Panzer IV vs M4

Wasn't the 500 SS para batallion the same one involved in the attempt to capture Tito?

Raid on Drvar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Wow..this topic has really strayed...

This really comes down to perspective..the question pits the most reliable and effective tanks from both sides. (expect t-34..but lets stay on target).

The Sherman was delevoped not just to take out P4's, in fact killing tanks wasnt the biggest problem Brits had in Africa..its was really that thier tanks lacked an effective HE round or even the abillity to fire one (see 2 pounder).
The HE wasnt really just for infantry support but actually to take out AT guns and 88's..its was really these weapons (a la sword and shield tactics)..that were brewing up Brit tanks.

Even the P4 really was not designed to be the MBT...but as Germ's and finally USA learned...a tank better be able to do more than one thing or it will be toast (HE and AP). See USA failed tank destroyer doctrine.

I would give two "first places " one for 1944 on to the late model Sherman. The ('45) Easy 8 was a superior tank to late model P4's..but partly due to different constraints....Sherman was ever improved and made to be better...near end of war (as others have mentioned) P4 production was short cutted to produce more tanks...not better ones.

So in the end until 43..the P4 was superior..but basically D-day on the Sherman evolved into the superior tank.

Though i see some people say...well "why if the Sherman is so much better did Allies not just roll over P4's and walk into Germany?"

...thats a pretty ridiculous thought...first and foremost the tank is only one small part of any combined arms Army and superiority in tanks does not mean that the rest of the army just surrenders.

As well the AT gun is the real tank killer (esp in defense) and Germany's 75mm Pak 40 was a super weapon so just becuase a one on one duel between Sherman and Mark 4 might end in Allied win doesnt mean the war was one.

But chief among the inability of tank superiorty to win the day was simply that the type of Barbarossa tank attacks simply were not possible anymore.

Both sides were much better able to deal with tank threats in a variety of ways....bazooka's and PanzerFaust/shrek's finally gave infantry weapons to stop tanks cold.

As well while tanks were becoming stronger so too were the weapons to kill them...and conversely the bigger tanks had less range and poorer performance as a trade off to protection and firepower.

So by the end of the war ..while tanks are really awesome a new series of weapons and tactics had to large degree blunted the early war "battlefield bully".

Aw crap now ive strayed off topic..

 

I agree that late model Panzer Mark IV, like ausf. J, was no match to late Sherman tank like the E8. Those Mark IVs didn't even have a motorized turret and was only slightly more effective than an assault gun in the offensive role.

It is hard to tell though which tank was the superior in an armor duel between an Mark IV H and an early standard Sherman tank like the M4 or M4A1, because the latter was plagued by problems such as cast armor quality, multi-piece construction and less capable optics. I think in this case anecdotal evidence and the balance of historical record suggest it was an even contest.

In a duel between tank and anti-tank gun or infantry I have to give the edge to the Sherman tank. The TC had the magnificent 50 cal. HMG as an infantry-killing weapon and the L40's HE was a more effective round than the L48's. Engagement time and turret traverse was pronouncedly more important in battle against dug-in infantry and concealed guns.

 

ah the .50 HMG..thats a excellent point Triple C !!!

I had completely forgotten...that totally settles it for me...

If you want to say that the Main Gun/Reliability/Arm are roughly equal on both or thier sum totals of those qualities are equal..than the .50 definately is a trump.

I really cant emphasis how important that is..its the single most veristile/ lethal thing on that dang tank...capable of both light Anti light vehicle/AAA/ and inf killer duties.

It is most definately a "tie breaker".

Dont know if you know Triple C or any others..but was the .50 standard issue on the early Sherman models sent to the African Theatre?

 

The M4s sent to Africa for British use at El Alamein had the .50 as well as the .30 MGs installed. The Brits called it the Sherman VC, and it’s specs can be read at:

Britain's Sherman Medium Tanks - World War II Vehicles, Tanks, and Airplanes

So it would appear that the .50 was standard issue on the M4 from the first.

 

Thanks brndirt1..

 

Now ok, i accept that the late shermans are probably better than a panzer IV ausf J but shermans against anti tank guns? really a sherman could beat a concealed PaK 40? i trust you know how hard it is to see everywhere inside a tank, oh thats right you cant. and against infantry? specify please infantry without or with anti tank weapons? because if those infantry had some panzerfausts handy they would in most cases (if used properly, ambushing position) beat the sherman

also think, would you hand turn a turret 90 degrees or tell the driver to swing roughly 90 degrees and make a slight correction?

lastly i would think it would be pretty easy to shoot some over confident american on a .50 even with a Kabiner 98, if you can see a german while your on the .50, his german buddies can see you on the .50!

P.S a little side note, i heard someone say that everytime the shermans were armour upgraded their survivability only increased by 20%, because the germans were more than often shooting the sides of the shermans, not sloped there now is it.

 

Ok let's flip your opinion around ...What if the Germans were on the offensive and MK. IV's were faced with 76mm M1A1's or 17 pdrs or heck even the 6pdr/57mm? Oh and even the 25 pdr was no slacker in the anti-tank role. Now on the side srmor issue well you know the 75mm M3 probably could penetrate a Panther's side armor well past a 1,000 yards.

 

GermanTankEnthusiast,

Im not sure what point you're trying to make about saying that a Sherman is vulnerable to Panzerfaust and to Pak's? The same could be said about the Mark 4 esp the late models that forego a powered turret..I mean talk about vulnerable.

As for your comment about a K-98 sniping someone on the .50? Well naturally you are vulnerable..so is a German commander on mg34...I mean those comments are really a "wash" as they are true about both tanks.

And actually the late Model Shermans arm is not proof vs. Pak 40 but it wasn't a gimme either..depending on whose stats you want to believe an Easy 8 has approx 100mm of frontal arm. which makes a hit from Pak40 not a sure kill..frontally anyway.

An trust me when I say: k98 vs .50 cal..you better not miss as a .50 is not a gun you want to trade shots with..it will destoy either you and/or the cover you are firing from.

 

GTE,

I do not see the relevance of of your points, as they are mostly tactical problems instead of technological problems. Every issue raised could be flipped back at Mark IV, and in a comparable situation it would do no better if not poorer than the Sherman tank.

The German Mark IV was vulnerable to a plethora of allied AT guns. Brndirt mentioned the British venerables, 6 pdr., 17 pdr. and 25 pdr. I have only the 3 in. and 90mm gun to add. How would Mark IV perform any better against concealed AT gun, when it has inferior turret traverse and lack TC machine gun?

Contrary to your opinion, infantry armed with hand-held AT weapons could not halt a determined tank assault. Even a static AT gun line was doomed to fail without mobile tanks or assault guns to back up its vulnerable points. The Germans attempted to hold numerous cities and towns with panzerfaust-armed infantry only, and were invariably lost.

The only technically pertinent question raised is this one.

The difference is a hell of a lot. When both combatants can be killed with one shot, within ranges that you can't miss, who is gonna win? The faster shot, or the slower one?

Turret turns much faster than hull. There is even a photograph of that taken in the Ardennes where American soldiers filled the hull of a JgPz IV with mocking graffetti about making assault guns work spearhead.

The Germans themselves found one of their biggest advantage against Russian tanks was the faster turret traverse of their panzers. This is said by an 1st SS Panzer veteran from Kursk in a BBC interview.

If you are thinking how Wittmann handled his Tiger--telling the driver to face the opponent and then the gunner make adjustments--this is an effective tactic to compensate for the ponderous turret traverse of the Tiger I. Note that the Germans made it a priority to make the Tiger II turret with more powerful traverse systems.

Actually, the dangers of manning the 50. cal is a moot point since good tank commanders fight out of the hatch. It was commonplace for commanders on both side to be shot dead by rifleman while directing his tank. Give the commander a HMG, and he at least has a chance to protect himself.

For fighting infantry in towns, the 50 cal. is an invaluable tool for killing dismounts. The G.I.s loved having a 50 cal on their side. Also, when a tank-hunting team popped up at 50 meters and off boresight, do you want to tell the gunner to shoot them and wait the turret to slew, or to swing the 50 cal. in their direction and let them have it?

Unfortunately this claim can be flipped back at Panzer Mark IV, since to mount the 80mm frontal hull armor they needed to cut back on the flanks, which had no slope either.

 

Does the German TC even have a MG-34? I don't recall seeing any mounted at the commander's cupola, excpet StuGs because they really needed it.

 

jeez you guys really have it against the panzer IV, cant you give it a little credit because shermans did get destroyed and they cant have all been destroyed by panthers and tigers. also there must be a reason the germans kept making them till march 1945 isnt there, i mean if they were that useless you'd think the germans would stop making them just like the panzer III was halted because it was redundant.

 

also i read some idiot on youtube say that shermans are an equivalent to the tiger I, me personally think thats ridiculus but what do you guys think?

 

The Sherman and the Mk-IV were essentially on a par. For most of the war (once it was fielded) the Sherman held a slight edge but I'd hardly consider the Mk-IV junk. Indeed the Mk-IV, T-34, and M-4 were all pretty close as far as that goes and which comes out best will often depend on the defintion of "best" and what factors are considered and what weights assigned.

Way to much difference to consider them equivalent. Nor did they fill equivalant places in their respective militaries.

 

thankyou Iwd at least someone doesnt think the panzer IV is a piece of junk and is on par with the sherman.

 

I am pretty hard pressed to remember when anyone said the Mark IV was innocuous, on this thread anyway. Mark IV was a decent tank, it just wasn't adequate for the German Army at the late war period to make up for their lack of numbers. The Germans, be it said, wanted to replace the Mark IV with the potent Mark V but production numbers never reached to their satisfaction. Which is not to say that the Mark IV wasn't a fearsome opponent... but it wasn't a tactical nightmare to kill like the Panther.

 

GTE, I suggest reading all seven pages of this thread and then commenting....

 

Late Model Mark 4's started having the AA MG 34 added in Normandy as German air protection basically disappeared..so tanks and the like began to have MG's added for local defence...so too you see more care taken for camouflage...for the same reasons.

 

The AA weapon was one of the co-ax weapons remounted on the coupla. The issue was 2 MG's per tank.

 

All US AFV mount either a .50 or .30 (mostly .50) machinegun for AA defense. Many US trucks and other vehicles also have either a .50 or .30 machinegun mounted for the same purpose. The British had mountings on their tanks for a BREN AA machinegun but this was rarely used. What all found out pretty quickly was that these light machineguns were of very marginal value for air defense. If anything they were far more a morale booster than a really effective means of defending a vehicle from air attack.
The US retained such guns on their tanks, and even added to them in many cases, because the crews found them to be highly effective weapons for ground fighing. A good tank crew would frequently use their .50 machinegun to perform reconnissance fire on likely enemy positions. Being out of the turret gave the crew better observation of results too. Also, the .50 was frequently dismounted and set up as a ground mount gun for defensive purposes when the AFV was halted for a period of time. The machinegun then formed a seperate security point to help protect the tank.
Another variant was crews mounting the .50 in place of the .30 coax machinegun. This was less common but done sometimes to give a tank more firepower but not having to use up main gun ammunition.