Roll over allies, roll over

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[Apophiss]

damn swap it so allies can attack again already, this shit is getting old.

[salan]

no shit, im tired of winning for axis simply so i get variation

[Akranadas]

I have an awesome company ready to deploy.... it's all about shock and awe. MUHAHAHA

[TodlichPanther]

Flack, do you actually study tank design, or do you play too many video games? The Sherman was superior to the Panzer IV. Yes, that's right, superior.

Logistics:

The Sherman was several times more reliable than the Panzer IV, and could use both a gasoline and a diesel engine. The Sherman was easier to mantain than the Panzer IV, and the Sherman was also much easier to manufacture than the Panzer (in fact, the easiest tank to manufacture barring the T-34). The Panzer IV doesn't even win a consolation prize for ease of production. Also, the German army suffered a chronic spare parts problem for their vehicles due to a lack of standardization, which led to...issues, to say the least. The Americans didn't.

Mobility:

Both tanks are about the same. The early VVSS suspension system for the Sherman was about as good as the suspension system for the early Panzer IV. The switch to 23" HVSS later in the war keeps the Sherman's suspension on par with that of the Panzer IV. The Sherman's tracks also lasted several times longer than the tracks for the Panzer IV.

Crew Safety:

According to Hayward's Firefly book (pg90), in Normandy, the Sherman burned 82% of the time when hit. However, the Panzer IV burned 80% of the time when hit, a 2% difference. As wet storage became more and more prevalent, the Sherman burn rate went down considerably from this. In terms of penetration, the Sherman needed 1.89 penetrations to burn, and the Panzer IV needed 1.5. So, the Sherman was safer than the Panzer after all. I'll discuss penetration later.

Do you know why they called the Sherman the "Ronson" and not the Panzer? Because the Panzer never faced 88s in the Desert War. Artillery knocked out the majority of tanks in the early war, and the Sherman was no exception.

Armor:

Believe it or not, the Sherman had more armor than the Panzer IV. Not only that, but its armor was better distributed across the frontal plate. The Sherman had fewer shot traps, and better slope/distribution of armor over the frontal arc. Not only that, but the Sherman was far easier to up-armor than the Panzer IV. Later Sherman models had over 80mm of armor, and the Jumbo Sherman had 152+mm of frontal armor. Which is, by the way, enough to take a point-blank 88mm shot and live to tell the tale. What does this mean in terms of penetration? It took 1.55 shots to knock out a Sherman, and 1.2 shots to knock out a Panzer IV on the Normandy front.

Weapon Systems:

M4 Sherman 75mm penetration: 76mm at 1000 yards.
Panzer IV turret frontal armor: 55mm.

In other words, the Sherman could knock out a Panzer IV at 1000 yards without upgunning (and, of course, vice versa for the Panzer 75mm HV). However, the Sherman turret traverse is both faster, smoother, and has better fine movement control than the Panzer IV's turret. The Sherman is also equipped with gyroscopic stabilization, which is something the Panzer IV never had. In other words, all other things being equal, the Sherman will get the first shot off. I haven't even mentioned the 76mm HV gun for the Sherman yet (which puts penetration around par with the 75mm HV, useful for fighting Panthers), or HVAP ammo (which owned Panthers, though the ammo itself was limited). If one wants to compare the combat capability of later versions of the tanks, the Sherman got stronger and stronger while the Panzer IV got weaker and weaker. As previously stated, the Jumbo Sherman could take 88mm rounds, let alone 75mm HV rounds, which put the Panzer IV in question in about as much trouble as a 75mm Sherman vs. a Tiger. Later Panzer IV versions lost their power turret traverse, and had to resort to manual turret traverse. Which was very, very bad.

Utility:

Sherman is far better here. It's 75mm cannon has a better HE shell, and both the 75mm and the 76mm cannons have a far better selection of ammo (including the almost-illegal WP shell). The Sherman's turret ring is big enough to fit a 105mm gun (ask the Israelis, they did it) in (or, in a situation relevant to WWII, the 90mm or 17-pounder). The Sherman incidentally, could mount anything from a 105mm howitzer to a flamethrower in its chassis. Not only was its weapon systems more adaptable, the Sherman did everything but fly (DD tanks). The Panzer IV loses out here.

Incidentally, the 75mm gun for the Shermans could, and was, used as an indirect fire weapon (yes, the Sherman was designed, however intentionally or unintentionally, as an artillery piece as well as an infantry support tank).

Training:

From late 1943 onwards, the average Sherman crew was better trained than the average Panzer crew. Like everything else German of this time period, Germany had exactly 2 types of tank crews by this time: a small percentage of elite crews like Whitman or Skorzeny, and a large percentage of badly-trained recruits. Due to a shortage in material, fuel, ammo and more fuel, German recruit drivers were generally forced to train on obsolete tank chassis running on coal gas, wood fuel, or other non-petroleum generators. Gunnery practice was limited due to ammo shortages, and battalions received their tanks piecemeal, which limited tank familiarity. Practice maneuvers were few and far between above, and even on, the battalion level due to fuel shortages. By mid 1944, gunners didn't receive enough ammo to calibrate their guns before being sent into action.

The USA, by 1944, could and did give tankers a minimum of 52 weeks of training prior to combat. Practically all the tankers practiced in multiple division/corps-level maneuvers with live ammunition. And fuel was most definitely not a problem.

Unless the American tanker was fighting against one of the Axis tank gods (yes, they were godlike, imagine CS players with wallhacks and aimbots), he stood a very good chance of winning against a Panzer IV.

So, yes, the Sherman was superior to the Panzer IV. Though, when the Sherman attacked anything larger than a Panzer IV...Sherman massacre*. Why the hell they didn't upgun before D-day (they could have upgunned all landing/following Shermans to 90mm gun with 82mm of armor, but didn't), I have no fucking idea. Next thing you know, they'll be claiming that the Kar was more accurate than the Garand...*sigh*.

*Actually, in most cases, no. If anyone needs details, ask me later. Or post in WW2 Forums.

wow, your um, wrong.
Sherman was prone to catching fire to SMALL ARMS FIRE, that mean rifle fire...shermans had hand cranked turrets, aka turret rotation speed of up to two min. They didn't have proper tank commanders ( too many tasks per crewman) and they didn't have radio, making communication between tanks vhard.

[Flack]

Crew Safety:

According to Hayward's Firefly book (pg90), in Normandy, the Sherman burned 82% of the time when hit. However, the Panzer IV burned 80% of the time when hit, a 2% difference. As wet storage became more and more prevalent, the Sherman burn rate went down considerably from this. In terms of penetration, the Sherman needed 1.89 penetrations to burn, and the Panzer IV needed 1.5. So, the Sherman was safer than the Panzer after all. I'll discuss penetration later.


Armor:

Believe it or not, the Sherman had more armor than the Panzer IV. Not only that, but its armor was better distributed across the frontal plate. The Sherman had fewer shot traps, and better slope/distribution of armor over the frontal arc. Not only that, but the Sherman was far easier to up-armor than the Panzer IV. Later Sherman models had over 80mm of armor, and the Jumbo Sherman had 152+mm of frontal armor. Which is, by the way, enough to take a point-blank 88mm shot and live to tell the tale. What does this mean in terms of penetration? It took 1.55 shots to knock out a Sherman, and 1.2 shots to knock out a Panzer IV on the Normandy front.

"Ausf H and later, were produced with 80 mm of front armor, rather than having additional plates added, though the turret armor remained 50 mm thick. Panzer IVs frequently had armor skirting (Schürzen) or additional layers of armor added in the field. From late 1943 until September 1944, Zimmerit anti-magnetic paste was also a common addition."

Weapon Systems:

M4 Sherman 75mm penetration: 76mm at 1000 yards.
Panzer IV turret frontal armor: 55mm.

In other words, the Sherman could knock out a Panzer IV at 1000 yards without upgunning (and, of course, vice versa for the Panzer 75mm HV). However, the Sherman turret traverse is both faster, smoother, and has better fine movement control than the Panzer IV's turret. The Sherman is also equipped with gyroscopic stabilization, which is something the Panzer IV never had. In other words, all other things being equal, the Sherman will get the first shot off. I haven't even mentioned the 76mm HV gun for the Sherman yet (which puts penetration around par with the 75mm HV, useful for fighting Panthers), or HVAP ammo (which owned Panthers, though the ammo itself was limited). If one wants to compare the combat capability of later versions of the tanks, the Sherman got stronger and stronger while the Panzer IV got weaker and weaker. As previously stated, the Jumbo Sherman could take 88mm rounds, let alone 75mm HV rounds, which put the Panzer IV in question in about as much trouble as a 75mm Sherman vs. a Tiger. Later Panzer IV versions lost their power turret traverse, and had to resort to manual turret traverse. Which was very, very bad.

Utility:

Sherman is far better here. It's 75mm cannon has a better HE shell, and both the 75mm and the 76mm cannons have a far better selection of ammo (including the almost-illegal WP shell). The Sherman's turret ring is big enough to fit a 105mm gun (ask the Israelis, they did it) in (or, in a situation relevant to WWII, the 90mm or 17-pounder). The Sherman incidentally, could mount anything from a 105mm howitzer to a flamethrower in its chassis. Not only was its weapon systems more adaptable, the Sherman did everything but fly (DD tanks). The Panzer IV loses out here.

Incidentally, the 75mm gun for the Shermans could, and was, used as an indirect fire weapon (yes, the Sherman was designed, however intentionally or unintentionally, as an artillery piece as well as an infantry support tank).

"Tauchpanzer (1940, 42 converted): A "diving tank". Ausf. D converted in anticipation of Operation Sealion. All openings were sealed, commander's cupola, gun mantlet and machine gun mount covered with rubber sheeting, turret ring protected by inflatable rubber ring. Exhausts were fitted with non-return valves. Air was supplied via a flexible 18-meter hose held on the surface by a buoy. Maximum safe depth was about 15 meters, maximum underwater speed about 3 mph (5 km/h). Some were used by the 18th Panzer Regiment during River Bug crossing in Operation Barbarossa."
Why would the germans mount flamethrowers in their Pz 4s? They did that with the older tanks like the Pz 1.

Training:

From late 1943 onwards, the average Sherman crew was better trained than the average Panzer crew. Like everything else German of this time period, Germany had exactly 2 types of tank crews by this time: a small percentage of elite crews like Whitman or Skorzeny, and a large percentage of badly-trained recruits. Due to a shortage in material, fuel, ammo and more fuel, German recruit drivers were generally forced to train on obsolete tank chassis running on coal gas, wood fuel, or other non-petroleum generators. Gunnery practice was limited due to ammo shortages, and battalions received their tanks piecemeal, which limited tank familiarity. Practice maneuvers were few and far between above, and even on, the battalion level due to fuel shortages. By mid 1944, gunners didn't receive enough ammo to calibrate their guns before being sent into action.

The USA, by 1944, could and did give tankers a minimum of 52 weeks of training prior to combat. Practically all the tankers practiced in multiple division/corps-level maneuvers with live ammunition. And fuel was most definitely not a problem.

Of course, the eastern front needed all it could get, as quickly as it could get it. And when the Normandy front was opened, the demand got even bigger. So of course!

So, yes, the Sherman was superior to the Panzer IV. Though, when the Sherman attacked anything larger than a Panzer IV...Sherman massacre*. Why the hell they didn't upgun before D-day (they could have upgunned all landing/following Shermans to 90mm gun with 82mm of armor, but didn't), I have no fucking idea.

Next thing you know, they'll be claiming that the Kar was more accurate than the Garand...*sigh*.

*Actually, in most cases, no. If anyone needs details, ask me later. Or post in WW2 Forums.

Tell me why there was no sherman slaughter normally!
The K98k and the Garand where equally accurate under battlefield condition. I think that the K98 was a bit better under Laboratory condition, but it is not alot.

[Thtb-Ally]

Readying this makes me want to play fow again xD. Realismen shoud never be a argument in gameplay suggestions just to rember you guys.

-At the current situation i may d waht the other guy did - go axis and throw f*ing games.

[Flack]

Our The 103rd Terror (Boobaka) and 716th Terror (Flack716) divisions successfully assaulted and defeated the The 701st Armour (stenchy) and 490th Airborne (Unshod) divisions in a contained battle. Rumors from America and Britain are circulating that the Allies are out of men and out of bravery!

[ccam]

hell yeah AXIS FTW!!!

[acker]

AMPM:

Ah, yes. The "massive profile" argument. Let me put it this way; first, take a Sherman and a Panzer, then line them up. The Sherman appears to be much higher. Now, place the all-important commander's copula on top of each tank. At this point, you could put a shoe on top of the Panzer IV to make it equal in height with the Sherman. In terms of actual battlefield conditions, where one side is more often than not hull down and/or camouflaged, this makes no difference whatsoever.

If you are talking about "hull down" fighting, then this did, in fact, make a difference. Since whoever hits first wins, and the Sherman can lock onto the Panzer faster, the Sherman will more often than not get the first shot off. Very useful for urban fighting, a faster turret rotation is.

And, yes, I actually am comparing the 75mm HV Panzer IV to the M4 75mm LV Sherman. The Sherman killed even more 75mm LV Panzer IVs in the Desert War, too.

Todlich:

You too need to actually read tank specifications instead of playing video games.

Flack:

"Ausf H and later, were produced with 80 mm of front armor, rather than having additional plates added, though the turret armor remained 50 mm thick. Panzer IVs frequently had armor skirting (Schürzen) or additional layers of armor added in the field. From late 1943 until September 1944, Zimmerit anti-magnetic paste was also a common addition."

Interestingly enough, this changes absolutely nothing about what I said. The turret was still inadequate against 75mm or even bazooka fire, and the Allies never implemented a Magnetic Grenade. What a waste of money right there.

"Tauchpanzer (1940, 42 converted): A "diving tank". Ausf. D converted in anticipation of Operation Sealion. All openings were sealed, commander's cupola, gun mantlet and machine gun mount covered with rubber sheeting, turret ring protected by inflatable rubber ring. Exhausts were fitted with non-return valves. Air was supplied via a flexible 18-meter hose held on the surface by a buoy. Maximum safe depth was about 15 meters, maximum underwater speed about 3 mph (5 km/h). Some were used by the 18th Panzer Regiment during River Bug crossing in Operation Barbarossa."
Why would the germans mount flamethrowers in their Pz 4s? They did that with the older tanks like the Pz 1."

The snorkel didn't work well. Driving a near-blind tank on the bottom of a silt river with little traction didn't exactly pan out. And, please, try using one of those things on Sealion, the Brits would have had a field day. As for equipping Panzer Is with flamethrowers, the Germans did that due to production problems and sheer idiocy. Case in point; the Sturmtiger, the tank that did almost nothing for its cost.

"Of course, the eastern front needed all it could get, as quickly as it could get it. And when the Normandy front was opened, the demand got even bigger. So of course!"

Strangely enough, this also doesn't deal with anything I wrote.

"Tell me why there was no sherman slaughter normally!
The K98k and the Garand where equally accurate under battlefield condition. I think that the K98 was a bit better under Laboratory condition, but it is not alot."

First, the Garand post is a start towards the truth (and not even laboratory conditions, not unless you were using match-grade ammo with a pristine barrel). Now, for the second part of your story...

Do you know why Sherman losses were so heavy on Normandy? Because, unlike the Americans, the Germans had hull-down positions and pre-set AT guns in unfamiliar hedgerow territory. Unfortunately, since all the Allied offensives in Normandy involved artillery and air strikes, it is quite difficult to argue either way there (if you want stats from there, though, I'll try to dig them up). The best indicator of the Allied tank capability is probably the Battle of the Bulge, where artillery and air support were at a minimum. Though Axis tank losses are still being debated over, there are certain statistics that are rock solid. For instance...

Third Army losses during the Battle of the Bulge:

Light Tanks 72
Medium Tanks 264
Guns 28

German Losses to Third Army

Medium Tanks 322
Panthers and Tigers 226
Guns 310

Actually, here's a direct quote from T.A. Gardner;

"One can also look at the breakout at St. Lo. Panzer Lehr tried a counter attack that was fought off by 3rd Armored. Lehr lost 20 of 32 tanks committed with 3rd Armored losses being equal.
Then there are the battles around Nancy like Luneville, Avranches or, Arnaville. In these battles various armored units from 3rd Army took on a number of Panzer Brigades (106, 108, 111, 112, 113 among others), the 15 PzGr Div, 17th SS PzGr division etc. The Germans took heavier losses in virtually every encounter during these battles.
In an example outside Luneville versus Shermans of 4th Armored and M-18's of the 704th Tank Destroyer Battalion, Panther tanks from the 113th Panzer Brigade (initially having 42 Panthers) the Germans lost greater numbers. Versus these units the Germans lost a total of 12 Panthers to 3 tank destroyers before hastily withdrawing. The next day the 37th Armored Battalion caught the same Panther battalion in the flank destroying 9 for the loss of 3 Shermans.
The same day, the 704th with M-18's nailed 12 more Panthers for no losses using their superior speed and mobility to shift firing positions.
A week later (26 Sept) 11th Panzer launched a counter attack near Juvelize France against 4th Armored. It's Pz IV battalion was hit by Shermans that occupied a ridge line along their line of advance. The lead company lost 10 tanks before withdrawing.
I could produce dozens of similar situations from the breakout at St. Lo right up through VE day where German panzer units repeatedly took worse than they gave. The single most important reason this repeatedly occurs is a combination of the Germnans leading their advances with tanks unsupported by any great quantity of infantry and artillery and, the lack of tactical and operational reconnissance. They literally, to use the boxing term, lead with their face. That is they stuck their noses out without looking first and got punched hard for it."

So, in cases where mobility or defense was the prime factor for battles, the Allied tanks certainly did acquit themselves quite well. Unless, of course, they met one of the dreaded (and very rare) tank aces...which typically commanded Tigers, not Panzer IVs.

[StuartTerror]

At this rate 2.0 will be out in 9 days max.

I've gotta get my arty guide out before then!!!

RUSH RUSH!!!

I'll have a preview ready by Thursday or earlier.

[acker]

HOLYSHITHOLYSHIT!!!

Royal Artillery ftw! SAS ftw! Our British compatriots will turn the tide of war!

[Stuart750]

Sorry to confuse, that's my experiment account, for the purpose of using V1's & firestorms for footage purposes.

[acker]

We already have the perfect V1 shot footage of one killing the Panther  .

[AmPM]

Acker, thats great, but its about 90mm tank destroyers vs Panthers. In the Battle of the Bulge for instance, air support and a lack of fuel for the german tanks did them in.

"When an investigation of Allied and German tank casualties in Normandy was carried out it confirmed the most pessimistic views about Allied armor. The statistics showed 60 per cent of Allied tank losses were due to a single round from a 75- or 88-mm gun. The stats also showed that 2/3 of all tanks brewed up when hit.

German armor-piercing shells almost always penetrated and disabled a tank. In fact, the armor on our tanks offered such little protection that the only way to survive was to avoid being targeted. The contrast with German tank casualties was especially striking. Only 38 per cent of hits from the Sherman 75-mm or six-pounder-anti-tank gun penetrated German armor. What’s more, German Panther and Tiger tanks often survived one or two hits. The sloping frontal armor of the Panther and the German self-propelled guns prevented penetration of 3/4 of all direct hits."

http://www.legionmagazine.com/featur...tory/98-09.asp

[acker]

About the Battle of the Bulge...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Air support wasn't exactly widespread even after the 23rd of December. Not only that, but the Ardennes Offensive is just about the only time when the Germans actually had air support and greater amounts of artillery. So, the fighting was about as equal as it would get. And both sides lost around equal amounts of tanks.

The problem? The Allied Shermans were back in action or replaced within a couple weeks (half of all knocked out Shermans were back on duty within two days). The Germans never managed to rebuild their Tigers, Panthers, or Panzers.

Fuel was definitely an issue. So was maintenance. But, if the Germans design fuel-inefficient, mechanically complex tanks (Panther and Tiger), they have to take that into account as well, especially with a fuel-strapped economy. A tank that kills things is great, but a tank that runs 24/7 wins wars. The fact that German Panzers ran out of fuel is a bad thing. And the offensive was pretty much dead by the time fuel actually ran out.

Also, your stats include all German tanks, not just the Panzer IV. I could take, say, a performance survey of all Allied fighters vs. all German fighters and claim that the Mosquito was a better combat plane than a Me262. This is only on Panzer IVs and Shermans, not 90mm guns or Panthers.