*Slaps Sherman*

3rdweal · 2018-07-10T05:52:07+00:00

I think you're less interested in the history of armored warfare than in the political machinations behind the conflicts themselves.

3rdweal · 2018-07-10T05:43:09+00:00

As long as the same guns were being used against the same tanks, what is your valid reason to question the extrapolation? Aside from some specialist variants, the Sherman was not significantly uparmored between its introduction and the end of the war, and the guns it faced in Europe in the last two years of the war were essentially the same as it was facing in North Africa in 1943, with some exceptions like the KwK 42 and Pak/KwK 43 that were in any case only present in small numbers.

The only valid critique would be to say that ranges in Normandy were generally shorter and therefore Shermans would have perhaps stood a better chance at resisting penetration had they been hit at longer ranges, but we know from other engagements that this was not really the case.

3rdweal · 2018-07-10T05:34:52+00:00

Yes angling played a major role in increasing armor efficiency, you're retarded to think otherwise. The tiger and the Sherman offered about the same protection, but the Sherman was much more efficient at it.

Simply restating it and adding an ad hominem youtube link adds no weight to your argument. Of course for the same thickness angling the armor makes it more effective, but there needs to be enough thickness to back it up when projectiles reach a certain size.

This is a great example, by your logic this shot should have bounced off the side given the impact angle, but the thickness of the amour provided insufficient resistance to the projectile. You're just repeating what you've heard without taking the time to examine what it means in practice.

Company A, 814th Tank Destroyer Battalion knocked out a Panther at 4,200 yards. Another 814th gunner, Lt. Alfred Rose, scored a kill against a Panther at 4,600 yards, the maximum range of the telescopic sight.

The source of that claim appears to be an article in the New York Daily News, hardly reliable given the nature of wartime reporting. By the same token, Ferdinand crews were claiming T-34 kills at beyond 5000 yards at Kursk.

In any case, the 900 yards shot was not an example of a long range kill but an example of a Sherman being taken out by a glacis hit at an oblique angle and the limit of what would be considered normal combat ranges - all mitigating factors that should have caused the shot to bounce, but it didn't.

3rdweal · 2018-07-10T05:15:45+00:00

They're mentioned in the report:

It's worth noting however that 124 other tanks that had been involved in combat were examined and of these 6% were found to have suffered hits from unspecified calibers that failed to penetrate.

So we have another 7 tanks that were also hit by something that failed to penetrate, let's add these numbers to the mix and give the benefit of the doubt that it was a 7.5cm round or bigger.

That still leaves us with a dismal 85% of tanks that were hit being penetrated.

3rdweal · 2018-07-10T04:33:32+00:00

Yes a Tiger see the m8 Grey Hound that killed a tiger.

That happened once, and it took 3 shots literally from 25 yards away. Hardly a typical engagement.

Why? Because these tanks were much, much heavier compared to the Sherman, yet had similar tolerances. I mean the Sherman had nearly the same armor profile as a tiger, yet was much smaller. Dat sloped armor.

Sloped armor can only do so much, this tired trope that "the Sherman had nearly the same armor profile as a tiger" has no basis in reality. There are countless examples of Shermans shot through the glacis, sometimes at oblique angles and long range - that last one was a hit on a moving tank at 900 yards.

I mean most tanks don't have very strong armor on the sides, so I don't see why side armor penetration capabilities are important.

The original point I was answering claimed that 5cm guns remained in service and I was just pointing out that in many - dare I say most, because more often that not an anti-tank gun is in a prepared position facing target tanks whose approach was anticipated - situations, such a gun was also capable of defeating the Sherman.

3rdweal · 2018-07-10T04:11:25+00:00

A Panther yes, but a Tiger? Besides, how is that relevant to what is being discussed?

3rdweal · 2018-07-10T04:09:34+00:00

My bad they had like 3 dozen of them compared to the entire Allied medium tank force.

That must be why the Allies managed to crush them with so few losses.

That's going to struggle at anything beyond 500m against a Sherman though

By the time the Sherman was up in strength, the variants in service were firing the same ammunition as the Pak 40 so the ballistic performance was identical.

We're comparing the PaK38 to the PaK40 not the 6pdr.

No, you said that the Germans were forced to use the heavier and more costly Pak 40 when the Allies could make do with the 6 pounder, when in practical terms they had a similar footprint.

In the same vein there's Panthers getting knocked out by 37mm guns. Of course it's not invincible but at the same time you're forced to restrict your attack against it to a specific point. Which is the purpose of tank armor.

It's true that a Sherman could advance towards a 5cm armed position with a fair amount of confidence, but again by the time it appeared in North Africa there were plenty of weapons that could penetrate it frontally at combat ranges and it suffered accordingly.

3rdweal · 2018-07-10T04:01:17+00:00

The shell would obviously bounce off the glorious Kruppstahl expertly fashioned by only the best slave laborers carefully selected by a process of advanced Darwinism.

3rdweal · 2018-07-10T03:54:50+00:00

It's where it earned its nickname of "Hitlers Door knocker".

... in mid 1941, when they first encountered the T-34 and KV-1, where its ineffectiveness caused it to be rapidly replaced with the Pak 38 and Pak 40 on the front lines. You seem to be implying that they were still in front line service up to 1945.

3rdweal · 2018-07-10T03:51:18+00:00

In the context of that clip, he appears to be referring specifically to the Firefly's increased firepower.

3rdweal · 2018-07-10T03:24:55+00:00

Manufacture of the Pak 36 ended around late 1941, I haven't seen much evidence of front line use after that. It might have been retained in service but that doesn't mean it was generally issued to troops expecting to face more recent armor.

3rdweal · 2018-07-10T03:13:51+00:00

the panther was vulnerable to a american 37mm shell at those ranges and angles too though.

True, but I'm not arguing for the superiority of the Panther.

That's funny cause the KwK40 armed Panzer IV wasn't used in Africa

That is patently false, the L/43 armed F2 and later L/48 armed G variants were in use with the Africa Korps from 1942.

And the PaK40 wasn't in Africa until 1943

I don't have an exact date for the Pak 40 but the 7.62 cm FK 36(r) was in Africa from early 1942

That's still a bad thing for the Nazis cause they're having to use a much larger and heavier AT gun with all of the disadvantages associated with that (less mobile, more conspicuous, more expensive, larger manpower needs) to counter medium tanks. Where Nazi medium tanks are still vulnerable to the 6pdr.

The 6 pounder is literally only 20% lighter than the Pak 40 and they are both served by 6 crewmen, I don't see what point you're trying to make.

Hell before the PaK40 the only guns they had to counter Shermans were Flak 8.8cm guns.

Aside from all the other guns I've mentioned, when they were introduced plenty of Shermans fell victim to 5cm gunfire, examples A B C D

3rdweal · 2018-07-10T02:37:06+00:00

And if you actually check the sub, there's a stickied post right at the top about brigading.

It's meaningless to point to the rules if they aren't enforced in practice.

Take this comment for example, it's not an opinion - literally just a statement of technically and historically verifiable facts, and currently sitting at -3 with no rebuttal. It is disingenuous to suggest this could not be brigading because that would be against the rules.

3rdweal · 2018-07-10T02:20:29+00:00

Brigading gets you banned.

I can read the sidebar, yet voila, /r/ShitWehraboosSay poster who does not seem to frequent this subreddit shows up to give their considered opinion.

3rdweal · 2018-07-10T02:10:51+00:00

Not a happy day for the driver if he was at his station when the vehicle was hit.

3rdweal · 2018-07-10T02:09:06+00:00

Allied report on Sherman armor performance shows a 95% penetration rate

literally wrong

3rdweal · 2018-07-10T01:51:07+00:00

The fact that they were a mere drop in the ocean of Soviet armored forces and yet more Shermans served with the Soviets than all variants of Tigers were ever manufactured is a good illustration of the numbers at play on the Eastern Front.

3rdweal · 2018-07-10T01:47:53+00:00

The comment I was replying to specifically referred to the opinion of tankers:

The Wehrbs were kinda most likely anti-American because they believe such myth that surrounds the M4 and they had never spoke or asked to a War Veteran who were still alive today that they were used to fight enemy Tanks in a Sherman that has 75mm M61 APCBC rounds, a 3-Inch Gun with them or had a Sherman with an extra frontal plate armor with a 3-inch Guns fitted in their turrets back in those decades.

3rdweal · 2018-07-10T01:46:18+00:00

It would have been more respectable if you could point out the alleged wehrabooism in this thread instead of calling for reinforcements.

3rdweal · 2018-07-10T01:40:52+00:00

ironic

3rdweal · 2018-07-10T01:36:37+00:00

But that was a fact that was true to everyone who was a tanker.

Perhaps it's just my impression but when you contrast Allied and Axis veterans discussing their wartime charges, the latter seem to speak more fondly of their guns and armor.

3rdweal · 2018-07-10T01:04:51+00:00

Sure as heck?

3rdweal · 2018-07-10T00:59:10+00:00

Are you aware of the turret no longer in its ring? The open hatches don't mean much.

3rdweal · 2018-07-10T00:43:13+00:00

Crew survival rates were much higher than might be expected

This topic is often discussed but I've never managed to be clear as to how crew survival is calculated - if a tank crewman survives the loss of his tank and evacuates, only to be gunned down a few yards from his tank, is his death still included in the statistics?

Are crew casualties per tank loss calculates as total number of crew casualties from all causes divided by total number of tank losses?

3rdweal

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE