Best tanks

Nah - I tend to prefer it in 'actual' thickness, then quote the slope.
And I didn't say the German tanks weren't sloped!

But just to restate my original position (and make it clearer and less controversial!) It would have been awfully nice to have had some heavy tanks along for the ride!

Shermans were a step up from what us Brits had at the time (until Churchill Mk. VII, I think), and late Shermans were (you won't here this often from me) pretty good.
But why oh why didn't they bring in the Pershing?
Stick a 17pdr in it, it's a marvel!

 

Well, too bad. You're going to hear the vertual thickness of the armor. Just because the plate is actualy 63mm thick doesn't mean 63mm is how much the shell is facing.

No, but you are suggesting that the Sherman was inferior because it was only sloped on the front.

Because the Incarnation of the Pershing that was prepared by D-Day was a cheap arse excuse for a heavy, armed with a puny (for a heavy) 76mm gun and with the Sherman turret.

 

Well, fair point!

re: sloped armour - it's just that you made it sound as though the Sherman was covered with sloped armour, when only the front was. I wasn't suggesting it was inferior because of that! Compared to most contemporary designs it was... (trying had to think of a metaphor for 'slopey' but failing).

Just for interest's sake -

Does anyone have any data on comparable side armour thickness?

Obviously, in later years, the Germans introduced side-skirts, which helped against shaped-charge rounds.

The only tanks I can think of that had sloped side armour are:
T-34
Panther
Tiger II (barely, but it's a slope!)

 

There is only one shot trap on the entire early Panther, which wasn't even the most common version as far as I know. By the way, this shot trap that occured between mantlet and hull also appeared on the Sherman but we never even brought it up. The failing engine on the Panther A was soon corrected by the way. Only at Kursk did 50% of the Panthers fail to reach the battlefield, which was a result of Hitler's overenthusiasm to use the tank. If there had been more testing, the flaw would surely have been corrected before the first action. Such a course of events also hampered the quality of the Grant, as you well know.

By the way, thanks Danyel for posting the level amount of armour for the Panther. In all previous arguments I stated 100mm but from now on, I'll use the actual 123mm for my comparisons with the Sherman.

 

So.. what? I'm the bad guy for stating fact?

 

Danyel - sorry, I wasb't intending to start up a Sherman-bashing session!

But...

If it was on a par with the Tiger - how come the Tiger did so well?

Crew training? - maybe with the SS formations, but (apparently - please correct me if I'm wrong) the German policy was to give the better tanks to the worst crews, in order to give them a better chance...

And why, up to the end of the war, did American tankers keep adding extra protection (like track links, sandbags, etc) when Tiger crews did not?

Not to trample on your views. I'm just asking.
You blatantly have far more info on all this than I do, and I'm also disparaging your fave tank!
:kill:

 

-Only Elite crews recieved Tigers as far as I know.

-Sherman crews added armor onto their hulls to close the gap with Panthers, not Tigers.

 

Interesting, isn't it, that Tigers remain so heavily in the 'public awareness', and feature so much in the legends of WW2.

Yes, I would agree that the Panther was the better tank, but the Tiger somehow got a better press...

 

Same reason the T-34 gets better press than the Sherman: Reputation.

 

and that the Soviets and Nazis were better at propaganda perhaps?

 

Well, to be fair, early Shermans deserved their reputation of being quite easy to kill & easier to set fire to (sorry Danyel!), and early Tigers deserved their reputation of being unstoppable monsters (ish).

And they still were in Normandy...

 

For a while the Sherman was out classing the German tanks in Africa.

And no, by Normandy the Tiger was no longer unstoppable. Far from it.

 

Well, not unstoppable, but there are still the events where a few ( or even a single) Tiger ran roughshod over a whole potload of Allied armour. Which seems rather superior to me...

Shermans in North Africa? Yes, they were superior to the German tanks. But they were still fairly easy kills...

(am I winding you up yet? )

 

Elite crews

Yeah, to Rommels stationary 88s, not to the Short barreled Panzer IVs.

Oh, don't flatter yourself. I'm more than used to repeating myself up to six times per thread.

 

Well, I'm tempted to submit here...

But dammit I wanted to drive you to distraction with continually repeated opinions and half-remembered facts, when you have all that hard info at your fingertips!



Well, I've done my bit to get Roel his 50 new posts.
Anybody else?

 

Oh come on. This adding armour was something all tank crews did, maybe Tigers are the exeption. But even Churchill crews decorated their tanks with masses of track links and sandbags, even though they had a whole lot more armour to begin with than the Tiger I. StuGIII crews even used concrete to improve the driver's protection.

Oh and Ricky, don't try to get anyone pissed here. This doesn't make for a comfortable atmosphere on the forum. I'm not just talking about Danyel btw.

 

Thats because the short barreled Panzer IVs were not designed anti-tank! The MBT was the Panzer III which had a high velocity (hopefully) armor piercing gun.

 

The 50mm L/60 was quite a decent AT gun until the Sherman arrived, actually. Never thought I'd credit the Sherman for anything

 

The Sherman wasn't designed anti-tank either.

 

Yes, but its armour was more of a match to the not AT-meant gun of the PanzerIV back then. This isn't about the Sherman's gun but about the armour.