155mm arty was used in direct fire mode to blow Panthers up?

[JG11Preusse]

Sherman was really an answer to 1941, not WWI. Pretty damn good tank in 1942 and early 43. Probably best in the world. Tiger in mid42 was arguably better at tank to tank fighting, but other than that, Sherman wins.

:eek::eek::eek:

patriotism is something funny sometimes

[Charlie Marlow]

:eek::eek::eek:

patriotism is something funny sometimes

Not patriotism, facts. Which I presented in other posts. You care to refute this with actual facts rather than :eek: ?

[JG11Preusse]

Not patriotism, facts. Which I presented in other posts. You care to refute this with actual facts rather than :eek: ?

now i maybe have to collect all your "facts" which you posted in several other posts and face them to the reallity from that time.

to sad that my grandpa and his brother are dead for many years now. he was pilot and his brother tank commander in ww2 and i remember much of what they said to me regarding air- and tankwar in ww2.

excuse my language.

andi

[Charlie Marlow]

now i maybe have to collect all your "facts" which you posted in several other posts and face them to the reallity from that time.

to sad that my grandpa and his brother are dead for many years now. he was pilot and his brother tank commander in ww2 and i remember much of what they said to me regarding air- and tankwar in ww2.

excuse my language.

andi

Nope. Not helping your case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

[Magpie_Oz]

I think "Probably best in the world" is maybe over stating it a bit.

In 1942/43 you had : the T34 almost identical in armour and gun but faster, the PzIV G similar armour and better gun and the Churchill with far greater armour and better AT gun (6lbr) although much slower.

[Charlie Marlow]

PzIV G had pluses and minuses that made it roughly equivalent AT platforms (more so the PzIV G. T34 had enough shortcomings that it is hard to argue equivalence). Neither was the anti-infantry platform that the Sherman was.

Churchill is an interesting comparison. Not sure how to compare something that slow, but with better armor to a Sherman. The lack of good HE for the 6lbr is a significant disadvantage though.

[Glukx Ouglouk]

To be fair, claiming that the PZ IVG had "similar armour" to a Sherman is overstating it a lot... The Pz IV never got more than 50 mm of armor on its (almost vertical) turret front because, by the point they had added an L/48 gun and 80 mm of armor on the upper hull front, its chassis was already seriously overloaded - which obviously didn't help with cross country performance and mechanical reliability. The Pz IV was a great design for its time (with all the niceties like a 3-men turret, a cupola for the commander, a radio in every tank, and so on, which many tank designs of the late 30's lacked), but its chassis was just too weak for the kind of armor and guns that were needed by 1942-43 (and almost vertical armor everywhere didn't help with the weight issue).

As for the T-34... It was a great design as long as you didn't need to cover long distances, considering its (lack of) mechanical reliability - not to mention the two-men turret (with a 76 mm gun, a dedicated loader definitely isn't exactly a luxury).

[JG11Preusse]

i dont know, if it is a good deal to compare now panzer IV with the sherman, if we talk about the best tank in the world this times

the only chance of the t-34 against the panzer VI for example was the huge mount of tanks and the speed (both together).

russian taktiks was to full speed drive between the german tanks and try to shoot at the more weeker parts.

some time ago there was a good documentary film about tankbattles and tank-crews from ww2 from russia, usa and germany talked about their experiances.

i guess noone, who saw this, will come to the solution, that a sherman was the best tank in the world these times.

btw..... also the american tank crews told something different.

[Magpie_Oz]

Well like I said 1942-43 no clear indication as to what the Best Tank in the World is, certainly not the Sherman and most likely none can claim the title they all had there strengths and foibles.

[Charlie Marlow]

End of 43, almost certainly the Panther. That is why I said 42 to early 43. I would still take the position that the best overall tank prior to the Panther was the Sherman. I haven't seen anything here that really counters the points I have made to make me think otherwise. Panther probably holds the crown until the M26 comes along. Some of the Soviet heavies might qualify by the end of the war as well.

[Michael Emrys]

To state what must be fairly obvious: One must ask best at what? And in what kind of situation? The Panther was perhaps the best anti-tank tank. The Churchill was perhaps the best infantry support tank, although the JS-2 can make some claims in that category too. The Sherman was a good infantry support tank that could also serve in a pinch as an anti-tank tank but wasn't the best in either category. It's reliability made it a good offensive tank because it could keep going and going as long as there was gas in the tank. The T-34 was good enough at what it did under the conditions it operated to help win the war. And it was very producible by Soviet industry.

Michael

[gunnergoz]

When you think of what the Sherman was designed for - exploitation - then its performance in the Normandy breakout phase showed it to be very admirably suited to its purpose. It was pretty quick on roads, reliable, sturdy, stood up to long marches and carried sufficient armament to deal with most threats.

[Magpie_Oz]

The whole good tank, bad tank, best tank, worst tank debate is pretty much a pointless exercise as there are numerous arguments either way and it is impossible to compare apple with apples as tanks are built to operate within a given organisation and doctrine. A tank that fits the requirements of one side may not fit the requirements of the other so for one side a tank is the best but for the other it is useless.

For example, as I mentioned earlier the Sherman was rejected by Oz because it didn't fit for what we needed it to do, so for us it wasn't the best tank at all.

I think JG11 was suggesting that claiming a tank, weapon, army , organisation or anything else for that matter as being "the best in the world" is more about hubris than informed comment.

[gunnergoz]

Magpie Oz, I have to concur. There are just too many variables to the whole issue to allow it to be boiled down to simply the "best." The question of "Best at what?" can be dealt with much of the time, but if one considers the "when, where and how" aspect of it, especially as compared to another tank, things get very complex.

[wokelly]

You think that 85% of TOE after the race across France and 80% of TOE after the Bulge count as a "shortage" and indicate the US didn't have enough Shermans in the ETO. I think the same facts prove to a demonstration that the notion the US suffered from any "shortage" of Shermans in the ETO is laughable, and that anyone claiming that doesn't know what a "shortage" is.

In Normandy, 81mm ammo actually had a shortage. In early September, gasoline actually had a shortage. From September through the end of November, 105mm ammunition actually had a shortage. During the westwall fighting from October through early December, rifle replacements actually had a shortage.

Shermans, not even remotely. Words mean things.

Yes words mean things, here is the definition of shortage:

shortage [ˈʃɔːtɪdʒ]

a deficiency or lack in the amount needed, expected, or due; deficit

The US has a "lack in the amount needed, expected, or due; deficit" of Sherman's. There was a shortage, regardless of if you feel it constitutes one. Was it a severe shortage, as you have pointed out no. Was there a shortage, yes. In fact enough of a shortage to dictate US policy on Sherman, for example causing the US to reconsider having some Sherman converted to 17 pounder armed fireflies since an additional 150 tanks would be unavailable.

Your issue seems to be that the US shortage of Shermans was not anything atypical of say the Germans who were in a worse situation. Fair enough, that still means the US was suffering a shortage and units could not be brought up to full strength. In regards to the context I brought up the shortage in, I severely doubt the 3rd AD would have been more liberal in writing off tanks than other units given there was a lack of fresh shermans to make up the losses throughout much of the ETO fighting. You do not throw away reusable tanks when there is a lack of replacements.

[JonS]

The US has a "lack in the amount needed, expected, or due; deficit" of Sherman's. There was a shortage, regardless of if you feel it constitutes one. Was it a severe shortage, as you have pointed out no. Was there a shortage, yes.

Isn't that kind of meaningless, though? By that definition all militaries, everywhere, and at all times have suffered shortages of everything. It might be technically true, but it doesn't tell you anything useful or meaningful

I wonder if a more useful approach would be look at order fullfillment times. If I lose a tank but have a new one by the next day, or maybe the day after, then sweet. But if it takes a month or more, or the TOE is rewritten to define the lower number as the new 'normal', then not so sweet.

Edit; it'd be a lot odf work to trawl through the relevant records to fid that out though. Bags not me!

[Michael Emrys]

I think the bottom line is whether the unit/formation can still fulfill its function in the circumstances in which it finds itself, even if well below its TO&E. In all armies this was sometimes the case and sometimes not.

Michael

[wokelly]

Isn't that kind of meaningless, though? By that definition all militaries, everywhere, and at all times have suffered shortages of everything. It might be technically true, but it doesn't tell you anything useful or meaningful

I wonder if a more useful approach would be look at order fullfillment times. If I lose a tank but have a new one by the next day, or maybe the day after, then sweet. But if it takes a month or more, or the TOE is rewritten to define the lower number as the new 'normal', then not so sweet.

Edit; it'd be a lot odf work to trawl through the relevant records to fid that out though. Bags not me!

All true but that had nothing to do with the context I brought up the shortage with. I brought up the Sherman shortage to argue against the idea that the 3rd Armor divisions high losses was due to a liberal interpretation of what constituted a write off. If you cannot guarantee the replacement of a tank, than I would not think the 3rd AD would throw away reusable tanks because they had different criteria than say 2nd AD which had a lower loss rate despite being in combat longer and possessing the same TOE as 3rd AD.

This never had anything to do with if the shortage was severe (though I did incorrectly state it was a severe shortage and you showed that to be wrong), or if it handicapped US forces or anything.

[Magpie_Oz]

I brought up the Sherman shortage to argue against the idea that the 3rd Armor divisions high losses was due to a liberal interpretation of what constituted a write off. If you cannot guarantee the replacement of a tank, than I would not think the 3rd AD would throw away reusable tanks because they had different criteria than say 2nd AD which had a lower loss rate despite being in combat longer and possessing the same TOE as 3rd AD.

But you WOULD write off a tank liberally if you wanted to be sneaky and get more than your fair share of replacements. So you maybe we should consider that the high "losses" were actually "on the books" losses to garner more replacements so they could keep up their tempo of ops.

The US built 17k + armoured vehicles in 1944, can't see that ever creating a shortage of replacements especially since the German U-boats had lost the Battle for the Atlantic by that time, I think traffic jams were more of a problem.

[gunnergoz]

After reading some of Hitler's wartime staff conference transcripts, where he and Jodl are in effect arguing whether a certain panzer division had 16 vs 20 tanks remaining and if they had long guns or short ones, and then what that meant in combat values, makes it all kind of fit into perspective.

[Charlie Marlow]

Magpie Oz, I have to concur. There are just too many variables to the whole issue to allow it to be boiled down to simply the "best." The question of "Best at what?" can be dealt with much of the time, but if one considers the "when, where and how" aspect of it, especially as compared to another tank, things get very complex.

Generally I would agree, but in the specific quote that someone took exception to, the time frame was rather specific. 1942 through mid 43. No T34/85 or Panther yet (and the T34/85 was still inferior to the M4(76)).

At the time selected the primary tanks in contention for "best" would be the M4, the PzkwIVG, and the T34(76). I excluded the Tiger because of low numbers, expense, and poor mechanical reliability meant that it really wasn't very available. If you include the Tiger, the analysis below probably falls apart, and we are back to best being situation dependent.

I'll admit I wasn't thinking about the Churchill. Perhaps in some situations its armor and obstacle clearing ability might overcome its lack of speed and HE in the time frame in question. I also seem to recall that the armor thickness on the Churchill wasn't particularly better than the Sherman in the earlier versions. Not sure what the thickness of the 42/43 Churchills was.

That aside, I'll deal with the three most important contenders.

Armor - Sherman 1, PzIV 2, T34 3

Gun (AT) - PzIV 1, Sherman 2, T34 3

Gun (HE) - Sherman is better than the PzIV. Not sure about the T34

MGs - Sherman has 3, including .50 cal. PzIV 2 or 3, T34 2

Reliability - Sherman 1, PzIV 2, T34 3

Speed/Mobility - This one is tricky. T34 has the best ground pressure and on paper, the best speed. Sherman and PzIV about the same ground pressure, but with the Sherman maybe a bit faster (added armor slows down later PzIVs). But, reports are that the T34's ride was so bad, that it couldn't make speed over anything but roads. I'll say a draw overall.

Turret - Sherman 3 man fast turret, gyro. PzIV. Slower 3 man turret (later versions manual). T34, 2 man turret, unreliable motor.

Radio - Sherman, PzIV yes. T34 no.

Crew comfort. Sherman and PzIV good. T34 bad. This is a more important factor that it seems. A crew needed to be comfortable to keep fatigue away. A real killer in combat.

Given the various factors, I would take the PzIVG only in the desert or open steppes where enemy armor was the primary threat. In just about any other conceivable role, the Sherman was a better tank for the job. The T34 was not as good as either of the others.

[wokelly]

I'll admit I wasn't thinking about the Churchill. Perhaps in some situations its armor and obstacle clearing ability might overcome its lack of speed and HE in the time frame in question. I also seem to recall that the armor thickness on the Churchill wasn't particularly better than the Sherman in the earlier versions. Not sure what the thickness of the 42/43 Churchills was.

I'd give the early marks were pretty good in relation to the Sherman. 101mm hull armor, 100mm mantle (which was unknown until recently when scotsman on the WWIIOL forum contact people restoring Churchills and asked them to measure the mantle), 86mm turret armor, side armor 76mm. Pretty well armored compared to the Sherman, especially in side armor which gets a lot more attention than most people realize.

In 1943 the Brits put on additional armor, brought the Mark IIIs frontal armor up to a uniformed 12cm (though the mantle remained 10cm). Side armor was brought up to 95mm or so. The Mark IVs and VIs with the cast turret did not seem to get additional turret armor, probably because it is hard to weld plate onto a rounded cast turret (though not impossible looking at the ammunition bin armor added to cast hull shermans).

Then of course in 1944 you get the heavy Mark VII with 15.2cm frontal armor.

[Magpie_Oz]

Given the various factors, I would take the PzIVG only in the desert or open steppes where enemy armor was the primary threat. In just about any other conceivable role, the Sherman was a better tank for the job. The T34 was not as good as either of the others.

Unless you are in the jungles of Papua Nu Guinea where the Sherman does not have sufficient mobility, not enough armour and is too fast, or it is snowing and you need the wider tracks of the T34 or the PzIV in Normandy where armour was the primary threat or you only have diesel fuel available or or or or or

The Sherman is a good tank for sure and remained so through out it's life as were the others. Best tank? never. no such thing.

[Magpie_Oz]

100mm mantle

MANTLET it is a very different thing to a mantle

But you are 100%, through-out it's life the armour of the Churchill met or exceeded even the Tiger I.

[akd]

MANTLET it is a very different thing to a mantle

No, same thing.