Soviet tank tech tree

[Mjarr]

Isn't this Tank-Destroyer doctrine? For me the upgrade of the T-34/85 was a more logical development because you cannot hope to always have the few T-34-57s at the correct place and time to destroy Panthers, Tigers and other heavy armor.

No. TD doctrine was about preventing rapid collapse like what happened in France under the (false) assumption the entire Wehrmacht was one giant mechanised death machine with more armoured support and motorised vehicles than rest of the world combined. Since such scenario did not exactly happen at any point and TDs still have guns and HEs suddenly some of their design features became very problematic since they were never meant to do X or Y in the first place, but the higher-ups demanded they do something else than sit around in the back in event of hoping to see some hot steel on steel action. It's kind of like expecting B-17 to become dogfighter since as far as number of guns go, it got more barrels and firepower (and to a point how much it can withstand light punishment and still fly home) than most Allied aircraft let alone German ones only to realise how awful it would be in such task.

Even then from strictly physical standpoint the 85mm still faced similar thing as US 76mm would even on good day, namely moderate capability to touch Tiger up to certain distance and Panther's turret up to certain distance. Glacis was still the same impregnable wall taunting anyone to try and shoot. At least it made T-34\85 possible to engage PzIV and StuG frontally more reliably than its older cousin while the US 75 never exactly had problems with those two.

No, the Sherman tank wasn't a good AT chassis which is why all of the *rah rah Sherman* fans do their best to minimize the importance of AP. The length of the 76mm gun barrel unbalanced the M4 and so had to be reduced by 15 inches. This reduced it's AP power.

Even with extra 15 inches it still would have been incapable of dealing with Panther glacis and would have exaggerated the issue of M1 76mm's ammunition design and quality control. If it randomly failed to penetrate targets from distances 75mm M3 could all that extra velocity would have simply exaggerated the problem. If we play with the whole AT idea and assume they would have mounted 76mm M7 (aka the gun M10 TD used which is not the same as 76mm M1 despite sharing the same calibre; different projectile and all that, even if their performance on paper is pretty much identical) while Panther's glacis still would remain impregnable the turret would be reliably vulnerable under any regular combat distance only limited by practical factor of trying to hit it from the distance. Then again at long ranges any hit could be considered matter of luck than anything else.

And this with all that HVAP which we all know to be so plentiful during WW2.

Assuming the projectile itself is not flawed the two tanks' AP is quite identical even without HVAP, just slightly in 85s favour.

 

[Darkrenown]

I've also managed to harness The_Chieftan for my own nefarious ends: End of the M4(75)

http://worldoftanks.com/en/news/pc-browser/21/the_chieftains-hatch-end_of_75_M4/

Ok, fair enough, they did want to phase out the 75 and have a mix of 76 and 105s - presumably the 105s would make up for the lack of HE from the 76s:

What is less well known, however, is the idea of totally replacing the 75mm tank was well entrenched long before the Normandy landings. In a nutshell, the long term plan was always to have two types of M4 in production: 76mm and 105mm.

So perhaps I've been a little to hard on the US Ordinance Corp. They seem to have recognized the insufficiency of a tank optimized for a pure HE support role.

But here you twist things and say the 75mm Sherman was a pure HE support tank. Which is a totally false statement to make, the 75 was a dual purpose gun and while the 76 was better in the AP role it doe not mean the 75 was not used for AT work:

We know that the idea of adding the 76mm to the M4 pre-dates the introduction of the German cats. We also know that even without the 76mm the US Army as a whole wasn’t proven to be at any particular disadvantage. See US Guns, German Armor Part 2

the 76mm gun is only little better, unless it has its “magic bullet” HVAP rounds

(HVAP was in sadly short supply in 44)
The details of outnumbered 75 "HE support" Shermans wiping the floor with Panthers at Arracourt in the "part 2" article are a fun read.

In light of this I think your assertion that this is a false analogy is is wrong. Both upgrade projects were desired outcomes but could not be accomplished by May 1945 due to immediate need for vehicles, even semi-obsolete ones.

Ok, you've shown the US planned to use 76s earlier than I thought. This does not show anything about the Panther's [lack of good]HE shell.

 

[frolix42]

But here you twist things and say the 75mm Sherman was a pure HE support tank. Which is a totally false statement to make, the 75 was a dual purpose gun and while the 76 was better in the AP role it doe not mean the 75 was not used for AT work:

I think you misunderstand me. By "optimized for" I mean that a clear relative strength of the Sherman was it's HE round. The same way the M10 was "optimized for" destroying vehicles it could also blow a...human sized enemy rabbit...to smithereens. A kitchen rolling pin is "optimized for" baking, regardless of how many tanks it manages to destroy. At the point the Sherman was mounted with the 75mm gun, it did have sufficient AT power. The Chieftain's article states that the US Army was cognizant that this was no longer satisfied in this same category by late 1943.

Ok, you've shown the US planned to use 76s earlier than I thought. This does not show anything about the Panther's [lack of good]HE shell.

It does show that there are comparative disadvantages to every tank, as if anyone would argue differently. Good news from an RTS developer's perspective.

 

[D Inqu]

Or since you don't strike me as a reader of books

Typical troll tactic. Boring.

In this light you come across as very lazy spouting "facts" without proof, then demanding I refute you. Very well.
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/usa/guns/76-mm.asp
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/ussr/guns.asp
Tables from a website which show that 76 mm gun M1 mounted on a Sherman has less AP value than a 85mm ZiS-S-53 mounted on a T-34/85.

Hmm... Do you know how to read? This is not a trick question, just that the table given says the opposite of what you claim.

APC 500m: Sherman - 97-98mm; T-34-85 - 96mm
APC 1000m: Sherman - 88-90mm; T-34-85 - 88mm

I'm not even going to touch on APCR/HVAP out of pity.
Unless you were comparing the 90° Soviet data with US 30° data... (I am not even going to go into the differences between the ways the different nations in WW2 treated "penetration")

So what "tradeoff" were you referring to when you said it wasn't worth upgrading the 75mm to the 76mm? Because apparently you later forgot that you said this and asserted that when it was upgraded and it didn't come at any detriment to it's characteristics. I find this happens a lot with people who are pulling facts out of their butt.

Seriously, learn to read and stop pulling "facts" out of your butt. I'll break it into bits if it's that difficult.
1. The US had a decent working tank
2. The US had various ideas on how to improve their tank
3. The US rejected these ideas to keep production numbers
4. Ultimately, with more German heavies appearing, the US went with a minimum gun upgrade to keep the tank capable.
5. At no point was the US trying to the the German idea of "gun above everything else"

The 90mm was not a reasonable choice for the Sherman's main gun, and it is very obvious it has nothing to do with a need or lack thereof for AT capabilities. If you can't realize that if the US had to shorten the 76mm barrel in order to keep the tank balanced, then mounting an even longer and heavier gun isn't reasonable, there is no hope for you.

The 90mm was a reasonable choice for the Sherman's main gun, it had great capabilities and was similar in size to the soviet 85mm gun. Just like the long-barrelled 76mm gun, because the are other ways to deal with tank balance besides chopping off half a metre of the gun.

For some reason you can't seem to make the logical connection, that where the germans were willing to design a completely new tank with all its problems just to arm it with top AT gun, the US and Soviets thought that would not be the best use of their resources.

 

[balmung60]

No, the Sherman tank wasn't a good AT chassis which is why all of the *rah rah Sherman* fans do their best to minimize the importance of AP. The length of the 76mm gun barrel unbalanced the M4 and so had to be reduced by 15 inches. This reduced it's AP power.

Wasn't a good AT chassis? That's a pretty tall claim for a chassis that could mount anything that the M26 or M46 could (same turret ring size) and saw several post-war upgrades that mounted quite formidable anti-tank weapons, including a super-high velocity 60mm gun, a long-barreled French 105mm gun, the AMX13 gun, and the 122mm gun D-25T. Or even during the war, the 17-pdr, which is generally considered to have comparable AT performance to the German 7,5cm KwK42 L/70, even if the APDS was notoriously inaccurate due to petal separation issues. Also during the war, the Pershing's gun, the 90mm Gun, M3 was mounted on the Sherman chassis in three different ways - the M36 tank destroyer, the M36B1 tank destroyer (M36 turret on M4A3 hull), and the M4/M26 (M26 turret on M4 hull).

Dismiss the armament the Sherman carried during the war as somehow lacking or less than you'd like is one thing, but to dismiss the entire vehicle and the validity of its chassis as an AT platform is quite another thing.

 

[balmung60]

The 90mm was not a reasonable choice for the Sherman's main gun, and it is very obvious it has nothing to do with a need or lack thereof for AT capabilities. If you can't realize that if the US had to shorten the 76mm barrel in order to keep the tank balanced, then mounting an even longer and heavier gun isn't reasonable, there is no hope for you.

M4s with 90mm guns:

M36B1:

Worked just fine.

M4 with M26 turret:

Was not used because it would cut into M26 production.

And finally, the M36, which is built on the shame chassis and lower hull:

Worked fine and was used into the Korean War. Was also one of the most demanded vehicles by commanders in WWII due to combining a very powerful AP round and a good HE round. It's also interesting to note the work began on the M36 project months before the western Allies ever encountered a Panther or a Tiger tank.

There was no particular problem with making a Sherman that carried the 90mm Gun, M3.

 

[frolix42]

This data below in all but one instance is comparing Soviet ACP rounds to American M62 APC-T rounds (Tracer rounds? really?), which immediately disqualifys it. No data is available for the 1500m and 2000m ranges, therefore assumed by the presenter to be unimportant. Data for US ACP rounds at all ranges other than 1000m are unavailable, but have the same 88mm penetration the Soviet ACP has.

APC 500m: Sherman - 97-98mm; T-34-85 - 96mm
APC 1000m: Sherman - 88-90mm; T-34-85 - 88mm

Same angle, same ammo, more ranges included.

Armor Penetration (APCBC/APBC)	500m	1000m	1500m	2000m
76 mm M1A1+A2	96	89	81	76
85 mm ZiS-S-53	103	94	86	77

 

[balmung60]

To my knowledge, the 76mm Gun, M1 was never fielded in any capacity and all production was shifted to the shorter M1A1.

Also, you're comparing American and Soviet tests, even though everyone had their own, different set of penetration test standards. In treating such data as an apples-to-apples comparison, you are misrepresenting the data. For an apples-to-apples comparison, you would need to compare data on both guns compiled by the same country.

Furthermore, the table you linked makes no actual distinction between the M1A1 and the M1, listing the M1, M1A1, M1A1C, and M1A2 together. Based on the fact that the M1 was not adopted and the M1A1 was, the logical assumption would be that the data is most likely for the M1A1. And further still, none of the 500 yard or meter data on that table for the M1A1 gives a penetration of 96mm as you claim, and that the tables turn when you compare APC instead of APCBC.

I also note that for some reason, we are arguing over a less than 10 mm difference in penetration, an amount small enough as to make almost no meaningful difference.

 

[frolix42]

"derp, derp derp X ∞"

I've got to say, I had a not so high opinion of the Sherman before I got involved with these threads, and it's never been lower now that I've seen the ways in which people degrade their own intelligence by extolling non-existent virtues of this mediocre tank. I did not expect to encounter the dumbest, most dishonest, illogical spin doctoring I've ever come across since I've talked to Young Earth Creationists, Anti-Vaccine scaremongers or 9/11 Truthers. And all about a WW2 tank!:blush: Du Inqu outright lied about the Sherman's Armor Penetration rate and you didn't even have the foresight to comment on it, except to say that it somehow doesn't matter that he lied. You've missed you last chance at gaining a shred of impartial respectability in my eyes, which you have lost over dozens of poorly thought out *rah rah Sherman* blathering posts. So Balmung60, why do people feel the need to lie, as Du Inqu has just done, to show the Sherman was a quality tank? Balmung60, if the Sherman were a quality vehicle, why do you shamelessly spin-doctor history as I've called you out in the past for doing, and you continue to do right now? I find it degrading and unpleasant to watch you do this to yourself.

You are someone to who history is entertainment, but not science. I do not think you have anything relevant, original or interesting to say about it.

 

[balmung60]

I'm sorry, where did he actually lie about the AP capabilities of the 76mm gun M1A1 as compared to those of the 85mm gun S-53? What he said is true (according to the tables you linked) when comparing some types of ammunition, such as APC and certainly so when using APCR/HVAP.

And if you think mentioning post-war modifications was "spin-doctoring", I assure you that it was not intended as any such thing. You had called into question the utility not just of the weapons mounted during WWII as anti-tank weapons, but the utility of the entire chassis for anti-tank weapons, which clearly opens the door to post-war modifications of the tank that demonstrated substantial anti-tank performance and that any inadequacy was not on the part of the chassis.

And my comment was more to the effect of debating this minor point is somewhat silly when the difference in penetration between the two weapons was pretty much insignificant, and small enough that it may well be lost in the differences in testing standards.

And that said, I think that the 85mm gun S-53 was the better weapon. Not because of any difference in AP capabilities, but because it had a better HE shell.

However, I feel that the Sherman was a better tank than the T-34 because it took the same basic strengths as the T-34 (sloped armor, a powerful (and yes, when it was introduced, the 75mm gun, M3 was quite a powerful weapon for a tank) multi-purpose ~3" cannon, and the reliability to make long "marches") and added increased comfort (such features as leather seats), improved fire control (vertical stabilizer), improved survivability features (such as wet ammunition racks), and positively incredible upgrade capabilities. The Jumbo demonstrated that it could take another ~10 tonnes of armor welded on and post-war modifications demonstrated that you could mount all kinds of crazy weapons to the Sherman. I see it as superior to the Panther because it had much greater reliability and much better thought out ergonomics and serviceability.

Furthermore, to accuse me of spin-doctoring is, at best, the pot calling the kettle black. To use the most recent example, you took a table of data and selected the column that does support your point while throwing out the ones that did not. A column that I might add does not even get the length of the weapon that it is talking about right (the M1A1/2 was 52 calibers long and the M1 was 57 calibers long. The only 76mm weapon that I can think of that does have the stated length is the 17-pdr).

And I might turn you own question against you. Why is it so important to you that the Sherman be mediocre, or even bad?

 

[frolix42]

I'm sorry, where did he actually lie about the AP capabilities of the 76mm gun M1A1 as compared to those of the 85mm gun S-53? What he said is true (according to the tables you linked) when comparing some types of ammunition, such as APC and certainly so when using APCR/HVAP.

APCBC is the ammunition they both used regularly during WW2. It is the only sourced data where we have numbers for both tanks. When Sherman fanboys start blathering about HVAP, it means they have given up.

And I might turn you own question against you. Why is it so important to you that the Sherman be mediocre, or even bad?

A rational appraisal of it's strengths and weaknesses is what I expect, not spin central.

 

[unmerged(83175)]

Hmm
I also find the later Sherman variants better than the later T-34 variants.
If we compare the M4A3(76)W HVSS 'Sherman' with the T-34/85 M1945.
The T-34/85 M1945 has the better gun 85mm S-53 L/54.6, but the 76mm M1A1 L/52 is more than good enough to destroy the T-34/85 M1945.
The M4A3(76)W HVSS 'Sherman' is better armoured, better driving and imo way more comfortable than the T-34/85 M1945.

 

[D Inqu]

Once last time, the links for anyone who wants to check out the data for themselves.
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/usa/guns/76-mm.asp http://www.wwiivehicles.com/ussr/guns.asp

Nice tables, but you are still not gonna wiggle your way out of that one. As expected, having been exposed for lying, having claimed the table said one thing, when it said another, you obviously went for the last resort: the only column of results where the 76mm gun appears to be inferior to the 85mm gun.

Now, here comes the best bit. The website you are quoting is the top google result for searches. It is also the only place where the 85mm gun is awarded such a high penetration. Other sites do list similar numbers, but they specify it's for a 90 deg angle hit. For a 30 deg angle, the figures are around the same or slightly worse then the 76mm gun (unless you used WoT game stats?). The other results are consistent.

Now, I do appreciate, that being a unilingual person with zero knowledge on the subject you have to make a point with the first google search result, but why are you so keen on lying, when it's completely obvious?

Aslo, don't think your typical troll efforts to steer away the conversation into number nitpicking have gone unnoticed.

 

[frolix42]

The M4A3(76)W HVSS 'Sherman' is better armoured, better driving and imo way more comfortable than the T-34/85 M1945.

That gyro-stabilizer, definitely a strength. Not sure you could say for certain that it was better armored.

 

[balmung60]

(unless you used WoT game stats?).

Actually, even WoT gives the 76mm gun M1A1/2 slightly better penetration than the 85mm gun S-53 at 128mm vs 126mm, both at 100 meters and at the vertical, and with a bigger difference for APCR/HVAP (177mm vs 161mm). Of course, to ensure Russian Bias^TM, they give the T-34-85 access to the more powerful D-5T 85BM, which penetrates 144mm at 100 meters at the vertical with AP and 194mm with APCR.

Also, as for ammunition types, the Soviets were actually pretty big on regular APC (no ballistic cap) compared to Germany and the USA and APC to APC is about as fair of a comparision as APCBC to APCBC.

And while we're at it, Soviet testing, according to document CAMD RF 81-12038-303, indicates that, at 500 meters and 60 degrees from the horizontal, the S-53 penetrated 91mm with common APC. The second 85mm gun is referred to as "85 mm gun of increased power, experimental", which would indicate that it is a different gun, and based on the penetration numbers, likely the one that World of Tanks refers to as the D5T-85BM.

That gyro-stabilizer, definitely a strength. Not sure you could say for certain that it was better armored.

T-34 is 45mm at 60 degrees from the vertical for 90mm effective armor, while the Sherman was 51mm at 56 degrees from the vertical for 91mm effective armor for early models and 64mm at 47 degrees from the vertical for 94mm effective armor on the later models. So at least measuring by frontal hull armor, the Sherman had slightly thicker armor than the T-34, though its side armor was thinner, and yes, also thinner than the Panther's (it should also be noted that it was the unsloped 40mm plate behind the roadwheels that was the main liability, not the sloped 40mm plate on the upper sides). The reason that I don't particularly hold this vulnerability against the Sherman is because it wasn't made to fight an enemy that fielded PTRDs and PTRSs. So while not a particularly major liability against Germany as armoring the sides of tanks against proper tank and anti-tank guns was more or less an exercise in futility, it would be a rather substantial liability against the Soviet Union.

However, the Sherman had thicker turret armor than the T-34, though the T-34-85 caught up pretty well with respect to turret armor, though I think that with the mantlet, the Sherman(76) still had a slight advantage there.

 

[mursolini]

Hmm
I also find the later Sherman variants better than the later T-34 variants.
If we compare the M4A3(76)W HVSS 'Sherman' with the T-34/85 M1945.
The T-34/85 M1945 has the better gun 85mm S-53 L/54.6, but the 76mm M1A1 L/52 is more than good enough to destroy the T-34/85 M1945.
The M4A3(76)W HVSS 'Sherman' is better armoured, better driving and imo way more comfortable than the T-34/85 M1945.

It is not completely fair comparison. T-34 was created 2 years earlier, and it reached it`s limit with T-34-85. Soviets already had T-44 ready to replace it in 1944, so development stopped, while M4 was later and reached it`s limit later, and also was supported longer by USA.
While M4 eventually managed to grow better than it`s major analogs, Pz4 and T-34, both were earlier and thus, logially their limit was reached earlier also. Comparing 1943 wersion of T-34 or Pz-4 with 1943 version of Sherman yelds opposite results than comparison in 1945.

 

[Dalwin]

While I am hesitant to step into such a heated debate on such an esoteric and technical topic as ballistics, there is one point I'd like to raise (maybe more of a question).

From an engineering standpoint it is certainly important to have tests using same ammunition type etc. However, is that the most valid consideration if we are talking about battlefield utility? By that I mean, if the ammunition stocks used by one side were significantly different than the other, the same type comparisons mean less, don't they?

What is most significant is penetration (at same range and angle) for whatever ammo type was in most prevalent use by that side. If not, the debate is about which was the better gun on the testing ground rather than which was better on the battlefield.

EDIT: another point that will be obvious to most, but perhaps not all is that when studying penetration the numbers are there for sake of measurement and for the engineers but it really boils down to only two values, enough and not enough. The difference between 85mm and 95mm of pentration is nothing at all if the target has 70mm of armor.

This is also why 90 degree tests make much less sense than 30 degree ones. Penetration is so much better at 90 than at 30 that the results of what is enough and what is not get skewed when compared to real world results.

 

[frolix42]

This is also why 90 degree tests make much less sense than 30 degree ones. Penetration is so much better at 90 than at 30 that the results of what is enough and what is not get skewed when compared to real world results.

Cool. The data below is all from 30 degree tests. Using both using APCBC rounds carried by those tanks.

Armor Penetration (APCBC/APBC)	500m	1000m	1500m	2000m
76 mm M1A1+A2	96	89	81	76
85 mm ZiS-S-53	103	94	86	77

No data is available for the 1500m and 2000m ranges, therefore assumed by the presenter to be unimportant. Data for US ACP rounds at all ranges other than 1000m are unavailable, but at 1000m have the same 88mm penetration the Soviet ACP has. This is probably because APC shells by this time had Ballistic caps. Hence APCBC is the proper measure.

APC 500m: Sherman - 97-98mm; T-34-85 - 96mm
APC 1000m: Sherman - 88-90mm; T-34-85 - 88mm

 

[balmung60]

APC's the first column, too.

 

[Dalwin]

I think you may have missed my point and taken from it only the one bit you wanted (30 degrees).

what is the average side armor on the opposition vehicles? 70mm? if so then both guns are lethal to 2000 meters which is a range at which they are not accurate.

90mm of armor means that both are lethal to 1000m which is still longer than typical engagement ranges. These penetration tables in and of themselves do not support a conclusion of one gun being effectively better than the other. If both guns had comparable lethality at typical engagement ranges, then accuracy and rate of fire become more important in determining which was better.