Sherman 76 vs. Panther

[CombinedArms]

How does a Sherman 76 perform vs. the Panther in a head to head matchup? Their costs are reasonably close: 248 for the Panther (VG) and 198 for the M4A3 (76) HVSS (the Easy Eight). So one might expect their performances to be something like the same ballpark. But repeated frustrations with the Sherm 76's gun made we want to test it out. Even I was surprised by the results.

I set up a test course with ten separate tracks and set 10 Panthers facing 10 Sherman 76s at 800 meters. I wanted to see both how the Sherman would do in the head to head matchup, and how it would do if the 76 gun could just hammer away at the Panther without great risk. Five Panthers had their AP stripped out and had only their HE allotment. T-rounds for Shermans were standard issue--I didn't adjust them at all. 3 Shermans had a total of 5 T-rounds.

First the results against Panthers with normal AP. No orders were issued. Again, five tests, five tanks each, so 25 total confrontations.

Shermans: 21 dead (out of 25!)

Panthers: 2 dead, one gun damaged, one immoblized

So, the Shermans are getting killed at a ten to one rate--yikes!

How about when the Panthers have only HE.

Results:

Shermans: 1 dead, 3 imb, 2 shocked

Panthers: 2 dead

This would seem to suggest that, even without AP, the Panthers are about even with the Sherm 76. The reason decisive results are so low is that tanks on both sides generally popped smoke and backed away after two or three shots and those shots rarely achieved a kill. But the Panthers managed to kill or hurt 6 Shermans, while the Shermans only killed two Panthers.

What does this show that we didn't already know? Well, it confirms more vividly than I had quite realized that it's suicidal for the US 76 to face the Panther head on. And it perhaps further suggests, as I've been arguing on a different thread, that the Sherm 76 is somewhat overpriced. The main purpose of the 76 gun is to kill tanks like the Panther from the front. And it can't really do that very well. So the gun, arguably, shouldn't cost quite as much as it does.

Interestingly, the Firefly, with its much more capable 17pounder, costs the same as the Easy Eight, despite the fact that its gun is vastly more capable. I realize there are other factors that might affect the relative cost of these two tanks, but I'm much rather have the Firefly in virtually all circumstances: the much better AP and the better HE can be decisive in battle. Again, I think the Sherm 76 gun is being considerably overvalued.

[ August 26, 2004, 10:15 AM: Message edited by: CombinedArms ]

[Sergei]

Bah! Stop the whining. Panther costs 25% more than E8, so it's far from being in the same price category - you get 5 E8's for every four Panthers. And as Allied player can allocate 80% more points to armour, there shouldn't be anything to complain there.

As to Firefly, it can be killed with a 50mm gun from the front. 'Nuff said.

You're not really offering any suggestions as to how much it should cost, either.

[MikeyD]

The thing was you were testing at 800m. Bring it in to about 500m and the 76mm gun should start piercing the Panther more often. At least that's how it worked in real life. Also, in real life the Sherman would've first fired a smoke round into the Panther to blind it, then start pounding away at it in the hope that something on the Panther will get smashed in the process.

As to preferring the 17 pdr over the 76, i think Monty did too. I recall he shipped all the 76mm gun Shermans given to him to Italy and kept the bulk of the fireflies for himself in NW Europe. Even the U.S. preferred the 17 pdr! Just before the war ended U.S. manufactured 17 pdr Shermans were shipped over to Europe, but the war was before they could be used.

[Redwolf]

The Sherman costs points for other things:

- more ammo

- better side armor

- more MGs

- possible tungsten rounds

Also, in CMAK the penetratuon values for the German 75mm L/48 and L/70 are super-high. With the CMBB values you can often fail on the upper hull front of the Sherman.

[poppy]

"possible tungsten rounds" When did tungsten rounds become available for the 76 Sherman and were there enough available to the tankers to make a big difference? The AI first tries to bracket the "Panther" and then uses a tungsten round ,probably too late.?? poppy

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

As to preferring the 17 pdr over the 76, i think Monty did too. I recall he shipped all the 76mm gun Shermans given to him to Italy and kept the bulk of the fireflies for himself in NW Europe.

I think that was simply because the Allies were facing more armour in northwest Europe than they were in Italy.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Poppy:

"possible tungsten rounds" When did tungsten rounds become available for the 76 Sherman and were there enough available to the tankers to make a big difference? The AI first tries to bracket the "Panther" and then uses a tungsten round ,probably too late.?? poppy

I wasn't defending the pricing scheme, just explaining.

I agree that tungsten is not worth much giving hit probabilities, reluctancy to use and after-armor effects in CMBB and CMAK. I also don't like the expensive side armor and the third MG doesn't have enough ammo to make a real different. The use of the flex .50cal use against aircraft is of questionable value since it only fires at enemy airplanes.

[Sergei]

Actually, if you compare the prices before and after tungsten comes available, the differential isn't very high.

[poppy]

Hi Redwolf I was asking not opinionating. poppy

[dieseltaylor]

"The use of the flex .50cal use against aircraft is of questionable value since it only fires at enemy airplanes."

I think that saves spending money on a dedicated AA asset. I always consider that when Commonwealth or Russians who are light on intrinsic AA.

[poppy]

Hello CombinedArms I tried several tests similar to what you did. I selected "deep mud" to slow movement down with flat ground clear visibility and 500m between 5 Serman EasyEights and 5 Panthers all lined up opposing each other. No orders issued 1st test with 2ea tungsten rnds per Sherman. Used "Hot seat" result was, 4 to 5 Shermans knocked out for 1 or 2 Panthers. I increased tungsten rnds per Sherman to 6 and reduced AP per Sherman to 0. Same result. Says alot for the AI. No cheating. But I agree with you. Panthers were more effective head to head.Im gonna try some movement comparisons between the Panther and the EasyEight. poppy

[rexford]

In actual combat, results would be even worse.

The American M62 Chevrolet 76mm APCBC round had an unusually fast decrease in hardness from nose to main body, and would bulge out on certain hits. This bulging out could lead to failures when the penetration exceeded the armor resistance, making paper penetrations real life failures.

So even when the penetration stats show more piercing power than the 100m mantlet on Panther, the round will often fail at a given angle and velocity.

76mm HVAP? Don't count on it too much.

U.S. experience on the battlefield resulted in a conclusion that the round might penetrate the Panther glacis plate at 100 yards, but forget it at further ranges. And the 100 yard penetration would require a bad steel glacis plate with brittle characteristics.

76mm HVAP will penetrate the 60mm or 50mm lower hull front armor without too much problem. And will ice the mantlet on most hits.

U.S. tests at Isigny during August 1944 showed that all American ammo for the 76mm gun, and 17 pdr APCBC, were next to useless against the Panther glacis plate at ALL ranges. 17 pdr APDS got in a few penetrations and should have been effective beyond 400 or 500 yards but the rounds came out of the barrel and yawed terribly, reducing their accuracy and penetration.

17 pdr APCBC in British tests failed to penetrate the Panther glacis AT ALL RANGES!. If 17 pdr APCBC rounds landed in a previous hit gouge, or an earlier round cracked the Panther glacis and a follow-up hit landed on or near the crack, the 17 pdr APCBC would penetrate.

Hits on the machine gun ball mount would also penetrate the Panther glacis, as noted after some of the initial combats against Panthers with M10's.

[rexford]

Originally posted by Redwolf:

The Sherman costs points for other things:

- more ammo

- better side armor

- more MGs

- possible tungsten rounds

Also, in CMAK the penetratuon values for the German 75mm L/48 and L/70 are super-high. With the CMBB values you can often fail on the upper hull front of the Sherman.

German experience showed that 75L48 APCBC would not penetrate the 47 degree glacis on Shermans at 1000m. This comes from panzer crews and their commanders.

CMAK does appear to give high side penetration stats for German guns.

My figures, which are derived from German firing tests at 30 degrees and appropriate slope effects yield:

75L48 APCBC fired at 750 m/s

135mm at 100m

130mm at 250m

123mm at 500m

116mm at 750m

109mm at 1000m

103mm at 1250m

97mm at 1500m

75L70 APCBC fired at 935 m/s

185mm at 100m

168mm at 500m

149mm at 1000m

132mm at 1500m

The Easy Eight glacis (2.5" at 47 degrees from vertical) would resist German 75mm APCBC as if it were 114mm thick and vertical, which is enough to stop about half the 75L48 APCBC hits at 750m.

[poppy]

Im at a loss to explain how the Americans and the British advanced in the Norhern Europe, Italy, Africa campaings. Depending upon which report you read the Sabos did it, the Tanks did it, the Poor infantry did it, the AT guns did it,and back and forth??? Need a "Gramlins" for perplexed, confused. AAH I feel better poppy

[poppy]

Im at a loss to explain how the Americans and the British advanced in the Norhern Europe, Italy, Africa campaings. Depending upon which report you read the Sabos did it, the Tanks did it, the Poor infantry did it, the AT guns did it,and back and forth??? Need a "Gramlins" for perplexed, confused. AAH I feel better poppy

[YankeeDog]

A little bit of each.

Take a look at the numbers of Panthers and Tigers produced vs. the number of Shermans and other allied AFV platforms like M10s, M18s, etc.

Then remember that a pretty proportion of those Panthers and Tigers fought and were destroyed on the East Front.

Then rememeber that quite a few were also abandoned and destroyed by their crews due to lack of fuel, etc.

Then remember that a few probably just plain wore out after months of heavy combat.

And you can knock a few more off for non-combat losses such as those that got too hoplessly stuck in mud to salvage, fell of damaged bridges or through ice into river (see "Caption thread), etc.

And knock a few more off that were produced very late in the war, but never really saw combat b/c by that point the German infrastructure was in such a shambles that they couldn't even get them to the battlefield.

What you're left with is the Tigers and Panthers that were *actually* destroyed in combat action with US and British Forces in all three major campaigns. It ain't a huge number.

Cheers,

YD

[poppy]

Hi YankeeDog, You mean we allies,excepting the Russians, fought the remainder. Thank God we didnt have to fight all of them. What proportion of the Axis forces did the Amercian/British coalition fight. poppy

[CombinedArms]

Glad to see all the good discussion.

Decided to do a test with flank shots. What if the Sherm76 gets a flank shot at 800m? That's what we're always manuevering for, isn't it, a flank shot on the Panther?

I lined up 10 Sherm76 vs. 10 Panthers. The Panthers got their AP back but were presenting their flanks to the Shermans. then hit go with no orders. You might think the Shermans would win big with the combination of a flank shot plus the 76mm gun.

After two tests with twenty tanks each total the results were:

Panthers:

6 dead; 2 disabled (of 20)

Shermans

11 dead; 2 disabled (of 20)

So, even with a flank shot, the Shermans suffer almost 2 to 1 losses vs. the Panther. It's enough to make you wonder if you should ever by the 76mm gun? If even flank shots aren't going to help you that much, maybe it's better to just go the cheap route and by vanilla Sherm75s--quantity over quality.

And you're right, Sergi. I'm not really complaining about pricing. I don't play QB's anyway. Just trying to explain to myself why I always have so much trouble against Panthers.

I acknowlege that the results might be different at closer range. My next test will be at 500 meters. Then flank shots with the 75.

[poppy]

Hi CombinedArms, Tried the flank shot with 5 M5A1s and 5 M475s same result at 500m ,1 dead Panther 5 dead M5s or M4 75s Tried it with 5 EasyEights flanking 5 Panthers at 500m and BINGO 1 dead Sherman and 5 dead Panthers. Theres still hope. poppy

[CombinedArms]

Hi, Poppy! I've been doing essentially similar tests. The results of two rounds of ten tanks each, Sherm76 vs. Panther presenting flank at 500 meters:

Panthers

9 dead, 11 alive (one disabled)

Sherman 76

11 dead, 9 alive (one disabled)

With M4A1 (75)s shooting at the Panther flank (two rounds of ten) the results were:

Panthers

6 dead, 14 alive (two disabled)

Sherman 75

12 dead, 8 alive

Some tactical observations: It's tough to be a Sherman. Even the vaunted flank shot is far from guaranteeing success. Clearly getting in closer helps, but even that doesn't necessarily spell success. The Panther turret can turn quickly enough that even the first shot will bounce of the turret front, so you're hoping the first shot hits the side hull. But even that doesn't guarantee a kill. And if your second shot misses, bounces off the turret or gives a non-lethal hull penetration, you're pretty much dead. By that time, the tank is facing you and thirsty for the kill (if it hasn't killed you already).

The results further suggest that you want to get in very close...that first shot better not miss, and that it would help to have two or even three tanks on the flank, firing from somewhat different angles. Tactically this can be difficult to accomplish, but it mutiples the chance of penetrations and the chance that penetrations will be lethal. (My observation throughout these tests--an impression, I wasn't counting--is that at least 35% of all penetrations on Panthers cause no damage.)

The results I've seen so far make me wonder if the 76 is worth the money in CM terms. Maybe it's better to just trust your luck to a lot of cheap 75s in most circumstances. While the 76 Sherman costs about 80% of a Panther's cost (why was that, again?), the vanilla 75s cost only about 60% and there's usually a rarity discount on one of them of 10%, bringing the real cost to half. Almost all the add ons to the vanilla Sherman seem overpriced, so maybe it ends up being the best Allied (or at least US) buy. I may be wrong, here, though. Or maybe the best way to get the 76 is in the M10 or Hellcat.

[poppy]

Hi CombinedAmrms. It looks like it would be best to confront a Panther from the flank with at least 3 M4 75s or 2 M476s or 1 M4 105 EasyEight. within 600m or so. I shouldnt say this or the price of 105 EasyEights will go up. :

[winkelried]

Try it with M18 Hellcats. Buy 10 Hellcats instead of 5 Easy Eights ... A Panther hit will kill an E8 as it will a M18. With the right tactics the M18 is far more deadly than any Sherman mix against all these (Panthers, Tigers) cats and long barreled gun carriers (JPz IV). At least in my humble experience ...

[Joachim]

Originally posted by Redwolf:

The use of the flex .50cal use against aircraft is of questionable value since it only fires at enemy airplanes.

[MikeyD]

I also find Hellcats (I doubt that's an actual wartime name for the thing) more nimble than Shermans, with the same gun and an equal chance of dying if hit by an 88. The only problem with Hellcats is they're greatly inferior at doing tank 'drudge work', infantry support. Not nearly enough mg power. more vulnerable to grenade throwers, etc.

About the 76 vs the Panther bow, let's remember there's the turret front too. I've got a few weak point penetrations, especially before the late G with the chin mantlet shows up..

Sherman E8s have very good ability over snow compared to plain-Jane Shermans and should be kept handy if you're planning winter fighting.

[CombinedArms]

It sure would seem that in a pure armor QB the Hellcat could be a great choice: cheap, fast, and with the 76. I just played a QB with commanding three reg Hellcat platoons (12 AFVs) vs. 5 Panthers (one platoon). Same cost w/o rarity. Handed the AI it's head--as might be expected, given that it's the AI, but I can see the merits of the Hellcat in this setting. (I lost 4 'Cats killing the five Panthers.) With that many AFVs, you can mob several tanks to fire at a single Panther from two different angles, etc., then back away or race foreward to stalk the next tank. Might not be so easy vs.a human opponent. In fact a friend has just designed a scenario along these lines, so I'm about to find out.

Against an Axis tank-infantry force, a Hellcat / Sherm75 mix might work best.