# Sherman V T-34 V Panzer IV.....?



## Lucky13 (Apr 21, 2009)

How would the Sherman do against the T-34?


----------



## davebender (Apr 21, 2009)

Which model of Sherman vs which model of T-34? There were big differences.


----------



## Soren (Apr 21, 2009)

Well it's a toughie as all three tanks were very reliable, and depending on the type they could all knock each other out at normal combat ranges.

But to sum up the plusses minuses of the tanks:

T-34/85
+ Very reliable
+ Good armour protection
+ Decent gun 
+ Diesel engine
+ Simple cheap
- Poor optics
- Rough ride
- Exhausting to drive
- Poor consideration to crew comfort

Pzkpfw. IV Ausf.G
+ Very reliable
+ Excellent optics
+ Very good gun
+ Comfortable ride
+ Great crew comfort
+ Excellent radio communication equipment
- Complex expensive
- Gasoline engine
- Insufficient armour protection in certain areas

Sherman EasyEight
+ Very reliable
+ Very good gun
+ Rather simple cheap
+ Good radio communication equipment
- Exhausting to drive
- Insufficient armour protection in certain areas
- Gasoline engine


----------



## parsifal (Apr 21, 2009)

Its going to depend on which mark of PzIV and T-34. Even the Shermans were developed over time.

To look at the Mk Iv for a second. It started life with a short 75mm gun and very thin armour. By the time it got to the G it had been altered almost beyond recognition. 

Similar story with the T-34. The examples in 1941 were pretty hopeless, particulalry in the transmission. By the time the Pz MkIV (G) was out, the Russians were beginning to introduce the T-34/85, which in my view was superior to the Mk IV in gun power. Then of course you have the Firefly and the Shermans equipped with the 76mm gun.

If you wanted to assume the best models for each type, then I think it would be

1) T-34/85
2) Sherman Firefly
3) MkIV G

But you could just as easily turn that completely around, its that close


----------



## Soren (Apr 21, 2009)

In my opinion the T-34/85 was too crudely made to get first place, and the 85mm gun was a pretty huge dissappointment to put it mildly. And as for the Sherman FireFly, well, eventhough it features by far the most powerful gun of the three tanks, it's just too weakly armoured and features less mobility than the EasyEight.

The Sherman EasyEight should get first place IMO because it was cheap, simple and well made, plus it featured a very good gun and better armour protection than any other type of Sherman except for the Jumbo.

2nd place should go to the Pzkpfw.IV Ausf.G IMO, as it features by far the best optics crew comfort plus a great gun.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 21, 2009)

"Jumbo", Soren....?


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Apr 22, 2009)

I think Soren mean this bad boy. M4A3E2 Sherman Jumbo Assault Tank - History, Specifications and Picture - Military Tanks, Vehicles, and Artillery


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 22, 2009)

Thanks VZ! I found this one as well. Never heard of this one either!  M4A3E2 Jumbo Cobra King


----------



## Soren (Apr 22, 2009)

Yup. The Jumbo usually had a 105mm howitzer as main armament though. I don't think it ever got the 76mm gun until after WW2.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 22, 2009)

Thought that it was weird, all that upgraded armor and still a '76....the Cobra King looks the business though! How common was that one?


----------



## Soren (Apr 22, 2009)

The Cobra King ? It didn't see service in WW2 AFAIK. The Jumbo did see service in WW2 though, but it was rare. 

Here's a Sherman EasyEight (looks pretty badass imo):


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 22, 2009)

So the CK is a Korea machine then Soren? Yup, the "Easy Eight" sure looks like it has a severe attitude problem....


----------



## Soren (Apr 22, 2009)

Oki did abit of research to refresh my memory:

The Jumbo was armed with the std. 75mm L/33 gun (Not the 105mm howitzer), however when fitted with the longer 76mm gun it was renamed the King Cobra. Wether the King Cobra saw action in WW2 I don't know, but the Jumbo did.

So the King Cobra might be a Korean war machine, but it might also be a WW2 one


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 22, 2009)

Thank you very much Soren! Any idea where to look, to find which divisions that was issued them?


----------



## seesul (Apr 22, 2009)

parsifal said:


> 1) T-34/85
> 2) Sherman Firefly
> 3) MkIV G



ditto.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 22, 2009)

What about the Panzer IV/H? Wouldn't that be better than the G?


----------



## Soren (Apr 22, 2009)

Yeah good point Lucky, the Ausf.H did offer better protection, esp. against Hollow Charge weapons.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 22, 2009)

Was it still the same '75?


----------



## Soren (Apr 22, 2009)

Yeah, the Ausf.G featured the L/48 as-well.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 22, 2009)

Soren said:


> In my opinion the T-34/85 was too crudely made to get first place, and the 85mm gun was a pretty huge dissappointment to put it mildly. And as for the Sherman FireFly, well, eventhough it features by far the most powerful gun of the three tanks, it's just too weakly armoured and features less mobility than the EasyEight.
> 
> The Sherman EasyEight should get first place IMO because it was cheap, simple and well made, plus it featured a very good gun and better armour protection than any other type of Sherman except for the Jumbo.
> 
> 2nd place should go to the Pzkpfw.IV Ausf.G IMO, as it features by far the best optics crew comfort plus a great gun.




I pretty much agree with you on most of the above, but there is something missing, which we have discussed before. Its the issue of unit cost, which I believe crippled the Panzerwaffe in the finish. 

A Mk IV cost 2.7 times that of a Sherman to produce. I dont know the cost of a T-34 (in terms that I can directly compare to the german equipment) but it was cheap, reasonably reliable (at least later) and its simplicity actually served the Russians very well, given their very limited levels of mechanical support and technical tradesmen to maintain a more sophisticated piece of machinery. Given that Soviet and German economic potential in 1938 was about the same (very roughly), and that the the Russians lost fully 35% of their economic power due to German advances in 1941-2, and yet the Soviet AFV output was more than double that of Germany (again just very roughly) and that a significant proportion of that production was the T-34, I dont think it unreasonable to suggest that the Mark IV was about twice as expensive as the T-34. 

I know you are very critical of the 85mm, and there is some justification for that, but it was adequate to deal with the thin armour of the Mark IV. For that matter the MkIV s gun was more than adequate to deal with the T-34 as well. But I dont think the MkIV was worth 2.7 Shermans and neither do I believe it was worth more than two T-34/85s. The quality of the german crews manning might make a difference, but if the crews were of equal competence, I would rather have 2-3 Shermans for one MkIV, or I would rather have 2 T-34s for every one MkIV


----------



## Amsel (Apr 22, 2009)

One of the great things about the T34/76-85 was the wide tracks. This proved to be a good advantage in Russia's terrain. Another disadvantage for the T34 is they were undermanned due to space.


----------



## timshatz (Apr 22, 2009)

On the downside for the Sherman, it was a very tall machine. Not so sure about the T34 but I think the MK4 had a fairly low profile. 

All that given, I'd go with the tank that spotted the other one first. They are that close that it will come down to that point.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Apr 22, 2009)

Hey Soren, did the Jumbo Sherman in Korea ever go up against the T-34? I thought the North Koreans had a hundred or so of those tanks.


----------



## Juha (Apr 22, 2009)

Hello VZ
I don't know Jumbos but E8s knowked out many T-34s in Korea IIRC.

Juha


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Apr 22, 2009)

Thanks Juha, I'm guessing the Easy Eight had the better range, and crew?


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 22, 2009)

The main issue about M4 vs. T-34-85 in Korea was that the M4s were in hands of US tankers, and the (most) crews of the T-34's was from N. Korea. It's sure to assume that that was the main difference, obviously N. Koreans suffering accordingly.

As for armor protection, M4 was as good armored as T-34. Check out onwar.com (or wwiivehicles.com) for precise data. Pz-IV was some 8-10 tons lighter and without sloping armor, so it's obvious that protection was lacking.

If someone want's to dig deeper about the M4(76mm) and T-34-85, there is a major topic at Tank-net.org , covering the ex-Yu tests of various guns and tanks. I wholehartedly recommend it.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Apr 22, 2009)

I agree about the crews. The US crews would have had more experience and knowledge in tank warfare then the North Koreans.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 22, 2009)

Another thing that hampers Pz-IV against the 2 opponents: it was a much older (for a major war time scale) design.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Apr 22, 2009)

What was the time it took for the turrets of the three tanks to go 360 degrees? I would think that the Sherman and T-34 would be faster then the Pz-IV.


----------



## Soren (Apr 26, 2009)

The Pz.IV had a fast turret traverse, faster than both the Sherman T-34 even AFAIK.

The only things really letting the Pz.IV down was its' insufficient armour protection and expensive manufacturing cost, everything else was top notch.


----------



## Soren (Apr 26, 2009)

Btw, here's a great picture of a Pz.IV with the wide snow tracks used during the winter months:


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 26, 2009)

What were those called again.....was it, Ostketten or something? What upgrades did the J variant see of the Panzer IV?


----------



## Juha (Apr 26, 2009)

Nice photo, Soren!

Lucky
If you call it update in J they removed the turret power traverse engine and put an additional fuel tank in its place.

Juha


----------



## Juha (Apr 26, 2009)

I like Mk IV and so I like to remind that Firefly was rather specialised vehicle, with strong emphasis on the A/T role and without a decent HE round at first and after all tank wasn’t a pure A/T weapon, usually the basic ammo load of a tank had under 50% of A/T rounds. Also at D-Day most Shermans were armed with 75mm gun, just because of its good HE round. Only after first contacts with Pz Vs brought enthusiasm towards 76mm gun to US field commanders. The lesson that one also needs a decent AP performance for tank gun sunk in rapidly.

IMHO Mk IV was a decent tank but in 43 onwards it lacked defensive power and its chassis and suspension couldn’t take more weight. Also its suspension could have been better, same can be said also of that of Sherman before HVSS. Late Mk IVs would also have needed a bit more powerful engine.

Juha


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 26, 2009)

So the turret in the J was manually operated then?!  Another thing, didn't the T-34 lack radio, something that the Sherman and Panzer IV had?


----------



## Soren (Apr 26, 2009)

The T-34 had a manually operated turret throughout its life, and so did the IS-2 IIRC.

As for the radio equipment, the T-34 lacked it in the beginning, but it soon got it.


----------



## m kenny (Apr 26, 2009)

Soren said:


> The T-34 had a manually operated turret throughout its life, and so did the IS-2 IIRC.

























The IS Tanks. IS-1, IS-2, IS-3. (Mikhail Baryatinskiy, Ian Allan 2006)
page 21:
_"The turret was traversed by an electrical motor or manualy operated"_

page 27:
_"power was consumed by the inertial starter's 0.88kw electirc motor and turret traverse electric motor"_


----------



## Soren (Apr 26, 2009)

Well I remembered wrong then.


----------



## m kenny (Apr 26, 2009)

Soren said:


> Well I remembered wrong then.



As we all do. I myself have done it many a time


----------



## parsifal (Apr 26, 2009)

A good document for the T-34....it takes 13.8 seconds to do a full 360 deg turn of the turret

The following site gives details for the Sherman.... Medium Tank M4 Sherman , the turret traversing rate is 24 degrees per second, or slightly slower than the T-34/76, 14.4 secs

I dont know the exact traverse rate for the Mk-IV, but the wide tracks for the mkIV, the Ostkette were not available until the late summmer of 1944, and then only with a limited scale of issue. Most of the MkIVs career were fought with narrow tracks, so it is not incorrect the T-34 as having a decided mobility advantage over the MkIV


----------



## Juha (Apr 28, 2009)

Hello Parsifal
thanks for the excellent link!

Juha


----------



## rickytractors (May 4, 2009)

SOREN you said that the T34/85 had a rough ride. I can tell you with experience that no it has a very smooth ride in one on Sunday 3rd may at the IWM DUXFORD




This very tank and if i correct the words on the side say BERLIN OR BUST Ricky.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (May 4, 2009)

Hmm, I think I saw that tank doing a demonstration when I was in Duxford a few years back.


----------



## rickytractors (May 4, 2009)

Frist WW2 tank ride driven a CRAV and a warrier. Ricky


----------



## Soren (May 4, 2009)

Having sat in one myself I have to disagree Ricky, it was a VERY rough ride.

Also quite amusingly the Iron Maiden lead singer Bruce Dickinson, being a tank enthusiast and a lover of the T-34, makes it quite clear that it required a lot of stamina to drive.

Also have a look at this, from 1:20 min forwards, the British host drives the T-34: 
_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujekMB2tyvI_


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (May 4, 2009)

Cool.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 4, 2009)

I have never ridden in any tank that was a "smooth" ride.


----------



## Soren (May 4, 2009)

Me neither.


----------



## rickytractors (May 4, 2009)

If you ever get the chance a CRAV or challenger will blow you mined away for smoothnes the faster you go the smoother the ride due to the surspention


----------



## tomo pauk (May 4, 2009)

Soren said:


> ...
> 
> Also quite amusingly the Iron Maiden lead singer Bruce Dickinson, being a tank enthusiast and a lover of the T-34, makes it quite clear that it required a lot of stamina to drive.
> 
> ...



[Completely off-topic]
Iron Maiden rocks!!! At least they id in Split, Croatia, last year  
[/Completely off-topic]


----------



## Kiwikid (May 21, 2009)

Aren't you guys forgetting the British Sherman Firefly ?

This was the M4 Sherman with a long barreled 17 Pounder (76.2mm) high velocity gun. 

The Americans didn't want the Firefly, but whilst the US Army kept debating it in 1943, the British got on with it. The Firefly could and did take on both the Tiger and Panther successfully.


----------



## Amsel (May 21, 2009)

Kiwikid said:


> Aren't you guys forgetting the British Sherman Firefly ?
> 
> This was the M4 Sherman with a long barreled 17 Pounder (76.2mm) high velocity gun.
> 
> The Americans didn't want the Firefly, but whilst the US Army kept debating it in 1943, the British got on with it. The Firefly could and did take on both the Tiger and Panther successfully.


What was the argument about?


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (May 21, 2009)

Amsel said:


> What was the argument about?



I think we didn't want a foreing gun in our tanks. Don't know why that would be a problem though, pride maybe?


----------



## Messy1 (May 21, 2009)

Pride was the reason, IIRC Vassili.


----------



## Soren (May 21, 2009)

Kiwikid said:


> Aren't you guys forgetting the British Sherman Firefly ?
> 
> This was the M4 Sherman with a long barreled 17 Pounder (76.2mm) high velocity gun.
> 
> The Americans didn't want the Firefly, but whilst the US Army kept debating it in 1943, the British got on with it. The Firefly could and did take on both the Tiger and Panther successfully.



Problem with the Firefly was that whilst it carried a great gun its' armour was the same as that of the regular M4s, i.e. waay too thin. This meant that the Firefly was as vulnerable to a Pz.IV, the main German battle tank, as vice versa.

The EasyEight on the other hand featured increased armour protection, wider tracks (US tanks had a habbit of getting stuck where German tanks just plowed through), wedstorage (Solving the matchlight issue the Sherman was so famous for) and an improved long barrelled 76mm gun.


----------



## Soren (May 21, 2009)

Messy1 said:


> Pride was the reason, IIRC Vassili.



Hmm.. whilst I can't rule it out, I think pride had very little to do with it. I think the US engineers rightly realized that the 17 pdr took up a lot of space in the small turret, and the bigger rounds meant less stored ammunition. It seems that the 76mm gun was chosen as a sort of middle ground between the short 75mm gun and the very powerful 17 pdr. 

The lighter gun (Compared to the 17 pdr), which was adequate against the Pz.IV, meant more armour and various other valuable features could be added for roughly the same weight.


----------



## Messy1 (May 21, 2009)

I may be thinking of another tank Soren, I thought there was one tank the US used in WW2 where the better gun that was made out of the US was not chosen. I may have seen something on either the history or Military channe, so I am not sure of the accuracyl. It may have been on the show where tank restorations are filmed.


----------



## Kiwikid (May 22, 2009)

The problem of a bigger breach inside the turet was solved by cutting a new hatch above the gunner's position to solve the problem of escape. The other problem of storage was solved by getting rid of the 5th crewman beside the driver. These were the issues which the US Army debated in 1943. The US Army took 100 Fireflys and then refused to put them in action. Kind of bizarre. 



> Problem with the Firefly was that whilst it carried a great gun its' armour was the same as that of the regular M4s, i.e. waay too thin. This meant that the Firefly was as vulnerable to a Pz.IV, the main German battle tank, as vice versa.



Given the choice of sitting in a Ronson Lighter with a pea shooter, no doubt many M4 crews up against Michael Wittmann who saw their rounds bounce off would have much preferred to differ with you. 

It had a gun able to punch through 130mm of armour at 1000 metres and with APDS it could penetrate 200mm of armour. 

At Normandy one Firefly took on the 3rd Company SS 12th Panzer Regiment at Norrey-en-Bessin on 9 June 1944. That Firefly took on 12 Panthers and killed 7, repulsing the other Panthers which fled. 

Another Firefly of 4th/7th Dragoon at the village of Lingèvres on 14 June 1944, near Tilly-sur-Seulles took on five Panthers and killed each one with a single shot. 

The most famous Firefly battle on 8 August 1944 saw a group of Fireflys at the village of Saint-Aignan-de-Cramesnil ambush an advancing column of 7 Tigers supported by Panzer IV and Stug IV, wiping out the entire column. 

The bulk of 2500 Panzers at Normandy confronted British lines rather than American lines and without the Firefly the only working Mulberry harbour at Arromanches may well have been destroyed. Without the Firefly the German counter attack on 9 June 1944 could well have destroyed the entire D-Day landings. 

The problem with the Easy Eight was that it didn't show up at Normandy and did not reach ETO until December 1944. Meantime the simple Firefly just kept on killing Panthers and Tigers.


----------



## Soren (May 22, 2009)

I can\t find German losses which correspond to the above claims Kiwikid.

As for the Ronson lighter, have you read about the EasyEight ? It featured wedstorage which meant it didnt light up anywhere near as easily as the regular M4. And as for the 76mm gun, it wasnt a peashooter, it was a potent weapon able to take on most German tanks at normal combat ranges. Only when up against the German heavies was it lacking in power, but how many heavy tanks did the German have ? Answer is not that many. The main opponent met by Allied tank crews was the Pz.IV, and the EasyEight was a match for this tank.

According to my research more Fireflys ended up burning wrecks than actually knowking out German tanks.


----------



## renrich (May 22, 2009)

My memory may be faulty but I believe the Shermans did poorly in Korea against the NK T34s.


----------



## Soren (May 22, 2009)

AFAIK they did pretty well Renrich, and it did very well in Isreali service.


----------



## Kiwikid (May 22, 2009)

Yup I know the Easy Eight adopted shell storage in 10 water filled boxes inside the hull. It also adopted hull storage locations used in the Firefly's hull rather than the turret which the US Army rejected using in 1943. 

Pity they didn't adopt that for the standard Ronson Lighters before Normandy. 

The Easy Eight suspension and track were an important development for European winters. The British discarded their Shermans quite quickly when the superior Cromwell came available. 



> The main opponent met by Allied tank crews was the Pz.IV, and the EasyEight was a match for this tank.



Except that by December 1944 the M4 A3 E8 "Easy Eight" was up against Panthers, Tigers and Royal Tigers where it was hopelessly under gunned. Meantime the Firefly had already proved itself a potent Panther and Tiger killer. 



> I can\t find German losses which correspond to the above claims Kiwikid.



Here's some good reading for you then Soren: 

Osprey Duel - Sherman Firefly vs Tiger: Normandy 1944

Amazon.com: Sherman Firefly vs Tiger: Normandy 1944 (Duel): Stephen Hart: Books

Sherman Firefly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Easy Eight was under gunned in WW2 and it was up-gunned for Korea. In Germany it had a 76mm gun capable of delivering an AP round able to pierce 100 mm of armour at 900 metres

The Firefly could take out 130 mm of armour at 1000 metres. The Easy Eight never really matched the Firefly, not even in Korea.


----------



## Soren (May 23, 2009)

Kiwikid the losses STILL do not correspond with actual German loss records.

Also why do you list the same two books ? At any rate I know Thomas L. Jentz's series of books are a much much much better source.


----------



## renrich (May 23, 2009)

Upon reading in Wiki, if the info is accurate the M4 did do well against T34 in Korea. I may have been thinking of the WW2 version of the bazooka which was upgraded to a larger version.


----------



## Juha (May 23, 2009)

Soren
which Jentz book gives daily German panzer losses?
Strange, that you didn't find for ex the losses of the 3rd Company SS 12th Panzer Regiment at Norrey-en-Bessin on 9 June 1944. They are well known, look for ex the history of 12th SSPzD HJ or Reynold's Steel Inferno.

Juha


----------



## m kenny (May 24, 2009)

Juha said:


> Soren
> which Jentz book gives daily German panzer losses?
> Strange, that you didn't find for ex the losses of the 3rd Company SS 12th Panzer Regiment at Norrey-en-Bessin on 9 June 1944. They are well known, look for ex the history of 12th SSPzD HJ or Reynold's Steel Inferno.



These are very well documented incidents.
"Panzers and the Battle for Normandy, page 50 for 9/6/44 and page 100 for 14/6/44


*9/6/55*






*14/6/44*


----------



## Juha (May 25, 2009)

Hello m_kenny
Thanks a lot for the maps, I don’t recall seeing the 9/6 map before and I recall seeing a map on 14/6 fight only at one museum in Normandy.

I know the cases are well documented and that makes it strange than one claims that he cannot find the corresponding losses from German records. Knowing Soren’s attitude, his answer wasn’t so surprising but anyway….So I gave a couple sources which are not unfriendly towards Germans and clearly acknowledged 9/6 losses.

Juha


----------



## Freebird (May 27, 2009)

parsifal said:


> Its going to depend on which mark of PzIV and T-34. Even the Shermans were developed over time.
> 
> 
> If you wanted to assume the best models for each type, then I think it would be
> ...



Or you could compare tanks in Oct/Nov 1942, available for El Alamein or Stalingrad.

So you have the T-34{C} vs Sherman M4A1 vs Pz IVG


Not too difficult to pick a winner now, is it? 

To be fair, you could take a Churchill III or a Crusader III if you prefer....


----------



## Skip M (May 28, 2009)

Thiis is a reminder that wet storage came before the E 8 supension change. Wet storage was used by all 76MM gun tanks and the last 3071 M4A3(W) 75MM gun tanks. There were far more wet storage tanks then "Easy Eight" tanks.


----------



## one zero (May 29, 2009)

There was no combat between M-4 Sherman the T-34 in WWII. However, in Korea the "Easy 8" made dog-meat out of the T-34-85. With its piss-poor 75MM short barreled gun it was no match for any Panzer except for the very first models. With the addition of a 76MM by the British (the firefly) it could and did match up well against the Panzer 4's

I was only shortly before the end of WWII that the M-26 "Patton" made an appearance in 
Europe arrmed with a 90MM gun ( but with Piss-Poor ammunition ) it was a match for anything but the "Tigers". Tigers were the best tanks in WWII but somewhat underpowered as was the M-26.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (May 29, 2009)

one zero said:


> There was no combat between M-4 Sherman the T-34 in WWII. However, in Korea the "Easy 8" made dog-meat out of the T-34-85. With its piss-poor 75MM short barreled gun it was no match for any Panzer except for the very first models. With the addition of a 76MM by the British (the firefly) it could and did match up well against the Panzer 4's
> 
> I was only shortly before the end of WWII that the M-26 "Patton" made an appearance in
> Europe arrmed with a 90MM gun ( but with Piss-Poor ammunition ) it was a match for anything but the "Tigers". Tigers were the best tanks in WWII but somewhat underpowered as was the M-26.



I wouldn't say the 75mm was piss poor. US army tank doctrine had the Sherman as more of a infantry support tank then for tank to tank combat. The M4 could go head to head with the Pz.IV and be evenly matched up. The Tigers and the Panthers, however, could take the 75 head on with ease. I think the US used Tank Destroyers to take out the German armor.


----------



## one zero (May 29, 2009)

I served 22 years in the US Army w/six years in tanks. I am very familiar with the M-4 
E-8, but I have never heard of an M-4 Jumbo, "King Cobra Tank". The only tank that I have ever heard of named "Cobra King" sits in the City of Bastogne ,Belgium. It has the name painted on its side as well as an 88MM hole in the side armor. I do believe it was Creighton Abrams tank that he used while commanding the 37th Tank Bn.

The whole thing about a tank is its ability to deliver firepower necessary to defeat enemy armor and blow grunts out of the ground. The first American tanks in WWII were pitiable when it came to either task. The M-3 Grant was an abomination that stood thirteen feet armed w/a75MM ,low velocity, main gun mountedin side sponson with a 37MM pop-gun in a top turret and as one GI said, "It looks like a cathedral coming at you". The M-5 Stuart with its 37MM pop-gun and high sihlouette was a first class "widow maker" but served until the end of the war without any major modifications. The M-24 Chaffee entered the war during the last few months as did the M-26 Patton. The M-24 was a real improvement over the M-5 but was armed with a short barreled 75MM, low velocity gun. The M-26, on the other hand, had a 90MM gun but with miserable armor-defeating ammunition.

BTW we have often bought foreign guns for our armored vehicles such as the 105MM that armed the M-60. There was also a 720MM smooth-bore demolition gun that we bought from the Brits for our Engineer Tanks, in fact they were removed from British tanks and replaced with wooden ones until new guns were manufactured.

Did someone write that the Cromwell was a good tank?


One Zero sends.


----------



## one zero (May 29, 2009)

Trust me , the 75MM on the M-3/4 Tanks was indeed PP! That was just one of the problems, when you take into account poor armor protection, poor flotation that required the addition of bolted on grousers to traverse any type of soft terrain. WWII American Armour was, for all intents and purposes, a National disgrace. 

Fortunatly the Germans only produced some 13,000 Tigers or we would probably still be fighting in Europe.

Batman sends.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (May 29, 2009)

Actually, only 1,300 Tigers wre made. 13,000 would've seen more brewed up shermans. I agree about the vunerability of the Sherman, but I think High command was looking more into quantity. Don't know alot about the success of TD's.


----------



## Freebird (May 29, 2009)

Vassili Zaitzev said:


> I wouldn't say the 75mm was piss poor. US army tank doctrine had the Sherman as more of a infantry support tank then for tank to tank combat. The M4 could go head to head with the Pz.IV and be evenly matched up.



I wouldn't say that they were anywhere near to "Evenly matched up", as the Pz IV "G" with a KwK 40 was far more capable than the 75mm Sherman


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 29, 2009)

one zero said:


> BTW we have often bought foreign guns for our armored vehicles such as the 105MM that armed the M-60. There was also a 720MM smooth-bore demolition gun that we bought from the Brits for our Engineer Tanks, in fact they were removed from British tanks and replaced with wooden ones until new guns were manufactured.



We still buy foreign guns today for our armor. The M1A2 is armed with a 120mm M256 smoothbore cannon. It was designed and is built in Germany by German Rheinmetall-DeTec AG. The same cannon is used on the Leopard 2. 

This is getting off topic however...


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (May 29, 2009)

freebird said:


> I wouldn't say that they were anywhere near to "Evenly matched up", as the Pz IV "G" with a KwK 40 was far more capable than the 75mm Sherman



Oh, so even the M4 had trouble with the Pz.IV?


----------



## Freebird (May 29, 2009)

Vassili Zaitzev said:


> Oh, so even the M4 had trouble with the Pz.IV?



Yep. the "basic" 75mm gun did, it was only the later versions that had the better 76mm gun

There was a comparison of penetration in another thread, by Soren I think?

The "F" "G" model Pz IV had the frontal armor increased to 80mm, making it much tougher for the original 75mm gun. The PzIV side skirts were also more effective in North Africa in 42-43, as the Germans had more trouble with those in the bocage in France 


Although the Kwk 40 the M4 gun were both 75 mm, the German gun was far more effective vs Allied tanks than the US gun was vs the Pz IV "F" or "G"


----------



## one zero (May 30, 2009)

The Mk-4's 75MM long barreled, high velocity,gun was the same 75MM gun mounted on the Panther outclassing the M-4's short barreled, low velocity gun. Ammunition was another factor, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the M-4 had only APC (armor piercing cap) for armor-defeating roles not very good stuff unless you were shooting at trucks.

Someone ,during this discourse, said that the M-4 was intended for Infantry Support. That is true only because each Infantry Regiment had a Tank Company, however the Armored Divisions had no illusions about the Tank being intended for Infantry support. They intended for the Armored Divisions to open things up for the grunts which they managed to do even tho' they had inferior vehicles and were out-gunned and also out-ammunitioned.
one-zero sends.


----------



## parsifal (May 30, 2009)

freebird said:


> I wouldn't say that they were anywhere near to "Evenly matched up", as the Pz IV "G" with a KwK 40 was far more capable than the 75mm Sherman




No doubt, however as always one needs to consider the unit cost before drawing too many conclusions. Would you rather 2 Shermans for every one Mk IV??? In terms of protection, the two tanks are comparable. The Sherman weighed about 31 tons, the MKIV 24 tons. The MKIV in its later iterations possessed 50mm frontal armour to 61 mm in the later Shermans. The MK IVs after June 1943 had an additional 30 mm added in applique armour for a total frontal armour of 80 mm. However the added plates are only roughly equal to about half that thickness in terms of effectiveness, so protection wise the German and US tank are very similar. Having two guns firing over one is, in my opnion decisive in many situations

In my opinion having numbers in tank warfare is a critical issue, and the one thing that saves the Sherman in all these debates is that it was very cheap to build. It could always rely on its numbers to make up for its technical difficulties

As for the E-8 versus the T34/85 in Korea, are the good people aware that these T-34s were were being manned by half trained recruits, that couldnt hit the side of a barn door in a pink fit???? Hardly a level playing fild on which to base an assessment of the hardware.


----------



## one zero (May 31, 2009)

I am a veteran of that little War and do know a little of what transpired there. The North Koreans came South with a re-inforced Tank Regiment and , as far as I know, left with none. 

During the occupation of Japan in deference to Japanese roads all the Medium tanks had been mothballed and the only tanks remaining in service were M-24 Light tanks with the 75mm gun. During the initial intervention of US Forces i.e., Task Force Smith, the T-34's did the "Dam Dams" on the M-24's. The US Army attempted to solve this problem by taking a platoon of M-26 "Pershings" out of mothball storage and sending them to Korea. As you can imagine, the were several problems encountered in this scheme one of which was ammunition. A search was conducted throughout the Far Eastern Theater and enough ammo to equip the M-26's was found in an WWII dump on Okinawa. Crew members were rounded up. in a similiar fashion, and shanghied into this "Provisional" platoon, which once assembled, was sent post haste to Pusan. At Pusan they were put aboard a train and sent to a debarkation point near the engaged US Forces. At this point mechanical problems reared their ugly head and fan belts (that had been in dry storage for over five years) started breaking immobilizing the entire herd. A cry for help to Japan resulted in a Japanese manufacturer running a twenty four shift to produce the replacement belts. These belts were air-dropped to the stranded Platoon who discovered that they (the belts) had been manufactured without steel cores. So another twenty four shift by the Japanese manufacturer finally produced belts that would work. So once again our dauntless platoon is on its way to the War. 

Now this is where it gets interesting, the Platoon crossed the River and could find no one above the rank of SSgt to report to. While they were attempting to find someone who would send them in the right direction the retreating Infantry blew the Bridge they had just crossed. Now the only option remaining was for the Platoon to extricate itself from what had become a desperate situation. The platoon began a withdrawal that would take them back to the river and possibly a ford. However, they started losing tanks to breaking fan belts and ended up about a mile short of the River when the last Tank went belly-up.
When this happened the only way out was to E&E all the wayback to Psan.

A former C ompany Commander of mine (who retired a Major General) was the Platoon Leader and managed to get all his personnel back to friendly lines.


----------



## Freebird (May 31, 2009)

parsifal said:


> No doubt, however as always one needs to consider the unit cost before drawing too many conclusions. Would you rather 2 Shermans for every one Mk IV??? .



There are quite a few variables here, such as tank doctrine and the relative effectivness of a tank in a given unit. Generally the Germans had much more experience, and could be more effective with th e same # of tanks. 

I'm not sure about the 2 to 1 though, in the other thread it was quoted the cost of 1 Tiger was = 2.8 Pz IV's or 4.1 Shermans. In was the "cost" is not really relevant, if the tanks are needed they will be produced. Also you should look at "cost" as a measure of industry needed for that tank *as delivered to the battlefield*. So all Allied tanks {other than Russian} become hugely expensive in terms of industrial cost vs. Geman, as you must take into account the transport + escort needed to move x tons of tanks { parts!} to Normandy, Germany or wherever.


This is starting to cross over into the Tiger thread, so I will post more of the reply there


----------



## parsifal (Jun 1, 2009)

well the hidden costs aside, which i acknowledge, the basic unit costs of various tanks are as follows (in RM):

Tiger: 312K
Panther: 180K
MkIVG: 124K
Sherman (75) 67-82K (depending on source
T-34/76: 10K (one source only...am abit doubtful about this figure) 

I dont know the shipping costs, but a reasonable guess might be 5000RM. I know that it costs about $500 in todays money to transport a car, by sea, from New Zealand to Australia....so the transatlantic voyage in wartime is not going to exceed the guesstimate I have suggested, surely...

So you are right....its less than 2 for 1....but the exchange rate is still impressive. I would still prefer the Sherman over the MkIV as a force pool planner, because I can afford to field many more of them. This has flow on effects. Despite its vulnerability when viewed as an individual piece of hardware, viewed as amass produced consumer item, it has great defensive potential...There are just so many of them compared to the opposition....and this means that the crews tends to survive, despite the fact that individually each tank is vulnerable. My opinion is that at the end of the war, the average allied tanker was better than the average German, because of this survivability issue. I remember a report from somewhere, concerning the battles around Metz.....the Panthers and their crews had received less than three weeks training on average...apparently....of course the Germans still had their aces, and in the hands of experienced crews their tanks were exceedingly dangerous, but in the hands of novices, they could be defeated by tanks like the Sherman, provided the Shermans were well crewed, and available in numbers


----------



## Juha (Jun 2, 2009)

Hello
Pz IV tanks never used the same gun as Panther in combat. Early PzIVs had low velocity KwK 37 L/24, Muzzle velocity c. 430m/s, early 42 onwards IVF2 had KwK 40 L/43, muzzle velocity c. 750m/s, but soon IVG was armed with slightly more powerful KwK 40 L/48, muzzle velocity c.790m/s. On the other hand Panther had 7.5 cm KwK 42, muzzle velocity 925 m/s. Only Pz IV type vehicle which had that gun was turretless JgPz IV/L70.
Late PzIVs had 80mm armour on chassis front but turret front had 50mm armour.

Sherman had originally 75mm gun M3 L/40, muzzle velocity 619 m/s. Upgunned versions had 76 mm M1 Gun L/53 gun, muzzle velocity 792m/s. Germans AP shells were better than US.

Juha


----------



## Stitch (Jun 3, 2009)

Juha said:


> Hello
> Pz IV tanks never used the same gun as Panther in combat. Early PzIVs had low velocity KwK 37 L/24, Muzzle velocity c. 430m/s, early 42 onwards IVF2 had KwK 40 L/43, muzzle velocity c. 750m/s, but soon IVG was armed with slightly more powerful KwK 40 L/48, muzzle velocity c.790m/s. On the other hand Panther had 7.5 cm KwK 42, muzzle velocity 925 m/s. Only Pz IV type vehicle which had that gun was turretless JgPz IV/L70.
> Late PzIVs had 80mm armour on chassis front but turret front had 50mm armour.
> 
> ...



You beat me to it, Juha; the Panther's gun was unusual in that it had an exceptionally high muzzle velocity (well over 1000 m/s with APCR, or _Hartkernmunition_, rounds) compared to just about any other tank gun in WWII, even higher than the vaunted 88mm found on the Tiger I and Tiger II. The KwK 40 L/43 and L/48 were good guns, but the Kwk 42 was a much better (and more powerful) weapon, by far.


----------



## Freebird (Jun 3, 2009)

Juha said:


> Hello
> Pz IV tanks never used the same gun as Panther in combat. Early PzIVs had low velocity KwK 37 L/24, Muzzle velocity c. 430m/s, early 42 onwards IVF2 had KwK 40 L/43, muzzle velocity c. 750m/s, but soon IVG was armed with slightly more powerful KwK 40 L/48, muzzle velocity c.790m/s. On the other hand Panther had 7.5 cm KwK 42, muzzle velocity 925 m/s. Only Pz IV type vehicle which had that gun was turretless JgPz IV/L70.
> Late PzIVs had 80mm armour on chassis front but turret front had 50mm armour.
> 
> ...




Just to confirm, the PzIVG entered service mid '42, while the Sherman did not have the up-gunned 76mm until 1944, am I correct in that?


----------



## Juha (Jun 3, 2009)

Hello Freebird
yes to both, but early PzIVGs were more or less like PzIVF2s, so their main gun was KwK 40 L/43, Germans began to put the slightly more powerful L/48s to new IVGs in early 43.

First production Shermans with 76mm M1 gun came out at the beginning of 1944

Juha


----------



## Freebird (Jun 3, 2009)

Juha said:


> Hello Freebird
> yes to both, but early PzIVGs were more or less like PzIVF2s, so their main gun was KwK 40 L/43, Germans began to put the slightly more powerful L/48s to new IVGs in early 43.
> 
> First production Shermans with 76mm M1 gun came out at the beginning of 1944
> ...




Which means that for 2 critical years of the war, early '42 - early '44, the German gun was solidly better than the 75mm Sherman. 

How did the Kwk 40 compare to the 75mm on the T-34? 

And when did the T-34/85 come out, and how did it perform vs the Kwk40/L48? 


Of course, the British had one of the BEST tanks designed during the war..... The Centurion. 
Which was available only in late 1945 IIRC. 

When making comparisons it's good to remember that a "good" tank early in the war is much more useful than a "great" tank that shows up at the end


----------



## JF3D (Jun 3, 2009)

Kiwikid said:


> Yup I know the Easy Eight adopted shell storage in 10 water filled boxes inside the hull. It also adopted hull storage locations used in the Firefly's hull rather than the turret which the US Army rejected using in 1943.
> 
> Pity they didn't adopt that for the standard Ronson Lighters before Normandy.
> 
> ...



Kiwi, The M1A1 76MM cannon was the same one used in WW2 except the HVAP (APCR) was the primary anti-armor roundby that time. During W2 HVAP was dedicated to the M18 TD units. By Korea, the M18 and M36 were being given away to anybody who would take them France,Yugoslavia, ETC. The TD Branch had been done away with in '48 IIRC. Post War the Brits dumped their Shermans on... the Italians, Argentina, and somehow a couple showed up in Lebanon.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 3, 2009)

freebird said:


> Which means that for 2 critical years of the war, early '42 - early '44, the German gun was solidly better than the 75mm Sherman.
> 
> How did the Kwk 40 compare to the 75mm on the T-34?
> 
> ...



.


----------



## Juha (Jun 3, 2009)

Hello Freebird
76,2mm gun of T34 has, IIRC, a bit lower armour penetration power than US 75mm M3 gun used in Sherman, so it had clearly less penetration power than KwK 40, but was adequate against PzIVs turret armour at normal combat ranges, say up to 1000y, beyond that IMHO chances of t34 hitting the turret of PzIV wasn't very high anyway.

Soviet 85mm L53 had penetration power with APCBC somewhere ca. half way between that of KwK 40 L/48 and that of Tiger I's 88mm L/56, but its HE had more bang than that of KwK 40.

And one must remember that usually only ca. 50% or a bit less of ammo load of a tank was AP ammo, rest was HE and smoke, so effectiveness of those kind of ammo was also important and Sherman's 75mm had good HE and smoke shells, that was the main reason of its use to the end of the WWII.

Juha


----------



## Juha (Jun 3, 2009)

Hello Tomo Pauk
you just beat me but we seem to be in complete agreement on this.

Juha


----------



## Lucky13 (Jul 18, 2009)

Just found this website, which says that the M4A3E2 (Jumbo) "Cobra King" was the first tank into Bastogne...4th Armored Division in Bastogne
So if that's true, then the 76mm Cobra King did see service in WWII......


----------



## carbonlifeform (Jul 22, 2009)

I'd have to pick the T-34/85 as the best open field tank of the war. It's wide tracks made it better in the mud and snow. Good all 'round armour protection and a decent gun that could take out the German heavies. It's combination of firepower, armour and manoeverability made it the best IMO
If the Russians had installed comm units in all their tanks and not just the commander's tanks, the T-34 series would have been an even more fearsome weapon when it was introduced. I'm not sure if the Russians ever rectified that issue before the end of the war. 
Ironically, the T-34 was an American design. When I asked why they didn't build that one themselves instead of the Sherman, I was informed that from a purely logistical standpoint, you could fit 4 Shermans in a landing craft as opposed to 2 larger tanks. Unfortunately those numbers meant very little when a single Panther or Tiger could knock out 12 or more Shermans on its own. Often times, it came down to a tank commander's ability to think on the fly.
This is one of my favourite examples. A Sherman crew had stumbled upon a Tiger lurking in town. The Sherman had the advantage of surprise and fired a round at approx 100 yards. The shell glanced off the Tiger and did nothing but alert the Tiger crew. Fortunately, the turret in a Tiger rotates rather slowly so the Sherman crew had time for a second shot. The commander order a WP round to be loaded and fired it right at the turret. Obvioulsy no damage was done to the Tiger but as the smoke from the phosphorous round got sucked into the air intake, the Tiger crew assumed their tank was starting to brew up and bailed out. Score one captured Tiger in mint condition.
While later upgunned and up-armoured variants of the Sherman proved to be more than up to the task, the first variant's only real value was in the ability to mass produce it and providing a psychological lift, not just to the infantry as an infantry support weapon, but for the invasion as a whole.
One of the Sherman's biggest drawbacks was ammo storage. The ammo was stored in the turret in one of the most thinly armoured parts of the tank. One of the good things about it was it was easier to modify and upgrade than most, if not all of it's contemporaries, and was one of the fastest tanks of the war.
Against the PZ Mk IV, the Sherman was more than capable, as long as the Panzer didn't get the first shot. Against the T-34/85? Good luck cuz you'd seriousy need some.
If I had to go to war in a tank in those days, I would have felt safer in a T-34/85 than in either the Sherman or the Pz IV.


----------



## river (Jul 22, 2009)

Hi,

The Sherman's advantage was they were in large numbers. The armour and armament of the Sherman was never anything to rave about. The British variant, the Firefly - with the QF 17pdr - was the only model that could lay claim to having a decent weapon that could take out the big boys.

river


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 22, 2009)

I have to question the T-34 being an American design.


----------



## Glider (Jul 22, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> I have to question the T-34 being an American design.



I admit thats a new one on me as well. It would be fair to say that the T34 suspension was based on the American Christie Suspension, but to claim that the T34 was an American design is way way out.


----------



## carbonlifeform (Jul 22, 2009)

oops I stand corrected. Yes, the T-34 was actually developed from the BT series of light tanks. These tanks and the T-34 used the Christie suspension system. I got confused between that and another piece of "Russian" hardware. Hey it happens when you get old 

I still stand behind my comments about it being the best tank design of the war tho  lol


----------



## parsifal (Jul 22, 2009)

The T-34 was an indigenous design, with a man by the name of Koshkin being its chief designer. It utilised the American Chritie suspension, which had been rejected by the US military.

Wiki says this about the T-34 design:

"the BT tanks were based on a design from American engineer Walter Christie.

In 1937, the Red Army assigned the engineer Mikhail Koshkin to lead a new team to design a replacement for the BT tanks at the Kharkiv Komintern Locomotive Plant (KhPZ) in Kharkiv. The prototype tank, designated A-20, was specified with 20 millimetres (0.8 in) of armour, a 45 mm (1.8 in) gun, and the new model V-2 engine, using less-flammable diesel fuel. It also had an 8×6-wheel convertible drive similar to the BT tank's 8×2, which allowed it to run on wheels without caterpillar tracks (Zheltov 1999). This feature had greatly saved on maintenance and repair of the unreliable tank track of the early 1930s, and allowed tanks to travel over 85 km/h (53 mph) on roads, but gave no advantage in combat. By then, the designers considered it a waste of space and weight (Zaloga Grandsen 1984:66, 111). The A-20 also incorporated previous research (BT-IS and BT-SW-2 projects) into sloped armour: its all-round sloped armour plates were more likely to deflect anti-armour rounds than perpendicular armour.[3]


A-8 (BT-7M), A-20, T-34 Model 1940 and Model 1941Koshkin convinced Soviet leader Joseph Stalin to let him develop a second prototype, a more heavily armed and armoured "universal tank" which could replace both the T-26 and the BT tanks.[4] The second prototype Koshkin named A-32, after its 32 millimetres (1.3 in) of frontal armour. It also had a 76.2 mm (3 in) gun, and the same model V-2 diesel engine (Zaloga 1994:5). Both were tested in field trials at Kubinka in 1939, and the heavier A-32 proved to be as mobile as the A-20. A still heavier version of the A-32 with 45 millimetres (1.8 in) of front armour and wider tracks was approved for production as the T-34. Koshkin chose the name after the year 1934 when he began to formulate his ideas about the new tank, and to commemorate the decree expanding the armoured force and the appointment of Sergo Ordzhonikidze to head tank production (Zaloga 1994:6).

Koshkin's team completed two prototype T-34s in January 1940. In April and May, they underwent a grueling 2,000-kilometre (1,250 mi) drive from Kharkiv to Moscow for a demonstration for the Kremlin leaders, to the Mannerheim Line in Finland, and back to Kharkiv via Minsk and Kiev (Zaloga 1994:6). Some drivetrain shortcomings were identified and corrected (Zaloga Grandsen 1983:6). Resistance from the military command and concerns about high production cost were finally overridden by anxieties about the poor performance of Soviet tanks in Finland and the effectiveness of Germany's Blitzkrieg in France, and the first production tanks were completed in September 1940, completely replacing the production of the T-26, BT, and the multi-turreted T-28 medium tank at the KhPZ. Koshkin died of pneumonia at the end of that month (exacerbated by the drive from Kharkov to Moscow), and the T-34's drivetrain developer, Alexander Morozov, was appointed Chief Designer.

The T-34 had the coil-spring Christie suspension of the BT, using a "slack track" tread system with a rear-mounted drive sprocket and no system of return rollers for the upper run of track, but dispensed with the weighty and ineffective convertible drive. It had well-sloped armour, a relatively powerful engine and wide tracks. The initial version had a 76.2 mm gun, and is often called the T-34/76 (originally a World War II German designation). In 1944 a second major version began production, the T-34-85 (or T-34/85), with a larger turret mounting a larger 85 mm gun."

In terms of effectiveness, the T-34 was probably the best allround tank of the war, but it was out gunned by the MkIV, which also had better sighting and optics. Early versions suffered from defective transmissions. 

In terms of cost ther is no comparison. The T-34 was the cheapest to produce by a country mile. Its simple engine cast turret and hull, threadbare fitouts, made its unit cost somewhere between 10 and 20K (US). By comparison the Sherman cost 37K, whilst the poor old MkIV cost about 60-70K to produce each unit. If we asssume T-34s cost 15K to produce, which would you prefer, 1 MkIV, 2 Shermans, or 5 T-34s. Part of its appeal was the ease that it could be produced


----------



## carbonlifeform (Jul 22, 2009)

Wiki also heads the page off with this: The T-34 was developed from the BT series of fast tanks.

I can only assume they were referring only to the suspension then?


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 27, 2009)

parsifal said:


> A good document for the T-34....it takes 13.8 seconds to do a full 360 deg turn of the turret
> 
> The following site gives details for the Sherman.... Medium Tank M4 Sherman , the turret traversing rate is 24 degrees per second, or slightly slower than the T-34/76, 14.4 secs
> 
> I dont know the exact traverse rate for the Mk-IV, but the wide tracks for the mkIV, the Ostkette were not available until the late summmer of 1944, and then only with a limited scale of issue. Most of the MkIVs career were fought with narrow tracks, so it is not incorrect the T-34 as having a decided mobility advantage over the MkIV



the doc was for IS tanks not for T-34


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 28, 2009)

idk if is reliable but this tables Product prices
show that a sherman cost around 120k RM (at exchange of 2.5 RM for a $) and a Pz IVG 116k RM, a Pz V around 130k RM (my calculation on w/o weapons cost).
but all this is wrong the money cost is near no importance, the real cost need know it'show many man hours and raw materials and weight of this for the economy of country


----------

