Lend Lease, and giving the Sherman its due

[Michael Emrys]

Well, that's not too far off, come to that.

Michael

[LightningWar]

These two puzzled me.

I can understand the faster turret, but better sights? US tank sights were very poor, making shots over 800 yards extremely difficult at best (if I remember correctly this had alot to do with the difficulty of estimating range to target through a US sight). Were the soviet optics really that crappy? "

I was under the impression it could be due to the gun used on the shermans. Low velocity. Not very accurate. I know Soviet optics were notoriously horrible. This is what almost every book I have ever read on the subject talks about. And the lack of radios.

"The Sherman was notorious for its poor survivability if hit. The T-34/85 on the other hand have very good armor protection. "

Against what? Shermans saw some action in N.Africa and faired pretty good against the PZIII\PZIV. But what most people remember is what the German heavy armor did to the Shermans. Tigers\Panthers\KTs\TDs. This was late war and when the Sherman probably saw the most fighting. At the same time the Shermans were being brewed up by Tigers et al. The T34\85 was coming to the same conclusion. Tigers just shooting up columns of T34s on the steppes of Russia.

The only thing the T34s and Shermans of the world had on the big cats was the ability to pump them out at a rate probably x faster than the Germans. As I have read a few stories on late war german tank commanders.

Sending 8 tigers to stop an entire armored corps. Futile!

LW

[Marlow]

Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:

Looking at the raw numbers the T-34/85 had more armor at "better" angles from side and rear. (Comparing to M4a2).

A tank's frontal armor is by far the most important. Look at the Panther (best tank of the war) as an example of what a tank with good front, and marginal side armor can do.

Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:

Same goes for turret front. The only place the Sherman has better armor is hull front really, but there the T-34 has better slope (depending on exactly where you look though).

The front hull of the T34 was only slightly more sloped than the Sherman. Armor thickness went from slightly more for early shermans to twice as much for later varients. The hull of an uparmored Sherman is significantly more resistant to 75mm/Pak 40 hits. The turrets of both the Sherman and the T34 are about equally vunerable to German AT hits.

[Battlefront.com]

Some points...

Ammo storage - Loza, who commanded Matildas, Shermans, and various T-34s favored the Sherman overall. He specifically mentioned the ammo storage issue. He not only speculated that better storage was part of it, but that US gunpowered was more stable. I have never heard the latter confirmed, so I am just tossing that in.

Optics - the US optics get a bad rap, like many US things, in part because earlier war examples *were* terrible. But we are talking about the stuff in vehicles like the Lee/Grant and early M4s, not what was in later vehicles. Especially not tanks armed with the 76mm gun. Were the optics as good as the German's? Probably not, but they didn't have to be to some extent because the gun's being used had a lesser effective range. For example, putting a Zeiss 10x scope on a BB Gun doesn't do much more for you than open sights

Soviet optics were crude compared to German optics, but generally OK their weapons and doctrine were for the most part about getting in close. A standoff engagment doctrine like the Germans was generally rulled out by both gun and optics, especially early-mid war. It is also interesting to note that the Soviet optics weren't as bad as they have been portrayed. They would have been much worse if the Germans hadn't set them up with better R&D and production facilities during their time of Germany's secret rearmament program. Also, some Soviet tanks actually had Zeiss optics in them, but those ones weren't around for long.

Better Armor - one can't just look at the stats and make conclusions without factoring in the brittleness (flaws) in most Soviet armor. The Sherman's armor was of a better and more consistant quality.

Now... compare the Soviet's favorable opinion of Shermans, Matildas, and Valentines with their opinion of the Lee/Grant. They called it a Coffin for 7 Brothers. Not a very positive nickname!

Steve

[ September 11, 2002, 11:20 AM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Commissar]

Wow, you know CMBB is close to finished when Steve actually has time to write a post like this.

[ September 11, 2002, 11:25 AM: Message edited by: Commissar ]

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:

Well, do we agree on how the US sights looked? Or in other words, what was painted on the gunners optics? If we start there and compare those sights to the German zeiss sights, it becomes apparent that the US sights lack any real mean to measure range.

This assumes that scribed triangles on the reticule make range estimations any better than those that can be done by eye and by experience. They may well be on the flat screen of a PC, but I doubt that they would make any real difference at normal combat ranges -- especially when you consider that a US gunner normally has a choice of vision devices, whereas German tank design has been criticised insofar as the gunners normally have to make do with nothing more than the gunsight. I understood that in Western WW2 tank-commanding practice, at any rate, estimating the range to the target was the tank commander's job, rather than the gunner's. Was German practice different in this respect?

Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:

But generally, the US sights had less magnification and poor "design" (dont know a better word).

It is not true that US sights "generally" has less magnification. Looking at page 258 of Hunnicutt's "Sherman" shows low magnifications of x 1.44 and 1.8 for the M38 and M39 telescopes, but thereafter everything is capable of x3 magnification at least. This is more than the typical German tank sight magnification of x2.4 or x2.5 as shown for most of the entries on p. 255 of Chamberlain, Doyle & Jentz' "Encyclopedia of German tanks of WW2".

All the best,

John.

[ September 11, 2002, 01:08 PM: Message edited by: John D Salt ]

[Andrew H.]

Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:

Well, do we agree on how the US sights looked? Or in other words, what was painted on the gunners optics? If we start there and compare those sights to the German zeiss sights, it becomes apparent that the US sights lack any real mean to measure range. To be able to hit something with a tank gun you need to know how far away it is. Basically this is what Im basing my statement on, and the source for this is not the Panzer Elite page, it is from a book called "Tiger Tanks" or something like that (I dont have it in front of me right now). In that book the zeiss optics and all its pros and cons are discussed very thoroughly.

This is, at best, somewhat naive. As interesting and as cool as the gunsights in PE are, I think that PE has also caused a lot of misinformation about optics and tank gunnery. For one thing, in both German and US tanks, it was the TC who told the gunner the range.

The TC could determine the range in a lot of different ways, none of which involve the gunsight. One way is simply by experience - for trained tankers - but not, obviously, computer gamers - it's not hard to eyeball a range within a couple hundred meters. Some ranging is based on the apparent size of the enemy target, and other ways of ranging can be based on known terrain features - i.e., if the treeline is known ot be 1500 meters away and a tank emerges from the treeline, you know the range. And this ignores rangesticks.

Also, tank firing relies on bracketing, since even the Germans rarely got first shot hits. Bracketing won't be helped by the rangefinding aids on the gunsight, since it requires determining how many meters long or short a round fell. This is also based on experience.

Finally, the higher-velocity german guns permitted the use of "battlesight ranging," where (I've forgotten the exact details) the range was set to some intermediate range, like 800 meters, and, because of the cannon's flat trajectory, common targets between 500 and 1500 meters would be hit. This doesn't require much range estimation at all.

Which is not to say that, at the margins, a gunsight with a rangefinding aid wouldn't be helpful. It does provide some additional information. But it's not like ranges couldn't be estimated without the gunsight.

I also seem to remember that the US sights also had less magnification than the German sights, although naturally that would vary from tank to tank (i e a PzVD did not have the same optics as a PzVIB). But generally, the US sights had less magnification and poor "design" (dont know a better word).

Regards

Steve

Magnification is useful if you are engaging at longer ranges, and the longer the ranges, the more magnification helps, both for seeing the target, for aiming at the target, and for observing the fall of the shot. It wasn't *rare* for 76mm and up tanks to hit targets at ranges up to 1500 meters, and you can find accounts of tank destroyers hitting targets at 2000 meters - but the Germans were *better* at it. Most of the accounts I've read of US attacks at ranges over 1200 meters seem to be situations where the Germans were unaware of the US tanks - either because of long range ambush situations, or because the US tankers executed a flanking-type manuever.

[Renaud]

"But I still dont get it. The M4a2 was notorious for its tendancy to brew up. This was improved when the americans started with the wet stowage system. Are you guys saying that the T-34/85 had similar brew up-problems but those never changed"

I do believe earlier US and British vehicles, particularly the early Sherman, used gasoline rather than diesel, which resulted in a greater chance to brew up due to the lower flashpoint. Thus the appelation 'tommy-cooker' for the british shermans. Diesel on the other hand is quite resistant to ignition. So resistant, that it is sprayed directly from the tank onto 600F exhaust plates to create thick smoke screens in the case of the modern M1. I don't know if the T-34 series engines burned petrol or diesel...

Ren

[Grisha]

Wow, go to sleep, and come back to see this thread at 31 replies!

Anyway, Hortlund, regarding your question about Sherman ammo storage. Yes, the Soviets are indirectly referring to wet storage. Steve G. posted Loza's account of his crew sitting underneath their brewing tank, unable to get out from under it due to enemy fire. Loza and his crew thought they were all going to die from secondary explosions, but that wet storage system insured that they just got a little too warm for awhile. And they sat underneath that thing for quite awhile, too.

[Grisha]

I believe the 5th Mech Corps was hastily formed up, only receiving their commander a month before, to go fight along the Don during the encirclement battles at Stalingrad. They were entirely equipped with nothing by Valentines and Matildas. By 1943, almost all of their tanks were Valentines, and it wasn't until Sept 1943 that 5th Mech Corps finally replaced them with T-34s. Now, that's what I call 40mm Blues.

Heh. This is an earlier post I made here, and it's incorrect. Loza himself was a tanker in the 5th Mech Corps, and when they were refitted in fall-winter of 1943 at least his brigade received Emchas, or M4A2s. I believe, by the time 5th Mech Corps had been designated 9th Guards Mech Corps, the entire unit had switched to Shermans. Incidently, Loza was wounded in a Valentine in 1942.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Grisha:

[snips] Incidently, Loza was wounded in a Valentine in 1942.

Gospodin Picky points out that Loza was wounded in a Matilda in Spetember 1943.

Source: "Commanding the Red Army's Sherman Tanks", Dmitriy Loza HSU, tr. James F Gebhart, University of Nebraska Press, 1996, page 157.

All the best,

John.

[Hortlund]

Gentlemen, regardless of what you may or may not think, Im not basing my statements on a computer game.

the gunsight

Lets take the TFZ 9b sight as an example of a German gunsight. (Used in the Tiger I)

The sight contained two illuminated transparent discs. The first had a range scale inscribed around its circumference. The disc was turned by the gunner until the appropriate range to the target was set against a small pointer. This action would simultaneously raise the other transparent disc which incorporated the gunners graticules (aiming marks, or "crosshairs" if you will).

The gunner would then overlay the aiming marks on the target using his hand operatedelevation and traverse controls. As long as the gunner knew the correct width of the target he could make a fairly accurate range determination. This range estimate is known as a stadiametric range determination system.

So apparently the gunner could measure range using his sight. But did he?

From the Tiger I manual:

The distance can only be properly estimated by the driver and the commander, because they can see the target unhindered with the naked eye. It is worse through the telescopic sight, first because the telescope sight magnifies everything by a factor of 2.5, and second because you cannot estimate range that well with a single eye.

If you have the time, do like this: The commander measures or estimates the distance. The driver takes a little longer and reports his distance (estimate). The commander calculates the middle (average) value. Meanwhile the gunner has estimated the distance using the gunsight and reports his value to the commander. The commander recalculates the average value and gives the right range. The gunner sets the range and fires.

Rangefinders

The commanders were provided with a small optical coincidence-type rangefinder to assist in the observation and ranging of targets. (a coincidence-rangefinder the distance to the target is measured by sighting on the target and bringing the erect image into coincidence with the inverted image in the field of view. The range is then read on a range scale). The commander could use this rangefinder to align the gun with the target in cases where the gunner could not see the target.

Standard field practice for the Panzer commanders was to get their hands on a TZR 1 (another optical rangefinder) this was something issued to all Tiger tanks, and to most other tanks. The TZR 1 was a periscope type rangefinder. When in use the periscope was mounted on a bracket attached beneath the base of the commanders cupola so that it enabled the commander, with his head below the top of the cupola, to see from a point roughly 39 inches above the cupola mounted MG ring.

First hand accounts

The German telescopic sights mounted in their tanks are far superior to ours, in particular it is more powerful. In fact all their optical equipment is superior to ours.

-Sgt Lewis A. Taylor 2nd Armor division, 1944.

You could clearly see a blade of grass over a mile away with the sights in the Tiger.

Franz Kurtz, Tiger I&II gunner

At one time I got to try to look through a Tiger I sight. It was the best optics I have ever seen. On two occations I was able to pick out an anti tank position and a mortar position at a range of about one mile. When we moved over to our tank I could not see either of the targets at all.

Sgt George A. Barden, tank gunner 2nd Arm division, same report as sgt Taylor above.

[ September 11, 2002, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: Leutnant Hortlund ]

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:

[snips]

From the Tiger I manual:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

[snips]

If you have the time, do like this: The commander measures or estimates the distance. The driver takes a little longer and reports his distance (estimate). The commander calculates the middle (average) value. Meanwhile the gunner has estimated the distance using the gunsight and reports his value to the commander. The commander recalculates the average value and gives the right range. The gunner sets the range and fires.

</font>

[JonS]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:

Well, do we agree on how the US sights looked? Or in other words, what was painted on the gunners optics? If we start there and compare those sights to the German zeiss sights, it becomes apparent that the US sights lack any real mean to measure range.

This assumes that scribed triangles on the reticule make range estimations any better than those that can be done by eye and by experience. They may well be on the flat screen of a PC, but I doubt that they would make any real difference at normal combat ranges ... [snip]</font>

[Hortlund]

Source: Tiger Tanks by Michael Greene

ISBN 0-87938-954-0

However, we notice that the commander is not apparently expected to give any extra weight to the gunner's estimate. The implication is surely that rangefinding by stadia reticule is no more accurate than rangefinding by naked eye.

In the example given in the instruction book, the distance to the target has been estimated by one person (driver) and measured twice (commander and gunner). First the commander and driver results are averaged, then this number is averaged with the gunners result.

Now maybe someone more talented in math than me could explain this better, but doesnt this mean that the measured distances are given "more weight" (assuming that everyone comes up with fairly reasonable ranges).

Suppose the driver says 150m, the commander 110 and the gunner 120.

110+150=260/2=130+120=250/2=125

120+150=270/2=135+110=245/2=122,5

Apparently it does matter what numbers you average first, but Im not a matematician so I have no idea whether this makes any sence or not

[Grisha]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

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

[snips] Incidently, Loza was wounded in a Valentine in 1942.

Gospodin Picky points out that Loza was wounded in a Matilda in Spetember 1943.

Source: "Commanding the Red Army's Sherman Tanks", Dmitriy Loza HSU, tr. James F Gebhart, University of Nebraska Press, 1996, page 157.

All the best,

John.</font>

[ASL Veteran]

Why are we still talking about German sights? Aren't we supposed to be comparing Soviet and American sights? Am I missing something? :confused:

[Andreas]

Originally posted by ASL Veteran:

Why are we still talking about German sights? Aren't we supposed to be comparing Soviet and American sights? Am I missing something? :confused:

Only the fact that there is next to no data extant on Soviet sights. Since grogs hate letting a good-natured brawl die, they just move it onto something they can at least clobber themselves with references over.

[Ari Maenpaa]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

I assume that the chap who found the Tiger's sight better than the Sherman's had a version equipped with a x1.44 mag telescope, as it seems unlikely that he should be able to see more clearly at long range through a x2.5 scope than a x3 one.

Next is quoted from http://chsk.com/steppenwolf/tiger1.htm -Tiger I page:

With the replacement gun sight Turmzielfrenrohr 9c introduced in April 1944, the gunner could select two magnifications, 2.5X and 5X. The lower magnification provided a wider field of view for target identification while the higher assisted in precise aiming at long ranges. Two adjustable range scales allowed the gunner to register the exact range to the target.

Most likely the chap saw this later sight model with 5X magnification.

Ari

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Renaud:

"But I still dont get it. The M4a2 was notorious for its tendancy to brew up. This was improved when the americans started with the wet stowage system. Are you guys saying that the T-34/85 had similar brew up-problems but those never changed"

I do believe earlier US and British vehicles, particularly the early Sherman, used gasoline rather than diesel, which resulted in a greater chance to brew up due to the lower flashpoint. Thus the appelation 'tommy-cooker' for the british shermans. Diesel on the other hand is quite resistant to ignition. So resistant, that it is sprayed directly from the tank onto 600F exhaust plates to create thick smoke screens in the case of the modern M1. I don't know if the T-34 series engines burned petrol or diesel...

Ren

Yes the T34s and T34 -85 had "brew up" problems.

These brew up problems crop up again in T-62 and T-72 variants as well

The M4A2/Sherman Mark III supplied to the Soviet Union/Commonwealth was powered by two GMC 6-71 Diesel engines.

[Liebchen]

Originally posted by gunnergoz:

Almost 10 per cent lost before they got to the battlefield...says something, doesn't it?

Related topic: Of the U.S. forces, the merchant marine suffered per capita losses second <u>only to the U.S.M.C.</u> These were civilians, not draftees. Don't know how many know that.

Side note: the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy (aka Kings Point) was also the only academy to send students into harm's way. It is, therefore, the only Federal Academy with a battle standard honoring their dead. (Yes, I'm a Kings Point grad. )

[Renaud]

Next is quoted from http://chsk.com/steppenwolf/tiger1.htm -Tiger I page:

With the replacement gun sight Turmzielfrenrohr 9c introduced in April 1944, the gunner could select two magnifications, 2.5X and 5X. The lower magnification provided a wider field of view for target identification while the higher assisted in precise aiming at long ranges. Two adjustable range scales allowed the gunner to register the exact range to the target.

Most likely the chap saw this later sight model with 5X magnification.

I noticed that the battlefront.com 'Changes since CMBO' document 'Optics' section states:

Dual-Magnification: Can switch between two different magnification levels, to optimize both spotting and tracking. Used by late-model Panthers. Crew must be veteran or better to use without penalties.

This seems to indicate that CMBB will not include such dual magnification for the late-war tiger, but only the Panther, or that they just didn't mention it in the brief 'Optics' section.

Ren

{edit}: keep in mind that the quality of visual information conveyed by optics is not determined by magnification alone. The more important qualities (which german optics have in abundance) are: clarity (provided by finely formed and ground lenses and optically perfect surfaces) and light gather ability. These attributes grow more important as the magification increases (magnification drastically reduces light entering the aperture). Only the most highly developed industry could achieve truly fine optics.

[ September 11, 2002, 06:35 PM: Message edited by: Renaud ]

[c3k]

To add a tidbit on Soviet optics:

I read somewhere (I know, I know), that when a non-Soviet tanker looked through the WWII Soviet gunner's sight, he could clearly see bubbles in the lense.

Is that bad enough optics?

A grog could ident what book the above anecdote comes from. Sorry.

Ken "non-attributable"

[Grisha]

The first Shermans to be sent to the Soviet Union were gasoline engines. Stalin complained about this due to the easy brew-ups, and soon thereafter lend lease Shermans to the USSR were all diesel-powered. T-34s were diesel-powered as well.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:

Source: Tiger Tanks by Michael Greene

ISBN 0-87938-954-0

Ta.

Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:

In the example given in the instruction book, the distance to the target has been estimated by one person (driver) and measured twice (commander and gunner). First the commander and driver results are averaged, then this number is averaged with the gunners result.

Now maybe someone more talented in math than me could explain this better, but doesnt this mean that the measured distances are given "more weight" (assuming that everyone comes up with fairly reasonable ranges).

If that's the way it's done, then yes, it does. I read "re-calculates the average" as meaning that the commander calculated the arithmetic mean of all three results.

If more weight is indeed given to the gunner's estimate, I find this hard to square with the statement about range estimation that "It is worse through the telescopic sight".

All the best,

John.