Apparently the Sherman tank was a good tank

[Chepicoro]

You do realize the first Tigers encountered by the British in North Africa were knocked out by 57mm 6 pounder guns frontally, yes?

This fact has been badly obscured because most people claim that Tiger 131 (one of the Tigers knocked out then captured in the engagement) supposedly only suffered a lucky hit to the hatch, but a recent restoration found that large bits of the tank had actually been replaced and that the original damage was more extensive, with at least one crewman (the driver) wounded or killed. All using 57mm guns with non-special AP ammo.

Indeed there is an awful lot of "dog ate my homework" excuse-making when it comes to Tiger tanks that were knocked out. The first ones the Soviets encountered around Leningrad were utterly massacred with 5+ vehicles left rotting in a swamp; yet the Germans decided not to report them as "lost" until one year later.

seriously without sources this is just product of your imagination... the british study about that particular tank never said that.

 

[Zinegata]

seriously without sources this is just product of your imagination... the british study about that particular tank never said that.

You really need to do some basic research. Even wiki has already updated this:

Tiger 131 was hit by three shots from 6-pounders from British Churchill tanks of A Squadron, 4 Troop of the 48th Royal Tank Regiment. A solid shot hit the Tiger's gun barrel and ricocheted into its turret ring, jamming its traverse, wounding the driver and front gunner and destroying the radio. A second shot hit the turret lifting lug, disabling the gun's elevation device. A third shot hit the loader's hatch, deflecting fragments into the turret.

At least three hits, not one, and all did damage. At least two wounded crew members.

 

[RisingSun]

Well don't mention anything other than Sherman, they will not like it. As you can see they love the Shermans. Feel like I want to go back and play World of Tanks and shoot some tanks

 

[Mitsugi]

Well, as Chieftain's video showed there was in fact a couple of 30 ton Sherman "replacements" that were explored. The M7 even had a factory built for it. But most turned out to have problems and adding a big gun always made the turret too cramped.

I certainly wouldn't just slap a larger gun into the standard M4 turret. But neither the T23 (i.e. M4 76mm) or M26 turret were particularly cramped, and both would fit on an M4 hull (though the M26's extra armor thickness made that probably a bad idea weight-wise). And, again, I don't think a replacement tank should have been that high a priority. They should have been working on it (because what else are US tank designers going to do?), but crash programs to get something out were clearly not worth it. But without diverting attention into absurdities like electric transmission and an autoloading 75mm (much less new awful tanks like the M6 and M7), Ordnance probably could have introduced new useful features like wet stowage and HVSS earlier. Just moving nonessential items to external stowage (as in British practice) and lowering the hull height because the Ford GAA had the driveshaft much lower down than the Wright radial could have gotten much of the benefits (smaller armor envelope) of rear drive while leaving the actual tank mechanically identical. The M24 had the same powertrain as the M5, but while the M5 hull was tall enough to accommodate a radial engine because its M3 forebear had one and nobody had bothered to redesign it, the M24 could retain the same proven powertrain (actually simplified by replacing the automatic transfer box for the two engines with a manual) while lowering hull height significantly. The same hull redesign could've been done to the M4, without even having to try developing a new rear drive transmission. Identical mechanics, smaller target, lighter tank. Seems like a reasonably decent idea to me.

More anti-tank training would have probably helped - a big problem in Normandy is so many tankers were going into action for the first time on the US Army and British side - but the TDs themselves had a number of good and oft-ignored features that made them much better at anti-tank warfare than the normal tanks; that keeps getting ignored because people are too focused on the gun and armor.

The combat histories indicate that tank battalions that got a few weeks with an experienced TD battalion to show them the ropes showed marked improvements at killing panzers. As for TD design features, if the TD branch is never created as I and apparently you think would have been better, they were presumably features that could (and should) have been incorporated either into a revised Sherman or a replacement. Aside from, like, an open top for more visibility. Though the British late-war cupola that could raise itself a few inches to let the commander look (as well as open normally or view through periscopes, of course) might have been worth looking at.

So you slap a couple extra tons of armor on a tank. How much good is that going to do? The Sherman already offered really good protection. You start messing around with a well designed machine and who knows what you are actually going to get.

The US lost 100k GIs in Europe and lost 1k tankers. If you think that slapping another 10mm of armor on a tank or giving it more anti-tank capability is a priority you have it backwards. You need a more formidable platform up to a certain point and the M4 is a pretty good assessment of where that point lay. I'd even say the M4(76) was slight overkill. The M4E2 was a specialized vehicle with severe limitations (overloading the suspension basically) that was customized for a specific role (leading road convoys and assaulting stationary fortifications) and in no way appropriate as a general vehicle. The question needs to be what do the GIs need. The GIs need a tank that can traverse terrain. They need a tank that will spot it's target (not necessarily a tank) and start shooting quickly so the guys outside the tank aren't taking fire. And the GIs absolutely need a tank that will make it onto the battlefield.

This talk about slap on some more armor, give it a bigger gun then up the horsepower to compensate is exactly what led to the Panther being such a dud on the battlefield. Sure it looks great on paper! But the tank that existed on paper never existed. The Sherman on the other hand was the same tank in real life as it was on paper. It actually went cross country like it was supposed to. Trained gunners could find and attack targets as was envisioned. You start messing with that design and hey maybe you save a few dozen tankers but you kill a few hundred GIs or more who are left without the tank support that could have protected them. Or maybe you mangle the design by fixing what isn't broken and you kill more tankers and more GIs.

Please read my posts more carefully. I am specifically not arguing that thicker armor or more engine was needed. I am saying that a hull designed to pass a driveshaft off the middle of a radial engine under the turret basket to the front is inefficient and could be improved, particularly since the US Army switched to an inline engine that didn't need that extra hull height anyway. Moving nonessential items to external stowage so they didn't take up space inside the armor would have been good. And that since they replaced the hull, turret, engine, suspension, gunsight, and main gun of the Sherman from the M4A1 to the M4A3E8, perhaps also replacing the transmission wouldn't have been much of a stretch. What are you advocating, that in early 1942 with the M4 complete, US tank R&D should have just taken a nap for the duration of the war? The M4 was going to need replacement eventually, why not start work in 1942? It's not like the first completed design had to be chosen to immediately become the new standard.

The first tank in the T20 series to get significantly thicker armor was the T26, and I already said that it was a waste because a 45 ton tank in 1944 was not generally worth the sacrifices (with the possible exception of the IS-2). I am saying that if a replacement was issued, it should have comparable weight to the M4A3E8, and that its closest T20 series analogue, the T20E3, was noticeably lighter. Remember, identical turret to the 76mm M4. Same engine, same suspension, same controlled-diff steering, identical armor layout (except that the T20 was physically smaller). A tank with the same engine, steering, and suspension that physically weighs less is not going to have reduced mobility. The primary reason I suggest the 90mm was worth the small additional weight was for the increased HE capability (also in high demand, particularly by the infantry), the fact that it also provided greater armor penetration is just icing. Certainly by the time US forces were encountering Panthers even occasionally, the panzer forces were collapsing and it no longer mattered all that much.

As for the M4A3E2, A) combat reports indicate that it was very popular and not that unreliable if driven carefully and B) it also used the older VVSS suspension. HVSS or torsion bar would have provided significantly more weight capacity. And it was probably too uparmored. A more reasonable improvement was probably worth at least looking into. For that matter, the more interesting armor kits developed (but not fielded) by the US were spike or plastic armor designed to add protection against Panzerfaust/schreks. Not slabs of armor plate to bounce, like, 88s. It is not weird that tanks attached to leg infantry should place more value on armor thickness than speed. The infantry was assigned the task of breakthrough, and their attached tanks had less freedom to maneuver. Many modern armies find that being able to fit improved protection against HEAT weapons is worth it, particularly when supporting infantry in close terrain.

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

I think it is pretty clear that overall the Sherman was a good tank for what it was suppose to do in WW2. The Sherman was adequate against most tanks in the Western front unless up against German armour at a decent distance but overall performed better than German armour, mainly because of better doctrines and experience at that time frame. I pretty sure the US could have come up with a better tank earlier but they choose not to do so. A slightly bigger tank than the Sherman with a 90mm canon would have been quite powerful and have both better HE and AP capabilities, I don't think this would have been impossible for a country like the US.

The German Panzer IV are in my opinion the best overall tank of the war.. It was still viable in the late war and was introduced from the start of the war and was improved over the course of the war and made viable and proved itself over and over in every theater of operation. The Panther obviously was a very powerful tank but it had less HE capability and had reliability issues but was invaluable at long range tank on tank combat but performed poorly at close in engagements. The Panther was perhaps just ahead of it's time in terms of technology and suffered heavily from it. The Panther was quite reliable by 1944 but as the French discovered after the war it had quite a poor performance over longer period of time since it required more maintenance and was not reliable enough. The Panther are still regarded as the first true Main Battle Tank which emerged from the war.

 

[mursolini]

So you slap a couple extra tons of armor on a tank. How much good is that going to do? The Sherman already offered really good protection. You start messing around with a well designed machine and who knows what you are actually going to get.

Well, if German panzer 3 and panzer 4 are of any indication, properly stapping a couple extra tonnes of armor can radically improve the tank.

This talk about slap on some more armor, give it a bigger gun then up the horsepower to compensate is exactly what led to the Panther being such a dud on the battlefield.

Well, look, most tanks that were developed from WW1, basically followed the same logic. Some were really successful designs, some were not. Citing an example of one particular failure, doesn`t prove anything, unless you want to go and argue that everyone should`ve just fought the war with 15-20 tonne tanks from 30s, and not 25-35 tone tanks like it actually happened, and after WW2, people shouldn`t have transfered to 40-50-70 tonne, 120mm gun MBTs.

Panther captured the direction of where armor will go pretty accurately, but execution was, terrible. On the other hand, Soviet IS-2 and IS-3, were much better (although not perfect) executions of a tank of similar weight coming out only 2 years later.

 

[Chepicoro]

There is a difference between this....

, but a recent restoration found that large bits of the tank had actually been replaced and that the original damage was more extensive, with at least one crewman (the driver) wounded or killed. All using 57mm guns with non-special AP ammo.
.

And this...

Tiger 131 was hit by three shots from 6-pounders from British Churchill tanks of A Squadron, 4 Troop of the 48th Royal Tank Regiment. A solid shot hit the Tiger's gun barrel and ricocheted into its turret ring, jamming its traverse, wounding the driver and front gunner and destroying the radio. A second shot hit the turret lifting lug, disabling the gun's elevation device. A third shot hit the loader's hatch, deflecting fragments into the turret.

So basically a jammed turret and gun... now quote the next sentence of the wiki

The German crew bailed out, taking their wounded with them and leaving the knocked-out but still driveable and largely intact tank behind.

I think not a bad protection after all.

 

[Gethsemani]

Panther captured the direction of where armor will go pretty accurately, but execution was, terrible. On the other hand, Soviet IS-2 and IS-3, were much better (although not perfect) executions of a tank of similar weight coming out only 2 years later.

Except it really didn't. The Panther was an over-engineered mess with too many novel innovations that made maintenance and repair time consuming and involved that was specialized in a battlefield role (Tank Sniper, essentially) that very few engagements ever allowed it to fulfill properly and which cheaper dedicated tank destroyer could fulfill just as well. It had a good gun for taking on armored vehicles but came sorely lacking in HE capability, a severe disadvantage at the price point and intended role of the Panther, and frontal armor that was great, but at the expense of the protection on all other sides, with a side armor that was never going to be enough to stop even medium AT rounds (US/UK 57mm, Soviet 76mm etc.). The Panther was supposed to be a multi-purpose medium tank but ended up being a dedicated long range tank hunting heavy tank (in everything but name) that simply could not fulfill the role it was intended to.

The IS-2, in comparison, was a heavy tank designed for breakthrough actions which proved capable of holding its' own against most German tanks it encountered. The IS-2 was successful where the Panther was not because the USSR knew what kind of tank it wanted and designed a tank that fulfilled that role. The Panther meanwhile had no clear direction and certainly didn't show the way forward, simply because its' main purpose and strength was in a role that a medium tank should never fill. Arguably, the Centurion (or even Sherman or T-44) was closer to showing "the way forward" in the post-war, with its' pronounced design intention of being an all-around tank that could fulfill multiple combat roles, something the Panther was never able to do.

 

[Gethsemani]

So basically a jammed turret and gun... now quote the next sentence of the wiki

I think not a bad protection after all.

Depends. 3 shots from a medium ATG managed to disable a heavy tank designed to withstand that particular ATG while wounding the crew. Getting mission killed by intermittent fire from weapons you are supposed to withstand does not seem like that good protection to me.

Also, the quotes by Zinegata line up just fine with each other. His first claims that damage was done and crew injured, the second quote goes into more detail.

 

[Chepicoro]

Jammed is different than penetrated, the armor did its job this time.

We could find examples of T-34 and KV 1, with similar problems against 37mm guns, that makes their armor a mistake?? I think no.

 

[mursolini]

Except it really didn't. The Panther was an over-engineered mess with too many novel innovations that made maintenance and repair time consuming and involved that was specialized in a battlefield role (Tank Sniper, essentially) that very few engagements ever allowed it to fulfill properly and which cheaper dedicated tank destroyer could fulfill just as well. It had a good gun for taking on armored vehicles but came sorely lacking in HE capability, a severe disadvantage at the price point and intended role of the Panther, and frontal armor that was great, but at the expense of the protection on all other sides, with a side armor that was never going to be enough to stop even medium AT rounds (US/UK 57mm, Soviet 76mm etc.). The Panther was supposed to be a multi-purpose medium tank but ended up being a dedicated long range tank hunting heavy tank (in everything but name) that simply could not fulfill the role it was intended to.

Exept it didn`t, what exactly? It didn`t executed the concept well enough, or it didn`t capture where exactly the next gen of tanks were going?

As for HE capacity, could you please compare it to HE capacity of Pz4, and tell me how exactly much was sacrificed.

Besides, look at IS-2 and at T-54, M-48, and tell me why exactly didn`t next gen of tanks went for as much HE as possible, at a sacrifice of penetration.

You may also want to tell us, how exactly well does side armor of modern MBTs hold up to guns from 50s (spoiler, it doesn`t).

And note, I didn`t say "panther showed the way forward", what I said was that Panther, in many aspects was similar to where the next generation of tanks ended up, which, is not same.

The IS-2, in comparison, was a heavy tank designed for breakthrough actions which proved capable of holding its' own against most German tanks it encountered. The IS-2 was successful where the Panther was not because the USSR knew what kind of tank it wanted and designed a tank that fulfilled that role. The Panther meanwhile had no clear direction and certainly didn't show the way forward, simply because its' main purpose and strength was in a role that a medium tank should never fill. Arguably, the Centurion (or even Sherman or T-44) was closer to showing "the way forward" in the post-war, with its' pronounced design intention of being an all-around tank that could fulfill multiple combat roles, something the Panther was never able to do.

You mean, modern MBTs are not supposed to largely fight modern MBTs?
Explain Abrams and (largely) the rest of Western MBTs.

Oh you mentioned Centurion, which, in ww2 version, was pretty much the exact same as Panther, except somewhat less crappier suspension.
As for the rest, Panther had a clear direction, to be successor of Pz4, at which it failed, but that is what is called bad execution. Granted, good execution of 40+ tonn medium tank, as we know, was not really feasible in 40s.

Overall, however you seem to almost purely nitpic, as we pretty much agree on most of things, and the specs of 50s tanks are pretty well known, and it is easy to see the similarities, in weight, armor, armor positioning.

 

[Gethsemani]

Jammed is different than penetrated, the armor did its job this time.

We could find examples of T-34 and KV 1, with similar problems against 37mm guns, that makes their armor a mistake?? I think no.

You'll notice that the first shot, that jammed the turret ring, also destroyed the radio and hurt two crew members, indicating that the armor didn't do its' job, since things inside the tank were damage and crew members hurt. The third shot, additionally, sent fragments into the tank itself. Penetrated or not, the armor failed to protect vital components.

Exept it didn`t, what exactly? It didn`t executed the concept well enough, or it didn`t capture where exactly the next gen of tanks were going?

Both. Slightly less so conceptually, but the idea of a tank that would engage other tank at extreme ranges was certainly a dead end, as other vehicles did so better and cheaper (Germany itself had several, such as the Hetzer and Jagdpanther). The Panther was novel and required a response in 1943, but much of what it did simply didn't carry over to other designs post-war.

You mean, modern MBTs are not supposed to mainly fight modern MBTs?
Explain Abrams and (largely) the rest of Western MBTs.

I mean that modern MBTs are meant to fulfill a large variety of roles. One being to fight other tanks, others being to provide fire support for infantry, to engage strong points etc. The Panther could only ever engage other tanks well, compared to other tanks of similar weight and cost and even the only at a certain distance. The MBT-concept is the opposite of the Panther concept, in that the MBT is meant to be effective at all ranges against a wide spectrum of enemies.

As for the rest, Panther had a clear direction, to be successor of Pz4, at which it failed, but that is what is called bad execution. Granted, good execution of 40+ tonn medium tank, as we know, was not really feasible in 40s.

Overall, however you seem to almost purely nitpic, as we pretty much agree on most of things.

It was meant to be the successor of the PIV, yet was not designed to fulfill the same role as the PIV, what does that tell you? I wouldn't call this nitpick, as I am disagreeing with your basic premise, namely that you suggested that the Panther inspired the MBT's of the post-war.

 

[RisingSun]

Here an interesting wiki infos on the Tigers and the Shermans, besure to read the Armour paragraph about the tigers...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_I

Read under the Armament paragraph under Sherman Tanks...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman

The Sherman Tanks has some unique protections with the slope armor, but those 88s are the real killer and nothing can be done about it, esp the velocity of 800/meter per sec.

Both are great tanks, only that Tigers would have lower combat radius and difficult to transport as well in muds, etcs. For Shermans it had pretty reasonable speed, armor and combat radius, but still going to have to get in close for the kill if you want to take out a tiger. Unless very lucky shot with the 75mm gun around 400 yards. The 88s would rip through them easy if spotted and aim carefully.

Watch this movie other day and pretty good setup with the shermans and a single tiger in "Fury" with Brad Pitt in it. It was good movie though, felt like the real thing what actually happen back in WWII.

Here data sheet for the 88's...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8.8_cm_KwK_36

And the 75mm gun...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/75_mm_Gun_M2/M3/M6#M3

Finally the 76mm gun...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/76_mm_gun_M1

This tiger tank is just the first model, wait til you meet the second and king tiger, that a totally different story. Not mention some deadly Russian Tanks as well.

 

[mursolini]

Both. Slightly less so conceptually, but the idea of a tank that would engage other tank at extreme ranges was certainly a dead end, as other vehicles did so better and cheaper (Germany itself had several, such as the Hetzer and Jagdpanther). The Panther was novel and required a response in 1943, but much of what it did simply didn't carry over to other designs post-war.

You mean, tanks with great, long range fire control are a dead end? It seems like the rest of tank designers in the world, disagrees, otherwise we wouldn`t see as much attention to fire control as we see from 60s.
I have no idea why European tanks these days have fire control accurate to engage tanks at 2-3 km, but for some reason, all, universally, do.

I mean that modern MBTs are meant to fulfill a large variety of roles. One being to fight other tanks, others being to provide fire support for infantry, to engage strong points etc. The Panther could only ever engage other tanks well, compared to other tanks of similar weight and cost and even the only at a certain distance. The MBT-concept is the opposite of the Panther concept, in that the MBT is meant to be effective at all ranges against a wide spectrum of enemies.

To justify your woulds, you really need to go and compare the HE load of panther`s shells versus HE load of of Pz4, T-34-76, and smaller 50mm guns, that also allowed tanks to engage infantry. Then, explain why it`s HE load was not enough to support infantry at least, at the level that previous generation of armor allowed. I`m waiting.

It was meant to be the successor of the PIV, yet was not designed to fulfill the same role as the PIV, what does that tell you? I wouldn't call this nitpick, as I am disagreeing with your basic premise, namely that you suggested that the Panther inspired the MBT's of the post-war.

Panther couldn`t fullfil the role of Pz4 in practice, but if we magically fix it`s drive trains and rest of suspension, it cold do it well, nothing prohibits that, like M46 took the role of Sherman.

I didn`t sugested that Panther inspired modern MBTs (BTW, how exactly do you do that anyway?), it`s you strange reading of the post. I did say that Panther progressed along the same general direction that the rest of tanks in armies went. Your only good argument against it, is the cannon, but then you don`t deny Centurion, with similar 76mm cannnon, same, or M4, whose gun also progressed along same direction of more penetration, at cost of HE. Gun, is a subject to replacement.

 

[D Inqu]

You mean, tanks with great, long range fire control are a dead end?

Yes, fire control is great. Nothing to do with the Panther though, which engaged targets at basically the same ranges as its predecessors.

Modern fire control only appeared decades later, following the appearance of full gun stabilisation, firing computers, and thermal cameras. This allowed to the tank to engage targets at long range, while moving irrespective of time of day and weather.

To justify your woulds, you really need to go and compare the HE load of panther`s shells versus HE load of of Pz4, T-34-76, and smaller 50mm guns, that also allowed tanks to engage infantry.

It's fairly common knowledge. High muzzle velocity is good for AP roles, however it is not that good for anti personnel roles, as projectiles become prone to overshoot nearby targets or be easily stopped by terrain. Which is why the Soviets went for higher caliber, on their tanks, and the US followed with the 90mm gun on their armor.

The panther's problems with suppressing infantry were evident, which is why Germany experiment with the Nahkampfgerat as means of engaging infantry.

 

[Gethsemani]

You mean, tanks with great, long range fire control are a dead end? It seems like the rest of tank designers in the world, disagrees, otherwise we wouldn`t see as much attention to fire control as we see from 60s.
I have no idea why European tanks these days have fire control accurate to engage tanks at 2-3 km, but for some reason, all, universally, do.

I am going to assume that there's some miscommunication going on here, the alternative is that you are willfully misinterpreting what I am writing. Anyway, to clarify: The Panther was designed to perform optimally during long range encounters. The KwK 42 was designed specifically with long range ballistics in mind and the extreme focus on front armor for the Panther belies the intent to have the Panther engage at ranges were the enemy would be unable to flank. What this essentially meant was that the closer the enemy got, the lesser the Panthers advantage from both armor and gun superiority. In practice, the long range ballistic of the KwK 42 were hardly ever of importance (most engagements being at ranges under 1000m anyway) and the decision to frontload the armor meant that the Panther was very vulnerable to side shots, which a majority of hits on tanks were.

That's not to say that long range fire isn't important or doesn't have its' uses, but the Panther focused too much on it and that made it suffer at shorter engagement ranges, which essentially was a majority of its' encounters.

To justify your woulds, you really need to go and compare the HE load of panther`s shells versus HE load of of Pz4, T-34-76, and smaller 50mm guns, that also allowed tanks to engage infantry. Then, explain why it`s HE load was not enough to support infantry at least, at the level that previous generation of armor allowed. I`m waiting.

D Inqu already pointed most of it out so lets add:

It wasn't sufficient for cost. The Sprenggranate 42 projectile weighed less but the round weight was higher than that of the 40, it was also longer, which means it had a larger propellant charge. This made the 42 more costly for a slight decrease in HE performance, the higher muzzle velocity also had a negative impact on the ability to engage soft targets. On top of that the platform that fired it (the Panther) was almost 1,5 times more expensive than the platform that delivered the 40 (the PIV).

Panther couldn`t fullfil the role of Pz4 in practice, but if we magically fix it`s drive trains and rest of suspension, it cold do it well, nothing prohibits that, like M46 took the role of Sherman.

Except it was also never designed for the same role as the PIV. Even if we somehow "magically" (ie. totally re-designed the entire vehicle) fixed all of its' glaring flaws it would still be a much heavier tank designed for a much more specific role than the PIV ever was.

I didn`t sugested that Panther inspired modern MBTs (BTW, how exactly do you do that anyway?), it`s you strange reading of the post. I did say that Panther progressed along the same general direction that the rest of tanks in armies went. Your only good argument against it, is the cannon, but then you don`t deny Centurion, with similar 76mm cannnon, same, or M4, whose gun also progressed along same direction of more penetration, at cost of HE. Gun, is a subject to replacement.

You said "Panther captured the direction of where armor will go pretty accurately" which implies you consider it a fore-runner. I strongly disagree with this assessment, as the Panther really was nothing but a dead end in armor development, being a too heavy, too maintenance intensive long range tank meant only to fight other tanks and with an armor scheme that's simply baffling in its' disregard for anything but front armor. The tanks that would show up after the war were all much more versatile than the Panther ever was, indicating that the Panther design simply didn't have that many virtues.

 

[LostAlone]

The Sherman Tanks has some unique protections with the slope armor, but those 88s are the real killer and nothing can be done about it, esp the velocity of 800/meter per sec.

Both are great tanks, only that Tigers would have lower combat radius and difficult to transport as well in muds, etcs. For Shermans it had pretty reasonable speed, armor and combat radius, but still going to have to get in close for the kill if you want to take out a tiger. Unless very lucky shot with the 75mm gun around 400 yards. The 88s would rip through them easy if spotted and aim carefully.

I'm sorry but you're glossing over the Tiger's issues just by talking about armor and gun and wikipedia simply is not a good source. It makes the rather lofty claim that the Tiger was 'immune' to 75mm fire in the front arc without a source and that's simply not true. If we look at a credible primary source ( Here) what do we see? We see a bunch of captured Tigers being turned into Swiss cheese by Sherman 75mm cannons. Not 76mm, not 17pdr, the original 1943 75mm.

The Tiger is a heavy tank, it weighs twice as much as a Sherman and it cost three times as much as a Panza 4 (according to Chieften's video anyway) as well as being substantially less maneuverable and more mechanically complex. Even wikipedia says : 'Although an excellent design, the low number produced, shortages in qualified crew and the considerable fuel requirement in a context of ever shrinking resources prevented the Tiger from having a real impact on the war.'

And this is why you must look at the wider context. On a very fundamental level it doesn't matter how good the Tiger performed. Even if it genuinely was totally immune to 75, 76 and 17pdr fire and genuinely took 5 Shermans to kill it STILL wouldn't have made any difference. Even if they were powered by rainbows and fired lighting they were still not enough to turn the tide. The Tiger was, in a vaccuum, a good design, but it was a dreadful design for Germany's situation. It stole resources away from Panzas and StuG3s that might actually have been able to make a difference.

 

[Beagá]

By now no one really denies the flaws of the Panther, but the fact was that Panzer was quickly becoming obsolete.

what probably should have been done is focus on 40 ton tank from the start, by 1941, instead of heavy like Tiger and médium turned heavy Panther.

A pity the game apparently won't give you that choice.

 

[RisingSun]

I'm sorry but you're glossing over the Tiger's issues just by talking about armor and gun and wikipedia simply is not a good source. It makes the rather lofty claim that the Tiger was 'immune' to 75mm fire in the front arc without a source and that's simply not true. If we look at a credible primary source ( Here) what do we see? We see a bunch of captured Tigers being turned into Swiss cheese by Sherman 75mm cannons. Not 76mm, not 17pdr, the original 1943 75mm.

The Tiger is a heavy tank, it weighs twice as much as a Sherman and it cost three times as much as a Panza 4 (according to Chieften's video anyway) as well as being substantially less maneuverable and more mechanically complex. Even wikipedia says : 'Although an excellent design, the low number produced, shortages in qualified crew and the considerable fuel requirement in a context of ever shrinking resources prevented the Tiger from having a real impact on the war.'

And this is why you must look at the wider context. On a very fundamental level it doesn't matter how good the Tiger performed. Even if it genuinely was totally immune to 75, 76 and 17pdr fire and genuinely took 5 Shermans to kill it STILL wouldn't have made any difference. Even if they were powered by rainbows and fired lighting they were still not enough to turn the tide. The Tiger was, in a vaccuum, a good design, but it was a dreadful design for Germany's situation. It stole resources away from Panzas and StuG3s that might actually have been able to make a difference.

If you got better sources and information share it with us, not just talking about it. Gotta realize that once the Shermans tried to get better design and firepower, the Germans already moving ahead of their design as well. But still the tigers would have owned the shermans, on one on one, no doubt. It based on tactics and strategy as well the crew experience.

 

[mursolini]

Yes, fire control is great. Nothing to do with the Panther though, which engaged targets at basically the same ranges as its predecessors.

Modern fire control only appeared decades later, following the appearance of full gun stabilisation, firing computers, and thermal cameras. This allowed to the tank to engage targets at long range, while moving irrespective of time of day and weather.

Is fire control for longer than typical engagement distance of ww2, a dead end?
The answer, obviously, is : no.

It's fairly common knowledge. High muzzle velocity is good for AP roles, however it is not that good for anti personnel roles, as projectiles become prone to overshoot nearby targets or be easily stopped by terrain. Which is why the Soviets went for higher caliber, on their tanks, and the US followed with the 90mm gun on their armor.

The panther's problems with suppressing infantry were evident, which is why Germany experiment with the Nahkampfgerat as means of engaging infantry.

So, I guess the answer is no, nobody can quantify how exactly much did Panther lost, aside from general comparisons of 90mm cannons.
In reality, Panther had 600 gram of explosives, Panzer 4 had 680, Sherman, afaik 710, and Soviet 85mm, 750g.
Tell me how this is huge difference. It simply is not. Now American 90mm was better there, nothing really to deny.

I am going to assume that there's some miscommunication going on here, the alternative is that you are willfully misinterpreting what I am writing. Anyway, to clarify: The Panther was designed to perform optimally during long range encounters. The KwK 42 was designed specifically with long range ballistics in mind and the extreme focus on front armor for the Panther belies the intent to have the Panther engage at ranges were the enemy would be unable to flank. What this essentially meant was that the closer the enemy got, the lesser the Panthers advantage from both armor and gun superiority. In practice, the long range ballistic of the KwK 42 were hardly ever of importance (most engagements being at ranges under 1000m anyway) and the decision to frontload the armor meant that the Panther was very vulnerable to side shots, which a majority of hits on tanks were.

Which, not heavy tanks ever performed well against flank shots? I can cite you Soviet statistic, which showed how frontal shots were the majority of what tanks faced (although not always the majority of penetrating shots), always, and most AT guns of 50+ mm, would penetrate medium tanks on flank without problems.
Similarly how today, no tank is capable to withstand a flank shot, from even much older tanks.
So, this is not a drawback.

Also, much better gun penetration, allowed to kill heavy Soviet tanks, which was a desired feature, considering there were more Soviet heavies than Panthers.

That's not to say that long range fire isn't important or doesn't have its' uses, but the Panther focused too much on it and that made it suffer at shorter engagement ranges, which essentially was a majority of its' encounters.

Suffer which way? At short range, Panther`s front armor still offered some protection from penetrations, while for the rest of medium tanks, it was a simple issue of whoever get`s of first hit, wins, as any tank could penetrate any.

You said "Panther captured the direction of where armor will go pretty accurately" which implies you consider it a fore-runner. I strongly disagree with this assessment, as the Panther really was nothing but a dead end in armor development, being a too heavy, too maintenance intensive long range tank meant only to fight other tanks and with an armor scheme that's simply baffling in its' disregard for anything but front armor. The tanks that would show up after the war were all much more versatile than the Panther ever was, indicating that the Panther design simply didn't have that many virtues.

I again, don`t get your strange desire to deal in terms of "frontrunners" like there is some sort of "succession" and crown needs to be given along lineage. Panther was the first attempt at building a fast, 40+ tonne tank, as that would serve as the core of armored force. The attempt, obviously not successful.
However, other countries, after some time, did precisely that, built 40+ tonne tanks, that, in principle, had similarly laid out armor, carried average, for their tank force gun,
and had similar "theoretical" speed and hp/tonne ratio.
That, is all. How you assign front or back runners, is only your problem, don`t drag me into this.