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

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.

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??? .

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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.

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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

Click to expand...

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?

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

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

Juha

Click to expand...

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

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.


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.

Click to expand...

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.

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?

The russian 76,2mm gun for T-34-76 and KV-1 was rouhgly comparable with US 75mm, so not as good as KwK 40 when it comes down to the AP performance. Of course, all 3 guns did have about the same performance against soft targets (an often overlooked thing when we talk tanks).

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

The 85mm was about the same or slightly better for the AP work, and better against soft targets. 6kg vs. 9kg shell.


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

Yep, and it holds the truth for most of the military hardware.

Click to expand...

.

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

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

Juha

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......

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.

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

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

vikingBerserker said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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

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

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?