Fall 1942: the best medium tank on field

[Shortround6]

Ram Tank

The Canadians did a really remarkable job building this but since it is, for all practical purposes, an M3 Grant or early M4 from the break in the hull front down and all the way to the back of the tank, I am not seeing what the big advantage over the Sherman is.

Same engine, transmission, suspension/running gear. Driver swapped sides but that little turret instead of bow gun isn't a big deal. Side hatches were soon dropped from both Ram and Sherman. Basic difference in combat effectiveness is if you prefer the 75mm or the 6pdr.
While the Ram may very well be a better tank than what the British had in 1942 since it is more or less a right hand drive Sherman a lot of what applies to one applies to the other.

 

[Vincenzo]

the F2 can not had a 75/24 gun, the and F1 the F2 were used for differentiate the short gun and the long gun IV F.
my source Waffen Arsenal Special Band 33 page 29 and 33 report a production of 197 F2 and 437 F1 since april 1941, from march 1942 only F-2 were built. this in combination on numbers i posted in my earlier post give that the G built in '42 were around 700.

The Pz III can not accomodate the 75 long as i already writed in my post 15. the combination III/IV were not used for tanks productions only for self propelled artillery. Oh yes Pz IV G were not common in the fall '42.

 

[RCAFson]

Ram Tank

View attachment 266862

The Canadians did a really remarkable job building this but since it is, for all practical purposes, an M3 Grant or early M4 from the break in the hull front down and all the way to the back of the tank, I am not seeing what the big advantage over the Sherman is.

Same engine, transmission, suspension/running gear. Driver swapped sides but that little turret instead of bow gun isn't a big deal. Side hatches were soon dropped from both Ram and Sherman. Basic difference in combat effectiveness is if you prefer the 75mm or the 6pdr.
While the Ram may very well be a better tank than what the British had in 1942 since it is more or less a right hand drive Sherman a lot of what applies to one applies to the other.

It had thicker hull armour than the Sherman (80mm versus 50mm IIRC) and the 6pdr was a somewhat better AT gun than the 75mm.

 

[Shortround6]

Since the Shermans 75mm will penetrate most (all but about 100 or so MK IVGs with the added armor) German tanks at 1000yds or better in 1942 it is a little hard to see what advantage the 6pdr brings. Spring of 1943 with a larger percentage of up armored tanks yes,
6pdr doesn't have much for HE ( yes it was being produced in 1942) and 6pdr smoke shells don't exist.

Without a good armor breakdown of the Ram it is hard to say, Granted it is a bit shorter than the Sherman but it weighs almost the same so having thicker armor over large areas does't seem likely. A few small areas can certainly be a bit thicker. But with that MG turret the front end is an amazing collection of shot traps. I could be wrong but I would tend to figure the three piece transmission housing/lower hull is pretty much the same as a Grant/Sherman.

 

[davebender]

16 May 1942
Front armor increased to 80mm

June 1942.
Modified engine hatch to improve cooling.

Sep 1942.
Cold weather starting accessories become standard equipment.

Nov 1942.
Winter tracks introduced with ice cleats. To be employed only in cold weather (duh).

Panzer IVH was still a few months away with 10% lower production cost. However operational performance was little changed from Panzer IVG in production by December 1942.

 

[Vincenzo]

Since the Shermans 75mm will penetrate most (all but about 100 or so MK IVGs with the added armor) German tanks at 1000yds or better in 1942 it is a little hard to see what advantage the 6pdr brings.

actually for WWII Gun vrs Armour Calculator the 6 pdr with AP supercharge round has inferior capability vs Pz IV F that the 75/40 with AP (and is possible that americans had already some APCBC)

 

[RCAFson]

Since the Shermans 75mm will penetrate most (all but about 100 or so MK IVGs with the added armor) German tanks at 1000yds or better in 1942 it is a little hard to see what advantage the 6pdr brings. Spring of 1943 with a larger percentage of up armored tanks yes,
6pdr doesn't have much for HE ( yes it was being produced in 1942) and 6pdr smoke shells don't exist.

Without a good armor breakdown of the Ram it is hard to say, Granted it is a bit shorter than the Sherman but it weighs almost the same so having thicker armor over large areas does't seem likely. A few small areas can certainly be a bit thicker. But with that MG turret the front end is an amazing collection of shot traps. I could be wrong but I would tend to figure the three piece transmission housing/lower hull is pretty much the same as a Grant/Sherman.

Armour:
Ram II
Turret front 76mm sides 76mm

Hull front 87-76mm - 63mm sides

M4:

Turret: 76mm front, side 50mm

Hull: front 50mm, sides 38mm

So the Ram is somewhat better armoured. The 6pdr is much more accurate than the 75mm, having a flatter trajectory due to a much higher MV. It probably has a higher RoF. Because of the better penetration of the 6pdr it will have a much better chance of penetrating armour at oblique angles and the net result is a much better kill probability per shot than a Sherman as well having a higher probability of surviving return AP hits. The majority of Rams produced had the MG turret deleted.

 

[Shortround6]

Something isn't passing the smell test. The Ram was supposed to be about 1500lbs lighter than a M4A1 Sherman (cast hull) yet if you use the armor thickness you give on a 15 ft side 1 1/2 ft high (doubled) (area over the tracks?) and for hull front on top of transmission housing without changing the transmission housing and count the turret as 5 ft long and 2 feet high (doubled) the extra armor would weigh about 3000lbs.

Now I can under stand the Canadian track being a bit lighter than US track and a few other bits an pieces being a bit lighter but using the same same engine, drive-line, transmission, suspension doesn't leave much room for change there.

The thicknesses given may be true but something doesn't look right.

 

[RCAFson]

Something isn't passing the smell test. The Ram was supposed to be about 1500lbs lighter than a M4A1 Sherman (cast hull) yet if you use the armor thickness you give on a 15 ft side 1 1/2 ft high (doubled) (area over the tracks?) and for hull front on top of transmission housing without changing the transmission housing and count the turret as 5 ft long and 2 feet high (doubled) the extra armor would weigh about 3000lbs.

Now I can under stand the Canadian track being a bit lighter than US track and a few other bits an pieces being a bit lighter but using the same same engine, drive-line, transmission, suspension doesn't leave much room for change there.

The thicknesses given may be true but something doesn't look right.

AIUI the Ram hull is lower than the Sherman, and the turret is also lower and smaller. The difference in turret dimensions alone would account for much of the weight difference.

 

[davebender]

Perhaps. The devil is in the details.

Early model Sherman tanks had several significant chinks in the protection scheme which were fixed during 1944. Belton Cooper (Death Traps) covers the details.

T-34 typically had multiple chinks in armor due to poor production quality. These are covered in 1950 U.S. Army evaluation of T-34/85 captured in Korea.

Panzer IV chassis was so lightly constructed (i.e. 18 ton specification) that road wheels were vulnerable to AT rifles. Presumably they were also vulnerable to shrapnel from 105mm artillery fire.

 

[parsifal]

The PZ IVG I'm talking about is the earlier version with the 50+30 armor.
I did a simulation of 3 vs 3 tanks at about 480m for T-34/76 M'43 and the 4G takes it 4 times to 1. Then vs the T-34/76e M'42 and the 4G wins only 1 times to 4. Then vs the T-34/57 M'41 and the 4G wins 4 to 0 with one tie.

There are a couple of issues in relation to this.


firstly this is a combat match up at ideal ranges for the L48 weapon against the T-34. It would be interesting to see what happens at lesser and greater ranges, though I doubt at any range, the T-34 in a stand up fight would get the advantage. this was the MkIVs forte....winning firefights in non-mobile battles, or at best, where their mobility was not affected by poor weather or rough terrain. The problem is after the summer of 1942, this was a situation they seldom were given by the Soviets

Secondly, and following on from the above, I don't think there can be a serious contention that the T-34 was better than the G (much less a H or panther) in a combat situation, In a gunfight the Mk IV will generally win, but gun power is simply not the only issue. its a big issue, but I would say not even the dominant issue. This was because of the nature of combat the Soviets preferred, and from Stalingrad on (with the exception of Kursk and one or two other incidents) they increasingly dictated the terms of battle on the Eastern Front) After Kursk, once the Russians had won the initiative, they seldom bothered to stop and duke it out with the few German tanks that might be there to oppose their break throughs. There were reasons why the Soviets referred to their T-34s as a Breakthrough tank, and the dominant type of battle when on the offensive as the breakthrough, or exploitation battle. Basically flatten, or suppress a section of the front with artillery and airpower, Use a mixed force of tanks and Infantry to smash a hole through that sector. Heavy losses likely at this point as the germans will be able to use their firepower advantages to full effect. but once the breach is made, bring up reserves to firstly restore the integrity of the assault forces, which now switch to holding open the breach, and secondly, a second reserve force....the breakthrough groups, to push as far and as deep as they can, exploiting the phenomenal mobility and endurance that were the hallmark of Russian mechanised formations. Soviet T-34s, with their long range fuel tanks were a centrpiece of those formations and operations.

Once the breakthrough phase was reached, and put into effect, German losses would begin to mount. The majority of German tank losses on the eastern front were not directly combat related. the majority were things like "ran out of fuel; abandoned" or "broke down - destroyed by crew" . In battle, the Soviets sustained losses of around 7:1 in favour of the Germans, but overall the loss ratio was much closer to 2:1 which is a very favourable result for a technically inferior force on the attack. Manpower wise the Germans lost more men on the eastern front 1944-5 than the Soviets, and that was because of the types of battles they were forced to fight. The best example of this type of warfare is perhaps the destruction of Army Group Centre

So, if we look at the whole package, the question of which tank is supoerior become s much harder to determine. if we throw in unit costs, it becomes much more weighted in favour of the T-34.

 

[Shortround6]

AIUI the Ram hull is lower than the Sherman, and the turret is also lower and smaller. The difference in turret dimensions alone would account for much of the weight difference.

Cross section of Sherman (welded hull)

Given the same engine, drive shaft and transmission how much lower can you make the tank?

It its tough scaling off of people in photographs (is the guy next to the tank 5'4" or 6'2" ?) but the Ram doesn't appear that much smaller. Some sources say it was 3 in shorter than early Shermans to the top fixture on the turret roof (Periscope?)

Weights are for "combat" weights which may allow for some reduction in ammo weights.

BTW, found this site on the Ram tank, nice pictures. Ram Tank

 

[davebender]

Sherman chassis was rather small (length x width) for a 30 ton tank. That leaves no place to build but up.

Similar weight T-34 had a larger chassis. So did 23 ton Panzer IVG. That makes for a lower center of gravity which improves cross country performance, especially on hilly terrain.

 

[Mobius]

There are a couple of issues in relation to this.
its a big issue, but I would say not even the dominant issue. This was because of the nature of combat the Soviets preferred, and from Stalingrad on (with the exception of Kursk and one or two other incidents) they increasingly dictated the terms of battle on the Eastern Front) After Kursk, once the Russians had won the initiative, they seldom bothered to stop and duke it out with the few German tanks that might be there to oppose their break throughs. There were reasons why the Soviets referred to their T-34s as a Breakthrough tank, and the dominant type of battle when on the offensive as the breakthrough, or exploitation battle. Basically flatten, or suppress a section of the front with artillery and airpower, Use a mixed force of tanks and Infantry to smash a hole through that sector. Heavy losses likely at this point as the germans will be able to use their firepower advantages to full effect. but once the breach is made, bring up reserves to firstly restore the integrity of the assault forces, which now switch to holding open the breach, and secondly, a second reserve force....the breakthrough groups, to push as far and as deep as they can, exploiting the phenomenal mobility and endurance that were the hallmark of Russian mechanised formations. Soviet T-34s, with their long range fuel tanks were a centrpiece of those formations and operations.

And that centerpiece was checked by the Germans using tank firefighting groups to hold the Russian breakthroughs until their lines reformed.
No one is going to compare tanks because one side won a war of attrition. If that then you could throw 'is the tank is better' because of Lend-Lease or the Japanese didn't attack Siberia. Because the war could of gone the other way.

 

[Mobius]

There are a couple of issues in relation to this.
its a big issue, but I would say not even the dominant issue. This was because of the nature of combat the Soviets preferred, and from Stalingrad on (with the exception of Kursk and one or two other incidents) they increasingly dictated the terms of battle on the Eastern Front) After Kursk, once the Russians had won the initiative, they seldom bothered to stop and duke it out with the few German tanks that might be there to oppose their break throughs. There were reasons why the Soviets referred to their T-34s as a Breakthrough tank, and the dominant type of battle when on the offensive as the breakthrough, or exploitation battle. Basically flatten, or suppress a section of the front with artillery and airpower, Use a mixed force of tanks and Infantry to smash a hole through that sector. Heavy losses likely at this point as the germans will be able to use their firepower advantages to full effect. but once the breach is made, bring up reserves to firstly restore the integrity of the assault forces, which now switch to holding open the breach, and secondly, a second reserve force....the breakthrough groups, to push as far and as deep as they can, exploiting the phenomenal mobility and endurance that were the hallmark of Russian mechanised formations. Soviet T-34s, with their long range fuel tanks were a centrpiece of those formations and operations.

And that centerpiece was checked by the Germans using tank firefighting groups to hold the Russian breakthroughs until their lines reformed.
No one is going to compare tanks because one side won a war of attrition. If that then you could throw 'is the tank is better' because of Lend-Lease or the Japanese didn't attack Siberia. Because the war could of gone the other way.

 

[Glider]

If we are talking about the best tank then the Pz IVG would be the winner as one for one it was the best. However if we are talking about the PzIVF2 then I stick with the T34/76. The Sherman is a good tank but compared to the T34 its a lot bigger, doesn't have the same cross country performance, has a very inflammable engine and I prefer the sloped armour of the T34. The Sherman has advantages for sure but overall I stay with the T34.

 

[Mobius]

If we are talking about the best tank then the Pz IVG would be the winner as one for one it was the best. However if we are talking about the PzIVF2 then I stick with the T34/76. The Sherman is a good tank but compared to the T34 its a lot bigger, doesn't have the same cross country performance, has a very inflammable engine and I prefer the sloped armour of the T34. The Sherman has advantages for sure but overall I stay with the T34.

You are right. I forgot the exploding fuel tanks of the T-34.
Archive Awareness : Gas Tanks, Fires, and Explosions

 

[Glider]

A good piece but notice that ALL the examples of exploding T34 fuel tanks were when the tank was hit from the side and that a number of the countermeasures were easily put in place. A Sherman was almost guaranteed to explode whenever hit.

 

[Vincenzo]

glider i don't understand because G is good and the F-2 no
the difference of early G and the F-2 were the name

 

[parsifal]

glider i don't understand because G is good and the F-2 no
the difference of early G and the F-2 were the name

Not in every case. A number of F2s were ditted with the older 75mm gun the same as that used by the F1 series. But for the L48 equipped version, probably no significant difference as you say