Could their front armor (80mm) withstand a Sherman 75mm/ T-34-76 short round and a Bazooka round or was the 30mm upgrade largely a waste? " The Allies had also been developing lethality improvement programs of their own; the widely-used American-designed M4 Sherman medium tank, while mechanically reliable, suffered from thin armor and an inadequate gun.[87] Against earlier-model Panzer IVs it could hold its own, but with its 75 mm M3 gun, was almost helpless in the face of the late-model Panzer IV, as well as the Panther and Tiger tanks, unable to penetrate their frontal armor at virtually any range.[88] The 80-millimetre (3.15 in) frontal hull armor could easily withstand hits from the 75-millimetre (2.95 in) weapon on the Sherman at normal combat ranges, though the turret remained vulnerable" Because I've never actually read an account of US Sherman 75mm having problems punching through the Panzer IV's front armor.
Well the max that a Bazooka could penetrate was about 80mm so it could really go either way there depending on the distance and angle of imapct. The T34/76 F34 gun could penetrate 80mm of 55ยบ slopped armor at about 300 meters. So that would far better against the Panzer IV, but no to that effective of an extent. The Sherman's 75mm gun I can't recall exactly, I will have to look it up. The Shermans equipped with the 76mm gun would have no problem however. They could penetrate up to 116mm of armor at 500 meters.
The often quoted bit is that "the Sherman 75mm could stand on their own against the Panzer IV in a frontal fight, but they couldn't deal with the Panther". But if the front armor (sans turret) on the Panzer IV was impenetrable at most combat ranges, then the Panzer IV should be a near equal opponent in these types of engagement (since the Normandy armor fighting took place in closer range).
The Shermans 75mm should statistically be able to penetrate or at least cause spalling at 500 yards, not great but the 8cm thick hull would put up quite a bit of resistance to the medium velocity 75mm guns, but at least it was plausable in North West Europe where battle ranges tended to be under 1 km. Main thing was the turret offered essentially no worthwile protection and at least was vulnerable at regular battle ranges. Only other variables to consider was armor quality (given the decline in German armor) and whether the 8cm thick hull was Face Hardened or not. In regards to the face hardned part I lean towards it not having been though I have seen it recored in a number of places that the glacis was indeed FH in at least the H variant. The reason FHA is improtant is because APCBC shells tended to do better against FHA than RHA by about a whole cetimeter, and that would make a fairly big difference.
Well yes I understand your point (I think). Are you saying that at close ranges the Panzer IV vs. Sherman 75 is the same as Panther vs. Sherman 75 because the Sherman couldn't penetrate the Panzer IV's with 80mm of hull armor? My response to that is...at close ranges and especially in hedgerows fighting, which tank wins or loses in a battle is more heavily based on strategy and a bit of luck than how "good" a tank actually is. By that I mean, if a sherman comes around a corner and is pointed right at the side of a Panther about 200 meters away, the Sherman will win and visa versa. So in a way, what you are saying is correct. But I cannot really say that the Panzer IV is the same as a Panther even at close ranges. The Panther's armor is much more slopped, making it easier to rounds to bounce off. Also the Panther's gun is so much more powerful than the Panzer IV's and when you start to increase ranges, that is going to have a huge affect.
I'm not saying that they are equal- I'm saying that the Panther was only slightly better in head to head contact with a Sherman 75mm in close or medium range if indeed the Panzer IV's front armor could take 75mm short hits. Also, I do not believe that the Panther's super long 75mm had much more HE capability than the Panzer IV long 75mm.
Ok, agreed True, but it was far superior in terms of AP rounds. But, since HE was the most common round used in combat and we are talking about close ranges, the Pzr IV and Panther guns would be equally powerfull against Shermans. An interesting observation you have made.
I think AP rounds were used against enemy tanks anyway (comprising maybe 1/3rd of the load). But for all extents and purposes, the Panther's main gun was overkill against the Sherman in medium/close range and the 75mm long on the Panzer IV seems to have been good enough for the job. If the Panzer's IV's 80mm front armor was indeed reliable against the Sherman 75mm, then the Panther's increased combat value in most normal combat ranges in Normandy may have been only marginal. (turret front being proof against 75mm)
The Panther D would carry around 79 rounds of ammunition. That typically comprised of 40 Panzergranate 39/42 (APC) rounds and 39 Sprenggranaten 42 (HE) rounds The Panther G would carry the same ratio, typically carrying about 82 rounds. The Panther would occasionally carry the potent Pzgr. 40/42 round (AP) with a subcaliber tungsten carbide core, but production was halted because of a shortage of Tungsten. However, this seems like a rather unusual ratio of HE to AP. If you look at the T-34/76 for instance. The T-34/76 carries about 100 rounds of ammo. That usually comprised of 75 OF-250 HE-Frag rounds and 25 BR-350A APHE rounds. Also, based on operational research during the war, the normal firing range for the Panther in combat was about 850m, while engagements at 1,400 to 1,750 occurred only 5 percent of the time. This average was probably slightly lower during the Normandy fighting, but I can only speculate.
The 75mm M3 on a Sherman penetrates about 89mm at 300 yds, give or take a bit. The frontal armor on a Pz IV H/J is only 80mm on the lower front hull and vertical front glacis. The sloped armor between the lower hull and this glacis is still just 30mm thick (the plate with the access hatches in it). The turret face is only 55mm thick. There is a substancial amount of weaker area in the upper 80mm plate too as it contains the driver's vision port and a ball mount for the hull mg. The use of face hardened armor is also a problem here as even a partial penetration will generally crack the armor and cause considerable spalling off the inside surface. Thus, even from the front the Pz IV was relatively vulnerable to the 75mm gun of a Sherman. The turret could be penetrated to well past 1000 yds. The glacis between the 80mm plates to well over that. The upper plate likely would crack under an impact at up to 500 to 700 yards even if the round failed to fully penetrate. The lower front hull was unlikely to be hit. The side and rear of a Pz IV, much like that of the Panther was highly vulnerable (and moreso than that of the Sherman) to hits; both vehicles having thin side and rear armor.
True that. And FH armour was weaker against American rounds than standard armour because the Americans used caped AP shots which proved highly effective vs face hardened armour. The main problem of the Panzer IV was, as mentioned, the turret and the large ammount of weak spots on the hull itself. In a direct confrontation I'd say the guy who shoots first wins. Cheers...
aha that is what I was missing, I was just basing my opinion off of wolfy's assumption that it couldn't penetrate the Pzr IVs front armor. However, if those numbers are true then yes the Panther is a much fiercer opponent than a Pzr IV even at close ranges. Yes at close ranges only the Pzr IVs gun was overkill for the Sherman but the armor differences between the two makes the Panther much more fearsome. Especially if you consider that the 80mm front hull armor of the Panther sloped at 55 degrees is the equvilent of about 142mm of verticle armor.
The only problem is I dont believe the 8cm thick plates on the Mark IV H's were Face Hardened, and for sure the J series was not as all FH armor was dropped to decrease production time. 8cm FH plate was evaluated to be not worth the effort by the Germans. Now the G series with its 50mm FH plate with a 30mm FH plate on top may have been more suseptible, but I dont believe the 8cm plate used on late G variants and H variants were Face Hardened. However I have read in a few places the 8cm armor on the H series was in fact Face Hardened, but I tend to lean towards it not being given the fact the Germans seemed to have come to the conclusion 8cm FH plate wasnt worth the effort. Still I am open to being convinced in the other direction. Good point I had not thought of that. In fact I would also highlight the entire bottom of the plate as being more vulnerable since welds tended to be weak spots and it was only a weld holding the front plate to the lower hull section. I agree there probably was a big difference between what the 8cm thick hull should have statistically done compared to what it could do, much like the 51mm thick glacis versions of the Sherman which should have stood up better to German rounds but was let down by all the welds which acted as weak points.
The upper portion of the hull (above the tracks) and the lower portion are not welded together. Instead the upper hull is BOLTED to the lower section. There is no actual fasteners or welding between the 80 mm vertical hull plate with the driver's vision port and hull machinegun mount and the 30mm plate of the hull below it.
Interesting. The reason I mention it is because I have seen quite a number of pictures of the Mark IVs superstructure seeming to have been broken off from the hull, particularily at the are in which the 8cm plate connects with the 3cm thick sloped plate of the hull. ie. You can see the split between the 8cm and 3cm plate. Makes me wonder if it was also a weak spot though the blown open side could show the tank had a nasty internal explosion that did the damage. Still have seen picture in Normandy that show the same thing.
