A Quick Battle AAR: Shermans vs Pz IVs, Not Your Fathers Combat Mission

[Rocky Balboa]

If somebody has the repro of the comic book manual perhaps they could see if it was a standard tactic.

Ask an ye shall receive. Tigerfibel

[StellarRat]

Hello StellarRat,

I know the Pz IV F2 does not have the same armor as the IVH... and in CMAK my Pz III J faired way better then the IV F2 and G's.. especially from the front. However the Side armor is always weakest, hence the need to flank all the time.

I was still amazed at the firepower of the Early Sherman hits at 800-1000m. They were destroying the crap out of my IVF2's and (G's) and even Pz III J's, although mainly the PzIV F2's suffered the most.

That being said though, the 75mm L/43 did do its job in CMAK, although I thought I would have an advantage at longer ranges with the Sherman... it was pretty much tic for tac.

If I remember right the long 50 in some of the IIIs combined a different type of armor plate actually made them superior to the early IVs with the short 75. That being said the Sherman was superior to nearly everything in NA. I should have prefaced my earlier comments by saying if armor and guns are nearly equal on both sides. Obviously your tactics are formed to a great degree by the capabilities of your equipment. There isn't much point in angling your armor if its impenetrable or if the enemy guns will penetrate from all ranges and angles. I remember one Tiger crewman who said he couldn't imagine fighting in anything else. For most of the war that was probably true.

[Vark]

Knock and the door shall open, Google and the information shall appear. Fantastic link Rocky, alas the info is not there, manual is purely technical not tactical, wonder if it inspired the similar formated M-16 manual?

[YankeeDog]

Knock and the door shall open, Google and the information shall appear. Fantastic link Rocky, alas the info is not there, manual is purely technical not tactical, wonder if it inspired the similar formated M-16 manual?

Yes, it is. Look on pp. 80-81 of the Tigerfibel. (It helps if you read German, but there are brief one-sentence descriptions of what is on the page at the bottom).

Angular offset it advocates is actually quite high (45 degrees!). Then again, the Tiger I's side armor was pretty good (mostly 80mm w/ 60mm lower hull, IIRC). So exposing the side armor at an oblique angle is a relatively low risk for the Tiger. It would be interesting to see if training manuals for other tanks are similar...

[The_Capt]

Minute seven, not much to add really. At this point I am still trying to spot that last damn tank, which keeps drilling me.

At this point it should be noted that the M4A3 had at least one crew cas. I also had one M4A1 immobilized (not sure when this happened). The crew had bailed but once they got it back together I sent them back into the tank.

[ShakyJake]

Yes, it is. Look on pp. 80-81 of the Tigerfibel. (It helps if you read German, but there are brief one-sentence descriptions of what is on the page at the bottom).

Angular offset it advocates is actually quite high. Then again, the Tiger I's side armor was pretty good (mostly 80mm w/ 60mm lower hull, IIRC). So exposing the side armor at an oblique angle is a relatively low risk for the Tiger. It would be interesting to see if training manuals for other tanks are similar...

This is probably true of most every tank out there. While the slope multiplier for a 30° hit on the front armor would likely be no more than 1.3x the base armor thickness, even at relatively low T/D ratios for very thin side armor that slope multiplier against 75mm-ish hits is going to be about 2.5-3.5 times the base armor thickness. It would be somewhat risky, though, as much more than this angle is quickly asking for disaster. Doing a little more math (I'm a math nerd, sorry I can't help it!) for the profile of a Tiger at a 30° angle, the frontal armor would actually measure about 3.2m across in the sites of a gunner looking directly at him, while the side armor would measure 3m across as well. That's an even chance of a shot from that aspect hitting either front or side, which would probably be rather unnerving, and an extremely likely chance between much of the front and all of the side that a low shot will hit the drive system.

[StellarRat]

There is also a ricochet factor to take into account when angle your armor. If round doesn't hit the armor nose first then initial energy might be spread over a much wider area then normal causing the round to bounce off. I believe that's one reason why some AP rounds have a flat nose instead of a pointy nose (which is more aerodynamic) .

[ShakyJake]

Indeed. A capped round has a better chance to "grab" at the armor on an angled hit and turn pivot the shot to penetrate inward. The slope multiplier calculations reflect this with their "effective resistance", which is what the angled plate would be equivalent to if it were a single vertical plate. Slope multipliers for normal AP rounds without the armor cap are much higher than for APC/APCBC rounds.

[Michael Emrys]

Taking into account all of these data, there should be no significant difference between the Pz IV-H and the M4A3 Sherman head to head at 300 meters. They should have roughly the same probability of destroying the other.

And for all we know they might. To repeat what has already been posted, this is too small a sample to justify drawing conclusions on. There could be additional factors at work here that make this a non-typical exchange. We don't know at this point.

Michael

[Peregrine]

Angular offset it advocates is actually quite high (45 degrees!). Then again, the Tiger I's side armor was pretty good (mostly 80mm w/ 60mm lower hull, IIRC). So exposing the side armor at an oblique angle is a relatively low risk for the Tiger. It would be interesting to see if training manuals for other tanks are similar...

The 1944 manual for the PIV would say your tank is obsolete, run from everything you see, get transferred to a Tiger battalion as quickly as possible.

[Lt. Smash]

After a week of business travel, I'm just getting caught up on this thread. As I was catching up, I noticed the blurb below. I don't think the ability to be notified where the hit occurs in part of the CMSF series. Is this new for CMBN or something special for the beta builds?

Minute 4 – Part 2

Thankfully this little risk paid off as the M-10 now sits smoking on top of the hill. Note that I hit it in the lower front hull (see the hit text?) because I was firing upwards and this M-10 was not hull down. Had it been hull down then I most likely would have lost this tank.

Great stuff. "End of April" can't get here soon enough!

Bob

[finalcut]

Maybe we will be lucky and it will be the "Early" part of the end of April.The last ten days of April could be considered the end of April.So,technically,the 21st could be the end of April,and thats only a little over three weeks away. I can't wait.

[Lt. Smash]

Looking at the number of reply's and views to this thread, and its still only turn 4. :eek: I'm predicting this one will surpass the size of the previous AAR threads by a wide margin.

Yes, I think we'll be playing the game before the AAR is over. Not that I mind, this is a great AAR and a good debate.

Bob

[Michael Emrys]

Maybe we will be lucky and it will be the "Early" part of the end of April.The last ten days of April could be considered the end of April.So,technically,the 21st could be the end of April,and thats only a little over three weeks away. I can't wait.

You really are desperate, aren't you?

Michael

[GhostRider3/3]

If I remember right the long 50 in some of the IIIs combined a different type of armor plate actually made them superior to the early IVs with the short 75. That being said the Sherman was superior to nearly everything in NA. I should have prefaced my earlier comments by saying if armor and guns are nearly equal on both sides. Obviously your tactics are formed to a great degree by the capabilities of your equipment. There isn't much point in angling your armor if its impenetrable or if the enemy guns will penetrate from all ranges and angles. I remember one Tiger crewman who said he couldn't imagine fighting in anything else. For most of the war that was probably true.

True however I found thru some reads that the first Shermans deployed had really poor quality AP rounds, and pretty much everywhere I read the Sherman 75mm was great up until about 700m-800m the Crews reporting that there shells were even bouncing off Pz IVH's.

This of course is debatable as we are talking about First hand passed down to books but the velocity of their AP rounds tappered off as they were not Aero efficient and of poor quality... at least till the later stages of 44 early 45. So the Optimum range that a Sherman wanted to engage a Pz. IVH or J or side hull hit for a Panther or even Tiger would have been within 600m or less.

So this Battle being played out with ranges below 700m is really a advantage for the Shermans. So for the Pz IVH to really survive it needs distance from the 75mm of the Sherman. 76mm = Issues for the PzIVH... but really the Sherman 76 vs ths 75 L48 are pretty comparable, it was the Long Barrell 17lbr or 76mm that truly had the Panthers and even Tigers worried. IMO

[Txema]

However, I think that if you do the same calculations (tank lateral angle around 30 degrees) for the opposite case (Pz IV-H being hit by the M4A3 Sherman in the upper hull and in the lower hull, and therefore 96mm vs 80mm and 93mm vs 80mm respectively), then the compound angle would increase significantly and probably the penetration would become also unlikely. (Could you please do the calculations ???)

Sure. Calculating the 0° penetration of the 75mm L/40 ABCPC against FH armor at 300m gives us a figure of 98mm. We'll look at the PzKpfw IVH's upper and lower hull only (the 50mm turret front will be easily penetrated here barring any extreme angle). I'll use a lateral angle of 0° (head on), 20°, and 30°, and show the compound angles for the hit and effective resistance for those 80mm plates.

Lateral Angle 0°

Upper hull @10° = 82mm

Lower hull @15° = 84mm

Lateral Angle 20°

Upper hull @22° = 91mm

Lower hull @25° = 96mm

Lateral Angle 30°

Upper hull @31° = 104mm

Lower hull @33° = 108mm

So at this range the average penetration of the Sherman's gun can handle about a 25° lateral angle from the PzKpfw IV before penetrating the upper hull is no longer better than average, and a 20° angle before penetration of the lower hull becomes less than ideal. At 30° lateral angle, only the exceptions at the upper range of the variable penetration should be getting through.

ShakyJake, thank you very much for your calculations !!

They confirm very well my previous statements.

There should be no significant difference between the Pz IV-H and the M4A3 Sherman head to head at 300 meters. They should have roughly the same probability of destroying the other.

Battlefront, taking into account all the calculations done by ShakyJake, do you agree with my statement?

[ChrisND]

ShakyJake, thank you very much for your calculations !!

They confirm very well my previous statements.

There should be no significant difference between the Pz IV-H and the M4A3 Sherman head to head at 300 meters. They should have roughly the same probability of destroying the other.

Battlefront, taking into account all the calculations done by ShakyJake, do you agree with my statement?

You might find this interesting:

ShakyJake,

Thanks for doing some more in depth math. This is why games which don't simulate things down to this level have skewed expectations of wargames. There's just no way the can get the nuances like this using CRTs and randomized modifiers.

There was one specific tank matchup in this AAR that Charles looked at in depth. His conclusion was that the way the two tanks were orientated to each other the PzIV could have fired all day long and the Sherman would not have suffered a penetration if hit on its glacis. It was at this point Charles upped the TacAI variable to make the virtual tanker not try to put this to the test But that tweak was done after this PBEM game so in the AAR you guys are reading The_Capt's Shermans are a bit braver than they would be now.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Texma,

There should be no significant difference between the Pz IV-H and the M4A3 Sherman head to head at 300 meters. They should have roughly the same probability of destroying the other.

Battlefront, taking into account all the calculations done by ShakyJake, do you agree with my statement?

Nope, I don't agree because your statement is too vague. The math seems to indicate that the Sherman has a minor advantage over the PzIV when they are literally facing each other straight on at fairly close range. Each has a pretty good chance of knocking out the other. But rotate the Sherman's hull just a bit and everything changes. The PzIV is still dead meat because the Sherman is striking it dead on, but the Sherman has a pretty good chance of surviving a hit because it is oblique. The matchup we see in this AAR seems to indicate that is indeed what is happening.

Steve

[Schlosskirche]

Just a quick "danke" to the AAR participants and all of the impressively informed responders. This has really helped me prepared for what I am in for once "late April" comes around. Can't wait.

[Wrath of Dagon]

I just tried this in CMSF, and the problem is I can't give both a facing and a cover arc command at the same time outside of setup. May be it's because I still have 1.11, but I hope it gets fixed for CMBN.

[ChrisND]

I just tried this in CMSF, and the problem is I can't give both a facing and a cover arc command at the same time outside of setup. May be it's because I still have 1.11, but I hope it gets fixed for CMBN.

That's because the cover arc command also acts as a facing command. The tank will move to face the center of the arc. There's nothing to "fix", as it isn't a bug.

[Wrath of Dagon]

No, it doesn't, the hull remains in the same position while the turret rotates. Nor should it.

[ChrisND]

No, it doesn't, the hull remains in the same position while the turret rotates. Nor should it.

Doh, so you are right. At any rate, the reason you can't give it a face and arc command is that you can't give two commands from the same tab simultaneously. Seems like Face should be in another tab.

[Sergei]

Face and Target Arc are both "Combat" category commands, and you can only give the unit one combat order at a time. In Real Time this isn't hard to overcome, but in WeGo the only way to do it in one turn is to give a target arc and a short movement command that makes the tank face the way you want it.

[Txema]

Texma,

Nope, I don't agree because your statement is too vague. The math seems to indicate that the Sherman has a minor advantage over the PzIV when they are literally facing each other straight on at fairly close range. Each has a pretty good chance of knocking out the other. But rotate the Sherman's hull just a bit and everything changes. The PzIV is still dead meat because the Sherman is striking it dead on, but the Sherman has a pretty good chance of surviving a hit because it is oblique. The matchup we see in this AAR seems to indicate that is indeed what is happening.

Steve

Steve,

First of all, thank you very much for your quick answer !!

Could you plese re-read the post by ShakyJake?

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?p=1240274#post1240274

As you can see, his calculations reveal that the Sherman needs a lateral angle around 30 degrees to make the penetration by the Pz IV-H 75mm L/48 unlikely (in the upper hull front).

On the other hand, ShakyJake’s calculations show also that if the Pz IV-H has a lateral angle around 30 degrees the penetration (in the hull) by the Sherman’s 75mm L/40 APCBC is also unlikely.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?p=1240414#post1240414

Therefore, at this short range, no tank has a-priori advantage over the other. As you say, “the PzIV is still dead meat because the Sherman is striking it dead on, but the Sherman has a pretty good chance of surviving a hit because it is oblique. The matchup we see in this AAR seems to indicate that is indeed what is happening.” I fully agree with this statement.

But if you reverse the situation interchanging the position of both tanks in such a way that the PzIV strikes the Sherman dead on (in the upper hul), and the Sherman strikes the PzIV (in the hull) with a lateral angle (of around 30 degrees), then the Sherman should die easily while the PzIV should have a high chance of surviving.

My point is that we have found a very good explanation for the facts that we are seeing in the AAR, but the Sherman tank is not surviving because it is inherently better than the PzIV at this short range. It is surviving because it is being hit with a lateral angle, while the PzIV is dying because it is being hit dead on. If we interchange their positions the result would be the opposite.

So, which tank is better head to head at 300 meters? The calculations done by ShakyJake suggest that both of them are roughly equivalent a-priori, but of course if one of them is in a significantly better tactical position than the other then it will have a significant advantage (as it happens in the AAR).