# Tanks in Europe 1944/45



## Vincenzo (Jul 29, 2012)

fastmongrel say: "Thats not surprising the Panther was a heavy tank the M4 a medium but up against its most common adversary the Pz 4 the M4 won more often."

The Panther also if was relatively a "heavy" tank was a medium tank was used and deployed as common, medium, tank in the panzer divisionen like the Pz IV, not in the heavy btls like the Tigers. Is not true that Pz IV was more common of Pz V at time that M4 76mm had a notable deployement in NWE. 

At time (late war) was common in all the major countries had a high and a low band of medium tank in their tank divisions
US M4 76mm with M4 75mm
UK 17pdr77mm tanks with Sherman 75&Cromwell
CCCP T-34-85 with T-34-76
D Pz V with Pz IV


----------



## davebender (Jul 29, 2012)

IMO terms such as "Heavy" and "Medium" don't mean much. You need to look at vehicle weight. 

22 to 25 tons.
Panzer III.
Panzer IV.

32 to 35 tons.
T-34.
Sherman.

42 to 45 tons.
Panther.

An additional 10 tons should give a tank a decisive combat advantage. 24 ton Panzer IVG was the exception to the rule. Arguably superior to 32 ton Sherman and T-34 prior to 1944 and still competitive until the end of the war. Pretty impressive for an armored vehicle which was originally intended to be a 10.5cm SP howitzer.


----------



## DonL (Jul 29, 2012)

The Panther was clearly deployed as medium tank.
It should be the tank to replace the PIV.

Also I have my doubts that the M4 won more often against the PIV, especially after the PIV was introduced with 7,5cm L48.
The 7,5cm L48 was clearly superior to the 76mm and 75mm guns with normal APCB ammunition.


----------



## davebender (Jul 29, 2012)

Tank technology advanced rapidly during 1939 to 1945. 45 tons would have been considered a heavy tank during 1939. By 1944 there were quite a few 45 ton armored vehicles in service or under development. Panther Ausf A entered service during September 1943 so it was a medium tank for that point in time.


----------



## Denniss (Jul 29, 2012)

Panther was developed and used as medium tank. It's weight rose during development from ~35 tonnes to ~43 tonnes.
BTW weight of the T-34 rose from 26 tonnes of the initial model to 32 tonnes of the /85.


----------



## davebender (Jul 30, 2012)

So did most other tanks.

*Panzer I.* Original specification 4 to 7 tons.
*Panzer II.* Original specification 10 tons.
*Panzer III.* Original specification 15 tons.
*Panzer IV.* Original specification 18 tons.
.....Supposed to be a weapons carrier rather then a tank. 
.....Sd.Kfz.165 10.5cm SP howitzer would have been main production variant.

*VK3001(H).* Original specification 32 tons.
.....This vehicle was supposed to replace 15 ton Panzer III as the German Army MBT. Development ordered 9 Sep 1938 but apparently with low priority. Prototypes weren't ordered until 29 Jan 1940. 4 chassis delivered between March and October 1941 without hulls or turrets.

1942 Germany was critically short of tanks. They couldn't wait for the 32 ton VK3001(H) to continue leisurely development. Albert Speer took over as Armaments Minister 8 Feb 1942. One of his first orders cancelled the VK3001(H) program and Sd.Kfz.165 10.5cm SP howitzer. Instead the Sd.Kfz.165 chassis was mated with a turret mounted 7.5cm high velocity cannon and renamed "Panzer IV Ausf G". Arguably one of the most successful wartime improvisations in history.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 30, 2012)

Do you have a source for this Sd.Kfz.165 story?


----------



## davebender (Jul 31, 2012)

Achtung Panzer! - Prototypes !


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 31, 2012)

Nice picture but it has squat to do with the story that the MK IV was intended to be :

"Panzer IV. Original specification 18 tons.
.....Supposed to be a weapons carrier rather then a tank. 
.....Sd.Kfz.165 10.5cm SP howitzer would have been main production variant"

MK IV was first speced in 1934, Prototypes built and then the first small production series was built in 1938, the Vehicle in your picture wasn't built until 1942. Unless you have information to the contrary that is was designed _before_ the standard MK IV tank?


----------



## davebender (Jul 31, 2012)

*Panzer IV production.*
Ausf A. 35 built Oct 37 to Mar 38.
Ausf B. 42 built Apr 38 to Sep 38.
Ausf C. 134 built Oct 38 to Aug 39.
Ausf D. 229 built Oct 39 to May 41.
Ausf E. 233 built Sep 40 to Apr 41.
Ausf F1. 487 built Apr 41 to Mar 42.
.....Interim infantry support vehicles. So were early model StuG IIIs. Something had to fill this role until the Sd.Kfz.165/1 was production ready.

March 1942.
Production of Panzer IVG begins. 7.5cm/43 main gun.
Existing Panzer IV Ausf F1 upgraded with 7.5cm/43 main gun. These vehicles are similiar to the Panzer IVG but sometimes referred to as Panzer IV F2.


----------



## DonL (Jul 31, 2012)

Sorry Dave but I don't know were you read your information or get it, but they are very wrong.

The Panzer IV was never planed as weapon carrier or interim infantry weapon.
All this is wrong.
The Panzer IV was planed as support tank for tank divisions against targets which needed a bigger HE round.
From the beginning it was planed 1 out of 4 company of a tank battalion to equip with Panzer IV. That was the requirement of Guderian and the Heereswaffenamt.
The Stug III was developed at the same time as armored infantry support weapon.

From the beginning there were a very fierce fighting about the armament of the Panzer III. The more practical officers require from the beginning a 5cm gun for the Panzer III and the possibility for more room in the future for bigger guns, the traditional officers and the men from the logistic prefered the 3,7cm gun and were convinced that perhaps later a 5cm would be well enough.
The traditionalists won the fight, although there were very serious warnings that the 3,7cm was even outdated at 1936.
So the layout of the turrent of the Panzer III had only room for a 5cm gun compare to the Panzer IV which turrrent had from the beginning through the 7,5cm L24 much more room.

At Barbarossa 1941 for the germans it was very fast very clear that the 3,7cm, 5cm L42 and the 5cm L60 were not good enough for a continued war. They were much in need to get very fast a better gun at there tanks.
The *only* tank in *production* which had *enough room* for a *bigger gun* was the PanzerIV. So the Panzer IV first was equiped at the end 1941 with 7,5cm L43 as Panzer IV F2 and later with the 7,5cm L48 as Panzer IV G.

This was the only reason why the Panzer IV and only the Panzer IV became a Main Battle Tank from a "support" tank for tank divisions.
It was in production, it had the room and the weapon system was very fast available.

This has nothing to do with Speer, the VK 3001 or any Sd.Kfz.165 10.5cm SP howitzer.
It was a totaly rational decission at the autumn 1941.
And by the way all weapon carrier at that time were prototyps (1941) and again the PanzerIV and it's chasis were planed from the scratch as tank and nothing more. All other requirements came out of the experients of the Poland and France war.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 31, 2012)

Thank you


----------



## davebender (Aug 1, 2012)

> Panzer IV was planed as support tank for tank divisions against targets which needed a bigger HE round.


That's exactly what the Sd.Kfz.165/1 was. It was capable of both direct and indirect fire missions. 30mm frontal armor (similiar to early model Panzer III) protected the vehicle when it was providing direct fire support.


----------



## Denniss (Aug 1, 2012)

A vehicle like the Sd.Kfz.165/1 did not exist in the mid 1930s, not even as a future planned variant. The 75mm round was deemed sufficient for the mission task infantry support.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 1, 2012)

In 1942 when the Sd.Kfz.165/1 appeared no vehicle with 30mm front armor should be playing silly buggers direct fire fire support if there is the slightest possibility the enemy has an AT gun anywhere in the area. The First Stug IIIs had 50m front armor in 1940 and they fired indirect at times.


----------



## davebender (Aug 2, 2012)

15 tons. Panzer III original specification.
18 tons. Panzer IV original specification.

Both vehicles had thin armor initially in an attempt to meet weight requirements. Both vehicles added armor as soon as weight requirements were relaxed.

Panzer IV G entered production during March 1942 with 50mm frontal armor. That's probably what the production model Sd.Kfz.165/1 would have if the program hadn't been cancelled.


----------



## DonL (Aug 2, 2012)

The weight reqirement of the PanzerIV was at the beginning 24t max!

Also it is wrong that what ever weight requirements were relaxed.
The experience of the Poland war and especially the France war, showed that german tanks were too less armored, especially the Panzer IV.
The germans were far to optimistic against their enemy anti tank guns. This was also a very big failure of the traditional officers who won the fight about arnament.
Both P III and PIV added armore with every new model!
Also the PIV model G had 50mm front armor but with 520 brinell, one of the best value of all tank at WWII.



> That's exactly what the Sd.Kfz.165/1 was. It was capable of both direct and indirect fire missions. 30mm frontal armor (similiar to early model Panzer III) protected the vehicle when it was providing direct fire support.



To me it is inapprehensible to compare a tank against a self-propelled artillery also because the Panzer IV was driven since the France war and after that at Africa and Barbarossa at the beginning as MBT. 
So I don't understand why do you think a self-propelled artillery gun would be more usefull or better, because it is slower, less agile and with a much less rate of fire, also it has not a closed turrent.
Since 1940 to Africa and Barbarossa the germans produces much Pzgr. 40 with tungsten for the short 7,5cm, which gave the 7,5cm L24 an average penetration power, at 1940/41 average to good compare to enemy tanks at this time.

Also I don't understand why do you writing things like in your Post 6, because they are realy wrong to the development historie of the Panzer IV.


----------



## vinnye (Aug 4, 2012)

How do you rate the Comet A34 - it seems as though a lot (but not all) of the weaknesses of previous British tanks were fixed in this offering.
It was fairly quick, quite nimble, and had decent firepower and protection.
Maybe not the best but better than Britain had manged until the end of the war.


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 5, 2012)

vinnye said:


> How do you rate the Comet A34 - it seems as though a lot (but not all) of the weaknesses of previous British tanks were fixed in this offering.
> It was fairly quick, quite nimble, and had decent firepower and protection.
> Maybe not the best but better than Britain had manged until the end of the war.



Not a bad tank at all but it should have been available in June 44 and a vertical hull front plate was really getting old by 1945.


----------



## vinnye (Aug 5, 2012)

I believe the design of the Comet began in 1941 - to learn lessons from the desert campaign. This meant it did not have the opportunity to learn from the T34 sloped armour.
Because of the dire need to produce something better than the existing cruiser designs - it was decided to use the Cromwell chassis with better suspension and a better gun = Comet.
Had Britain been included in the knowledge gained by the Russians in their T34 - a better tank may have resulted.
It seems a little strange in hindsight that Britain seemed willing to share developments with our Allied partners, but it seemed to be seldom reciprocated.


----------



## Matt308 (Aug 5, 2012)

vinnye said:


> It seems a little strange in hindsight that Britain seemed willing to share developments with our Allied partners, but it seemed to be seldom reciprocated.



Bullshit.


----------



## vinnye (Aug 6, 2012)

Thankyou for that considered eloquent reply, have a nice day.


----------



## Matt308 (Aug 6, 2012)

Then back up your BS statement that the US didn't share technology with Britain when our Lend Lease gave them every goddamn leading edge technology from armaments, to bomber airplanes, to fighter airplanes, to tanks, to infrantry weapons, to infrantry comm equipment, to reconnaisance, to naval replenishment planning, to invasion tactics, to secure communications procedures, to strategic planning for multiple fronts...

I'm frankly sick and tired of revisionists historians telling me that my great country was somehow always gaming the system to screw our allies out of some advantage during our great struggle with evil. You may not like my blunt response to your one line statement that the US was "not reciprocating" in kind, but it is a BS statement.

So your namby pamby "have a nice day" comment is back at you.


----------



## vinnye (Aug 7, 2012)

Ok, I am not trying to re-write history and am not responsible for any other posts that have tried to do so.
I never said that America did not reciprocate, I said that "our Allied partners" - which as I was referencing the T34 and its sloping armour, was not directed at the USA. 
I do think you have over reacted a bit. I agree that America did help out Britain when we were fighting our struggle against evil for two years before you joined the fight.
I understand that America was politically against getting involved directly in the war against Germany until Japan attacked you. We as a nation were and some of us still are thankful for your material support before you were dragged into the fray.
We could not have won the struggle without the aid of our colonies and the US.
The lend lease program gave us the use of your WW1 destroyers to escort the convoys of supplies and material that we needed to stay in the fight.
It was not however a one way street. Enough said.


----------



## Matt308 (Aug 7, 2012)

vinnye said:


> Enough said.



Good idea.


----------



## vinnye (Aug 9, 2012)

If the Comet had been available earlier with sloped armour - would it have made a difference?
During the attempts to breakout from the D Day beach head, I dont think it would.
Most of the engagements were in favour of the defenders, the Boccage channeled tanks right into AT gun positions etc.
After the breakout I think it may have helped as it would have had a better survivability than other Allied tanks and had a decent gun to hit back with.


----------



## stona (Aug 9, 2012)

Matt308 said:


> Bullshit.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 9, 2012)

Just move along. If a post does not pertain to the original topic, dont hit the post button.


----------



## vinnye (Aug 10, 2012)

What is the slope angle on a Sherman's frontal armour?
I would have thought it should have helped deflect in coming rounds?
Or were the rounds just to fast?


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 10, 2012)

iirc the early welded models had a 42 degree glacis plate and the later welded models a slightly steeper 47 degree plate. The way to tell the 2 types of glacis plate apart is the early version had the bulges for the driver and co-drivers hatches. This complicated construction so the later version is flatfaced with the hatches completely on the horizontal plating. 

I dont think the cast models changed the angle but I am not an expert on the different versions.


----------



## vinnye (Aug 11, 2012)

I believe the T34 had an angle of around 30 deg - so that may well be why the Shermans did not deflect rounds?


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 11, 2012)

vinnye said:


> I believe the T34 had an angle of around 30 deg - so that may well be why the Shermans did not deflect rounds?



The Sherman was plenty tough from the front its weakness was the side armour and original ammo storage. If you look at photos of Shermans with the Allied star in ring marking on the side thats where the ammo was stored. A lot of Shermans were lost because of hits in that area and later on extra armour was applied and the ammo storage was altered. This problem wasnt unique to the Sherman the Panther was notably vulnerable to side penetration for such a heavy vehicle.

Late models of Sherman were as tough as any equivalent tank and in fact the T34, PzIV and Panther tanks were just as prone to burning and a lot less reliable. The main assets of the Sherman were it was reliable, relatively easy to service, fast, capable of driving 100s of miles on its tracks but most of all it was easy to build and ship across the oceans.

I dont believe the T34 was any better than the Sherman they both had strengths and weaknesses but when they came up against each other post WWII the Sherman generally had the upper hand.


----------



## vinnye (Aug 12, 2012)

Whilst doing some research into Sherman development , I came across something in Wikipedia that struck me as being odd =
"Production of the Sherman was favored by the commander of the Armored Ground Forces, albeit controversially, over the heavier M26 Pershing,"
It made me think - would deployment of Pershings in large numbers in place of Shermans have changed the land war in the west much?


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 12, 2012)

The M 26 would have been better for tank v tank operations but fighting tanks wasnt the main job of tanks in WWII Infantry support was the main job, some tank crews in NW Europe never saw an enemy tank. If you replace the M4 with the M26 you have fewer tanks probably a lot fewer plus the M 26 was less reliable and slower than the M4. This would have been very important during the breakout from Normandy. Ideally the M26 should have been in service earlier and in greater numbers but not as the complete replacement for the M4.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 12, 2012)

The M-26 used the same engine as the M4A3 so it is easy to see where the loss of speed and unreliability came from. Even with a much bigger push behind the M-26 it is hard to see more than a few hundred of them available by D-Day meaning the bulk of the tanks would still be M-4s. There were a number of factories building M-4s and some could not as easily be converted to M-26 production. Part of the variation in M-4 models was to suit the different factories production abilities. Welded rolled armor instead of cast hull parts.


----------



## tomo pauk (Aug 13, 2012)

Perhaps someone well versed in M4 design production might say a few worts whether the Sherman Jumbo ( M4A3E2 ) was ever considered with 76mm cannon as it's weapon? Or maybe with 17pdr, at least for British use?


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 13, 2012)

The Jumbo was an assault tank for breaking fortified lines and positions. The 75mm had a better High Explosive shell than either of the 76.2mm guns which was more important for its assault job no point in knocking a 3 inch hole in the front and another 3 inch hole in the back wall of a concrete pillbox with an AP round . When you can knock a 75mm hole in the front and blow up the pillbox and everyone in it. I imagine the Jumbo would have been backstopped by SP guns to protect it from enemy tanks. 

It was a good lash up assault tank though possibly not as good as the Churchill, I believe the extra armour strained the transmission and suspension. The problem for specialized assault tanks like the Jumbo, Churchill and KV 152 is when you have broken the line and the action becomes more fluid the assault tank is often left behind and can often get overtaken and flanked in a counterattack.

edit: The Jumbo would probably have been better with a 105mm howitzer and I am surprised it was never fitted, though I dont know if it was planned or even tested.


----------



## tomo pauk (Aug 13, 2012)

Fair points, and some nit picks:



> The Jumbo was an assault tank for breaking fortified lines and positions.



It was all of it until someone orders the modification of the Jumbo, that would include the 17. Then it becomes a fully fledged MBT, capable to take on German armor with even terms - unlike the Firefly, that was vulnerable to 7,5cm pak and further. 



> It was a good lash up assault tank though possibly not as good as the Churchill, *I believe the extra armour strained the transmission and suspension.*



We could use some good info about that.


----------



## Ruud (Aug 13, 2012)

No doubt that a 1 v 1 engagement between the Panther and either the T-34 or Sherman would statistically go to the Panther most of the time. The reality is that the tank picking the time and place of the engagement had the best chance to win. Panthers used in offensive operations suffered high losses too. (Battle of Arracourt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

IIRC, Jumbo's were sometimes refitted with the 76mm gun. Their original purpose was to bust through the S.line, but they were usually used to head up a column as they could take a hit.

M-26's did have better mobility than did the Sherman. Jumbo's being heavier but with the rest still just like a regular Sherman, were worse off road.


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 17, 2012)

tomo pauk said:


> Fair points, and some nit picks:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Had a good look for the book where I read about the problems of the Jumbo but cant find it, it was a slim volume that listed all the various models and modifications. As far as I can remember the Jumbos had to be retrofitted with heavier Volute springs plus Belleville washers added to the bump stops. The gearbox had to be fitted with an oil cooler (or bigger oil cooler) because the lowered gear ratios and the fact that lower gears were used more often meant overheating. Service intervals were cut and a different grade of spark plug was fitted because the engine was working harder, also a different magneto was fitted though why this was done I dont know perhaps the different plugs needed a different timing. Track extensions had to be added to the tracks to improve float and these were very troublesome I have seen a photo of a Jumbo with quite a few of the extensions missing they got ripped off when turning hard on soft ground. 

Will keep looking for the book but I have 2 boxes of junk in my sisters loft so might not get round to it for a while.


----------



## tomo pauk (Aug 22, 2012)

Thanks for the effort


----------



## Vincenzo (Aug 27, 2012)

The Sherman-76 despite being a good tank not compare favorably with the others late war top medium tanks (listed in my post 1).
its AT firepower, using standard APCBC ammos, is inferiour to british 17 pdrs tanks and Panther, it's around same of T-34 (with APBC)
its protection is inferior to T-34 and Panther (but to point the good protection of turret 3 sides)
its mobility is a of badest before of HVVS, after i don't think is superiour to T-34 or to Panther or to Comet


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 27, 2012)

Something to consider when judging tanks is that some people claim that the 76mm armed Sherman can fire about twice as fast as the 17pdr version. While bouncing in-effective rounds twice as fast off a 75 ton Tiger doesn't buy much a fast follow up shot to a 1st round near miss may be quite useful against a MK IV or a Panthers flank. 
Fire control in most of those tanks consisted of a good guess of the range followed by by seeing how far the first shot missed by. 
Since most tank engagements were _NOT_ one on one duels a formation of Sherman's could put out a rather larger volume of fire in a given amount of time than an equal sized formation of some other tanks.


----------



## Vincenzo (Aug 27, 2012)

maybe that the theoretical ROF of 76 Sherman was twice of 17 pdr Sherman but i've many doubt that max ROF had many utility, Sherman had 6 ready round? So can maybe give 20 RPM (or more realistically 15 or less) for the first 6 round after this the need to take ammo from the magazine go down the ROF. If the british continued the use of the Firefly it's easy think that in spite of everything was superiour to Sherman 76 (almost in the variant was offered to them, so M4A1?)


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 27, 2012)

I am not saying the 76mm Sherman was better or even equal to the the Firefly, but it may have been closer than some people credit it with. There are a lot of things that go into the effectiveness of a tank. Armour penetration of the gun and thickness of the armor are only two, important ones but still only two. 
And in the real world some perceived advantages turned out to be disadvantages and the other way around was also true. During the 1950s many "experts" derided the British and American tanks for being so tall and praised the Soviet tanks fro carrying almost the same gun yet presenting a much smaller target. Turned out the Soviet tanks had much less ammo capacity, Had much more trouble firing from hull down positions ( lower height was bought, to some extent, by lower depression for the main gun), a lower rate of fire and the gun, being closer to the ground kicked up more dust/debris obscuring the target and limiting the accuracy of second and third shots. It turned out you needed a larger number of soviet tanks to equal the same number of Western tanks which sort of canceled out their price advantage (another advantage in theory that didn't work so well in practice).


----------



## kettbo (Aug 27, 2012)

I had quite a good time at the US Army Armor Center Library and Armor Museum at Ft Knox each time I attended an NCO Development Course there. Twenty years in the US Cavalry. I also have 'quite a few' books on Armor. Some notes on the Sherman
ease of production, ease of shipping, mobility, reliability, Infantry Support and 75mm cannon for the HE round
Correct, the JUMBO was the breakthrough tank, to break through enemy forts and AT defenses. The lead tank to reach Bastogne was a Jumbo named Cobra King, a fairly new to service unit. Then fitted with the 75mm. 








During March and April the JUMBOs in Pattons' 3rd Army got upgraded to 76mm gun. Cobra King also had a .50 cal HMG fitted coax instead of the .30 cal MG. Shortly after this refit, March 1945, Cobra King was the command vehicle for the Ill-Fated Raid on Hammelberg. It was damaged and abandoned, recovered by (edit) ??? when ???? and stored at Hammelberg....used as a "Gate Guard" display vehicle for years at Vilseck, pedigree unknown. 








In 2008/2009 it was established that this was all the same tank, making it quite historic and it is getting a full restoration. It has been refitted with a 75mm weapon in it's Bastogne-era fitment.

By today's standards of gunnery, WW2 accuracy was poor. Often 2-3 shots to get a hit at 1000m, Hollywood movies be damned! Yes, 6 or there about ready rounds is not a lot, other rounds are not far away. And remember, the US and the Soviets greatly outnumbered the Germans. Fire and maneuver, the German tanks were vulnerable to flank shots as noted. Also, the German tanks did not like US Artillery or air power, no need to go rushing in once German tanks are spotted. The Sherman was adaptable, had the internal volume to support modifications and upgrades, not the case of the T34


----------



## kettbo (Aug 27, 2012)

good points Shortround!
The T-34 suffered heavily in Korea to US and Allied Forces. It WAS revolutionary in 1941, lacked many things including good optics, widespread use of radios, etc.
While powerful in the T34/85 version, still pretty crude and not very tough against 1943 and later AT technology


----------



## Vincenzo (Aug 28, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> I am not saying the 76mm Sherman was better or even equal to the the Firefly, but it may have been closer than some people credit it with.



Full agree the Firefly is a modified Sherman, the VC was a modified M4A4 and this is inferior to the common M4A3 used to US Army for not talking of A3E8 with the HVVS.
With the exception of the 17 pdr, firepower, the Firefly is the badest of the list. imho M4A3E8 is all around superior.


----------



## DonL (Aug 29, 2012)

That's a serious question!

Why do you think a Sherman could fire faster then a Panzer IV 7,5cm L48.
And isn't this very much pending on the crew skill?


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 29, 2012)

I am not sure we mentioned the rate of fire of the MK IV tank. 

Some depends on crew skill. Some depends on turret layout. Larger, heavier ammunition is more difficult to maneuver inside a tank turret. Tanks almost always had a lower rate of fire than the same gun in an anti-tank mount. Not only did the open mount give the loader a bit more room to work but often there was a second man ready to slap a fresh round into the "loaders" hands as soon as he had shoved the one he was holding into the gun, he didn't have to pull it from racks or under floor bins himself. 
How much room is there behind the gun to line up the round? IS the loader ramming left handed or right handed? Is he ramming a 20lb cartridge 28in long or a 24-25lb cartridge 36in long(or longer). Where is the ammo in relation to the loader? even a few inches of extra reach can slow things down. 

I haven't seen as much written on this about WW II tanks as I have about post war tanks. The T-54 was notoriously bad. Working conditions were such that some one once joked that when the Russians ran out of midget left handed weight lifters they were going to be in trouble getting loaders for the T-54. Part of it's low hight was bought at the cost of only having about 5'4"-5'6" of height from the floor of the tank/turret to the roof forcing anybody taller to try and load while stooped over.


----------



## kettbo (Aug 29, 2012)

Having loaded a late 80's M-1 Abrams tank w /105mm NATO, I can offer these insights.
BIG ROUND, fairly hefty too!!! (120mm later was more of both)
Ready rounds were in the turret bustle (the part that hangs out aft of the turret ring) behind a knee-operated sliding blast door. The side of the bustle behind the tank commander was semi-ready...handy to transfer to the ready side very quickly if needed. All projectiles face the rear. The Tank Commander (TC) orders which round to battle carry (the round in the tube) based upon the most likely threat. Whoever spots a threat (TEAMWORK!) announces Contact Tank/Personal Carrier/Truck/RPG-AT Team/Troops and direction, Commander usually head UP in the hatch slews the turret at fast rate toward the target while giving the fire command to the gunner and old school would include estimated range to set the super elevation....
goes like this assuming the round in the weapon is Sabot as tank contact is expected

Commander: Gunner, Sabot, Tank 1-2 hundred (1200m) Gunner sets the switches or old-school knobs to ensure the correct reticle is showing for the ammo about to be fired
Gunner: Identified! once the target is seen
meanwhile the Loader arms the weapon by moving the arming lever or has selected the proper ammo from the fire command and has loaded the proper ammo
Loader: UP! (weapon is armed) and REALLY ENSURES HE IS THE [email protected]#K out of the way of the weapon elevation and recoil paths
Commander: Orders FIRE or on rare occasions announces FROM MY POSITION
Commander or gunner, whoever is pulling the trigger: calls ON THE WAY immediately beforehand to alert the Loader of impending peril as well as to let the driver know...can't distract the driver...
BOOM!
Inside the tank, movement noises, good-fitting Crew Vehicular Helmets (CVCs), not all that exciting noise-wise. Far more exciting is the main weapon recoil, some smoke, casing ejection noises.....but while this is going on, the LOADER has hit the knee switch, ready ammo door slides open, the next round has been released, pulled outward toward the front of the turret then the base dropped downward into the right palm and cradled with the left forearm towards the open breach. Once the warhead is in, a hefty shove is given, the round seats in the breach, the block closes automatically, the Gunner moves the safety lever to ARM, announces UP! all in semi darkness, vehicle probably moving forward or executing berm drill if in the defense. The Second round often left the tube 8 seconds or less after the first round (if needed), some of this time being for a fire command and/or getting the gun sights onto another target.

In WW2, a 1200m 1st round hit was highly improbable for a 75mm equipped Sherman. The 75 had moderate velocity, arced toward the target like a throw from the outfield to home plate. On the other hand, the higher velocity German rounds had a far flatter trajectory, more like the pitcher throwing his best fast ball toward the catcher. Less time for movement of the target and less atmospheric interference (cross winds, precipitation, etc)

Not sure on the RoF split between a PzKw IVH and the various Shermans. But as noted above, TRAINING is trump


----------

