Guest Mike Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 Originally posted by michael kenny: The Sherman should be compared to the tanks in use when it entered service. In which case you should compare it's vulnerability and killing power with those tanks too....... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bitchen frizzy Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 The Sherman didn't have a German analogue, so there's no reason why it "should" be compared to one tank vs. another. Nothing unreasonable about comparing the Sherman to all of its contemporaries - the tanks it fought against. Just realize that all such comparisons are apples-to-oranges, so comparing a single statistic won't always mean much. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broompatrol Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 Read that in N. Africa US tankers used the "high" turret to an advantage when engaging enemy guns by being able to peek over sand dunes w/o exposing as much of the hull to danger even if the enemy had higher ground. (I know that is called being "hull-down" but I guess in this situation a Sherman could get "more" hull-down than say a PZ III) Being tall and skinny can have its advantages. Besides the Sherman could suck in its gut and wriggle 'tween trees, too! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bitchen frizzy Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 Sounds like a bit of uninformed folklore. Height is actually a disadvantage in going hull down. A shorter tank can use a sand dune for hull down just as easily: it simply has to park a bit higher up the slope. Also, as has already been pointed out, the Sherman wasn't really all that tall. There's some truth to the advantages of the Sherman being narrower than some of its rivals, but situations where that would really make a difference on the battlefield are rare. The Sherman was made narrow to make it easier to transport. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael kenny Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John D Salt Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 Originally posted by bitchen frizzy: Sounds like a bit of uninformed folklore. Height is actually a disadvantage in going hull down. AIUI the main characteristic favouring good hull-down positions is main gun depression. In this respect the Sherman has a very slight advantage over the German mediums; 10 degrees against 8. All the best, John. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 The Panther and Jagdpanther had a good reason to be so high: the torsion bar suspension didn't allow the designers to sink a lot of junk into the suspension. That's a problem for the Jagdpanther in particular since normally the Jagdpanzers can be made very low by having the gun recoil into space between the suspension mechanism. With torsion bars everything has to stay above suspension level. The problem with the Sherman is that it exposes such a huge amount of front turret armor. It is well-armored on the upper hull, but the turret front is just very hight. And as opposed to the German Panzers much of that height is full compartment, not detail like the copula. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 That's one of things I also couldn't understand about the Sherman design. Why did it have such a relatively well armoured lower hull compared with the upper hull & turret when surely the designers should have been placing more armour in the more commonly exposed areas. I'm assuming that it's taken as given that tankers usually try to reach hull down positions to reduce their exposure & therefore difficulty for the enemy to hit them. Regards Jim R. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 Sherman armour was up to 90mm on the turret front IIRC - quite a bit thicker than the hull. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/m4sherman.html not really 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 M4A1 (early) hull front 51mm, gun shield 76mm M4A2 - upper hull 64mm, lower hull 108-51mm, gun shield 89mm M4A3: hull front 51mm, Gun shield 89mm M4A4: Hull front 51mm, gun shield 76mm M4A6: - upper hull 64mm, lower hull 108-51mm, gun shield 89mm M4A1(76)W: - upper hull 64mm, lower hull 108-51mm, gun shield 89mm M4A3(75)W: - upper hull 64mm, lower hull 108-51mm, gun shield 89mm M4A3(76)W: - upper hull 64mm, lower hull 108-51mm, gun shield 89mm M4(105): - upper hull 64mm, lower hull 108-51mm, howitzer shield 91mm M4A3E2 Jumbo: upper front hull 100mm, lower front 140-114mm, gun shield 178mm Pretty much all the other marks have the upper hull 64mm, lower hull 108-51mm, gun shield 89mm pattern by the look. so somewhere on the lower hull front of some marks the armour is heavier than the turret front, but the turret front is always more heavily armouored than the upper hull. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 O.K., but my point was, why so much armour (up to 108mm) on the lower hull front when it should be the least exposed part of the tank when facing the enemy? Doesn't make sense to me when surely that armour could be put to better use in the upper hull & turret areas which would generally be more exposed. Regards Jim R. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Originally posted by Stalin's Organist: so somewhere on the lower hull front of some marks the armour is heavier than the turret front, but the turret front is always more heavily armouored than the upper hull. Not if you take into account the angle at which these plates are set at. A CMAK M4A1 has the upper hull set to 51mm at 56 degrees from vertical. This works out to roughly 3.56", or about 90mm, when measured along a horizontal plane. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 I deliberately wasn't taking angle into account - it's much easier to angle hull armour than turret armour, and many, many tanks have heavier hull armour when the angle is taken into account. Turret front armour just has to be as heavy as it can be - there aren't many tricks you can do. As for why is it 108mm on some part of the lower hull? I have no idea - I also have no idea jujst where that thickness is - anyone got a diagram showing it? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tero Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Originally posted by Redwolf: The problem with the Sherman is that it exposes such a huge amount of front turret armor. Assuming it is the turret front which faces the enemy at all times. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melnibone Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 - [ March 04, 2007, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: Melnibone ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael kenny Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imported_Wildman Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 Really not that much taller is it? Just differently proportioned. The Sherman was a good tank, not a great tank, but a good tank...and very good at what its original mission was...killing infantry. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broompatrol Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 Great Pics. A picture is worth a thousand words. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Enigma Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Got a picture which compares it to a Crusader, Grant, an Italian deathtrap or a German MK III (sorry cant tell if thats a MK IV or III in the above photo)? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 I'm pretty sure that it is a Mk III next to the Sherman. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Mk III, or Kingtiger, depending on which picture. All the best Andreas 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Enigma Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Originally posted by Andreas: Mk III, or Kingtiger, depending on which picture. All the best Andreas Yep my bad, confused the big cat for a Mark III 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.