Tanks in Europe 1944/45

Thanks for the effort

The Sherman-76 despite being a good tank not compare favorably with the others late war top medium tanks (listed in my post 1).
its AT firepower, using standard APCBC ammos, is inferiour to british 17 pdrs tanks and Panther, it's around same of T-34 (with APBC)
its protection is inferior to T-34 and Panther (but to point the good protection of turret 3 sides)
its mobility is a of badest before of HVVS, after i don't think is superiour to T-34 or to Panther or to Comet

Something to consider when judging tanks is that some people claim that the 76mm armed Sherman can fire about twice as fast as the 17pdr version. While bouncing in-effective rounds twice as fast off a 75 ton Tiger doesn't buy much a fast follow up shot to a 1st round near miss may be quite useful against a MK IV or a Panthers flank.
Fire control in most of those tanks consisted of a good guess of the range followed by by seeing how far the first shot missed by.
Since most tank engagements were NOT one on one duels a formation of Sherman's could put out a rather larger volume of fire in a given amount of time than an equal sized formation of some other tanks.

maybe that the theoretical ROF of 76 Sherman was twice of 17 pdr Sherman but i've many doubt that max ROF had many utility, Sherman had 6 ready round? So can maybe give 20 RPM (or more realistically 15 or less) for the first 6 round after this the need to take ammo from the magazine go down the ROF. If the british continued the use of the Firefly it's easy think that in spite of everything was superiour to Sherman 76 (almost in the variant was offered to them, so M4A1?)

I am not saying the 76mm Sherman was better or even equal to the the Firefly, but it may have been closer than some people credit it with. There are a lot of things that go into the effectiveness of a tank. Armour penetration of the gun and thickness of the armor are only two, important ones but still only two.
And in the real world some perceived advantages turned out to be disadvantages and the other way around was also true. During the 1950s many "experts" derided the British and American tanks for being so tall and praised the Soviet tanks fro carrying almost the same gun yet presenting a much smaller target. Turned out the Soviet tanks had much less ammo capacity, Had much more trouble firing from hull down positions ( lower height was bought, to some extent, by lower depression for the main gun), a lower rate of fire and the gun, being closer to the ground kicked up more dust/debris obscuring the target and limiting the accuracy of second and third shots. It turned out you needed a larger number of soviet tanks to equal the same number of Western tanks which sort of canceled out their price advantage (another advantage in theory that didn't work so well in practice).

I had quite a good time at the US Army Armor Center Library and Armor Museum at Ft Knox each time I attended an NCO Development Course there. Twenty years in the US Cavalry. I also have 'quite a few' books on Armor. Some notes on the Sherman
ease of production, ease of shipping, mobility, reliability, Infantry Support and 75mm cannon for the HE round
Correct, the JUMBO was the breakthrough tank, to break through enemy forts and AT defenses. The lead tank to reach Bastogne was a Jumbo named Cobra King, a fairly new to service unit. Then fitted with the 75mm.




During March and April the JUMBOs in Pattons' 3rd Army got upgraded to 76mm gun. Cobra King also had a .50 cal HMG fitted coax instead of the .30 cal MG. Shortly after this refit, March 1945, Cobra King was the command vehicle for the Ill-Fated Raid on Hammelberg. It was damaged and abandoned, recovered by (edit) ??? when ???? and stored at Hammelberg....used as a "Gate Guard" display vehicle for years at Vilseck, pedigree unknown.





In 2008/2009 it was established that this was all the same tank, making it quite historic and it is getting a full restoration. It has been refitted with a 75mm weapon in it's Bastogne-era fitment.

By today's standards of gunnery, WW2 accuracy was poor. Often 2-3 shots to get a hit at 1000m, Hollywood movies be damned! Yes, 6 or there about ready rounds is not a lot, other rounds are not far away. And remember, the US and the Soviets greatly outnumbered the Germans. Fire and maneuver, the German tanks were vulnerable to flank shots as noted. Also, the German tanks did not like US Artillery or air power, no need to go rushing in once German tanks are spotted. The Sherman was adaptable, had the internal volume to support modifications and upgrades, not the case of the T34

good points Shortround!
The T-34 suffered heavily in Korea to US and Allied Forces. It WAS revolutionary in 1941, lacked many things including good optics, widespread use of radios, etc.
While powerful in the T34/85 version, still pretty crude and not very tough against 1943 and later AT technology

Shortround6 said:

I am not saying the 76mm Sherman was better or even equal to the the Firefly, but it may have been closer than some people credit it with.

Click to expand...

Full agree the Firefly is a modified Sherman, the VC was a modified M4A4 and this is inferior to the common M4A3 used to US Army for not talking of A3E8 with the HVVS.
With the exception of the 17 pdr, firepower, the Firefly is the badest of the list. imho M4A3E8 is all around superior.

That's a serious question!

Why do you think a Sherman could fire faster then a Panzer IV 7,5cm L48.
And isn't this very much pending on the crew skill?

I am not sure we mentioned the rate of fire of the MK IV tank.

Some depends on crew skill. Some depends on turret layout. Larger, heavier ammunition is more difficult to maneuver inside a tank turret. Tanks almost always had a lower rate of fire than the same gun in an anti-tank mount. Not only did the open mount give the loader a bit more room to work but often there was a second man ready to slap a fresh round into the "loaders" hands as soon as he had shoved the one he was holding into the gun, he didn't have to pull it from racks or under floor bins himself.
How much room is there behind the gun to line up the round? IS the loader ramming left handed or right handed? Is he ramming a 20lb cartridge 28in long or a 24-25lb cartridge 36in long(or longer). Where is the ammo in relation to the loader? even a few inches of extra reach can slow things down.

I haven't seen as much written on this about WW II tanks as I have about post war tanks. The T-54 was notoriously bad. Working conditions were such that some one once joked that when the Russians ran out of midget left handed weight lifters they were going to be in trouble getting loaders for the T-54. Part of it's low hight was bought at the cost of only having about 5'4"-5'6" of height from the floor of the tank/turret to the roof forcing anybody taller to try and load while stooped over.

Having loaded a late 80's M-1 Abrams tank w /105mm NATO, I can offer these insights.
BIG ROUND, fairly hefty too!!! (120mm later was more of both)
Ready rounds were in the turret bustle (the part that hangs out aft of the turret ring) behind a knee-operated sliding blast door. The side of the bustle behind the tank commander was semi-ready...handy to transfer to the ready side very quickly if needed. All projectiles face the rear. The Tank Commander (TC) orders which round to battle carry (the round in the tube) based upon the most likely threat. Whoever spots a threat (TEAMWORK!) announces Contact Tank/Personal Carrier/Truck/RPG-AT Team/Troops and direction, Commander usually head UP in the hatch slews the turret at fast rate toward the target while giving the fire command to the gunner and old school would include estimated range to set the super elevation....
goes like this assuming the round in the weapon is Sabot as tank contact is expected

Commander: Gunner, Sabot, Tank 1-2 hundred (1200m) Gunner sets the switches or old-school knobs to ensure the correct reticle is showing for the ammo about to be fired
Gunner: Identified! once the target is seen
meanwhile the Loader arms the weapon by moving the arming lever or has selected the proper ammo from the fire command and has loaded the proper ammo
Loader: UP! (weapon is armed) and REALLY ENSURES HE IS THE F@#K out of the way of the weapon elevation and recoil paths
Commander: Orders FIRE or on rare occasions announces FROM MY POSITION
Commander or gunner, whoever is pulling the trigger: calls ON THE WAY immediately beforehand to alert the Loader of impending peril as well as to let the driver know...can't distract the driver...
BOOM!
Inside the tank, movement noises, good-fitting Crew Vehicular Helmets (CVCs), not all that exciting noise-wise. Far more exciting is the main weapon recoil, some smoke, casing ejection noises.....but while this is going on, the LOADER has hit the knee switch, ready ammo door slides open, the next round has been released, pulled outward toward the front of the turret then the base dropped downward into the right palm and cradled with the left forearm towards the open breach. Once the warhead is in, a hefty shove is given, the round seats in the breach, the block closes automatically, the Gunner moves the safety lever to ARM, announces UP! all in semi darkness, vehicle probably moving forward or executing berm drill if in the defense. The Second round often left the tube 8 seconds or less after the first round (if needed), some of this time being for a fire command and/or getting the gun sights onto another target.

In WW2, a 1200m 1st round hit was highly improbable for a 75mm equipped Sherman. The 75 had moderate velocity, arced toward the target like a throw from the outfield to home plate. On the other hand, the higher velocity German rounds had a far flatter trajectory, more like the pitcher throwing his best fast ball toward the catcher. Less time for movement of the target and less atmospheric interference (cross winds, precipitation, etc)

Not sure on the RoF split between a PzKw IVH and the various Shermans. But as noted above, TRAINING is trump