Sherman vs the Panzer IV

[Hittite Under The Bridge]

Doctrine, doctrine, doctrine.

[seahawk]

Just look at Pz-IV hull and then at Sherman hull and count weld lines on both.

 

That can also be a design decision. If you have more factories able to produce smaller patches of armor plate, it might makes more sense to do more welding, compared to using larger plates. But in general I think that the older design (IV) was also optimized for older production capabilities in Germany.

I know that here in Essen the big factories were producting metal, but also there were a few old and small 18XX vintage factories along the Ruhr Valley that were also making armor plate for weapons production. Obviously they could not make large plates.

[bojan]

That can also be a design decision. If you have more factories able to produce smaller patches of armor plate, it might makes more sense to do more welding, compared to using larger plates...

But then you have to transfer all those plates to single location adding more money and time to the pile.

 

But in general I think that the older design (IV) was also optimized for older production capabilities in Germany.

Yes, Pz-IV production line was way more primitive compared to Sherman's or even T-34's. IIRC Panther solved this problem somewhat (IIRC wasn't it only marginally more expensive then Pz-IV).

 

I know that here in Essen the big factories were producting metal, but also there were a few old and small 18XX vintage factories along the Ruhr Valley that were also making armor plate for weapons production. Obviously they could not make large plates.

 

Hence need to make tank more complicated so that small manufacturers can contribute, but you are rising price and time needed. On the other hand you do not really have a choice and your industrial base does not allow anything else.

[seahawk]

I agree with you, though I still believe that the easier production of the Sherman was not only a result of the design but also of the industrial capacity of the US.

Germanies industrial base was not on the same level, especially not if you consider that the IV was an older design.

 

Apart from that the 3 main suppliers for armor plate were based in the Ruhrvalley. Krupp in Essen, Eisen- und Hüttenwerke in Bochum und Dortmund Hörder-Nüttenverein in Dortmund. Ther many smaller firms helped in cutting the platres and in the Cemetation process.

[Jonathan Chin]

Versicle homogeneous steel plate with 80mm of thickness was theoretically "immune" to Soviet 76 and US 75 at 500 meters and over--but I am sure a hit at 700m would be unpleasant. I just cannot find any literature about Pz. IV being a problem for Allied tankers. Though one can attribute this to Tiger phobia, there are cases of Panzers positively identified as Mark IVs and 75mm guns did not have any undue trouble against these targets.

 

As someone else said already, with cherry picking one can make Sherman and T-34 inferior to the Pz. IV, but matching generation with generation, the Mark IV was clearly an inferior tank. The Western Allies failed to up-gun enough of their Shermans for Normandy and so the 75mm M4s had to slug it out with Pz. IV's high velocity gun. Even so, both tanks could kill each other at regular combat ranges.

 

I used to think the Germans standardized used 80mm armor on several types of their tanks due to both tactical and manufacturing reasons. However, the side hull armor of the Pz. VI E was actually 82mm thick whereas the Pz. IV and Pz. V front plate armor were 85mm thick so the ease of production might not have been what the Germans had in mind.

 

Btw, I now believe that Mark IV H armor was not face-hardened. The Germans considered face-hardening the Panther tank's glacis armor but apparently 85mm armor was too thick so they opted for rolled homogeneous. If so, there would be illogical for Pz. IV to have FH armor. Somebody on this forum posted a Soviet technical AAR compiled after the Battle of Kursk on my thread about M3 75mm L/40 gun versus Pz. IV, and it states that German medium and heavy tanks had abandoned face-hardening in favor of thicker armor, either as a cost-saving measure or German armor manufacturing method was inadequate to harden steel plates that thick.

 

It would have been better for the Western Allies had the Germans face-hardened their 82mm and 85mm plates. Than they would be easily defeated at 1,000 yards. RHA was more effective defense when your enemy have decent ballistic cap...

 

Bojan,

 

I'd love to see the "Yugo gun versus Panzers" thread but it seems to be unavailable currently; I can see some of your material by google search, but they're on "best 60s MBT" thread and I cannot find data on US 75mm APC-HE rounds. If the data is in hand, please share!

[seahawk]

I would disagree with the idea that Pz IV, Sherman and T-34 were from the same generation. Design was finished in 1935/36 and production started in 1937 for the IV. T-34 is a 1940 design, Sherman even 1941. Pz IV basic design was the only of the 3 that was done without early war experience.

 

Imho it speaks for the Pz IV that it was not hopelessly outclassed by 1944/45.

[Ken Estes]

I think that you'll find that the bad rep of Shermans in terms of fire was mostly due to the early versions with unprotected ammo.

 

I've seen published statistics that showed that the PZ4 [and panther] were just as prone to catastrophic fires as the early sherman... which if you look at the ammo storage, isn't surprising.

Statistics collected 'after the battle' cannot cover well the usual case that a tank, once abandoned by its crew for various reasons, could indeed burn itself to a wreck. This contrasts in the extreme with the old tanker stories/myths such as "...you have only 30 seconds to bail out of a Sherman on fire before it blows up." These tales were still resident among the old-timers at USMC Tank School in 1970 ["...any more than 30 seconds and it [the backblast] will suck you back in if you are still in the hatchway..."], and cannot be verified in any sense by the docs. One of the first so-called 'urban legends'?? To be sure, there were terrible cases of M4s at Iwo or Oki blown up on early IEDs [aerial bombs, torpedos buried as mines] in which the crews were incinerated alive, but these tanks had turned turtle, trapping them, and ignited both fuel and ammo.

[Jussi Saari]

Versicle homogeneous steel plate with 80mm of thickness was theoretically "immune" to Soviet 76 and US 75 at 500 meters and over--but I am sure a hit at 700m would be unpleasant. I just cannot find any literature about Pz. IV being a problem for Allied tankers. Though one can attribute this to Tiger phobia, there are cases of Panzers positively identified as Mark IVs and 75mm guns did not have any undue trouble against these targets.

 

Even if 80mm hull would be invulnerable, the turret is a pretty big target and should be vulnerable to US 75mm and Soviet 76mm AP out to a good range, so that's not very surprising

[Marek Tucan]

re. hardening, table at Guns vs. Armor website:

http://www.freeweb.hu/gva/weapons/german_hull6.html

suggests that IVH had FH front hull and turret and IVJ not.

As for "why harden IV and not Panther", maybe the hardening was viewed as more important on near-vertical IV armor vs. sloped Panther armor and for Tiger it was deemed unnecessary for side and rear?

Dunno, just wild speculations.

[Ken Estes]

I would disagree with the idea that Pz IV, Sherman and T-34 were from the same generation. Design was finished in 1935/36 and production started in 1937 for the IV. T-34 is a 1940 design, Sherman even 1941. Pz IV basic design was the only of the 3 that was done without early war experience.

 

Imho it speaks for the Pz IV that it was not hopelessly outclassed by 1944/45.

Pz IV was designed w/o taking Spanish Civil War experience into consideration. T-34 was a direct response to the SCW, in which the USSR design teams estimated the likely tank trends emerging and scrapped the A20 in favor of a design to dominate the emerging generation. M4 was the designed in response to May-June 1940, with the M3 medium the interim design that fielded the 75mm medium barrel 'first' except that the KV-1 and T-34 beat them to it.

 

Of course, Tiger I was already conceived as a breakthough tank in 1940, in the form of the Henschel VK 3001(H).

 

BTW, fuel consumption for the Pz IV improved from the 313 ltr/100Km of Model IVA to 235 IVB and was 227 in the "J" model. But these figures usually relate to performance on hard surface roads, on the flat, not cross-country performance, where the US tank would have shown best. In any case, only the Germans had to worry a lot about fuel consumption, for obvious reasons.

Edited July 20, 2010 by Ken Estes

[Martin M]

Uh, with which engine?

 

Wright radial M4, M4A1

Ford GAA, M4A3

Chrysler 5-bank, M4A4

 

and then the diesels:

twin GM, M4A2

Caterpillar, M4A6

 

 

 

It was off some miscellanous website info sheet with no specific engine mentioned. It should apply to one of the first, but not the diesels.

[DKTanker]

It was off some miscellanous website info sheet with no specific engine mentioned. It should apply to one of the first, but not the diesels.

So you couldn't determine which models were compared? So it could be a Pzkw IV Ausf. C at 18 tons compared to an M4A3E8 at 34 tons, or some other variation with one constant, the M4 would always weigh more than he Pzkw IV.

[shep854]

I think that you'll find that the bad rep of Shermans in terms of fire was mostly due to the early versions with unprotected ammo.

 

I've seen published statistics that showed that the PZ4 [and panther] were just as prone to catastrophic fires as the early sherman... which if you look at the ammo storage, isn't surprising.

 

It's a different take on "the victors write the histories". Allied tankers had the luxury to discuss the shortcomings of their equipment, whereas the losers who survived had other concerns.

[Martin M]

So you couldn't determine which models were compared? So it could be a Pzkw IV Ausf. C at 18 tons compared to an M4A3E8 at 34 tons, or some other variation with one constant, the M4 would always weigh more than he Pzkw IV.

 

 

 

Sorry,

First look was at my favourite age old Armour in Profile Number 8 by Profile Publication Ltd. „ Specification - PzKpw IV (7.5 cm) Ausf. F2 „ , wherein was written:

 

Range 130 miles

Fuel capacity 105 gallons, whereby the immediate problem was : are these US gallons or British gallons ! ?

A quick look somewhere else yielded 470 liters for all Ausf. Except “ J “ which has 680, so it was US gallons indeed.

 

So it was a F2.

 

But anyway,

Senger and Etterlin did it all more nicely, stating mileage (in German custom), liters / 100 km.

 

This being 313 for Ausf. A

Thereafter 235 for B to H

and 227 for the J .

 

The Sherman number …. I confess was first grab Wikepedia Sherman M4 …

 

and the engine is :

Continental R975C1 with 400 /350 hp and range given as 193 km on 660 liters of gas.

Being 342 liters per 100 km.

[DKTanker]

But anyway,

Senger and Etterlin did it all more nicely, stating mileage (in German custom), liters / 100 km.

 

This being 313 for Ausf. A

Thereafter 235 for B to H

and 227 for the J .

 

The Sherman number …. I confess was first grab Wikepedia Sherman M4 …

 

and the engine is :

Continental R975C1 with 400 /350 hp and range given as 193 km on 660 liters of gas.

Being 342 liters per 100 km.

This doesn't make much sense either with the lightest model, Ausf. A, requiring the most fuel for 100 km.

 

Still, one must account for the M4 being substantially heavier than the Pzkw IV when talking about fuel requirements. Such as, because the M4 weighs more than the Pzkw IV it requires more fuel for a given range.

[Jonathan Chin]

Jussi Saari

Even if 80mm hull would be invulnerable, the turret is a pretty big target and should be vulnerable to US 75mm and Soviet 76mm AP out to a good range, so that's not very surprising

 

That is what I thought when I read Max Hasting's assertion that the 75mm Sherman was "helpless" against a Panzer IV, which is now quoted ad nauseam on the web.

 

Martin M

and the engine is :

Continental R975C1 with 400 /350 hp and range given as 193 km on 660 liters of gas.

Being 342 liters per 100 km.

 

Without the perimeters within which the gasoline consumption rate was determined, it is hard to tell what do those numbers really mean.

 

Tuccy

re. hardening, table at Guns vs. Armor website:

http://www.freeweb.h...rman_hull6.html

suggests that IVH had FH front hull and turret and IVJ not.

As for "why harden IV and not Panther", maybe the hardening was viewed as more important on near-vertical IV armor vs. sloped Panther armor and for Tiger it was deemed unnecessary for side and rear?

Dunno, just wild speculations.

 

The Soviet Report is quite clear, it said the 82mm and 85mm armor plates of German tanks model 4, 5, 6 recovered around Kursk were not hardened. IIRC The source of the site you quoted is Jentz, who also wrote in his Panther book that hardening 80mm plate proved impossible or prohibitively expensive that the Germans abandoned it. The Tiger tank's 82mm side armor was not hardened either. Really bizarre stuff.

Edited July 20, 2010 by Jonathan Chin

[Martin M]

This doesn't make much sense either with the lightest model, Ausf. A, requiring the most fuel for 100 km.

 

Correct. I saw that also. I´ll take my Spielberger home with me and see if I can finfd an explaination. ( My Martin M remark. I used the multi quote wrong. )

 

 

Still, one must account for the M4 being substantially heavier than the Pzkw IV when talking about fuel requirements. Such as, because the M4 weighs more than the Pzkw IV it requires more fuel for a given range.

 

 

 

 

Of course its heavier and so forth. I was just noting the "fact" of subst. different gas mileage. The Sherman is heavier and has a larger engine. Of course it will use more gas.

Edited July 20, 2010 by Martin M

[Martin M]

[quote Without the perimeters within which the gasoline consumption rate was determined, it is hard to tell what do those numbers really mean.

 

 

 

 

Yes, as usual a lot of the parameters are missing to us.

 

But I assume both the Sherman and the P 4 test drivers in the case of road range filled the gas tanks up to the brim and drove down a hard surface road(s) at an intermedate speed until they run outa gas. Thats how far they got.

 

This probably was done more than once so if the milage acheived was way off an earlier number, they would change the number. So I kinda assume the nuzmbers are all in all correct.

[Martin M]

This doesn't make much sense either with the lightest model, Ausf. A, requiring the most fuel for 100 km.

 

Still, one must account for the M4 being substantially heavier than the Pzkw IV when talking about fuel requirements. Such as, because the M4 weighs more than the Pzkw IV it requires more fuel for a given range.

 

 

 

The Ausf. A has a different engine, a HL 108 TR with 250 PS, the B has a HL 120 TR with 320 PS and all the rest have HL 120 TRM with 300 PS.

 

 

Problem solved. No need to carry the heavy Spielberger home.

[Meyer]

Frontal armor was FH in all Ausf F,G and H (and some early Ausf J). Starting in june 1944 the FH requeriment was dropped. (Jentz, Panzer Tracts No.4)

[seahawk]

They went from Cementation to Flame Hardening to no hardening. Considering that the Krupp Steel Works and the other steel works in the Ruhr Valley switched from Cementation to flame hardening in early 1943, it is possible that the Soviets were mistaking the changed hardening technology for no hardening.

Edited July 20, 2010 by seahawk

[Getz]

If asked to sum this up quickly, I'd say that the M4 was the better tank, but the later Pz IV had the better gun, and as a result no version of the M4 could afford not to take the Pz IV seriously.

 

The remarkable thing about the Pz IV was that in 1945, when nearly a decade old, it was still a threat to the tanks designed to beat it. Thanks to that 75mm L48 there were very few allied AFVs around in 1945 that a Pz IV couldn't kill, even if it was itself pretty vulnerable at most battle ranges. You can't really say the same for the M4...

[Ken Estes]

What tank could the 1945 M4A3E8 not kill?

 

Or is it your instance that only front to front engagements count? Most surviving tankers did not observe jousting rules.

 

Of course, by 1945 [Feb?], all M4 series production had ceased, except for the 105mm support tank, in favor of the M26.

[DKTanker]

The Ausf. A has a different engine, a HL 108 TR with 250 PS, the B has a HL 120 TR with 320 PS and all the rest have HL 120 TRM with 300 PS.

 

 

Problem solved. No need to carry the heavy Spielberger home.

Not really, almost each successive Ausf. was heavier than the previous so given the same engine, and ignoring Ausf. A*, the fuel requirements should go up with each increase of weight.

 

*Ausf. A was the lightest of the lot and had the smallest engine. One would think it should be the most, not least fuel efficient.

[CaptLuke]

Certainly T-34 owes one hell of a lot more to Pz-III and bits from various other designs and the perceived doctrinal need for a universal tank, than anything to do with what was, at the time an infantry support tank.

 

I'd be interested to know what the rear drive, diesel powered, Christie suspension, sloped armored, two man turreted, 76mm gunned T34 owed to the front drive, gas powered, vertical armor, three man turreted, 50mm armed PzIII with torsion bar suspension.