Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005 From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960 Status: offline
quote:
ORIGINAL: Speedy
Not being a tank expert but aren't the M4A3 and Pz IVH/J seen as being fairly even in performance? As in penetration? Armour? etc.
Basically - yes. The PZIV F2 through J had a more powerful 75 than the standard 75mm gunned Sherman - but this was negated by the fact that both antagonists could shoot holes in each other at the same ranges. The 76 gunned Sherman’s had a more powerful gun than their German counterpart - but the same equation still held true that both tanks could kill each other, but the late Sherman’s with the 76 were more capable tanks overall.
Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005 From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960 Status: offline
That was a very interesting story - two M-10s stopping a deliberate attack by four Tiger IE's and two Ferdinands, knocking out three of the Tigers and a Ferdinand in the course of a prolonged fight...all at ranges of 250 to 550 yards.
I suppose the tank destroyer men made up and imagined the entire affair... we all know it was the field artillery and the Air Corps which must have really gotten the German tanks...
< Message edited by Big B -- 1/31/2007 7:53:31 PM >
but was not a ferdinand also known as an Elefant? ala huge?
Paul was being ironic. Paul was pointing out that a person with a really selective reading habit would ignore the several k-o'd PzVIs and Ferdinands in that account and instead grip rigidly to the part where a couple of rounds bounce.
< Message edited by mdiehl -- 1/31/2007 7:53:29 PM >
_____________________________
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.
Yeha ferdinands were monsters. The germans pooled up their materials for a year and built about 3 of im. I paid 800 beans for one in Close Combat and it don't even come w/ a machinegun
< Message edited by UndercoverNotChickenSalad -- 1/31/2007 7:58:47 PM >
Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001 From: Reading, England Status: offline
Wasn't the difference between an Elefant and Ferdinand was that one had MG's the other didn't?
Sherman vs Axis AFV's - So am I not thinking logically here that IF an M4A3 is pretty even vs an PZIVH/J and in general a Tiger or Panther is seeing as being superior to a PZIVH/J that they are superior to an M4A3 and or 76mm model?
Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005 From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960 Status: offline
quote:
ORIGINAL: Speedy
Wasn't the difference between an Elefant and Ferdinand was that one had MG's the other didn't?
Sherman vs Axis AFV's - So am I not thinking logically here that IF an M4A3 is pretty even vs an PZIVH/J and in general a Tiger or Panther is seeing as being superior to a PZIVH/J that they are superior to an M4A3 and or 76mm model?
I would say so - yes of course. The only difference is that the later Sherman with a 76 finally had a weapon capable of killing a Tiger or Panther, and actually did a pretty decent job of killing Tigers and Panthers. Though the Tiger or Panther would still be considered a heavier tank.
Think of it as CL vs CA... but with the 76mm gun the Sherman became more of a Brooklyn class CL
Posts: 1416
Joined: 4/20/2005 From: Hungary, EU Status: offline
quote:
mdiehl record of killing the German equivalent (PzIV --- another tank designed in 1940 and upgraded through the years)
In 1935, Krupp after receiving order to produce its design, modified it by incorporating best features of existing designs. After further tests, Krupp was ready to start the production of Panzer IV Ausf A. First Panzerkampfwagen IV Ausf A was built in October of 1937 by Krupp-Gruson and its production ended in March of 1938 with total of 35 produced.
Source achtungpanzer.com
VS
On 18 April, 1941 the final design characteristics were approved at a conference at Aberdeen Proving Grounds attended by representatives of the Armored Force and the Ordnance Department. The M4 was standardized and placed into production in February of 1942.
Source wikipedia.org
So which tank was designed in 40?
I could be exaggerating but are all of your posts so reliable?
edited with M4 data
< Message edited by Ursa MAior -- 1/31/2007 9:57:46 PM >
That was a very interesting story - two M-10s stopping a deliberate attack by four Tiger IE's and two Ferdinands, knocking out three of the Tigers and a Ferdinand in the course of a prolonged fight...all at ranges of 250 to 550 yards.
I suppose the tank destroyer men made up and imagined the entire affair... we all know it was the field artillery and the Air Corps which must have really gotten the German tanks...
a kill shot at 20-450 yards is very differrent than one at 1500 yards.. I think if you where in a open plains duel aqt 1500 to2500 yds, you would never everr want a allied gun less than the fireflies 25 lb or the german panther high vel 75 or those 88s.. remmeber tactics, vs guns.. I can kill u with my knife if you cannot see me in the fog and u have a 12 guage.
Now ask yourself, with what gun was the M10 tank destroyer, whose doctrinal job was to kill enemy tanks, armed? Answer, in the 3rd AD, it was armed with the same 76mm gun used on the M4A3E8.
Not quite. The M10 had a 3 inch gun (modified AA gun put in a turret), while the M18 had the same 76mm they put in the Sherm. 3rd Army used the M18 for a large part of it´s TD battlions anyway, so it´s not like they didn´t have the 76mm in numbers.
a kill shot at 20-450 yards is very differrent than one at 1500 yards.. I think if you where in a open plains duel aqt 1500 to2500 yds, you would never everr want a allied gun less than the fireflies 25 lb or the german panther high vel 75 or those 88s.. remmeber tactics, vs guns.. I can kill u with my knife if you cannot see me in the fog and u have a 12 guage.
The funny thing is, that you don´t really find many examples of long range duels in the tactical narratives very much (apart from AT guns whose doctrinal role it was to duel at long range anyway), apart from a few instances (Brits in Normandy for exemple). Each time the germans did bring out sizeable number of Kats, they did so in either inclement weather (snow, morning fog, rain) or in constrcited terrain (Ardennes. Mortain to a degree). Which suggests that accuracy and killing power above 1000 meters, while certainly nice to have, was not necessarily decisive in a majority of cases.
Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005 From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960 Status: offline
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen
quote:
ORIGINAL: mdiehl
Now ask yourself, with what gun was the M10 tank destroyer, whose doctrinal job was to kill enemy tanks, armed? Answer, in the 3rd AD, it was armed with the same 76mm gun used on the M4A3E8.
Not quite. The M10 had a 3 inch gun (modified AA gun put in a turret), while the M18 had the same 76mm they put in the Sherm. 3rd Army used the M18 for a large part of it´s TD battlions anyway, so it´s not like they didn´t have the 76mm in numbers.
True, but the overriding point is that both M-10 and M4(76) fired the same shell, at the same velocities and ballistics. Even though the Sherman's gun was of a diferent construction, this made zero diference on the recieving end.
Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005 From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960 Status: offline
quote:
ORIGINAL: freeboy
quote:
ORIGINAL: Big B
That was a very interesting story - two M-10s stopping a deliberate attack by four Tiger IE's and two Ferdinands, knocking out three of the Tigers and a Ferdinand in the course of a prolonged fight...all at ranges of 250 to 550 yards.
I suppose the tank destroyer men made up and imagined the entire affair... we all know it was the field artillery and the Air Corps which must have really gotten the German tanks...
a kill shot at 20-450 yards is very differrent than one at 1500 yards.. I think if you where in a open plains duel aqt 1500 to2500 yds, you would never everr want a allied gun less than the fireflies 25 lb or the german panther high vel 75 or those 88s.. remmeber tactics, vs guns.. I can kill u with my knife if you cannot see me in the fog and u have a 12 guage.
No - it's still a kill shot - and you should also take note that the Tigers and Ferdinands were unable to return a kill shot at the same range.
Furthermore, vialbe tank duel range in Europe (I have read) was seldom over 700 yards due to terrain.
So yes, the ability to hit a target at longer range is always a good thing, but not necessairly a deceisive thing, and in WWII that proved to be the case.
< Message edited by Big B -- 1/31/2007 10:29:49 PM >
Tiger can destroy any tank in 1000 m distance,especially sherman. Sherman must approach Tiger within 400 m to even try to put hole in Tiger.
This "any tank" exclude IS tanks
Here is nice thought:
Wow. Just becuase they made more of them, doesnt mean it was a better tank. It just means they made more of them. They make a helluva lot more toyotas than they do ferraris, but could you call the toyota the better car just based on that?
A sherman has a small chance if it attacks a tiger from behind without the tiger knowing about the sherman's possition. The rear is pretty soft like with all tanks, but still.. the M10 comes way closer tot the tiger and even that is no match against it. The tiger is a class on it's own and can not, and will not ever be matched. Specially since nothing good has seen the tiger in battle and really had the change to fight it 1 on 1. Dumb to make a show about this without knowing the facts. sorry to say so.
right, so we are talkingtactics, I AGREE here.. these where great gunned tanks if Gerry had fought aroung PAris and where they could hve these battles as in eastern front, thaat you are making a point is that they where USED in a poor way...
Tiger can destroy any tank in 1000 m distance,especially sherman. Sherman must approach Tiger within 400 m to even try to put hole in Tiger.
This "any tank" exclude IS tanks
Here is nice thought:
Wow. Just becuase they made more of them, doesnt mean it was a better tank. It just means they made more of them. They make a helluva lot more toyotas than they do ferraris, but could you call the toyota the better car just based on that?
A sherman has a small chance if it attacks a tiger from behind without the tiger knowing about the sherman's possition. The rear is pretty soft like with all tanks, but still.. the M10 comes way closer tot the tiger and even that is no match against it. The tiger is a class on it's own and can not, and will not ever be matched. Specially since nothing good has seen the tiger in battle and really had the change to fight it 1 on 1. Dumb to make a show about this without knowing the facts. sorry to say so.
Outright false.
_____________________________
Ignoring the wulfir Fighting the EUnuchs from within
The M4 hist you cited froim Wikipedia is inaccurate. 1941 is the acceptance date for the final design. Initial design was 1940, but..... you'd probably be as accurate to say 1939 as that is when the M3 Grant type was designed, and the early M4 series was a redesign of the M3 type placing a 75mm gun in the turret rather than in the sponson. This redesign allowed the reduction of the Sherman's silhouette along the way.
Both the PzIV and M4 were substantially modified throughout the war and rate as competitors vis design intentions. The late M4s however (with the gyrostabilized gun and 76mm main armament) were IMO substantially better than the late PzIVs. That is, I wouldn't rate them as "even" as Speedy did (although I *would* rate them as even if Speedy were to limit the comparison to 75 armed Shermans and PzIVH/Js).
Speedy raised another interesting point. "if the Tiger and Panther are rated better than the PzIVH/J..." Well, I'd rate the PzVG "better" in a general sense than the Pz IVH/J and better than the M4-76 Shermans, but I'm not sure I'd rate the PzVIE as better than the PzIVH/J or M4-76 Shermans. IMO, the Germans got alot more tank for the money strategically and tactically from the PzIVJ than they got from the PzVIE.
< Message edited by mdiehl -- 1/31/2007 10:47:06 PM >
_____________________________
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.
Tiger can put a hole in turret of Sherman A2 at 1800 m distance Sherman A2 cannot penetrate Tiger turret at 0 distance Tiger penetrate Sherman A4 turret at 1800 m distance Sherman A4 penetrate Tiger turret at 700 m distance
Posts: 1416
Joined: 4/20/2005 From: Hungary, EU Status: offline
Well we dicussed a whole number of issues, while forgetting that a knocked out tank is not a destroyed one. I wonder what remained from a Tommycooker after a Kwk 42 hit and what from Kat after a 76mm APBC hit.
Well we dicussed a whole number of issues, while forgetting that a knocked out tank is not a destroyed one. I wonder what remained from a Tommycooker after a Kwk 42 hit and what from Kat after a 76mm APBC hit.
Define destroyed. Around 60% of M4s that were "knocked out" in AEF service in France were restored to service in theater. That is not generally true for most PzIVs, PzVs, or PzVIs in the western ETO sector. Fair to say that restoration to service is primarily a function of who can hold the battlefield long enough after a fight to put their logistical services to work recovering vehicles.
IMO, a shot that holes the tank and either kills the crew or forces them to abandon it counts as a killshot.
_____________________________
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.
Posts: 297
Joined: 6/25/2006 From: Kingston, ON, Canada Status: offline
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen
quote:
ORIGINAL: freeboy
a kill shot at 20-450 yards is very differrent than one at 1500 yards.. I think if you where in a open plains duel aqt 1500 to2500 yds, you would never everr want a allied gun less than the fireflies 25 lb or the german panther high vel 75 or those 88s.. remmeber tactics, vs guns.. I can kill u with my knife if you cannot see me in the fog and u have a 12 guage.
The funny thing is, that you don´t really find many examples of long range duels in the tactical narratives very much (apart from AT guns whose doctrinal role it was to duel at long range anyway), apart from a few instances (Brits in Normandy for exemple). Each time the germans did bring out sizeable number of Kats, they did so in either inclement weather (snow, morning fog, rain) or in constrcited terrain (Ardennes. Mortain to a degree). Which suggests that accuracy and killing power above 1000 meters, while certainly nice to have, was not necessarily decisive in a majority of cases.
I`d suggest that the reason why the Germans only brought out a sizeable number of any type of tank in bad weather or constricted terrain had more to do with Allied air supremacy than purposely choosing to engage at shorter distances. By 1944 air power (and limited resources) was having a serious affect on their abilty to conduct mobile operations of any type. That is one of the reasons Rommel wanted the armoured reserves close to the beach heads - so that they wouldn`t be interedicted by air power while being committed from deep operational reserve positions. I suspect the Germans began to have the same reservations about employing armour at the tactical level and felt it was better to operate from as much cover as possible - hence the close fight.
Posts: 1416
Joined: 4/20/2005 From: Hungary, EU Status: offline
Someone said that 1 year development in war time equals 6 in peace. Sherman (and the Pershing) is like the Iowas. They were built after years of collecting data from war experience. No wonder they become what they become.
That f***ng looser with the moustache have lost the war the very moment he declared war on the US. This only step of his shows how really he sucked at war issues. But give credit where credit is due. Tiger was a big thing in 43 but by mid 44 it was not what it used to be in terms of firepower and protection. Tiger II could have been an awesome tank if there were an engine strong enough for it.
But the panther is another story. It was not indestructible, no tank is, but the D later G version, was superior to MOST tank it faced in terms of mobility, firepower, protection. (In its own class) After WWII the french did not liked the germans too much yet they chose the panther instead of the sherman or pershing.
Wittmanns life and death shows how the fortunes of war change, as Hogg states the clearly outdated Pak 38 was still succesful in the bocage.
< Message edited by Ursa MAior -- 1/31/2007 11:14:46 PM >
Well we dicussed a whole number of issues, while forgetting that a knocked out tank is not a destroyed one. I wonder what remained from a Tommycooker after a Kwk 42 hit and what from Kat after a 76mm APBC hit.
Depends upon the possession of the battlefield afterwards. If you can´t recover your derelicts, what good is it?
_____________________________
Ignoring the wulfir Fighting the EUnuchs from within
Printable Version
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? 
RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread