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

[Soren]

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

 

[Kiwikid]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.