Sherman 76 vs. Panther

[Mr. Tittles]

Soddball you need to read closely. I said the APDS was unstable.

I have several sources. Mycenius for one. WO 291/238, The Importance of Gun Dispersion in AP Shooting.

WO 291/1263, Firing Trials, 17pdr Sherman

"Table VI has been constructed which shows the probability of a hit on a target 5' wide by 2' high

(representing a Panther turret) at various ranges using both types of round."

Range (yards) APC % AP/DS %

400 90.5 56.6

600 73.0 34.2

800 57.3 21.9

1000 45.3 14.9

1500 25.4 7.1

Comments and corrections

These assume that the MPI is placed centrally on the target.

The trace from the AP/DS round was not seen in 73% of cases by a flank observer, and in no case from

inside the tank.

[Soddball]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

Soddball you need to read closely. I said the APDS was unstable.

I have several sources. Mycenius for one. WO 291/238, The Importance of Gun Dispersion in AP Shooting.

WO 291/1263, Firing Trials, 17pdr Sherman

"Table VI has been constructed which shows the probability of a hit on a target 5' wide by 2' high

(representing a Panther turret) at various ranges using both types of round."

Range (yards) APC % AP/DS %

400 90.5 56.6

600 73.0 34.2

800 57.3 21.9

1000 45.3 14.9

1500 25.4 7.1

Comments and corrections

These assume that the MPI is placed centrally on the target.

The trace from the AP/DS round was not seen in 73% of cases by a flank observer, and in no case from

inside the tank.

Sorry, I'm not an ammo expert. I understand that APDS stands for Armour Piercing Discarding Sabot but I wanted to know whether you were referring to the tungsten round or, if not, which round you were referring to.

[Mr. Tittles]

Originally posted by Soddball:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

Perhaps not. I read a report that each gun would fire it differently and each gun had to find its own adjustment to using APDS. It also had a poor tracer it seems.

The APDS was the tungsten round? Even without Tungsten, the 17pdr could deal comfortably with the majority of German tanks at 1km+ IIRC. Since tungsten was a scarce round anyway, that doesn't really impinge on the 90%+ of rounds fired by the 17pdr. </font>

[Mr. Tittles]

Yes APDS is a armor piercing discarding sabot tungsten core round.

[Carl Puppchen]

If people think that a 90mm gun on a half track is so useful, they might try playing with the Italian 90mm AA gun that is mounted on a truck . My experience with it has been grim unless fighting from a keyhole and getting off the first shot, and surrounded w/other weapons to keep off infantry. Granted, a half track would be slightly more survivable than a truck mounted weapon but not by much - the German MG can take out a half track at decent range in CMAK and does it a lot.

As far as using the 'kitties' or M-18's, yes they have a good gun but against a reasonably competent axis player these things will be struck at with on board mortars or arty immediately since they die a quick death or at least retreat rapidly in these scenarios. Combined arms is the way to go in most situations especially here. If you can push off the M18's then the panzers can mop up on the unsupported infantry. At least the shermans won't die (or at least not often) from on board mortars.

I agree with the point of the thread that the allied tanks are overpriced relative to the panther or tiger. I know that many people don't care about point values but I do because I try to use it as a proxy for fair forces in QB's and scenarios that I play.

There are other threads showing that allied arty is overpriced, as well, and combined the allies probably are at a net late war point disadvantage w/the axis in QB's.

However, I think that the situation is reversed in the desert because the M-13/40 and PZ IV C are rolling junk when facing a valentine or matilda and the III H's are an even match. Unlike the real life allies a competent opponent will use combined arms and in these cases unless you have 88's (which you can't move during a scenario) the times are grim for the axis.

Just my opinion and I enjoy the historical analysis.

[Mr. Tittles]

I base my assertion about APDS being unique in each gun due to this report:

WO 291/762, Accuracy of APCBC/HV shot and AP/DS when fired from the 6-

Pounder Gun mounted in the Churchill IV

The variation of "jump" and dispersion between individual tanks is so great that an "accurate" ranging

rule for applying ranges to the sight for AP/DS shooting is suggested, in effect requiring each gun to be

"zeroed" individually for AP/DS aiming rather than using the same rule for all. The expected difference

between the two rules is shown in this table of first-shot hit probabilities:

Range (yds) Accurate ranging rule Proposed ranging rule

400 73 45

800 32 19

1000 20 14

[Soddball]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Soddball:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

Perhaps not. I read a report that each gun would fire it differently and each gun had to find its own adjustment to using APDS. It also had a poor tracer it seems.

The APDS was the tungsten round? Even without Tungsten, the 17pdr could deal comfortably with the majority of German tanks at 1km+ IIRC. Since tungsten was a scarce round anyway, that doesn't really impinge on the 90%+ of rounds fired by the 17pdr. </font>

[Soddball]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

Yes APDS is a armor piercing discarding sabot tungsten core round.

So it makes up around 5% of the typical ammo available to 17pdr weapons? Approximately? And the standard round available fared better than the Tungsten.

[Mr. Tittles]

Not sure where you are going but the fact remains that the 90mm using ordinary shot was better than the 17 pdr using APDS or APCBC. And it was very accurate also.

[Mr. Tittles]

The US did mount the 90mm in a sherman as the M36B1. This was a sherman chassis with a M36 turret. Sort of half tank/half TD. But I think these were fielded very late in the war. They certainly WOULD have been welcome in summer 44.

[ October 06, 2004, 04:10 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

[MikeyD]

Its 'common knowledge' (cough-cough) that APDS was unstable up through the 90mm gun on the M48 and the Brit/U.S. 105mm guns (pre-APFSDS) on Centurions and M60s. It seems the chief source of instability came from the subcaliber shot having to separate from the pot after exiting the barrrel. if the separation was clean the shot went straight. If the pot separated unevenly the tungsten shot was liable careen off at wild angles. So it wasn't '"large dispersion circle" type of inaccurate like with low velocity guns, it was "Where the hell did it go?!" inaccurate. But it could punch holes so they kept it til something better came along.

[Mr. Tittles]

I will again reiterate that you can not just get 17 pdrs out of thin air. The US would need to have set up a factory and get the items overseas. Getting the US tanks refurbished with 17 pdrs would have taken time also. The quickest way would have been a US Achilles (M10) conversion. Theres also training and getting ammo manufactured.

And still the 17 pdr was not a weapon that could really face down panthers.

[Soddball]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

Not sure where you are going but the fact remains that the 90mm using ordinary shot was better than the 17 pdr using APDS or APCBC. And it was very accurate also.

I haven't denied your assessment of the weapon's potential at any point. I raised a specific objection to your claim that its provision in the form you mentioned on the previous page would have been beneficial. The 90mm gun needed to be in a heavily armoured, turreted tank or TD to make it effective against the opponents you are talking about - Panthers.

[Mr. Tittles]

Not really. 90mm AA guns were sitting ducks. Any mobility, given the terrain that was fought in for the majority of the war in europe, would have made this weapon viable. The combined arms use of arty/smoke and tactics such that these weapons could get the drop on the enemy vehicle at 600-1000m would pay benefits.

I do not see the failure of the early halftrack TDs in open tarrain, using faulty tactics as being relevant to the discussion.

The germans and others would mount larger weapons in less then heavily armored AFVs just to make a mobile AT asset. The Hornet and Marders were successful stop gaps. The US was prosecuring a war of attacking and any action would draw in enemy armor.

[Carl Puppchen]

Not to jump the thread which is very interesting and useful but what if the US faced the Russians after 1945... then the discussion is far from academic because the Germans fielded relatively few of the super heavy tanks relative to the huge quanties of heavily armored tanks that the soviets had of the JS II and JS III ilk, and even an SU 152 or T34/85 is certainly no slouch.

The sherman is rolling junk compared to those, the 90mm is needed and - voila - you get the pershing.

The presence or absence of a heavy tank killer didn't turn out to be a deal-breaker for the issues that other people have described much better than I ever could - plus don't forget about ULTRA which tipped us off about their offensives notably for Mortain (didn't help on the bulge, though).

[Mr. Tittles]

The M4A3E8 sherman with APCR is more than a match to a T34/85.

If the Russians pushed it, they would have starved to death in post WWII. Strategic bombing would sever all supplies and the flow of food from the west would stop anyway of course.

[junk2drive]

To simulate the above in CMAK, what tanks would you use? (US vs Soviet)

[Mr. Tittles]

The funny thing is that all the US would only have had to ship over the M36 turrets and they could have field modified Shermans to carry them.

Its surprising that the US did not get the Soviets to field test weapons against the Germans and feed back info. The Panther and Tiger were both running around the east for over a year by the time the allies invaded France. Plenty of Panthers must have been falling into the Soviets hands and shipping one to England would not have been out of the question.

[ October 07, 2004, 07:06 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

Its surprising that the US did not get the soviets to field test weapons against the Germans and feed back info.

Not in light of the extremely poor performance of the Soviets as a source of information about almost anything. They would not even allow Western military observers near the fighting for most of the war.

Michael

[dieseltaylor]

Interesting to learn of the deficiencies of the various shots and gun platforms. Just goes to show how bad news gets suppressed!!

Serious eye-opener re APDS.

I would agree with Mr T that the 90mm on a half track might have been useful - but I have to admit thinking of lots of scenarios where it would be very vulnerable. Possibly to the point that to have it in the right circumstances in the line were so restricted that it would end up being used inappropriately.

My father in law was telling me that as a weapon of suppression for squads the Bren failed as it was too accurate. No spray effect --- designers cannot win really : )

[Mr. Tittles]

The 90mm would probably not be able to be fitted to a US halftrack due to its weight. I would suggest using a Priest with the 105mm removed. This would give it better mobility than any halftrack. It would be about equal or better than a US Sherman tank in terms of mobility.

US tanks were generally very poor at cross country in muddy conditions. The report to Eisenhower stressed that. Not till the M4A3E8 (late in the war), did the US have a good 'mudder'.

[Sirocco]

The caveat is that German use of SP guns was done in the context of largely defensive fighting. The question is, how would a heavy US SP gun have fared in offensive use? With regard to the general doctrinal confusion, it might also have taken some time to integrate them into units, and have field commanders develop a proper appreciation of the platform.

[Carl Puppchen]

As far as the doctrinal confusion, look no further than the muddy plans for how the tank destroyers (M10's) were to be deployed.

Can't imagine I'd want to go forward in an attack in a modified priest with a 90mm gun vs. hidden German AT assets, any one of which from 50mm AT on up could easily take out such a contraption.

But it is still better than mounting it on a truck

[Mr. Tittles]

WO 291/1271 The ranging and dispersion of HE M67 (Anti-Tank) Shell in the

105mm Tank Howitzer

An interesting alternative was the 105mm howitzer. This was installed in shermans and had the ability to penetrate the Panther front (including sloped armor)with HEAT rounds at any range. It did not have power traverse and given the shermans need for large turns to change direction, it was not suited to mix it up with panthers (which could quickly change hull direction if needed and had power traverse).

Using Priests in the direct fire mode probably was done but the need for HEAT ammo would limit this. The HEAT ammo for this weapon was surprisingly accurate.

This gun ranges in close agreement with the firing tables for the 105mm howitzer in the M7 howitzer

motor carriage.

Percentage hits expected, once the MPI is adjusted on to the target:

Range (yds) Panther turret

5 ft × 2 ft

Panther head-on

12 ft × 10 ft

Panther side-on

23 ft × 7 ft

500 89 100 100

1000 43 100 99

1500 21 94 89

2000 12 76 73

2500 7 56 55

3000 4 35 36

3500 2 19 20

It is considered that a hit probability of 50% is a good line for "satisfactory" engagement range, so it is

recommended that engagements be conducted at 900 yards on hull-down targets and 2500 yards for

hull-up ones.

[Mr. Tittles]

Originally posted by Carl Puppchen:

As far as the doctrinal confusion, look no further than the muddy plans for how the tank destroyers (M10's) were to be deployed.

Can't imagine I'd want to go forward in an attack in a modified priest with a 90mm gun vs. hidden German AT assets, any one of which from 50mm AT on up could easily take out such a contraption.

But it is still better than mounting it on a truck

In France, most M10s and other TDs were parceled out as AT assets to attacking tank battalions, etc. They were not the 'forward' elements but typically held to the near-rear to respond to threats.

The Germans did this with Marders also. They were used in attacks but as overwatch, etc.