# Sherman Main gun



## MacArther (Nov 6, 2006)

I have heard that the Sherman's usually 75mm gun could not pierce even a Pzr IV's frontal armor. My question is, was the Sherman's gun good against any tank aside from the lighter Pzer I-IIIs? Also, aside from logistics, why would the US use a gun that seemed to be so useless against enemy armor?


----------



## plan_D (Nov 6, 2006)

The M4 Sherman had the 75mm M3 cannon with a penetration of 70mm at 500 yards/30 degrees. This is enough to destroy the Pz.Kpfw IV. It was not useless against the standard armour of the Wehrmacht when introduced and could destroy the Wehrmacht armour from the rear or side. 

The Sherman was introduced with this cannon but they were upgraded with the 76mm M1, M1A1, M1A1C or M1A2 cannon which could penetrate 88mm at 1000 yards (APC) and 133mm at 1000 yards (HVAP). This isn't a poor armament. 

The only other option open to the Allies was the 17 pdr OQF , which was used on the Sherman Firefly and could penetrate 186mm at 500 yards (APDS).


----------



## mkloby (Nov 6, 2006)

The idea was to take the M3 Grant and improve upon as expeditiously as possible. Army wanted a 75mm gun in the turret - and the hull and suspension of the M3 grant emerged as the M4. Also keep in mind dated back to 42. Also - we built over 50,000 of them. You can't defeat 50,000 tanks! (straight from the mouth of a German officer). Sometimes it's about quantity, not quality - a lesson the germans had enormous difficulty understanding.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 7, 2006)

That is true. The Sherman was completly outclassed by the Tiger, Panther and King Tiger in Armour and Armament. The 3 tanks above could take out a Sherman before the Sherman was even in a range suitable to kill them, but as you said above you can not beat 50,000 tanks. The Russians and the western Allies understood this.

Some other people in the other thread dont understand this at all....


----------



## MacArther (Nov 7, 2006)

I understand you can't beat 50,000 tanks, but try explaining that to the guy in the sherman *lucky* enough to go against any of the three German tanks mentioned.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 7, 2006)

I know its slightly off topic, but didnt pre war US Army doctine say that the medium tanks were to avoid a tank vs tank fight, and instead keep "rolling forward" and allow the specialized tank destroyers to go one on one in a fight?

Of course it didnt work out that way in the real world, but that can explain why the Sherman was under gunned and not capable of going one on one with the German designs.


----------



## MacArther (Nov 7, 2006)

Still, would you want to be in a M10, with something in the order of 1.5 inches of armor at maximum? I could handle being in the M18 Hellcat, because at least I could get away from bad situations fast.


----------



## mkloby (Nov 7, 2006)

Keep in mind the superiority of numbers - there's more to strategy and tactics than just producing an ubertank, such as Tigers or King Tigers, and boldly declaring the superiority of the german armaments industry.

Allied tankers would commonly tackle a single german tank with 3 or 4 M4s - the numbers produced easily enabled this tactic. Sure, there were german tank aces that popped shermans like balloons with their StuGs or Tigers, but in my military opinion the germans would have been much better served building as many PzIVs as possible - taking steps to simplify the manufacturing process like the americans did w/ the M4. Note the ruggedness and reliability of the sherman vice the mechanical fragility of several german tanks...


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 8, 2006)

> Keep in mind the superiority of numbers - there's more to strategy and tactics than just producing an ubertank, such as Tigers or King Tigers, and boldly declaring the superiority of the german armaments industry.
> 
> Allied tankers would commonly tackle a single german tank with 3 or 4 M4s - the numbers produced easily enabled this tactic. Sure, there were german tank aces that popped shermans like balloons with their StuGs or Tigers, but in my military opinion the germans would have been much better served building as many PzIVs as possible - taking steps to simplify the manufacturing process like the americans did w/ the M4. Note the ruggedness and reliability of the sherman vice the mechanical fragility of several german tanks...



The US tank situation by the end of fall 1944, was so bad that General's Eisenhower, Bradley and Patton (through Gen. Marshall of course) ordered the ordinance dept to get the M26 Pershing out of test and into production.

The M4 was simply not up to the task.


----------



## davparlr (Nov 8, 2006)

MacArther said:


> I understand you can't beat 50,000 tanks, but try explaining that to the guy in the sherman *lucky* enough to go against any of the three German tanks mentioned.



We have a lot of dead heros. They knew they're job was dangerous and still climbed into that tank.

One thing I don't understand is that the Sherman is always blamed for burning easily because it used gasoline instead of fuel oil but my references say that the MkIV, Panther, and Tiger were all using petrol which I believe is gasoline. If this is true, the real reason the Sherman burned was the thin armor.


----------



## ndicki (Nov 8, 2006)

The British Army of 1944 was in the process of ditching the Sherman as fast as possible, with the exception of the specials, such as the MkVc Firefly. The Sherman 'a' and 'b' types were not adopted (105mm gun, 76mm gun), nor was the later production 'wet' hull. That they were replaced by Cromwells may appear surprising, but it was not, as far as I can tell, due only to considerations of national prestige. The Cromwell, despite carrying the British version of the Sherman's 75mm gun, was more survivable. Open to debate, though...


----------



## mkloby (Nov 8, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> The US tank situation by the end of fall 1944, was so bad that General's Eisenhower, Bradley and Patton (through Gen. Marshall of course) ordered the ordinance dept to get the M26 Pershing out of test and into production.
> 
> The M4 was simply not up to the task.



The US won the war. It was obviously up to the task - not the finest tank the world had seen - but it was produced in numbers that enabled it to do the job. The M26 had came out so late as to have no impact on the war and is irrelevant. Improved versions of the M4 such as the "Easy 8" were definite improvements and soldiered on, adequately accomplishing the job.

Dave - all my pubs are packed up due to the PCS - I remember there being a diesel version too that the US mil used - I think it was actually only in service w/ the USMC. Maybe the M4A2?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 8, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> I know its slightly off topic, but didnt pre war US Army doctine say that the medium tanks were to avoid a tank vs tank fight, and instead keep "rolling forward" and allow the specialized tank destroyers to go one on one in a fight?
> 
> Of course it didnt work out that way in the real world, but that can explain why the Sherman was under gunned and not capable of going one on one with the German designs.



Yes from what I have heard early US tank doctrine was to leave the enemy tanks to tank destroyers and so hense the development of the less armoured and armed Shermans.



mkloby said:


> Allied tankers would commonly tackle a single german tank with 3 or 4 M4s - the numbers produced easily enabled this tactic. Sure, there were german tank aces that popped shermans like balloons with their StuGs or Tigers, but in my military opinion the germans would have been much better served building as many PzIVs as possible - taking steps to simplify the manufacturing process like the americans did w/ the M4. Note the ruggedness and reliability of the sherman vice the mechanical fragility of several german tanks...



I agree with you to a degree but the reason the Germans started to develop the Tiger was because the Russians were producing the T34 at an alarming rate which was destroying the Panzer IVs with amazing success.

I dont think they should not have developed the Tiger, Panthers and King Tigers but rather kept Panzer IV production up at full speed to get massive amounts of armour out there and supplement them with Tiger BNs.

The Germans did to an extent do this. The average Panzer Division was made up of Panzer IV divisions and then had a Heavy BN which was made up of Tigers attached to it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 8, 2006)

mkloby said:


> The US won the war.



Ah Ah Ah the Allies won the war.


----------



## mkloby (Nov 8, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Ah Ah Ah the Allies won the war.



Of course the allies, of which the US was a part - there was no underlying freudian meaning in that! Actually, from the greatest A/C thread - if you remember I credit the Brits and the hurricane for winning the war!


----------



## mkloby (Nov 8, 2006)

Adler - yeah true heavies were deployed in hvy tank Bn's, but I like you believe that the resources put into the PzV, Tigers, and other hvy tanks were wasted. Just think of the amount of steel alone! Especially when you consider all the teething problems they each suffered, and their mechanical unreliability. PzIV was a great tank - especially after upgraded to PzIVH. As stated before, they would've been better off simplifying the manu process and mass producing PzIVs.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 8, 2006)

As stated for the most part I agree, but I dont think they should have stopped Tiger production.


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 8, 2006)

I don't think they should either, I also think that had the war go on longer they should of started producing more Panther's to gradually replace the Panzer IV's (as the later Panzer IV's did to the Panzer III's) whilst still keeping Tiger production going (perhaps at a reduced rate to concentrate on Panzer IV/Panther production.


----------



## mkloby (Nov 8, 2006)

Tiger was at least useful. monsters such as the elefant, koenigtiger, jadgpanther and jagdtigers were wastes of resources (plus you hade JagdPzIV, hetzers, marders, plus many i've glossed over. Speer didn't seem to grasp economies of scale - or is there something here I'm missing about the benefits of having umpteen slightly different models? Not only is production slower and more expensive, but factor in replacement parts, ease of maintenance, and standardization throughout the forces and you have a huge boon! America made clear use of this principle - giving rise to a mediocre war-winner... the M4!


----------



## Bullet (Nov 8, 2006)

MacArther said:


> I have heard that the Sherman's usually 75mm gun could not pierce even a Pzr IV's frontal armor. My question is, was the Sherman's gun good against any tank aside from the lighter Pzer I-IIIs? Also, aside from logistics, why would the US use a gun that seemed to be so useless against enemy armor?



The reason is it was the only option available...Although they should have used a High velocity variant of the 75mm instead of the low velocity model that was put into production to make the barrel last longer. Stephen Ambrose wrote about this in his book about the M4. He said that if they had the high velocity 75mm they could have went toe to toe with most axis tanks and knocked them out. He was an engineer so his opinion carries some weight.
He also descibes a prototype tank that he built while in Europe using a 105mm cannon and the glassis plate from a german tiger!


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 8, 2006)

Quantity does have a quality of its own.

The Sherman does win hands down when it came to numbers. But that can only take you so far.

If the allies didnt have so many fighter bombers to limit the effectiveness of the German armor, then things would have been worse for the M4.


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 8, 2006)

So...when did the 90mm come along for the M4? I thought that was the answer to the Tiger/Panther. Or am I thinking of a different tank (ie not the Pershing)?


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 8, 2006)

Matt308 said:


> So...when did the 90mm come along for the M4? I thought that was the answer to the Tiger/Panther. Or am I thinking of a different tank (ie not the Pershing)?




I believe the 90mm for the M26 was the army AA gun.


----------



## Hunter368 (Nov 8, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Quantity does have a quality of its own.
> 
> The Sherman does win hands down when it came to numbers. But that can only take you so far.
> 
> If the allies didnt have so many fighter bombers to limit the effectiveness of the German armor, then things would have been worse for the M4.



Good point and 100% agree.


----------



## mkloby (Nov 8, 2006)

Numbers count far more than you could imagine... German armor had other critical problems - ie fuel.


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 8, 2006)

I couldn't find anything about an M4 with a 90mm. Only the Pershing. But what about the M4 with the British 17pdr?


----------



## mkloby (Nov 8, 2006)

That would be the Firefly - IIRC


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 9, 2006)

I thought the Firefly only had the British 17pdr. It had the 90mm too?


----------



## mkloby (Nov 9, 2006)

Oh sorry - I meant the Firefly had the 17pdr.


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 9, 2006)

Well at least we are getting their. 17pdr = 76.2mm I believe. Only 13.8mm to go.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 9, 2006)

> Well at least we are getting their. 17pdr = 76.2mm I believe. Only 13.8mm to go.



Many woman say that 1/2 an inch makes all the difference in the world........


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 9, 2006)

I want to comment on that, but strangely my gut tell me to be quiet.


----------



## ndicki (Nov 9, 2006)

There seems to be a certain amount of confusion here. The Sherman did exist in many variants, so that can be expected, but...

Two basic turret types: the original 75mm type, small and roundish. This was variously equipped with the 75mm gun, the 105mm Howitzer, the Flamethrower modification and the British 17Pdr.

The second, much larger turret carried the US 76mm gun, which was not the same as the British 17Pdr, having rather poorer performances.

Hulls were defined according to manufacturing style - cast or welded - and motorisation.

M4 - welded hull, Continental radial aircraft engine, petrol Sherman MkI
M4A1 - cast hull, engine as above Sherman MkII
M4A2 - welded hull, GM diesel engine - used a lot by USMC owing to fuel compatibility Sherman MkIII
M4A3 - welded hull, Ford petrol engine Not used by British Forces
M4A4 - extended welded hull, Chrysler multibank engine Sherman MkV

Hulls came in the early 'dry' type and later 'wet' type, which caused some external changes.

And I have to get back to my classroom.


----------



## m kenny (Nov 9, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> but the reason the Germans started to develop the Tiger was because the Russians were producing the T34 at an alarming rate which was destroying the Panzer IVs with amazing success.



No.Tiger was being developed before the T-34 saw combat........



> The average Panzer Division was made up of Panzer IV divisions and then had a Heavy BN which was made up of Tigers attached to it.



No. By June 1944 the average Type 43 PD had 1 Panzer Regiment. The Panzer Regiment had 2 Abteilung. 1st Abteilung had Panthers and the 2nd Abteilung had PzIV's.

Tiger Abteilung were Korps assets and did not serve in any division.


----------



## ndicki (Nov 9, 2006)

To carry on from there:

Two main types of suspension:

The early VVSS (Vertical Volute Spring Suspension) - the classic Sherman bogies. Two subtypes: the very early one with the return roller directly above the bogie assembly, also used on the General Grant/Lee tanks, and then the second type, with the roller offset behind the assembly.

The late war HVSS (Horizontal) suspension, seen on a few Sherman M4A2s and M4A3s at the War's end; apparently M4A1s were NOT equipped with this suspension during WW2. Tracks were noticeably wider, necessitating the addition of "shelves" along the sides of the hull.

The final US Army variant used in WW2 was the M4A3E8 76mm(W), meaning the welded-hull Ford petrol-engined variant with 76mm turret and gun, and wet ammunition stowage; this meant that the compartments where the main gun ammunition was stowed were made up of sleeves to receive the rounds, in a "box" of water. The "E8" tag indicates HVSS suspension. This tank went on to serve in Korea before being relpaced by Pershings. The British designation would be Sherman MkIVAY, where "A" indicates the 76mm gun, (B=105mm Howitzer, C=17Pdr A/T), and "Y" indicates the HVSS suspension. The type did not serve in the British Army, although one or two found their way to Bovington for testing, and the 6th South African Div used Sherman MkIIAs in Italy.

The welded wet stowage hull can be recognized by the single piece glacis, compared to the earlier dry model where the driver's and hull gunner's positions protruded from the glacis.

More in a bit.


----------



## ndicki (Nov 9, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Many woman say that 1/2 an inch makes all the difference in the world........



Why, were they disappointed?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 9, 2006)

m kenny said:


> No.Tiger was being developed before the T-34 saw combat........



Yes the development goes back to 1938 I believe (not sure on that I could be wrong) but Hitler ordered it to go into production quicker because of the T-34.



m kenny said:


> No. By June 1944 the average Type 43 PD had 1 Panzer Regiment. The Panzer Regiment had 2 Abteilung. 1st Abteilung had Panthers and the 2nd Abteilung had PzIV's.



Excuse me that is correct. 

Battalion Command (composed of Communication and Reconnaissance Platoon) 
Communication Platoon - 3 x Befehlswagen Panther SdKfz.267/268 
Reconnaissance Platoon - 5 x Panther 
1st Company - 22 x Panther 
Company Command - 2 x Panther 
1st Platoon - 5 x Panther 
2nd Platoon - 5 x Panther 
3rd Platoon - 5 x Panther 
4th Platoon - 5 x Panther 
2nd Company - 22 x Panther (composed as 1st Company) 
3rd Company - 22 x Panther (composed as 1st Company) 
4th Company - 22 x Panther (composed as 1st Company) 
Service Platoon - 2 x Bergepanther


----------



## ndicki (Nov 9, 2006)

A few pics to prove the point; meanwhile, you may notice two different types of transmission cover - bolted and cast. The cast type appeared in 1942 or so, and gradually replaced the original bolted type. This made no change to the designation of the vehicle. No M4A3 or wet stowage hull had a bolted transmission cover.

Very early production MkIs and MkIIs actually had direct-vision "visors" in the glacis, but these were quickly replaced by episcopes/periscopes for the driver and hull-gunner. Also, at least two types of mantlet were used for the 75mm gun - a narrow early one, and the later, wider one seen below.

The cupola was also improved, as you can see from comparing the pics of the MkI and the M4A3 75mm; at the same time, a hatch was added for the main gunner.

British Shermans had a number of modifications compared to US vehicles, the most visible of these involved moving the radio from the hull gunner's position to the rear of the turret, necessitating the addition of a stowage box on the turret rear.

Incidentally, one of the main reasons why the Sherman MkI and II caught fire so easily is that the Continental Whirlwind rotary engine used to p*ss oil and petrol everywhere  . The Ford and Chrysler engined MkIV and MkV were far safer, despite their petrol engines.


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 9, 2006)

> On May 26th of 1941, during the meeting concerning the development of new weaponry, Adolf Hitler ordered both Dr.Porsche and Henschel to supply their designs for a heavy tank, which was to be ready in the summer of 1942. Krupp was in charge of supplying main armament and producing turrets for designs by both Henschel and Porsche. The project was known as the "Tigerprogram".





> In July of 1942, Henschel Tiger - VK 4501(H) was approved and went into production. Only five Tiger(P) were fully completed in July of 1942 by Nibelungenwerke with armored parts supplied by Krupp, before the production was stopped in August of 1942 (chassis number 150001-150010). Even before even the rejection of Tiger(P)'s design production of 90 pre-production VK4501(P) chassis started. Production of pre-production chassis continued, and in early September of 1942, it was decided to equip two sPzAbts (including sPzAbt 501) destined for North Africa with Tiger(P)s. This decision was made simply because of the stage of development and the fact that Tiger(P)'s engines were air-cooled. Once again unresolved problem of technical unreliability led to the cancellation of the production.



Achtung Panzer! - Tiger(P)

The first T-34's left the factory in June of 1940 with development having started in 1938. First action was seen during Barbarossa (26th June 1941 Central Front) by which point the Tiger was already in development (started in May 1941).

LemaireSoft's T-34/76: global

The T-34 was the trigger for the speeding up of the development of the German heavy tanks that rolled out onto the Battlefields after 1942 and dominated until the end of the war.


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 9, 2006)

Nicely done ndicki


----------



## ndicki (Nov 9, 2006)

Cheers, Matt! It took me YEARS to figure all that out!


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 9, 2006)

ndicki said:


> Why, were they disappointed?


----------



## Joe2 (Nov 9, 2006)

m kenny said:


> No.Tiger was being developed before the T-34 saw combat........



The T-34 was developed in 1940, mate


----------



## Joe2 (Nov 9, 2006)

Gnomey said:


> Achtung Panzer! - Tiger(P)
> 
> *The first T-34's left the factory in June of 1940 with development having started in 1938. First action was seen during Barbarossa (26th June 1941 Central Front) by which point the Tiger was already in development (started in May 1941).*
> 
> ...



Ive really got to read things before i post


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 10, 2006)

ndicki said:


> Cheers, Matt! It took me YEARS to figure all that out!



You know I've got all that info in a great tanks of the world book, but your pics were brilliant. Wish I had such running pictorials for every hull type.


----------



## ndicki (Nov 10, 2006)

I even left out one or two things, such as the MkI Hybrid - not sure of the USA term - which had the cast glacis of the M4A1 welded onto the welded hull of the M4. And there was the Jumbo assault tank - M4A3E2 - with 100mm of armour on the glacis, and 150mm on the turret front... and suspension problems!

As I said, there were early production MkI and MkII (M4 and M4A1) vehicles which had direct vision blocks and/or M3 medium type return roller - see photo below.

And, to add to the fun, many parts were interchangeable, so early production tanks could often be retrofitted with later pattern parts!


----------



## ndicki (Nov 10, 2006)

I've just found this site - looks promising.

Battlefront - Producers of fine metal and resin miniatures

And this:

Sherman Register - British designations


----------



## plan_D (Nov 10, 2006)

The closest thing the Sherman had to a 90mm was the M36 Jackson which was based on the Sherman chassis and was an improvement on the M10 Wolverine.


----------



## Joe2 (Nov 10, 2006)

I thought the m36 was called Slugger


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 10, 2006)

It was refered to as both.

Some units like the 100th called it the Slugger but some units called the Jackson. I think Jackson was the official name because the US has almost allways name there tanks after famous Generals ie. Pershing, Sherman, Jackson, Abrams, etc...


----------



## ndicki (Nov 10, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Jackson was the official name because the US has almost allways name there tanks after famous Generals ie. Pershing, Sherman, Jackson, Abrams, etc...



Correct. Slugger, like Jumbo, was only a nickname.

As far as I know, the last operational Jacksons were in Yugoslavia during the break-up war. Quite a career!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 10, 2006)

That is true, and if I can find them somewhere in my thousands of pics from Kosovo that I took when I was there, I have some pics of some Jacksons that were destroyed by allied airpower during the Balkans war.


----------



## delcyros (Nov 11, 2006)

I estimate that the US in particular could have saved a lot of lifes and shortened the war in case they took over the soviet T-34 design in 1941 (which by then -hands down- was the best tank avaiable to the allies) , rebuild it with US necessaritys (better radio, higher quality RHA-armour instead of cast one, better optics, US gun and -more importantly- APC-shells) and mass produce it from mid 1942 on. By 1944 they could have a very potent tank in considerable numbers.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 11, 2006)

> I estimate that the US in particular could have saved a lot of lifes and shortened the war in case they took over the soviet T-34 design in 1941 (which by then -hands down- was the best tank avaiable to the allies) , rebuild it with US necessaritys (better radio, higher quality RHA-armour instead of cast one, better optics, US gun and -more importantly- APC-shells) and mass produce it from mid 1942 on. By 1944 they could have a very potent tank in considerable numbers.



I agree.

Although the gun selection might have been better served by one of the British types.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 11, 2006)

Not really, compared to the German forces the T-34 and Sherman were on equal level. Both used the same massed numbers approach to defeating the German machines. If the Allies had managed to mass produce a T-34 with OQF 17pdr with Allied creature comforts then you're talking mean machine!


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 11, 2006)

> Not really, compared to the German forces the T-34 and Sherman were on equal level. Both used the same massed numbers approach to defeating the German machines. If the Allies had managed to mass produce a T-34 with OQF 17pdr with Allied creature comforts then you're talking mean machine!



The ballisitcs protection of the T34 was superior to that of the Sherman. 

One reason the Sherman was knocked out so easily is the large number of "perpendicular" parts of the hull and turret.


----------



## Soren (Nov 11, 2006)

The Sherman was infact vulnerable frontally all the way out to 1,500m if engaged by the StuG or PzIV, and 3,000m if engaged by a Tiger Ausf.E or Panther (Although a hit at this range would be a lucky one)

Against the Tiger Ausf.B, well, even a distance of 4 km isn't gonna save you then. Infact a Nashorn once took out a IS-2 past 4km - now thats pretty amazing.

Now the T-34, well Tiger crews claimed head on kills as far away as 3.8km, so I'm guessing the protection was about the same as the Sherman. (The T-34 does have an overall better shape though)


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Nov 27, 2006)

The T34 did have better armour than the Sherman, particularly the sides/rear, but the Sherman had thicker armour and usually 'hillbilly armour' like track links etc.

The T34 could also carry an 85mm gun, maybe even the US's 90mm? (A 100mm was tried).

The thing was, the T34 'brewed up' more violently than the Sherman - often taking out any nearby infantry.

It needs to be remembered that the Tiger's development was also speeded up by encounters with the French tanks and particularly the MatildaMkII. It also created 2 of the Tiger's trade marks; thick armour and an 88mm gun.

As for PzIV production, well I would say it compared well with the T34. The best bet probably being the Daimler-Benz Panther proposal, with a more rearward turret. The main problem with the Panzers was, I feel, the Maybach engines. Much better a Meteor-alike Daimler-Benz unit, developed from the DB601/605?


----------



## Glider (Nov 28, 2006)

The only point that I would disagree with was that the T34 brewed up more violently than the Sherman. The Sherman was notorious for brewing up hence the various nicknames given to it by both the Allied and Germans e.g. 'Ronson' because they always lit first time, every time.

The T34 with its diesel engine, lack of highly inflamable hydraulic fluids and better designed armour was always more capable of taking damage and giving the crew time to escape.

Many improvements were made to the Sherman to improve the situation in particular the installation of water jackets around the ammunition and some diesel powered versions. However, as a basic design to take damage the T34 had the edge.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Nov 28, 2006)

If I remember correctly, didn't the Israelis use modified Shermans in the six-day war in 1967.


----------



## delcyros (Nov 28, 2006)

Does any of You know something about the Panther design with gaz turbine propulsion? I read that several prototypes of the engines have been build (mostly from Porsche). That thing could be nerd!


----------



## Soren (Nov 28, 2006)

> The main problem with the Panzers was, I feel, the Maybach engines.



No Schwarz, the problem is the Maybach was probably the best tank engine to emerge from WW2.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Nov 28, 2006)

Hi Glider,

I meant that when the tank caught fire, the explosion was more violent in the T34 - which is bad for any tank-riders or nearby infantry. I posted a link some time back on a Soviet Tankers report on the 'Emcha' (Sherman) explaining this. The Sherman was easier to set off though, you are right.


2 things that counted towards the T34's protection were it's low silhouette and maneuverability.


Hi delcyros,

I remember something similar, try looking up Aoereole and/or schnellpanzer(spelling??), but I think it was a myth?

Much better would be a turbo-diesel (which was tried).


Hi Vassili,

Yes, the Super Sherman. Used AMX guns/turrets IIRC.


Hi Soren,

The Maybach was crap as a military engine, admit it. Difficult to build, thirsty and unreliable. You did prove to me that it was torquey though, but it could never match a diesel.

My choice is the V-2, though I don't think it needed to be aluminium (better used on planes IMHO), but could it have used a turbo?

A modified plane engine would have been better, but Germany never really concentrated on one particular engine, did it?


----------



## davparlr (Nov 28, 2006)

Vassili Zaitzev said:


> If I remember correctly, didn't the Israelis use modified Shermans in the six-day war in 1967.



I just saw a special on the history channel about the six-day war and they said that the Israelis modified the Shermans with upgraded armor and 105 mm gun with what looks like a new turret. Apparently they were very effective against Russian tanks.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Nov 28, 2006)

davparlr said:


> I just saw a special on the history channel about the six-day war and they said that the Israelis modified the Shermans with upgraded armor and 105 mm gun with what looks like a new turret. Apparently they were very effective against Russian tanks.



Nice, I forget, which tanks Russian lent tanks did the Syrians, Egyptians, and Lebanese armies have?


----------



## Glider (Nov 28, 2006)

For the 6 day war the Egyptian and Syrian forces were mainly T55's with a smattering of T34/85's. They were also a number of PT76's. For the 1973 war the T55's were supported by T62's.
The Jordainian Army was equipped with Centurions.

Lent was the wrong word, the Russians made sure the kit was paid for.


----------



## mkloby (Nov 28, 2006)

davparlr said:


> I just saw a special on the history channel about the six-day war and they said that the Israelis modified the Shermans with upgraded armor and 105 mm gun with what looks like a new turret. Apparently they were very effective against Russian tanks.



I saw that too - the Sherman looked pretty badass w/ all those improvements!


----------



## MacArther (Nov 28, 2006)

Can any one post a picture here? I would search, but I keep getting quirky error messages every time I try to use a search engine....


----------



## Glider (Nov 29, 2006)

mkloby said:


> I saw that too - the Sherman looked pretty badass w/ all those improvements!



I didn't seed the programme but know the tank your talking about. Personally I thought it looked dangerously top heavy for a tank that may have to operate in the Golan Heights.

The 105 in question isn't the British L7 fitted to Centurions but a French 105 as used in some versions of the AMX13. Very dangerous if you get it by it and no doubt capable of taking out a T55. 

The problem was it couldn't fight at any distance. The Sherman clearly lacked modern rangefinders and the shell being a smoothbore doesn't spin imparing its accuracy at any distance. Plus of course the Sherman is a big target. The success of the Isreali troops using these tanks shows how important training and determination is. 

As they say 'it isn't the size of the dog in the fight that counts, its the size of the fight in the dog'.


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 29, 2006)

M51 Super Sherman IDF

Sources on Right Click


----------



## Joe2 (Nov 29, 2006)

Gnomey said:


> M51 Super Sherman IDF
> 
> Sources on Right Click


  Man im shocked at that thing! its a deathtrap! Im suprised I couldnt find any instances of it falling over!!!!  

good armour and gun though


----------



## Joe2 (Nov 29, 2006)

On the subject of tanks in the Isreal region, as you know Isreal has some of the best tanks in the world. The first Isreali tanks where;

2 Cromwells 'aquired' from the British in Palestine
1 deralict Sherman due for the the scap heap
a few French hotchkiss light tanks, smuggled in (which would *DEAFINATLY *be blown to peices by any other tank of it's day


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Nov 29, 2006)

Geez, that super sherman is huge!


----------



## MacArther (Nov 29, 2006)

Its so beautiful..... 8) 8)


----------



## davparlr (Nov 29, 2006)

The Israels tend to only care about what is needed and what works. My brother worked at the Naval Air Rework Facility in Pensacola on A-4s. During the 73 Israeli war, the Israelis wanted every A-4 they could find. These came through the rework facility. My brother said that they only wanted two thing to work, flight controls and bomb releases. Nothing else was repaired. Some leaked fuel like a sieve but were shipped out as is.


----------



## Soren (Nov 29, 2006)

schwarzpanzer said:


> Hi Glider,
> Hi Soren,
> 
> The Maybach was crap as a military engine, admit it. Difficult to build, thirsty and unreliable.



Ha ! It was about the most reliable tank engine of WW2 considering the inviroments and conditions in which it had to operate ! 

Have you ever seen it in real life ??? It was made with three things in mind, RUGGEDNESS, LIGHT WEIGHT QUALITY ! If you ever get a chance to look at it inside up close, take notice of the casting - Brilliant ! 

And in terms of being thirsty, well aint all tank engines. 

The V-2 might have seemed reliable to the Russians, but the Tank's which featured it didn't have too long a life expectancy either ! - plus spare parts weren't an issue for the Russians who had more than enough to go around.


----------



## davparlr (Nov 29, 2006)

Joe2 said:


> Man im shocked at that thing! its a deathtrap! Im suprised I couldnt find any instances of it falling over!!!!
> 
> good armour and gun though




My reference says that both the US Army Sherman and the IDF Sherman were 9 ft in height.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Nov 29, 2006)

Yes, a high silhouette is never good. Apparently, the T34 had a low silhouette because it had rear wheel drive. I also hear it was built in larger numbers than the Sherman in WW2, but I'm not so sure. 
A source Soren? - That'd be the book you recommended to me! (T34/76, with the cutaway on the front)

I have sseen the Maybach Soren. HL230, was unimpressed by the crankshaft (or was it conrods?) - forget why. Also heard it had no thermostat - that can't be right? The bearings were pointed out as too complicated. It's problem was that it was too time-consuming to make, your comments on the castings help this arguement, but I feel it was a bad design anyway. The older Maybachs I don't knoww, they were reliable enough and some were diesel, but lacking in power a little?

I am impressed with the forerunner to the HL230 though, the HL210 (but not as a tank engine):

Nice linky:

Tiger I Information Center - The Maybach Engine

- Any Yank should know the word 'Hemi' means?8) 

Pity there's nothing like that for the V-2. 

I suppose the Maybachs could use different fuels too, but maybe the Meteor was better? (Tried, tested and reliable)


----------



## Soren (Nov 30, 2006)

Judging from your comments Schwarz, you haven't seen the Maybach HL230 up close inside out. And abou the bearings, well they were about the sturdiest built during WWII.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Nov 30, 2006)

They are roller bearings, great for F1, not so good for a mass-produced, desperately needed engine.


----------



## Soren (Nov 30, 2006)

schwarzpanzer said:


> They are roller bearings, great for F1, not so good for a mass-produced, desperately needed engine.



If you mean they were time consuming to built, then yes I agree - one of the faults of German mindset, it just has to be perfect.


----------



## mkloby (Nov 30, 2006)

Soren said:


> If you mean they were time consuming to built, then yes I agree - one of the faults of German mindset, it just has to be perfect.



That mindset did much damage to the german war effort...


----------



## Soren (Dec 1, 2006)

Indeed it did.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 3, 2006)

Germans are known for over engineering everything. Sad but true...


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Dec 3, 2006)

A well-made, simple mechanism is ideal (Bulgarian AK47).

I suppose having a back-up system is good though (at the expense of weight).

German designs were simplified though in WW2, but were still too complicated.

If a system has merits (such as Henshel suspension's stability and protection), then fair enough I think.

Less is more (think Goering).

I find it weird that Chinese built Mauser C96's are the best though - a German design built in China really shouldn't work.

Also, to anyone who says Germans design ugly cars: Nissan 240Z.

- Glad that's off my chest.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Jan 17, 2007)

Oh Soren, there's a documentary on the rebuild of 2 Panther's (Ausf A D).

In it, it tells you just what a crap piece of design the Maybach was (For a tank engine). Also how it was built by saboteurs; untightened bolts, oil galleys compromised with drilling or being stuffed with cigarette filters, parts cut off then glued back on.

Have you seen it?


----------



## MacArther (Jan 18, 2007)

Ok, lets solve this engine debate right now......Which side won WWII? Your engine can be great, but if you still lose the war then what is the point? Not meaning to be biggoted or anything, just thought this ongoing arguement might need a resolution.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 19, 2007)

That's a pretty pathetic attempt to resolve the debate, Macarthur. Just because the Axis lost the war it doesn't mean all their tactics, industry, equipment and fighting strength was inferior. And you know that, or at least should.


----------



## Hunter368 (Jan 19, 2007)

plan_D said:


> That's a pretty pathetic attempt to resolve the debate, Macarthur. Just because the Axis lost the war it doesn't mean all their tactics, industry, equipment and fighting strength was inferior. And you know that, or at least should.



Yup. See every day even. The "Best team" does not win ever baseball, hockey, football, soccer game, best boxer, fighter does not win every fight. 

If they did we would have no need to play the match or watch the fight. 

As PlanD said its alot more than just saying "who won? thus they have the best ......"


----------



## MacArther (Jan 19, 2007)

Never said they had bad stuff, just said that if _everything_ *was* as good as some of my books say, then the war would have at least been a stalemate. Anyway, my purpose was to bring a resolution to an arguement that seemed ready to become more heated than neccessary. I meant no ill will, I mearly wished to resolve a dispute between two people on this site.



> Macarthur



Ya know, I spell my name wrong for a reason....I can't hope to be famous or important like the real macoy was.


----------



## Soren (Jan 20, 2007)

Schwarz, 

No I haven't seen it, but like you mentioned some Maybach engines were victim to sabotage. But this still doesn't change the fact that the engine design was excellent and the examples which hadn't been sabotaged performed well in the field - which was by far the majority. 

MacArther,

You'd need flawless equipment to win a 10 to 1 situation with which the Germans were faced - not only did your equipment have to be extremely effective in combat (which the German did manage to achieve), it also had to be extremely rugged and require much less maintenance than usual, about 10times less. And when a maintenance was to be made it had to be quick and easy to carry out- something which would be abit hard with the sophisticated and complicated German designs, and it was infact a nightmare.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jan 21, 2007)

Good thought. What the Germans needed to win was a tank that they could mass-produce easily in large numbers at their factories. What they got was tanks that were hard to mass-produce and over-engineered.


----------



## MacArther (Jan 23, 2007)

Soren, you're missing my point: I was trying to resolve what seemed to be a deep seated arguement between two people. I just didn't want tempers flairing or anything (yes, I *have* been told not to care so much for others by people in real life, not that I listen). As to the point about the great engineering, I find not many faults there. However, it's something akin to taking an early M16 into combat in trying conditions as opposed to a AK47. While one does the job great, it is still a handful to maintain. In contrast, the other gets the job done, and it keeps going no matter what happens (off topic, but I would still prefer the 7.62mm to the NATO 5.56mm). Anyway, both of you have valid points. The Germans made really good tanks for the era, and the Allies focused more on having more tanks to overwhelm the Germans.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jan 23, 2007)

The German equipment was great in range and power but hard to maintain in the field. The Allied equipment was not so great really in range and power but easier to maintain in the field. Therefore for an equal number of tanks, more Allied tanks would have been in the field at any one time.


----------

