it? I felt I had to change the terms of the engagement so closed the range even though logic told me otherwise.

[BadgerDog]

If I'm to play Allied side against an opponent who loves German armour and loads up with nothing but Panthers and Tigers, I usually try to avoid a long range (anything over 300-500 meters) engagement, especially frontal armour.

I also try to get at least one M4A2E8 type of Sherman (Firefly) with a 76mm master weapon, the I protect the heck out of it while I try to manoeuvre for a side or rear shot.

It's a really tough match without ery vsuperior numbers where you can afford to spend (sacrifice) vehicle resources in order to get the Panther/Tiger into a position to fight on "my time, my terms and my ground"...

Just my oipinion....

Regards,

Doug