US Sherman Tank

[Starmyth]

What German tank is best match for beating the Sherman? My understanding is that the Panthers and Tigers were overkill and greatly outmatched the Sherman. The PZ IVs (F2 and later)??

[Double_Deuce]

Originally Posted by Starmyth

What German tank is best match for beating the Sherman? My understanding is that the Panthers and Tigers were overkill and greatly outmatched the Sherman. The PZ IVs (F2 and later)??

Without any testing and crunching numbers my guess is anything with a 75mm or bigger. PZ-III's with the long 50mm would probably do a number on them as well.

[Mobhack]

Originally Posted by Starmyth

What German tank is best match for beating the Sherman? My understanding is that the Panthers and Tigers were overkill and greatly outmatched the Sherman. The PZ IVs (F2 and later)??

Any Panzer 4 with the 75/L43 gun and later models are equivalent to Shermans with 76mm (which only appear in 44), so over match the 75mm models.

Any Stug with the 75L43 and better ditto, and they have better front armour than the early P4s (the 5 armour glacis is a weakness). Basically immune at ~1000 yards plus so long as they are facing the 75mm sherman.

Any panzer 3 with the 50mm L60 is about evens with the 75mm Sherman, at ranges 1000m or less while stocks of sabot ammo remain.

However when Sherman/75 first appears the Panzer 3s with the L42 50mm, and the panzer 4s with the short 75mm infantry support howitzer are rather over-matched by the Sherman, which can easily wipe the floor with these. From Alamein to the appearance of the Tiger in Tunisia, the Sherman is a good tank. Once Jerry has the long 75s as standard rather than as rarities, just an average tank, until fireflies and 76mm upgrades become available. A useful infantry support item, and deadly to all German armour (includes panthers) if it can flank it - bar the tigers.

When fireflies with 17pdr APDS appear then Jerry has to take account of these as they are rather deadly. Eliminate any fireflies ASAP!.

And

[Marek_Tucan]

Depends on which Sherman and when. Early Shermans had thin armor, bit worse than contemporary Panzer II and IV, but better gun. Later on, Shermans got armor and survivability improvement while Panzer IV got long 75mm so the advantages and disadvantages turned. Yet later on Sherman got 76 or 17pdr and in that configuration had the upper hand over any PzIV. Tigers and Panthers are, of course, another matter.
In fact the devedlopment of Sherman closely resembles T-34 series, only difference being that early Shermans had decent turret front and relatively weak front hull and T-34-76 got it the other way around.

[Starmyth]

Thanks for the excellent responses.

[cbo]

Originally Posted by Marek_Tucan

Depends on which Sherman and when. Early Shermans had thin armor, bit worse than contemporary Panzer II and IV, but better gun. Later on, Shermans got armor and survivability improvement while Panzer IV got long 75mm so the advantages and disadvantages turned..

The overall armour protection of the Sherman remained much the same through the war. Shermans produced 1942-43 had 51mm of armour on the front hull, sloped at 56 degrees while those made in 1944-45 had 63mm of armour, but only sloped at 47 degrees. The main difference was that the front armour was one piece of RHA armour on the latter ones while the earlier types had a front built up of several pieces of RHA and cast armour with some protruding bulges etc. This probably wasn't as strong as the later type.
The side armour remained 38mm vertical all through the war. There were small changes in the turreet armour as well, but not much.

By the time the Sherman entered the war, the Panzer IV was only made with the long 75mm gun and 80mm frontal armour, but its turret and side hull armour remained weaker than that of the Sherman throughout the war (not counting Schürzen )

Yet later on Sherman got 76 or 17pdr and in that configuration had the upper hand over any PzIV.

The 76mm was, if anything, slightly weaker as anti-tank weapon compared with the German 7,5cm L/48 gun and fired a somewhat less effective HE round. With HVAP, it was a superior performer, but just as 75mm HVAP (PzGr40) was rare to non-existant in the German camp, it was in very short supply among American tanks as well.

You are right, that the 17-pdr beat both as an anti-tank weapon, but was of couse a lousy HE performer, just as the 17-pdr APDS round was a somewhat erratic performer.

CBO

[Marek_Tucan]

Originally Posted by cbo

The overall armour protection of the Sherman remained much the same through the war. Shermans produced 1942-43 had 51mm of armour on the front hull, sloped at 56 degrees while those made in 1944-45 had 63mm of armour, but only sloped at 47 degrees. The main difference was that the front armour was one piece of RHA armour on the latter ones while the earlier types had a front built up of several pieces of RHA and cast armour with some protruding bulges etc. This probably wasn't as strong as the later type.

Not only the glacis was upgraded - AFAIK the gearbox cover was at first 51mm, rounded, while later 63...107mm, cast, rounded and it takes up some 20% of Sherman hull forntal profile.

There were small changes in the turreet armour as well, but not much.

The largest change would be wider moving gun shield, so it covered the entire width of the fixed gun shield. Plus of course better cast armor quality in later times.

17-pdr APDS round was a somewhat erratic performer.

Saw somewhere a hint the erratic performance wasn't as much fault of the APDS as the fault of a secrecy - the APDS was simply top secret when it came to use so few people knew how to handle it - ie mostly the difference in trajectory between an AP shot and APDS. Is that true or was there really something wrong with the rounds themselves?

[cbo]

Originally Posted by Marek_Tucan

Not only the glacis was upgraded - AFAIK the gearbox cover was at first 51mm, rounded, while later 63...107mm, cast, rounded and it takes up some 20% of Sherman hull forntal profile.

..but it is the lower part and thus the part that wasnt very likely to be hit. The profile of the late war differential housing was perhaps better, but IIRC most of the added thickness was found at the very tip and thus a very small part of the frontal profile. The part highest up was still only 51mm.

The largest change would be wider moving gun shield, so it covered the entire width of the fixed gun shield. Plus of course better cast armor quality in later times.

The wider gun shield was only found on the 76mm armed tanks and was the same thickness as the shields on other late war Shermans. And this was only 13mm thicker than the shield found on earlier types and only 13mm thicker than the front hull armour anyway. So not much of an issue, really.

Saw somewhere a hint the erratic performance wasn't as much fault of the APDS as the fault of a secrecy - the APDS was simply top secret when it came to use so few people knew how to handle it - ie mostly the difference in trajectory between an AP shot and APDS. Is that true or was there really something wrong with the rounds themselves?

Never heard that before. AFAIK the problem with the 17-pdr APDS was occasional erratic behaviour due to faulty sabot separation. If the projectly left the sabot correctly, it was accurate, but when it didn't, there was no telling where the projectile would end up. That is why a pot-type sabot was later introduced for the 20-pdr. The erratic performance of the 17-pdr APDS meant that it was not recommended for use it at ranges beyond 1000 yards, at that recommandation persisted as long as the WWII type sabot round was in service (still in effect in 1952).

cbo

[Marek_Tucan]

oops, too late to edit it now, but of course I meant "bit worse than Panzer III", one "I" went AWOL

[narwan]

I consider the PIIIL/60, 75mm Sherman and T34/76 (except the earliest versions with the short gun) to be in the same category with respect to combat capabilities and the PIV-Long, 76mm Sherman and T34/85 in another.

The StugIII is a bit better still in direct confrontations with these other tanks but is more limited in general use, especially against infantry. If you're looking for a weapon for tank vs tank use against shermans and/or T34's though it's probably the best pick (I too find Panthers a bit on the expensive side considering the overkill).

Another interesting AFV to use against 75mm Shermans is the Italian SMV42. They are closely matched and I've fought quite a few battles this way (from the Italian side).

Narwan