Results 1 to 25 of 25

Sherman vs panzer (RL WW2)

  1. #1

    Sherman vs panzer (RL WW2)

    Me and my friend are having an argument over how tough panzers were. Could the panzer easily take on 3 shermans in WW2 (remember this is RL, not CoH)?

  2. #2
    ...Which panzer are you referring to? Panzer is just German for tank, so you're going to have to be a bit more specific here.

  3. #3

  4. #4
    Depends upon which version of the Pz. IV and which version of the Sherman are being pitted against one another.

  5. #5
    okay ummm...Panzer IV vs M4 Sherman

  6. #6
    Lasserith
    Guest
    Also depends on skill of the crew. Generally in tank warfare it was 1 hit = 1 kill.

  7. #7
    Rison40k
    Guest
    Though someone will come along with a lot more detail than I have can offer, the Sherman tank, even with the origainl 75mm main gun (which intended use was as an anti-infantry weapon, not really an anti-tank weapon), was an even match for the Panzer Mark IV (which had a medium length 75mm gun). They both had a good chance of penetrating the frontal armour of each other at any range. The Sherman was much easier to repair and keep running though, but that wasnt your question.

    When the Sherman was ugraded to the 76mm main gun (which was designed as a anti-tank weapon), the Sherman could easily take out the Mark IV on a solid hit, and also easily penetrate the non-sloped armour of the Tiger (Mark VI) tank. The Panther (Mark V) was a different story though on the front armour, because of it excessive slope.

    Along the same lines, in real life, the 57mm AT gun that is featured in this game could also take down a Tiger in one solid hit. The Tiger had a lot of armour, but it was vertical, which makes it so easy to penetrate. So the next time someone cries because you AT gun/Upgraded Sherman took out his Tiger in 5 hits, it should have done it in one

    Rison

  8. #8
    MrBigBoom
    Guest
    As Victrix Legio said what model (or Ausf.) of Panzer 4 and what model of Sherman are you talking about?

  9. #9
    Wc3Addict
    Guest
    Rison40k,

    I was the under the impression that Panver IVs outstripped Sherman's in nearly every category except speed. Their gun was more powerful and had a longer range, and their armor was able to take a heavy beating in every area except the rear. Weren't they also able to take multiple hits since they used diesel rather than gasoline (so one shell did not make the tank become a fireball, like the Sherman)?

  10. #10
    This is really a fuzzy subject. The Panzer IV and M4 went through many different upgrades for different things at different times. In the end the M4 was vastly superior because of all the tech that was dumped into it, the Panzer IV not so much because the Germans used Vs and VIs instead.

    In the end game, the M-4 Jumbo Sherman, Easy Eight Sherman and Firefly Sherman were able to take on PANTHERs AND TIGERs and come out on top. Even then, at the end, the "normal" Sherman had the upgunned 76mm and wet racks to prevent cook-offs. Though, the Panzer IV did get Side and Turrent Armor Skirts and I think a 82mm HV cannon. But I'm a bit rusty.

    "Blessed is the Mind too small for Doubt." - Chaplain

  11. #11
    RJC
    Guest

    Sherman vs panzer IV

    By 1944 the Panzer IV was at the end of the road. The tank was designed in 1935-36 and was only still in production because the germans were so desperate.

    Their main advantage was their low height that was easier to conceal and that inexperienced allied troops mistook them for tigers.

    The armor was nothing special. 50mm in front with another 30mm plate welded on top. The sides were very thin (20mm) and thats why they were equipped with the skirts.

    The last model of the PzIv the J even had the electric turret motor removed to save copper.

    In a fluid moving battle the IV was inferior to the sherman but when used on the defensive the gun made them still dangerous.

  12. #12
    for the most part panzerIV and the sherman were equal

    before the H model most panzerIV had only 50mm or armor which was lacking even against the 75mm.

    by the H model the panzerIV had about 80mm of armor which would require a 76mm to beat, although a panzer H against a sherman 76mm is still pretty even. The panzerIV-h does had a slighty advantage at 2000m, but that's not a concren when you are fighting in hedgerow/city/forest.

    A jumbo, firefly, or a Easy8 however would kick a panzeriv's ass and give trouble (especially the firefly) against a tiger or panther, but none of the three model are in game. I assume a normal panzeriv is a f1/f2 while the elite panzer IV would be a H model.

  13. #13
    Persnickety South African Mirage Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Miami, Florida
    Armed with the 76.2mm M3 gun, regular Shermans were on an even footing with even late-war Panzer IV's (which never received anything more powerful than the 75mm KwK40 L/48). The top speeds of both vehicles were more or less identical at 24mph (on roads).

    Against the Tiger 1, upgunned Shermans had to close to at least 500m to penetrate the Tiger's front armour whereas the Tiger could do the same at 1,000m. The Panther was a far more dangerous opponent as it had comparable standoff range, better mobility off road and a top speed of 28mph. At long range, the Panther's slow turret traverse speed wasn't as much of a liability when engaging multiple targets.

    The turret and side skirting on late model Panzer IV's was intended to detonate hollow charge warheads used by weapons like the Bazooka and the British PIAT.

    It may be argued that the American army's true savior, aside from an unassailable industrial base, was air power. In Europe, 75% of german tank losses were due to air attack. In addition, the massive bombing raids conducted against German production facilities ensured that the Wehrmacht never had the large quanties of otherwise superior weapons it needed to stem the Allied and Soviet advances. By the end of the war 5,976 Panthers of all models had left the assembly lines. It's been theorized that had it not been for Allied bombing raids, the number of Panthers built would have been at least close to double what they were...

  14. #14
    allies won by base raping

  15. #15
    Persnickety South African Mirage Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Miami, Florida
    Pretty much

    [DE]Hilter: WTF?!? Ur planes are killing al my stuf - OMGHAX!!!11!!
    [USA]IKE: pwn3d, n00b!

  16. #16
    ROFL!

    But yeah, the Sherman basically womped the poor Panzer IV at the end of the war.

  17. #17
    Member Dazz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Speaking of tigers the tiger II was a damn impressive fighting tank, slow but had 180mm sloped front armour and 80mm side & back was capable of taking out most tanks at a range of 2000m had 3x and 6x zoom which could give it a sight range of 5000m although not intended for urban warfare not even the 76mm AT guns could penatrate the front armour with AP rounds. The best they could hop for was to dent it. The only thing that could take it on was the Russian SL2 with it's 122m cannon. It was reported that with the German commanders of the Tiger II had around 120 kills each. One of the tiger II's took on 50 russian tanks and over 30 of them where confirmed kills by a single tiger before the russians retreated, lucky for the germans really as it was said they had only 2 rounds left of the 88 that it can hold.

    According to specs of the M4 sherman it only had 50mm front armour vs the Panzer IV 80mm front.

    As for reliabilty i found this

    "Early Sherman models were prone to burning at the first hit. The Sherman gained grim nicknames like 'Tommycooker', after a World War I portable stove, or "Ronsons", after the cigarette lighter with the slogan "Lights up the first time, every time!" This vulnerability increased crew casualties and meant that damaged vehicles were less likely to be repairable. US Army research proved that the major reason for this was the use of unprotected ammo stowage in sponsons above the tracks. The common myth that the use of gasoline (petrol) engines was a culprit is unsupported; most WW2 tanks used gasoline engines and petrol was unlikely to ignite when hit with AP shells. Further, the diesel-engined M4A2 used by the Marines were considered to be much less prone to burn and explode than the diesel Soviet T-34.[1] At first a partial remedy to ammunition fire was found by welding one-inch thick applique armour plates to the vertical sponson sides over the ammunition stowage bins. Later models moved ammunition stowage to the hull floor, with additional water jackets surrounding the main gun ammunition stowage. This decreased the likelihood of "brewing up"

  18. #18
    Yeah, we aren't talking early model. We're talking late model end of war stuff. Anybody knows the shermans before 1943 had the nasty habit of popping off when hit.

  19. #19
    Propbuddha
    Guest
    Here's some reading...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_IV

    For you lazy people, ~50% of the Shermans in Europe were upgraded to the superior 76mm gun by the end of the war. The 76mm gun was considered a match to what the Panzer IV had, the 75mm was not. As for armor, the Sherman was inferior to the Panzer IV, plus the ammo had a tendency to catch on fire. German tank crews were by and large considered more skilled than Americans.

    And interesting tidbit in both articles is that the Panzer IV and the Sherman were designed for anti-infantry roles and needed to be upgraded because of continued run-ins with enemy tanks...

  20. #20
    Member Dazz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Yeah but the germans were vastly out numbers, the allies had more shermans then the germans had tanks as a whole so it is waight of numbers. Trajectory of germans weapons where flat and where far more accurate also the enhanced optics helped quite a bit. This all adds up along with the skills of combat.

  21. #21
    Propbuddha
    Guest
    Yep, and the production abilities are represented in the Logistics branch of the Armor Company tree...

    It's a tough job representing history and having RTS balance, I think Relic has done a good job.

    And if DoW is any indication, Relic will continue to monitor game balance and make changes where needed.

  22. #22
    Persnickety South African Mirage Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Miami, Florida
    Quote Originally Posted by Propbuddha
    And interesting tidbit in both articles is that the Panzer IV and the Sherman were designed for anti-infantry roles and needed to be upgraded because of continued run-ins with enemy tanks...
    Funny also was the fact that the Panzer IV and the Sherman were the mainstay of their respective country's armoured divisions.

  23. #23
    On average the German tank crews in Normandy were very experienced veterans of a few years of tank combat. On average the American tank crews in Normandy were not. So on average, taking a Panzer IV Ausf H and a M4 Sherman (the most produced variants), the Panzer IV Ausf H would win as it's a slighlty better tank plus the more experienced crew. In a major engagement the Axis tanks wouldn't last long due Allied firepower (Naval guns, artillerey, and most deadly-Aircraft)

    "While Shermans were able to take on the Panzer III medium tanks in the North African campaigns, they were unable to withstand the weapons mounted on late-model Panzer IV, and Panther and Tiger tanks encountered in Italy and Normandy."

    Wiki link

  24. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Mirage Knight
    Pretty much

    [DE]Hilter: WTF?!? Ur planes are killing al my stuf - OMGHAX!!!11!!
    [USA]IKE: pwn3d, n00b!
    Sorry, but this just has to be done.


  25. #25
    Lezt00
    Guest
    this is a very hard question to answer. the mid/late panzer4 and the mid/late sherman is on a equal footing. the pzw4 is a older design, mostly with more expereanced crew. the HE (anti infantry) and AP (anti armour) is relatively the same, optics were of similar quality. what really diffrentiates them is that the german tank is lower and had armoured skirts to deal with HEAT rounds (bazooka, panzerschreak, pait etc) while the sherman is much more vurnible. the camo scheme of the pz4 is better while almost all american tanks were in their olive drab. the comander of the pz4 had a cupoda which offered good tactical awareness while the sherman had only a periscope which offered limited visability. german tanks were often well camoflaged with bushes etc thus it is hard to decide which is better as no naked tank of both design really faced each other.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •