Pz IV Mark H-J model vs Sherman T-34

[Fußball]

Originally posted by Andreas:

You'll excuse me if I call bullsh*t on this forum myth, I am sure. And if not, I don't give a hoot, and consider this as a needed jog for your and zmoney's memory.

I was not referring to you me boy so don't take offense.

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

This seems fishy to me as well. Who are you referring to?

JasonC is the only person that comes to mind who has shown this behavior who is a frequent poster. I have seen a few others but you nor Andreas are anyone I speak of if that is what you are inquiring.

Maybe I should have stated German side of the war and not so much "German equipment".

Tschüß!

Erich

[slysniper]

Well, a while ok I had run test in the game because I thought the Pv 4 seemed to underperform, this was some ratios I had from testing the game. The tanks were facing each other and could not move. both crews were elite

Short barreled sherman vs Pz 4 with long 75

400 meters losses almost equal

800 meters 7 shermans to 8 panzers

1200 meters 7 shermans to 12 panzers

I have always thought it strange that the sherman gained the advantage at distance. This is how the game performs, run your own test.

because of what has been discussed here I ran one for a german elite crew vs a req. american crew. The kill ratio was

1450 meters 4 Shermans to 1 Pz 4

So putting in quility crews in tanks have a major impact, more than range.

All these ratio's were done running approx 100 kills.

[ October 27, 2006, 08:49 PM: Message edited by: slysniper ]

[slysniper]

here is the same testing vs a T34/76

1200 meters losses 12 T34 vs 1 Pz 4

800 meters losses 4 T34 vs 1 Pz

400 meters losses 2 T34 vs 1 Pz4

200 meters losses 3 T34 vs 2 Pz4

So in these test that Best tank ever made does not preform to well in a toe to toe fight vs the Pz 4. The Pz 4 could still do the job.

So I feel that the game does model well, but I myself have wondered how in the world does the Sherman get the advantage at range, when other things are equal.

[John Kettler]

slysniper,

Regarding your T-34/76 woes, the Panzer IV has a substantial ROF advantage over the T-34, thanks to an extra man in the turret, roomier turret, and moving turret basket. A T-34 TC is a very busy man, even worse if he happens to be a platoon leader or company commander! I agree that something looks rather off with Sherman modeling vs. the Panzer IV. Certainly, the results are counterintuitive.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Andreas]

My guess is that at longer range the Sherman's superior frontal armour begins to have an effect. Did you have a look at the amount of non-penetrating hits?

All the best

Andreas

[slysniper]

My guess is that at longer range the Sherman's superior frontal armour begins to have an effect. Did you have a look at the amount of non-penetrating hits?

No, I did this along time ago, all I was interested in was finding the best engagement ranges for tank duels. I also think it might have to do with the armour, but part of me disagrees with that. At the longer ranges the slope advantage would likely be decreasing since the shells would actually be falling in there trajectory pattern. Second I would think the German gun might hold volocity better at the longer ranges, but these are just assumptions, nothing I have check into. Anyway, when I came across this topic and saw that he is clueless as to how to do any searching as to what happens in the game vs real life I knew I had some data sitting at home that does show a funny result from what one might expect. So here it is. Some one else can tell me why it is correct or incorrect.

like the results vs the T34, yes the rof is much less for the tank, So just because it has other better features, the tank still is a machine that funtions with all it aspects. So drive that T34 hard and fast so that you can get that ass shot because it is no match in a head to head fight. just like in real life.

[jBrereton]

Originally posted by slysniper:

here is the same testing vs a T34/76

1200 meters losses 12 T34 vs 1 Pz 4

800 meters losses 4 T34 vs 1 Pz

400 meters losses 2 T34 vs 1 Pz4

200 meters losses 3 T34 vs 2 Pz4

So in these test that Best tank ever made does not preform to well in a toe to toe fight vs the Pz 4. The Pz 4 could still do the job.

So I feel that the game does model well, but I myself have wondered how in the world does the Sherman get the advantage at range, when other things are equal.

Try it with the /57 and /85 - your losses should be rather less on the Allied side.

[The_Enigma]

edit: ignore this post

[michael kenny]

Originally posted by JasonC:

What do you think the kill ratio was between Pz IVs and Shermans in Normandy?

I have no idea but in June and July Britain and the USA lost 870 Shermans (UK 459,US 411). Germany lost 274 Pz IV's.

There were some 400 other Allied tanks lost plus a number of TD's.

Germany also lost 242 Panthers and Tigers and 95 Stug.

That would be ~1270 Allied losses to 611 German.

What do you think the overall tank losses German compared to Allied was in Normandy? Down to the end of Mortain on 11 August, say.

No firm data for this time period but if we stretch to September then it is roughly 3200 Allied to 1845 German

What portion of those losses do you think were due to PAK, heavy FLAK, panzerschrecks, panzerfausts, and AT mines for the Allied side?

Impossible to quantify.

What portion of the remainder do you think were due to the actual heavies sent to Normandy - over 100 Tigers and about 500 Panthers? (Jagdpanzers have better armor and similar gun, include them in this total too if you like).

Again impossible to seperate out these totals from the overall figures. Any attempt would be guesswork

What achieved kills remain for the plain vanilla portion of the German fleet sent to Normandy, the Panzer IVs and the StuGs?

I have no idea and, I would venture to say, neither do you.

Do the math and show your work.

I have tried here

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=30;t=004995;p=4#000095

How about putting some of your research up for us to see if it can fill in some of the blanks?

If the average Pz IV or StuG sent to Normandy killed less than 1 allied AFV before its own loss over the entire campaign there,

If........ but....... maybe...........

Do you know the first theorem of operations research? "The average weapon system never accounts for a single similar item destroyed, over its entire service life".

You simply don't have any idea what you are talking about.

Well so far you have not posted a single figure to confirm or back anything you have said. You challenge others to provide figures and yet seem unwilling to post any yourself!

[JasonC]

Andreas guesses right. The 75L48 starts bouncing from the well sloped Sherman upper hull around 800 meters. By the 1200 range used in the test, it has no chance against the hull. Turret hits remain effective. That is historically accurate - I've read reports from Jagdpanzer IV crews lamenting their guns inability to kill Shermans beyond 800m. They wanted Jagd-70s instead precisely to be able to snipe at long range - closing wasn't a good idea against more numerous and turreted Shermans etc.

At that specific range, the Sherman gun will still get at least partials on the unsloped Panzer IV hull. If you extend still further that changes, and both need turret hits. Further still and the 75L48 begins to fail against the much thicker Sherman turret, before the reverse happens.

Against the T-34 on the other hand, the 75L48 remains effective out to almost 1500 yards. Arguably a moderate overmodeling in the game, since 1200m is a more accurate figure historically. The big difference is the Russian 76mm is ineffective against the Panzer IV hull basically immediately (when in reality it became so at about 500m).

[slysniper]

Bump

What no tank Grog is going to explain how the Sherman gains the advantage at 1200 meters?

[slysniper]

Thanks Jason, Had my entree in before yours was showing on the machine. I figured the game had it pretty correct because of how it models, just not sure as to why that was the results. I selected the 400,800 and 1200 meters ranges as a quick and dirty way to create numbers for my personnal use, I just am not detailed enough to take the time to do a detailed chart with more detailed results.

[JasonC]

Fantasy accounting again. Panzer IVs sent to Normandy, ignoring a few sent 10 August that arrived after the battle.

Lehr - 110

2 - 96

21 - 138

116 - 86

1SS - 103

2SS - 83

9SS - 48

10SS - 39

12SS - 118

total - 821

still running 11-13 August

Lehr - 12

2 - 9

21 - 20

116 - 4

1SS - 14

2SS - 5

9SS - 11

10SS - 11

12SS - 17

total - 103

Ergo lost in Normandy, D-Day to Mortain 821 - 103 = 718.

Since Panthers and Tigers between them certainly outscored Panzer IVs, infantry AT probably got 15% or more (based on German tank killing awards overall, and allied surveys of causes of loss in the last year of the war), PAK and heavy Flak got others, a few fell to AT mines and arty etc, and Jagds StuGs Marders etc probably got about half as many, we can get an upper bound on the portion of kills to Panzer IVs as -

AFV portion of total less than .8 (with .67 possible)

heavy portion of AFV greater than .4

Assault gun portion of AFV greater than .2

Panzer IV portion of AFV less than .4

Panzer IV portion of total less than .32

Call it 1/3rd. It is a generous bound. The Allies did not lose 2250 tanks down to 11 August.

Ergo, the average Panzer IV sent to Normandy did not account for a single Allied tank before being lost.

Of course, this does not mean Shermans KOed all the IVs, they did not. Some were lost to bazookas, many to M-10s, some to artillery fire or strategic air (though not many), some to tac air (again not many), some to towed AT (few).

Air and indirect arty losses are the only ones of these that can be higher for the Germans than for the allies, and are not large causes of overall loss. 10 and 10% is very generous to those, and 3-5 and 1-3 are more likely. Towed AT was much less effective and the Germans rarely attacked. Infantry AT was less effective but the terrain probably helped - still tactically defensive posture must have reduced it far below the German level. A generous accounting for other causes might be 25% all non-AFVs and 25% TDs and lighter vehicles, leaving 50% Shermans. It could easily be as low as 15-15-70.

Shermans were simply a larger portion of the total Allied force mix than Panzer IVs were of the German force mix, and therefore probably caused half to two thirds of Panzer IV losses, while Panzer IVs probably caused only a quarter to a third of Allied Sherman losses.

Of course many Panzer IVs were damaged by tank fire at some point, recovered but not returned to action, and were then abandoned during the retreat as the workshops were overrun. Others (but not many) undoubtedly went through the shops 2-3 times before the same happened to them etc. Nothing is being claimed about immediate TWOs from brew ups, or about German accounting entries (which in many cases did not write off until September tanks clearly lost by early August, due to chaos in the retreat etc).

The average Panzer IV in Normandy may well have been more likely to KO a Sherman than to be KOed by a Sherman - the data suggest otherwise but without being definitive. But they emphatically did not racked up multiple kills each there, and their own losses were emphatically not less than 300.

[GhostRider3/3]

What book did you get that info from Jason?

[michael kenny]

Germans losses June,July:

264 PzIV

205 Panthers

33 Tigers

95 Stug

598 in 8 weeks.

losses by August 13 (using the mumbo jumbo method invented by JasonC to bolster his 'theory')

PzIV: 718 - 264 = 454

So in 8 weeks of fighting 264 PzIV are destroyed.

In 13 days of August 454 are lost!

By the way the final adjusted German figures for Normandy (compiled in September) list 916 PzIV lost so up to the end of September (6 weeks) 198 PzIV lost.

Thus:

8 weeks = 264 (33 a week)

2 weeks = 454 (227 a week)

6 weeks = 198 (33 a week)

Wow! using Jasons figs sure does give a mighty fine score.

To get this idiotic total you simply concentrate on the combat ready strength and totaly ignore those in repair. These 'in repair' vehicles are rarely listed for late July or August but in earlier times are always a significant proportion of the total. Overall Germany lost some 1800 tanks in Normandy and no one disputes this. Trying to cram the majority into a 2 week period stretches credulity. Using the same method for Panther losses would place most of them into this 2 week window as well.

Back to reality.

Since Panthers and Tigers between them certainly outscored Panzer IVs,

Using what data?

Call it 1/3rd. It is a generous bound. The Allies did not lose 2250 tanks down to 11 August

But they do if you stretch the time limit to August 20. 9 days later and your own figures, plucked from thin air to bolster your position, end up proving the opposite! The hard data to August 20 says it is possible. You 'guess' the data for August 11th remember.

The average Panzer IV in Normandy may well have been more likely to KO a Sherman than to be KOed by a Sherman - the data suggest otherwise but without being definitive. But they emphatically did not racked up multiple kills each there, and their own losses were emphatically not less than 300.

Stop inventing arguments so you can refute them. I never said they racked up multiple kills. I say the exchange rate was 2:1 in the Germans favour. Your statement that US tanks always got a better exchange rate against the Panzers is wrong.

[GhostRider3/3]

I tend to agree with Mr. Kenny on this.

[JasonC]

The info is originally from Zetterling, posted on the web at the gerob "german order of battle" site. You can cry about it all you like, I didn't make any of it up. I simply don't wait for a quartermaster in Germany to acknowledge to loss of a tank in France. Nothing else involved. Otherwise put, your fantasy figures of tiny losses until late are entirely driven by not acknowledging delta runners. The same silly TWO accounting can tell you the Germans won any battle they lost and are still running Europe. But that's why it is silly.

[Corvidae]

Ah yes, the "are shermans realy that bad" thread, in the CMAK section, Thats what This is,, only in the east,,,,,,,

[michael kenny]

Originally posted by JasonC:

. The same silly TWO accounting can tell you the Germans won any battle they lost and are still running Europe. But that's why it is silly.

So then you believe 450 PzIV's lost in one 2 week period? Now that is what I would call silly.

Thats what happens when you have a 'belief'. Facts are twisted to suit it.

The info is originally from Zetterling, posted on the web at the gerob "german order of battle" site

Thaks for that but I have the book. Perhaps you should get it and read all of it? I find it ironic that someone would use Zetterling's 'Normandy 1944' book to try and show how badly they Panzers fared. This book should really be called ' Facts to show how the German performance in Normandy was excellent and much better than previously believed'. Yet you use it the other way around!

Do you dispute the 2000+Allied tank loss by mid August?

Can you please show me the data (website?) that shows the 'heavies' scored more than the PzIV's in Normandy?

PS.

If you want really good info on SS Units in Normandy let me recommend Wood and Dugdales 'Order Of Battle, Waffen ss Panzer Units In Normandy 1944. Thid book prints the original German documentation in great detail. Far better than any gamer or intenet site ever could.

You can cry about it all you like, I didn't make any of it up.

No you just bend it, miss bits out and ignore the loss figures for the Allies given in the same book because it doesn't fit your 'belief'

[ October 31, 2006, 11:39 PM: Message edited by: michael kenny ]

[michael kenny]

Originally posted by Corvidae:

Ah yes, the "are shermans realy that bad" thread, in the CMAK section, Thats what This is,, only in the east,,,,,,,

Oh really? I would call it the 'JasonC and his fantasy 'US Shermans always won' thread

[realest]

Only my opionion, but i'd say it's impossible to get a positive count on who killed what. You can figure what was blown to pieces and make a casualty list, but as to the identification of who killed how many i sorta doubt an absolute reliable material can be used.

I say this simply because unlike today they did not have massive use of computers and imaging equipment that we can look back and go "yep it was him". WW2 was utilizing HUGE amounts of manpower and equipment from all nations. I wonder how many times something got blown up and someone else went "we hit it!" Tanks could have shot at the enemy not knowing that some infantryman scared out of his wits just smacked it with a bazooka, or a plane bombed it yet someone else thought he'd report it as his and have a buddy give the ole "yep i saw him".

The scale of everything involved and the simple who saw what on the ground can be arguable till the end of time. It's even more concievable that those who knew the actual data were killed in action doing the fighting thus allowing the steal of the kill.

Yes, we have excellent account by units telling of their achievements, but nothing says it was the norm.

Only my opionions

[undead reindeer cavalry]

you can get a decent idea about the battles by *gasp!* reading the unit histories. if you want to know how a specific panzer division or corps lost its tanks then read unit histories of the given unit. i deeply recommend it over studying grand statistics, especially if you are wondering about August figures.

[GhostRider3/3]

I agree "Fog of War" is a real wrench in all of these statisctics. And reading on Unit histories is a great way to learn what happend... allbeit from a reliable source. Unlike Wikepedia where they never mention 12SSHJ but list others...Blah! Sources.. sources sources.. its amazing that people cant even read history right.

Michael Reynolds books about the ISS PzKorps, and the IISS PzKorps are great, especialy coming from a Brit. I think he is objective and to the point.

Good read, talks about both sides, but more from the perspective of his books objectives.

[michael kenny]

Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:

you can get a decent idea about the battles by *gasp!* reading the unit histories. if you want to know how a specific panzer division or corps lost its tanks then read unit histories of the given unit. i deeply recommend it over studying grand statistics, especially if you are wondering about August figures.

Well *gasp* I have done that. Extensively and in considerable detail on the British/German side. However most German records were lost in the retreat so there are few, if any, difinitive accounts of German losses. 'Grand statistics' do not help with individual losses but they come in handy for setting the parameters for the scale of losses. From them we know that the Allied tank loss rate OVERALL was roughly twice the German losses. Then the absurdity of sweeping statements (asserting that US tank Units destroyed more Panzers than they lost Shermans) is exposed for all to see.

The German August loss figures will never be fully catalogued and no amount of 'reading' will solve the problem.

[michael kenny]

A quote from Zetterling's book that should give some people pause for thought:

"Even though many (German)tank Units had perhaps less than 10% of their original tanks still operational at the end of the battle of Falaise, this does not mean that the rest had been lost"

As I said Jason get the book and read it. Perhaps it would increase your understanding of the subject.

German tanks/Stugs found at Mortain = 46.

German tanks/Stugs found in Falaise pocket = 320.

German tanks/stugs found west of the Seine = 150

total 516