Sherman Vs. Panzer

How effective was the Sherman against the PanzerIV?And not the Sherman with a 75mm cannon the earlyier one. I heard that it was designed as infantry support and did very well at that but not so well considering its light armour and design and small cannon size what size was it????

 

What earlier Sherman, the one with the 37mm gun?

 

see here:

http://www.ww2forums.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000254;p=1

 

O i was thinking about the 105mm howitzer one so ya the one with the 75mm gun sorry bout that.

 

If you want to ressurrect that old thread you can post into that, it will make more sense than opening a new one here.

 

Early Sherman models were prone to burning when struck by high velocity rounds. The Sherman gained grim nicknames like "Tommycooker" (by the Germans who referred to British soldiers as "Tommys"; a tommy cooker was a World War I era trench stove). With gallows humor, the British called them "Ronsons", after the cigarette lighter with the slogan "Lights up the first time, every time!", while Polish tankers referred to them as "The Burning Grave".

 

And the Russians referred to M3 Grants/Lees as 'A coffin for seven brothers'.

 

panzer IV-H, sherman M4A1/4(75mm gun) and T-34/76 ar equal
they all have advantages and disadvantages. it all comes down to the crews skil

 

the germans would have been beter building more panzer IV then tigers

 

75 mm tank gun M3 M72 AP round penetration 78mm/500m
76 mm tank gun M1 APC round penetration 109mm/500m, 92mm/1000m; HVAP round penetration 157mm/500m, 132mm/1000m
7.5 cm KwK 40 tank gun(L48) Panzergranate 39 APCBC round penetration 85mm/1000m; Panzergranate 40 APCR round penetration 100mm/1000m
F-34 76.2mm tank gun(T-34/76, KV-1) BR-353A(HEAT) round penetration 75mm; BR-350A(APHE) round penetration 69mm/500m, 61mm/1000m; BR-350P(APCR) round penetration 92mm/500m, 65mm/1000m.

 

a very difficult question,this one is.imo we need to return to late 1942.general montgomery,having just routed rommel was already writing to the war office asking them to find a excellent gun,then building a good tank around it.the17pdr was coming on line and we also had the 3.7in a.a gun,a superb weapon.imo if leyland and other tank manufacturers had built a british version of the t34 with a version of the 3.7in gun,which could have been done,it would have been a world beater.the american 90mm a.a gun could also have been put into a better tank too.remember,a full 2 yrs were wasted stockpiling shermans,churchills and cromwells,all rubish.yours,4th wilts.

 

Here we go again.

Shermans, Churchills and Cromwells ARE NOT Rubbish. Just people compare them to the Tiger, which was in a totly differnent class as the others.

 

--- obsolete sense post now deleted ---

 

if i could use all the shift buttons i would,but being a tetraplaegic person,who has the use of only one finger on his right hand,i cannot.sorry to have caused offence,yours,4th wilts.

 

i was not using a tiger as a comparison either.yours,4th wilts.

 

My sincere apologies then.

 

i agree with velican,the germans probably should have concentrated on the mk4 tank.i think i am right in saying that the mk4 panzer was made from 1939 to 1945.they tried the tiger,panther and even the mouse,all imo not required.the mk4 chassis was used for other purposes too;self propelled artillery and tank destroyer.the jagdpanzer4 was superb.i often wonder how many mk4 panzers could have been made if all the other tanks and wonder weapons had been left on the drawing board.yours,4th wilts.

 

On another forum I read that the Soviets tended to refer to most tanks with a crew of x as "a coffin for x brothers". I have also seen data posted that they tended to suffer significantly higher losses per tank knocked out than the Western Allies did with the same tank. Which may be part of the reason for this.

 

I agree with this viewpoint.

 

the germans produced more than 250 kinds of armored vehicules during the lasts months of war
they found two kind of opposants
in west the M4 was not the best but the crew following certainly the most completed training when germans get shorter period of training (the best exemple of ths disastrous politic is the "debacle" of panzer brigade in Lorraine in early september)
T34 series was wonder machine but with defficient shell and optical instruments ( and i dont speak about the consumption of lubricants)
the only serious answer is the Pz V but in 44 the german industry is not able to produce it in significant number.
at the end of war only 4800 Pz V (two month of t34 production) was produced imagine the impact with a production of 10000 or 15 000 machines
once again germans were not ready to win