Sherman´s engine dangerous?

well the poles called them the burning grave

 

Proving what? the Sherman had many negative nicknames, none of which detrach from the fact that it was basically a sound tank and was a match for the Mk IV and StuG III/IV, which made up about 2/3 of the German armor in 1944-45, and was the equal of the T34. It was not as good a tank killer or as well protected as the Panther or Tigers, no question. The Sherman never enjoyed a period when it outclassed everything else the way the T34 (1941-42), Tigers or Panther (1943-45) did. It also appeared on the field at the time the Germans fielded superb infantry anti-tank weapons. The Sherman was just adequate for 1944-45 and did not meet the promise of the US Army to provide it's soldiers with the best weapons possible. But there were enough of them in the hands of brave men that it was able to plod onto victory.

 

If I remember rightly, Danyel & KBO had a similar argument over the Sheman 76 & Panther, which concluded that the 76mm could & did kill Panthers.

canambridge puts the argument better than I can...

 

Yeah we know, the Sherman could kill Panther's and Tigers...and why not?
It was a decent tank could get upgraded somewhat but wasn't as good (in fire power and protection) as the German heavy's and Mediums.....but on the other hand the Sherman was built in very high numbers and very important was available!

 

Really ? Are you over 80 years old ?

Exactly ! And the U.S. had concluded in tests against their own test-plates that the 76mm M1A1-2 would penetrate the Tiger-I's armor out to 500y, but when it faced it in reality all this went right out the window ! The U.S. 76mm gun's projectiles would simply shatter against the Tiger's armor, even at point blank !

The projectules fired from the 76mm gun were simply to soft.

Your very wrong about that Canambridge.

First of the Germans required atleast 66% of the projectiles to pass "completely" through a 275-300BHN test-plate, while the U.S. required only 50% of the projectiles to pass "partly" through a 240BHN test-plate.

And if only 33% of the fired projectiles went through, then they would simply scale down the armor thickness one millimeter at the time until the requirements for penetration were met !

No they didnt ! And do you know why... cause its IMPOSSIBLE !

There is no way a gun that will only penetrate 124mm of 240BHN VERTICAL armor at 100y will penetrate a 80mm ~450BHN plate slanted 55 degree's ! ITS SIMPLY IMPOSSIBLE !

Even the U.S. 90mm M3 would only penetrate the Panthers front glacis at max 300m ! Only when late-war "High-Hardness-blunt-nosed" projectiles were developed was the 90mm M3 able to penetrate the Panthers glacis out to 800m. (Sadly though these rounds never reached the front in time) But the 90mm M3 was also very much more powerful than the 76mm M1A1-2 !

Im not trying to say the Panther was invulnerable to the U.S. 76mm gun, but its Glacis plate sure was ! From the side and back the U.S. 76mm gun could easely penetrate, but never the front glacis plate !

KBO

 

I don't know whether the 76mm would penetrate the Pather front glacis plate however I do know this; 450bn is far too hard to make optimum armor plate. Plate that hard is brittle. 260-300bn is the best hardness for WW II era armor..below that is too soft and above that is too brittle.

 

FH armor was between 500-550BHN and was very effective against USSR projectiles, as it brought on the shattering effect. The BHN value has almost nothing to do with the armors quality, for that we'll have to look at the molecular structure.

However your right about 265-300BHN being the best value for optimum overall armor effectiveness.

KBO

 

KBO

Why don't you read the post before firing back.

I didn't say I was involved with those (armor penetration) tests, I have been involved with MANY engineering tests and I know how tests are conducted and that they are do not always reflect reality.

As to I am "very wrong", I find this remark as mis-guided and almost as insolent as the first. You simply make the point for me, 67% is more than 50%, by the way not all sources agree on the 67% mark, but it is even more conservative than the 50% mark, that is more than 50%, but less than 67%, of the projectiles could penetrate and the armor and the test results would show "no penetration". I went with 50% becuse it was more conservative. Oh an d note that not all projectiles shatter all the time. All and impossible are not terms to use lightly.

This hardly desreves a reply. All US gunners are liars because you, in your wisdom, have determined that what they did was IMPOSSIBLE!
Yes they did it! And many of them wrote of it. I'll let you tell them all that what they accomplished is IMPOSSIBLE! While you're at it, learn some manners.

Another aspect you overlook it that battles are not fought on billard tables. Not all projectiles hit flat and square. The relative angle between the projectile and glacis plate was not always 55 deg. Differences in orientation between the gun tube and glacis could actually REDUCE the angle, improving the possibilty of penetration.

I'm not trying to say that the Panthers glacis plate was easily or even often penetrated by 76mm guns, but I'm sure it was done and was not IMPOSSIBLE!

 

Canambridge didnt you notice the " "

Canambridge physics don't lie ! And why don't you quote those U.S. tankers statements then ?

What did i say that was unmannerly ?

Canambridge only if the Sherman is on VERY high ground or the Panther parking on a VERY steep hill can it reduce the angle ! All else will just increase the angles and make penetration even harder.

99.9% of the time it was impossible Canambridge, and it was only possible under VERY VERY rare circumstances where angles were reduced.

KBO

 

KBO you're the one making ridiculous claims about the IMPOSSIBLE. Don't go spouting physics at me, I have some slight knowledge. Why don't you prove no Panther glacis was ever penetrated by a 76mm gun. Try reading any of the mulitude of books describing the war from the allied side, the are many accounts of Panthers being knocked out from the front, some have pictures, although I'm sure you'll find them faked.

"you are very wrong" and "IMPOSSIBLE" are not the indications of manners and the tone of your posts is obvious, smiley faces don't allow you run over people, and can even be sarcastic. You do not like to admit the possibility that you could actually be mistaken about anything, especially if it makes any of your cherised German vehicles look less than perfect.

It acutally only takes a differnece of 25 degrees or more between the gun barrel (actually projectile, but at the ranges required it would pretty much be a straight line) and the glacis to reduce to the incident angle to less than 30 degrees, a Panther entering a hole for example. Altitude doesn't need to play a part at all. If the Panther is climbing relative to the Sherman the lower hull and lower glacis is exposed, which yes does increase the angle relative to the upper glaics, but actually makes a kill easier since the shot would likely hit the lower hull or glacis.

I doubt it was IMPOSSIBLE 99.9% of the time and was likely only rare, not VERY VERY rare, but trying to have a opinion which doesn't match yours is like trying to penetrate a Panther glacis with a 76mm gun, it's IMPOSSIBLE!

 

No Canambridge your the one making the claims here, and if your knowledged about physics then you know that.

Canambridge most of the books I've read are from the Allied point of view but that doesnt change reality. And how about you actually show me some quotes from these Allied tankers ?

Im being unmannerly ? Look at what you just wrote ! Your the one being aggressive here!

Trying to characterize another member after ones own imagination aint mannerly behavior Canambridge ! (Now I don't remember talking fowly about you in any way !)

Yes it takes 25 degree's exactly to reduce it to 30 degree's, and the target must also be dead on or you'll have a horizontal angle aswell.

I was making an example Canambridge, and it was pretty obvious.

And how big a "hole" would this be ? :lol: No seriusly what do you think the chances of running into a panther climbing a "Crater" is ?

So by your logic "nothing is impossible", although we both know that isnt the case.

Now why don't you show me those quotes or references supporting your claim ?

KBO

 

KBO you confuse metallugry with physics, you'd be amazed at what physics permits in the universe. "IMPOSSIBLE", "99.9%", and "VERY VERY rare" are outrageous claims and it's up to you to prove it, not me. You cannot possibly have all knowledge of all cases in which 76mm shells hit the front glacis plate of a Panther. The test results you have quoted as physics do not even preclude the possibilty of penetration, they do point out the low probability. The test results do not address all possible battle condotions. Repeated hits in the same area, differing quality of armor and sheels, not all shells were equally prone to shatter. All these and a multitude of other factors can affect the test ground results. For first hand accounts the most recent I've read re Harry Yeide's books on the US GHQ tank battalions, "Steel Victory" and the Tank Destroyer Force, I know they didn't use Shermans, but they did use 76mm guns, "The Tank Killers". There are others, you can look them up yourself, but I doubt anything will allow you to accept the possibility that a 76mm gun ever penetrated a Panther's front glacis.
Shell holes, uneven ground, collapsed road surfaces (we had one here in Montreal that ate a dump truck without aid of explosives) rubble and the like were actually quite common on battlefields and would affect the relative attitudes of vehicles to one another. It's really not that hard to come up with combinations that would alter the relative angles quite a bit. I think the odds of a Panther entering a shell hole quite good on a battle field.

As for me being aggressive, don't pick a fight, expect people not to react and then act as the innocent party.

Why don't you call it quits, I'm not going to change your mind and you're not going to change mine.

 

*Moderators hat on head*

Guys, please less of the personal stuff.

KBO, calm down. When somebody challenges your view (or your facts), you counter their facts, rather than discrediting them/their facts.
Canambridge, don't rise to it.

Other than that, a nice debate. I was unaware of how the tests decided penetration abilities...

 

So what are you suggesting, that we "Make up" how good the guns were ? or that we rely on the presently available facts ? (Im for the last one)

Thats all fine, now can you quote it please ? ("Steel victory" is a good book btw, but nothing is mentioned about a Panther glacis being pierced !)

Canambridge were comparing tanks here, so lets suppose their on relatively equal terms. In a 'straight on attack' on a field for example, the U.S. 76mm gun would never penetrate the Panthers glacis as the gun simply doesnt have the power.

As for the masses of BIG craters, well thats not how the usual WW2 battlefield looked like Canambridge, and if a crater WAS there the tank would most likely avoid it.

I didnt pick a fight Canambridge, and I honestly don't know why your so hyped up over all this.

This has nothing to do with our opinions Canambridge, this is a debate about reality, so lets stick to it.

Canambridge I suggest you read the book "WWII Ballistics Armor and gunnery" by Lorrin Rexford Bird & Robert Livingstone, as it will make you realize just how far out your claim is.

I am Ricky, I seriusly am.

Except nobody has brought forward any facts to counter the ones I brought up.

KBO

 

First you claim that BHN has almost nothing to do with armor quality, then you state that 265-300 BHN was best for overall armor effectiveness(quality?). Rather contradictory wouldn't you say?

The shatter gap was not much of a problem when the Allies switched to capped projectiles. In fact FH armor performs worse than non-FH armor when attacked with capped projectiles.

And here he mentions the Panther glacis in particular:

 

No not at all, you just don't understand thats all

A 500-550BHN plate can be just as effective as a 265-300BHN plate Grieg, even better ! But if both plates are of maximum quality, a 265-300BHN plate will normally resist multiple hits better.

Another important factor to remember in armor effectiveness is the quality difference between CA and RHA.

Ha ha, thats a joke Grieg, I already showed you the Britsih tests. A 470BHN projectile, capped or not, will not be very effective against even FH armor. (And especially not when sloped)

Btw there were also Panthers with non-FH glacis plates, infact there were more of those than the opposite.

Note the marked. In any case Livingstone might be right in the 10% drop in effectiveness of the armor, on LATE-WAR Panthers, and it is actually this remark that you just posted that Livingston has been critized most for, as he believes ALOT of Panthers had bad armor when there isnt really any proof of that. In any case a 470BHN projectile will reduce penetration efficiently enough for the above to have absolutely no effect.

German projectile nose hardness advantage over U.S. APCBC, 61 to 54.5 Rockwell C Hardness, also assured that German hits were outside "shatter gap" region.
During U.S. tests with 76mm APCBC, hits that over penetrated armor resistance by 5% to 25% would FAIL due to shatter when results exceeded certain velocity and armor thickness figures. It turns out that low nose hardness results in excessive energy absorption when round over penetrates armor, and nose may crack and break-up. -Robert Livingston

And from Miles Krogfus' AFV News article:

British tests against homogeneous armor at 610 m/s impact velocity:

102mm penetration for German 75mm APCBC
90mm penetration for U.S. 76mm APCBC
75mm penetration for Russian 76mm APBC

U.S. penetration tests for Sherman 75mm indicate 89mm penetration at 610 m/s.

And read this one very carefully:

Prior to Normandy, the Americans calculated that their 76mm gun would be sufficient to stop Panthers and Tigers, since the 100mm frontal armor on those panzers could theoretically be penetrated to 1250m by M10's and 76mm armed Shermans. Shatter gap may be responsible, in part, for the sorry showing of those guns in France against heavy German armor. - Robert Livingston

And this one:

The Panther mantlet is a 100mm thick casting which theoreticly would resist 76mm hits like 95mm of rolled armor. While 76mm APCBC would be expected to penetrate 95mm at 1600m, actual U.S. tests suggested that 300 yards was the true range. - Lorrin Rexford

And there's alot more where that came from !

Fact is that the soft U.S. projectiles introduced Shatter-Gap wich significantly decreased the effectiveness of U.S. 76mm APCBC against Tigers, Panthers and most other German vehicles with armor thickness above 70mm.

KBO

 

Ricky I'm trying to not ot rise to it, but sometimes you have no choice. I tried to call a truce but that was also ignored.

This type of snide remark is unnecessary. I have made up no facts (I'm really rather sensitive about implications that I'am a liar; I do make mistakes and try to acknolwedge and correct them). I am trying to temper your belief that testing answers all questions. Testing is only one of the "facts" that needs to be considered when assessing things.

Actually we weren't comparing tanks. Somehow thsi started with Shreman tank engines catching fire and turned into an invulnerable Panther glacis debate. "Never" is so final. What can I say, I disagree.

I've reread my posts and can't see where I said anything about masses of BIG craters. There were sufficient numbers of battlefields strewn with rubble of all types that it would have been far from uncommon for tanks to be on uneven ground. The visibility from a buttoned up tank was terrible. How can you make statements like "... the tank would most likely avoid it." Again, I disagree.

And you can't understand why people get upset with your posts? It must be nice to have a monopoly on all the facts and be able to dismiss any dissenting opinion with such finality.

You really make it hard to remain calm. I guess that says it, all doesn't it. Hope to see in you reality someday!

 

I go away for one week and what do I find?

This is a debate. There appear to be some rules about that, I'm sure I read that somewhere. It might have been around the Tanks Section Guidelines.

Both. Stop jabbing at each others' personalities; remarks about people's debating techniques or assumed capabilities and defects have absolutely nothing to do with the case in point. Present facts to make your point; if you are proven wrong you have no choice but to withdraw and reconsider your sources (or find new ones). The very moment that people have to start making personal remarks to sustain their argument the debate becomes useless.

Please, you both have a clear standpoint, make a case for it. What you are doing now leads nowhere.

 

Okay Roel, peace.

KBO let's try to address what I believe to be the basic misunderstanding here. I have never said a US 76mm gun could penetrate 80mm of German armor at 55 deg. What I said was that the US 76mm gun penetrated the front glacis plate of the Panther. I think the real bone of contention is the 55 deg.

I think the Panther was the best all around tank of the war and the 75mm/L70 was the best tank gun of the war, all things considered (such as sighting, rate of fire, ease of use, etc.). I know there were bigger guns with better anti-armor stats. I know the length of the barrel was a problem. I know there were problems with the rapid wear rate of the gun tube. I just think it was the best gun, especially in an anti-tank role, on any tank of the war. I also know the front armor of the Panther was thick (80mm) and well sloped (55 degrees) and of good quality.

The Sherman by 1944 was at best adequate. The armor was incapable of withstanding any current German AT weapon. The 75mm gun was a poor anti-tank weapon. The 76mm gun was a better AT gun, but it was by no means capable of taking on the Panthers and Tigers on anything like equal terms from the front. In short, it was a dissapppointment to the US Army, partly because the initial tests which gave great hope were flawed. Only side or rear shots gave any real hope of success for either gun, and the shorter the range the better. Fortuantley the Sherman was capable of dealing wth the MkIV and Stug III, which made up about 2/3 of German AFVs in 1944, on roughly equal terms and the Panthers (and the rare Tigers and others) could be overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of the Shermans, albeit at heavy cost.

Having said all that, the US 76mm gun was capable of penetrating 80mm of German armor, the thickness of the glacis plate of the Panther. Some unusual circumstances may have had to line up before the 76 could get through the glacis, but it happened. At a realtive angle of 55 degrees, it may well have been impossible. Change the relative angle of the shell to armor and you increase the probability of the shell penetrating. Comabt was not conducted on flat ground at all times. This is my basic point, the US 76mm gun could penetrate 80mm of German armor. I think KBO and me actually agree on this, if I look a previous post of his:

I believe the Panther's gun mantlet was 100mm thick and used the same steel as the glacis. KBO, I apologize in advance if I have misquoted you or if I am incorrect about the Panther's gun mantlet armor thickness.

The hotly debated ballistics tests required that more than 50% (maybe 67% for the Germans) of projectiles to pass through a test plate (the full projectile for the Germans and British, a "significant portion as a free missile" for the USA), usually with the test plate inclined at an angle of 30 degrees from the vertical. A greater incline quickly improves the anti-penetration qualities of the armor. The 55 deg of the Panther glacis more than doubles the effeciviness of the armor beyond the base 80mm. Decrease the angle to less than 30 degrees and the probability of penetration goes up accordingly. At a vertical angle (0 deg) the projectile would only have to deal with 80mm. You can also read the inverse into the test results, that is, something less than 50% of the projectiles could have penetrated the test specimens, or even more than 50%, but not intact or as a "significant protion".
Also, I have not been able to find any test results on the effects of repeated hits in the same area, maybe the book KBO referenced addresses this. It sounds like the tests used a new plate, or at least an untouched area, for each firing, which is actually what I would expect. In any case, repeated hits in the same area could also have the potential of reducing the effectiveness of the armor, possibily even to the point of allowing penetration. As far as I can recall, every account I have read claiming a frontal penetration of the Panther, also spoke of repeatedly hitting it before knocking out the tank. The quality of the armor used in the test versus that on the actual Panthers also has to enter into it. German quality was good, but late in the war problems with material and slave labor sometimes had a negative effect. If this affected a full mill run, a large number of Panthers would have felt the effects. The armor hardness is something of a red herring I think, because as has been noted, a higher hardness actually makes the armor more brittle. Maybe a good thing in the East, not helpful, maybe a disadvantage, in the West.
Tests are frequently conducted for comparison purposes, as I believe was the case here, and do not need to reflect the "real" world to allow for valid comparison. Test results are always open to analysis and interpretation, and this is where opinion comes in.

As for quotes, I thumbed through Steel Victory quickly and found the following:
Yeide referecences Steven Zalogda in saying: "the Sherman's 75mm gun... could not penetrate the glacis of the Panther (Mark V) or Tiger (Mark VI) from any range". I believe if you trace this back to the source you end up with the above mentioned tests. Of the 76mm gun he says, with the introduction of HVAP rounds the Sherman "finally gained the ability to kill Panthers and Tigers from the front at typical combat distances." From the after action reportrs he liberally qoutes, I could only find two references, both ambiguous, about frontal penetrations of Panthers (one actually only says a "German heavy"), although the reports abound with claims of Panther (and Tiger!) kill claims, the means are not usually stated. It also abounds with accounts of shells bouncing off with no effect. I have another dozen books, but I'm not going to spend much time looking, as I don't actually put much faith in "eye witness" accounts If I did, I'd have to conclude that every German tank in NWE in 1944-45 was a Tiger and every German gun was an 88! I do recall a photo showing a Panther holed from the front by a 3" (76mm) gun. It also shows a number of "scuff" marks from hits that bounced off. The problem is, this from memory and I can't seem to remember where I saw it. If I come across something I'll post it.

In summary, a combination of circumstances, perhaps rare, unusual or lucky, were required for a US 76mm gun to penetrate the front glacis of a Panther, but it was not impossible, in fact I think it was done a number of times.

Oh, and by the way, the Sherman's engine was not prone to fires.[/i]

Edit: damn typos and spelling, I still didn't get them all. Excuse the ham fisted and spelling impared keyboard operator.

 

This is a quote given by Danyel Phelps a long time ago when we were debating Panther vs. late Sherman.

“Standing in the turret, of D-31, parked behind the stone wall, Jim Vance recalled “All at once I observed an infantryman running toward my tank. He jumped up on my tank and told me that 4 German tanks were coming up over the hill to our left front. I alerted the driver to start the engine and I traversed the turret to the left so I could take the tanks under fire as soon as they came in view”. As the Panthers approached across a rising snow covered slope and reached its crest the Americans opened fire and Erich Heller’s panzergrenadiers jumped from the tank decks, seeking cover in a nearby ditch. The gunfire was coming from the Sherman of Corporal Vance, hidden behind the church wall. Vance standing in the turret recalled “Shortly I observed the 4 German tanks coming across the hill with their flank to my position.”

Without Lieutenant Myers, who was at this moment was attending the officer’s meeting, to call down firing directions, gunner Vance was on his own. Firing his shell found the mark, striking oberscharfuhrer Pippert’s Panther and forcing the Germans to bail out.

With one score, Vance maintained his poise. “When I saw I had hit one of the attacking tanks, I came up from my sights and fire controls to locate another tank. I picked up the second tank and immediately went back to my sights and fired. Again the round hit and I saw the tank become enveloped in fire and smoke.” Fritz Langanke, standing in the open hatch of his panzer approached Freineux, looked back to see Pippert’s tank abandoned and now watched as Untersturmfuhrer Kurt Seeger’s Panther burst into flames. Although struck in the front, where the PzKpwf.V was most heavily armored, Fritz Nolte, Seeger’s gunner realized, “We received the hit in the underside plating at the front of our panzer. Due to the slope of the terrain we presented our weak spot.” This was exactly where Vance’s shell struck. Langanke saw Seeger leap from the burning Panther but he did not notice that it was Nolte who “pushed Seeger out of the turret and sprang out behind.” Vance after disposing of the Panthers of Pippert and Seeger, had located Kirchner’s vehicle and went back to his sight but before he could pull the trigger, saw that the German was hit. “By the time I cam up looking for the fourth tank, I was not able to locate it. About this time he located my tank or the vicinity where the fire was coming. The 4th German tank fired and hit the wall just to my right front but didn’t hit us. Since I had not been able to the remaining German tank, I had the driver back behind the church out of the line of fire.”…

…Langanke’s gunner continue to fire, shells striking close to where Sergeant Reece Graham’s Sherman was position behind a stone wall. Graham’s memory of this is clear, “I saw a flash from the panzer, the shell hitting the building near the eve of the house, sending debris all over us. The panzer then fired another round and missed, hitting the same area. Returning fire, Graham’s gunner got off two or three rounds but was unable to score a hit since the German was in a depression … “I then looked to the right across the valley and saw a flash from another panzer about 2000 yards away. I then gave the gunner orders. “Right front! Right front! Range 2000! Fire! After firing I saw the AP with tracers in direct line, but short. I then ordered the gunner, ‘Up 2! Fire!’ The second shell went straight into the back of the panzer and it started burning. I was watching it with field glasses and to my surprise saw another panzer move from right to left behind the burning tank. I then gave the gunner orders. ‘Left! Up 2! Fire!’ The shell went straight in to the rear.””