Panzer IV vs M4

True. But the F2 and H had better armor at 80mm,a longer caliber barrel that offered flatter trajectory, and extremely good sights, best of the war actually. Of course the Sherman had gyro stable fire to go along with that HE shell so perhaps it should be changed to a push.

 

This claim is made over and over again and yet I have never seen any data to back it up.
The subject usualy wanders off into some gushing love letter to the 'superior' German optics industry but not once have I ever seen a paper that compares gun sights and shows that Allied one's were inferior.
So if you have nothing other than 3rd hand tales do not post it-data is needed.

As a starter how about this from Coop's Montgomery's Scientists:


Solandt's initial ORG report analysed crew casualties in the Mark III Matilda Infantry Tank
during the first EI Alamein battle, July 1942. Other work focussed on methods of ranging, firing on the
move and the German all-around vision cupola.34 Studies comparing the gunsights used in German and
British tanks led to important results and an object lesson in OR methods. Solandt recalled this
investigation as one of the highlights of his time at Lulworth. The problem presented to Solandt was
that "the Germans had introduced a new tank gunsight which was vastly superior to the British sight."
Tank crews in the desert were sure that it was the new sight that made it possible for the Germans to
knock out British tanks at long range before they were themselves in danger. However, careful
measurements showed the British gunsight was accurate. The German sight was similarly tested and
found to be inferior. "We were therefore forced," Solandt wrote, "to treat it as an operations research
rather than a technical problem .

 

Not sure how the Sherman HE compared to the KwK 37 L/24 HE rounds or how the optics of the various marks of Panzer IV compared to the Sherman which had very good indirect fire control systems. The 75mm Sherman had a much better HE capability than the later 76mm M1 gunned versions.

A strange thing is the Panzer IV started out as an infantry support tank with the Panzer III being the tank killer, by the mid war the Panzer IV had the 75mm L48 and became the tank killer and the Panzer III had switched roles armed with the 75mm L24 (that originally armed the Panzer IV) to become the support tank. Of course the Panzer III were then largely converted to Stugs and used in AT and infantry support roles to join those already built.

 

Some Shermans had 108mm of frontal armor over some sections and the Sherman armor was sloped. The E2 had 100mm or more in front and 76mm on parts of the sides. See:
Medium Tank M4 Sherman

The 75mm Sherman is inferior in AP but has a better HE round. The 76mm armed Sherman has better penetration but an inferior HE round. The 105mm Sherman has a vastly superior HE round and a HEAT round capable of penetrating the PzIV at any range (although long or even moderate range accuracy would be a concern). Hard to pick a clear winner but the fact that all variants of the Sherman were found in an armored division and that this didn't have a serious impact on their reliability would push me toward the Sherman. That said I don't see the armor and gun being as decisive as other facdtors if you are choosing between these two.

I'm curious as to why you say this. Seems odd that they wouldn't improve the sites some, I'd expect the Pz V or VI to have better sights.

My position has been that if you only look at firepower and armor the PzIV, M4, and T34 are pretty much equivalant.

 

In my view the Pz-IV versus Sherman debate is rather academic.

The Pz-IV's 85-mm front hull armor and 75-mm HV gun did give it an advantage in long range engagements, but its 50-mm turret mantlet was simply too weak and Sherman tank's gun could penetrate it without problems. We know a good crew in a Sherman could shoot and hit targets at even long range with their M3 gun (even tankers who were vociferous critics of the Sherman tank acknowledged this). Neither tank had a decisive edge in combat over another. However, the Sherman's automotive and anti-infantry performance were without a doubt better than the Pz-IV, so I would rate the Sherman above the Pz-IV.

 

Then perhaps Kenny you should look into tank sights. I have looked through several sights and although I wont say the German optics were by far superior to all Allied optics they were in General better. And not just in tanks. The optics on German artillery, and AT guns tended to be alot clearer from what I saw. And I will note that the optics on the Panzer IV are amazingly good. The Panther and the Tiger also have excellent optics. The British Cromwell and M26 Pershing also had great sights. I will note that when comparing Russian optics to German the difference is rather substantial especially in certain conditions. If you dont believe it then I say go take a look for yourself. Here is a quote I found. "German tank crews enjoyed a marked advantage in the process of acquiring targets due to the superiority of their optics devices. This superiority
allowed them to identify and open fire on opposing tanks long before an enemy tanker could respond. A WWII U.S. Army Sergeant reported his impression of
German tank-mounted optic devices: "The German telescopic sight is superior to ours. In particular, it is more powerful - in fact all of their optical equipment is
superior to ours."." - 'German Tanks of WWII in Color', pg. 39 Now I wouldnt say that all german optics were superior but if you look for yourself you will see the difference.

 

It was also commmon for many crews of M4's in Normandy to remove the sights from German tanks to use on their own.

 

Shermans rarely had armor exceeding 80mm. The Panzer IV ausf. F2 came standard with 80mm. The Pantehr and Tiger also have good sights. However, the IV's sights are really un matched if you look through them yourself. There is alot of science involved with optics. Of course Panther tanks towards the end of the war were equipped with night vision optics so you could give them an edge in that. And Yes if you look at my statements earlier I say the M4 was the better tank to me as well. However the F2 at the time had a slight advantage over the Sherman in terms of armor and firepower.

 

German optics on tanks artillery and AT guns really only provide one distinct advantage over allied. They were coated and this reduced distortion, blurring, or fogging of lenses from weather, battle, and normal wear. IT really only gave the Germans a better long ranged shot. At close distances German optics really had no advantage over allied. This is the same with German firearms. In General German firearms had a distinct advantage at long range over allied firearms. Thats why Chuikov came up with the "hugging the enemy" tactic which was extremely effective for the russians as at close range their weapons tended to overpower the German's weapons.

 

I have never heard of this before. I dispute it was 'common'.
Post the evidence.

 

I have no need.
You are going to post the data that proves your claims............

 

That system did not work.
The only wartime IR system that saw combat was Allied.

 

Never heard of this, the sights were calibrated to the weapon and the round it fired so would they work with a different gun and rounds, would the crews be able to recalibrate them themselves in the field.
Even changing guns on tanks often necessitated a new way of mounting the sights (position, aperture, alignment).

 

I read it at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago. They have a ton of World War II tech there, including sights targeting systems and other equipment of various tanks. If you read the exhibit for the TFZ-5 (the sight for the Panzer IV ausf. F2 and H) it says this was "the best of the war", and "several tank crews of M4 Shermans in the Normandy campaign desired these sights on their tanks." Unofrtunately I cant remember anything else it said about the sights but I remember they also have a room that demonstrates the difference between the coating that German Sights had versus the sights that were on allied optics without. I also recommend the walk through of the U-boat that is there. And lastly You say that Night Vision systems on Panthers did not work? Which system the Sperber of teh Biwa? Because the Sperber saw combat from march to april of 1945. The Biwa cant be confirmed to have ever entered combat.

 

I do not remember it saying anything about Sherman crews successfully equipping their tanks with a TFZ-5 however, it was attempted and if you know the sights. then you know both are similar in size and shape so they can def fit on the tank. However calibration could be an issue considering Shermans used custom and Germans used metric readings.

 

Im sorry but your reports fails to specify anything useful to your claim. What sight are tehy studying and how are they conducting studys? If this was in Africa chances are that the sight being studied was not the TFZ-5 which did not even enter combvat until around the time this report came out in 1942. Furthermore, if they tested these sights by just putting a target at 800 m in open desert. then it would not be valid at all. The advantages provided by German sights were at far range say 1000 m. and beyond and in obstrcuting conditions like night, rain, etc.

 

also if i remember in africa German armor was not the main threat to the matilda tank. It was the 8.8 cm. Flak and mines. So why they were even conducting this research sounds rather a waste.

 

Unfortunately for your study the Panzer III with its 50mm gun was the main tank in africa, not the Panzer IV ausf. F2. which means this was most likely the tank studied and its sights are nothing special.

 

As I suspected, you have no data to back the claims.
Thats the 'Shermans used German sights' story put to rest at least.