Jump to content


M4 Sherman Tank - Historically, A Total Death Trap - VIDEO


  • Please log in to reply
407 replies to this topic

Bogart1943 #81 Posted Jun 09 2016 - 16:33

    Major

  • Players
  • 32570 battles
  • 2,071
  • [DHO6] DHO6
  • Member since:
    07-05-2013

View PostHazardDrake, on Jun 09 2016 - 06:01, said:

Drop the superiority complex dude along with the word "sheeple". You arn't helping.

 

​You're kidding right?  Take my suggestion, it might "help" you more than you know.  As far as Sheeple go, it's a proven fact.  The good 'ole US of A was built on Alcohol, Tabaco, and Firearms.  Now we have an entire branch of law enforcement trying to tear it all down. Need another example?  Cigarettes and Marijuana.  Try and find a Cigarette Machine.  Now try to find a Marijuana Dispensary.  Which one did you find first?  Go back thirty years and see which one you find.  Now what do you think will happen in the next thirty years?  Sheeple.

TLWiz #82 Posted Jun 09 2016 - 16:36

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 22072 battles
  • 9,753
  • [DSSRT] DSSRT
  • Member since:
    12-26-2014

View PostRunninKurt, on Jun 08 2016 - 21:47, said:

History channel is not the best source for accurate information.

 

Hey, don't be dissing "Ancient Aliens" now!  Seven seasons of "Swamp People" is proof of History Channel's commitment to a certain standard.  :B

 


Edited by TLWiz, Jun 09 2016 - 16:38.


Zergling #83 Posted Jun 09 2016 - 16:42

    Major

  • Players
  • 16721 battles
  • 8,457
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    02-09-2011

View Postdodgedthecoathanger, on Jun 09 2016 - 14:39, said:

Starting off, the Sherman w/ the L40 75mm was facing panzer 3 variant tanks armed with a 37 mm kwk36, 50mm kwk38, 50mm kwk39, and the 75mm kwk 37.  The Sherman's gun had plenty of penetration when it came to the panzer 3's 50mm of armor.  

 

The Panzer 4 A-D models had the 75 mm L24 which was an inferior gun to the L40 75mm on the Sherman for AT.  The panzer 4's L48 was a better gun than what was on the the Sherman but the Sherman's numerical superiority and the lack of L48 armed panzer 4 tanks relative to the other tanks in the German army at the time made for no real power gap in American armor.  

 

The M1 76 mm put the Sherman on par with the Panzer 4.

 

Panzer IV was using the 75mm L/24 KwK 37 up until the Ausf. F2 replaced it with the 75mm L/43 KwK 40.

 

There wasn't a substantial difference in performance between the 75mm L/43 and 75mm L/48 versions either; the L/43 had a muzzle velocity of 740 m/s, and the L/48 had either 750 m/s, 770 m/s or 790 m/s.

 

As for their penetration performance, here are Aberdeen testing figures at 0 degrees from vertical / 90 degrees from horizontal:

Spoiler

 

 

Then a German chart, which also shows sloped armor penetration:

Spoiler

 

Notably, later Shermans had 63.5mm at 47 degrees from vertical / 43 degrees from horizontal upper glacis armor.

 

Going off that chart, the 75mm Pzgr 39 at 740 m/s would penetrate 135mm at 0 degrees from vertical and 67.5mm at 45 degrees.

At 790 m/s, the Pzgr 39 would penetrate 149mm at 0 degrees from vertical and 79mm at 45 degrees.

 

This gives the shell a penetration range against the Sherman glacis of 400 meters with a 740 m/s muzzle velocity, and 1000 meters with 790 m/s muzzle velocity.

 

 

Then for Sherman guns versus Panzer IV, there are figures in WW2 Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery:

Spoiler

 

The later Panzer IVs had 80mm FHA at about 10 degrees from vertical, for about 82mm effective protection (give or take 1mm).

 

With the 75mm M3 firing M72 AP shell the penetration range is just 300-400 meters, but with the M61 APCBC shell the penetration range jumps up to 1250 meters.

 

For the 76mm M1 firing M79 AP shell the penetration range is 1250 meters, and with M62 APCBC shell the penetration range is 2500 meters.

 

 

So despite the inferior gun of the 75mm Sherman, they had sufficient advantage in armor to still be superior in range to penetration to the late-model Panzer IVs, provided they weren't using obsolete M72 ammunition.

With the 76mm gun, the Sherman was clearly superior, capable of penetrating the Panzer IVs at substantially longer ranges than the German tanks could penetrate the Sherman in return.

 

 

 

As for the whole 'makeshift armor' topic, the Germans commonly did the same; Tiger Is frequently had track links attached to their upper and lower glacis plates to increase protection, and some StuG IIIs had concrete poured on them.

 

Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler

 



charley2222 #84 Posted Jun 09 2016 - 16:46

    Captain

  • Players
  • 29538 battles
  • 1,136
  • Member since:
    09-27-2013

View PostTLWiz, on Jun 09 2016 - 10:36, said:

 

Hey, don't be dissing "Ancient Aliens" now!  Seven seasons of "Swamp People" is proof of History Channel's commitment to a certain standard.  :B

 

 

thank for posting this 3 perfect americain crew for the

M4 Sherman

lolol

Edited by charley2222, Jun 09 2016 - 16:47.


Flarvin #85 Posted Jun 09 2016 - 16:47

    Major

  • Players
  • 54428 battles
  • 16,382
  • Member since:
    03-29-2013

View PostTLWiz, on Jun 09 2016 - 10:36, said:

 

Hey, don't be dissing "Ancient Aliens" now!  Seven seasons of "Swamp People" is proof of History Channel's commitment to a certain standard.  :B

 

 

I thought history channel did not do any historical shows. All I find on it is reality and alien/supernatural shows. 



WulfeHound #86 Posted Jun 09 2016 - 16:49

    Major

  • Players
  • 12919 battles
  • 26,179
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    04-03-2011

View Postcharley2222, on Jun 09 2016 - 10:27, said:

 

sorry dude dont try to give your  false credibility because you pride and ego take a hit , because you never make ww2 and never be on the battlefield in ww2 . my dad is born in 1916 and make the ww2 war  at the age of  26 , and today is will have 100 year  so for sure you never be there and dont see crap from your own eye lol  . funny how american  have huge ego and always think they are the best , is easy and logical to understand whjy the m4 is a piece of crap

1- very fast engineering because the war no development time for a good motor causing the tank to blow up 

2- need mass production and transportation issue tank need to dont be to heavy but pay the price of lower armor

3- everyone know the tank dont have proper and also the proper gun

 

so this result no armor= tank get pen= and after the tank have crew die or the tank blow up because the gas this tank use . also the tank have no match gun  vs the tiger

 

1) The R-975 was the most powerful and compact tank motor that the US had at the time. Gas engines do not cause the tank to blow up. German vehicles were powered by gasoline yet for some reason they avoid that reputation

2) Considering the Sherman's glacis had equal or better protection than the Tiger's did, armor was decent on the frontal arc. Wa Prüf 6 estimated that if the Sherman's glacis was angled 30 degrees, it would be invulnerable to KwK 36 shells at any distance.

3) The 75mm M3 was a powerful gun when it was introduced and it was quite good at both antitank and HE slinging.



Digital_Malamute #87 Posted Jun 09 2016 - 16:52

    Major

  • Players
  • 46759 battles
  • 10,179
  • [SHIMP] SHIMP
  • Member since:
    09-02-2011

Why does the video say "crew" when the "expert" being interviewed is a REMF BN level maintenance worker that did cleanup duty on knocked out tanks? 

 

1/10.



charley2222 #88 Posted Jun 09 2016 - 16:52

    Captain

  • Players
  • 29538 battles
  • 1,136
  • Member since:
    09-27-2013

View PostWulfeHound, on Jun 09 2016 - 10:49, said:

 

1) The R-975 was the most powerful and compact tank motor that the US had at the time. Gas engines do not cause the tank to blow up. German vehicles were powered by gasoline yet for some reason they avoid that reputation

2) Considering the Sherman's glacis had equal or better protection than the Tiger's did, armor was decent on the frontal arc. Wa Prüf 6 estimated that if the Sherman's glacis was angled 30 degrees, it would be invulnerable to KwK 36 shells at any distance.

3) The 75mm M3 was a powerful gun when it was introduced and it was quite good at both antitank and HE slinging.

 

agree it you german tank blow up because the gas  but the tiger have so much more armor compare the m4 so guess who blow up here lolol and also the m4 dont have the gun

DiePanzerGeist #89 Posted Jun 09 2016 - 16:53

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 7211 battles
  • 5,495
  • [DHO6] DHO6
  • Member since:
    04-28-2014

View Postcharley2222, on Jun 09 2016 - 10:27, said:

 

sorry dude dont try to give your  false credibility because you pride and ego take a hit , because you never make ww2 and never be on the battlefield in ww2 . my dad is born in 1916 and make the ww2 war  at the age of  26 , and today is will have 100 year  so for sure you never be there and dont see crap from your own eye lol  . funny how american  have huge ego and always think they are the best ,

 

Funny how someone complaining about "american's  have huge ego " is only proving themselves a typical pompous [edited] and an expert in ignorance that thinks all Americans drive around swilling beer in their redneck pick-up trucks. Got to love an idiot that is told hes wrong and throws out the "nationality" card right away as their defense.

 

Anyway, as to your claims of "false credibility" I was trained and educated in armor history, doctrine, and tactics at Ft. Knox Kentucky (U.S. Army School of Armor), served in 3rd Platoon  D Co. 2/37th AR stationed in Rose Barracks, Vilseck Germany (.aka Grafenwoehr) where I served as the gunner of an M1A1 Abrams MBT, deployed to combat during Desert Storm and other theaters of operation. Have studied the writings of George S. Patton, Hans Guderian, and Erwin Rommel just to name a few. Both of my Grandfathers served during WW2...one in Artillery and the other (gasp) was a Sherman Tank Crewman, my Father and Uncle served during Vietnam for several tours. Do I expect you to believe me...no, do I really care...no.

 

...carry on. :honoring:

 

(edit: you really like ninja editing your post don't you?)


Edited by DiePanzerGeist, Jun 09 2016 - 17:01.


DV_Currie_VC #90 Posted Jun 09 2016 - 16:54

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 59223 battles
  • 2,248
  • [RS] RS
  • Member since:
    08-04-2010

View Postcharley2222, on Jun 09 2016 - 08:27, said:

 

sorry dude dont try to give your  false credibility because you pride and ego take a hit , because you never make ww2 and never be on the battlefield in ww2 . my dad is born in 1916 and make the ww2 war  at the age of  26 , and today is will have 100 year  so for sure you never be there and dont see crap from your own eye lol  . funny how american  have huge ego and always think they are the best , is easy and logical to understand whjy the m4 is a piece of crap

1- very fast engineering because the war no development time for a good motor causing the tank to blow up 

2- need mass production and transportation issue tank need to dont be to heavy but pay the price of lower armor

3- everyone know the tank dont have proper and also the proper gun

 

so this result no armor= tank get pen= and after the tank have crew die or the tank blow up because the gas this tank use . also the tank have no match gun  vs the tiger   anyway ww2 for me is german vs russia     usa and uk are a bit the pogo there hitler never see the big menace there , but hitler are a lot more upset vs russia

 

View Postcharley2222, on Jun 09 2016 - 08:46, said:

 

thank for posting this 3 perfect americain crew for the

M4 Sherman

lolol

This isn't going to end well.....



Digital_Malamute #91 Posted Jun 09 2016 - 16:56

    Major

  • Players
  • 46759 battles
  • 10,179
  • [SHIMP] SHIMP
  • Member since:
    09-02-2011

View PostDiePanzerGeist, on Jun 09 2016 - 10:53, said:

 

Funny how someone complaining about "american's  have huge ego " is only proving themselves a typical pompous [edited]that thinks all Americans drive around swilling beer in their pick-up trucks.

 

Anyway, as to your claims of "false credibility" I was trained and educated in armor history, doctrine, and tactics at Ft. Knox Kentucky (U.S. Army School of Armor), served in D Co. 2/37th AR stationed in Rose Barracks, Vilseck Germany (.aka Grafenwoehr) where I served as the gunner of an M1A1 Abrams MBT, deployed to combat during Desert Storm and other theaters of operation. Have studies the writings of George S. Patton, Hans Guderian, and Erwin Rommel just to name a few. Both of my Grandfathers served during WW2...one in Artillery and the other (gasp) was a Sherman Tank Crewman, my Father and Uncle served during Vietnam for several tours. Do I expect you to believe me...no, do I really care...no.

 

...carry on. :honoring:

 

Stationed in Ansbach here.

 

:honoring:



WulfeHound #92 Posted Jun 09 2016 - 16:56

    Major

  • Players
  • 12919 battles
  • 26,179
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    04-03-2011

View Postcharley2222, on Jun 09 2016 - 10:52, said:

 

agree it you german tank blow up because the gas  but the tiger have so much more armor compare the m4 so guess who blow up here lolol and also the m4 dont have the gun

 

Only on the sides and rear

 

And the fuel type used doesn't cause tanks to blow up, It's the ammunition



DiePanzerGeist #93 Posted Jun 09 2016 - 16:57

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 7211 battles
  • 5,495
  • [DHO6] DHO6
  • Member since:
    04-28-2014

View Postmp31b30q9, on Jun 09 2016 - 10:56, said:

 

Stationed in Ansbach here.

 

:honoring:

Is it as pretty as I remember still?

:honoring:

Edited by DiePanzerGeist, Jun 09 2016 - 16:59.


DV_Currie_VC #94 Posted Jun 09 2016 - 16:57

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 59223 battles
  • 2,248
  • [RS] RS
  • Member since:
    08-04-2010

View Postcharley2222, on Jun 09 2016 - 08:52, said:

 

agree it you german tank blow up because the gas  but the tiger have so much more armor compare the m4 so guess who blow up here lolol and also the m4 dont have the gun

Stop comparing apples to oranges. If you want a direct comparison, stick to equivalent tanks in numbers employed against each other.  The vast majority of tank vs. tank encounters in WW2 were Sherman vs. Pz IV, and Pz IV/Panther vs. T-34 (more Panthers were sent to Eastern Front than Western Front.)



Zergling #95 Posted Jun 09 2016 - 17:02

    Major

  • Players
  • 16721 battles
  • 8,457
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    02-09-2011

Here's a captured StuG with concrete on the upper hull, track links on the lower glacis:

Spoiler

 

 

 

And some Panzer IVs making use of track link applique armor, quite extensively with the last photo:

Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler

 

 

View PostWulfeHound, on Jun 10 2016 - 01:56, said:

Only on the sides and rear

 

And the fuel type used doesn't cause tanks to blow up, It's the ammunition

 

Notably, the wet ammo rack Shermans moved the ammunition from the vulnerable position in the sponsons to the bottom of the hull, which significantly reduced the probability of a fire.

 

The Germans never did anything like that; all their tanks stored ammunition in the sponsons, and they all burned at a comparable rate to the earlier dry ammo rack Shermans.

 



charley2222 #96 Posted Jun 09 2016 - 17:02

    Captain

  • Players
  • 29538 battles
  • 1,136
  • Member since:
    09-27-2013

View PostDiePanzerGeist, on Jun 09 2016 - 10:53, said:

 

Funny how someone complaining about "american's  have huge ego " is only proving themselves a typical pompous [edited]that thinks all Americans drive around swilling beer in their pick-up trucks.

 

Anyway, as to your claims of "false credibility" I was trained and educated in armor history, doctrine, and tactics at Ft. Knox Kentucky ( of Armor), served in D Co. 2/37th AR stationed in Rose Barracks, Vilseck Germany (.aka Grafenwoehr) where I served as the gunner of an M1A1 Abrams MBT, deployed to combat during Desert Storm and other theaters of operation. Have studies the writings of George S. Patton, Hans Guderian, and Erwin Rommel just to name a few. Both of my Grandfathers served during WW2...one in Artillery and the other (gasp) was a Sherman Tank Crewman, my Father and Uncle served during Vietnam for several tours. Do I expect you to believe me...no,.

 

...carry on. :honoring:

( do I really care...no)

first you care because you reply and  trying justified your self . so again is false what you just say  . so again all your have is your history of U.S. Army School  lol what do you expect they  will tell you lol be logical 2 sec do you expect 2 min they will tell you our tank are garbage and us are not prepare . usa send troop in dead trap but  the fat    churchill  pay us  good money anyway lolol just look amuch dead have the Normandy landings they never say anything to the troop lolol oh boy believe your school and history from other . in my case better to believe my dad in the battlefied because i live this every day it my dad this really change someone . so go read your book lol

Edited by charley2222, Jun 09 2016 - 17:08.


Digital_Malamute #97 Posted Jun 09 2016 - 17:09

    Major

  • Players
  • 46759 battles
  • 10,179
  • [SHIMP] SHIMP
  • Member since:
    09-02-2011

View Postcharley2222, on Jun 09 2016 - 11:02, said:

( do I really care...no)

first you care because you reply and  trying justified your self . so again is false what you just say  . so again all your have is your history of U.S. Army School  lol what do you expect they  will tell you lol be logical 2 sec do you expect 2 min they will tell you our tank are garbage and us are not prepare . usa send troop in dead trap but  the fat    churchill  pay us  good money anyway lolol just look amuch dead have the Normandy landings they never say anything to the troop lolol

 

Even when faced with someone who clearly is more knowledgeable on the subject matter, this guy craps his narrative.

 

BTW the actually casualties on Normandy were below Allied expectations, due to the impressive MI planning, i.e. Operation Bodyguard.



CavScout19D #98 Posted Jun 09 2016 - 17:11

    Major

  • Players
  • 24434 battles
  • 4,773
  • Member since:
    04-24-2011

View Postcharley2222, on Jun 09 2016 - 08:02, said:

( do I really care...no)

first you care because you reply...

Hmmm...



Suomen_Panssari #99 Posted Jun 09 2016 - 17:16

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 19883 battles
  • 744
  • [S_P_A] S_P_A
  • Member since:
    10-18-2010
I loved my M4 sherman's when i played...(i haven't played  in a month).. They were fun tanks in game  historically  they were "okay" tanks just few modifications here their and American industry  they made so many..

Edited by Yandere_Tanker, Jun 09 2016 - 17:18.


Arsenal_destroyer #100 Posted Jun 09 2016 - 17:17

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 2998 battles
  • 695
  • Member since:
    05-14-2015

View Postcharley2222, on Jun 09 2016 - 11:02, said:

( do I really care...no)

first you care because you reply and  trying justified your self . so again is false what you just say  . so again all your have is your history of U.S. Army School  lol what do you expect they  will tell you lol be logical 2 sec do you expect 2 min they will tell you our tank are garbage and us are not prepare . usa send troop in dead trap but  the fat    churchill  pay us  good money anyway lolol just look amuch dead have the Normandy landings they never say anything to the troop lolol

 

No Army will give any equipment saying it's garbage, but good luck anyways.

History will always be a soft science full of interpretation.

You are egotistical and ignorant beyond description in my opinion as you discredit a service person and hang your hat on your Father's service in WW2. Hey, my Austrian step-father(an Austrian Team Ski Jumper) from Tyrol region was "conscripted" by the Nazis early in the war and served his time on the northern Russian Front. He is dead now, but when alive he ate no fish and would scrape a grapefruit so clean you could almost see through the rind - direct result of what he ate and didn't have to eat on the Russian Front. His life experience is not relevant on the M4 debate, was your Fathers?

But at least you're happy, so that's fine by me. Even nice in your criticism, + 1.

No one here is saying that M4 was match for a Tiger, but then again, what tank was? How many times did they meet in combat? Under 10 I'm pretty sure.

I think every USA citizen will say we mass produced ourselves to a victory. In that regard the M4 did the job. People were killed for sure. That's war. German tanks and crews were destroyed too. War is hell.


Edited by Arsenal_destroyer, Jun 09 2016 - 19:09.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users