Sherman vs the Panzer IV

[Guest aevans]

What about the aero entity that morphed into Messerschmitt AG? It came from the bought out Otto aero company that was about as traditional as you can get in that field being one of the very first companies of that type.

 

But non-traditional in comparison to Krupp and MAN, among others.

[Meyer]

All in all the Panzer 4 BETTER be better. It was designed by a country that had all the traditions of, and viewed itself as, a world-class land power. The Sherman, on the other hand, was designed by a country that viewed a standing army as undesirable, which at the time of the tank's design had an army smaller than Finland, and was more closely comparable to Portugal. At the time that the Sherman design was begun, the US had built less than 5% as many tanks as Italy, and the US Army operated fewer tanks than Romania. How much superior to the Pz 4 were the tanks designed in those nations?

I'm sorry, but most of those points are totally irrelevant, and some, as the numbers of tanks/build by the USA against other countries, still compares better than in the case of Germany. But the real question is: who had the most experience in building/testing tanks, the Germans in 1934/35, having operated a handful of Großtraktor, Neubau Fahrzeug, Leichttraktor and Klientraktor; or the Americans in 1939/40?.

Oh, the Sherman better be better, better be MUCH better.

[Meyer]

Regarding the question of range/fuel consumption of the different variants of Pz IV, here are the Jentz' figures:

 

Ausf A: fuel capacity 470 liters, range on road 210km

 

Ausf B: 470l, 210km

 

Ausf C: 470l, 210km

 

Ausf D: 470l, 210km

 

Ausf E: 470l, 210km

 

Hmmm oops, he gave the same numbers for all the A-H versions, which of course can not be correct considering that the weight had increase almost 40% since the Ausf A (also with wider tracks).

FWIW, for the Ausf J is 320km with 680l.

[Guest JamesG123]

Maybe they got more effiecent too?

[Hittite Under The Bridge]

Maybe they got more effiecent too?

 

The Germans? Efficient?

[Guest JamesG123]

The Germans? Efficient?

 

Early VW TDI?

[Jonathan Chin]

My impression that PzIVs were likely to suffer some internal component damage from non-penetrating 75mm hits and that the PzIV crews, much as Sherman, Cromwell and Churchill crews, were well aware of their tank's vulnerability.

 

Hm... I imagine the bolts on the superstructure that connected it to the hull would be quite hazardous when knocked loose by a medium velocity projectile. Didn't they say this about Crusader and Grant tank's use of rivets?

[Marek Tucan]

How widely did the Soviets use captured ones? might there be some source for comparison, given Soviets used also Shermans and, naturally, T-34?

[Guest aevans]

How widely did the Soviets use captured ones? might there be some source for comparison, given Soviets used also Shermans and, naturally, T-34?

 

Don't know the answer to that one, but the Soviets and the Mk IV had a relationship going back to before the war. When they were shown the Mk IV and were told it was a medium tank, they didn't believe the Germans could be serious. The Mk IV at the time had only 30mm of vertical armor at the thickest points, while the (then under development) T-34 would have at least 45mm of sloped armor over most of the hull, and even thicker armor on the turret.

[bojan]

How widely did the Soviets use captured ones? might there be some source for comparison, given Soviets used also Shermans and, naturally, T-34?

 

Only account I found was of SU-76M crewman whose unit used Pz-IV as command vehicle due the good radios. His comment was that it was somewhat leaky and not perfectly reliable, but that could be due the fact it was captured vehicle w/o good supply of spares.

Officially Soviets considered Pz-III and Pz-IV reliable enough to permit repairs while Panthers and Tigers if captured could be used until broke, but w/o attempt to repair them (but repairs sometimes happened in case of Panther).

Edited July 23, 2010 by bojan

[mnm]

They did set up a program to refit circa 300 Pz III as StuGskys - or what a StuG should look like - designated as SU-76i by sticking a slab-sided casemate over the Pz III hull, and giving it a 76mm gun. Nothing of the sort for the Pz IV.

 

[Marek Tucan]

Probably because the Pz. III armament was considered weak (esp. as HE thrower) while Pz. IV was OK so did not need conversion to 76mm?

[Jonathan Chin]

I have seen lots of propaganda photographs of captured Pz. III/IVs in action, with a Red Star painted on the hull. The situation in 1941-42 was very desperate, the 50mm gun Pz. III was objectively a decent machine, and a tank was better than no tank.

[irregularmedic]

The Achtung Panzer site implies that PzIV were also converted to Su-76i:

 

It was then decided to convert them to assault guns designated SU-76i (inostranny - foreign). Modifications consisted of the removal of the turret and upper part of the hull in case of PzKpfw III / PzKpfw IV and the superstructure in case of Stug III, while all other components remained unchanged.

[bojan]

The Achtung Panzer site implies that PzIV were also converted to Su-76i:

 

They were not. There was a proposal of open toped 122/152mm spg on Pz-IV chassis but not even prototype was made.

 

Also SU-76i only came into existence as original SU-76 was unreliable piece of crap and something was needed ASAP...

Edited July 24, 2010 by bojan

[mnm]

Also SU-76i only came into existence as original SU-76 was unreliable piece of crap and something was needed ASAP...

 

You look so cute when you are so charitable

 

SU-76i in Russian Battlefield.

Edited July 24, 2010 by mnm

[Colin Williams]

This article from Popular Science answers the question in favor the Sherman! - Why America's Tanks Are the World's Best

[zakk]

This article from Popular Science answers the question in favor the Sherman! - Why America's Tanks Are the World's Best

Screw the Sherman. The Popcorn Cart rules.

[Marek Tucan]

This article from Popular Science answers the question in favor the Sherman! - Why America's Tanks Are the World's Best

 

Interesting, at last I see a pic of the variant with twin hull MG

Edited July 29, 2010 by Tuccy

[alejandro_]

Well, we might ask for specifics of numbers of welds or techniques used. Or we might look at the bigger issues. How many different manufacturing techniques could be used to assemble Pz 4s? How many different engines were fitted into Pz 4s?

 

The Sherman was not just a single tank that was somehow "easier" to produce. It was an entire tank program, with redundancies and back-ups to ensure an enormous production capacity could be built up from next to nothing in the shortest possible time.

 

How much research does it take to determine how many Pz 4s were built with cast hulls? Or how many were built with alternatives to the Maybach engine?

 

 

 

 

And tanks like the Sherman (and the T-34) were necessary components of those decisions.

 

 

 

Very interesting Mark-1, but I have a question: you say the T-34 and Sherman were better for mass production as local industries were able to adapt different manufacturing techniques (welding, casting, stamping), but did the Germans really try on the Panzer-IV? Maybe it has more to do with USSR and USA being able to adapt the techniques.

 

 

[Kentucky-roughrider]

This article from Popular Science answers the question in favor the Sherman! - Why America's Tanks Are the World's Best

 

That article came out during the war years and I would take it with a pound of salt, we had to keep the morale up on the homefront as well as the front lines. but there could be some truth into it however.

[Guest aevans]

That article came out during the war years and I would take it with a pound of salt, we had to keep the morale up on the homefront as well as the front lines. but there could be some truth into it however.

 

I think Colin was being sarcastic, k-r.

[Guest aevans]

I still really don't understand why those early shermans had two fixed hull MGs + the aimable hull MG...I mean clearly what the design needed was MOAR GUNZ!!

 

What they needed were lazrs -- PEW PEW PEW...

Edited July 29, 2010 by aevans

[shep854]

I still really don't understand why those early shermans had two fixed hull MGs + the aimable hull MG...I mean clearly what the design needed was MOAR GUNZ!!

 

The early M3s Lights had fixed sponson MGs as well. I guess the bouncing of the tank as it advanced was supposed to disperse the fire enough to provide a suppressive effect, as well as make the driver feel good.

Edited July 30, 2010 by shep854

[Colin Williams]

I think Colin was being sarcastic, k-r.

 

You betcha!