Sherman vs the Panzer IV

[Jonathan Chin]

The Cromwell's cannon was not a very good one by 1944 standards. The Sherman 75 had the same problem, but it is better in almost everything else.

 

What do you mean by that? Was Cromwell's turret awkward?

[Meyer]

What do you mean by that? Was Cromwell's turret awkward?

 

Sorry, what I meant was that both tanks had a mediocre gun, but the Sherman was better (as a tank) in other areas.

 

According to British OR they believe Cromwell frontal armor was stronger than the Shermans they had at the time.

 

And what time would that be? I can see if they are talking about the Cromwell VII with the apliqué armor in the front plate, but AFAIK the turret armor remained unchanged, and also that model appeared in 1945 and saw limited service during the war. As for the vast majority of the Cromwells, at least in paper, they look as inferior to the M4 in frontal protection.

[Jonathan Chin]

And what time would that be? I can see if they are talking about the Cromwell VII with the apliqué armor in the front plate, but AFAIK the turret armor remained unchanged, and also that model appeared in 1945 and saw limited service during the war. As for the vast majority of the Cromwells, at least in paper, they look as inferior to the M4 in frontal protection.

 

What ever model Cromwell the British had during the Normandy Campaign. According to John Buckley, Cromwells could be knocked out by PzKw IV's 75 at ranges out to 1,500 meters, M4 Shermans a little more than that at roughly 1,600 meters. I presume he used British archives for sources. I am somewhat surprised to find this caveat since, as you said, there is no reason on paper that the Cromwell should be more strongly protected.

[Rich]

Sorry, what I meant was that both tanks had a mediocre gun, but the Sherman was better (as a tank) in other areas.

 

To be technical, the two had the same gun...well, the same ammunition, fired from guns that were ballistically identical even if of different origin. All the Cromwells deployed to Europe were 75mm (bored-out 6-pdr) or 95mm-armed.

 

Armor was about the same, as was reliability AFAICS, but Cromwell was slightly faster and more maneuverable.

 

Cheers!

[APF]

What ever model Cromwell the British had during the Normandy Campaign. According to John Buckley, Cromwells could be knocked out by PzKw IV's 75 at ranges out to 1,500 meters, M4 Shermans a little more than that at roughly 1,600 meters. I presume he used British archives for sources.

 

Just two short comments:

 

1) 1,500 vs. 1,600 m sounds well within measurement error, or variance because of armour variances within the types, so the question would be on what sources this evaluation is based on.

 

2) 1,500 m: so the PzKW IV could shoot through 5 hedgerows and still penetrate the M4, while it could only shoot through 4 1/2 and penetrate the Cromwell?! I see....

 

Greetings

[Jonathan Chin]

The point is, essentially, there is no observed weakness in Cromwell's protection versus an early model M4 Sherman tank. A direct comparison of the two would need to be evaluated on other criterion, such as fightability, agility, dependability, etc..

[Martin M]

I know, my response was mostly tongue in cheek, but also to educate those that tend to ignore that little fact in the midst of their adulation of all that is so cool about them there Deathshead Ubertankers in Black and Silver Nifty Uniforms™.

 

Nevermind the same could be said about Le Desert where the TD's executed exactly according to their tactical doctrine and trashed Lehr. Yes, there the overall tactical situation was hopelessly imbalanced against the Germans except at the Schwerpunkt where they acheived their initial penetration, but that just meant the decision was reached in the American gavor just more quickly and decisively than at Mortain. You could also look, as has been mentioned already, at the initial Canadian encounters with HJ. They were bloody, but essentially a split decision tactically, 6pdrs and 17pdr Sherman did a number on the Panthers, one 17pdr Sherman taking out five (or was it seven, I'll have to double check) in a few minutes.

 

All in all the record is more mixed than generally supposed. Yes, German tactical experience and small unit leadership tended to be better than the Allies, but not always. No, it didn't always hold true.

 

Cheers!

 

 

educate those that tend to ignore that little fact in the midst of their adulation of all that is so cool about them there Deathshead Ubertankers in Black and Silver Nifty Uniforms™.

 

Are these people members of Tanknet ? (those that need to be educated for their adulation of all that is cool (really ?) about DUBSNU)

 

Before I try to post on the old subject Sher/P4, I stress I am NOT one of them.

 

Regards

[Rich]

Are these people members of Tanknet ? (those that need to be educated for their adulation of all that is cool (really ?) about DUBSNU)

 

I don't know if they are members, but there are those here who only appear to post while they are bobbing along on their way to an unlamented exit...and, I hate to say it, but even this Grate Sight™ seems to possess a few members of that august fraternity of maniacs or, at least, a few that periodically are seized by an uncontrollable urge to start whining about how cool Ubertanks and their drivers were. Usually the illness begins with a Tourette's-like need for the aflicted one to start screaming "Ronson" and "Tommycooker" without provocation...

 

Before I try to post on the old subject Sher/P4, I stress I am NOT one of them.

 

I don't recall you exhibiting any symptoms of the malady before, but if you are suddenly feeling the urge then I suggest you take two aspirin, reflect on the life and times of King Sargent, and call your physician if the feelings persist...

 

Cheers!

[Martin M]

I don't know if they are members, but there are those here who only appear to post while they are bobbing along on their way to an unlamented exit...and, I hate to say it, but even this Grate Sight™ seems to possess a few members of that august fraternity of maniacs or, at least, a few that periodically are seized by an uncontrollable urge to start whining about how cool Ubertanks and their drivers were. Usually the illness begins with a Tourette's-like need for the aflicted one to start screaming "Ronson" and "Tommycooker" without provocation...

 

 

 

I don't recall you exhibiting any symptoms of the malady before, but if you are suddenly feeling the urge then I suggest you take two aspirin, reflect on the life and times of King Sargent, and call your physician if the feelings persist...

 

Cheers!

 

 

 

 

" I don't recall you exhibiting any symptoms of the malady "

[DougRichards]

To be technical, the two had the same gun...well, the same ammunition, fired from guns that were ballistically identical even if of different origin. All the Cromwells deployed to Europe were 75mm (bored-out 6-pdr) or 95mm-armed.

 

Armor was about the same, as was reliability AFAICS, but Cromwell was slightly faster and more maneuverable.

 

Cheers!

 

"Rebored?' well, based on the 6pdr but were not bored out 6pdrs, in ths ame way that early 25pdrs were not bored out 18pdrs, but 18pdrs with a new barrel.

[Rich]

"Rebored?' well, based on the 6pdr but were not bored out 6pdrs, in ths ame way that early 25pdrs were not bored out 18pdrs, but 18pdrs with a new barrel.

 

Aaaack! You're quite right Doug, very sloppy of me to repeat such a shibboleth. I shall promptly immolate myself in a convenient Tommycooker, albeit I am not a Tommy, but rather a Yank.

 

Cheers!

[DougRichards]

Aaaack! You're quite right Doug, very sloppy of me to repeat such a shibboleth. I shall promptly immolate myself in a convenient Tommycooker, albeit I am not a Tommy, but rather a Yank.

 

Cheers!

 

You mean a Ronson, rather than a Tommy Cooker?

 

No self-immoliation necessary, unless you are a Buddhist Monk (ie a "Bearded Dragon" protesting against a war somewhere, of course).

[Rich]

You mean a Ronson, rather than a Tommy Cooker?

 

Tommy Cooker just sounded so much more appropriate in this context.

 

No self-immoliation necessary, unless you are a Buddhist Monk (ie a "Bearded Dragon" protesting against a war somewhere, of course).

 

I firmly eschew the self-abuse of the Bearded Clam Ilk...but see no reason for not admitting error where error is found. Especially when such an event is such a rare occurrence.

 

Cheers!

[Ken Estes]

I know, my response was mostly tongue in cheek, but also to educate those that tend to ignore that little fact in the midst of their adulation of all that is so cool about them there Deathshead Ubertankers in Black and Silver Nifty Uniforms. ....

hmmm. Rich, are you using a shorthand version on us? Seems to me, in those other websites that one may frequent, the full designation apparently starts with "Blond, tanned, Deathshead Uebertankers riding their Panzers..." does it not? At least I so learned from that guy I asked you to forward me to a month or so ago.

 

At his suggestion, I am going to read The Myth of the Eastern Front: The Nazi-Soviet War in American Popular Culture by Smelser & Davies, which apparently tries to explain some of that stuff; ought to be fun.

 

Cheers, Ken

Edited September 13, 2010 by Ken Estes

[Marek Tucan]

 

At his suggestion, I am going to read The Myth of the Eastern Front: The Nazi-Soviet War in American Popular Culture by Smelser & Davies, which apparently tries to explain some of that stuff; ought to be fun.

 

 

There verily is a b ook on any kind of crap you might think of

[alejandro_]

Since we were talking about nicknames... in a few discussions I have seen the Panzer-IV referred as "Rotbart, der Dünnhäutige" ( Redbeard, the thin skinned) because of its thin armour. Anyone knows where this comes from?

[mnm]

...but see no reason for not admitting error where error is found. Especially when such an event is such a rare occurrence.

 

Cheers!

 

Watch it! Someone has been recently banned for an attitude just like that

[Colin Williams]

Highly practical perspectives.

 

But ... the earlier Cromwells had a poor reputation on reliability. As I understand it, improving the reliability of the tank was the reason that the later marks had the speed governing the speed down to 32mph. Did it really help that much? Was the tank considered a good automotive runner after that? As compared to what? (Compared to other Brit tanks of WW2 = not a very convincing standard, but compared to Shermans or Grant/Lees might be very convincing.)

 

And ... the Cromwell had more armor than the Sherman. But it was arranged and constructed in a fairly anacronistic way (vertical slabs and rivets). How did it hold up in combat?

 

I've always liked the Cromwell, but never heard much about its combat record.

 

-Mark 1

 

I looked at this quite a bit in the past, so please take the thoughts below with the caveat of an aging memory only modestly boosted by some quick peaks at a few references.

 

The British tankers who manned the Cromwell generally came from two groups - North African veterans (7th Armoured Division) and Home Forces soldiers new to the war (armoured recon regiments in the 11th and Guards AD). By and large it seems that the tankers who had served in the UK until 1944 or those who were new to experienced units liked the Cromwell reasonably well. By contrast, those who returned to the UK in late 1943 as part of the 7th AD did not like the Cromwell, at least initially. For most of these men their experience of British cruiser tanks came very early in the war in models like the A9, A13 and Crusader, all of which were characterized by some major defects and perceived disadvantages in armor and gun power relative to German tanks. The majority of their time in Africa had involved service in America tanks, specifically the Stuart/Honey, the Grant and the Sherman. They appreciated the reliability of all these tanks as well as the firepower and relative comfort of the Grant and Sherman. For some reason that isn't explained in any book I've read but which must be justified somewhere in the War Office archives, the powers-that-be decided to take the tankers of 7th AD, which had been fighting with at least some Shermans since El Alamein, and put them in Cromwells while giving Shermans to the UK newbies. This was not appreciated and had a negative impact on training and preparation by the 7th AD as they had to learn a new tank. Despite their initial problems with giving up their Shermans for a British tank, most of the veteran tankers seem to have accepted the Cromwell as a decent tank in the long run.

 

Of those comments I've read regarding the Cromwell, here are some that seem very common. On the downside the hull floor was far too thin, creating an unnecessary risk to the crew of a tank encountering AT mines. The inside was more cramped than the Sherman, the ammo stowage was awkward until modified in the field (possibly a result of changing from 6pdr to 75mm), and the tank could get bogged relatively easily (thin tracks). Some thought the armor too thin, and, as with the Sherman, the gun wasn't powerful enough. On the upside crews appreciated the speed and maneuverability of the tank, considering it far superior to the Sherman, as well as the relatively low profile. The Cromwell also proved at least as reliable as the Sherman, if not more. Ironically, the addition of the Firefly to tank troops, which was tremendously popular with all units, both Sherman and Cromwell-equipped, limited the impact of the Cromwell's speed advantage as the Firefly had trouble keeping up with Cromwells moving at speed.

 

Presumably the Cromwell, like the Churchill, gave the crew more time to bale out before catching fire/exploding than the Sherman, but I haven't seen any definitive information on that.

 

Taking all of this in perspective, I imagine a tanker in a Cromwell would be somewhat more likely to survive in combat than a tanker in a 75mm Sherman, depending in some degree upon the version, but he would be less comfortable and probably choose the Sherman if it was a Firefly.

[Rich]

For some reason that isn't explained in any book I've read but which must be justified somewhere in the War Office archives, the powers-that-be decided to take the tankers of 7th AD, which had been fighting with at least some Shermans since El Alamein, and put them in Cromwells while giving Shermans to the UK newbies.

 

Hi Colin,

 

I suspect that the reason is quite as simple as the fact that the 7th AD simply were the "new kids on the block" with respect to the units in terms of when they arrived in England? I know the travails of the Canadian armor in England getting tanks is well documented by them and, AFAICR by November 1943 when 7th AD showed up 2 CAB and 4 CAD were just finally getting set up. 11th AD was also well established IIRC with Shermans and I doubt anyone was going to take tanks away from GOD, oops, sorry, GAD , so I suspect they were in a similar position as ETOUSA. That is, the mandated 50% reserve meant that the established units required as many Shermans as available for their reserves, plus there was the demand for conversion to 17-pdr and the numbers to issue to 7th AD start shrinking. Just look at the adamant insistance by the War Office that ETOUSA fulfill the Lend-Lease agreements by transfering those 300-odd tanks in May 1944.

 

If you see what I mean? It just looks to us as if there were scads of Shermans laying about just waiting for issue, but to those looking at the situation at the time, Commonwealth and American, the numbers were just barely adequate.

 

Cheers!

[baboon6]

All true Rich but 4th Armoured Brigade arrived in the UK later than 7th Armoured Div and they got Shermans:

 

http://www.desertrat.brigades.btinternet.co.uk/4thAB1944.htm

 

8th (who had also fought in North Africa) and 27th Armoured Brigades had the Sherman DDs as well as normal Shermans- giving them Cromwells wouldn't have made any sense. 33rd Armoured Brigade also had Shermans. Another point is that there was some change around with regards to orbat to give the inexperienced formations some veteran units e.g. 3RTR went from 8th Bde to 29th (11th Armoured Div) and 8th got 24th Lancers in return.

 

1st Polish Armoured Div was equipped as per 11th and Guards (Shermans in the armoured brigade, Cromwells in the recce regt) while the Czech brigade had Cromwells.

Edited September 14, 2010 by baboon6

[Colin]

If the front hatches on the Cromwell are anything like a Comet, then it would not be easy to get out of.

 

Hmmm seems the left side is similar to the Comet, but the Driver is purely on the top.

 

Here is the Comet

The inside of the Comet, likely similar but bigger than the Cromwell, cursing myself for not taking pictures of the Cromwell interior! No matter how many pictures I take there, it's never enough!

[Meyer]

What ever model Cromwell the British had during the Normandy Campaign. According to John Buckley, Cromwells could be knocked out by PzKw IV's 75 at ranges out to 1,500 meters, M4 Shermans a little more than that at roughly 1,600 meters. I presume he used British archives for sources. I am somewhat surprised to find this caveat since, as you said, there is no reason on paper that the Cromwell should be more strongly protected.

 

Those graphics are really weird...

First of all, I think you are mistaken in that they represent the front armour vulnerability, that can't be right, when (for example), both the Panther and Tiger are shown as they can be penetrated by the 75mm (up to 500 and 200m respectively) and the 6-pdr (no APDS, 600 and 400m). We know that the Panther frontal armor was stronger than the Tiger, but the opposite was true for their sides. So that would make sense... only that if they indeed are showing the side vulnerability, problem is that the Panther's side was way more vulnerable than that. So who knows...

More weirdness, the Tiger gun is apparently better than the KwK42 against Churchills...

[mkenny]

Those graphics are really weird...

First of all, I think you are mistaken in that they represent the front armour vulnerability, that can't be right, when (for example), both the Panther and Tiger are shown as they can be penetrated by the 75mm (up to 500 and 200m respectively) and the 6-pdr (no APDS, 600 and 400m). We know that the Panther frontal armor was stronger than the Tiger, but the opposite was true for their sides. So that would make sense... only that if they indeed are showing the side vulnerability, problem is that the Panther's side was way more vulnerable than that. So who knows...

More weirdness, the Tiger gun is apparently better than the KwK42 against Churchills...

 

 

[

[Meyer]

Hmm yeah.. that's one of them. Now that you posted it, also noticeable is how both the Tiger and Panther are equally vulnerable to the 6-pdr APDS, and even more strange is the fact that the 6-pdr APDS shows no improvement over the APCBC against the PzIV?

[DB]

Hmm yeah.. that's one of them. Now that you posted it, also noticeable is how both the Tiger and Panther are equally vulnerable to the 6-pdr APDS, and even more strange is the fact that the 6-pdr APDS shows no improvement over the APCBC against the PzIV?

Perhaps they just didn't evaluate it beyond 1500 metres? Note that they don't show the PzIV vulnerability to 17lbr APDS as better than the normal AP round either, but then by extension it would fall off the chart.