panzer IV versus the sherman of doom

[Dragunov]

how did the sherman stand up to the pz4? the sherman has good armour, so why does everybody say it was so inferiour?

and technically it had sloping armour, but nobody points that out, why so?

and a fun fact- even though the sherman was nicknamed the 'tommy cooker', it sometimes did not light the first time. Canucks in the Liri valley stayed in their shermans 'till they did, using them as pillboxes providing that they didn't light. one sherman was hit seven (!) times by a panther's 75 and the crew didn't bail out until it lit... the seventh time it was hit.

and no, i dislike the sherman.

[phylo_roadking]

That's 'cos not all cooked LOL the mid- and later marks had the water protection around the ammunition storage, though it had to be abandoned on the Jumbo and i think the Firefly.

Sloped armour yes - but not sloped enough! compare the front glacis to that of the Panther or T34.

And any plus there was from the sloping was cancelled out in statistical terms by the higher hull, harder for the hull-down position.

One of the reasons the PzIV shows up well in statistics is because it was so upgradeable; welded-up flat planes meant easier to add armour segments, shurtzen etc, and it was relatively easy compared to the Sherman to up-gun during the design's service life.

Don't forget the PzIV was a matured design, the bugs worked out of it mark but mark as well as considerable improvements made in each ausfrung, whereas with the U.S.' greater industrial capacity it was easier to cover a weakness by simply producing something else on yet another newly-built production line; Sherman loosing out against better German designs? well its going to take a while to get a better gun in that turret, guys, so in the meantine, let's weld up a lot of plate on the same running gear and you can have the M10 instead to cover the deficit....

[Reb]

Good answers Phylo. I'd add that in the Italian theatre the Shermans were often Diesel models which did not burn as readily as the Ronsons in use in Europe.

The Wet Ammo storage fixed that a bit late.

Dragunov - you might grab a copy of Death Traps by Belton Cooper who was with ordnance maint. in 3rd Armd Div for more info in a well written package.

Cooper claims that Patton himself was against utilizing Pershing at first because he believed so strongly in our doctrine of mobility. That changed after Normandy...

Cooper claims 3rd Armd lost 580% tank casualties in completely destroyed and darn near that much again for damaged in action. A truly horrendous figure. I salute the Allied armour troops for the courage.

cheers
Reb (the former [reluctant] armoured crew)

[phylo_roadking]

Yes, going to diesel meant a greatly simplified fuel system, and no electric ignition system in the engine compartment. The petrol fuel system was a great weakness.....

....especially in the Western Desert, where the first marks earned their "tommycooker" reputation. The ONE thing thats a real killer - pardon the pun - to a petrol fuel system is extremes of heat and cold loosening joints, seal, hoseclips etc. which you got between day and desert night in North Africa.

[Dragunov]

yep, to step in most ww2 tanks and ride into battle WOULD be scary. especially the m3 lee/grant, with its worse-than-the-sherman reputation.

[Rich]

Sometimes I wonder why I bother to try to correct these mistakes, they just keep on appearing. Too many people watching the Mythtry Channel I suppose? I guest I just can't help myself, just a little Pavlovian I suppose.

That's 'cos not all cooked LOL the mid- and later marks had the water protection around the ammunition storage, though it had to be abandoned on the Jumbo and i think the Firefly.

Er no, M4A3E2 were wet stowage, manufacture of the "late model" Shermans with wet stowage began in January 1944 and affected all 75mm and 76mm armed types, only the 105mm did not have wet stowage.

And it wasn't "abandoned" (queer choice of words? ) on the Firefly either. All 17-pdr that I am aware of were converted from early model "dry stowage" M4. Further, the size of the 17-pdr round would have made it impossible to fit into either the 75mm or 76mm wet stowage racks, so it was impractical to do so in the first place.

Sloped armour yes - but not sloped enough! compare the front glacis to that of the Panther or T34.

Er, Panther was sloped 80mm @ 55 degress, T-34 45mm @ 60 degrees, early model Shermans 51mm @ 56 degrees and the later 63.5mm @ 47 degrees. So it fell somewhere in between the Panther and T-34, making it more than a bit comparable to both.

And any plus there was from the sloping was cancelled out in statistical terms by the higher hull, harder for the hull-down position.

Really, it was? Could you supply the data these statistics were drawn from please? The cross-sectional area of the Panther, M4, and T-34 were actually similar, although overall the Panther's was the greatest. And I doubt there was much realistic differance in terms of defilade, the height to top of hull and to the trunnions is similar, it would require gros differances for that to be a practical concern.

One of the reasons the PzIV shows up well in statistics is because it was so upgradeable; welded-up flat planes meant easier to add armour segments, shurtzen etc, and it was relatively easy compared to the Sherman to up-gun during the design's service life.

Really? Identical up-armoring schemes were contemplated for the M4, although only carried out in the M4A3E2, and not because of problems with "curved planes" (that was only a concern for the M4A1 hull) but because of weight constraints. The Panzer IV essentially exceeded its design weight about midway through its career and always struggled with the additional weight of armor and gun, that's part of the reason the powered traverse was dropped in the ultimate version, as a weight savings.

And the M4 was actually easy to upgun, the original turret accomodated 75mm, 76mm, 17-pdr, 105mm, and various and sundry other testbed weapons without much problem. Early attempts to employ the 3-inch/76mm were problematic due to ergonomic concerns in the more cramped original turret more than anything, but it could have been done if that decision had been made (the wheres and whyfors that the decision wasn't made is a completely different subject). The 69-inch turret ring of the M4 actually made it more adaptable than most of its contemporaries.

Don't forget the PzIV was a matured design, the bugs worked out of it mark but mark as well as considerable improvements made in each ausfrung, whereas with the U.S.' greater industrial capacity it was easier to cover a weakness by simply producing something else on yet another newly-built production line; Sherman loosing out against better German designs? well its going to take a while to get a better gun in that turret, guys, so in the meantine, let's weld up a lot of plate on the same running gear and you can have the M10 instead to cover the deficit....

Sorry, but no dice. The US priority was to build sufficient tanks to equip as many formations as possible as quickly as possible. As in the T-34 that meant that some developmental improvements were deferred in the interest of production, which is why so many of them were incorporated all at once January-June 1944.

And the ultimate German decision in upgrading the Panzer IV was to produce the Panther, starting a whole new cycle of required design improvements.

Yes, going to diesel meant a greatly simplified fuel system, and no electric ignition system in the engine compartment. The petrol fuel system was a great weakness.....

....especially in the Western Desert, where the first marks earned their "tommycooker" reputation. The ONE thing thats a real killer - pardon the pun - to a petrol fuel system is extremes of heat and cold loosening joints, seal, hoseclips etc. which you got between day and desert night in North Africa.

Obviously that must be why about half of all tanks produced during World War II were gasoline powered? In fact the early British assessments of the M3 (Honey), M3 (Lee), and M4 all praised the quality and reliability of the fuel delivery systems, probably partly in reaction to the major problems with those found in the early marks of cruisers. Somewhere I've got the BAFV Middle East reports on the reliability problems of the cruisers and especially Crusader I, IIRC the fuel connections, filters and pumps were singled out for the problems you just erroneously attributed to the M4.

Good answers Phylo. I'd add that in the Italian theatre the Shermans were often Diesel models which did not burn as readily as the Ronsons in use in Europe.

Sorry, but again no. Most of the M4 supplied to the Med for US and British use were M4A1, M4, and finally M4A3, M4A2 were relatively rare there and found only in Commonwealth formations.

BTW, there was never any correlation between gasoline and Diesel models burning as readily or not. Diesel has a slightly higher ignition point, but burns hotter than gasoline, gasoline vapors can explode, but I have yet to find any confirmed record of that ever happening in an M4, even those that suffered multiple through and through penetrations of the gas tank. OTOH, self-immolating Panthers are known, but rare and apparently the threat of Diesel fires in the T-34 were sufficient to cause a design change to the fuel tanks.

The Wet Ammo storage fixed that a bit late.

And curiously enough no such fix ever occured - late or early - in the Panther or T-34, both of which were notorious for ammunition fires and explosions.

Dragunov - you might grab a copy of Death Traps by Belton Cooper who was with ordnance maint. in 3rd Armd Div for more info in a well written package.

Interesting, well written, and often simply wrong. Belton Cooper is a great guy (I've met him), but it is a memoir, not a technicl analysis.

Cooper claims that Patton himself was against utilizing Pershing at first because he believed so strongly in our doctrine of mobility. That changed after Normandy...

Sorry, he claims it, but it never happened. Patton had no function in procurement at that time at any level, was partly in disgrace and keeping a low profile, and in fact believed strongly in the uilility of the T26 and 90mm gun, albeit as a tank destroyer rather than a tank.

But in any case there was never any way that the T26 could have been gotten into action prior to Normandy, prototype testing wasn't even completed until July 1944.

[Reb]

Rich

A primary complaint of 7th Armd div people was giving up their Diesel Shermans for Cromwells. I don't make this stuff up.

And the wet storage may have been being produced by the begining of '44 but it wasn't saving too many lives until the end of the year. Nor was the the 76 mm on general issue with the combat units until subsequent to the invasion when the new models began to flow as replacements.

Either that - or all the vet accounts I've read are wrong and the stats on destroyed Shermans are a myth.

cheers
Reb

[Rich]

Rich

A primary complaint of 7th Armd div people was giving up their Diesel Shermans for Cromwells. I don't make this stuff up.

I'll doublecheck 7 Armoured Division tomorrow, but off the top of my head in Italy they were still using primarily M4A1 (Sherman II) and M4 (Sherman I) in 22nd Armoured Brigade.

And I would hope by now you realize that I don't make this stuff up either.

And the wet storage may have been being produced by the begining of '44 but it wasn't saving too many lives until the end of the year. Nor was the the 76 mm on general issue with the combat units until subsequent to the invasion when the new models began to flow as replacements.

Actually the first wet stowage models to arrive in the ETO were 76mm, they were M4A1 (w), which arrived beginning in April, but were not issued until July. From then on all new tanks appearing in the ETO were wet stowage types (except 105mm). So wet stowage probably began saving lives sometime around the end of July, whne the first 12 M4 76mm were written off.

But yet again, given that the M4 wasn't deployed in combat until October 1942, that the operational evaluations had to travel from the field to Ordnance, that a new idea to correct the problem was identified, and that production with the improvment began, all in less than 14 months is pretty remarkable, given that other nations with similar problems and time to develop solutions came up with exactly zip. Read the German evaluations of the Panther - great tank, but ammunition in the sponson racks tends to go BOOM! when the thin sides are penetrated - and those reports start in July 1943.

Either that - or all the vet accounts I've read are wrong and the stats on destroyed Shermans are a myth.

cheers
Reb

Well, if a vet claims that wet stowage and Pershing tanks could have been available for Normandy, they are simply mistaken, it would have required the US to enter the war about six months earlier.

And what "stats" on destroyed Shermans are you referring to? The number lost tells us nothing about the cause of the loss. But the loss data due to cause that is available fails to point a smoking gun (pardon the pun) at fuel fires, there is simply no evidence of that ever having occured and I've looked at samples containing over 800 written off M4. Over and over again the evidence points to ammunition fires.

But even that fundamentally isn't the proximate cause of loss, that was the simple fact that the M4 was either matched or severely overmatched by almost every common German weapon at battlefield ranges encountered in 1944-1945, something that wasn't true when it was deployed and "field tested" in 1943. And the sad facts of life are that even in the pressure cooker of total war any major design changes driven by experience gained in 1944 wasn't going to get into the hands of the troops for a year or more. That was the German experience, the Soviet experience, and the British experience.

[Reb]

Rich

Since you obviously have some knowledge in this area I wonder may I pose a couple questions:

Were all or some of the existing 75mm Shermans retrofitted to wet storage?

Did British Fireflies ever get wet storage?

Re Diesel Shermans
Were Diesel Shermans specific to the need for mass manufacture where we just used every engine we could find that would fit, or

where they a test to see which type of fuel was best in action (I doubt that), or

Was there any reason other than shipping availability / convenience that made that model be sent here or there?

thanks
Michael

thanks
Reb

[Rich]

Rich

Since you obviously have some knowledge in this area I wonder may I pose a couple questions:

Were all or some of the existing 75mm Shermans retrofitted to wet storage?

Rebuilt M4 of all types were completed starting in late 1944, and all had wet stowage installed AFAIK. But it appears that none of them were used in combat by US forces during World War II. However, many were sold postwar and show up all around the world.

Did British Fireflies ever get wet storage?

No, the rounds would not fit in a standard wet stowage rack, so they would have had to have been specially designed as part of the conversion. But the Brits elected to eliminate the co-driver position to increase stowage room, I rather doubt that with the length of the rounds they could have made a functional wet stowage system.

Re Diesel Shermans
Were Diesel Shermans specific to the need for mass manufacture where we just used every engine we could find that would fit, or

Engines were the greatest bottleneck for tank manufacture, at least after the tooling had been done to enable the turret ring milling (that was the first bottleneck, directly leading to the M3 Medium). Since the Army had no funding interwar to develop specialized tank engines, they utilized de-rated aero engines, light weight, good torque, air cooled, but unfortunately the expansion of the Air Corps took a large chunk of the manufacturing capability for such engines away from AGF. So the solutions were a re-designed Ford truck engine, the multi-bank Chrysler, and the twin Diesels (a second Diesel design was also done, but few were built). That's also why five slightly different hull designs were chosen, it maximized industrial capabilities in forging and welding. Note that when funding began for a specialized tank engine - in June 1940 - the development took until 1947 and did not get into a complete tank until 1948. Curiously enough the Maybachs ultimate development could be said to have occured in 1942-1944, also about 8 years after it began.

where they a test to see which type of fuel was best in action (I doubt that), or

There is no type of fuel best in action, all fuels are potential dangers, be they kerosene, gasoline, Diesel, or alcohol. And they all have some advantages and disadvantages.

Was there any reason other than shipping availability / convenience that made that model be sent here or there?

thanks
Michael

thanks
Reb

The preferred standard for the US Army was the M4A3, although M4 and M4A1 were also used, especially early on. M4A2 were not preferred because of the perceived logistical complication, so most were shipped as Lend-Lease or went to the US Marines.

[Reb]

Thanks very much Rich!

I've always had an interest in Sherman since my grandfather took me to a place called Letterkenny PA 50 odd years ago just to see the long rows of WW2 tanks.

cheers
Reb

[phylo_roadking]

Rich, I have it in an article published only last month and illustrated with pics of the Jumbo in the Brussels Tank Museum that the Jumbo didn't have wet storage. Although VERY closely based on the contemporary M4A3 with it it was left out of the E2.

The engineering assessments of the Shermans by the british do compare favourably with the then-current cruisers, but in relation to the fuel system there was ONE major difference; British systems of the day relied on cork seals, the Shermans the first experience of petrol-proof neoprene. The difference between the two is that while the rubber of course provides the better seal, and just simply doesn't crumble in extremes of temperature - rubber seals swell and reseating after maintenance was a nightmare.

[Rich]

Thanks very much Rich!

I've always had an interest in Sherman since my grandfather took me to a place called Letterkenny PA 50 odd years ago just to see the long rows of WW2 tanks.

cheers
Reb

Did they have the ammo igloos there then?

BTW, I did check and my memory must be fading, 22nd Armoured Brigade did receive Sherman III before going into Italy. They also had some Sherman II a division and brigade HQ, along with - of all things - a couple of Grants still.

[Rich]

Rich, I have it in an article published only last month and illustrated with pics of the Jumbo in the Brussels Tank Museum that the Jumbo didn't have wet storage. Although VERY closely based on the contemporary M4A3 with it it was left out of the E2.

Really? I had heard that before, but Hunnicut makes no mention of it and implies that it was installed. But it makes sense if it wasn't, since weight was a critical worry and the 34.5 gallons of water saved ("a pints a pound the world round" ) was 276 pounds alone and I imagine the stowage assemblies themselves probably weighed at least that much, so probably a quarter-ton or so saved. And it was unlikely that the E2 was going to be penetrated from the front in most cases, while the additional side armor was probably sen as sufficient to mitigate the problem.

The engineering assessments of the Shermans by the british do compare favourably with the then-current cruisers, but in relation to the fuel system there was ONE major difference; British systems of the day relied on cork seals, the Shermans the first experience of petrol-proof neoprene. The difference between the two is that while the rubber of course provides the better seal, and just simply doesn't crumble in extremes of temperature - rubber seals swell and reseating after maintenance was a nightmare.

Why yes that's true, I've said it many times, maintenance is the key to reliability in any tank, along with availability of spares. Certainly the multi-bank was a maintenance nightmare, but when maintained properly was as reliable as any of the other powerplants.

And one of the big complaints that ISTR in the desert was just that, the extremes of day and night temperatures caused the British fuel system seals to fail regularly. I'm trying to locate the rather long report on the problems with cruiser tanks posted by the British Forces Middle East AFV people, I'll post it when I find it.

[phylo_roadking]

Well, they weighed in at 42 tons already, and speed down to 24 mph....

Do you have any figures for their casualty rates??? Despite the heavier armour...THAT much slower was just making them a target, as well as the habit of putting them at the head of columns as a break-through tank!

What I meant about the cork vs rubber seal issue - the cork thing was known about for ages lol it affected most vehicles in the Desert after all. So the assessments were done after long use and experience. The Sherman's issues would only have shown up after a similar time.

Question....who actually carried out that maintenance??? In the case of lendlease aircraft you have US personnel whether as "private contractors working for Lockheed/Boeing etc.", or US service personnel doing the conversion training - and just not talked about (Like the US crewman who actually sighted the Bismarck from that famous Catalina, just along for the ride LOL), but in the case of US tanks in british service in the Desert, where units converted in-theatre - who did the conversion training and trained the crews?