whats the difference between sherman tank gun and panther tank gun?

One stat I haven't seen anyone post yet is the weight of explosive in the HE round for the various guns.

 

The standard 75mm used in various Allied tanks had a HE round its weight was 6.76 kg and its Muzzle Velocity was 625 m/s and could fire up to 2.103m (though I think it could achive more like 10.000m it fired on a range).

 

Actually, the Sherman was set up to act as a mobile artillery piece when necessary. The 75mm versions were often lined up in as much as battalion strength and used as self-propelled artillery. Tank destroyers like the M 10 were used similarly. This practice gives the Allies another flexible weapon in terms of artillery support. A US tank battalion of 50 or so vehicles all firing as indirect fire artillery would have had a significant impact on a target......

 

I've seen pictures of Shermans used that way in Korea I think. Piles of brass almost as high as the tank (not including the turret). Somewhere I've also seen the weight of filler in the various HE rounds.

 

I am sure only the Americans and maybe the British used there main Battle Tanks in the Artillery role, the other nations didn't have the capability's or in the case of the Russians no need to. The standard 75mm used by both the Americans and the British was the M48 High Explosive Round. This 6.76 kg (14.9 lb) round travelled at 625 m/s (2,050 fps) and contained 1.5 pounds of TNT filling and choice of Super Quick (SQ) or Delay (PD) with 0.05 or 0.15 seconds of delay fuse. SQ was the standard setting with PD used against structures, gun positions or lightly protected vehicles. The 17 pdr had 7 kg (15.4 lb) HE Round with a charge of 0.56 kg (1.28 lb).[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

Do you have the filler numbers for the 76mm and German 75mm rounds?

 

As the Sherman's 75mm was a close derivative of the standard French WW1 field gun using it in an artillery role makes some sense, IMO the German high velocity guns would have unacceptable barrel wear if used for sustained indirect fire, the Soviet 76mm was also similar to the contemporary divisional field gun but the soviets had plenty of field guns and generally saw no reason to use a 30+ tonn AFV for a role that could performed better by a field artillery piece (to get maximun range the limited elevation tank guns required more work than emplacing a field carriage and sustained fire from inside the rather cramped vehicles would be extremely hard on the crews). IMO the only reason Shermans were used in such a cost ineffective way in WW2 was the huge availability of tanks and spares.
Korea is a different story as there tanks were often moved to hilltop dominating positions and used as pillboxes to provide static fire support for weeks on end, contemporary technology was such that only another tank or heavy artillery could successfully engage them and the communists were short of both and more likely to use the latter on the more vulnerable infantry anyway, today's ATGMs would make that tactic a suicide.

The 75/L24 of the early Stug and Pz IV the 75/18 of the Italian Semovente were sometimes used for indirect fire, the German manuals state the Stug was to be used as divisional artillery only if the tactical and ammo situation allowed it.
The 7.5 cm sprenggranate-patrone 34 (HE) weighted 5.743 Kg I have no data on filler, the granata da 75/13 mod 32 of the 75/18 contained 610 g of TNT and had a 349 m/s muzzle velocity.

 

I think another thing that should be remembered is the "operational" design of the M4, it wasn't supposed to engage tanks 1 on 1, but to combine both infantry support and tie in with the general artillery assault on the front lines with "time on target" co-ordination. The M4 "Sherman" tanks also had azimuth and elevation controls installed from the factory so that the main gun from the 75mm on up could be used an artillery weapon, I don’t know for sure if that was every model from the M4A1, or just those from the M4A3 on.

Also they had both intercom and an external "telephone" capability so that a handset could be attached to the rear of the tank so an outside commander could talk to the men in the tank. It also had FM communication radio systems which could be tied into any local field artillery fire control.

 

AFAIK "time on target" artillery tactics were developed a lot later than the M4, I would be surprised if indirect fire requirements had any major part in the tank's design, providing indirect fire involves more than just having gun laying equipment, you need trained specialists capable of "firing by the map" taking wind, moisture, etc. into account. That training would be wasted on a tanker that would not normally use it. AFAIK TOT involved anything capable of firing HE that could be linked in the fire plan, including very high velocity AA guns that were far from ideal field, guns but aiming data was provided by artillerymen not the tankers and required them to know the tanks exact position effectively tiyng them to a static role (no GPS in WW2).

 

Indirect fire for tanks is still a fairly hit and miss science - the theory is that the Chieftain/Challenger 1 main gun could fire indirect to about 8km, but no tankers I ever spoke to had tried it, or expected it to work, and on the several occasions I requested to practice this technique even for a few rounds I was told where I could go. I don't think indirect fire from tank guns has ever been used seriously for HE, although it may have been tried from small numbers of vehicles, although smoke has definitely been used, for instance during the advance to the Rhine in Holland and on occasion by the Soviets. There are reports of indirect canister rounds being fired during the Falklands campaign in 1982 as a 'keep heads down' tactic, but this is unlikely to be more than justification of taking the scorpions there.

It may be with GPS linked tank FC computers that indirect fire is possible and possibly effective, but the rate of fire and the potential HE load of a shell that will go up a tank gun barrel, quite apart from the barrel wear, make it so much better to use air platforms or normal artillery from 30 km or so to do the job.

Maximum range, direct visual sight, elevated barrel fire from ww2 tanks is a different matter though...

 

Did the Americans use the M8 HMC for indirect fire support.

 

Yes, that was one intended role. It was generally used as a battery (6 or 8 vehicles) in that role. In direct support it was often broken up into sections of 2 and parcelled out to individual troops of cavalry in mechanized cavalry squadrons.

 

An interesting article on this at: Tank Destroyers as Assult Guns & Indirect Fire Pocket Reference- FA Journal, April 1945
click on link to the pdf document.
This one mentions training in indirect fire during wwII for tanks: The 761st "Black Panther" Tank ... - Google Books
This one mentions using M48's in that role in Vietnam: Vietnam Tracks: Armor in Battle 1945 ... - Google Books
This one mentions light tanks (all be it M-24's) being used in that role: 752nd M5/M5A1 & M24 Light Tanks

 

Nice Links Lwd, who would have thought that even after WW2, small calibre weapoms like 75mm & 76mm guns could still be usefull in indirect fire support, given that most countries adopted Artillery calibres of 105mm and upwards, I thought that after WW1 small calibre guns were being phased out because of there small HE round, but they could be found at Divisional level in most armys upto and during WW2. I know that American, Britain and Germany started to replace there Light pieces when WW2 got into swing (America = 75mm M.1897A4 to 105mm M1A1, Britain = 18 pdr to 25 pdr, Germany = 75mm FK 16na to 105mm leFH), They all felt the need for a more potent weapon with a larger HE round for there Field Artillery Regiments.