Panzer IV vs M4

Is the discussion not useless ? How do you define better ? By performance in war time .What is performance in war time ? The number of MIV killed by the PzIV ?and vice versa ? Are there reliable numbers ? I haven't seen any ?And what about the following :20 M 4 attacking 10 Pz IV,chasing them away and loosing 1O tanks against 5 German ones .Which is the better ?What about the tank crews ?What about the non combattant tank losses (mechanical failure ) ?What about fuel consumption ?
No tank was operating in a vacuum,a tank was a (small ?) part of a PD ,supported and protected by infantry,artillery and engineering .
What about the mission :I think it differs a lot if you are attacking or retreating,if you are operating in a city or in the country ,if your mission is to protect the advancing infantry or the retreating support troops ,etc,etc,etc.

 

You are mostly right except for the "stabilized cannon" part, the US did indeed try a stabilizer device on later Shermans but the contraption proved un-reliable for its intended purpose, firing while on the move (which modern day US M1 abrams, soviet T-80, French Leclerc, German Leapord 2 and other moder tanks can do with ease). At the time the technology was simply not viable, even the Germans never fielded any type of tank gun stabilizer although they certainly considered the idea - they substituted intensive gunner training, and heavier armor instead and decided to simply forego the option of firing while on the move.

Regarding the Sherman Vs Mark 4 argument, all in all the Mark 4 was slightly superior in armor and armament (except for the upgunned Sherman Firefly, of which few were made). By slightly superior we are talking tank for tank, since the numbers are ridiculously skewed in favor of the Sherman. The Panzer Mark IV was the German's main batle tank throughout the war yet only about 8,000 were built. The more famous German heavies were made in even smaller numbers:
Panther (in service 1943): 5,000
Tiger ( in service late 1942): 1,200
King Tiger (in service 1944): 450

US Sherman (in service 1942): 50,000.

 

It's not that this means the Shermans couldn't win because the German tanks were too awesome though. It was just that it would be a wasteful and risky move attacking frontally a well dug in enemy when there are alternatives available. The allies had a massive artillery and air power advantage, and it would be dumb to put men and material under threat when you can just use it and score a Jagdtiger effectively for free.

If anything, that quote speaks of the utter demoralization and lack of organisation of the German defenders - that they would give up one of their few heavy tank destroyers (they made under 100 of them in total) just because it has been sighted, without even trying to get it to safety, before they could even see the air support coming in. In that exchange, the Germans traded one Jagdtiger for a single Sherman. Obviously Ernst would try to put a positive spin on it by decrying those cowardly Americans, but it's not like he sounded a horn and waved a red flag before he started shooting himself.

In general, combat statistics between shermans and german tanks in this period are heavily skewed by the fact that the germans are usually defending, with their armour concealed or in hulldown positions. The relative differences between the tanks didn't really matter when the poor sherman got one-shotted by an enemy they didn't know was there.

 

Not according to Hunnicutt's book on the Sherman. The problem was proper training . Now I'm talking about elevation stabaliser not the later azimuth stabaliser but no mistake about it the elevation stabaliser sure helped the vehicle to fire even on the move provided the crew recieved proper training in it's use.

 

i heard that the gun stablizer was not used because it was too complex. sure you can train them to use it but when leathal shells start flying are they going to stop turn it on and fire or just swamp it with more tanks or like previously said retreat and get air support or artillery. well i have got a lot of responses out of my post up top....quite frankly i thought i would be put in the cooler.

 

So... Kurowski is a Nazi revisionist? Sweet! My college senior book review of Infantry Aces is now proven to be inspired guess work! I knew there was something fishy about that man and his writings!

 

You heard wrong. Many of the ablest American M4 tank commanders advocated the usefulness of the gyro-stabilizer and Creighton Abrams made it a religion to drill that skill into his tankers... the results speak for itself.

Maybe you should consider reading the experiences of German Schwere Panzer Abt.'s in the fightings of late 1944, especially the Ardennes. The Allies most certainly did not fall back at the face of German panzers.

They did it because they had no choice. When you have no lemon, you don't drink lemonade.

 

I think perhaps 'romanticist' might be a better term... A sort of Barbara Cartland for the Third Reich Soldier?
When I look at the affiliations to, and names that formed, the GFP my eyebrow certainly raises somewhat.

~A

 

Kurwoski (and his many aliases)has written HUNDREDS of books, articles, radio work ect. The man pumps out a couple of books a year. In reality he can not do any serious research with that rate of production.
If you read his books you will find several long lengthy first hand accounts of conditions inside a tank turret during famous actions. Alarm bells should start ringing when you realise that all the quoted crewmen died in the action and thus it was all invented by Kurowski.
His books are full of errors and the fact he is the darling of the Uber-Panzer boys says it all. He belongs in the drawer with all the other fairy tales like 2 Tiger II's knocking out 150+ Russian tanks in the Battle For Berlin.

 

My view in comparing the tanks:

Armour: Sherman is better.

Guns: Pz IV is better.

Reliability: Roughly equal, the Pz IV was the most reliable german tank.

Design: Pz IV had lower profile, the Sherman was a easy hit. Also, the pz 4 looked better:



Impact on the war: The PzIV was perhaps the most important tank in history, the workhorse in the german army from 1939 to 1942, where germany conquered enough territory in blitzkriegs to make hitler confident thatt he could declare war on the USSR and the US, another 40 countries and win rolleyes.

The sherman was used to reclaim land in 1944 and 1945, when the outcome of the war was already decided by the actions of the USSR. However, since the USSR was conquering the entire continent, the western allies needed to do something. They lauched overlord, with had the impact of shortening the war by a few months and resulted in the liberation of most of western europe from nazism and communism.

Score: 4 to pz IV, 2 to sherman. Pz IV win!

Cost: If you believe in wikipedia, the Pz IV cost 10.000 RM, about 4.500 dollars, while the Sherman cost 33.000 dollars. So for the price of a single Sherman, you could get 7 Pz IV! While the T-34 cost 25.000 dollars, so for a single T-34, you could get 5-6 Pz IV. (sarcasm)

Conclusion: PZ IV is the best tank ever!! (sarcasm)

 

Well, there is the dude that claimed to shot 12 IS-2 with his Tiger II in a single engagement. But that's not impossible, the Tiger II had an excellent gun, with a high rate of fire and excellent range and optics.

 

Well, the Panzer 4 has better armour but the same gun (almost) as the M4 Sherman. However, the Sherman is smaller and faster than the Panzer 4, so the Sherman would probably win in a firefight

 

The important word is claimed.
Anyone firing at 12 IS2's better be quick because a return shot, even with HE, is going to be decisive.

 

You might want to re-read the thread. The Pz IV is more poorly armored than a Sherman. Its frontal armor basis (that is the actual plate thickness) is slightly better for the upper hull and lower hull plates (80mm versus a Sherman's 52mm or so) but, is worse with slope (80mm versus 100+ for the Sherman on the hull) and, worse elsewhere:

55mm turret face versus 76 to 100mm for the Sherman
30mm side and rear hull versus 38 for the Sherman
30mm turret side and rear versus 51 for the Sherman

The Pz IV is also lower and smaller than a Sherman but, not by alot. It really makes little difference at typical combat ranges.

As for faster / more maneuverable, this varies. The 19" track VVSS versions generally are no better than a Pz IV in this respect while the 23" HVSS versions, particularly with the GAA V8 engine, are better.

 

100mm on the front of the turret, mate if the front of the turret on a sherman is 100mm then it wouldnt really be a medium tank....100mm manlet sounds more resonable. and my sources say for a M4A4 that the turret is up to 76mm not 100mm. (i can only assume you are pulling armour stats for the M4A4 due to the hull measurements)

panzer IV smaller, height 2.68m and 2.74 for sherman (take into account panzer IV has a rather high coupola)

 

The exact thickiness of a Sherman's turret varies more due to more variants in use. You have to know if the turret is a 75mm narrow mantle, wide mantle, has applique armor, is a 76mm T23 type, etc. So, the armor varies from about 76mm to 100mm (3 to 4") effective armor depending on exactly where you are looking and what kind of turret is on the tank.

 

Well technically the Sherman had 14cm thick turret armor if you combine the mantle and rotor shield, though the rotor shield had lots of gaps in it.

The max thickness of the mantle was 89mm, some versions had thinner mantles.

The hull technically gave over 10cm protection if you are looking at the effective armor thickness caused by the slope, but I certainly did not provide such protection until the late 1943 models (75mm and 76mm wet storage) began to show up with the one piece glacis plates. Otherwise the glacis on Shermans were made of as many as 5 different plates for the M4A4 model, and 7 different plates for the M4A2 I think. Not gonna give you 10cm protection, to many weak points the shells can impact.

 

Suffice it to say that the Sherman is significantly better protected than a Pz IV.

Another weak point on the Pz IV is the front hull plate that has the access panels to the steering brakes (with the little raised vents) and larger access to the transmission final drive. This is just 30mm thick and represents a serious weak point in the frontal armor.
Also note, that the upper hull is bolted onto the lower hull so the seam is weak point as well.
The comparatively large driver's visor and hull machinegun mount represent two other weak points in the front hull.
On the turret there are one or two armored covers (on some models, later dropped) that protect the gunner's telescope.
The commander's cupola also represents a danger as it sticks up fairly high above the top of the turret and is only about 35mm thick.

 

Depends a lot on when and what variant as well as how you define better. When first introduced the M-4 had a better gun that the Mi-IV it ran up against though.

Is this a guess or do you have something to back it up?

There are times when a higher profile has advantages. As others have said the sizes are close enough that it's not really significant. As for looks that's clearly a personal opinion and rather irrelevant.

The Sherman was used to help defeat the axis powers starting in 43. It was used by the US, the British, the French, the Soviets, and others. How many Pz-IVs were there in 39 again?

Actually counting ties as 0 it's more like Pz_IV 0 M-4 1

But of course you can hardly equate those costs.