Panzer IV vs M4

The sherman is superior yes but you have to look at the time they were made
The panzer IV is a older tank and also weights less.5-6 tons difference...
Actually comparing the sherman with other german tanks is very hard because they were heavy tanks or and older design.

 

Okay I do not agree with the notion that because one tank is different from another its unfair to compare the two. Its like saying the Sherman cant be compared to the Panther, its ridiculous because the two tanks fought each other regularly and were both important tanks for their side.

What is unfair is to perhaps expect criticize a tank for not being as good as the other due to circumstances. It makes no sense to call the Sherman a terrible tank because it was inferior to the Panther, certainly the weight of the Panther allowed more to be packed into in that the Sherman did, but you still can compare the other and find that in many areas the Sherman was inferior, there is nothing wrong with the conclusion as long as you do not unfairly expect the tank to have been just as good.

Now maybe circumstances dictated the Mark IV could not be upgraded as much as the Sherman, but that still means the Sherman was a better design.

 

Its debatable if the H and J series had FHA since the Germans concluded 8cm FHA provided little advantage over 8cm RHA.

That said its an incorrect assumption to believe that because the 8cm plate on the Mark IVH-J was listed as 8cm, that the plate resisted like a regular 8cm plate would. The 8cm plate on the Mark IVH-J was not a solid plate, rather it had a machinegun ball and vision port, plus a weld line running along the bottom of the plate. All those things resulted in the armor being less effective than a solid 8cm thick plate. This is a problem on all tanks designs during WWII. A Xcm thick armor plate on a tank in WWII RARELY acted as a true Xcm plate in testing would. Once you fit in view ports and MG positions it becomes weaker, and weld lines are always a weak spot.

Lower front hull may provide better protection, but not he upper hull.

Front armor aside tanks tend to be lost to side shots more than anything. Sherman in Normandy were falling victim to side shots more often than front shots. Allied scientists concluded that even if they increased the frontal armor on their tanks to withstand 50% of penetrations they would only increase survivability by 20%.

 

Which are what besides ammor and firepower?

I sort of understand your point but just to be clear....what is unfair is to say "blah, blah, blah...it took 10 Shermans to kill a Tiger" That has no value as the Sherman was a medium tank built for the purpose of infranty support, not to be taking on heavies such as the Tiger.

 

-No cupola until the 76mm series and late 75mm series, Panther had it.

-No neutral steering (ability to pivot on a single spot) or even the ability to lock one tread when turning. Though to be fair the Panther weak final drive meant extensive use of pivoting would cause the tank to break down, but still the British had such a system on their Churchill and Cromwell series tanks. The Shermans had a notably wide turning circle (around 30 feet) because it relied on the manual strength of the driver pushing a lever to apply break pressure to one of the tracks to turn the Sherman.

-No interlocking plates (reduced the weakness of welds and the susceptibility to be penetrated easily along weld lines), Panther had it.

-Thin tracks which reduced off road mobility. Panther had them

-Dual magnification sights and the German mil sights which allowed for quick estimation of the range of a target, US sight layout were notably inferior in design, frankly even to the British optics. Panther had them.

-Multi piece glacis plate (until 76mm series and late 75mm designs) which reduced effectiveness, in comparison to the Panther once piece glacis plate which was stronger.

To be honest there is quite a list of things to legitimately flail the Sherman with, and its weight class does not excuse from being absent. I mean I tend to be a Sherman supporter, it was a solid medium tank, obviously criticising it for not being as mighty as the Panther or Tiger is rediculous, but still quite a number of legitimate engineering complaints about the tank and things which the Tiger and Panther included in their designs.

Well frankly 10 shermans per tiger is a crock of crap, but that said even if the Sherman was designed as an infantry tank, it was still thrust into the role as really the main battle tank of the western allied forces. While its origins do need to be taken into consideration its important to evaluate its effectiveness in the role it was thrusted into. The Sherman was never predestined to go into battle with an inadequate gun, the fault for that lies at the feet of certain US army officers who could not get past their own views on war, nor had the forsight to attempt to put the best guns possible on their tanks.

 

Alright but the Panther was being produced at around the same time it was introduced on the Sherman.

Exactly, the Panther's transmission was extremely overstressed and suffered from premature stripping of the third gear. The pivot turning accelerated final drive failure, especially in the hands of an inexperienced driver. Furthermore the life expectancy of the final drive was 1,500km but could be as low as 150km. It was also totally inclosed by the front armor so to repair the final drive you have to remove the frontal armor and the transmission. Whats better, having to turn with a 30ft. radius 150 times or pivot turning twice and breaking down?

Ok but the thin rubber tracks were much easier on the wheels and the ground. Steel tracks caused a lot more wear and tear on the wheels and the ground.

Alright, and the Panther's hydraulic turret traverse was slower and less smooth...

Similar thing, the Shermans with these plates were coming into production around the same time as the Panther (Roughly, the Panther D may be a little earlier but if you want to discuss the Panther D you have a whole other list of problems) Also, this is "stronger" multi-piece plate is going to be probably overcome by the decline in German armor quality. As the war progressed they began to loose their import of high grade iron ore, something they had very little of.

 

I know but the inherent problem was the 76mm series and even late 75mm model, even if going into service, was not the common Sherman on the ground. The simple fact is the improved Shermans did see much service until later in 1944, even then the old variants would remain in service for a long time.

Well for starters it was there for the experienced drivers, and on top of that it still could lock a track and turn (which was recommended to prevent a breakdown) which the Sherman could not do. SO while it may not have been safe to pivot on the spot, it could do close to that with track locking while the Sherman had to do a 30 foot turn.

Granted but wide tracks are a significant tactical advantage, at least on the battlefield it meant the Panther could go where the Sherman would have trouble going. The Churchill unit that had a captured Panther remarked on its ability to handle icy conditions which even the Churchill had problems with (for whatever reason ice didnt mesh well with the tank).

Perhaps a disadvantage at really close range, but given combat tended to be between 500 and 800 yards, with a gun that will cut through just about everything, not sure how much of a disadvantage that was. Certainly I think it was less of a disadvantage than driving a tank with a gun that could not do in frontally a Panther or other late war German designs easily.

Again the glacis plate issue is a case of being on newer models while the older models continued to dominate the frontlines. Obviously the new Sherman models benifited from it but there were still so many older ones in service its effect was delayed.

While the Panther did have armor quality issues, actually quite severe ones, the problem is that its front armor was so thick that it still proved difficult for most guns to go through it. It really is a case of quantity having a quality of its own, there was so much armor and the guns facing were perdominantaly medium velocity, it really didnt matter if the armor was sub part. Not until it met the 17lber or 90mm did the armor quality really matter. Against the US 76.2mm and 75mm guns they were overwhelmed by the quantity of the infeiror quality metal to do much good frontally.

That said the side armor certainly provided less protection that it should have, even being blown open by HE rounds in some worst cases.

 

True

Alright, that is more reasonable.

Agreed, just simply pointing out the downsides which also must be taken into consideration.

Well the Panther could get its sights adjusted faster and more accurately, but the Sherman could get its turret situated faster....the hydraulic turret was also a lot less smooth, especially later war models which relied on engine speed for turret traverse speed. The two modes the hydraulic turret could be in was "on" and "off." Naturally you can see the problems this would cause....

There lies the problem

 

According to Jentz. He stated that H series employed FHA, but J series RHA. Harry Yeides in Tank Killers similarly stated that Mk IV H faceplate was 80mm of FHA. Standard Osprey reference on the other hand listed H and J as both employing FHA protection.

In my opinion, it made sense for H series to employ FHA. FHA's marginal performance against capped projectile was unimportant 39-43 because Wehrmacht's opponents used substandard armor piercing ammunition throughout this period.

Yes wokelly, that's my understanding as well. I found no evidence of invulnerability reading engagements in which the opposing German tanks were clearly ID'ed as MK IVs. Hits killed.

Be that as it may, frontal arc invulnerability generates shock power. In an attack, psychology is as important as, if not more than, the objective reality. A unit disintegrate when it is outmanoeuvered decisively, or when the soldiers became convinced that the enemy is invulnerable.

I absolutely agree with deficient steering and the flaws in Sherman hull's design. There is no apparent justification why this was done, and the seven piece hull in M4 and M4A1 was just terrible.

The dimension of US tanks were predetermined by the ships that would transport them across the Atlantic. I would not disagree that this was a combat impediment, but we should not underestimate the wide-spread use of track extenders.

I disagree with your criticism of the sights. The American tank sight does not have a low-power setting because the periscope sight (1x) was used for target acquisition. The Panther's dual-magnification gun sight had two settings, 2.5x and 5x. Why do you think ranging is faster with 2.5x/5x mix?

To be fair, the Generals refused Army-wide adoption of a more powerful AT gun partly because the troops did not want it. This is a case where the end-user's opinion should have been ignored. Furthermore, both 76mm designs available to the Allies were immature technology. The 17 pdr. was surprisingly inaccurate, and the US 76mm lacked a muzzle break.

 

From what I read bridging equipment and engine availability were more significant than ships.

Or not. Remember German tanks were not the primary threat to the Sherman and the 75 was better vs AT guns and infantry. Of course the 105 was even better...

 

I have seen it both ways, including the opinion put forward by the creater of Panzer IV world that the Mark IVH may initially have had 8cm FHA plate and later had it changed to RHA. Frankly the only sure answer we could get would be from metallurgy reports on captured Mark IVHs from Normandy.

No there certainly is an advantage but I tend to think its overblown. To much a common perception of a tank in a one on one dual rather than a battle across a frontage several thousand yards wide where facing a threat to your front may expose your side armor to enemy off on your flanks a few hundred yards away.

On a ture battlefield weak flanks are a bigger disadvantage than most think. The contrast between the hits required to KO a tiger (4.3 hits) and a Panther (2.55 hits), indicate the increased survivability of strong flank armor in battle.

I have been personally wondering if the cast variants were in fact not better designs. Cast has its own problems, but frankly if acted a single plate at least it may have been a stronger design.

Actaully it had nothing to do with magnification. The design of the German optics, the layout, offered a significant advantage to German gunners. I will post a link, it explains the mil optic design of the Germans and, when panzer crews were trained with the math required, the range finding ability the design allowed.

http://www.75thguards.com/ww2online/downloads/Zheriz_Ziess_Sight_Guide.pdf

17lber was actually quite accurate, US comparisions in late 1944 between US guns and UK guns attest to that. What they disliked was the SABOT rounds for the UK, initial batches in late 1944 were sub par.

 

Interesting link, thanks.

General Maurice Rose rated US optics to be superior to the Germans as does S. Zaloga. Their opinions referred to situation awareness, targeting speed and ease of use rather than ranging accuracy. Usually, the M4 gunner got to fire the first aimed shot.

M4(75) tank apparently had a 3x gun sight.

According to Mark Hayward's The Sherman Firefly , 17 pdr's regular APCBC had a hit probability of 73% at 600 yds, 57% at 800 yds and 45% at 1,000 yds, far bellow that of the 75mm M3 or 76mm M4 guns.

This is not the case if anecdotal accounts I have been hearing are true. Late war Panthers produced at '45 were known to have been killed by frontal hits from 75mm. I do not have the data myself, but can send a few inquiries. What I have seen is massive armor cracking at the weld seams from 75mm hits.

 

I am some what skeptical of that. German optics tended to have much wider fields of view than allied guns. The 2.4x magnified German sight on Mark IIIs, Mark IVs, and early tigers had a wide 25 degree field of view. In comparison allied 3x magnified optics had only a 13 degree field of view. The adjustable German 2.5x and 5x optics also had an wide FOV compared to allied optics. The 2.5x sight had a 28 degree field of view, while the 5x optics were 14 degree FOV. The German 5x optics had slightly better FOV than allied 3x, and German 2.4x and 2.5x optics had roughly double the FOV. The high powered 6x sight for the Firefly had a 9 degree field of view which is rather limited. The only allied optic that compared to german sights in magnification and FOV was the 5x optic put in the Sherman 76 series, which had a 13 degree FOV, similar to the 5x mag 14 degree FOV of the German adjustable optics. The StuG was something of an exception, with only an 8 degree FOV for its 5x mag optic, which means it was inferior in that respect to allied optics of similar or even better magnification.

Seems to me frankly the German optics would have had better SA, though in the Sherman vs Panther Osprey book, the gunner with the addition of a periscope may have had better overall SA.

Still having seen the design for the sighting lines in US optics from playing WWIIOL, you couldn't even adjust crosshairs like the German and UK optics allowed, I would frankly not rate them too highly. Allied tankers tended to rate the German optics as better as well.

Huh, thats rather surprising given what I have read. There are a few reports floating around on the internet about comparisons between the 17lber and US guns, cant seem to find them, thought I had book marked them but apperently not.

'
Never heard of 75mm frontal kills, any examples would be appreciated.

 

Wokely,

Thanks for a very informative post.

I am certainly not going to argue that the Germans enjoyed certain advantages in optics, but am hesitant to credit their tanks with over all superiority in situation awareness. The difference is that the US tank crew had one extra pair of eye balls. At least one American tank veteran report that his side fired the first hitting round far more often then the other side; whether that was technical or technological is open to debate.

Unfortunately, no. Frontal wield joint failures against 75 HE hits "reported by German crews" are mentioned in the web forum discussion bellow. Sadly, the relevant photographs had been removed by the original poster. Given the massive armor failures shown in that thread though, I would not be surprised.

http://208.84.116.223/forums/index.php?showtopic=28474

Honestly, the 17 pdr. accuracy report is puzzling to me as well.

I do wonder. The war had been over for sixty years, and we still don't know what was Mark IV H's armor was made out of?

 

Some time ago I saw a very detailed discussion on the accuracy of the 17lber. Apparently some lots of ammo produced excessive dispersion. A number of mechanisms were discussed petal seperation being the most likely but nothing was conclusive at the time.

 

Petal seperation is in regards to APDS, the above comment about accuracy was in regards to APCBC rounds allegedly. I personally think the author must have mixed the APCBC ammo up with the APDS ammo.

The three notable Firefly engagements I can think of, Lt. Henry's Firefly during the defense of Norrey-en-Bessin, Sgt. Harris of the 4th/7th Dragoon Guards defending the village of Lingevres, and Joe Ekins action against Witmans force during Totalize, in all cases you saw enemy tanks engaged at 800+ yards with the firefly, and in all cases almost every tank was dispatched with a single round. Lt. Henry KOed 5 panthers with 6 rounds at 1000 yards, Sgt. Harris KOed 5 Panthers at 800 yards with 5 rounds, and Joe Ekins KOed 3 Tigers at 800 yards with a similar number of rounds.

A 57% hit chance at 800 yards and 47% at 1000 yards does not seem to be supported by the above 3 engagements. Frankly it has gotta be APDS they are talking about, because in those online reports I was talking about, the gunners had trouble even getting a hit on the tank with APDS while they had no problem engaging individual plates on the panthers with the 17lber and other guns tested.

 

Indeed I'm pretty sure the conversation started out talking about accuracy in general but pretty quickly zeroed in on the sabot rounds and petal seperation. It may have been on the AFV board. A querry over there might find someone who arcived it or remembers more details.

 

Bad lot of ammunition is quite possibly the culprit. If the experiments were made with one bad batch, and it's known to happen, then it only proves that one out X batches are inaccurate, where X maybe any number.

 

Ok some facts about the m4a3 sherman with 76mm gun:
Road Speed : 42 Kilometers per Hour
Rough Speed : 26 Kilometers per Hour
Power : 450 hp @ 2600 rpm
Power / Weight Ratio : 13.92 hp per tonne
Ground Pressure : 1.09 kg/cm²
Turning radius : 19 meters
Panther ausf G
Road Speed : 46 Kilometers per Hour
Rough Speed : 30 Kilometers per Hour
Power : 700 hp @ 3000 rpm
Power / Weight Ratio : 15.4 hp per tonne
Ground Pressure : 0.88 kg/cm²
Turning Radius : 10 meters

 

shame on all of you, how dare you put down such a magnificant AFV . now heres something to ponder about all of your comments (or most of them) leads to the fact the sherman is better in all departments except for the optics. correct? SO how come it took the allies almost 1 year to beat the germans when the germans were equipped with , low quality ammunition, low quality crews, low amount of reliable vehicles (mechanically wise), low on petrol, low ammour quality ( i think somebody said something about bad alloy armour so decreasing effectiveness) and no donkey engine for the turret (ausf J). Against the "magnificant" unbeatable sherman it would seem the germans should have been pushed to the river elbe in only 6 months? but they werent. so take that one to sleep on.

Further on the issue of the sherman not being a tank killer, well why was the sherman needed? cos the brits needed a 75mm gun in north africa because the germans had their panzer IV so the brits get the lee/grant but no, not good enough cos the brits want the gun to have 360 degrees traverse so it can take on a panzer IV!!!! so the sherman wasnt needed for infantry support. if they were for infantry support why did they make a version with 105mm? and you may say "well the 105mm version is for hard targets (bunkers etc)" the USA was an economic juggernaut at that time so why make an 75mm version if they can make the same amount of 105mm at not much extra expense?