Sherman Vs. Panzer

OK, but i still prefer the 85 mm gun of the later version of t-34 and its mobility (50 Km/h
i think) or its cross-country performance.

But although the Sherman is no match against german monsters, it is a very effective tank in a context of total war ( but the T-34 too), it is easy to product many shermans and it doesn't have the problems of the panther.

 

The Sherman was significantly taller than all its contempories. Only late war models caught up with it.
This plan the smallest model. Note the late model Sherman next to the TII

 

The "tall" thing isn't entirely bad.
You can go to the Japanese "Pagoda" superstructure/masts (I realize that they did this because of no radar) to make up for the curvature of the earth and first visibility and all that.
My questionable point is that it perhaps was as much of an advantage (with a good/L-D gun) as a disadvantage ? Because it became a target first, it also had the ability to target others first.
Shooting & hitting is as much, if not more, up to the individual crews, and especially their gunner, as to how tall the target is.
Seeing the other first is a huge issue, since virtual parity of weapons was eventually achieved late in the war.
U.S. TDs had open tops for this very purpose. To have/get more eyes out there, and find targets.
As I've said before... even Whittman credits his gunner for his victories, and his ability to shoot running, and to be able to hit running targets.

 

Tall is generally bad in a tank. This is due to the aiming process where the gunner normally sets the crosshairs (or equivalent) on the top of the vehicle (gives better insurance of a hit due to drop in the round as it travels to its target). Hence, a taller vehicle is more likely to get hit than a low one.
On the other hand, having a bit more room to work makes for better crew efficency.

 

I was referring to the T-34/85 which has a Height of 8.01 feet | 2.44 meters and the M4 with a Height of 8.99 feet | 2.74 meters. Looking at the drawings and photos except for the T-34/76,PZ III and PZ IV most of the Tanks all are pretty much about the same height.

 

So with the Commaders cupola still almost even.

 

This discussion will never end, and when people grow tired of it they let it lie for a while, and then start a new thread saying the exact same thing.

Sherman, T-34 or Mark-IV... I don't care. The Cromwell is better looking, and it has an engine with a fine pedegrie. (One need to consider the form on the victory parade eh?) It also paved the way for the Comet and later the Centurion.

 

One problem the Cromwell shares with earlier Shermans and the T34/76 is the lack of a commander's cupola. This is a very useful addition to a tank and one that the Germans recognized very early on. The US obviously saw its value as well as the need for a very low profile one (something the Germans also started doing later in the war) and retrofitted the Sherman with one.
A good post war comparison is with the IDF in the 70's and 80's where they did the same thing on their M48's and M60's fitting a very low profile cupola instead of the original one with a .50 machinegun in it. The same reasoning might have been behind the British purchasing commission's modifications to the M3 Lee with a new turret.
Vehicles without a commander's cupola leave him just two choices for observation: Expose himself out of the hatch (dangerous) or use the limited (usually one or two) vision devices available leaving him virtually blind.

 

I agree about height, but just for a little more in the never ending debate.
Adjusting for height/distance (for me) is easier than correcting for L/R. I imagine for a tank it would involve a turret or position move instead of a simpler elevation increase/decrease. Tall does increase the chances of a hit, once you've got the drop on him.
I can't help thinking about the "Grant". The tallest one ever? With it's scrappiest gun 3-4 feet below its' top.
Then again I remember reading about T-34's racing through a cornfield. Being 8 feet tall in 10-12 foot corn? What are these gunners seeing?
We're back to open/flat plain, face to face circumstances again. Probably the least percentage of conflicts.
Who (with what) is defending and who (with what) is attacking, and where (terrain) in what weather.
Endless.
I do have a video about "Goodwood" and a British guy talks about about how the attack went on through darkness before it slowed, and the next morning he stood on top of his tank to see where the rest of his "Mates" were. He was startled to only be able to see about 15 tanks, where normally 45-50 should be.
Tall is more.......Bad (especially if you don't have a powerful gun up there with you)

 

i would like to go back a few posts,concerning tanks in urban areas.the germans learned not to use tanks in urban areas,stalingrad,for example.the russians did not learn in berlin.assault guns would have been of better use eg the su152.also,when did the sherman 76mm tank enter service.do we know.yours,lee.

 

Tanks are needed in Urban areas just as in the rural areas, obviosuly in the rural areas the tanks have th ability to make breakthroughs faster due to the better terrain for tanks. However you need tanks in the urban areas for support, against other tanks, buildings and any other threat which comes up. Tanks are vulnerable in urban areas due to their lack of sight and the complexity of destroyed buildings making perfect cover for flanking infantry, but are need nonetheless. The German tanks in Stalingrad we often broken up from their formations and moving down streets with just few squads of infantry to protect them, making them perfect targets for the defending antitank guns and infantry.

"A good commander never puts his tank near an uncleared building"

This quote is often hard to follow if you are in a city like stalingrad where it is hard to do this.

Why would an assault gun be better in an urban area? What happens when your tank gets flanked by infantry scooting through the rubble beside the road your tank is on? A turrented tank is better for that reason, unless you can get your tank into a corner and hope the enemy infantry don't figure out how to get to to it from the rear, but then how do you attack if you are stuck defending?

The Sherman Firefly entered service just in time for the Normandy landings in 1944 with the 76mm \17pdr gun.

 

WHAT THE GERMANS LEARNED AT WARSAW​

The Germans gained so much experience in street fighting while suppressing the first general uprising of armed Polish forces in Warsaw that the official German "Notes for Panzer Troops" takes cognizance of the lessons learned during these operations. Employing the popular German Army training method of listing incorrect and correct procedures in parallel columns, "Notes for Panzer Troops" sets forth a number of German errors in the Warsaw fighting, and supplies official comment on the methods which should have been employed in each case. The observations in the "right" column take on an added significance, in view of a statement by the Inspector General of Panzer Troops to the effect that the underlying principles must be applied in all street fighting.



Lone Sentry: What the Germans Learned at Warsaw (U.S. WWII Intelligence Bulletin, April 1945)

 

Pz Is? Pz IIs? Pz III a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h? Pz IVa - d?

That's a pretty silly thing to still say.

 

I think he means the American 76mm.

 

i.e. Heinz Guderian, trying to beat some sense into the system.

 

Well Schnelle Heinz should have included it earlier. The Germans learned it a lot earlier than 1945, but as usual theory and the real world are not the same thing. (Von Clausewitz had some interesting notes on that)

We are digressing dangerously from the actual discussion aren't we?? (the germans had wonderweapons and the allies had rolling death traps that ultimatly lost them the war....)

 

Good one from Alabama !!

 

I'm surprised at the nerve the Allies had to put this in the face of the mighty Tiger!