Is that at 0 or 30 degrees? It looks slightly high to me for 30. The 75mm gun had about 9mm less penetration than the longer-barrelled 6pdr. Of course this is all straight off the top of me head...

i have a few a few things to address... first of all von poop.. i think that you would be very interested in a book called "Normandy 1944" by nikolas zetterling. thats where i get my information on the tiger. and of course i have checked all of his sources. and again, the thickness of a tanks armor, and the penetrating power of a tanks gun is all transfered into wargames. and it just so happens that the sherman has thinner armor and a weaker gun. and to falkenburg.. if the only way you can join this conversation is to be quite rude and disrespectful to someone who is only trying to talk and tell what he has learned to be true, then i would appreciate it if you would kindly stop saying anything.. and to t.a. gardner.. everything i have ever read about the sherman is contradictory to what you have told me, but if you would be so kind as to tell me where you got those figures so i can look them up for myself, i will gladly do so. thanks

So you dismiss all books - except that one...

It is an interesting book, I've reached up and am flicking through it now (by sheer coincidence I got it from the library a week or two ago, I see from his website that he also is a wargamer) - but placed in the balance with a plethora of other recent titles from Buckley, Pallud et.al. it isn't the Normandy information panacea that many with a Germanocentric view of the fighting in that theatre currently claim it is.

What it certainly isn't is a complete reference on the Tiger, that subject tends to claim far more than a foot or two at least of the average obsessive's bookshelves from authors more dedicated to enquiring into that old thing .
And another recentish point on Normandy (that crops up here a few times - the search function is an instructive thing), - what benefit did any contemporarily possible thickness of armour give when assaulting HV guns at short ranges in that terrain...
It's often cited that the allies suffered so disproportionately against the Axis, yet when the tables were turned and the Germans were able to (or forced to) attack in that terrain their losses in armour and men were equal to those suffered by the allies. The bocage being far more significant as a military factor at that time than can be reflected in any obsession with penetration tables.

War and physics in the real world are infinitely complex things (funnily enough I seem to recall TA has a grounding in both, patronise at your peril ), mix in the plethora of other variables - doctrine, weather, motivation, training, dear john letters, propaganda, etc. etc. etc. - and the complexity rockets further.
Too much is often stated, as you seem to mate, as an absolute - whereas most things are always a hundred shades of grey.

Cheers,
Adam

__________________
It's only the Internet.

panther tiger2 tiger1 t34/85 pziv t34/76 sherman firefly pziii sherman churchhill

So you have the book? it really is brilliant, and of course i dont dismiss all other books, but i havent ever read anywhere about the sherman, the way that t.a. describes it. if anyone can tell me where to go for that information i would really appreciate. it seems that every book i have on the subject says otherwise. and i am well aware that normandy 1944 isnt a complete reference to the tiger. and funnily enough i happen to be one of the people with about a two and a half foot space on my bookshelf dedicated to the tiger.

As you said, the bocage is much more significant a military factor than penetration tables, i completely agree. im not making any claim that wargaming can compare to real life, but i do set up actual battles that were fought in normandy using french ordinance survey maps( the battle of rauray inperticular is quite interesting ) that do happen to be in bocage country. and while they all cant be transfered to the wargame table, many of the factors you stated such as weather and morale can be.

Laslty i just want to say that if i gave the impression that i think in absolutes, im terribly sorry, for that isnt the case. and i hope you dont think of this as an arguement, because i consider it a discussion, and am in fact enjoying it.

Well when you said the Sherman was horrible....

__________________
Time is only enemy you'll never get rid of.

Perhaps then you should have clairified your statement as being your opinion then . Though it wouldn't change the facts that it wasn't. You might want to read this thread.

US 37th Armored Regiment at Arracourt. "The Battle of the Tanks"

__________________


For the first time I have seen "History" at close quarters,and I know that its actual process is very different from what is presented to Posterity. - WWI General Max Hoffman.

well, as i explained earlier, im talking in a tactical sense(the shermans gun and armor were about on par with a mkIV), while on the strategic level the sherman seems like a good tank( it doesnt break down, it has a decent speed, etc etc). falkenberg... while it seems you cant stop being rude(it must be in your nature) at least you have provided me with some supporting details, although it seems that the post just proves my point... you clearly stated that the sherman was inferior to the german AFVs used, and that mobility(a strategic not tactical factor) was their key to voctory. so while i do appreciate your attempt at proving your self, if someone could post an impartial(as in not on this website) link showing me the amazing strengths of the sherman i would appreciate it to no end. thanks very much.

Glad to hear it mate.
All I'll say is tread carefully with blanket statements, there can be sharks in these interweb waters .
Keep it chilled and nobody ever needs to get too nasty.

How about a refreshing turn to this thread (that'll no doubt get the poor old Sherman a further kicking from some), but what about some 'worst tens' to counter the best tens? Negative views often being as interesting as the positives. And I wonder if the M4 will really get a space among assorted Italian/Japanese jobs, and one rather infamous New Zealand example - I shall hide in an appropriate smiley for reasons of taste:

(I never knew you could do that with vbulletin!)

Cheers,
Adam.

__________________
It's only the Internet.

top ten worst tanks...in no order at all...

type 89 medium tank
type 92 cavalry tank
type 94 tankette
type 95 ha-go
type 97 te-ke
mark 1
mark 2
type 3 ka-chi
type 2 ka-mi
type 97 chi-ha

mostly japanese... and some german

Look, I'm kind of tied up doing an operational wargaming and statistical analysis of a theoretical version of Sledgehammer involving an Allied landing in France at Quiberon Bay in November 1942 at the moment. Maybe when I'm done I'll post up a really super detailed analysis of the Sherman vs. T34. If I really get into to Hermann, you better brush up on your advanced statistics and calculus 'cause the equations are going to get complicated.
Oh, and as most of the regulars can confirm, I am neither rude to others nor am I a poiser. I know my stuff very thoroughly. I thought I'd add that as a sort of disclaimer up front. I will not insult or belittle you but will thoroughly analyze any post you make and return credible and well documented (sources on request usually for the sake of brevity) posts.

Here is a taste of a minitatures wargame rules set I developed with partial bibliography on a thread:

WW2 Miniature Wargame Rules

LOL I have known T.A. for a long time and can attest to that . There are quite a few of us here that have been studying Military history for longer then some here have been alive . LOL

__________________


For the first time I have seen "History" at close quarters,and I know that its actual process is very different from what is presented to Posterity. - WWI General Max Hoffman.

i meant nothing i said against t.a. , but against falkenberg, who im sure is a wonderful fellow. that being said t.a., i think i could handle the equations and would be very much interested in them if at some point you are willing to share. i would REALLY enjoy reading your analysis of the sherman v. t-34 ( t-34/85 i presume ). and once again, if you would be so kind as to post some off-site links to places where i can find some of you information on the sherman, i really do have a genuine interest.

i looked through those rules a bit t.a. and im surprised that you use a turn sequence and initiative as oppose to simultaneous moving and firing. how do you go about tank v. tank combat??

NOOOOOOOO!!!!!! Thats all we need! another OPINION thread!!!! LOL How about one about the 10 mechanically unreliable or fuel inefficient tanks of the war? LOL

__________________


For the first time I have seen "History" at close quarters,and I know that its actual process is very different from what is presented to Posterity. - WWI General Max Hoffman.

i can admit that german tanks would most likely make up the list. haha

Oh im sure the Germans thought the Tiger II was a hybrid

__________________
Time is only enemy you'll never get rid of.

T34

Here ya go:

http://www.battlefield.ru/
http://gva.freeweb.hu/


I had plenty others but with the formatting of my computer I lost my bookmarks.



Cheers...

That is just untrue. The penetrative performance of those guns are known. They are not classified.

http://www.freeweb.hu/gva/index.html


Generally, it did not matter much what gun you shot, as long as you sat still and let them come to you.

No such statistic existed anywhere within the US archives, except a strategic research totally unrelated to kill ratio... that was about Panther, Sherman and T-34 tanks.

T-34-85 has 47mm of armor at glacis and 90mm at turret front, as opposed to M4A3 tank's 64mm glacis armor and 90mm turret, of a higher metalurigal quality. Hmm....

Check out Steven Zaloga's books. The titles are: The M4 Sherman Tank, The M4 Sherman (76mm) Tank, The T-34-76 Tank, The T-34-85 Tank, and Sherman v. Panthers. All are in print.