Panzer IV vs M4

You're probably right, as the Americans had not so urgent need to use captured vehicles. But there were exceptions like the 83th Infantry division, that collected and used literally all German vehicles they found (from bicycle to Tiger tank). For this reason, they were called the "ragpicker division" (or something like that, re-translated from German). It's unlikely that there was no Panzer IV with them.

 

One can also look at the breakout at St. Lo. Panzer Lehr tried a counter attack that was fought off by 3rd Armored. Lehr lost 20 of 32 tanks committed with 3rd Armored losses being equal.
Then there are the battles around Nancy like Luneville, Avranches or, Arnaville. In these battles various armored units from 3rd Army took on a number of Panzer Brigades (106, 108, 111, 112, 113 among others), the 15 PzGr Div, 17th SS PzGr division etc. The Germans took heavier losses in virtually every encounter during these battles.
In an example outside Luneville versus Shermans of 4th Armored and M-18's of the 704th Tank Destroyer Battalion, Panther tanks from the 113th Panzer Brigade (initially having 42 Panthers) the Germans lost greater numbers. Versus these units the Germans lost a total of 12 Panthers to 3 tank destroyers before hastily withdrawing. The next day the 37th Armored Battalion caught the same Panther battalion in the flank destroying 9 for the loss of 3 Shermans.
The same day, the 704th with M-18's nailed 12 more Panthers for no losses using their superior speed and mobility to shift firing positions.
A week later (26 Sept) 11th Panzer launched a counter attack near Juvelize France against 4th Armored. It's Pz IV battalion was hit by Shermans that occupied a ridge line along their line of advance. The lead company lost 10 tanks before withdrawing.
I could produce dozens of similar situations from the breakout at St. Lo right up through VE day where German panzer units repeatedly took worse than they gave. The single most important reason this repeatedly occurs is a combination of the Germnans leading their advances with tanks unsupported by any great quantity of infantry and artillery and, the lack of tactical and operational reconnissance. They literally, to use the boxing term, lead with their face. That is they stuck their noses out without looking first and got punched hard for it.

 

Major Destruction

I would like to remind that the Germans themselves destroyed a whole lot of tanks themselves in Falaise and in the Ardennes.

It doesn´t change the fact that the German losses were enormous but I´d like to know for example how many tanks Piper´s men destroyed before withdrawing to the German lines?

 

The 83rd's nickname was "The Ragtag Circus", KM. I recall it from reading Cornelius Ryan's The Last Battle. They really would grab ahold of any German vehicle they captured in running condition, give it a coat of olive-drab and festoon it with Allied white stars, and voila! So they just might have gotten a Panzer IV or two; maybe more.

Yours,
Paul

 

Thx for the info, Paul.

I have looked for info on Ghermans, but without success yet.

 

The Panzer IV J all teh way who needs tigers or panthers with this baby.

 

The guy who's faced with stuff the 75mm L/48 can't stop, that's who!

Yours,
Paul

 

Treu enough paul But i like the Pz IV J. in comparison to both the tiger and the panther it in my eyes a better alround tank, it can take quite a beating, and can dish out quite a beating as well and compared to the tiger and panther was realitvly cheap to build and manufacture.

 

Fenrir, my two great loves in German AFVs are the Panther and the Puma. I'll grant the Panzer IV was a good tank, but it lacks the sexy good looks of the Panther.

Yours,
Paul

 

ill have to concede that the Panther is among the most beutiful and sexy metalbeasts ever produced on this here green earth

 

The latest versions of the Pz IV were not able to pierce only tanks such as the IS-IIs. They could match almost anything they faced in the battle field.

I still do not buy that in actual tank-to-tank combat, the Americans or the British with 75mm Shermans could effectively face German tanks. With Fireflies, 76mm guns and M-18s it can be very different. But still, the greatest part of German tanks destroyed was caused by Allied air power, artillery and blown up by the Germans because of mechanical failures, certainly not because of average Shermans...

 

Freddy - That is wrong. Analysis by the No. Operational Research section of 21st army group produced a report, covering the period 6 June to 31 August, which stated that 48% of german casualties were caused by AP shot. Now obviously these were not all tanks but infantry anti-tank weapons such as the 6 and 17pdr. Surprisingly rocket projectiles from aircraft such as the Typhoon account for only 6%. Artillery fair only little better at 8%. there is an unfortuanate belief that the allied tanks and anti-tank guns could not touch german tanks. This is simply not true. Unfortuanatly there has become a belief, based upon german soldiers beliefs, that the allies won, especially in normandy, by sheer weight of firepower and air power. Unfortuanatly, this has led to criticism of the allied tank forces.

 

Anti-tank guns! There's your answer! As in North Africa, the tanks didn't do that much of the job. Anti-tank guns and tank-killers being available in quantity and certainly very well-coordinated made a substantial difference there. And sorry if I wasn't clear, but I included anti-tank guns within the artillery, which was undoubtedly the best and strongest of - at least in the American Army - the Allied forces. I am not saying either that Allied tank crews and officers were bad, but most of their equippment certainly was. That's why many veterans still complain about it and get very angry when listening how good the Sherman looked on paper...

And the Germans at Normandy were indeed overwhelmed by very superior fire power and number. And of course, a lot of quality and good leadership.

 

In fact it was a Hitler-style mistake of the Americans to delay M-26 Pershing production, preferring masses of the Sherman only. If lots of Pershings would have arrived earlier in Europe, the lifes of many US tank crews would have been saved.

 

The mistake was in cancelling several interm models of tank in favor of producing the M-26. The manufacturers of the latter assured the Army that they would have quantity production going by July 44 and made the recommendation to cancel the interm models (T-25E1...300 produced enough to equip one armored division 130mm frontal armor, 90mm gun, 35 mph available in June 44 (for those interested it is a US "Panther"). Or the M4A3 with M26 turret mounting a 90mm gun...yes, the M-26 turret will fit the turret rings are identical in size. A few prototypes were produced. Available in June 44 in quantity if proceeded with.). Had the interm models been accepted the US would have come ashore in Normandy equipped totally with 90mm tanks. It was simply short sightedness on the part of both the Army and manufacturing companies not to argue for an insurance policy in case production was delayed which turned out to be the case. See:


http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/UnitedStates/mediumtanks/usmt-T25E1.jpg

[ 15. December 2003, 07:25 PM: Message edited by: T. A. Gardner ]

 

American armored doctrine didn't see tanks fighting tanks; that was supposed to be the job (in theory) of the tank destroyers. And so many of the higher US commanders resisted replacing the 75mm with the 76mm because the larger gun didn't have as effective a high-explosive round as the smaller one did. It took the bitter experience of combat, first in Normandy, and later in the Ardennes, before the higher-ups realized that their beautiful theory was utterly at variance with the brutal facts of the battlefield.

Yours,
Paul

 

And so was the German generals' belief too, Paul. It wasn't until the T-34 showed up that they realised they needed something more mobile than an anti-tank gun to kill it...

 

Gottfried did I understand your statement that the Pz IV long rod 7.5cm could not crack open a Soviet IS 2 ? If so that is incorrect.....

 

Well, I didn't say it, but I didn't deny it...

I've read it perfectly could knock out even IS-IIs. Just not as easy as a Tiger II...

In that case, the Pz IV had an advantadge over the IS-II, which is superior manœuvrability and speed, along with a powerful gun. However, if the IS-II manages to hit you with a 122mm piercing shell...

 

being vague again Fried ? simply put the gun was quite effective especially with Stug ausf G brigades and abteilungs in 1945. sure without a doubt a 122mm blast is going to knock you out, but the only chance a Pz IV will have is a shot from concealment and a hit(s) from the side or rear of the monster. this is the same application as discussed many times here of the M4 facing a Tiger or Panther. Fact is that during the Ardenne battles a lone M4 was to knock out several Panthers from the rear near Oster, including 3./Kompanie RK winner W-SS Veith of Das Reich. The M4 was soon destroyed by other Das Reich Panthers in the area of Freineux-Lamormenil. The M4 was very hard to detect as the Sherman crew had expertly camouflaged their tank amongst the rubble of the village.