panzer IV versus the sherman of doom

[Reb]

Tristam

Few Tigers? Why worry, be happy!

I submit brother, that those few Tigers seemed like a LOT of tigers when the shootin' started.

We always fear the Boogie man that lurks behind OUR door. To a Sherman crew - that was Tiger. After a while - every German tank began to look like one. I don't say this in jest. Enough crews had burned by then to generate a very real fear of being the next one.

Alex Mckee wrote that at a distance, Mk IV looks like a Tiger I and Panther like a Tiger II. All their guns make a hole in Sherman roughly the same size. All can make that hole from further out than Sherman can so after a while - well, you get the picture.

cheers
Reb

[Rich]

Hi Tristam and welcome. Please don't take this personally and I know you are simply repeating "common knowledge", but I have to wonder whether you have read any of the previous posts?

Bad rep for the early days in action.

Actually the reverse, in it's early actions it was seen as a prayer answered, reliable, well-armored, fast, and a big gun. This view of the M4 lasted until about mid 1944 when encounters with the new generation of German antitank defense - increased numbers of Pak40 with some Pak43, effective hand-held antitank weapons, Panthers, and the small number of Tigers encountered - began to erode the confidence of the tankers in their own systems. But their confidence in their abilities lasted throughout, what generally comes out of reports is frustration at the inability of the American Ordanance to come up with solutions quickly. And that eventually translated into the complaints of the M4's then recognized shortcomings.

The later Shermans were close to the PzIV. The early way days saw bugs that needed to be worked out like gasoline engines instead of diesel. Diesel is less flammable so few Ronson incidents.

Sorry, but this is an urban myth perpetrated by Hollywood and hack historians. In fact it cannot be shown that there was any connection between fuel type and propensity to catch fire in any tank produced during the war. Put simply, gasoline in a liquid state, as in a gas tank, will not catch fire and you can in fact put out lit matches by dunking them in gasoline. Gasoline must vaporize to catch fire and for fuel explosions exactly the right mixture of vaporized gasoline and confinement are required for it to casue any actual damage.

Diesel does have a higher flash point than gasoline and thus must be at a higher temperature to vaporize and burn, but once it is lit it is actually harder to put out a Diesel fire and it will burn at a higher temperature than gasoline. Diesel engines do have some advantages in terms of torque, balanced by the higher power output for weight of the average gasoline engine.

So both have advantages and disadvantages. But in neither is shooting holes in their fuel tanks an effective way to set them on fire (although the Soviets were worried about the possibility and evidently some cases of it happening, to order a redesign to better protect the Diesel fuel tanks in the T-34). In the ETO I have found a number of cases of M4 with through-and-through penetrations of the fuel tanks and engine compartment, complete with fuel spillage, but without the fuel igniting. Furthermore, in detailed accounst of the cause of loss of over 800 M4, none could be shown to have been lost due to a fuel fire and in fact none of those that burned could be shown to have burned due to a fuel fire as the primary source of the fire. Finally, in those cases where the fuel did burn, as in most tank designs the fuel tanks and lines in the engine compartment were effectively isolated from the crew compartment, meaning that the fuel burning was an unlikely component of crew casualties.

The Sherman was a rushed design that was desperately need on the field so like so many other US weapons test data was unavailable or ignored to put the tanks in service.

No it was not. The M4 was conceptualized on 11 July 1940, design development began in February 1941, mockups were completed in May 1941, the prototype T6 was completed 2 September 1941 and tested beginning 5 September, design changes were incorporated resulting in Standardization as the M4 in October 1941, and production began in February 1942. That is a 19-month design cycle, with primary work lasting some 12 months, similar to the production cycles of most wartime tanks produced by all countries. And like most other designs it immediately began a series of design changes and improvements meant to facilitate production or improve quality and useability.

No test data was "ignored" although a lack of practical experiential data was lacking, except for the particular data stemming from British experience in North Africa, which was utilized in the design.

If you ever saw the movie with Kelsey Grammar about the design of the Bradley you understand what I am getting out.

That was a movie, meant to amuse by dramtically retelling a story. It was about as accurate to the facts as was the Illiad, Kelly's Heroes, or U-571, and has virtually nothing to do with procurement methodologies in place in World War II.

US philosophy has been rush to production and work the kinks out on the field.

Really? Name a few procurement items that were rushed into production and had their kinks worked out in the field please. You won't find them in the Field Artillery, those systems and equipment were worked on for as many as 10 years before they were actually fielded. Infantry? The M1 Rifle was at least 5 years in development and the standard machineguns were 20+ years old, mortars were 3 to 5 year-old designs. Armored vehicles that were deployed were mostly based on technologies developed during the 30's and when engines proved problematic in suppl the answer was to turn to existing and reliable commercial designs while developing a purpose-built design, which was fielded in 1948. Softskin vehicles were all based on well-established commercial designs.

It has cost many a service man their life unnecessarily post-WWII.

Really again? Who, when, where, and why please?

During WWII it might have been necessary. Considering the pre-Sherman designs were terrible. Some of them were even riveted. A hit that didn't penetrate could kill the crew by simply knocking rivets loose.

Rivetted and bolted designs were common interwar in most armor designs around the world, even though cast and welded designs were known to be superior, but the techniques for casting and welding vehicles were in their infancy during the 1930's, the US wasn't unique in that. Does that make them all terrible or just the US designs?

Once the Sherman gets to the level of the easy 8 it is pretty comparable with the PZIV.

Why? Because the suspension was improved? By that time the comparable design, the M4A3E8 was a much better tank than the Panzer IV Ausf. J, its compeer. The Panzer IV was an aging, overweight, underarmored design suffering from mobility problems, with a hand powered turret traverse and exposed ammunition stowage. The M4A3E8 was near the zenith of its design, better armored, more reliable, with better crew protection, superior suspension, a high-speed traverse, and in the 76mm-armed versions, a comparable gun. Only in their earlier iterations when the Panzer IV had superior gunpower, could it be described as "comparable."

The Germans had a couple of years to work out design flaws.

If gasoline power is a design flaw, then where is the Diesels for German tanks?
If exposed ammunition stowage is a design flaw, where is the improved stowage in German tanks?

The Sherman was desperately need because it was the first turret design that could fit a big enough gun in it to have a shot at killing enemy tanks. The earlier Lee tank had a bow mounted 75mm because the US didn't have a turret design that could fit anything bigger than a 37mm, well out of date by that point. It think it is the early kinks in the design that made that gave it a bad rep and then after the design flaws the Panther and Tiger were still better. Some people have the idiotic notion that the Germans had Panthers and Tigers everywhere which is simply not true. The PZIV was the most likely tank to be encountered.

Panther design began about the same time as the M4, in August 1941, but was recast completely in 1942 based upon experience in the Soviet Union. Production began nearly a year after M4 production began but even so the first production models were so badly flawed they had to be completely rebuilt and its initial combat performance was disappointing. Despite the longer design cycle you could actually make a better case for saying its design was rushed. And Tiger was only "better" because of the extraordinary degree of quality and expense that went into it, costwise it was about double any other German tank and even more expensive in terms of resources expended (despite comparable weights the Tiger never had the transmission touble of the Panther, reason?, the Tigers transmission was not designed for mass production and required scarce materials, but it was a very good transmission).

But otherwise you are essentially correct.

I think the Sherman gets a bad rap too because it is constantly compared to the Tiger. I don't know why people concentrate on Tigers so much. There were few of them and it wasn't the main battle tank. It was inferior to the Tiger or the T-34 but once the bugs were worked out it could give the PZIV a run for its money. The Sherman did have an advantage at being more maneuverable and the old country boys that made a life out of figuring out how to get a tractor or viechele through thick terrain gave it big advantage when the Brush cutter was designed. Head to head the PZIV would probably win but the American driver who had more experience driving veicheles and more maneuverability than the average German driver could get a side shot in more easily. Even with that the kill ratio of Shermans to PZIVs is still pretty high.

Actually, German armored vehicles of all types probably caused less than half the losses of all M4. And please don't start bandying about "kill ratios" between tank types, there is simply no basis in any records available for making such comparisons.

The remarkable thing about the Sherman is despite its flaws early on it was a workhorse and easily serviceable. A good percentage of "killed" Shermans were recovered patched up and running again in no time. Granted when you are advancing it is a lot easier to pick up disabled tanks than it is if you are retreating.

Many tanks initially written off as destroyed were later repaired and reused, M4 wasn't unique in that. And you could simply substitute t-34 for Sherman in that sentence and it would still be true. Or for that matter Panther (easily serviceable isn't the same as easily repairable ). Or even Cromwell for that matter.

Anyway, you pushed a button, I hope I don't sound too harsh and that you become as fascinated by the subject as I did and so go beyond the easy answers found by watching the Mythtory Channel or reading hack hsitorians.

[Tom Houlihan]

...the Mythtory Channel...

I know this is OT, and I apologize, but that's funny! I've not heard that one before, or just didn't pay attention. That's better than "The Hysterical Channel!"



Now back to our regularly scheduled thread...

[Rich]

...the Mythtory Channel...

I know this is OT, and I apologize, but that's funny! I've not heard that one before, or just didn't pay attention. That's better than "The Hysterical Channel!"



Now back to our regularly scheduled thread...

Yep, the best was while eating breakfast a few days ago - Modern Marvels although how they got to warfare is beyond me. The film showed T-34 in snow (otherwise if there wasn't snow nobody would realize it was Russia ) while the voiceover pontificated about how at the battle of Koorursk (their pronunciation) as many as 8,000 tanks fought it out with thousands destroyed!

I'm not making this up you know.

[Rich]

Which is the point if Diesel is less likely to vaporize it is less likely to catch fire. Therefore few torches when hit. The use of gasoline over diesel was a contributing factor as to why the Shermans lit up more than other tanks. Perhaps not the only reason, but a contributing factor. I am not sure about diesel but even a water heater being lit up can cause gasoline in a can to explode in your garage if it is too close because enough vapors are being released.

Sorry, but no, you are still trying to create a situation that did not and does not exist. Quite simply, you can spend all day shooting holes through partly filled, unarmored gasoline tanks and all you will get is a puddle of gasoline. Now, if the spilled gasoline is then allowed to vaporize and then reaches a concentration of between 1.4 and 7.6 percent, it will burn. But if unconfined that is all it will do, it will burn away merrily until its fuel source is gone. Only if the concentration is reached in a confined area will the mixture explode. The only way your example can apply to a tank is if the tank is already providing a heat source, vaporizing the gas in a presumable only partially filled tank, which is then shot by an incendiary round (which has to penetrate the vapor layer in the tank. through the liquid layer won't burn). Of course why it is a problem when the tank is already burning is beyond me?

But that is neither here nor there, quiet simply, there is no data that supports your contention that gasoline was a factor in M4 Medium Tanks burning. Nor was it a factor that was under consideration when powerplants were selected, and it most definitely wasn't a selected "improvement" to solve such a supposed problem, the M4 gasoline and diesel models were produced simultaneously.

[Rich]

The Panther may have gone similar length of development but also note that when first deployed they had major bugs that led to a new designation. They had major track and suspension problems and guess what like the Sherman they burst into flames a lot too. This was due to engine overheating. So saying that the M4 was not rushed because the Panther was not rushed is not quite correct. The difference was the Germans had a lot of combat experience with the PZ V that led to the PZ VD prior to 1944. The PZ V had its bugs worked out due to more chances to catch them. The M4 didn't have the bugs worked yet. [/url]

Actually no, engine overheating was only part of the problem. The Panthers deployed at Kursk were all rebuilt after manufacture, that is what caused the hiatus in production during the spring of 1943. And most of the problems were in the engine and transmission, fuel leaks were common in both the lines and the fuel pump, without combat damage, which spilled directly onto the manifold and fan, which neatly vaporized the gasoline and sparked it as well. Which resulted in two self-igniting, burning out the engine compartment, on the morning of 4 July 1943 near Kursk. The heat eventually got high enough that it also damaged some of the torsion bars, but it seems like that if they hadn't been lost in the workshops at Kharkov during the August Soviet offensive they probably could have been rebuilt. Further, no crew were recorded as lost.

But a critical defect noted in combat was that the thin side armor did not adequately protect the sponson ammo racks, which then went boom, almost invariably taking out most if not all of the crew. Other defects were the shot trap gun mantlet. Now despite many changes to the Panther over the next two years the first problem was never solved and the second was only partially solved. In the M4 the same ammuntion stowage problem was solved and within a year was corrected, although getting the tanks to the front took time (a seperate problem and argument).

Nor do I think I said that the M4 wasn't rushed because the Panther wasn't rushed, I said they took a similar time to deploy, but the Panther took longer to reach maturity and some of its problem items were never corrected.

And yes, just like the M4 (or T-34, or T-72, or virtually any tank without protected ammo stowage) the Panther tended to burn when its ammo was ignited.

[phylo_roadking]

Haven't paid much attention to modern AFVs lately, except the snippets that appear in the classic press, but I DID notice a couple of months ago that Israel had actually opted to buy a number of refurbished and refitted M113s! Hmm....

And the British Army started phasing their aluminium-bodied FV432 pure troop carrier type out of service remarkably close to the time the Rn started loosing aluminium-hulled warships in the Falklands.....

Rich, unfortunately, a non-explosive round hitting a partly-filled petrol(gasoline) tank IS enough to make it blow - IF the round passes through the empty, fume-filled section. I've seen it happen - or rather done on purpose; I used to work in the local forensic science laboratory in NI and spent a happy day of free fireworks watching the firearms lab bods doing exactly that for court evidence. Here's the rub- it'll blow depending on how free-flowing any vent in the top of the tank is - all tanks are vented so as to not create an airlock in the pipework. I watched it done on a number of modern plastic and older steel tanks, with the tanks dipped and marked for fuel level. All parts bought from breakers, mounted in Dexion frames for the purpose. Twenty of each - was needed for statistical evidence for a major terrorist trial. The steel tanks blew more often than the plastic.

I think we're all talking at cross-purposes here, however. Yes, the ammo storage was a FAR more sure way of loosing a Sherman - BUT once on fire, SOMETHING had to go up for the Germans to give them that "tommy cooker" nickname, and I remember reading ages ago it was because of the awful black smoke...the diesel? I would at THIS point be interested in knowing how high - or low - the numbers of Shermans put back into service after repair was i.e. something like the ammo storage issue may have brewed the tank up VERY commonly BUT did the fuel system then "assist"? A fuel fire in the engine deck is a sure way to write a tank off permanently; the level of damage a hot fire causes in there is amazing.
Noones gonna have bothered noting down exact types of damage in ALL cases, but if the percentage of Shermans lost permanently per units knocked out on a given day is higher than other types.....?

[Rich]

Both Gulf Wars. Automatic targeting on the patriot reverted it back to the AA system it was originally and shot down US planes. Even on semi-auto targeting there were a lot of times the system still fired before the controller could stop it. Even worse the first gulf war reports were found to be inaccurate after review. The 80% of scuds destroyed in Saudi and 50% in Israel were revised down to 70% and 40%. It was pretty ineffective in urban areas which it was designed to protect.

I would be grateful if you would tell me which US planes it shot down? Since that doesn't appear in the Air Force history of the Gulf War even though they do acknowledge it wasn't as effective aginst Scud as initially believed. Nor was Patriot designed to protect urban areas, that was what they tried adapt it for, it was originally an air defense missle system designed to protect forces in the field.

We could look at the M14 as well. Completely uncontrollable on full auto.

Sorry, strawman, please tell me what full-caliber battle rifle is controllable in full auto? The idea of using it as a squad automatic weapon was never really seriously considered to be viable.

Pacific theater WWII
Faulty percussion torpedoes meant US subs were shooting duds that not only did not sink the ship but the wake gave away the sub's position. In the early days of the war, the armaments board ignored this. Later after testing in Australia it was found they triggering mechanism was not working properly. That was only after repeated attempts to get the armaments board to look at it.

Again, you have to point the finger at every naval torpedo in use then (with the possible exception of the Japanese, who had their own problems to contend with, probably about the same number of Japanese cruisers were lost to their own torpedoes as there were Allied cruisers that they sunk). And the problems with the German torpedoes depth control may never have been discovered, or solved, except for an accident. And in every case USN, RN, and KM, the problem was ignored even though the field operators were screaming about it, until the operators in the field took the matter into their own hands.

Magnetic exploders that didn't work because designers did not realize the magnetic field of the earth varied at different places on the earth.

Yep, happened with them all, USN, RN, and KM, only the Japanese got around the problem by making their torpedoes so big that they didn't need to worry about magnetic influence - but as I said that led to other consequences, TANSTAAFL don'th'cha know?

Early attempts at camo. They faded easily and quickly leaving marines in uniforms that exposed them more than the standard OD.

In World War II? Early on only the Marine Raiders and Paratroops wore the camo and IIRC it pretty much was dropped as not being worth the effort by mid 43, not that it would have been very useful on Saipan, Iwo or Okinawa anyway. But if you've got any more details I would like to hear them, it's not a complaint I've heard of before.

I don't think problems like these are unique to the US but the US does seem to be slow to respond to them.

Germany - ULTRA, HUFF-DUFF, ammo stowage in Panthers, Me-262, and so on off the top of my head. All problems that needed to be resolved now, but were resolved - when they were resolved at all - then, if ever. And the Brits, Soviets, Italians, French, and Japanese all had similar problems, it's an institutional thing, not a US thing.

BTW I don't get my information from hack historians, movies, or solely from the history channel. The comment about the history channel refers to a show where they are interviewing a guy who reclaimed tanks and he is telling you how many they got running again, it is usually somewhat accurate. Just because they do some bonehead stuff on there like claiming Schacht was part of the meeting that set up Odessa just prior to the war's end, they do somethings right. I mention Schacht because it was one of the more ridiculous things I heard. He was put in a KZ for telling Hitler that his policies might cause inflation. I really loved the comment that white racist Southerners were responsible for segregation in the US army. How many white racist Southerners were making the decision that Blacks should be segerated in the Union army in 1863? That policy started when there were few southerners in the US army.

Okay, good, I'm glad you recognize the problem, and I'm sorry I missed those shows, I always enjoy a good laugh.

Regardless the argument still stands if you look at the Sherman in its early days, the stats don't compare as well to the German PZIV then it does in later versions.

Let's see, in February 1942 when the M4 began production, the Panzer IV Ausf. F was still being producedw ith the KwK 37 L/24. Its frontal armor was 50mm with a max slope of 12 degrees. It's mobility was virtually identical to the M4. Only when the KwK 40 began production in March 1942 could it be called comparable, but it was still inferior in terms of protection.

Even after D-Day it still had some major bugs to be worked out. Whether the flames were from engine overheating, which gasoline could contribute to because the engine would not have to overheat as much, or not it was one of the bugs that was later worked out.

There is literally no record of any M4 being lost to a gasoline fire caused by engine overheating. All recorded combat losses where a gasoline fire occured it was a secondary cause of loss or would not have caused the loss at all.

When we get to the easy 8 model it is comparable to the PZIV. The Panther still has bigger gun and more armor. The German tanks had been in battle longer and more experience to draw modifications off of. The M4 had to make it modifications quick.

As to the large number of tanks recovered and running again. It is hard to say if that is due to better design or better logistics combined with better knowledge on the American side of how to fix veicheles. If you ever read Von Creveld's supplying war you will see just how much more able the US was to solve logistic problems than other nations. That comment refers mostly to the huge amount of resources the US had to deal with supply.

Recovery and repair are a function of logistical capability, it has little or nothing to do with vehicle design. Servicability is part of the design and the M4 in most cases was pretty good at that, although maintenance on the Multibank was crucial to prevent sparkplug fouling and synchronization of the twin-Diesels was an art. But just like anyone else when spares were in short supply maintenance became a problem, as did serviceability.

[Dragunov]

well, just until now i've always heard that it lit up nicely when it was hit. all those reports sound rather convincing....

another note on american problems and stuff...

the m-16. jams and still does.


i remember i was watching a clip from the mythtory channel on the StG, and they said that the StG's krummer was made because of the elefants lack 'o MG (maybe someone knows for sure, i'm skeptical). even worse, Mr. Atwater, Aberdeen's curator and the star of the show (kinda) flicked the safety instead of the fire selector (which is a button, NOT a switch).

and on their AK vs M-16 special, he said that the AK was so inaccurate partially because of 'the way it worked' which he described as "well, you see this big chunk of metal (the bolt) comes flying back, pushed by the force of the explosion and then, when it comes back to a certain point, it (lets go of coked bolt) comes flying back. these violent forces make this...."

uhh... i sometimes wonder how he was made curator of aberdeen (or wherever it was). the M-16 works very similarily, just the bolt is probably lighter.
way to bias, but the program was entertaining to a cinder-block head like me.

anyhoo, sorry for inturrupting your intresting arguement.