German tank vulnerability

[Sergei]

You fail at reading.

[gibsonm]

How else am I supposed to interpret:

*Ram was like the undernourished and dim-witted halfbrother of Cromwell

Now maybe in Finland its different, but in English this would be taken as suggesting that the RAM was related to the Cromwell.

[Sergei]

Don't take everything 100% literally and you will occasionally understand what people mean. Especially when you see something such as "thing A is like thing B", it might not mean that thing A equals thing B. I also wrote:

*Cromwell was like the undernourished and dim-witted halfbrother of M4 Sherman

Now if you put those two sentences together, what COULD I possibly have been alluding to? Hint: tanks are inanimate objects, they don't have brothers.

[LongLeftFlank]

Great thread and nice list Sergei. Decline in German crew quality as the war went on played a role too, ja?

I know this is the "PzIV thread," but the bulge bracket of German armour by 1944 was SPG's not tanks, right? How'd the PzIVs perform relative to the similarly armed StuG or heavier JgPzIV? Thoughts?

[Vanir Ausf B]

So 11 years later we answer the question of whether the Sherman was getting shafted in CMBO.

Some interesting comments in that thread regarding flashless powder, muzzle blast, ect. Oddly, nobody had any issue with the Sherman's armor.

[sfhand]

English for beginners...

simile:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/simile

[JasonC]

"if Germany had churned out large numbers of the PzIV and stug"

Um, they did.

2/3rds of all German AFVs produced in WW II used the Panzer III or Panzer IV chassis. In the second half of the war, the overwhelming majority of those were StuGs for the IIIs and turreted Panzer IVs for the IV chassis, plus a modest number of StuGs on IV chassis.

1/6th of all German AFVs produced in the war were on chassis *lighter* than a Panzer III. That continues clear to late war. The Czech 38 chassis was used for light tanks in important numbers through 1942, then for Marders and assorted SPA and SPAA, and finally for Hetzers in the late war. The Panzer II chassis remained in use long after tanks that light became obsolete, as Marders or Wespes.

Only 1/6th of German AFV production was on chassis heavier than a Panzer IV. All the Panthers and Tigers and uparmored SP guns of the late war, were only 1/6th of the operational fleet. This is frequently obscured by discussions that limit to the Panzer arm organizationally and to turreted tanks technically, which may show Panthers making up 40% of the late war fleet or so. But that is a selection bias ignoring the vehicles in the independent StuG formations and scattered among the infantry divisions in their Panzerjaeger battalions, heavily weighted to lighter and unturreted Marders and StuGs.

As for the Panzer IV and Sherman, the Sherman has far superior protection, that is the first item often overlooked. The front armor of a Sherman is in fact about as tough as that on the Tiger I. It just gets more of that from slope. The turret isn't as tough as a Tigers but is still quite well protected, far better than the Panzer IV for instance.

It is the Sherman 75mm gun of midwar vintage that is underpowered, and makes the German tank protection look better as a result. That was fixed by upgunning to the long 76mm and by providing souped up ammunition for those 76mm guns. But not until the second half of 1944. So many 75mm Shermans had been made and not lost in the period before Normandy, that inevitably lots of Allied tankers in the west went into action with a 1942 era main gun.

As for the drawbacks of the Panzer IV, originally it was both undergunned and underprotected. The 75L48 solved the first, and eventual uparmoring to 80mm hull front by 1943 had made it a pretty well protected tank against the T-34/76 and the midwar short 75mm Shermans. Nothing uber, but in the running. This was as far as it could be pushed, however, because the extra weight, far beyond its original design, reduced mobility considerably (a poor power to weigh ratio) and gave it poor ground pressure on its relatively narrow tracks. It was nothing like as fast as a T-34, on or off road, and while most Shermans also suffered from high ground pressure, Shermans were much faster on roads (especially the Ford built A3 models).

By 1944 the Panzer IV was an overaged vanilla main battle tank. It could do what a main battle tank needed to do, and it was still superior to the T-34/76 in gun and armor match up (not in mobility however), and a match for short 75mm Shermans. It was outclassed by both T-34/85s and 76mm Shermans, though not by a large enough margin to be useless against them.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

An interesting point was raised in that old CMBO thread way back when. Will the German use of flashless powder be factored in when it comes to how effective and accurate follow on shots are? Not to mention as well the difficulty of spotting the German armour compared with the the easier spotted Allied armour with its 'here I am' older style and very visible powder flashes every time they fire?

Such a historical point of difference between the German & Allied tanks could perhaps explain why Pz IV's were still darn effective against the Shermans even by mid to late 1944. I certainly have not encountered any material where German tankers are complaining about how uber the Sherman is against their allegedly comparitively wimpier PzIV's.

Regards

KR

[user38]

You could say that metaphor is the older and more sophisticated brother of similie.

[Bastables]

So 11 years later we answer the question of whether the Sherman was getting shafted in CMBO.

Some interesting comments in that thread regarding flashless powder, muzzle blast, ect. Oddly, nobody had any issue with the Sherman's armor.

Maybe I'm remembering things incorrectly but didn't the Sherman become much more likely to survive 7,5cm rounds back during CMAK? I'm pretty sure that CMBO PIV were simulated as equivalent muzzle velocity as the towed PAK40 about 792m/s. The KWK 7,5cm gun in the PIV and the StuG variation fired a smaller cartridge at 750m/s so CMBO PIV and StuG's were over modelled. CMBB StuG's if I remember correctly had a 770m/s figure for some reason.

The issue is going to be further confused as most literature will treat all Sherman's as the same when here are different models with crappy cast armour (M4A1) verses "good" quality armour in M4A3's

[Bastables]

I'm under the impression that the Sherman's ghastly reputation was formed due to a combination of terrible tank country in Normandy combined with boatloads of Panthers & extremely well camoed PaKs and Panzerfausts/Shrecks. How many men died fighting in the T-34, yet it is hailed as an excellent tank...I wonder how this kind of perceived effectiveness split has occurred. Some Soviets crewing lend-lease Shermans have said that the diesel-powered T-34 burned much easier than the diesel M4A2 Sherman. Make what you will out of it.

The Boatload of Panthers and PIV were deployed mostly against the British, Polish and Canadians because that sector of the battle field was "good" tank country with long and good field's of fire, that placed the Shermans and even the fireflys at a distinct disadvantage against the towed PaK 40's and KwK 42's of the Panthers, Good Wood had shermans being pinged at over 1000 metre's with only the 17pdr's being able to reply in kind.

[Erwin]

What is the effect of range in the Sherman vs PzIV comparison? In another thread there were stats for 300M (I think). So, that seemed to be advantageous for Shermans.

Is there a sweet spot range for PzIV's re their guns?

[Bil Hardenberger]

In the AAR ranges averaged from 300-500m. So far everything has been at around 500m. Soon it will get much closer.

Bil

[Scipio]

... more vulnerable as a tank is being shot while driving down hill (which of course applies to all tanks)...

Is that modelled??

[Rocky Balboa]

After playing CMSF for the last 3+ years and the almost clinical nature of the one shot one kill 21st century battlefields, I'm really looking forward to CMBN and all the drama that these old warhorses bring to the table.

[scottie]

After playing CMSF for the last 3+ years and the almost clinical nature of the one shot one kill 21st century battlefields, I'm really looking forward to CMBN and all the drama that these old warhorses bring to the table.

Agreed, this is one of the things i'm looking forward to the most. Modern warfare its so deadly IMO is less fun , just don't seem to have the same levels of control. CMBN is back to the old school of rules i.e dont go Tiger hunting with a Sherman etc ... the stuff i understand. Plus , less likely to see a unit at the far end of the map and get an instant kill. Smaller maps should be more interesting , more tactical, large map manoeuvres become interesting again.

[YankeeDog]

Is that modelled??

Actual projectile impact angle, and stuff like target vs. shooter elevation, and terrain slope, were all modeled in CMx1. So I'd be very surprised if effects like this are not modeled in CMx2.

I would expect that shooters on high ground will be still be able to make "plunging shots" that effectively negate a few degrees of armor slope.

And AFVs sitting on sloping ground may effectively have a few degrees more or less of armor slope, depending on their exact position and orientation relative to the shooter.

[Bil Hardenberger]

I would expect that shooters on high ground will be still be able to make "plunging shots" that effectively negate a few degrees of armor slope.

And AFVs sitting on sloping ground may effectively have a few degrees more or less of armor slope, depending on their exact position and orientation relative to the shooter.

You are correct, in a recent example I found a high ground 76mm Sherman was MUCH more effective at killing Tigers than on ground level with the Tiger.

[scottie]

You are correct, in a recent example I found a high ground 76mm Sherman was MUCH more effective at killing Tigers than on ground level with the Tiger.

yet another essential tip then , get your armour + AT assets on high ground.

[Battlefront.com]

From my perspective the Sherman much maligned for two reasons:

1. American tank crews serving in them wanted, even expected (thanks to propaganda BS), to have a superior edge over the Germans. It's part of the American psyche... we do NOT like being second. Which is one of the reasons Americans score very low on the "happiness" survey done every year. Unreasonable expectations eventual lead to disappointment.

2. American tank losses were large (fact) and that means some finger pointing. The crews, who were largely inexperienced, certainly would find it easier to blame their tanks than their own skills. Couple this with some of the most difficult terrain possible for a tank on the attack... well... "it's not my fault" was likely a big part of the equation here.

This is akin to how many Germans, during and after the war, said the only reason why they lost was because of superior enemy numbers. It couldn't possibly have been that the Allies were better at using artillery... they simply had too many guns. The Luftwaffe wasn't defeated by better pilots or planes, it was defeated simply because there were too many enemy planes in the air. Etc., etc., etc.

OK, so that probably is in large part responsible for the myths that persist even to this day. But what about underlying facts to back up the notion that the Sherman was a piece of crap? There are, in fact, a couple:

1. Earlier Sherman models were not as well protected as later. Once an impression is formed it is hard to shake. Similar to the "Ronson/Zippo" reputation for catching fire, when most tanks in Normandy and beyond had the "Wet" fuel storage system that probably resulted in no more burnouts than any German tank.

2. The first gun wasn't designed for engaging tanks at long distances. The entire philosophy behind the Sherman was flawed, in fact. It was supposed to be a close support vehicle for infantry and dedicated Tank Destroyers were supposed to handle the enemy tanks at long ranges. This theory was completely discredited by the time the war ended and it's why US doctrine completely changed post WW2. So for sure, without any question of a doubt, the 75mm armed Shermans were being asked to perform tasks which they weren't explicitly designed to handle. Adding the 76mm and 17 pdr was a recognition of this shortcoming and it actually overcame a lot of problem. But again... once opinions were formed they were hard to shake loose.

3. People tend to view the success of a vehicle in terms of how it handles itself in combat, downplay the importance of how frequently the vehicle makes it into combat in the first place. The Sherman was mechanically reliable and easier to produce than most of the German armored vehicles. Which meant at the strategic level the Allies had a huge advantage. Better to show up with a mediocre tank than to show up with none at all. But this sort of line of argument usually gets short sheeted in discussions about which tank is better than another, which means the Sherman doesn't get the positive marks it should.

4. People tend to compare the Sherman to Panthers and Tigers, both of which were in limited supply in most sectors of the front most of the time. While most technical arguments put the Sherman behind the Panther (for sure), Tiger 1 (probably), and the Tiger II (definitely), these were NOT the most likely tanks that the Sherman found itself facing. These were the German's top end. The Sherman, however, was not only the middle but also the top end! That's expecting an awful lot from a single tank design. The 76mm armed Shermans helped address this, but it wasn't until the Pershing came into being that the Allies had a true "top end" to match the German's "top end".

Just my 10 cents worth

Steve

[SleeStak]

In the AAR ranges averaged from 300-500m. So far everything has been at around 500m. Soon it will get much closer.

Bil

I'm clearly missing something about the armor penetration and the results of your AAR. Based on the 75L48 penetration numbers I've seen (CMAK has the gun penetrating 131 mm at 500 meters at zero degrees, My Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two has Pzgr39 penetrating 96 mm at 500 m at 30degrees and Pzgr40 penetration 120 mm at 500 m at 30degrees), the gun had the power to penetrate the Shermans at the ranges engaged. The upper hull plate of the M4A3 is 64mm of armor at 47 degrees (again from CMAK) which should give it the protective equivalent to roughly 94 mm of armor. That seems penetrable at 500m for the 75L48.

I'm all for giving the Shermans the correct amount of survivability that their armor conveys, but the figures I've seen seem to indicate that they are too strong in your match. Clearly, I'm missing something. Are the PzIVs firing from a position giving them too large a horizontal angle (thus increasing the armor's protection)? Are the numbers I'm listing inaccurate or different that CMBN's numbers? I'm a latecomer to reading your excellent AAR and maybe I missed something in the reading that accounts for these results. I'm perplexed

[The_Capt]

...

3. People tend to view the success of a vehicle in terms of how it handles itself in combat, downplay the importance of how frequently the vehicle makes it into combat in the first place. The Sherman was mechanically reliable and easier to produce than most of the German armored vehicles. Which meant at the strategic level the Allies had a huge advantage. Better to show up with a mediocre tank than to show up with none at all. But this sort of line of argument usually gets short sheeted in discussions about which tank is better than another, which means the Sherman doesn't get the positive marks it should...

Steve

This right here is why both the Americans and Soviets had the upper hand and arguably one the war. What is interesting is that the Soviets kept up this overall strategy, whilst the West adopted that of the losing team.

It may sound odd, and a few year back heretical, but strategic attrition has won far more wars than manoeuvre.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Yeah, and in Korea Americans preferred the Sherman E8 to the Pershing.

[Fetchez la Vache]

One point that always impressed me that the Americans designed the Sherman so that it could be easily transported - fitted onto standard railcars, be lifted by standard dock cranes and wouldn't overtax bridge weight limits. Tigers aren't much good if they're stuck on the wrong side of a river...

But even though it was a strategic winner, that wasn't to make the poor US and Commonwealth tankers sitting in their "Ronsons"/"Tommy Cookers" feel any happier. Poor chaps. It must have been awful waiting for that inevitable hit and mad scramble out before things went 'whoosh'. *shudder*

The other thing to remember is that Shermans were designed in 1940 before the US had had any experience of modern armoured warfare and the tank was pretty effective when it debuted in 1942. They got it wrong with the tank destroyer tactics though, it has to be said...

Finally the last Shermans probably in active service were retired in 2002 with the Chilean Army (by then armed with a 60mm hypervelocity gun). 60 years shelf-life isn't too shabby. :-)

[SleeStak]

2. The first gun wasn't designed for engaging tanks at long distances. The entire philosophy behind the Sherman was flawed, in fact. It was supposed to be a close support vehicle for infantry and dedicated Tank Destroyers were supposed to handle the enemy tanks at long ranges. This theory was completely discredited by the time the war ended and it's why US doctrine completely changed post WW2. So for sure, without any question of a doubt, the 75mm armed Shermans were being asked to perform tasks which they weren't explicitly designed to handle. Adding the 76mm and 17 pdr was a recognition of this shortcoming and it actually overcame a lot of problem. But again... once opinions were formed they were hard to shake loose.

I think this really starts to get to the crux of the matter of the Sherman's rep. I think we give the impact the specific weapons system have in a fight, way too much emphasis. We ask, "what was the best tank?" instead of "what was the best armored doctrine?" and the Sherman takes the heat for an entire force that was a little green and hadn't put together the best approach for dealing with opponents armor. Echoing some of what Steve said, I think American armored doctrine was flawed and not helped by the lack of a really effective infantry anti-armor weapon. The Bazooka was good for what it was but really wasn't going to dominate German armor, the 57mm wasn't really powerful enough to provide the inf real protection from German armor. This issue was masked by the lack of German armor facing the American in Normandy until the bulge, of course.

I read recently that the British offered the US the opportunities to deploy Fireflys. The US decided to study if they were better than our planned 90mm armed tank but its too bad we didn't take them up on that offer. The Germans would have been facing Uber-Civil-War-Generals instead of the Allies facing Uber-Cats.