Panzer IV vs M4

Italien tanks now ? OT guys get back on topic please.......

 

Aw, c'mon, Erich. I like it when a topic goes off on an odd tangent.

Yours,
Paul

 

IMO the Sherman was copied from the Canadian Ram.

I think the Mk IV was the better tank. Overall, with what it faced on the battlefield, more often than not (atleast western front) it would face an inferior adversary while the Sherman had to contend with all sorts of tanks it couldn't hope to win against. Plus the Sherman's 75mm was a piece of tar. I think Sherman is more on par with the Mk III.

The 76 was a better tank, more of a match for the Mk IV.. and who says the Mk IV wasn't versatile? It was sure dependable.

 

On the Ram: Your opinion is incorrect. The Ram was a "Britishized" Sherman. The M-4 was developed from the M-3 Lee / Grant and that from the M-2 medium. All were original US designs.

As far as the Pz IV v. Sherman goes, re-read this thread more carefully. As far as it goes, whatever the technical shortcomings of the Sherman were with respect to the heavier German tanks (Panther / Tiger) it was more than a match for the rest and performed quite well against them. As for its performance against the Pz III, it is instructive to read the comments of German Pz III crews in N. Africa who were shocked that their 50/60 rounds wouldn't penetrate the Sherman's armor at normal combat ranges while they were being shot to pieces in return.
By late 1944 (August / September) the vast majority of Shermans in US armored divisions had the 76mm gun fitted (about 75 - 90%). If HVAP rounds were available, this put the Sherman on par with the Panther in firepower if not mobility and protection.
To somehow make the claim that the Sherman was greatly inferior to the armor it faced is spurious at best.

 

AFAIK the Ram was a "Britishized" Lee/Grant, it also had still a riveted hull.

Maybe in penetrating force, but definitely not in range. While the Sherman is usually underrated (this poll is a good example), I think you tend to overrate it. There is a lot of record that Allied tank crews were very scared to face German tanks, and for good reason. If you say the Sherman was an equal match for Panther/Tiger, do you deem the Firefly superior?

 

OMG look what i started!

 

I stand corrected. The Ram is derived from the M-3 Medium. It had a cast hull but, the turret face was bolted on. It was the Grizzly that was derived from the M-4.

HVAP shot was good to about 1500 meters and gave roughly equal performance with the US 76/50 to the German 75/70. Both tanks (the 76mm Sherman and Panther) had equivalent sighting systems and, the Sherman 76 had a slight advantage in accuracy, particularly at longer ranges. This was due to the German 75/70 experiancing more vibration during firing and barrel droop due to its length.

 

Well, but the Panther was effective to up to 2000 m. And if you're right that the 76/50 was equal to the 75/70, this raises the question whether the Firefly was actually important?!

 

Maybe in penetrating force, but definitely not in range. While the Sherman is usually underrated (this poll is a good example), I think you tend to overrate it. There is a lot of record that Allied tank crews were very scared to face German tanks, and for good reason. If you say the Sherman was an equal match for Panther/Tiger, do you deem the Firefly superior? [/QUOTE]

I'm trying to realistically asses each vehicle to the others. For example, I think the mobility of the Sherman overall is grossly inferior to German and Russian tanks. Even with the 23 inch track and HVSS suspension it is barely adequite and then only equal to the Pz IV while still inferior to the Panther and Tiger I.
Likewise, against these heavy German tanks (I tend to think of the Panther as a heavy tank with a small gun rather than a powerful medium tank)the Sherman was inferior in protection. But, so were the T34/76 and 85.
The Sherman with the 17pdr and 76 using HVAP shot (not just 'regular' APCBC / APHE shot) was a match for the Panther in firepower. These two weapons had nearly equal performance to the 75/70.
I never stated that the Sherman was an "equal match for Panther/Tiger" only that with other organizational and operational considerations it proved superior (even if much of that superiority was due to reasons not related to the Sherman's technical characteristics).

[ 08. January 2004, 05:11 PM: Message edited by: T. A. Gardner ]

 

I didn't want to imply this, sorry for the inexact wording.

 

As far as I can remember the Ram was developed before the M4, the M4 being developed after American tank engineers had seen a preview of the Ram in Canada. More of an inspiration than a direct copy, cttoi.

 

What about the production cost of Panzer IV and Sherman? I will prefer a cheaper tank.

 

At what price? The Pz-IV was just about tapped out as far as upgrade potential goes. Could it have been easily modified to hold a 105 or a 17lb'er? I think the turret ring was a bit small for those. Automotivly could you have created a Jumbo variant that had any kind of reliability at all?

 

I think the entire premise of the thread is rather unfortunate and unhelpful. Which PzIV? Which Sherman? If we pitted a PzIVd against a Sherman (76) the IVd would be a pile of rubble in seconds, but it wouldn't tell us very much about the capabilities of either tank or the kind of dangers faced by the crews during wwii.

 

Then there is the other factor, how many do I have to fight?
There were a whole bunch of M-4s running around over there. Just as the Russians cranked out more and more tanks, the German quality deminished as the war went on. Craftsmanship in a war torn country is not a luxury.

 

This is so true!!! And besides, different tactics and that whole bit. As has been stated on this forum many times before, as I have seen when surfing through old threads, the Americans wanted a better all-rounder, which the Sherman was. It was more dependable by FAR, and it fired a better HE round, which was useful in destroying strongpoints and infantry concentrations. The Germans WERE on the defensive for most of the period that the Americans were involved in the war. Add the stabilized gun, better crews later on, and the ability for upgrades, and you get one great tank. Besides, imagine if the U.S. had stuck with it's 1940 medium tank, the M2A1?

 

Warning big chunk of technical details of m4a4 sherman with 75mm l/40 cannon and the panzer 4 ausf h.
m4a4 sherman:
Country :United StatesRole :Medium TankProduction Date :July 1942Manufacturer :Detroit Tank ArsenalNumber Produced :7499Crew :5Radio :SCR508 / 528 / 538Road Speed :40 Kilometers per HourRough Speed :24 Kilometers per HourRoad Range:161 KilometersOff-Road Range:Unknown KilometersEngine Name:Chrysler A57Coolant :WaterCylinders:I-5Capacity:20.5 LitersPower :425 hp @ 2600 rpmPower / Weight Ratio :13.45 hp per tonneTransmission :SynchromeshGears :5 Forward / 1 ReverseSuspenion :Vertical Volute SpringFuel Type :GasolineFuel Capacity:636 LitersRoad Consumption:3.95 Liters per KilometerOff-Road Consumption:Unknown Liters per KilometerLength :6.05 metersHeight :2.74 metersWidth :2.62 metersWeight :31600 kilogramsGround Clearance :43 centimetersGround Pressure :0.927 kg/cm²Track Links :83 per trackTrack Width :42.1 centimetersTrack Ground Contact :406.4 centimetersGradiant :31°Vertical Obsticle :0.61 metersFording Depth :1.07 metersTrench Crossing :2.4 metersTurning Radius :21 metersMain Gun :75mm M3 L / 40Gunsight :M.70 FPrimary Magnification :3x magnification / 12° Field of ViewTraverse :360° (Electric)Elevation :+25° / -12°Main Gun Ammo :97Secondary Weapons :1x 7.7mm M1919A4 (Coaxial - 2375 rounds)
1x 7.7mm M1919A4 (Bow - 2375 rounds)
1x 12.7mm M2 HB (AA - 300 rounds)Hull Front (Upper) :51mm @ 34°Hull Front (Lower) :51mm @ 45° - 90°Hull Sides (Upper) :38mm @ 90°Hull Sides (Lower) :38mm @ 90°Hull Rear :38mm @ 70° - 90°Hull Top :19mm @ 0° - 7°Hull Bottom :13mm - 25mm @ 0°Turret Front :76mm @ 60°Turret Mantlet :89mm @ 90°Turret Sides :51mm @ 85°Turret Rear :51mm @ 90°Turret Top :25mm @ 0°
Panzer IV ausf H:
Country :GermanyRole :Medium TankProduction Date :April 1943Manufacturer :Krupp-Gruson
Vomag
NibelungenwerkeNumber Produced :3774Crew :5Radio :FuG 5Road Speed :38 Kilometers per HourRough Speed :16 Kilometers per HourRoad Range:210 KilometersOff-Road Range:130 KilometersEngine Name:Maybach HL 120 TRMCoolant :WaterCylinders:V-12Capacity:11.867 LitersPower :300 hp @ 3000 rpmPower / Weight Ratio :11.54 hp per tonneTransmission :Synchromesh ZF SSG 76Gears :6 Forward / 1 ReverseSuspenion :Leaf springsFuel Type :GasolineFuel Capacity:470 LitersRoad Consumption:2.24 Liters per KilometerOff-Road Consumption:3.62 Liters per KilometerLength :8.15 metersHeight :2.68 metersWidth :3.33 metersWeight :26000 kilogramsGround Clearance :40 centimetersGround Pressure :0.77 kg/cm²Track Links :99 per trackTrack Width :40 centimetersTrack Ground Contact :352 centimetersGradiant :30°Vertical Obsticle :0.6 metersFording Depth :1.2 metersTrench Crossing :2.2 metersTurning Radius :5.92 metersMain Gun :75mm Kw.K.40 L / 48Gunsight :TZF 5f/1Primary Magnification :2.4x magnification / 25° Field of ViewTraverse :360° (Electric)Elevation :+20° / -8°Main Gun Ammo :87Secondary Weapons :1x 7.92mm MG 34 (Coaxial - 1575 rounds)
1x 7.92mm MG 34 (Bow - 1575 rounds)Hull Front (Upper) :80mm @ 80°Hull Front (Lower) :80mm @ 76°Hull Sides (Upper) :30mm @ 90°Hull Sides (Lower) :30mm @ 90°Hull Rear :20mm @ 82°Hull Top :12mm @ 0° - 5°Hull Bottom :10mm @ 0°Turret Front :50mm @ 80°Turret Mantlet :50mm @ 60° - 90°Turret Sides :30mm @ 64°Turret Rear :30mm @ 75°Turret Top :15mm @ 0° - 7°

 

I'd give the slight edge to the Mark IVG-H series vs the Sherman 75mm series, as they had a somewhat better gun and its better velocity allowed for an easier time hitting targets, plus the standard German mil gun sight allowed for accurate estimation of range without ranging shots. Still Sherman had better armor than the Mark IV (50mm turret armor... ugh), and was equal in other departments.

Mark IV J series I would rater as equal, the lack of a powered traverse does not rate highly with me, to scrap such a device for production reasons seems a bad idea when you are facing an enemy with quantitative superiority and you need all the advantages you can get.

Sherman 76mm series I would deem quite superior, equal if not better in all areas than the Mark IVG-J series.

SHerman chassis is superior, the Mark IV reached its ultimate form with the H model, the SHerman continued to be modified and upgraded for decades after.

Overall the IV vs the M-4 was very much a spitfire vs 109 thing, both designs that stayed pretty close in capability to eachother, overtaking the other at times.

--------------

As for the line above about the 76mm HVAP giving the SHerman similar firepower to the Panther, only on paper. Such ammo is distinctly inferior when impacting armor at angles or angled armor compared to capped projectiles. Even if on paper the 76mm HV round was equal to the Panthesr 75mm APCBC round, in reality it was not the case. The APCBC round gripped armor better as result of its cap, and its size plus burster charge was much more lethal post penetration than the 50mm wide sub caliber solid projectile that actually struck a German tank from the HVAP round.

 

I think the Spitfire vs Me109 comparison is quite apt, the M4 was a 1942 tank stating at some 28tonns while the Pz IV a 1936 design starting at 18tonns, if you compare dates, weights and engine power for the Spit and 109 you will find something similar.
That for much of time they fought each other the German machine could more than hold it's own is a credit to the German engineers. The weight difference remained through all of their careers though it was less extreme at the end with the PzIV around 28t and the M4 at 33, still a 20% difference though.

IMO The early Sherman against the IVG has a a sight disadvantage, the better armour is more than offset by the better German gun (for AT performance) and in the desert the greater size of the M4 was possibly more significant than in Europe.
Mid/late production 75 may have a slight edge on the G but are at a disadvantage against the 80mm armoured variants that enjoys an "immune zone" where it's gun will penetrate while the M4's will not, I don't think the loss of reliability of the overweight H and J was in the same class as the Jumbo.
The M4 76 variants are superior (and a IVJ is a step backwards as far as pure tank vs tank capability is concerned) but not in such a way as to give the US tankers a big edge, it still boils down to who can get a good hit first.

BTW apart fom Zaloga can anyone else confirm that the G was just a late production F2 (at one point they Germans decided the Lang deserved a new model designation but the tank was unchanged) ?

 

Mk IV H did not enjoy the advantage of having an immunity zone against M4(75). H's faceplate was face-hardened steel is optimized to defeat the more primitive Soviet APHE round. Against American APCBC round, FH armor was more vulnerable than the same-thickness rolled homogenous armor. Now Mk IV J allegedly had all RHA construction to save costs and meet the challenge of Allied as well as improved Soviet rounds.

I agree mostly with everything else you said.