Panzer IV vs M4

Sorry no. You say it not me. You seem to have an overeaction button and when faced with any challenge to your figures retreat into absurd exaggeration to try and discredit your opponent.

 

So you are preperd to believe that during the Berlin battles and a crowded battlefield it is entirely possible that every other weapon (if it fired) missed and all the kills were made by a couple of Tigers.
You really believe that?

 

Lack of a primary source has never stopped you claiming that 177 Soviet tanks were knocked out in one day by 4 Tiger II's.

 

I couldnt know. There is no possible way I could know. I know that it is possible and since it was recorded by Korner and nobody else on the Russian or German side in this incident ever objected to this possibility I believe it is unfit to challenge. Of course ,unless, there is some objection to Korner's claim by someone in an authoritative position I dont know of. which is also possible.

 

"503 claims lack credibility" or in other words 503 lied about their kill totals.

 

lack of a primary source never stopped you from dis crediting the "Uber boys." I figured if we were going off of secondary information then that was just as credible as your claims. And honestly If you are on a battlefield with a tank that has the armor a KT has and you have a gun powerful enough to knock out the heaviest allied tanks at ranges beyond 1000 meters, then its not hard to picture tigers sitting at long distances taking out numerous vehicles. Like you said there were other units on the battlefield. The KT werent the only thing being fired at and the KT has the advantage of taking shots at greater distances than other vehicles. The russians practiced the "hugging the enemy" tactic which means lighter vehicles that had to fight at shorter ranges were more likely to be destroyed first by Russian forces than long ranged weapons like the Tiger. The Tiger was more or less a mobile 8.8cm. Flak gun. Are you going to dis-credit that weapons kills as well?

 

The problem you are ignoring here is that the Germans had many other weapons that would be leathal to Soviet tanks from panzerfausts and grenades on up. Given all that were in play the probability of 4 tanks doing all the killing is vanishingly small. There's no question that they could and probably did get a fair number of kills but all of them? Not bloodly likely.

 

Its not so much a complaint as a comment on the amount of threads that get derailed instead of starting a new one on the derailing subject, I read the thread from the start and go through the whole thing when I have not read it before.
If I wish to read something about KT or JS tanks I will look for a thread with those as the headers not one with MKIV or Sherman. So all your efforts in this thread to discuss them become a resource that will not be looked at by many. If you took it to a separate thread then it would be found along with all the links, information and references you have painstakingly posted.

 

At last you got there!
That is the point point I was making. Berlin was ringed by Flak guns, 10.5cm and 8.8cm.
The area was crammed with long range weapons that outnumber the TII by a factor of hundreds.
And yet you seriously believe they all missed and TII's did everything.

I presume you have evidence they lied?
Please post it so we can see why you made the claim they lied.

I am afraid you have it backside first. The onus is on the person making a claim to show why it is true. It is never the case that it has to be disproven.

It is painful obvious there is no possibilty of you seeing reality. You live in a world where a tank can take 12 x 122mm hits and recieve no damage. A tank so powerful it only needs to stop and make repairs (repaint the scratches?) every 14 days.

 

in the invasion of italy 1943, a canadian armored regiment took on hordes of german Panzer IV and Panthers with standard M4's and dominated them and saving a british invasion force on the west side of italy, so i would stick with the Sherman after that conclusion.

 

Berlin was ringed with all sorts of weapons. But you are assuming all these weapons came into contact with IS-2's which does not have to be true. If so then present a report from one of these gunners who claims they engaged IS-2's at this time. You are simply assuming that these things are impossible when they are not. I simply am believing the reports. There is no reason why Korner or Diers would have tried to report numbers larger than they actually killed. Yeah maybe their counts were off by one or two. And there is no reason why someone would report their tank taking 12 hits from an IS-2. Yes sometimes reports are often exaggerated but they are never false claims. Tiger II's were mobile giving them a greater ability to engage units unless you think the Germans were moving 8.8 Flak guns around all day attacking the enemy with them, which good luck with that theory because those guns take awhile to deploy.

 

It depends on many factors. Im terms of fighting in western or Eastern Europe in tank vs. tank or tank vs. AT engagements I would take the Panzer IV. However, the Sherman had alot more Utility and was far more adaptable in different environments than the Panzer which makes it pretty useful. Considering both thanks general roles in the army as medium/main battle tank I would take the Sherman because of its versatility, flexibility, and ease of production. The Panzer however had a slight advantage in armor, and firepower and its sights and operating systems were far superior.

 

The bulk of 88 production went into AA guns(19,400 AA v 3500 AT)
There was 100+ times as many AA guns as AT guns in Berlin.
Berlin had extensive AA defences.
Probably the largest number of such guns in Germany
Therefore the handful of TII's were dwarfed by the 100's of AA guns.
No matter which way you twist it a Russian tank was going to be taken ubder fire by an AA gun 95% of the time.
I doubt if many Russian ever saw a TII.
Simple logic but all for naught in the face of a love affair with a super-duper 'cool' tank!

 

On 15 march 1945 ,there were for the WHOLE eastfront 208 Tigers (I AND II),this figure contains operational tanks and those in repair .After march,there were no more deliveries,only losses
How many operational TII during the battle of Berlin ?
A guess:170 Tigers for the whole eastfront,of which 85 TII,of which 60 operational,of which 20 (maximum) at Berlin .10 or 5 would also be possible .

 

This is getting tedious. People who blather about tigerphobia are the slowest to accept German reports can be in error.

 

Its more tedious when people can't keep on topic and start to have a personal disagreement.

Due to the Germans lack of certain materials this was starting to not be the case. Many versions lost any form of turret power traverse, to simplify construction some optics and vision blocks were omitted. Shermans had a very good fire control system and power traverse meaning they could lay fire accurately and quickly on target.
The 75mm Shermans were probably outgunned by the PIV Ausf F2/G in terms of AT penetration with standard rounds but the Allies had more access to special AT munitions than the Germans (due to lack of tungsten etc), also with many more 76mm gunned Shermans available (plus the Fireflys) the balance shifted.
By late 1944 it was rather rare for tank on tank action in the West, most allied tanks were lost to AT guns, mines. Many German vehicles were lost to breakdowns and not being able to be recovered. ​

 

Breakdowns are a problem for any army in a long drive-be it in retreat or in attack.
August 28th to September 7th 1944 the 5 Armoured Division's under Monty had a total of 383 tank casualties.
Of these 305 were due to mechanical failure and only 78 to enemy action.
The Allies could recover their breakdowns so you never hear about them. The Germans could not and trumpet this disadvantage as proof their tanks could not be knocked out in a fair fight!.
Of all the surveys done on cause of loss the AP pentrations rate is always in the 45-60% area. Just under 50 for the Germans, high 50's for the Alies.
More significantly the claims that German tanks broke down more than were knocked out is a faulty reading of Allied OR Reports done in the summer of 1944. If you do a survey of wrecks left behind by a fleeing army then of course abandonment is going to be a large proportion. When the fighting was static (June/July) then the majority were knocked out.
The famous '80% of Sherman caught fire' myth. was extracted from a sampling of 45 knocked out Shermans (yes you read it right, 45 Shermans!) These same OR people came to other conclusions that seems to never be given the same circulation:
The worst tank (in terms of resistance to hits and catching fire ) was the Pz IV.
Sherman burn rate was 80%
Tiger burn rate was.................80%!
Panther burn rate was 60%.

 

m kenny

I read a report of the likelihood of Panzer IV and Sherman catching fire after receiving a penetrating hit. Prior to the wet stowage introduction and the placement of ready rounds below the turret ring the Sherman had a 80% burn rate while the Panzer IV had a 81%, after the modifications to the Sherman though it was down to around 55% of penetrating hits resulted in a fire.

British units suffered many losses to mines but most of those resulted in mobility kills as opposed to destroyed tanks. They were often repaired and back in action quite quickly. The Germans rarely had the chance to recover broken down vehicles and as their supply situation got worse their ability to recover and repair vehicles dropped. The Panzer IV and Stugs were probably the most reliable and easiest to recover and repair armoured vehicles the German forces had.

 

Very True. I was talking the war in General from the beginning to end. The Sherman was a great tank. Its versatility makes it extremely useful. It could tank on almost any role it needed. However in the beginning I would say the Panzer IV had the slight edge.

 

The Sherman 75mm HE round was supperior to that of the Panzer IV for the entire war I believe.