German tank vulnerability

[Gryphonne]

This picture is from a Panzer IV/70 (A) at Saumur Tank Museum:

it clearly shows the fragility of the upper glacis plate, having been hit by a 75mm round. The other two rounds hit the lower superstructure for a full and partial penetration.

Thanks I saw a similar hit and penetration on a StuG IV. The Jagdpanzer IV by Alkett, being based on the nose of the Pz IV still possesses the Pz IVs vulnerability obviously. The Jagdpanzer by VOMAG(?) should be less vulnerable as the nose was redesigned.

[Peregrine]

Don't forget that this is a newer more precise engine.

I am not sure how true it was but there was a general feeling that the mechanics of the CMx1 engine dudded the PIV in that while the armour was thin, the turret itself was small compared to other tanks but CMx1 didn't really cater to this to well which resulted in disproportionally high number of turret hits. Don't know how true this is.

I PBEMed Cintheuax and I think I either drew it or minor victory. It should have been a loss. The initial contact was between a large group of PIVs and Shermans (no fireflies). I can't remember the exact range but I am sure it was 400-700m. My PIVs were obliterated in what I felt was a fairly even battle going in.

I came back after my opponent got overconfident and made some careless mistakes.

[sonar]

The thing is,as the war progressed, the PzIV was the backbone of the panzer divisions and got the job done mostly, so I wouldn't write them off as useless. There is the argument that if Germany had churned out large numbers of the PzIV and stug, they would have fared better in the long run, as it seems attrition played a key role in the decline of the panzer arm, due to the bleeding away of its strength and slowness to replace combat losses in machines.The Germans would do all they could to recover and repair armour from the battlefield due to this very consideration. I like the PzIV, the photogenic big cats, bag the glory while the IV, keeps it's head down and gets on with the job.

[SleeStak]

IIRC the turret ring & mechanism had pretty much reached it's weight limit. It was easier to add extra weight to the hull.

Yes, if you handle an PzIV like a TD, you get excellent results. But you can buy a much cheaper Marder II and achieve similar results if that's how you're going to employ it.

(I think someone ran extensive tests in CMx1 and concluded that you're less likely to lose your PzIVs if you don't put them in a hull down position. Which was really strange, since the turret silouette is rather small. I might remember wrong though.)

I love the Marder, when you kill something with that tank, you feel like your tactical brilliance really added something to the mix. Anyone can kill a Sherman with a Panther but you have to be clever to accomplish the same thing with a Marder.

Also, I remeber the advice 'Don't put your PzIV's in hull down' too from the forum but I can't remember who suggested it. Hopefully the new engine will change that.

I haven't played CMSF but it will be interesting to see if the smaller scope of battles with its cooresponding reduction in the number of combat elements impacts the ability of the players to take advantage of all arms cooperation. The advantages of tanks like the Marder, Sherman, PzIV ultimately is that you can get alot more of them in a QB battle than you can get of the Panthers, Tigers, etc. and then use your numbers advantage to get more guns firing on target. In short, taking advantage of that qualitative advantage Stalin claimed numbers provided. In CMAK and CMBB it was pretty easy to put a re-enforced battalion with armored support into a QB. If you were fortunate on the rarity of the 57mm or Pak your could suppliment with gun support. Stugs or M10s gives you reasonably cheap, mobile guns that, when working with a couple of batteries of at guns, provides a pretty effective defense.

I'm sure I've read that the focus in CMBN will be on combat at a smaller scope. That will almost certainly impact the players ability to use their forces as a team (It will be hard to use two tanks like you'd use five because, if one bogs, you lose half your anti armor force). I'm somewhat trepidatious of the impact of the scope of CMBN and its ability to simulate CMAK's and CMBB scale of combat. I'm sure the smaller scope of combat will bring their own kind of joy and CMBN may well handle re-enforced battalion level combat just fine. I hope so.

[Erwin]

"Anyone can kill a Sherman with a Panther but you have to be clever to accomplish the same thing with a Marder."

This is probably a function of the smaller maps in CM2 games. The Nashorn was a great killer with its 88mm gun, but you have to be able to use it while out of range of any enemy guns. Ditto for the Marder.

"Don't put your PzIV's in hull down..."

In CM1, someone worked out that because the PzIV hull was tougher than the gun mantle, you were statistically better off exposing the whole front of the tank rather than being hull-down. The argument was that the % to hit the hull-down tank was smaller but a hit was much more likely to kill. It was easier to hit the non-hull-down tank, but a much higher % to survive as a large % of the hits would be on the tougher front hull. Doing the math they proved (IIRC) that you were better off not being hull down in a PzIV. It's not cut and dried as of course you also have to take into account range/penetration issues issues as well.

Given the number of WW2 docs I have seen where all the German tank crews said that Shermans were no match for any of the German tanks (Mk IV and above) and that the Allies had to use 3-4+ to one to overcome the Germans, I sincerely hope that CM:BN has not downgraded the Germans (or upgraded the Allies) so as to make for an easier fight for the Allies (presumably to not upset the rah rah attitude of casual gamers).

[The_Capt]

Given the number of WW2 docs I have seen where all the German tank crews said that Shermans were no match for any of the German tanks (Mk IV and above) and that the Allies had to use 3-4+ to one to overcome the Germans, I sincerely hope that CM:BN has not downgraded the Germans (or upgraded the Allies) so as to make for an easier fight for the Allies (presumably to not upset the rah rah attitude of casual gamers).

Well first off wrt the Pz IV this perception is complete nonsense. Any German tank vet saying this is obviously pining for shining days of former glory. "When I was a boy you could buy a farm for a nickel and still have enough left over for a movie and popcorn...popcorn tasted better back then btw"..and so on and so on".

The Pz IV was at best on par with some Shermans and I have never heard of an account where Allies needed 3-4 to one to yield a kill. That number I have only heard wrt to the Tiger..which was a nasty beast.

The Pz IV (and here I would stick to the H and J models) had its own unique balance of mobility, survivability and firepower. Mobility (not a huge factor in CM scope) was solid, survivability was not so good and firepower was decent.

The armour numbers do not lie and I am sure many can post them from memory. Our biggest discussion was around the gun. There is a myth about the 75 L/48, that it could slice thru Shermans like butter and said Shermans will explode. CMx1, at least CMBO seemed to reinforce this perception.

However when you sit down and actually look at the two guns you will see the 75 L/48 was in fact inferior to the Sherman 76. It was better than the Sherman 75 but not by some exponential amount.

The Pz IV is a good tank BUT do not take it head to head with some Shermans...particularly the 76 variety. It needs to be treated more like a TD when facing M4A3s and used with finess rather than steel on steel coin tosses.

I ran a lot of tests on the Pz IV vs Sherman after this battle and I have to say the results were consistant, the Sherman pound for pound was the better tank..."I believe moderately superior" is the term...when employed properly.

[Michael Emrys]

...it will be interesting to see if the smaller scope of battles with its cooresponding reduction in the number of combat elements impacts the ability of the players to take advantage of all arms cooperation....In CMAK and CMBB it was pretty easy to put a re-enforced battalion with armored support into a QB.

I'm sure I've read that the focus in CMBN will be on combat at a smaller scope. That will almost certainly impact the players ability to use their forces as a team (It will be hard to use two tanks like you'd use five because, if one bogs, you lose half your anti armor force).

This has been on my mind as well, but a bit more for reasons of historic authenticity. The kind of mixed arms combat teams that often turned up in games of CMx1, where one or two tanks support a company of infantry, were relatively rare. They could and did happen, but not as often as gameplay would suggest. While it is true that cross-attachements did occur sometimes where a tank battalion and an infantry battalion would swap companies, much more often they would fight side by side but with each arm integral and under its own commander.

This is why I've always said that WW II is best portrayed at the operational level with the units mainly battalions and sometimes companies and sometimes regiments or brigades, where combined arms operations can be most accurately modeled.

That said, CM was designed (I feel) to appeal in the first instance to fans of miniature tabletop gaming. This it does splendidly, and it's hardly the fault of BFC if players decide to use the system in ways that do not reflect historical reality too often. After all, it's still a game and players play it in whatever way is most fun for them.

Michael

[Merkin Muffley]

... The British tanks in North Africa were so unreliable that they were delighted to get their hands on even the M3 Stuart

Michael

Which is why it was deemed an absolute Honey.

[Other Means]

The game can do as many units as your PC can handle. I believe the upper limit on map size is ~10*10k.

I think that'll probably do won’t it?

[SleeStak]

I ran a lot of tests on the Pz IV vs Sherman after this battle and I have to say the results were consistant, the Sherman pound for pound was the better tank..."I believe moderately superior" is the term...when employed properly.

I'm curious, in your testing do you recall what gave the Shermans the edge? Were the Shermans able to take a couple of the PzIV's shots, did the Sherman's rate of fire tell, where the Sherman's more accurate or was it something else?

My Shermans seem to get waxed by the 75L48 gun if they're hit but can kill the PzIV's if they hit first. My experience has been that its a question of how many shells each side puts in the air and who hits first. Maybe I'm engaging with my Sherman at too short a distance and they would gain some survivability engaging from greater distances.

I went in game to check the penetration values and found that Michael was right in his post where he stated that the numbers for the 76mm gun and 75L48 were more or less equal. I had remembered the 76mm gun penetrating more poorly that it does, at least in game. Their numbers are roughly the same. With that said, the 75L48 seems to penetrate the Sherman reliably under 1000 yards if you keep the shooting angles low. The lower hull of the Sherman is the only part able to provide reliable protection. Obviously, if I'm seeing different outcomes, I must be doing something different to the disadvantage of my digital Sherman crewmen.

When I played CMAK, CMBB and CMBO, I tended to play bigger QB battles and tried to use Battalions of Infantry with Platoons of Tanks. Those kind of fights held the most interest for me. I'm interested to see how CMBN translates into fights with a couple of battalions of Inf backed up by an understrength tank company and some artillery support. Modelling each soldier is going to make that a difficult task to manage but I have faith Battlefront will pull it off.

[SleeStak]

The game can do as many units as your PC can handle. I believe the upper limit on map size is ~10*10k.

I think that'll probably do won’t it?

Wow! That is almost operational in scope. Well, maybe just operational but certainly satisfies a two battalion assault against a single battalion each backup up by some armor. Great news

[The_Capt]

I'm curious, in your testing do you recall what gave the Shermans the edge? Were the Shermans able to take a couple of the PzIV's shots, did the Sherman's rate of fire tell, where the Sherman's more accurate or was it something else?

...

From what I have seen and you are beginning to see in the AAR it is the survivability of the Sherman vs that of the Pz IV that shifts the balance. Shermans in CMBN are a lot tougher, which I think is a good thing.

[ZPB II]

Given the number of WW2 docs I have seen where all the German tank crews said that Shermans were no match for any of the German tanks (Mk IV and above) and that the Allies had to use 3-4+ to one to overcome the Germans, I sincerely hope that CM:BN has not downgraded the Germans (or upgraded the Allies) so as to make for an easier fight for the Allies (presumably to not upset the rah rah attitude of casual gamers).

Some of WW2 docs are cheap budget trash full of factual errors, parroting stuff from others...I don't recall ever reading about the Allies having trouble dealing with the PzIV. Übercats and the occasional über-TD, yes, PzIV, no. In a tactical engagement, I'd say the Sherman has a slight edge over the PzIV, and operationally it just trumps it.

I'd love to see a more realistic game than CMx1 and will especially enjoy if it makes germanophiles cringe. Mind you, I'll probably be playing Germans almost exclusively myself.

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.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Wow! That is almost operational in scope. Well, maybe just operational but certainly satisfies a two battalion assault against a single battalion each backup up by some armor. Great news

Keep in mind that are the theoretical limits.

I wouldn't want to attempt the above described map even with the latest top of the line Alienware monster PC.

[The_Capt]

Some of WW2 docs are cheap budget trash full of factual errors, parroting stuff from others...I don't recall ever reading about the Allies having trouble dealing with the PzIV. Übercats and the occasional über-TD, yes, PzIV, no. In a tactical engagement, I'd say the Sherman has a slight edge over the PzIV, and operationally it just trumps it.

I'd love to see a more realistic game than CMx1 and will especially enjoy if it makes germanophiles cringe. Mind you, I'll probably be playing Germans almost exclusively myself.

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 gasoline variants used in Normandy burned happily, though.

I would only add that back in 2000 we seemed to be going thru some sort of Germanic love affair here in the West. I remember German doctrine, phrases creeping into our military lexicon. Then all the Panzer games etc.

I think CMx1 did a good job but there still seemed to be a "leaning" towards all things German wrt WWII (well maybe not ALL things but you get the picture)....not sure what triggered all this to be honest.

I am no tank nerd but from what I have read and seen, my own perceptions needed some adjustment. I personally think CMBN re-establishes a realistic balance between these two tanks. Best part is I don't think it is just between the tanks.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

I think it did not help the Shermans reputation that it was a decidedly average tank that was fighting on the side of democracies. The USSR and Nazi Germany regimes weren't exactly big on criticism.

[ZPB II]

An excellent point, Elmar.

It's interesting how these reputations continued post-war up until this day. By the way, anyone got any good reading recommendation on the subject of Sherman vs. a heavier US tank in Normandy and past. How would the increased logistical strain and mechanical attrition affect the operational conduct of US forces?

[LuckyDog]

I summarise this from what I remember of John Buckley's excellent book "British Armour in Normandy":

Shermans tended to have a worse reputation for burning in regiments which stored additional ammo in the tank, rather than just the standard load. The wet stowage certainly helped, but either way it wasn't a petrol/gas versus diesel issue.

The kill ratio of Sherman's to PZ IVs might well have been 3/4 to one when the Allies advanced, but when the Germans mounted a counterattack the numbers were reversed – even for Panthers, as they had thinner side armour. The Germans also used low smoke charge, increasing the chance of getting a second shot off.

On another note, I think the book also mentions the use of artillery delivered WP on to the defending German tank, which sometimes lead to the crew abandoning the tank when it got sucked in the ventilation system!

[ZPB II]

Yeah, I edited the reference to gasoline out of my post, that was a brainfart on my part.

I'm just gonna be lazy and ctrl-c/ctrl-v some shizzle out of wikipedia.

Research conducted by the British No. 2 Operational Research Section, after the Normandy campaign, concluded that a Sherman would be set alight 82% of the time following an average of 1.89 penetrations of the tank’s armor; in comparison they also concluded that the Panzer IV would catch fire 80% of the time following an average of 1.5 penetrations, the Panther would light 63% of the time following 3.24 penetrations, and the Tiger would catch fire 80% of the time following 3.25 penetrations. John Buckley, using a case study of the 8th and 29th Armoured Brigades found that of the 166 Shermans knocked out in combat during the Normandy campaign, only 94 were burnt out; 56.6%. Buckley also notes that an American survey carried out concluded that 65% of tanks burnt out after being penetrated. United States Army research proved that the major reason for this was the stowage of main gun ammunition in the sponsons above the tracks.

At first a partial remedy to ammunition fires in the M4 was found by welding 1-inch-thick (25 mm) appliqué armor plates to the sponson sides over the ammunition stowage bins. Later models moved ammunition stowage to the hull floor, with additional water jackets surrounding the main gun ammunition stowage. This decreased the likelihood of the tank catching fire. A U.S. Army study in 1945 concluded that only 10–15 percent of wet-stowage Shermans burned when penetrated, compared to 60–80 percent of the older dry-stowage Shermans. The belief that the fuel tank was a culprit is unsupported. Most World War II tanks used gasoline engines, and although fuel fires did occasionally occur in tanks, such fires were far less common and less deadly than a tank's ammunition magazines igniting. This assessment is supported by Buckley, who notes that in many cases the fuel tank of the M4 had been found intact after the tank burnt out due to the ammunition cooking off. Tank crew testimony also supports this position; eye witness reports describe "fierce, blinding jets of flame," which is inconsistent with gasoline-related fires but fits cordite flash.

[Other Means]

I think part of the reason is the Sherman doesn't look cool. It just doesn't. It looks like a Ford Model T, which in many respects it is - cheap, ubiquitous, easily made - but narrow to enable it to be shipped easily and cross the narrow bridges the US heard was all Europe had. Something like an inch taller than the PzIV it looks top heavy and ungainly.

The fact that the front was nearly all heavily sloped armour, the 75mm was an excellent HE chucker and the 76 had decent AT performance does little to dissuade the ooberpanzerists.

[Krilly]

I think part of the reason is the Sherman doesn't look cool. It just doesn't. It looks like a Ford Model T, which in many respects it is - cheap, ubiquitous, easily made - but narrow to enable it to be shipped easily and cross the narrow bridges the US heard was all Europe had. Something like an inch taller than the PzIV it looks top heavy and ungainly.

The fact that the front was nearly all heavily sloped armour, the 75mm was an excellent HE chucker and the 76 had decent AT performance does little to dissuade the ooberpanzerists.

This.

No more elite panzers just because they are 'ze germanz'.

No more shermans exploding just at the hint of german armor.

More interesting battles based on mathematical facts and research.

Bring on CMBN god damnit

[Michael Emrys]

I would only add that back in 2000 we seemed to be going thru some sort of Germanic love affair here in the West. I remember German doctrine, phrases creeping into our military lexicon. Then all the Panzer games etc.

This actually began 30 years earlier on boardgames.

...not sure what triggered all this to be honest.

A lot of things I think. For one thing, German propaganda was usually superior in reaching those primitive parts of the mind and stirring them in desired directions. Also there is a tendency, whether conscious or not, on the part of victors in a war to inflate the abilities of the enemy so as to make the victory all the sweeter.

Another is that when serious interest in the war and how it was conducted began to take off in the '60s, it was about the time that the memoirs of many of the more important German leaders were starting to come out. Also many books on the technical aspects of the war. And German technology had a lot of "Gee whiz" going for it even when it didn't always work that well on the battlefield. Add to that all the Soviet archives that were unavailable at the time, and all we had to go on in many cases were the German views on matters, which as we now know were often highly partial and slanted, yet were accepted in the West more or less at face value.

Michael

[Rocky Balboa]

While the results I'm seeing from the current AAR do raise an eyebrow, it's by no means a complete surprise. I have always held the opinion that the M4 was an even match against a PZIV. Now an M4 against a PZV or a Tiger is another matter.

[Sergei]

I think you guys are overthinking this. PzKpfw IV armed with high velocity 75mm guns were kings of the battlefield from 1942 to 1943. During that time, what the Allies had was:

Medium tanks:

*T-34/76 m/42 and m/43, while turret was improved over time the hull armour remained only 45mm so while heavily slanted it wasn't enough, and the F-34 gun wasn't as penetrative at longer ranges

*M3 Lee, old fashioned design that did well against PzKpfw III but wasn't an equal to Pz IV F2

*M4 Sherman, not as well armoured as the later M4A1 and M4A3 models, although rather good anyway

*Crusader was already becoming outdated and was no match except for speed

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

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

Heavies:

*KV-1, while thick the armour plates were nearly vertical and the gun lacked at longer ranges

*Churchill was well-armoured but the armament was outdated

The longer barreled PzKpfw IV is not appreciated for nothing - for a brief period, it was the best medium tank there was, period. It just wasn't that spectacular any longer in 1944, just like Tiger VIe had become vulnerable to the bigger Allied guns at the same time. Considering that the first models were built in 1937, and it was still in use in 1945, I think the appreciation for the tank is understandable even if misplaced in the late war period.

Likewise T-34 may have too great a reputation compared to how it fared late in the war, but again it entered service in 1940 and with some changes continued to the end of the war, which is respectable when you compare to all the French, British and US pre-war designs that were horribly outdated in retrospect. Just imagine a Matilda with a 17pdr turret in 1944!

[gibsonm]

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

Perhaps of the Sherman given its the same vehicle with the turret removed (or not) as the case maybe, just made in Canada.

AFAIK it shared nothing with the Cromwell.