RE: Sherman vs. T-34

Matrix Games Forums

Command Ops gets a Massive Update!

Lost Battles AAR: Smolensk 41

War in the East: Lost Battles is here!

Conflict of Heroes: Awakening the Bear! Let's Play video

Lost Battles Scenario Manual excerpts available!

A sneak peek from Allied Corps!

Harpoon 3 ANWs Free Ultimate Update!

All good Deals always come in threes

Distant Worlds: Shadows Approaches!

Lost Battles AAR: Moscow 41

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Sherman vs. T-34

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: Sherman vs. T-34

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 4 [5]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Sherman vs. T-34 - 3/5/2010 4:23:23 PM

GoodGuy

Posts: 1467
Joined: 5/17/2006
From: Cologne, Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

75mm or 91mm, the Tiger would rip open the Sherman at great range...

Depending on terrain and visibility, Panthers used to score hits with the first shot on a Sherman at distances of ~1200-1300 meters (which was still not the max. effective range of a Panther/Tiger), mainly because of the quality/accuracy of the gun and superior optics, while the Sherman 76mm crews had to fire around 3-4 times until they had zero'ed in, with their inferior gun/optics. A Tiger I, despite the Panther's gun having more punch, could do a similar job (accuracy + hit-ratio-wise) at this distance.
That's the main reason why US Shermans usually focused on enemy infantry and passed the AT job to the US tank destroyers.

quote:

.... but the Sherman (76 gun version, 75 gun had no chance at all) had to be about 800 meters or closer to have any chance of punching through a Tiger�s front armor, and even then it was a slim chance unless very close up.

The Sherman 76mm didn't have a chance against a Tiger. 800 meters sounds way off, too. Maybe 200 to 300 (if at all) meters without HVAP rounds!

Check post # 9 in this thread here, regarding the performance of the 76mm gun:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1964592&mpage=1&key=�

quote:

The Firefly was the only Sherman variant that could duel a Tiger at long range with a good chance of killing it through its front armor.

I'd say at medium range (say up to 800 meters), not at long range. The Firefly's (turret) armor still couldn't compete with the Tiger's or Panther's frontal/turret armor. The Firefly had the right gun, but it was still risky to face a Panther/Tiger, as it still had a high profile (compared to a T-34).

< Message edited by GoodGuy -- 3/5/2010 4:38:36 PM >

_____________________________

"Aw Nuts"
General Anthony McAuliffe
December 22nd, 1944
Bastogne
---
"I've always felt that the AA (Alied Assault engine) had the potential to be [....] big."
Tim Stone
8th of August, 2006

(in reply to Jim D Burns)

Post #: 121

RE: Sherman vs. T-34 - 3/5/2010 4:38:21 PM

Jim D Burns

Posts: 2730
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline

It depends on the shot that is being used, and against a Tiger you bet they would have loaded HVAP (High velocity armor piercing) rounds. Here�s a penetration performance table for the 76mm guns:

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/usa/guns/76-mm.asp

It lists 1000 meters as 132mm penetration, but you have to assume that is optimal performance. That�s why I said 800 meters for a chance at a kill.

Jim

_____________________________

(in reply to GoodGuy)

Post #: 122

RE: Sherman vs. T-34 - 3/5/2010 4:42:04 PM

GoodGuy

Posts: 1467
Joined: 5/17/2006
From: Cologne, Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

It depends on the shot that is being used, and against a Tiger you bet they would have loaded HVAP (High velocity armor piercing) rounds.

If it would have been largely available, yes - then they would have used it. But even with HVAP the performance was less than average.

Check the numbers from the 1944 field test in France (shots on a Panther plate), using regular APC rounds. The majority (of the low quantities) of HVAP was distributed to TD units, anyways.

quote:

It lists 1000 meters as 132mm penetration, but you have to assume that is optimal performance. That�s why I said 800 meters for a chance at a kill.

Not with a Sherman 76mm. Its gun was a real disappointment for Army officials.

< Message edited by GoodGuy -- 3/5/2010 4:59:39 PM >

_____________________________

"Aw Nuts"
General Anthony McAuliffe
December 22nd, 1944
Bastogne
---
"I've always felt that the AA (Alied Assault engine) had the potential to be [....] big."
Tim Stone
8th of August, 2006

(in reply to Jim D Burns)

Post #: 123

RE: Sherman vs. T-34 - 3/5/2010 4:48:41 PM

GoodGuy

Posts: 1467
Joined: 5/17/2006
From: Cologne, Germany
Status: offline

Let me quote my own post (covering the 1944 field test in France, using APC rounds) from the thread I mentioned above:

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoodGuy

The tested 3 inch gun (76mm M5) was mounted on a M10 carriage, so, when looking at this US Army test, you have to consider the fact that the M5 guns basically fired the same shell as the 76mm Shermans, but the M5's rounds had different chambers, providing a somewhat higher velocity.

The British 17-pounder and the US 90mm rounds had 100% more chamber capacity than the M1 shell, thus way higher velocities. Last but not least, the M5 was a pure AT gun, not designed to be employed in Shermans.

The 76 mm M1 employed in the Shermans really had a waaaaay lower performance regarding penetration.

According to the US field test, the M10's M62 shell did not penetrate the Panther's sloped frontal armor (80mm - 35�) at 200 yards (182.88 meters).

You might get an idea how bad the 76mm gun was, now.
76mm HVAP was usually not available for 76mm Shermans.

< Message edited by GoodGuy -- 3/5/2010 4:59:16 PM >

_____________________________

"Aw Nuts"
General Anthony McAuliffe
December 22nd, 1944
Bastogne
---
"I've always felt that the AA (Alied Assault engine) had the potential to be [....] big."
Tim Stone
8th of August, 2006

(in reply to GoodGuy)

Post #: 124

RE: Sherman vs. T-34 - 3/5/2010 5:30:20 PM

Jim D Burns

Posts: 2730
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline

I think you�re confusing the findings of the report.

http://wargaming.info/ww2/ustest3.htm

It only found the 76mm APC, M62 ammo unsatisfactory, the 76mm HVAP, T4 was not found to be unsatisfactory, but it did perform slightly below the performance of the 17lb ammo.

Also the report specifically says:

quote:

Also, the performance of any ammunition in this test cannot be considered a criterion as to the range at which it will penetrate the front plate of a Panther tank...

, so you can�t base any kind of penetrations or lack of penetrations achieved in this test with the official penetration tables other sources list.

Two anomalies are discussed in the report. First apparently some of the ammo was sub standard and would have been rejected at official trials. At least I think they mean the ammo they used, it�s not very clear.

Second the armor plate quality varied greatly for the three Panthers used. Two of the three were inferior plates and cracked far easier than Panther 1�s plate, which is apparently the Panther they used for tabulating most of their tests conclusions.

The average ammo load for a Sherman saw about 2-5 rounds of HVAP, so Sherman�s did have the ability to use the ammo if needed. M10s and M18s got about 10-15 rounds of the stuff, so they definitely had more of it. But Regular Sherman�s were not without the stuff.

_____________________________

(in reply to GoodGuy)

Post #: 125

RE: Sherman vs. T-34 - 3/5/2010 6:18:45 PM

GoodGuy

Posts: 1467
Joined: 5/17/2006
From: Cologne, Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

I think you�re confusing the findings of the report.

No.

quote:

It only found the 76mm APC, M62 ammo unsatisfactory, the 76mm HVAP, T4 was not found to be unsatisfactory, but it did perform slightly below the performance of the 17lb ammo.

You really love the thought a Sherman usually fired HVAP, right?

Thing is, it usually didn't happen.
HVAP had quite some punch, I would not disagree there. But it wasn't distributed regularly to 76mm Shermans, there were really really low quantities (compared to the amounts of APC ammo) and these were restricted for use within tank destroyer units in the main, let alone the need for a different chamber size for some of the guns employed there. I can imagine that some Sherman units "organized" HVAP, but that was not standard practice.

quote:

Also the report specifically says:

quote:

Also, the performance of any ammunition in this test cannot be considered a criterion as to the range at which it will penetrate the front plate of a Panther tank...
,

so you can�t base any kind of penetrations or lack of penetrations achieved in this test with the official penetration tables other sources list.

I think I can. HVAP - in the main - wasn't available for Shermans. The Army didn't even use a Sherman gun, but a M5 AT gun to fire those M62 rounds. The M5 had a somewhat higher performance than the Sherman's M1 variants. So, if you consider this, and the fact that the M5 failed to penetrate the Panther glacis at 200 yards, then you can very well make conclusions about this particular APC round, means about the main (the only - for some units) armor piercing round available to the vast majority of Sherman 76mm crews and this tank's gun.

quote:

First apparently some of the ammo was sub standard and would have been rejected at official trials. At least I think they mean the ammo they used, it�s not very clear.

The M62 rounds that were not sub standard did not penetrate the Panther's glacis either.

quote:

Second the armor plate quality varied greatly for the three Panthers used. Two of the three were inferior plates and cracked far easier than Panther 1�s plate, which is apparently the Panther they used for tabulating most of their tests conclusions.

Cracking as in not penetrating, right? According to what I've read, it rather sounded like scratching and leaving dents only when firing the 76mm with APC.

You should also read this part of the report:

quote:

ORIGINAL: US Army Field Test

"The 17pdr APCBC is more effective against the front of a Panther tank than is the 76mm HVAP, T4. Its margin of superiority is not great. Neither one can be depended upon to penetrate the glacis plate in one fair hit on average quality plate."

The author Jentz found no evidence that German factories ever put sub-standard hardened/steel armor in their tanks. The Germans were really picky about their steel and its quality. There was even an office that had to verify each steel grade's quality, and some got rejected, until the quality requirement was met. Jentz states there are no indicators that would point towards the possibility that German steel grades could have deteriorated at later stages of the war. The German steel production maintainted a certain quality level all through the war.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

The average ammo load for a Sherman saw about 2-5 rounds of HVAP, so Sherman�s did have the ability to use the ammo if needed. M10s and M18s got about 10-15 rounds of the stuff, so they definitely had more of it. But Regular Sherman�s were not without the stuff.

Having HVAP rounds in a Sherman was pretty much like as if it was x-mas. According to Zaloga some Sherman units never received any HVAP rounds, while others had around 2-3. If you consider that a Sherman needed 3-4 shots to hit a target at ~1000 meters, it's definetly like having zero HVAP.
Like I said, I stick to my statement above, HVAP was restricted to TD units in the main, so no, Shermans did not have the ability to use the ammo when needed/desired.

< Message edited by GoodGuy -- 3/5/2010 6:51:33 PM >

_____________________________

"Aw Nuts"
General Anthony McAuliffe
December 22nd, 1944
Bastogne
---
"I've always felt that the AA (Alied Assault engine) had the potential to be [....] big."
Tim Stone
8th of August, 2006

(in reply to Jim D Burns)

Post #: 126

RE: Sherman vs. T-34 - 3/5/2010 7:07:40 PM

arras

Posts: 186
Joined: 9/7/2004
Status: offline

Armour of German tanks did deteriorate in quality in later periods of war and it would be surprise if it would not. Here is Soviet report from 1945:

quote:

During lab tests of the �Tiger-B� tank's armor, conducted at TsNII-48, it was noted that there had been an �evident gradual decline in the quantity of molybdenum (M) in the German T-VI and T-V tanks, and a complete absence in the T-VIB. The reason for replacing one element (M) with another (V, vanadium) must obviously be sought in the exhaustion of their on-hand reserves and the loss of those bases supplying Germany with molybdenum. Low malleability appears to be characteristic of the �Tiger-B's‛ armor. An advantage of domestic armor, as is well-known, is its high malleability; German armor has fewer alloys and is therefore significantly less malleably.�

(in reply to GoodGuy)

Post #: 127

RE: Sherman vs. T-34 - 3/5/2010 7:49:21 PM

GoodGuy

Posts: 1467
Joined: 5/17/2006
From: Cologne, Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: arras

Armour of German tanks did deteriorate in quality...

I'm not a chemist, not an engineer and not a physicist, so I don't know whether vanadium as a substitude would really lower a steel grade's quality and behaviour regarding kinetic energy or not, and then one would have to read sources covering German steel grade quality 1944-45 in order to verify your statement. Plus, the amount of vanadium within a given grade would have to be specified, too.

Also, I do not necessarily read a general deterioration in quality from the quote you posted.

So, I trust Jentz when he says that the material wasn't the real problem. From what I've read, I rather see a quality decrease regarding assembly/production.
More and more women had to fill the gaps and the Germans depended on forced labour. Several concentration camps (KZ) formed "outposts" in cities or industrial areas, where then workshops were used or erected and then subsequently transformed into KZ production outposts. Some of these (in Bavaria) manufactured wings or parts of the Me 262, for example. Some of the output from such facilities was faulty or had a lower quality. The actual assembly of say tank parts or aircraft parts started to be defective, increasingly, but I believe the quality of steel plates was not affected.

Until someone explains why (and verifies that) this particular change (in armor composition) would make a vital difference regarding armor protection and until he verifies your quote, I tend to stick to Jentz' statements.

According to Jentz (IIRC), British and US engineers had rather funny/primitive methods to measure armor thickness and quality, and, even though tools and methods were pretty limited in the 1940s, he explains that the Germans had better (and more) accurate ways of specifying quality and thickness. So I'm not sure whether Russian sources reflect the real thing there.

German steel was pretty good (which may be a modest rating :P). Thyssen/Krupp (i think) sold their entire (obsolete) 1970s steel plant to China a few years ago, means the Chinese disassembled it in Germany and completely rearranged it somewhere in China. This plant's output quality matches or even outruns the quality of considerable amounts of US steel works' outputs, even today.
Thyssen still produces even higher quality stuff in their new plants, one reason for US companies importing their steel from Germany, including the automotive industry, while the Chinese flood and compete with their steel on the US market and other markets, leaving the US competition behind (partially), quality-wise, and Chinese steel is even cheaper.

< Message edited by GoodGuy -- 3/5/2010 8:22:34 PM >

_____________________________

"Aw Nuts"
General Anthony McAuliffe
December 22nd, 1944
Bastogne
---
"I've always felt that the AA (Alied Assault engine) had the potential to be [....] big."
Tim Stone
8th of August, 2006

(in reply to arras)

Post #: 128

RE: Sherman vs. T-34 - 3/5/2010 8:18:38 PM

arras

Posts: 186
Joined: 9/7/2004
Status: offline

I'am not chemist either but what I know about tank armour during WWII is that steel which is hard is resistant to penetration but susceptible to cracking. Its brittle. On the other softher or malleable steel does not crack but is susceptible to penetration. Of course best armour is resistant to penetration but one which do not crack easily. Solution was to make steel plate which would be hard on surface but malleable inside. Outer part resisting penetration and inner supporting outer one so it does not crack and does not create splinters in to interior of vehicle when hit. This was accomplished by different methods including tempering and rolling. This was called face hardened armour.

That's simplification of course, metallurgy and armour making is complicated art of its own. I don't know if malleability influences grade of steel but I understand it influences its quality. And that's what report I posted state.

< Message edited by arras -- 3/5/2010 8:26:08 PM >

(in reply to GoodGuy)

Post #: 129

RE: Sherman vs. T-34 - 3/5/2010 8:50:16 PM

arras

Posts: 186
Joined: 9/7/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoodGuy

German steel was pretty good (which may be a modest rating :P). Thyssen/Krupp (i think) sold their entire (obsolete) 1970s steel plant to China a few years ago, means the Chinese disassembled it in Germany and completely rearranged it somewhere in China. This plant's output quality matches or even outruns the quality of considerable amounts of US steel works' outputs, even today.
Thyssen still produces even higher quality stuff in their new plants, one reason for US companies importing their steel from Germany, including the automotive industry, while the Chinese flood and compete with their steel on the US market and other markets, leaving the US competition behind (partially), quality-wise, and Chinese steel is even cheaper.

I think we do not understand little bit on this each other. I don't state that Germans can not or could not produce high quality steel, but that by the end of the war, due to the shortages of alloys (which are well documented) quality of their steel deteriorated.

(in reply to GoodGuy)

Post #: 130

RE: Sherman vs. T-34 - 3/5/2010 9:16:42 PM

GoodGuy

Posts: 1467
Joined: 5/17/2006
From: Cologne, Germany
Status: offline

If I am not mistaken, King Tigers faced IS-2's on a few occasions. On at least 2 occasions they were used as stationary strongpoints and could not be cracked.
One Tiger II was used in a village somewhere in East Germany (I think near the Polish border), on a crossroads (because it was immobilized or it ran out of fuel, can't remember) and one Tiger II was put on a crossroads in Berlin, within a barricade (IIRC). The IS-2's gun did not penetrate the King Tiger's frontal armor. On other occasions IS-2s actually knocked out King Tigers, but I am not sure whether these were frontal attacks or not, and I don't know what distances were involved.

The test firing on a King Tiger at Kubinka proving grounds (I guess you were referring to that) demonstrated that "Armor quality was lower than on Tiger I and Panther, after 3-4 direct hits there was significant damage and fragmentation but no penetration; welding was of poor quality;after 3-4 direct hits there was significant damage and fragmentation but no penetration; welding was of poor quality".

Well I don't what source Parada is using for his infos (achtungpanzer.com), but if that's an accurate extract of the Russian findings, I'd still say the armor quality (and thickness) was sufficient to provide enough protection. Imho, the downside of German heavy armor was not armor quality, but lack of mobility.

The frontal armor could not be penetrated by 122mm and 152mm AP rounds fired by heavy artillery guns. BS-3 (100mm) and A-19 (122mm) AT guns penetrated the front armor plate of a King Tiger at 1000-1500 meters, during the field test. ZiS-3 guns failed to penetrate any armor plate.
Considering what calibres (100mm and above), what types (few, either big calibre assault guns, AT guns or IS-2 only) and at what distance (max. 1500 meters, where a KT could penetrate enemy vehicles above 1500 meters, maybe except for the IS-2) Russian equipment could score hits on a King Tiger, you could conclude that the armor protection/quality was sufficient.
There are accounts where single King Tigers destroyed ~28-33 T-34s without getting a crack in their armor.

_____________________________

"Aw Nuts"
General Anthony McAuliffe
December 22nd, 1944
Bastogne
---
"I've always felt that the AA (Alied Assault engine) had the potential to be [....] big."
Tim Stone
8th of August, 2006

(in reply to arras)

Post #: 131

RE: Sherman vs. T-34 - 3/5/2010 9:24:29 PM

Jim D Burns

Posts: 2730
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoodGuy
If you consider that a Sherman needed 3-4 shots to hit a target at ~1000 meters, it's definetly like having zero HVAP.

We seem to be talking in circles here. What I said originally was this:

quote:

75mm or 91mm, the Tiger would rip open the Sherman at great range, but the Sherman (76 gun version, 75 gun had no chance at all) had to be about 800 meters or closer to have any chance of punching through a Tiger�s front armor, and even then it was a slim chance unless very close up.

I still stick to my statement, the Sherman 76 (with HVAP rounds) had to be within 800 meters to have a slim chance to kill a Tiger. They had to be very close to have a decent chance.

I agree the regular ammo was not going to ever kill a Tiger frontally, but they did carry HVAP as part of the standard load later in the war. Granted very small stocks of it, but it was there for most units by late 44.

Jim

_____________________________

(in reply to GoodGuy)

Post #: 132

RE: Sherman vs. T-34 - 3/5/2010 9:31:10 PM

GoodGuy

Posts: 1467
Joined: 5/17/2006
From: Cologne, Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: arras

I think we do not understand little bit on this each other. I don't state that Germans can not or could not produce high quality steel, but that by the end of the war, due to the shortages of alloys (which are well documented) quality of their steel deteriorated.

No, I did not misunderstand you. I did not insinuate you were saying that the Germans sucked at "cooking" steel, either. I just tried to express that I think that - when people (or sources) talk about a "deterioration" of German steel grades - we are still talking about a rather minor decrease, if compared to say US steel armor or British armor.
That said, I am not convinced that a different composition (if true) and a resulting different "behavior" of a given steel plate (eg. what you mentioned, the tendency to "crack" or to split) necessarily make for a less protective plate.

Quite some Russian equipment failed to penetrate, during that test, and the ones that did were dedicated self-propelled assault or AT guns. Btw, an IS-2 is not mentioned there, did an IS-2 participate in the field test?

Your post made me curious, so I'll dig out Jentz' works some time. Thanks for your input.

< Message edited by GoodGuy -- 3/5/2010 10:09:36 PM >

_____________________________

"Aw Nuts"
General Anthony McAuliffe
December 22nd, 1944
Bastogne
---
"I've always felt that the AA (Alied Assault engine) had the potential to be [....] big."
Tim Stone
8th of August, 2006

(in reply to arras)

Post #: 133

RE: Sherman vs. T-34 - 3/5/2010 10:08:35 PM

GoodGuy

Posts: 1467
Joined: 5/17/2006
From: Cologne, Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

I still stick to my statement, the Sherman 76 (with HVAP rounds) had to be within 800 meters to have a slim chance to kill a Tiger. They had to be very close to have a decent chance.

You did not mention HVAP in your statement anywhere.
Also, even those rare HVAP rounds did not guarantee a hit (ie. penetration) on a Tiger. You admitted you assume optimal performance, but I don't think that the spreadsheets reflect the actual performance of the 76mm M1, and probably not the performance of the HVAP itself, as this round underwent various refinements until it reached its max penetration rates.

quote:

I agree the regular ammo was not going to ever kill a Tiger frontally...

Agreed.

quote:

... but they did carry HVAP as part of the standard load later in the war. Granted very small stocks of it, but it was there for most units by late 44.

And that's where I beg to differ. :-)
If I am not mistaken, Zaloga states that some units NEVER received HVAP, even until the end of hostilities in Germany and that it was not as common as people think. I've read (and sadly forgot) why and when Sherman units actually received HVAP, but - with some units - it was pure personal organizing ability of the staff to receive any HVAP at all. You can't generalize there, and you should not overrate the amount of HVAP in the ETO, imho.

EDIT: A quote from Zaloga:

quote:

ORIGINAL: M4 (76mm) Sherman Medium Tank 1943-65

by Steven J. Zaloga, Jim Laurier

"An order for 20,000 HVAP rounds was issued in the late summer, but production never kept up to demand because of shortages of tungsten. This production was to be equally divided between 76mm and 3 inches, the latter for the M10 3-inch GMC tank destroyer. The HVAP ammunition underwent continual refinement throughout the autumn and finally type-classified as the M93 76mm fixed shot HVAP-T in February 1945. The first distribution of HVAP ammunition to tank units took place in Belgium on September 11, 1944 to the 3rd Armored Division and the 746th Tank Battalion. Tankers were very enthusiastic about the performance of the new ammunition, but it was never available in adequate quantities - hardly one round per vehicle per month. By the end of February 1945, each 76mm tank had received, on average, only five rounds of HVAP. By early March, a total of about 18,000 rounds of HVAP had been delivered to the ETO of which 7550 76mm rounds (42 percent) and the rest 3-inch ammunition for the M10 tank destroyers. The 6th Army Group, fighting in Alsace in December 1944-January 1945, received little or no 76mm HVAP ammunition."

So, in fact, HVAP was not part of the "standard load" due to its general lack or even absence, but your definition of "standard" may just differ from mine, I don't know.

I had to pick up the book and type it, but I think this says a lot about the availability of HVAP rounds. The availability was even lower than I had memorized it.
My statement a few posts above (which I made from memorized fragments), that having received one or another HVAP round must have been like x-mas - for quite some units, hit the nail there, obviously.

Cheers.

< Message edited by GoodGuy -- 3/5/2010 11:10:50 PM >

_____________________________

"Aw Nuts"
General Anthony McAuliffe
December 22nd, 1944
Bastogne
---
"I've always felt that the AA (Alied Assault engine) had the potential to be [....] big."
Tim Stone
8th of August, 2006

(in reply to Jim D Burns)

Post #: 134

RE: Sherman vs. T-34 - 3/5/2010 10:53:54 PM

arras

Posts: 186
Joined: 9/7/2004
Status: offline

First use of TigerII on eastern front was apparently complete fiasco. Column of them was destroyed and routed by two T-34s in ambush. There is story floating somewhere on net. That's not to disgrace their 150 mm of frontal armour of course, they were fired with subcalibre ammo at some short range from side.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoodGuy

Quite some Russian equipment failed to penetrate, during that test, and the ones that did were dedicated self-propelled assault or AT guns. Btw, an IS-2 is not mentioned there, did an IS-2 participate in the field test?

Your post made me curious, so I'll dig out Jentz' works some time. Thanks for your input.

They do mention only guns not tanks but A-19 canon is mentioned. From what kind of platform was it fired I don't know but it probably makes no difference after all:

quote:

4. Armor-piercing projectiles from the BS-3 (100 mm) and A-19 (122 mm) gun completely penetrated when impacting the edges or joints of the �Tiger-B‛ tank's front hull plates at ranges of 500�600 metres.

5. Armor-piercing projectiles from the BS-3 (100 mm) and A-19 (122 mm) gun completely penetrated the �Tiger-B‛ tank's front turret plate at ranges of 1000�1500 metres.

How significant deterioration was and if some at all I really can not say, all I did was citing that source. Take it or leave it, its up to you.

Bye the way, this discussion made me also to do some search as steel-making have intrigued me for some time. Especially how ancient weapons were produced. Say Roman or medieval swords. For some time I was thinking that steel making is a modern invention more or less and that ancient blades were made of iron only. Its bit out of topic but somebody might be interested too. Here is quit nice link which gives you rough idea:
A Brief History of Steel

< Message edited by arras -- 3/5/2010 10:56:14 PM >

(in reply to GoodGuy)

Post #: 135

RE: Sherman vs. T-34 - 3/5/2010 11:10:43 PM

Jim D Burns

Posts: 2730
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoodGuy
If I am not mistaken, Zaloga states that some units NEVER received HVAP, even until the end of hostilities in Germany and that it was not as common as people think.

As I remembered it, most Sherman�s had 2-5 rounds on hand by the end of 44, but I may have confused that with the total number of rounds they received on average.

Apparently there is some evidence of a Sherman 76 taking out a Tiger at range still around today. This site http://socyberty.com/military/m4-sherman-firepower/ states the following:

quote:

Specialty ammunition using a tungsten penetrator (much like the HVAP round available to the American 76-mm M1) could theoretically allow the gun to penetrate the glacis plate of the Royal Tiger. In fact there exists a display at the Army Museum in Delft, Netherlands, of a fragment from a Royal Tiger glacis plate having been penetrated by such a round. The round was known as the APDS (Armor Piercing Discarding Sabot) Mk.I. This was the predecessor to modern tank ammunition.

I would love to see that plate and get any details about the kill shot, but alas it�s in the Netherlands. Perhaps I�ll add it to my itinerary if I ever find myself travelling in Europe again.

Jim

Edit: Bah! Disregard, I misread the paragraph, they were talking about a 17lb gun.

< Message edited by Jim D Burns -- 3/5/2010 11:32:08 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to GoodGuy)

Post #: 136

RE: Sherman vs. T-34 - 3/5/2010 11:36:03 PM

Obsolete

Posts: 1494
Joined: 9/4/2007
Status: offline

Since Wittmann was mentioned on page 1 of this thread, there is something that I never quite understood for a while. Might as well ask here.

I remember a documentary long ago where they credited part of his 9-lives and high kill ratio due to him rotating his tank, in combination with the turret, to get zeroed in on the next target faster than normal. This was a habbit he had picked up during his days of working with assault guns.

However, the commentator mentioned there was a dangerous risk to this, as there was a chance the chain would snap (I think they were referring to the tank-treads?).

I�m wondering if this was an over-exaggerated fear, or if there indeed was a large risk to that.

_____________________________

King-Tigers don't let Tiger-I's get over-run.

(in reply to Jim D Burns)

Post #: 137

RE: Sherman vs. T-34 - 3/5/2010 11:38:55 PM

GoodGuy

Posts: 1467
Joined: 5/17/2006
From: Cologne, Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

Apparently there is some evidence of a Sherman 76 taking out a Tiger at range still around today. This site http://socyberty.com/military/m4-sherman-firepower/ states the following:

....

I would love to see that plate and get any details about the kill shot, but alas it�s in the Netherlands. Perhaps I�ll add it to my itinerary if I ever find myself travelling in Europe again

This hit was scored by a British 17-pounder Sherman Firefly or by a British 17-pounder AT gun, of course, not by a US 76mm Sherman. The source you mention cites that the Tiger got hit "by such a round", means by a round using a principle similar to the principle used in US HVAP rounds - thus with a tungsten penetrator. Only the Brits were using these rounds (APDS) for 76mm-tanks at the time, afaik. Also, afaik, 17-pounder rounds and Sherman 76mm rounds were not interchangeable, due to the Sherman rounds' smaller chamber capacity/size.
The US used small quantities of APDS for their 57mm AT guns, in an attempt to improve their poor performance against German medium tanks. The 57mm APDS rounds could penetrate 160mm of armor at 500 meters, according to Zaloga. ("US anti-tank artillery 1941-45", Steven J. Zaloga, page 36).

In turn, according to British veterans, US and British AT gun crews tried to trade their rounds (which were interchangeable, I guess the 6-pounder/57mm ones at least), means British gunners gave their APDS to the US guys, in order to get HE rounds from the US bubs, as they did not receive ANY amount of HE through their Army channels. I tend to mix up who received what, as I tend to forget what side used to have a serious lack of HE rounds, but I think it's right this time and British and US vets stated that such trades were common in some sectors.

< Message edited by GoodGuy -- 3/6/2010 12:09:47 AM >

_____________________________

"Aw Nuts"
General Anthony McAuliffe
December 22nd, 1944
Bastogne
---
"I've always felt that the AA (Alied Assault engine) had the potential to be [....] big."
Tim Stone
8th of August, 2006

(in reply to Jim D Burns)

Post #: 138

RE: Sherman vs. T-34 - 3/5/2010 11:51:55 PM

GoodGuy

Posts: 1467
Joined: 5/17/2006
From: Cologne, Germany
Status: offline

You could have also quoted this part of the website:

quote:

Regardless of how many there were, and where they may have been, the inclusion of the 17 Pounder vastly increased the lethality of the Sherman. It was the only weapon system the Sherman would ever have mounted during the Second World War capable of punching through a Tiger�s glacis plate at ranges up to and exceeding 1,000 yards with regular ammunition.

And this is basically what I said, that the US 76mm M1's performance was shyte.

< Message edited by GoodGuy -- 3/5/2010 11:53:27 PM >

_____________________________

"Aw Nuts"
General Anthony McAuliffe
December 22nd, 1944
Bastogne
---
"I've always felt that the AA (Alied Assault engine) had the potential to be [....] big."
Tim Stone
8th of August, 2006

(in reply to GoodGuy)

Post #: 139

RE: Sherman vs. T-34 - 3/6/2010 12:38:28 AM

Jim D Burns

Posts: 2730
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoodGuy

You could have also quoted this part of the website:

quote:

Regardless of how many there were, and where they may have been, the inclusion of the 17 Pounder vastly increased the lethality of the Sherman. It was the only weapon system the Sherman would ever have mounted during the Second World War capable of punching through a Tiger�s glacis plate at ranges up to and exceeding 1,000 yards with regular ammunition.

And this is basically what I said, that the US 76mm M1's performance was shyte.

Sigh, I've already said regular ammo had no chance, so why would I quote that? My argument has always centered around HVAP ammo.

Jim

_____________________________

(in reply to GoodGuy)

Post #: 140

RE: Sherman vs. T-34 - 3/6/2010 12:45:57 AM

Jim D Burns

Posts: 2730
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Obsolete
I�m wondering if this was an over-exaggerated fear, or if there indeed was a large risk to that.

The weight of the Tiger made any kind of pivoting move in place dangerous to the treads due to the side torque such a move generated on the treads. The same can be said for any of the heavy tanks of the era.

Ground conditions would play a huge role in that though, soft ground would bury the treads, but be less likely to snap one. Hard packed earth, or a rock or tree trunk would have had a higher likelihood of breaking or just slipping a tread.

Jim

_____________________________

(in reply to Obsolete)

Post #: 141

RE: Sherman vs. T-34 - 3/6/2010 1:07:07 AM

GoodGuy

Posts: 1467
Joined: 5/17/2006
From: Cologne, Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

Sigh, I've already said regular ammo had no chance, so why would I quote that? My argument has always centered around HVAP ammo.

Yes yes.

But 1) 76mm HVAP still lacked punch due to the small chamber size and due to the M1's poor performance, and 2) HVAP rounds were conspicuous by their general absence in the ETO.

Do you get my points now?.

Overrated, widely unavailable.

Cheers

< Message edited by GoodGuy -- 3/6/2010 1:08:38 AM >

_____________________________

"Aw Nuts"
General Anthony McAuliffe
December 22nd, 1944
Bastogne
---
"I've always felt that the AA (Alied Assault engine) had the potential to be [....] big."
Tim Stone
8th of August, 2006

(in reply to Jim D Burns)

Post #: 142

RE: Sherman vs. T-34 - 3/6/2010 1:19:20 AM

GoodGuy

Posts: 1467
Joined: 5/17/2006
From: Cologne, Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

The weight of the Tiger made any kind of pivoting move in place dangerous to the treads due to the side torque such a move generated on the treads. The same can be said for any of the heavy tanks of the era.

The same goes for Sherman tanks (and for quite some of the WW2 tanks) when crossing rough terrain. There was a silly incident where a group of tanks had to pass a certain part of the "Kall"-trail (during the Battle in the Huerthgen Forest) which wasn't exactly tank-friendly, at least 3 Sherman tanks threw their treads several times at the same spot, with these tanks holding up the entire reinforcement traffic meant to head for the battle zones immediately. I think it took a day or even 2, as the tankers refused (or did not even think about) to give up their tanks and ditch them. Engineers had to be brought forward to blow up some rocks so that the units could untangle the mess.
Tigers had a tendency to throw a tread on certain terrain. Experienced crews could fix or even exchange a tread within ~30 mins, though.

< Message edited by GoodGuy -- 3/6/2010 1:20:19 AM >

_____________________________

"Aw Nuts"
General Anthony McAuliffe
December 22nd, 1944
Bastogne
---
"I've always felt that the AA (Alied Assault engine) had the potential to be [....] big."
Tim Stone
8th of August, 2006

(in reply to Jim D Burns)

Post #: 143

RE: Sherman vs. T-34 - 3/6/2010 3:18:49 AM

Prince of Eckm�hl

Posts: 2448
Joined: 6/25/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline

Decades after the other tanks being discussed here were TOTALLY obsolete, the Sherman was still an effective weapons platform:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M50_Super_Sherman

Whatever its shortcomings, it certainly proved to be more "upgradeable" than it's WW2-era competitors.

_____________________________

Government is the opiate of the masses.

(in reply to GoodGuy)

Post #: 144

RE: Sherman vs. T-34 - 12/13/2012 1:38:14 AM

fatruff3

Posts: 1
Joined: 12/13/2012
Status: offline

Personally i would choose the t-34 every time because it had superior armor and a diesel engine along with a bigger gun, in a fight the t-34 would win and even a Sherman Firefly would have some trouble because they were quite clumsy.

(in reply to Prince of Eckm�hl)

Post #: 145