Sponsored by World of Tanks! Register here ► tanks.ly/2KPvQy9 to receive a T-127 Premium Tank, 500 Gold and 7 days Premium access with the code TANKTASTIC. Applicable to new users only.
I would add that firing on the move with the machine gun was considered quite feasible with Sherman stabilization. People tend to focus a lot on the main gun.
Sorry but "quite feasible" is detached from reality. I talked to a veteran who fought in a Sherman. The stabilization only worked in the vertical plane, and even in theory was only good for very limited supressing fire. He said he cant remember any instance were he or anyone else used it.
Maybe his was one of the units that did not receive training in its correct use. The records indicate that some units were very enthusiastic about it. I didn’t pick “3rd Armored” out of the air for the video, it is one of those units.
I was thinking about the comparison between the secondary guns. I know the Pz IV had the MG34, did the early Shermans have the .50 calibre or the.30 mounted on the commander's hatch if at all? I'm not even sure what the U.S had as a ball mount or coaxial gun because I'm so sick of U.S. military presentation of information that I steer clear of it. You drown in D-Day books whenever you go to the local bookstore.
I have always thought the Panzer IV was a great looking tank. I say that and some people look at me funny, but I stand by it. When I imagine what a generic tank from WW2 looks like I see the Panzer IV.
@Ulf Knudsen Tiger is a classic, I've always thought it looked like a buffed up Panzer IV, with their more square/boxy designs. I actually prefer it aesthetically to the sloped design of Shermans, 34s, Panthers and King Tigers.
Ulf Knudsen The Germans knew well of slopped armour but had decided that no more than 15 degrees was optimal. Slopped armour consumed a lot of internal space or made it unusable forcing an increase in size. Obviously they changed their mind on Panther and Tiger II but the slopping on these mid-late war tanks was a very well thought out and I would say more effective than that seen on say T34 etc.
I agree the Panzer III and IV were both good looking tanks: well proportioned, especially with the longer gun barrels, with the turret near the middle. I'd call the Tiger too boxy for my taste, too much of the body above the tracks compared to the workhorse tanks. My big complaint with the M4, aesthetics-wise, is that I think it's just too tall. A change in the drivetrain so you don't have to run the shaft through the middle of the body and you could probably shave a couple of feet off the total height without making it too cramped inside. Otherwise the Sherman's quite nice as well overall.
The german Leichttraktor prototype looks adorable, which kinda set the tone for the next batch of German tanks. The Panzer 1 was much less pathetic looking, with a hint of badass (still pretty pathetic looking though). The Panzer 2 looked much better! With the Panzer 3, we get the iconic German badass tank, with no hint of "cuteness". Speaking of tanks, the American M24 Chaffee is also nice looking. Something about those tracks...mmm.
I am old enough to remember that two-way radio performance changed with time and the condition of your vehicle. That is, AM might start out fine in a new vehicle but with wear, the spark plug cables cracked (another good reason for diesel) and then started the dreaded AM spark interference (at night you could see sparks everywhere under the hood) which was much worse at high engine speeds. You could also hear some vehicle static as the parts came unbonded on the road. FM radio, if well designed and aligned AND with the other transmitter on frequency, traded increased bandwidth for noise immunity. The advantage, once the signal is over the noise, is that typically for that era, a 1 watt transmitter sounded like a 100 watt transmitter ... EXCEPT at very low signal levels where AM wins...if no ignition static for AM. I serviced two way radios in the early 60s, used them in Viet Nam in 68 and began designing them with Motorola, GE and Ericsson in the 70s to 2008. My father in law constructed the first FM 'discriminator' (part of the receiver) as a grad student with Dr. Armstrong.
We used the Prc25s I believe , but they kept going us old prc6s that never worked , maybe they worked on the bench but by the time we got them absolute garbage !
"they liked the Sherman for it reliability " Ahahah ahahahah ahahhahahahahah hahahahahhhahahahahahhahah ihihihiihihihih ohohohohohohoh MouaaaaaaAÄRFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
I totally agree with your description of am vs fm modulation. My years of being a FCC qualified technician and Advanced class ham have thought me the limitations and advantages of both types. I would rate the Sherman a clear winner in comms. The fact that their was no degradation in the Sherman’s com system when mobile is not unexpected. I have no horse in the race, except accuracy. In my opinion the German tank still wins.. by a slight bit.
As usual, an excellent video. The only thing missing (in my opinion) is the Sherman *might* be a slightly easier target to hit because of it's high silhouette.
The Sherman also had good gun depression, so if it was on a hill it could poke over and bring the gun to bear, survivability went up due to more angled armor
One important fact that I think he might have missed was the presence of a gunner's periscope on the Sherman. The Panzer IV had no such periscope, so the gunner probably had a more difficult time locating targets.
@D L Why do you call the French report 'dubious'? And it's pretty clear that the Germans DID have issues finding targets, as their time on target numbers are terrible, at least in the Panther. And mind you, they added new optics onto the Sherman after the experience of Africa, very quickly.
@@Joejack45 He's got a bad upload frequency. He's been sitting his arse playing all day and he over-edits his content to the point that upon release they are all irrelevant.
Am radios are very susceptible to electrical noise of almost any kind. Motors, particularly dc brushed motors, generally used for mobile vehicles, produce a lot of electrical noise. It’s very likely that’s why fm was used in US tanks.
The ignition system in petrol engines also cause a lot of noise. While noise filters can be built, I am not sure how much filtering was implemented in the Panzers. Noise and interference are the reason music playing radio stations are almost exclusively FM now.
@@thedamnyankee1 Broadcast FM has a lot more bandwidth, and the advantage of FM broadcast is that by varying frequency (rather than amplitude) your signal will have a higher average output power.
AM are even susceptible to thick steel and concrete, even a automatic carwash interferes. I sure the Germans would have had problems under bridges and in pillboxes as well.
The Shermans were given to Russian guard units and they liked the Sherman for it reliability and some odd things: The auxiliary power unit, the optics, the 50cal for AA (german aircraft stayed higher when they say the Sherman's). ...And the leather seats! No kidding, they watched their tanks if a Russian infantry unit was with them because they stole the leather to make their boots more comfortable! Russians... Gota love'em! :)
Theres a memoir by a soviet officer of tanks (Dozdo? Dosov?...) its called "In Command of the Red Armys Shermans" (or something similar, its been a while for me)a very good read.
@@SeismicHammer its in reference to the rubber pads on the track. They're much more quieter than the steel tracks of soviet tanks. Keep in mind, its still a loud vehicle,(like any tank of the time) but, when you consider the kind of ranges tanks are engaging in(300m-1500m) hearing a tank is just as important as seeing.
The 50 cal was useless as AA, the usual gringo empty boasting, specially laughable is the bit about pilots being able to identify tank models from the air...
Regarding radios: Yes, FM is less prone to static than AM. But... 1.) FM signals do not "bounce" as well as AM, so the signal is primarily line of sight. 2.) FM signals do not penetrate obstructions very well. A person with an FM radio might be able to talk to a person 5 kilometers away across a valley, yet not be able to talk to a person 200 meters away around the side of the mountain he's standing on. That means the 10 mile rated range of the US set is under ideal conditions that are extremely rare in the real world, so the 30 watts of US radios versus the 10 watts of German radios isn't as big a difference as you might think. The two were probably equally effective as a means to communicate within a squad since your commander and subordinates aren't going to be more than 2 miles away.
What you're referring to is a result of frequency of the carrier, not the type of modulation used. FM vs AM has no advantage or disadvantage AFA line of sight or "bounce". It is, however, true that most man- made noise (gear whine, ignition, commutator sparks from generators and motors, etc.) is vertically polarized AM noise, which plays havoc with AM receivers. Particularly in tanks with big vertical antennae, lots of noise sources, and vacuum tube amplifiers. I can't say definitively that noise was a major problem for the Panzer IV, *but* I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case.
@@GoSlash27 Incorrect. AM does indeed bounce off the ionosphere, allowing it to travel much farther along the Earth's curvature than FM, which does not and therefor is strictly line of sight. I know the latter from bitter experience in the army, where I often had to string telephone wire to people on the opposite side of the same mountain I was on because our FM radios wouldn't connect us. AM can also penetrate solid objects to a greater degree. Under the right conditions, a powerful AM signal can literally be picked up and heard around the world. But don't take my word for it. You can read this web page for verification. flexbooks.ck12.org/cbook/ck-12-middle-school-physical-science-flexbook-2.0/section/18.5/primary/lesson/radio-waves-ms-ps
@@larryfontenot9018 Sorry, you're the one who's incorrect. The effects you are talking about are due to frequency bands, not modulation. "AM" Does skip as you explain, but not because it's amplitude modulated, but rather because it's down in the .5 -1 MHz range. Likewise, "FM" has line of sight issues not because it's frequency modulated, but because it's in the 100 MHz range. If you have 2 signals in the same band, they will propagate the same way despite the difference in modulation. The AM signal will be noisier, as I explained earlier. I know of what I speak; I'm a lead avionics technician with a major aerospace firm with 30+ years of experience in electronics and communication systems.
Logistics is the black sheep of war, Its the backbone of the operation but the fighter pilots get the movies. Probably because you get more butts in seats for fighters than you do C-130s and trucks.
Its a nice quote to use for getting the point across, but both tactics and logistics are important. Any one extreme is going to lead to disaster. Although I would agree that logistics have greater influence on the war's success/failure, it certainly won't work very well if you blindly throw stuff in to a meat grinder.
Which has little to do in the tactical context that this game is about. In the tactical context you are operating in a running tank and not worrying about those back in the shop, that is a strategic consideration. . Would not be fun to be back in the shop with everyone else playing.
The teddy bear with the Hitler moustache made me laugh my ass off at 1 in the morning and my neighbor started banging on the wall and screaming. 10/10.
I really like the part where he says "and we're talking about the tanks here, not the squishing things inside them." I just find that part to be hilarious.
Igen, a zsidókat, vagy más nemzetiségüeket legyilkolni bűn volt! ... De! ... sajnos, azt kell mondanom, hogy amit az un. "Háborús bűnösökkel" és a legyőzöttekkel műveltek a győztesek, az is ugyan olyan borzalmas volt! ... Sajnos, csak azt bizonyították, hogy: ŐK sem különbek semmivel sem... a legyőzött ellenségüket MEGGYILKOLJÁK! Ennyi...helyükben, én nem dicsekednék ... mert igazán, nincs mivel!
About why the Sherman might be better at range: The 75mm M3 can pen the 50mm@10° glacis of the Pz.IV Ausf.G at over 1.5km, whereas the 75mm KwK40 L/43 can only pen the M4's 51@55 glacis at around 600m, with the shatter gap going up to about 1.1km. Basically, the Sherman should be almost impervious to Panzer IV fire at over 1km.
Good point, but in this version, it could be balanced out by it's sights, due to their lesser magnification, making it harder to hit/spot longer range targets
1. WWII Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery. 2. Did you even watch the video? Why are you here? MHV explains it himself at 2:26. 3. I always did say that the best way to separate the true tank enthusiasts from WOT players is to ask them about the shatter gap. Go read a book.
@Ulf Knudsen The L 48 gun was introduced into Pz IV G production in April 1943, which is after the time period discussed in this video. The so called 'shatter gap' refers to the rather counter-intuitive principle that AP ammunition may be able to penetrate more armor at longer ranges than at shorter ranges (especially when hitting face-hardened armor). At closer ranges and therefore higher impact velocities, the armor piercing ammunition may actually shatter from the impact shock before it has a chance to penetrate. At longer ranges, the shot stays in one piece and penetrates the armor.
Scratch that, I was actually bullshitting with the shatter gap. What I was trying to say is that the KwK40 L/43 APCBC is very likely to pen up to about 600m, and less and less likely to pen up to 1.1km. Approximately. That's using maximum angles though (55). It has nothing to do with shattering, just had a brain fart. Of course, a proper pen range chart is impossible to do as it depends where exactly a shell will land. But generally speaking, at ranges over 1km the Sherman had an armour advantage.
Maybe worth a chat with David Fletcher on the British use of the early Sherman, and the specific modification. They always were concerned about its height, it’s concealment, to compare with Cromwell or Comet it was some 20% to 25% bigger on frontal area. Not sure about the Panzer IV but I would think it’s more Cromwell than Sherman. Therefore, presented a bigger target, it would be interesting to know the Chieftains view.
The Chieftan made a couple of videos on the M4A1 Sherman: Part 1: ua-cam.com/video/ACqzevjK2DQ/v-deo.html Part 2: ua-cam.com/video/ld8UGWBdU5E/v-deo.html
The sherman was not intended for the ambush or defensive roles, where something like size would make a larger difference. The tanks that were intended for the role of ambush and defense tended to be much lower profile, IE the Hellcat and to a lesser degree the M10. The good gun depression for the time and the angling of the armor was seen as enough to make up for the hull down possibilities. It was used in the offensive role, and the terrain of Western Europe while on the offensive made it hard to make use of hull down tactics.
@@gb6912 Low target area was a prime consideration for the Russian t-54 - t-90 tanks and they were definitely designed for the offensive. Smaller targets are harder to hit.
D L yes same at the Tank museum the Firefly is next to a Cromwell. They were not happy about Challenger the 17pounder Cromwell. The turret was so large it was equally as tall has a Sherman. Hence, 11 armour had comet when available,
I wish you would have talked about the survivability of the tanks; the Sherman is notorious for being a tank that's very easy to get out of, saving countless crew member's live in the process. I doubt it would have changed the end result much, but it would be interesting to compare it to the Panzer IV at least.
These early tanks were death traps and guns were more powerfull than the armour. If a Sherman gets shot at close range it’s very likely most of the crew is atleast hurt if not a couple dead.
@@plymix8389 I think it's very difficult to for us today to think of how these tanks were used 99.999% of the time, especially since a lot of us still got our information from our parents and grandparents. The average GI didn't know everything we know today -- they weren't able to identify the specific model of german tank like we are. Word of mouth about death traps... doesn't line up with statistics. The tank duels we love to discuss were rare -- american tankers only encountered Tigers 3 times. The first time were shermans _(shermans won)_ The second time pershing _(lost)_ The third time tigers were being loaded onto flat cars so it wasn't really a tank duel. For your day-to-day job, the tanks worked, and you wouldn't be able to appreciate how easy your tank was to maintain when you have no experience with what your opponents are using.
@@-John-Doe- How many shermans encountered how many tigers? And the same for the pershing battle? Surely not a 1v1, in a battle Tiger Tanks were really good, its just that 60 percent of them didnt even reach the frontlines due to many reasons.
Should be noted that the British report regarding the Panzer IV's turret traverse isn't actually accurate and makes one wonder in what condition the tank they were testing was actually in. I say this as in reality the Panzer IV's powered traverse was actually very smooth (you'll learn why reading further). The Pz.IV's electric turret traverse was powered by an auxilliary watercooled ~500 cc motor by DKW (ZW 500) which provided electricity for the Leonardo type electric turret traverse motor (Schwenk Motor). To this was attached a control apparatus (Steuerapparat) for the gunnner to control traverse speed with, and he could choose one as low as 0.045 deg/sec - that's hardly inaccurate or not smooth. Furthermore the manual traverse handwheel gave 1.89 deg pr. full rotation and was completely smooth. So please take the British report with a large grain of salt. Also it should be noted that if there was one thing the Allied tankers were very impressed with when it came to German tanks, then it was the accuracy of their gunnery.
I had that thought as well, as to the condition of the captured vehicle. Even if the tank was taken relatively intact, it's hard to know what condition it had been kept in prior to that.
The radio, worry of static I feel is Bullshit. My first job in the MARINE CORPS was communications. I will tell you one of the benefits to am radios, it follows the terrain better. There for, less line of sight. All though with the low output (watts) this is most likely less effective. Also the lower output was most likely done for a reason. Less range on your transmission, less likely for eavesdrops (lessening in). The U.S. likes FM radio for good reason. But it would suffer the same drawbacks, ie working on the move would shorten the range. Also it had to be a 30 watt output to be consistent at 5km. FM radio is line of sight, even trees(especially buildings) will effect it.
I think another interesting thing about communication he didn't mention is that Sherman tanks crews had to check with the command tank before firing whereas German tanks were allowed to fire independently of one another.
Don't forget modern radios filter far better than older sets. However since neither of us have sat in and communicated in a Panzer IV. None of us know.
In a vehicle that has other outside sources AM is more pron to picking up static do wires not being proper grounded. That one of the reason use the FM radios in vehicle not the AM sets. This issue with am radios is still present in modern cars that have issue with grounding. If you use am radio and roll down your window, you can often hear added news on the radio do to electric window motor. Just posting a soruces becouse I know Military History Visualized. www.scienceabc.com/innovation/what-difference-frequency-amplitude-modulation-radio-waves.html
@@lionheartx-ray4135 Interesting. See that's why I didn't agree with the original argument that AM is better. The technology in modern equipment has had decades to mature so this argument is like saying you are an expert on Apple 2e computers because you owned a Macbook. :)
Every time I wear the "I am a cat person" t-shirt, I get rave compliments from complete strangers. My Swiss watches are getting jealous. I hope you can do another run of that amazing t-shirt. Really enjoyed this video, too. Danke schon!!!
I'd generally agree with your analysis here. I only wish to add that Sherman's had a higher turret bustle, given this is North African Desert fighting, the Germans had a large edge with their superior optics. The flat terrain meant fighting at further distances than any other landscape setting in WW2. Some more technical specs about round performance at distance wouldn't go astray. But I really loved your detailed overall analysis using quotes from the experts.
Actually the transmission of the Shermans were not amazing and would break pretty often, that's why Patton disliked when the crew added sand sacks or other improvised extra armor that would make the tank heavier. The real difference is that the section of the transmission on the sherman could be easily removed for replacement meanwhile most german tanks required extensive work to replace the transmission
@@leandroramirez3684 Reliability of parts for the sherman actually increased dramatically near the end of the war. But yeah, earlier shermans had alot of teething problems, but were pretty easy to service.
HAM Radio operator here. As far as the radio/comms section goes the US is a major winner. The differences in how the carrier wave is modulated is what separate the two. AM or amplitude modulation adjusts the strength of the carrier wave itself to send the signal. So louder pitches are produced by increasing the amplitude (power) This is relatively old school technology. Because of this the range is limited and requires large amounts of power and/or repeaters placed throughout an area for the signal to have any real range. It's also HEAVILY susceptible to static and other interference. Vibrations on a antennae will absolutely cause static during the transmit phase although not so much on the reception. FM or frequency modulation changes the frequency of the carrier wave but keeps it at a constant amplitude. This allows it to reach MUCH further as power is almost completely used for transmission. This also prevents static interference to a much higher degree than AM as well as less atmospheric interference. This is why most radio stations are all on FM radio while anyone trying to listen to the AM stations knows how much static is present especially while driving. The shortage of quartz crystals and lack of crystal occilation manufacturing was the biggest reason for the two different radios. The US as with many resources was able to produce and import more. Later they were able to make synthetic crystals of high quality. German did not have that technology, access to a reliable source of high quality quartz, nor the ocillator technology.
Not to mention the amount of radios issued to all forms of units when the U.S. started seeing combat. Continuing onwads, you see the U.S. was really the only force with reasonable platoon level radio communications by 1944.
Soviet Tanker: "Wished we had Panzer IVs when the Mongols were invading" Ivan: "We could write a story about some stupid Germans being sent back in time to fight the Mongols right before WW2!"
I would also say that the smoother ride of the Sherman (due to use of rubber) would also reduce the strain on the drivetrain components and improve reliability (vibrations are very detrimental in the long run). Anyway, thank you very much for your superb work! Vielen herzlichen Dank!
If you'll pardon my anecdote: I lived through the "Transistor Radio" revolution of the sixties and early seventies, and, concurrently, the change over from AM to FM of the popular music stations. As I recall (and the tech had not come far from valve technology), AM radios (they were in automobiles, too) had a lot of static, and reception disappeared in tunnels and tight valleys. Bad for tanks in maneuver, is my guess. FM could be listened to almost anywhere and the quality of sound was Soooo much higher. It did not take long for transistor radios (the slang generic term for all small, handheld portable receivers) to have both AM and FM reception. Ever after, AM was relegated to Talk Radio and FM for music . . . until the 1980s rise of the Adpocalypse. This is my experience. A primary source, if you will, if anecdotal.
From what I've read, the flamability of the Sherman was solely to blame on the crews that overloaded the tank with ammo. The units that didn't do that didn't notice a higher tendency to light up than other tanks.
Even with normal ammunition loading, the early M4 had ammunition racks in vulnerable locations (as noted in the video, in the sponsons above the tracks). Although it had a poor reputation, it must be said that the burn rate of the Panzer IV was nearly identical to the early M4. The late war M4s, mostly with the 76mm gun, moved to a wet storage system at the bottom of the hull, and dropped the rate of ammunition fires by about 80%.
What is amazing about the Panzer 4 is that it is a tank that is at least 3 years older than the Sherman, and in WW2 terms 3 years is an eternity in tank design. The Panzer 4 was the only tank around at the outbreak of war that was still a pretty good tank in 1945. Every other 1939 tank was long gone from the front lines by that period, at least in Europe.
It was a very workable châssis as far as WWII goes when you need a reliable and punch packing medium tank. Sadly the châssis could not take more than 25-26 tons when the Sherman châssis could take up to 37 tons. If you look at the Tiger 1 though, it definitely is an upscaled Pz IV mostly with different turret design and suspension system. However i think that upsacling the PZ IV to make it become a 30-40 tons class tank with 70 mm of armor sloped at 60° from vertical at the front, simple torsion bar suspension system, an enlarged and uparmored turret to house the 88 mm gun and a 500-600 HP petrol engine would have been a better solution for Germany that designing a completely new tank in the for of the Panther.
Both tanks changed a lot during the war, they got upgraded, you wouldn't really see an 1939 tank in the late war, and also the USA joined the war later than Germany. Sure, it was a really good base for a tank, no doubt, but the Sherman was nowhere worse.
While that's true, the 1943/4 Panzer 4 bore no resemblance to the 1940 Panzer 4. And mind you, the Sherman was very much a product of earlier tanks as well.
While I'm not an expert on radio, I want to share something we were taught in university (Electrical and Radio Engineering): The issue about the radios makes, sense, as AM radio have by design a higher sensitivity against noise than FM. It has to do with the noise, and how it affects the wave - while distortion on an AM radio are directly related to the overall amount of noise, FM radios only get affected by the amount o noise on the exactly mathing frequency. As FM radio means the frequency actually changes slightly, even though the nominal carrier frequency stays the same, you have far less noise that can have an effect, and when it has, it usually has an effect only on single words.
Chieftain discussed in one of his videos British reliability testing of the M4 vs. British tanks where the tanks were driven from Brighton to the northernmost part of the isles and back until the unit failed. The M4 was the clear winner; I believe the crews quit before the vehicles did. This study may shed light on the inherent reliability of the M4, particularly the drive train. I don't think enemy tanks were tested for obvious reasons. As I recall, transmissions were the weak points of most German armor, and final drives were the problems with earlier American tanks. Apparently, this was resolved by M4. Major Moran would probably be able to get you the relevant data. Germans, with their love of statistics and records, must have average travel distance before breakdown statistics for every vehicle somewhere.
The Panzer Mk IV chassis had a reputation for reliability. The final drive issue was on Panther. Straight cut gears were used as opposed to angled herringbone on Sherman which by its nature engages more load bearing teeth. This was clearly caused by gear cutting tooling shortages. As the weight of the final planned Panther Ausf F approached 50 tons this version was to finally to get the planetary drive it had been intended to receive from the beginning. (T34 also used planetary) It has to be remembered that the chassis of the M4 was a highly mature and evolved design that had developed from the Grant. The design placed high emphasis on maintenance accessibility but even then some early versions fell short of that aim. The Panzer IV was mature but reaching end of life an had reached its load limit. The Germans suffered from shortages of natural latex to improve their synthetic rubber. Rubber is used on the running wheels of a tank and poor rubber is not helpful . The Germans were beginning to use a system of steel wheels, a rubber inner tire and a steel hoop over that. Heinrich Himmler himself lead a frantic program to develop latex from daffodils. I think the Germans actually only recently succeeded in a commercial process of daisy extraction.
@@WilliamJones-Halibut-vq1fs Yeah, the final drive problems that I referred to were very early Shermans. By the time of mass production, these bugs were ironed out. For the reasons that Cheiftain has enumerated, the U.S. placed reliability and easy maintenance high on the priority. Other nations could factory refit more easily because of proximity and the developed rail system of Europe, so more emphasis was put on armor and armament. I think the British tanks are more often compared to the Sherman in regard to inherent reliability. German tanks were hindered by shortages, as you note, and in the case of Panther, a rush for deployment, more than the inherent weakness of design. There are exceptions, of course, like most Porsche designs, which were too heavy for their powertrains and running gear. In the U.S., British and reliable are antonyms when discussing anything with a petrol engine. Anyone who has owned a British Leyland automobile, heard of Lucas electrical systems or seen a Chieftain being towed understands. While Sherman was a more mature system because of it's lineage, a myriad of upgrades, new tech and alternative systems were rejected from introduction for fear of upsetting the apple cart. They would have to wait for the next tank, because this one works as desired. Military History Visualized discounts reliability as an attribute because it is based on availability stats, which can be greatly affected by spare parts availability, maintenance crew strength and logistic support. While this has some merit, testing done in Briain and at Aberdeen Proving Ground showed critical parts breakage was more of a problem on British than U.S. armor. With as obsessive as the Third Reich was, every instance of machinery failure had to noted somewhere and a comparative test of German and hostile armor must have been undertaken assessing reliability under combat conditions. Goering even commented on the reliability of Browning designed machine guns vs. various German designs as a reason the Luftwaffe lost air superiority.
Reliability even in a flat testing ground can be prone to error. Inexperienced drivers or drivers not even trained at all may cause breakdowns. Although we can likely agree that the Sherman is probably more reliable than German and British counterparts, but the significance of that cannot be determined even with German meticulous data gathering. The German testing ground can have different obstacles compared to the US or British. So the two tanks are not undergoing the same conditions. Both sides also have different requirements for what is considered functional. And how much of those tests replicate real combat conditions? The tanks are also designed with different requirements in mind and may be less capable in certain terrain, thus breaking down more often when going through such conditions. An example of this would be one tank designed for extreme hot or cold climate. If the tank was using different lubricants, it may freeze in a super cold environment that it was never intended to operate in. But maybe this hypothetical lubricant might be more effective at preventing wear-and-tear during nominal temperatures. So how do one quantify the difference?
@@neurofiedyamato8763 I am not looking at this as a video game with pat values that determine wins or losses. Any judgement would be an aggregate of known data with the tanks having appropriate set up for the given environment. No testing accurately duplicates combat, but I am not considering combat losses, only duration between breakdowns. Ultimately, no statistical comparison means anything in the real world, only theoretically. But in a historical perspective, we can say that one tank averaged 125 miles between breakdowns that removed it from strength while another averaged 250 in the same front at the same time period. Thus one tank was GENERALLY more reliable. Logistical concerns regarding spare parts, repair facilities, maintenance crews, etc. affect its return to strength and can be disputed. Some cite a lack of lubrication affecting German equipment. If German armor was too complex for the available lubricants, I'd consider that a design flaw affecting reliability, in the same way the ME262 engines are faulted for their inferior metallurgy. Too often, we get lost in the minutiae of statistics relevant only to video games when a simple comparison is obvious.
I think the Sherman is a better tank overall. I would of much rather of been an American in a Sherman than a German in a Panzer 4 during WW2. Theres other factors that make the tank better such as repairing the tank and finding available parts.
The short range of the German radio is not a serious disadvantage in most circumstances. Generally speaking, individual tanks only need to be able to communicate with other tanks in their own unit. The unit or formation HQ would be responsible for longer range communications. This means that in almost every conceivable circumstance, 3 or 4 km of range is plenty. Short range radios also have the very great advantage of being far less prone to interception by enemy signals intelligence assets.
They may have had the same type of transmission, but the durability on the Panzer was a problem to the point the top speeds were theoretical, especially off-roads. The Sherman transmission by contrast was known to be especially reliable, which not only means they likely weren't exaggerating their top speeds, but could maintain them in more than just a straight line. Also, the M4A1 came in 350 and 400 horsepower variants. Like the transmission the engine was known to be relatively reliable, while the panzer was known to have problems.
A minor point about the radios. While AM is more susceptible to static FM signals can be blocked by physical barriers (hills, buildings, ect) thus the range of FM can vary drastically with the terrain and elevation of the transmitter.
It's more an issue of frequency than carrier wave modulation technique. Higher frequency radio has poorer penetration and tends to be more prone to reflection than lower frequency radio. The SCR 508 and FuG 5 used similar frequency ranges so the factors that differentiated their quality isn't penetration. The American radios had higher transmission power and used FM, which is less susceptible to interference, resulting in more useful range. The advantage of AM radio is that some information can still be received from weaker signals than with FM radio, but in the German sets this is negated by their lower transmission power.
Ι always wanted a tank comparison with the Sherman. Thank you very much! Please consider making a video about more advanced US vehicles such as M4A3E8 (Easy Eight), M4A3E2 Jumbo Sherman, M36 TD, M26 Pershing. They may only saw minor action late in the war but they were still important vehicles and it's always funny to think what would have happened for example "if Pershing was rushed in to combat in Normandy".
There is a thing to note when comparing protection and firepower values. The flat value of penetration and armour on their own is meaningless - what matters is how it fares against armour it is supposed to penetrate/weapons it is supposed to resist respectively. That said, it is true that armour piercing value of Panzer IV was superior to Sherman, but Sherman was still perfectly capable of penetrating Panzer IV at average combat distances or even at longer ranges with decent enough reliability. However, at the same time, Panzer IV could do the same to Sherman, no problem. If anything - I'd say the main problem with Sherman is the size of the damn thing - Sherman is quite noticeably taller than Panzer IV, making it somewhat easier to spot. That being said - Sherman had overall superior protection against other weapons - lighter anti-tank guns and Panzer III tanks, still rather common when Sherman was introduced could not penetrate M4's armour very reliably at distances above 500m or so. However - Panzer IV was rather vulnerable to some lower calibre guns, such as British 6-pdr. Although it would easily resist most common 37mm guns at combat distances. Also - I always find the statement about ammunition placement of Sherman kind of baffling, as if ammunition brewing up was not a problem in other tanks of the time (if I recall, Crusaders were particularly nasty in that regard, and I'm not even going to mention Soviet tanks). Panzer IV also had ammunition stored in side sponsons (which, by the way, was also a feature in Panther and Tiger tanks) - there was also ammo rack exactly behind the driver's position yet I have not seen this being quoted as an inherent flaw.
wrote: "If anything - I'd say the main problem with Sherman is the size of the damn thing - Sherman is quite noticeably taller than Panzer IV, making it somewhat easier to spot." -- Funny that nobody bring up this subject... It is quite obvious when you see Pz-IV and M4, along side T-34 side by side... M4 is tall and broad not only from a front, but also a side, not to mention high center of gravity in M4 made is prone to flip overs(sighting Dmitry Loza).
About equal then, which is what I would have initially thought. I wonder if you could grab a Sherman veteran with regards to finding out about the radio? I love these detailed analysis vids. Keep 'em coming!
I'd argue the Sherman had at least equal visibility with the Panzer IV. While the Panzer IV command did have a cupola, it only had five vision ports spread equally around the cupola, leaving gaps in the commanders vision. It was a step in the right direction, but this was a reason the late war Sherman all-round cupola was mounted on ball bearings and the commander was still given a traversable periscope, cupolas can leave blind spots. A big difference between the Panzer IV and Sherman was that most the crew on the Sherman had access to 360 degree periscopes (the gunner being the exception with a fixed forward periscope as well as his gun optics), while on the Panzer IV the crew was blind other than their sights or driver positions. In essence, a Sherman always had five pairs of eyes scanning the battlefield with a wide angled periscope that could pivot up and down, and rotate 360 degrees. The Panzer IV had only the commander with any good view; the loader was effectively blind other than maybe a stationary vision port in the wall, the gunner had only his gun sights and he'd need to traverse the turret to look around at all, the driver had a fixed forward view and one side port to the left, and the hull gunner had his MG sights. These were all fixed or had limited traverse. The visibility for the Sherman was better than it would appear simply from looking at the commanders view, because the Sherman had more crew who could actively scan for targets.
That's not true. The Driver and Radio operator in the Panzer IV had vision blocks in the Side of the hull. The Radio Operator also had a sight mounted close to his mg34. The Sherman ball gunner had no sighting system for his Mg at all. Same is true for gunner and loader in the Panzer 4, two extra vision blocks on the side of the turret. One in each hatch and one in the front half of the turret. Further more the gunner had a small window with an armored glass in the front of him, which he could open up, to get an unrestricted view onto the battlefield. The 360° periscope for every crew member were added much later in the war, not 1942. But this factor is true, if you compare a Panther with a late model Sherman. Even the german Panther crews knew about this factor and preferred the Panzer 4, if they had to fight in close quarters like normandy.
@@HaVoC117X "The 360° periscope for every crew member were added much later in the war, not 1942." Absolutely untrue. Take a look at the picture of this knocked out Sherman at El Alemain: www.reddit.com/r/DestroyedTanks/duplicates/6iqvav/lateral_and_transmission_penetrations_on_a_burned/ Look at the periscopes in the drivers hatch, notice they are facing different directions? Traversable periscopes were in Sherman's from the start, for every crew men minus the gunner whose periscope was fixed forward (since it was also a gunsight). "The Driver and Radio operator in the Panzer IV had vision blocks in the Side of the hull." Yeah the Driver could look to the left but not the right, and the radioman to the right but not the left. It is not any kind of wide field of view. "The Radio Operator also had a sight mounted close to his mg34" That is the sight for the MG34? It is still limited by the traverse of the gun. "Same is true for gunner and loader in the Panzer 4, two extra vision blocks on the side of the turret." Yes on the side of the turret they were positioned, nothing they could see in the opposite direction. This is my point, the Panzer crews were stuck with fixed ports, which meant they could only look in certain directions. Most of the Sherman crew had traversable periscopes that they could use until physical obstacles on the tank blocked the view.
Would have liked practical range and silhouette. Who is seen first is more likely to go up in flames. (would also help the StuG in a standardized comparison)
Love these videos so far, really shows that there’s no ‘perfect balance’ of vehicle and that advantages/disadvantages in the hard numbers can’t just be rivet counted when thinking of a vehicle.
The comparison is incomplete without a chapter about ease of repair a very important aspect that is only related to the vehicle, not the industrial capability. The Sherman has an externally mounted transmission that is easily replaced and also the radial engine is more compact can be disconnected from the propshaft, electrics and easily removed as it is an air cooled engine no messing with draning coolant radiators. Also the Sherman is air cooled the Panzer IV in liquid cooled, a big difference in north africa were water is not plentiful. A small shrapnel that penetrates the top of the engine deck and one of the radiators can cause a water leak that might cause the vehicle to be taken out of action. Liquid cooling is also a possible problem in cold climates were antifreeze is essential in case of a coolant leak you cannot just add water. The Sherman engine being air cooled does not have this weakness although later Shermans were liquid cooled this was one advantage of the early ones. This is an important technical advantage
the Sherman crews during the Bulge would disagree since that air cooled engine sucked in cold air all through the tank. Not much better in a desert scenario either because like fuck desert air is in any way cool.
On a Panzer IV you lift up the panel above the engine and you can work on the engine. For example changing the spark plugs. In a sherman you have to remove the complete engine, because at least 5 cylinders are facing the tank hull. Hugh disadvantage when it comes down to maintenance under field conditions. Bolting the transmission onto the front of the tank sounds like a good idea, but the transmissions should last for a tank life. The only maintenance which should to be done on a transmission is checking the oil level. So if you really had to remove the transmission, it was probably because of battle damage. If a Round impacts in the front a sherman, bolts can be damaged and the force and the heat of the impact, can put tennsion into the metall. As a result things which should separate easily wouldn't move at all. That's where the real fun for every mechanic begins. Shermans ease of maintenance is a myth.
@@HaVoC117X For trying to debunk something as a myth you certainly made a glaring mistake in leaving out the majority of Sherman production not even using the radial engine.
@@CleveAneki You are right. I didn't even mention the twin diesel and the 30 cylinder Chrysler multibank engine, which were even worse than the radial. Sorry, my bad.
Didnt one of the french museum employees state that the Sherman tanks were kind of hard to drive and you needed a lot of physical strength? (In your video compared to the Panther tank)
This is one thing that always kinda annoyed me about Sherman fanboys. They act like the Sherman was some super tank that never broke down, had the performance of a sports car, and was as comfortable as a water bed to ride in. This is obviously bullshit. Yeah in comparison to heavy German tanks that were really pushing the technology for the time it had better reliability and crew comfort, but it is still a 40s era tank. They were loud, smelly, and uncomfortable that is just part of the technology of the time. Crew fatigue for all tank crew of all countries was a problem. It's still a problem even with modern tanks
@@Fishmanglitz Is that not a bit of a mute point? As you mentioned that yourself are tanks of that era suffered from this problem. So there is not that much to discuss. So you simply compare other aspects.
Sherman was a cheap tank but not a quality tank. Ask WW2 veterans: "Sherman tanks were not nearly as efficient or as armored as the primary German tank, the Panzer IV. This was a fact even before the upgrading of Panzer gun barrels and armor in 1943. Shermans were under-gunned when fighting German Tiger tanks and out-maneuvered when facing German Panther tanks. These disparities are shown in an account of the famous Lt. Colonel William B. Lovelady, commander of the 3rd Armored Division’s 2nd Battalion, retold by Lt. Colonel Haynes Dugan. “One of his Shermans turned the corner of a house and got off three shots at the front of a Panther, all bounced off. The Sherman then backed behind the corner and was disabled by a shot penetrating two sides of the house plus the tank."
@@templar684 Sure it's a valid point. There was even a problem in world war II where US commanders laughably bought into exaggerated claims regarding US technology. See the fiasco on insisting that US heavy bombers could hit a pickle barrel and trying to use the B17 as a anti shipping plane because it was so "accurate". Thinking that your heavily armoured behemoth (German tanks) are automatically invulnerable to everything will get you killed. Thinking the performance of your tank is magical for the era (American tanks) will also get you killed.
Oohhh, as well sourced and reasonable as this video is, it could start a flame war. Personally, I want to give the Panzer the advantage but clearly it's not so simple. Excellent video as always.
I didn't read all 1,458 comments, sorry if it's been covered, but have you read the memoir "Death Traps" by Belton Cooper? He was a maintenance officer with the 3rd Armored Division in France 1944-45 who has immense real-world experience with the various aspects of M4 Shermans vs German armour. About maintenance, he says that under normal conditions the M4 got 2,500 miles before needing tracks replaced: "the metal-to-metal connections on German tracks was a high-wear item. With the rubber doughnuts and rubber tracks on the M4 we could get around 5 times the track life of a comparable German part." The M4 tracks were reversible which lead to much greater track life. The initial M4s in France had the Wright R975 radial engine which had constant spark plug fouling problems- they would salvage spark plugs out of knocked-out M4s. Later M4s had a Ford V8 water-cooled engine which was much more reliable. About the stabilizer Cooper writes "The M4 had a gyro stabilizer but our crews appeared to be hesitant about using this system and preferred to fire from a stationary position." About turret traverse speed, Cooper writes "In some instances a Sherman crew could get off two or more shots against a Panther before the Panther could get its gun around." He also states that he examined two King Tigers abandoned by their crews because they thought they were on fire, which were hit by White Phosphorus rounds fired by Shermans with the short 75mm guns: "the detonation deafened the crew, and opened up cracks in the welds (between the armour plates) which allowed White Phosphorus gas into the tank."
AM radio is more prone to interference because of the use of amplitude to modulate the carrier. The signal also has less bandwidth which means that less information can be transfered. This is the reason it is more prone to interference actually. However, it is not as hindered by obstacles as the FM radio sets (meaning that in a forest for instance, German radios would function almost unimpeded whereas American radios could see their range massively reduced). This is just general radio knowledge so it holds true for tanks as well.
@@RonJohn63 It would depend also by what the term "trained" means. The Sherman was equipped with a gyrostabilized gun and sight as standard equipment. It only worked on the vertical plane but every gunner would be trained in it's use.
So, I watched this video because I like almost every thing you do, and I appreciate that you are as rigorous as possible in your comparisons. But imo, tank vs tank matchups are almost always meaningless if you don’t look at the “strategic aspects” (that you enumerated as logistics and production, iirc). These strategic aspects trickle have a major impact on the tactical level. Tank vs tank comparisons are like comparing body parts isolated from the rest of the body. “If we ignore the rest of the body, who has the best toe?”
On the maintenance side, The Sherman engines were easier to service and even replace. The Germans had to remove the turret, not even possible without a crane.
On the question of reliability I would definitely give it to the Sherman very easy to repair and replace parts that were always available. Crews in the field could repair some issues that in the Panzer 4 would have been next to impossible if the parts were even available
An example is the transmision. The entire upper hull and turret had to be removed and the driver and radio operators positions disassembled in order to remove /replace the transmision in the panzer. In the Sherman , the lower front hull could simply be unbolted to access/remove the unit.
@@mcmoose64 the idea you "simply" removing a front plate, sounds bullshit to me. Such bolts must have been torqued to a very high force, thats already a potential issue, not to mention paint, rust, damage to threads, battle damage etc.. Working in civil aviation on Airbuses ive lerned it the hard way, some of the most frustrating and time consuming jobs, on paper looked like this, "just remove x of those screws and remove the part" ....and then you come to the plane, and oh my....the screws are shit, the access is such you unofficially have to remove extra panels, extra helping hands or extra time...etc etc....manuals are like statistics , neither tell the reality of how it went...
As with boxing etc., we should factor in weight in comparing tanks. The late model Panzer IV was about 25 tons versus 33tons for the Sherman both depending on model. So, what did we get for the extra 8 tons on the Sherman? We could also factor in cost. Wikipedia cites Zetterling Kursk 1943... 103K Reichsmark for the Pz IV. The M4 Sherman is $44K which works out to about the same as the Pz IV based on 2.4 RM to 1 USD. So while the US did not get much advantage for the extra 8 tons, they did get it for about the same cost as the Pz IV (shipping not included). The T-34 1943 is listed at 31 tons, and 135K rubles, but the conversion is difficult, at 2.66 : 1 in gold, 5.47 : 1 in silver and 8.2 : 1 in labor. Note: My understanding is US labor pay was extremely generous considering just prior to WWII, depression era unemployment.
The German money of the time barely qualifies as money. It's numbers moved around on paper by the Nazi German government and was subject to extreme manipulation. Comparing the costs of the tanks is deeply flawed, which is why man hours needed for construction is a more valid comparison. Both the Sherman and T-34 maxed out at 25 thousand man hours, bottoming out as low as 17 thousand. Exact numbers for the Panzer IV are harder to find with a cursory search, but we do have a reference point, the 300 thousand man hour Tiger I, described to be more than twice as many man hours to build as the PzIV, and four times more than the StuG III. Ergo, the Panzer IV takes 100 thousand to 150 thousand man hours to produce. Thus your comparison turns from a "cost paid for weight of tank" into "how much work does it take to build a product of a certain size". The results are extremely unflattering for the Panzer IV, taking 4-6 times more man hours to produce than the Sherman or T-34. As for what do you buy with those extra 8 tons? Well, better armor over all. The frontal hull is better with sloping accounted for, the sides and rear are better, period, and the turret is a far cry from the Panzer IV's 50mm, which never say real improvement in any model. You also get one hell of an engine, ranging from the original radial to the pretty beastly Ford GAA.
I used this site, which looks at equivalency in labor-consumer goods, gold and silver cross-reference to Swedish. www.historicalstatistics.org/Currencyconverter.html For USD to RM there is reasonably agreement between the 3, the Russian ruble is problematic. It is expected that the US is very good at being manpower efficient. I am inclined to think that the Pz IV should require less than 1/2 the man hours for a Tiger I The Stug III shows a cost of 82,500 RM per Wikipedia, about 20% less than the Pz IV. I recall hearing that one advantage of the Stug III over the Pz IV was cost. I am not sure if cost in RM or some other resource was the bottleneck. Anyways, that very good info you have
I don't buy the "shermans were only reliable because of spare parts" argument. The Shermans demonstrated long term reliability constantly and consistantly and performed better in mileage test than just about every other tank.
The Panzer IV is also has a much easier maintenance than the later Panzer V Panther and the Panzer VI Tiger. Panzer IV tank crews are able to make simpler repairs themselves unlike the Panther and Tiger tanks require specialized team to make the simplest repair. Many German tanks and other vehicles are captured by the Soviets on the Eastern Front. The Soviet also discovered the simplicity of the Panzer IV allows easier maintenance and along with large numbers of captured parts allows long-term repair and uses. They may even able to reproduce the necessary spart parts for the captured Panzer IV tanks.
One note on the tank guns. 70%-80% of all rounds fired by tanks were HE rounds, this is supported by a number German and US logistics sources. In the HE department the M3 75mm gun on the Shermanb was very good, and the M48 rounds has been said to have performed well. However there is not much data or info on the SprGr. 34 round from the mkIV.
In terms of reliability, I would of mentioned that it was easier to maintain and repair broken down sherman tanks due to the design allowing access to most major parts with relative ease when compared to the german tanks at the time.
If the Panzer IV really couldn't use the radio on the move, it's a major defeat. Imagine trying to stop a friendly tank from moving in the wrong or hazardous direction, but you cant reach him with the radio.
Actually, it’s not surprising because the electrical systems of the day produced a lot of electrical noise, and am radio is very susceptible to that. When the tank is moving, more noise is produced. Radios of the day had poor rejection of noise. On the other hand, fm was much better.
@Alpostpone can't make the operational level happen without the tactical. We learned that at Arnhem when 1st Paras radios turned out to be paperweights.
The German radios worked and they were effective on the move and stationary. The range was simply less than the Sherman’s. Having practical radios was one reason the Panzerwaffe was able to deal with the T34. In some cases joining the Russian formation and firing from behind. The early Russian radios were poor and considered ineffective.
The one thing that is unquantifiable is that, the Panzer IV G was near its last iteration of model, with all the fixes and improvements by 1942. At 4 war years, any potential of problems of equipment was fixed(better sights, better radio, etc) where as the M4A1 Sherman was still at its operational teething stage. The commander's coopula, gun sights and even problems of design, needed a baptism of fire to find what worked and what didn't. Not saying that you are wrong in your assumptions, as you are picking 1 point in time where the combatants would meet, and not at the zenith of production. I have learned more respect for the Sherman through The Chieftain's vids and thoughts.
That is a fair point, while the two variants discussed were at about the same time, the US was a few years behind on experience. That could explain some of the issues discussed in the video.
@@SeismicHammer but the point of the vid was in 1942, so the later war mods and improvements are not taking into the comparison and rightly so, as the mk VI was the common german tank at the time, as was the Sherman. The biggest thing is, the Sherman for the most part, was recognized that minor improvements were needed and put into effect, either by field mods or newer models. And for all the panzer fanboys out there, no matter how well a thing does on paper, history rules the day. The Sherman won with its too high silhouette, zippo attitude, underpowered gun, superior numbers and longevity(Israel using shermans into the 80s, albeit not original). The mk4 is a fine tank and should have been improved upon, not replaced.
Very good video. Very informative! Would have like to see some other stats for comparison but I understand you can’t squeeze everything into one vid. I can look them up - silhouette - Gun depression - HE capability - secondary armaments (.50 cal) - fuel consumption and range - maintainability and parts standardization - (replacing bogies vs torsion bar - final drive/transmission replacement...etc) - transportability and clevises/lifting eyes
a good amount of german tanks were just left because they ran out of gas. something that almost never happened to shermans since the us was a major oil producer
The Allies wished they had Panther tanks during WW1 The Central Powers would scream bloody surrender at the end of the first day! 15 million people get to live and 1914 humanity gets access and knowledge about 1942 technology 1916 cars would be so much better
I would say that the us industry was a big factor on the tank reliability, but I remember hearing a report from British officer during a us tank trial comparing the tanks Repair services. The report basically said US tanks were slightly less likely to brake down, and when they broke down the tanks averaged about 1/2 the standard man hours and 1/2 of the specialist man hours. I think that theis is at least a comparison that shows that the tanks were easier to fix than average tanks.
My grandfather was an American tanker in WWII. He had five tanks shot out from under him. His crew had been with throughout the war. Except one guy that was wounded and sent home.
My grandfather told me ones that the tank the M4 Sherman was easy to work on but could be replacement part heavy. And that most German tanks he shot at were.in the track, side and rear when possible because shooting at the german tanks in the front was not ideal.
So many people still believe the Sherman was a death trap. Only tank of the War with a higher survival rate was the much heavier Churchill. Still remarkable only had one crew member injured enough to be sent home.
@@leeprice2849 My Grandfather tank crew stay in the army after the war. Most retired as high ranking officer or warrant officers. When I joined up in 1998 I met on at a armored cavalry reunion. Here I was standing there in my class A uniform. My unit had to give up personnel for an honor guard and service ushers for banquet. I was standing there when this old guy I remember him because he was old as dirt come up and grab me by the arm and he says my grandfather name which is my middle name. Apparently I look just like my grandfather in my uniform. His old tanker crew was there. All retired and guest of honor at the event.
@@leeprice2849 Survival rates don't necessarily reflect combat performance. Especially seeing as most German tanks were knocked out by aircraft or their own crews due to a lack of fuel on the Western Front. They also built 10 times as few Panzer 4's in comparison and ALL of them most likely saw combat. A good percentage of Shermans were never even sent to the battlefield. If you're referring to the crew surviving when the tank was struck, again, it depends on what hits it and how much fire the crew is under while trying to get out.
Problem with just going by numbers , is that WW2 was a war of the factories , one the Axis was going to lose from the begining . Because of this , If the Germans could even field over 10 panzers , of any type , in any particular area , they were lucky . Americans , on the other hand , could easily replace any losses , repair them easily , modify them easily , and produce them quickly . The Germans could do none of that . The P4 was a dead end platform , they had to design a new tank from the ground up , instead of modifying a current design to fill a need , without interrupting production very much to make the changes .
As an electrical engineer here is the fundamental difference, AM (Amplitude Modulation) is sensitive to static noise which randomly alters the amplitude or waveform which carries the AM signal information distorting the waveform and the received signal. In FM Frequency Modulation) the demodulation is only in frequency not amplitude and the FM signal and its information is frequency based. Thus FM is by nature much more static impervious than AM. A reliable FM radio with equivalent reliability and range will simply be superior.
I am an ex radiomen and also a licensed radio operator. FM vs AM is not even a fair fight in this context. FM would not be hindered while moving and provides clear and high fidelity. You are heard at 100% or not at all. AM fluctuations in volume and voices make it very tough in a noisy environment. FM starts to be a clear loser with long range communication over 20 to 50 miles or so. AM and SSB can bounce off the atmosphere depending on the frequency but FM is at huge disadvantage to do the same. This is why at night you can hear far away shortwave or middle wave "AM radio" (in your car, at least in the US where I am) from all over even 100s of miles away but FM, even sounding better in quality, you can only hear local stations for the most part baring a rare event. At 15 to 20 mile range on FM in the early 40's, not knowing more about the actual set, my guess is it was around the 40 to 50 Mhz range, which was widely used in the same era through the 60s or so in the US for State ("regional") police. You still can find photos of those cars with pretty long antenna whips.
The radio issue is hard to prove by example, because the US was the only force using FM at the time (it was very new tech, and had been pushed by peacetime police use in Connecticut in 1940). Unless the evaluator was up on tech, they literally wouldn't know what they were missing. It's a bit like Huff Duff, the Kreigmarine knew that radio signals could be direction found, but they had no idea it could be made ship-sized. FM use for transmission dated in the US from 1940, it was really cutting edge (broadcast FM would take 20 more years to take off). Fortunately there was a LOT of Radio parts makers to see that things got built, there was a "Radio Boom" n stocks in 1920s, a bit like the web boom of the 1990s. One thing that comes up with Radar and radios and other electronics during WWII is that British theoretical research was up with and in fact often ahead of the US, their production engineering was FAR behind (not enough ordinary electrical engineers, just a handful of brilliant theorists). Which is why we see things like the US getting RADAR development handed over around 1943 and why there were more 4-rotor "bombes" than 3 -rotors(the originals were practically hand built, IBM knocked out 40 in about 8 months).
I would imagine that there were german tankers who wished they had shermans and there were american tankers who wished they had panzers. Everyone is a critic and the grass is always greener.
LOG Germany produced seven different tanks and many different tank destroyers, usually based on older tank designs. It also used captured tanks in large numbers. The USA produced 3 tanks, the M4 and its parent the M3 medium and the M3 light and it's descendent the M5.
Another major point would be organisation/availability. A German Panzer battalion in 1942 had just 1 medium company of 10 Pz. IVs. while a US Army Medium Armoured battalion had over 50 M4s(or M3s;)).
That's more telling about the industrial and logistical capabilities of the respective countries and not directly saying much about the tanks themselves.
Pz iv has longer range but weaker turret armour. With a Pz you have to stay far away (over 3000m) for its turret armour (50mm) to even block a sherman round (penetrates at 60mm at 3000m & over 80mm at 1000m). The sherman can avoid any penetration at 1000m roughly from the front ( roughly 90mm armour in turret and hull front due to angled armour while KwK. 40 L/43 penetrates 90mm at a little under 1000m). So as far as armour goes (the most important factor) The sherman wins in both cases despite the slightly worse gun. It wins at long distances and at closer ones it fights evenly. There is a huge bias here for the pz iv over very unimportant minor factors. Even with the M72 round the M4 can still penetrate the turret of the pz iv ausf g at 2000m & its hull armour at 800m.
Older vid I realize but a few points worth touching on: One major, major downside of early model Shermans was the combination gun mount M34. The gunner aimed via a periscope gun mount, and one of the noted disadvantages of this configuration was that a pretty flimsy mechanical linkage connected it to the cannon, and it easily fell out of adjustment. This wasn't resolved until tanks were produced with the improved M34A1 gun mount that had a direct, conventional telescopic sight inside it that was rigidly attached to the gun. Of course the 76mm tanks used a completely different gun mount that had its own sight. The periscope also had a pretty low zoom, although the later model periscope sight had two sights, low and medium magnification. There were conversion kits issued to rectify issues with the M34 gun mount, although it's thought not many saw use, so the M34A1 gun mount wasn't really seen on tanks until 1943. The British generally added loader's hatches to their Shermans. I don't know when they started to do this, but it was pretty much universal on British service Shermans, like Fireflies. They heavily used Shermans so it's worth mention. I think you were being a little bit unfair regarding the ammunition placement of the M4: The Panzer IV is almost identical, with the majority of its ammunition being placed in the sponson boxes. Any crew compartment penetration stood serious risk of detonating the carried ammunition. Also, it is a bit complicated to compare mobility and armor because the US was using M4A1, M4 (Welded Hull), and M4A3 simultaneously. These changes are significant because the M4 and M4A3 welded hull was considered to have superior armor protection, and the M4A3 had considerably more horsepower and torque with the Ford GAA engine - which was also head and shoulders more reliable than the radial.
So, considering the Pz IV entered service in 1936 and the M4 entered service in 1941, this is something of a win for the Pz IV. The M4 is five tons bigger and five years newer, but isn't really any better.
Um no, panzer 4 entered service in 1939. He is comparing it to the Panzer 4 G which entered service in 1942 If he was comparing it to the Panzer 4 from 1939 which had much less armour and much worse gun it would be no contest.
Uh yeah in 1942 they were comparable. After the M4A3 and HVSS and later war advanced systems came into play the Sherman was way ahead of the Pz IV. Shermans were always considered the superior platform to the Pz IV with much more upgrade potential even into the late 60s and early 70s.
@@cattledog901 Though to be fair the Germans replaced the pz4 with Panther in 1944 and only used the made on the cheap pz 4J to make up numbers, so it's not really a valid comparison
@@DoddyIshamel I suggest you do some basic research. The Wikipedia article on the Panzer IV clearly states that the Ausf A variant went into production in 1936. 35 were built before the Ausf B of 1937. 42 of those were built before the 140 Ausf Cs and then the 248 Ausf Ds in 1938 and 1939 respectively. Ultimately I think you've rather missed my point - the Pz IV is a mid 30's pre-war design and the M4 in it's original form does not significantly improve upon it despite being five tons larger and designed with the benefit of witnessing several years of war experience from the sidelines.
@@cattledog901 I should bloody well hope so, otherwise the entire M4 platform would been a complete swing and a miss. Even so, the Pz IV Ausf H also had an improved gun and armour package and both tanks remained vulnerable to each others guns until the end of the war.
I hope you took proper slope multipliers into consideration when you compared armour. EDIT: I'm not sure if you did. i.imgur.com/FCuu2Lx.jpg Given a T/D ratio of 0.68 (51/75) a slope of 55 leads to a multiplier of about 2.something. If you go for that average of 46, it leads to about 1.7. So that's an effective armour of between 86 and 117mm. But then we need to apply the cast multipliers... which is 0.87 (I made an excel with the formula from WWII Ballistics), so between 72mm and 102mm. Hmm, you're actually pretty close if you went for that 46 degree average thing. Not bad! Sources: WWII Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery.
Sponsored by World of Tanks! Register here ► tanks.ly/2KPvQy9 to receive a T-127 Premium Tank, 500 Gold and 7 days Premium access with the code TANKTASTIC. Applicable to new users only.
Nice detail using Soviet Womble on the bad reputation part 🤣
German auto subtitles...
Nice shoutout for The Chieftain, and very nice video ;)
You've made a little Mistake at 02:30.
The "G" and "F2" are not the same Tank.
The umlaut helps Germans to do a proper English pronunciation. ;) - I think he does this just for fun.
I would add that firing on the move with the machine gun was considered quite feasible with Sherman stabilization. People tend to focus a lot on the main gun.
Thought Chieftain's most concern is how easy it is for the crew to escape from he tank.
Sorry but "quite feasible" is detached from reality. I talked to a veteran who fought in a Sherman. The stabilization only worked in the vertical plane, and even in theory was only good for very limited supressing fire. He said he cant remember any instance were he or anyone else used it.
Maybe his was one of the units that did not receive training in its correct use. The records indicate that some units were very enthusiastic about it. I didn’t pick “3rd Armored” out of the air for the video, it is one of those units.
@@Rudeljaeger I'd imagine suppressive fire on the move is a nice perk if your platoon meets tank hunter infantry at close range.
I was thinking about the comparison between the secondary guns. I know the Pz IV had the MG34, did the early Shermans have the .50 calibre or the.30 mounted on the commander's hatch if at all?
I'm not even sure what the U.S had as a ball mount or coaxial gun because I'm so sick of U.S. military presentation of information that I steer clear of it.
You drown in D-Day books whenever you go to the local bookstore.
I have always thought the Panzer IV was a great looking tank. I say that and some people look at me funny, but I stand by it. When I imagine what a generic tank from WW2 looks like I see the Panzer IV.
@Ulf Knudsen Tiger is a classic, I've always thought it looked like a buffed up Panzer IV, with their more square/boxy designs. I actually prefer it aesthetically to the sloped design of Shermans, 34s, Panthers and King Tigers.
I agree with you. The Panzer IV was the prettiest tank of the war. Manly angles and complex details - but not too much!
Ulf Knudsen The Germans knew well of slopped armour but had decided that no more than 15 degrees was optimal. Slopped armour consumed a lot of internal space or made it unusable forcing an increase in size. Obviously they changed their mind on Panther and Tiger II but the slopping on these mid-late war tanks was a very well thought out and I would say more effective than that seen on say T34 etc.
I agree the Panzer III and IV were both good looking tanks: well proportioned, especially with the longer gun barrels, with the turret near the middle. I'd call the Tiger too boxy for my taste, too much of the body above the tracks compared to the workhorse tanks.
My big complaint with the M4, aesthetics-wise, is that I think it's just too tall. A change in the drivetrain so you don't have to run the shaft through the middle of the body and you could probably shave a couple of feet off the total height without making it too cramped inside. Otherwise the Sherman's quite nice as well overall.
The german Leichttraktor prototype looks adorable, which kinda set the tone for the next batch of German tanks. The Panzer 1 was much less pathetic looking, with a hint of badass (still pretty pathetic looking though). The Panzer 2 looked much better! With the Panzer 3, we get the iconic German badass tank, with no hint of "cuteness". Speaking of tanks, the American M24 Chaffee is also nice looking. Something about those tracks...mmm.
M4 Sherman got strucked
Commander: everybody bail out!
Loader: *this is fine*
I am old enough to remember that two-way radio performance changed with time and the condition of your vehicle. That is, AM might start out fine in a new vehicle but with wear, the spark plug cables cracked (another good reason for diesel) and then started the dreaded AM spark interference (at night you could see sparks everywhere under the hood) which was much worse at high engine speeds. You could also hear some vehicle static as the parts came unbonded on the road. FM radio, if well designed and aligned AND with the other transmitter on frequency, traded increased bandwidth for noise immunity. The advantage, once the signal is over the noise, is that typically for that era, a 1 watt transmitter sounded like a 100 watt transmitter ... EXCEPT at very low signal levels where AM wins...if no ignition static for AM.
I serviced two way radios in the early 60s, used them in Viet Nam in 68 and began designing them with Motorola, GE and Ericsson in the 70s to 2008. My father in law constructed the first FM 'discriminator' (part of the receiver) as a grad student with Dr. Armstrong.
We used the Prc25s I believe , but they kept going us old prc6s that never worked , maybe they worked on the bench but by the time we got them absolute garbage !
"they liked the Sherman for it reliability "
Ahahah ahahahah
ahahhahahahahah hahahahahhhahahahahahhahah
ihihihiihihihih ohohohohohohoh
MouaaaaaaAÄRFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
I totally agree with your description of am vs fm modulation. My years of being a FCC qualified technician and Advanced class ham have thought me the limitations and advantages of both types. I would rate the Sherman a clear winner in comms. The fact that their was no degradation in the Sherman’s com system when mobile is not unexpected. I have no horse in the race, except accuracy. In my opinion the German tank still wins.. by a slight bit.
Sounds like Vietnam
My dad was 2nd Armored until just before Torch. He was detached to form the cadre of what would become 6th armored. Dad loved the stabilizer.
As usual, an excellent video. The only thing missing (in my opinion) is the Sherman *might* be a slightly easier target to hit because of it's high silhouette.
The Sherman also had good gun depression, so if it was on a hill it could poke over and bring the gun to bear, survivability went up due to more angled armor
Ah yes here we go the tall boi
@@global..System.Boolean What do you mean?
One important fact that I think he might have missed was the presence of a gunner's periscope on the Sherman. The Panzer IV had no such periscope, so the gunner probably had a more difficult time locating targets.
@D L Why do you call the French report 'dubious'?
And it's pretty clear that the Germans DID have issues finding targets, as their time on target numbers are terrible, at least in the Panther. And mind you, they added new optics onto the Sherman after the experience of Africa, very quickly.
Everyone is talking about the TotalBiscuit reference, and I'm here chuckling at the SovietWomble one
9:20 'Bad Reputation'! I wonder what that was a reference to?
Yea im curious as to what exactly thats a reference too (I know its to Sovietwomble)
Also the TotalBiscuit one as well.
@@Joejack45 He's got a bad upload frequency. He's been sitting his arse playing all day and he over-edits his content to the point that upon release they are all irrelevant.
@@lutherburgsvik6849 "The Badger"
@@NoobNoob-ss5hs And yet he makes so much money out of it that nearly all of us could only dream of it. So he must do something right ;)
Am radios are very susceptible to electrical noise of almost any kind. Motors, particularly dc brushed motors, generally used for mobile vehicles, produce a lot of electrical noise. It’s very likely that’s why fm was used in US tanks.
The ignition system in petrol engines also cause a lot of noise. While noise filters can be built, I am not sure how much filtering was implemented in the Panzers. Noise and interference are the reason music playing radio stations are almost exclusively FM now.
Im not sure that was the reason for use of AM/FM. If you look at the radio network of the US army of ww2, you see they use a mess of both AM and FM.
@@Scoop2992 No, the reason Music is mostly on FM is because it had a stereo setup earlier.
@@thedamnyankee1 Broadcast FM has a lot more bandwidth, and the advantage of FM broadcast is that by varying frequency (rather than amplitude) your signal will have a higher average output power.
AM are even susceptible to thick steel and concrete, even a automatic carwash interferes. I sure the Germans would have had problems under bridges and in pillboxes as well.
The Shermans were given to Russian guard units and they liked the Sherman for it reliability and some odd things: The auxiliary power unit, the optics, the 50cal for AA (german aircraft stayed higher when they say the Sherman's).
...And the leather seats! No kidding, they watched their tanks if a Russian infantry unit was with them because they stole the leather to make their boots more comfortable! Russians... Gota love'em! :)
Theres a memoir by a soviet officer of tanks (Dozdo? Dosov?...) its called "In Command of the Red Armys Shermans" (or something similar, its been a while for me)a very good read.
Soviet Shermans are used effectively in stealth missions.
@Yinran Zhang were Shermans quieter or something? They have a fairly high profile for their weight so I’d have expected them to be easier to spot.
@@SeismicHammer its in reference to the rubber pads on the track. They're much more quieter than the steel tracks of soviet tanks.
Keep in mind, its still a loud vehicle,(like any tank of the time) but, when you consider the kind of ranges tanks are engaging in(300m-1500m) hearing a tank is just as important as seeing.
The 50 cal was useless as AA, the usual gringo empty boasting, specially laughable is the bit about pilots being able to identify tank models from the air...
Regarding radios: Yes, FM is less prone to static than AM. But...
1.) FM signals do not "bounce" as well as AM, so the signal is primarily line of sight.
2.) FM signals do not penetrate obstructions very well. A person with an FM radio might be able to talk to a person 5 kilometers away across a valley, yet not be able to talk to a person 200 meters away around the side of the mountain he's standing on.
That means the 10 mile rated range of the US set is under ideal conditions that are extremely rare in the real world, so the 30 watts of US radios versus the 10 watts of German radios isn't as big a difference as you might think. The two were probably equally effective as a means to communicate within a squad since your commander and subordinates aren't going to be more than 2 miles away.
What you're referring to is a result of frequency of the carrier, not the type of modulation used. FM vs AM has no advantage or disadvantage AFA line of sight or "bounce". It is, however, true that most man- made noise (gear whine, ignition, commutator sparks from generators and motors, etc.) is vertically polarized AM noise, which plays havoc with AM receivers. Particularly in tanks with big vertical antennae, lots of noise sources, and vacuum tube amplifiers. I can't say definitively that noise was a major problem for the Panzer IV, *but* I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case.
@@GoSlash27 Incorrect. AM does indeed bounce off the ionosphere, allowing it to travel much farther along the Earth's curvature than FM, which does not and therefor is strictly line of sight. I know the latter from bitter experience in the army, where I often had to string telephone wire to people on the opposite side of the same mountain I was on because our FM radios wouldn't connect us. AM can also penetrate solid objects to a greater degree. Under the right conditions, a powerful AM signal can literally be picked up and heard around the world. But don't take my word for it. You can read this web page for verification. flexbooks.ck12.org/cbook/ck-12-middle-school-physical-science-flexbook-2.0/section/18.5/primary/lesson/radio-waves-ms-ps
@@larryfontenot9018 Sorry, you're the one who's incorrect. The effects you are talking about are due to frequency bands, not modulation. "AM" Does skip as you explain, but not because it's amplitude modulated, but rather because it's down in the .5 -1 MHz range. Likewise, "FM" has line of sight issues not because it's frequency modulated, but because it's in the 100 MHz range. If you have 2 signals in the same band, they will propagate the same way despite the difference in modulation. The AM signal will be noisier, as I explained earlier.
I know of what I speak; I'm a lead avionics technician with a major aerospace firm with 30+ years of experience in electronics and communication systems.
@@GoSlash27 I think you guys are trying to say the same thing in different ways. you should probably just discuss it over a beer.
@@thekinginyellow1744 I absolutely would. I've got nothing against the guy :D
Nice TotalBiscuit reference in there!
When? I think i missed it.
@@cp1cupcake 5:14
And the greater spotted Soviet Womble at 9:20
rest in 60FPS, sweet prince
@@lutherburgsvik6849 "Bad Reputation" 🤣
Finally someone mentions that industrial and logistic's have and impact on realiabillity 😁
"Amateurs talk tactics , professionals talk logistics"
Logistics is the black sheep of war, Its the backbone of the operation but the fighter pilots get the movies. Probably because you get more butts in seats for fighters than you do C-130s and trucks.
Its a nice quote to use for getting the point across, but both tactics and logistics are important. Any one extreme is going to lead to disaster. Although I would agree that logistics have greater influence on the war's success/failure, it certainly won't work very well if you blindly throw stuff in to a meat grinder.
Which has little to do in the tactical context that this game is about. In the tactical context you are operating in a running tank and not worrying about those back in the shop, that is a strategic consideration. . Would not be fun to be back in the shop with everyone else playing.
@@neurofiedyamato8763 Indeed.
The teddy bear with the Hitler moustache made me laugh my ass off at 1 in the morning and my neighbor started banging on the wall and screaming. 10/10.
It's funny because Hitler was afraid of the Soviets and other Allies.
@@Cybernaut551 I almost thought you were gonna say that HitIer was afraid of teddy bears...
I really like the part where he says "and we're talking about the tanks here, not the squishing things inside them." I just find that part to be hilarious.
Igen, a zsidókat, vagy más nemzetiségüeket legyilkolni bűn volt! ... De! ... sajnos, azt kell mondanom, hogy amit az un. "Háborús bűnösökkel" és a legyőzöttekkel műveltek a győztesek, az is ugyan olyan borzalmas volt! ... Sajnos, csak azt bizonyították, hogy: ŐK sem különbek semmivel sem... a legyőzött ellenségüket MEGGYILKOLJÁK! Ennyi...helyükben, én nem dicsekednék ... mert igazán, nincs mivel!
About why the Sherman might be better at range:
The 75mm M3 can pen the 50mm@10° glacis of the Pz.IV Ausf.G at over 1.5km, whereas the 75mm KwK40 L/43 can only pen the M4's 51@55 glacis at around 600m, with the shatter gap going up to about 1.1km. Basically, the Sherman should be almost impervious to Panzer IV fire at over 1km.
Good point, but in this version, it could be balanced out by it's sights, due to their lesser magnification, making it harder to hit/spot longer range targets
It's kind of irrelevant at ranges over 1km, where the Panzer IV could literally just bounce off the Sherman's frontal armour.
1. WWII Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery.
2. Did you even watch the video? Why are you here? MHV explains it himself at 2:26.
3. I always did say that the best way to separate the true tank enthusiasts from WOT players is to ask them about the shatter gap. Go read a book.
@Ulf Knudsen The L 48 gun was introduced into Pz IV G production in April 1943, which is after the time period discussed in this video. The so called 'shatter gap' refers to the rather counter-intuitive principle that AP ammunition may be able to penetrate more armor at longer ranges than at shorter ranges (especially when hitting face-hardened armor). At closer ranges and therefore higher impact velocities, the armor piercing ammunition may actually shatter from the impact shock before it has a chance to penetrate. At longer ranges, the shot stays in one piece and penetrates the armor.
Scratch that, I was actually bullshitting with the shatter gap. What I was trying to say is that the KwK40 L/43 APCBC is very likely to pen up to about 600m, and less and less likely to pen up to 1.1km. Approximately. That's using maximum angles though (55). It has nothing to do with shattering, just had a brain fart. Of course, a proper pen range chart is impossible to do as it depends where exactly a shell will land. But generally speaking, at ranges over 1km the Sherman had an armour advantage.
Maybe worth a chat with David Fletcher on the British use of the early Sherman, and the specific modification. They always were concerned about its height, it’s concealment, to compare with Cromwell or Comet it was some 20% to 25% bigger on frontal area. Not sure about the Panzer IV but I would think it’s more Cromwell than Sherman. Therefore, presented a bigger target, it would be interesting to know the Chieftains view.
The Chieftan made a couple of videos on the M4A1 Sherman:
Part 1:
ua-cam.com/video/ACqzevjK2DQ/v-deo.html
Part 2:
ua-cam.com/video/ld8UGWBdU5E/v-deo.html
The sherman was not intended for the ambush or defensive roles, where something like size would make a larger difference. The tanks that were intended for the role of ambush and defense tended to be much lower profile, IE the Hellcat and to a lesser degree the M10. The good gun depression for the time and the angling of the armor was seen as enough to make up for the hull down possibilities. It was used in the offensive role, and the terrain of Western Europe while on the offensive made it hard to make use of hull down tactics.
@@gb6912 Low target area was a prime consideration for the Russian t-54 - t-90 tanks and they were definitely designed for the offensive. Smaller targets are harder to hit.
D L yes same at the Tank museum the Firefly is next to a Cromwell. They were not happy about Challenger the 17pounder Cromwell. The turret was so large it was equally as tall has a Sherman. Hence, 11 armour had comet when available,
Nobody at the time the Sherman was introduced, compared it to a Comet...Purely because the Comet was only introduced in 1945.
I wish you would have talked about the survivability of the tanks; the Sherman is notorious for being a tank that's very easy to get out of, saving countless crew member's live in the process. I doubt it would have changed the end result much, but it would be interesting to compare it to the Panzer IV at least.
The video is about the tanks, not about the people inside them. You are talking about the survivability of the crew and not that of the tank.
These early tanks were death traps and guns were more powerfull than the armour. If a Sherman gets shot at close range it’s very likely most of the crew is atleast hurt if not a couple dead.
@@plymix8389 I think it's very difficult to for us today to think of how these tanks were used 99.999% of the time, especially since a lot of us still got our information from our parents and grandparents. The average GI didn't know everything we know today -- they weren't able to identify the specific model of german tank like we are.
Word of mouth about death traps... doesn't line up with statistics.
The tank duels we love to discuss were rare -- american tankers only encountered Tigers 3 times.
The first time were shermans _(shermans won)_
The second time pershing _(lost)_
The third time tigers were being loaded onto flat cars so it wasn't really a tank duel.
For your day-to-day job, the tanks worked, and you wouldn't be able to appreciate how easy your tank was to maintain when you have no experience with what your opponents are using.
@@-John-Doe- How many shermans encountered how many tigers? And the same for the pershing battle?
Surely not a 1v1, in a battle Tiger Tanks were really good, its just that 60 percent of them didnt even reach the frontlines due to many reasons.
It was easy for people to get out of a panzer 4. It was also a more ergonomic interior.
Should be noted that the British report regarding the Panzer IV's turret traverse isn't actually accurate and makes one wonder in what condition the tank they were testing was actually in. I say this as in reality the Panzer IV's powered traverse was actually very smooth (you'll learn why reading further). The Pz.IV's electric turret traverse was powered by an auxilliary watercooled ~500 cc motor by DKW (ZW 500) which provided electricity for the Leonardo type electric turret traverse motor (Schwenk Motor). To this was attached a control apparatus (Steuerapparat) for the gunnner to control traverse speed with, and he could choose one as low as 0.045 deg/sec - that's hardly inaccurate or not smooth. Furthermore the manual traverse handwheel gave 1.89 deg pr. full rotation and was completely smooth. So please take the British report with a large grain of salt. Also it should be noted that if there was one thing the Allied tankers were very impressed with when it came to German tanks, then it was the accuracy of their gunnery.
Always good to read some comments and see some other information that MHV might not have access to and get some different perspectives.
I had that thought as well, as to the condition of the captured vehicle. Even if the tank was taken relatively intact, it's hard to know what condition it had been kept in prior to that.
The radio, worry of static I feel is Bullshit.
My first job in the MARINE CORPS was communications.
I will tell you one of the benefits to am radios, it follows the terrain better. There for, less line of sight. All though with the low output (watts) this is most likely less effective. Also the lower output was most likely done for a reason. Less range on your transmission, less likely for eavesdrops (lessening in).
The U.S. likes FM radio for good reason. But it would suffer the same drawbacks, ie working on the move would shorten the range. Also it had to be a 30 watt output to be consistent at 5km. FM radio is line of sight, even trees(especially buildings) will effect it.
I think another interesting thing about communication he didn't mention is that Sherman tanks crews had to check with the command tank before firing whereas German tanks were allowed to fire independently of one another.
@@SouthParkCows88 That's more tactics.
Don't forget modern radios filter far better than older sets. However since neither of us have sat in and communicated in a Panzer IV. None of us know.
In a vehicle that has other outside sources AM is more pron to picking up static do wires not being proper grounded. That one of the reason use the FM radios in vehicle not the AM sets. This issue with am radios is still present in modern cars that have issue with grounding. If you use am radio and roll down your window, you can often hear added news on the radio do to electric window motor.
Just posting a soruces becouse I know Military History Visualized.
www.scienceabc.com/innovation/what-difference-frequency-amplitude-modulation-radio-waves.html
@@lionheartx-ray4135 Interesting. See that's why I didn't agree with the original argument that AM is better. The technology in modern equipment has had decades to mature so this argument is like saying you are an expert on Apple 2e computers because you owned a Macbook. :)
Every time I wear the "I am a cat person" t-shirt, I get rave compliments from complete strangers. My Swiss watches are getting jealous. I hope you can do another run of that amazing t-shirt. Really enjoyed this video, too. Danke schon!!!
Soviet Womble “Bad Reputation”.
Probably because of "The Badgers"
@@-Invero- Oh, you mean the W.A.N.K.?
Marvin Reyes for the glory of milf
I thought it was because of his disastrous stream of Company of Heroes, never saw anyone playing so bad, even though they were new to the game...
@@MihzvolWuriar when did he stream that? im quite curious
I'd generally agree with your analysis here. I only wish to add that Sherman's had a higher turret bustle, given this is North African Desert fighting, the Germans had a large edge with their superior optics. The flat terrain meant fighting at further distances than any other landscape setting in WW2. Some more technical specs about round performance at distance wouldn't go astray. But I really loved your detailed overall analysis using quotes from the experts.
love the in depth analysis of tanks!! Make more of these!!
Sherman: *Transmission doesn't break*
Panther tanks: *confused screaming*
Actually the transmission of the Shermans were not amazing and would break pretty often, that's why Patton disliked when the crew added sand sacks or other improvised extra armor that would make the tank heavier. The real difference is that the section of the transmission on the sherman could be easily removed for replacement meanwhile most german tanks required extensive work to replace the transmission
@@leandroramirez3684 Kinda like with the Italians. They used to add sandbags to their tanks, but the problem was the engine instead.
@@leandroramirez3684 Reliability of parts for the sherman actually increased dramatically near the end of the war. But yeah, earlier shermans had alot of teething problems, but were pretty easy to service.
@@markmulder9845 It increased, because they had to improve the outdated sherman, because to change the production drasticly there was not enough time.
@@c46453 sherman wasnt even close to outdated
HAM Radio operator here. As far as the radio/comms section goes the US is a major winner. The differences in how the carrier wave is modulated is what separate the two. AM or amplitude modulation adjusts the strength of the carrier wave itself to send the signal. So louder pitches are produced by increasing the amplitude (power) This is relatively old school technology. Because of this the range is limited and requires large amounts of power and/or repeaters placed throughout an area for the signal to have any real range. It's also HEAVILY susceptible to static and other interference. Vibrations on a antennae will absolutely cause static during the transmit phase although not so much on the reception.
FM or frequency modulation changes the frequency of the carrier wave but keeps it at a constant amplitude. This allows it to reach MUCH further as power is almost completely used for transmission. This also prevents static interference to a much higher degree than AM as well as less atmospheric interference. This is why most radio stations are all on FM radio while anyone trying to listen to the AM stations knows how much static is present especially while driving.
The shortage of quartz crystals and lack of crystal occilation manufacturing was the biggest reason for the two different radios. The US as with many resources was able to produce and import more. Later they were able to make synthetic crystals of high quality. German did not have that technology, access to a reliable source of high quality quartz, nor the ocillator technology.
Not to mention the amount of radios issued to all forms of units when the U.S. started seeing combat. Continuing onwads, you see the U.S. was really the only force with reasonable platoon level radio communications by 1944.
Soviet Tankers: What's a radio?
IVAN: AH JUST YELL VERY LOUD TO NEARBY TANKS!
HERPY DERPEDY the french used flags to communicate haha
@@affentaktik2810 oh so a 1700s navy
Affentaktik The Japanese and Chinese too if I'm not mistaken.
Soviet Tanker: "Wished we had Panzer IVs when the Mongols were invading"
Ivan: "We could write a story about some stupid Germans being sent back in time to fight the Mongols right before WW2!"
If you cut the end of a vodka bottle out, it’s like a megaphone
I would also say that the smoother ride of the Sherman (due to use of rubber) would also reduce the strain on the drivetrain components and improve reliability (vibrations are very detrimental in the long run). Anyway, thank you very much for your superb work! Vielen herzlichen Dank!
If you'll pardon my anecdote:
I lived through the "Transistor Radio" revolution of the sixties and early seventies, and, concurrently, the change over from AM to FM of the popular music stations. As I recall (and the tech had not come far from valve technology), AM radios (they were in automobiles, too) had a lot of static, and reception disappeared in tunnels and tight valleys. Bad for tanks in maneuver, is my guess. FM could be listened to almost anywhere and the quality of sound was Soooo much higher. It did not take long for transistor radios (the slang generic term for all small, handheld portable receivers) to have both AM and FM reception. Ever after, AM was relegated to Talk Radio and FM for music . . . until the 1980s rise of the Adpocalypse.
This is my experience. A primary source, if you will, if anecdotal.
More of the "why" of AM versus FM radios from . . . Simon Wheeler?
ua-cam.com/video/bu4WWSs3HDA/v-deo.html
From what I've read, the flamability of the Sherman was solely to blame on the crews that overloaded the tank with ammo. The units that didn't do that didn't notice a higher tendency to light up than other tanks.
Even with normal ammunition loading, the early M4 had ammunition racks in vulnerable locations (as noted in the video, in the sponsons above the tracks). Although it had a poor reputation, it must be said that the burn rate of the Panzer IV was nearly identical to the early M4. The late war M4s, mostly with the 76mm gun, moved to a wet storage system at the bottom of the hull, and dropped the rate of ammunition fires by about 80%.
Exactly.
Another interesting thing I read is that the position of the stowage was by far more important than the fact that it was 'wet'.
a bit late but, didnt also the Pz4 have ammo stored in the same locations? behind thinner armour
Saw references to some study on # of hits required to make a tank burn. Sherman was slightly better than Pz IV. This was post d day study as I recall.
Partially true, but burn rates went down once AGF issued notices about carrying extra ammo and followed up on the orders being adhered to.
These videos are so interesting and very informative. Well done!
Next up: Tiger vs Bob Semple Tank
Too easy, the Bob Semple wins no matter what.
@@JacobA6464 facts bro
Bob Semple with 32 pounder cannon and Jaguar 600hp
@@Journey_to_who_knows A 32 pounder is nothing compared to the power of 7 bren machine guns
What is amazing about the Panzer 4 is that it is a tank that is at least 3 years older than the Sherman, and in WW2 terms 3 years is an eternity in tank design. The Panzer 4 was the only tank around at the outbreak of war that was still a pretty good tank in 1945. Every other 1939 tank was long gone from the front lines by that period, at least in Europe.
It was a very workable châssis as far as WWII goes when you need a reliable and punch packing medium tank. Sadly the châssis could not take more than 25-26 tons when the Sherman châssis could take up to 37 tons. If you look at the Tiger 1 though, it definitely is an upscaled Pz IV mostly with different turret design and suspension system. However i think that upsacling the PZ IV to make it become a 30-40 tons class tank with 70 mm of armor sloped at 60° from vertical at the front, simple torsion bar suspension system, an enlarged and uparmored turret to house the 88 mm gun and a 500-600 HP petrol engine would have been a better solution for Germany that designing a completely new tank in the for of the Panther.
Both tanks changed a lot during the war, they got upgraded, you wouldn't really see an 1939 tank in the late war, and also the USA joined the war later than Germany. Sure, it was a really good base for a tank, no doubt, but the Sherman was nowhere worse.
@@elpatrico2562 it was also used years after the war by multiple poorer countrys
While that's true, the 1943/4 Panzer 4 bore no resemblance to the 1940 Panzer 4. And mind you, the Sherman was very much a product of earlier tanks as well.
@Magni56 the idea of tanks being old and still in use isnt suprising for todays tanks like the abrams and leopards
Would love to see a part 2 on the later version of these tank in 1945, January. Great job on this video
While I'm not an expert on radio, I want to share something we were taught in university (Electrical and Radio Engineering):
The issue about the radios makes, sense, as AM radio have by design a higher sensitivity against noise than FM. It has to do with the noise, and how it affects the wave - while distortion on an AM radio are directly related to the overall amount of noise, FM radios only get affected by the amount o noise on the exactly mathing frequency. As FM radio means the frequency actually changes slightly, even though the nominal carrier frequency stays the same, you have far less noise that can have an effect, and when it has, it usually has an effect only on single words.
The squishy things inside. Freakin' awesome! This is a high value video from a consistently interesting UA-camr.
Chieftain discussed in one of his videos British reliability testing of the M4 vs. British tanks where the tanks were driven from Brighton to the northernmost part of the isles and back until the unit failed. The M4 was the clear winner; I believe the crews quit before the vehicles did. This study may shed light on the inherent reliability of the M4, particularly the drive train. I don't think enemy tanks were tested for obvious reasons. As I recall, transmissions were the weak points of most German armor, and final drives were the problems with earlier American tanks. Apparently, this was resolved by M4. Major Moran would probably be able to get you the relevant data. Germans, with their love of statistics and records, must have average travel distance before breakdown statistics for every vehicle somewhere.
You are referring to Dracula. worldoftanks.com/en/news/chieftain/The_Chieftains_Hatch_Dracula/
The Panzer Mk IV chassis had a reputation for reliability. The final drive issue was on Panther. Straight cut gears were used as opposed to angled herringbone on Sherman which by its nature engages more load bearing teeth. This was clearly caused by gear cutting tooling shortages. As the weight of the final planned Panther Ausf F approached 50 tons this version was to finally to get the planetary drive it had been intended to receive from the beginning. (T34 also used planetary)
It has to be remembered that the chassis of the M4 was a highly mature and evolved design that had developed from the Grant. The design placed high emphasis on maintenance accessibility but even then some early versions fell short of that aim. The Panzer IV was mature but reaching end of life an had reached its load limit.
The Germans suffered from shortages of natural latex to improve their synthetic rubber. Rubber is used on the running wheels of a tank and poor rubber is not helpful . The Germans were beginning to use a system of steel wheels, a rubber inner tire and a steel hoop over that. Heinrich Himmler himself lead a frantic program to develop latex from daffodils. I think the Germans actually only recently succeeded in a commercial process of daisy extraction.
@@WilliamJones-Halibut-vq1fs Yeah, the final drive problems that I referred to were very early Shermans. By the time of mass production, these bugs were ironed out. For the reasons that Cheiftain has enumerated, the U.S. placed reliability and easy maintenance high on the priority. Other nations could factory refit more easily because of proximity and the developed rail system of Europe, so more emphasis was put on armor and armament.
I think the British tanks are more often compared to the Sherman in regard to inherent reliability. German tanks were hindered by shortages, as you note, and in the case of Panther, a rush for deployment, more than the inherent weakness of design. There are exceptions, of course, like most Porsche designs, which were too heavy for their powertrains and running gear. In the U.S., British and reliable are antonyms when discussing anything with a petrol engine. Anyone who has owned a British Leyland automobile, heard of Lucas electrical systems or seen a Chieftain being towed understands.
While Sherman was a more mature system because of it's lineage, a myriad of upgrades, new tech and alternative systems were rejected from introduction for fear of upsetting the apple cart. They would have to wait for the next tank, because this one works as desired.
Military History Visualized discounts reliability as an attribute because it is based on availability stats, which can be greatly affected by spare parts availability, maintenance crew strength and logistic support. While this has some merit, testing done in Briain and at Aberdeen Proving Ground showed critical parts breakage was more of a problem on British than U.S. armor. With as obsessive as the Third Reich was, every instance of machinery failure had to noted somewhere and a comparative test of German and hostile armor must have been undertaken assessing reliability under combat conditions. Goering even commented on the reliability of Browning designed machine guns vs. various German designs as a reason the Luftwaffe lost air superiority.
Reliability even in a flat testing ground can be prone to error.
Inexperienced drivers or drivers not even trained at all may cause breakdowns. Although we can likely agree that the Sherman is probably more reliable than German and British counterparts, but the significance of that cannot be determined even with German meticulous data gathering.
The German testing ground can have different obstacles compared to the US or British. So the two tanks are not undergoing the same conditions.
Both sides also have different requirements for what is considered functional. And how much of those tests replicate real combat conditions?
The tanks are also designed with different requirements in mind and may be less capable in certain terrain, thus breaking down more often when going through such conditions. An example of this would be one tank designed for extreme hot or cold climate. If the tank was using different lubricants, it may freeze in a super cold environment that it was never intended to operate in.
But maybe this hypothetical lubricant might be more effective at preventing wear-and-tear during nominal temperatures. So how do one quantify the difference?
@@neurofiedyamato8763 I am not looking at this as a video game with pat values that determine wins or losses. Any judgement would be an aggregate of known data with the tanks having appropriate set up for the given environment. No testing accurately duplicates combat, but I am not considering combat losses, only duration between breakdowns. Ultimately, no statistical comparison means anything in the real world, only theoretically. But in a historical perspective, we can say that one tank averaged 125 miles between breakdowns that removed it from strength while another averaged 250 in the same front at the same time period. Thus one tank was GENERALLY more reliable. Logistical concerns regarding spare parts, repair facilities, maintenance crews, etc. affect its return to strength and can be disputed.
Some cite a lack of lubrication affecting German equipment. If German armor was too complex for the available lubricants, I'd consider that a design flaw affecting reliability, in the same way the ME262 engines are faulted for their inferior metallurgy. Too often, we get lost in the minutiae of statistics relevant only to video games when a simple comparison is obvious.
I think the Sherman is a better tank overall. I would of much rather of been an American in a Sherman than a German in a Panzer 4 during WW2. Theres other factors that make the tank better such as repairing the tank and finding available parts.
I would say too, but considering that the Sherman was far newer, I would have suspected the difference to be more stronger.
The short range of the German radio is not a serious disadvantage in most circumstances. Generally speaking, individual tanks only need to be able to communicate with other tanks in their own unit. The unit or formation HQ would be responsible for longer range communications. This means that in almost every conceivable circumstance, 3 or 4 km of range is plenty. Short range radios also have the very great advantage of being far less prone to interception by enemy signals intelligence assets.
They may have had the same type of transmission, but the durability on the Panzer was a problem to the point the top speeds were theoretical, especially off-roads. The Sherman transmission by contrast was known to be especially reliable, which not only means they likely weren't exaggerating their top speeds, but could maintain them in more than just a straight line.
Also, the M4A1 came in 350 and 400 horsepower variants. Like the transmission the engine was known to be relatively reliable, while the panzer was known to have problems.
source?
Very interesting take on the Pz IV vs. Sherman issue. Thank you for the video.
A minor point about the radios. While AM is more susceptible to static FM signals can be blocked by physical barriers (hills, buildings, ect) thus the range of FM can vary drastically with the terrain and elevation of the transmitter.
It's more an issue of frequency than carrier wave modulation technique. Higher frequency radio has poorer penetration and tends to be more prone to reflection than lower frequency radio. The SCR 508 and FuG 5 used similar frequency ranges so the factors that differentiated their quality isn't penetration. The American radios had higher transmission power and used FM, which is less susceptible to interference, resulting in more useful range. The advantage of AM radio is that some information can still be received from weaker signals than with FM radio, but in the German sets this is negated by their lower transmission power.
but tanks can relay transmissions to other tanks with better line of sight. this is not a huge impediment
Ι always wanted a tank comparison with the Sherman. Thank you very much! Please consider making a video about more advanced US vehicles such as M4A3E8 (Easy Eight), M4A3E2 Jumbo Sherman, M36 TD, M26 Pershing. They may only saw minor action late in the war but they were still important vehicles and it's always funny to think what would have happened for example "if Pershing was rushed in to combat in Normandy".
If Pershing was rushed into Normandy we would probably see similar things to what happened with tigers, it would just break down constantly.
templar684 yes because they were also terribly unreliable
@@templar684 Pershing was indeed unreliable and didn't fit to bridges in Europe. But as a tank killer it actually fared pretty well.
I would want to see what would happen if T95 was sent to combat and engaged enemy tanks.
@@rotgutthebloated4730 I Think it was meant to destroy fortified positions rather enemy tanks
There is a thing to note when comparing protection and firepower values.
The flat value of penetration and armour on their own is meaningless - what matters is how it fares against armour it is supposed to penetrate/weapons it is supposed to resist respectively.
That said, it is true that armour piercing value of Panzer IV was superior to Sherman, but Sherman was still perfectly capable of penetrating Panzer IV at average combat distances or even at longer ranges with decent enough reliability.
However, at the same time, Panzer IV could do the same to Sherman, no problem.
If anything - I'd say the main problem with Sherman is the size of the damn thing - Sherman is quite noticeably taller than Panzer IV, making it somewhat easier to spot.
That being said - Sherman had overall superior protection against other weapons - lighter anti-tank guns and Panzer III tanks, still rather common when Sherman was introduced could not penetrate M4's armour very reliably at distances above 500m or so.
However - Panzer IV was rather vulnerable to some lower calibre guns, such as British 6-pdr. Although it would easily resist most common 37mm guns at combat distances.
Also - I always find the statement about ammunition placement of Sherman kind of baffling, as if ammunition brewing up was not a problem in other tanks of the time (if I recall, Crusaders were particularly nasty in that regard, and I'm not even going to mention Soviet tanks).
Panzer IV also had ammunition stored in side sponsons (which, by the way, was also a feature in Panther and Tiger tanks) - there was also ammo rack exactly behind the driver's position yet I have not seen this being quoted as an inherent flaw.
wrote: "If anything - I'd say the main problem with Sherman is the size of the damn thing - Sherman is quite noticeably taller than Panzer IV, making it somewhat easier to spot."
-- Funny that nobody bring up this subject... It is quite obvious when you see Pz-IV and M4, along side T-34 side by side... M4 is tall and broad not only from a front, but also a side, not to mention high center of gravity in M4 made is prone to flip overs(sighting Dmitry Loza).
God, your visuals are so good. Top shelf.
About equal then, which is what I would have initially thought. I wonder if you could grab a Sherman veteran with regards to finding out about the radio? I love these detailed analysis vids. Keep 'em coming!
Love your videos mate
I'd argue the Sherman had at least equal visibility with the Panzer IV. While the Panzer IV command did have a cupola, it only had five vision ports spread equally around the cupola, leaving gaps in the commanders vision. It was a step in the right direction, but this was a reason the late war Sherman all-round cupola was mounted on ball bearings and the commander was still given a traversable periscope, cupolas can leave blind spots.
A big difference between the Panzer IV and Sherman was that most the crew on the Sherman had access to 360 degree periscopes (the gunner being the exception with a fixed forward periscope as well as his gun optics), while on the Panzer IV the crew was blind other than their sights or driver positions. In essence, a Sherman always had five pairs of eyes scanning the battlefield with a wide angled periscope that could pivot up and down, and rotate 360 degrees. The Panzer IV had only the commander with any good view; the loader was effectively blind other than maybe a stationary vision port in the wall, the gunner had only his gun sights and he'd need to traverse the turret to look around at all, the driver had a fixed forward view and one side port to the left, and the hull gunner had his MG sights. These were all fixed or had limited traverse.
The visibility for the Sherman was better than it would appear simply from looking at the commanders view, because the Sherman had more crew who could actively scan for targets.
That's not true. The Driver and Radio operator in the Panzer IV had vision blocks in the Side of the hull. The Radio Operator also had a sight mounted close to his mg34. The Sherman ball gunner had no sighting system for his Mg at all. Same is true for gunner and loader in the Panzer 4, two extra vision blocks on the side of the turret. One in each hatch and one in the front half of the turret. Further more the gunner had a small window with an armored glass in the front of him, which he could open up, to get an unrestricted view onto the battlefield. The 360° periscope for every crew member were added much later in the war, not 1942. But this factor is true, if you compare a Panther with a late model Sherman. Even the german Panther crews knew about this factor and preferred the Panzer 4, if they had to fight in close quarters like normandy.
@@HaVoC117X
"The 360° periscope for every crew member were added much later in the war, not 1942."
Absolutely untrue. Take a look at the picture of this knocked out Sherman at El Alemain:
www.reddit.com/r/DestroyedTanks/duplicates/6iqvav/lateral_and_transmission_penetrations_on_a_burned/
Look at the periscopes in the drivers hatch, notice they are facing different directions? Traversable periscopes were in Sherman's from the start, for every crew men minus the gunner whose periscope was fixed forward (since it was also a gunsight).
"The Driver and Radio operator in the Panzer IV had vision blocks in the Side of the hull."
Yeah the Driver could look to the left but not the right, and the radioman to the right but not the left. It is not any kind of wide field of view.
"The Radio Operator also had a sight mounted close to his mg34"
That is the sight for the MG34? It is still limited by the traverse of the gun.
"Same is true for gunner and loader in the Panzer 4, two extra vision blocks on the side of the turret."
Yes on the side of the turret they were positioned, nothing they could see in the opposite direction.
This is my point, the Panzer crews were stuck with fixed ports, which meant they could only look in certain directions. Most of the Sherman crew had traversable periscopes that they could use until physical obstacles on the tank blocked the view.
Would have liked practical range and silhouette.
Who is seen first is more likely to go up in flames. (would also help the StuG in a standardized comparison)
I really like this video format. I know it's a lot more work for you but it is nice. Thanks for all your hard work on these
Love these videos so far, really shows that there’s no ‘perfect balance’ of vehicle and that advantages/disadvantages in the hard numbers can’t just be rivet counted when thinking of a vehicle.
The comparison is incomplete without a chapter about ease of repair a very important aspect that is only related to the vehicle, not the industrial capability. The Sherman has an externally mounted transmission that is easily replaced and also the radial engine is more compact can be disconnected from the propshaft, electrics and easily removed as it is an air cooled engine no messing with draning coolant radiators.
Also the Sherman is air cooled the Panzer IV in liquid cooled, a big difference in north africa were water is not plentiful. A small shrapnel that penetrates the top of the engine deck and one of the radiators can cause a water leak that might cause the vehicle to be taken out of action. Liquid cooling is also a possible problem in cold climates were antifreeze is essential in case of a coolant leak you cannot just add water. The Sherman engine being air cooled does not have this weakness although later Shermans were liquid cooled this was one advantage of the early ones. This is an important technical advantage
the Sherman crews during the Bulge would disagree since that air cooled engine sucked in cold air all through the tank. Not much better in a desert scenario either because like fuck desert air is in any way cool.
On a Panzer IV you lift up the panel above the engine and you can work on the engine. For example changing the spark plugs. In a sherman you have to remove the complete engine, because at least 5 cylinders are facing the tank hull. Hugh disadvantage when it comes down to maintenance under field conditions. Bolting the transmission onto the front of the tank sounds like a good idea, but the transmissions should last for a tank life. The only maintenance which should to be done on a transmission is checking the oil level. So if you really had to remove the transmission, it was probably because of battle damage. If a Round impacts in the front a sherman, bolts can be damaged and the force and the heat of the impact, can put tennsion into the metall. As a result things which should separate easily wouldn't move at all. That's where the real fun for every mechanic begins. Shermans ease of maintenance is a myth.
@@HaVoC117X For trying to debunk something as a myth you certainly made a glaring mistake in leaving out the majority of Sherman production not even using the radial engine.
@@CleveAneki
You are right. I didn't even mention the twin diesel and the 30 cylinder Chrysler multibank engine, which were even worse than the radial.
Sorry, my bad.
Sherman tanks broke down as often as German tanks like the tigers and panthers l. It’s just that they had more of them.
Didnt one of the french museum employees state that the Sherman tanks were kind of hard to drive and you needed a lot of physical strength? (In your video compared to the Panther tank)
This is one thing that always kinda annoyed me about Sherman fanboys. They act like the Sherman was some super tank that never broke down, had the performance of a sports car, and was as comfortable as a water bed to ride in. This is obviously bullshit. Yeah in comparison to heavy German tanks that were really pushing the technology for the time it had better reliability and crew comfort, but it is still a 40s era tank. They were loud, smelly, and uncomfortable that is just part of the technology of the time. Crew fatigue for all tank crew of all countries was a problem. It's still a problem even with modern tanks
@@Fishmanglitz Is that not a bit of a mute point? As you mentioned that yourself are tanks of that era suffered from this problem. So there is not that much to discuss. So you simply compare other aspects.
Sherman was a cheap tank but not a quality tank. Ask WW2 veterans:
"Sherman tanks were not nearly as efficient or as armored as the primary German tank, the Panzer IV. This was a fact even before the upgrading of Panzer gun barrels and armor in 1943. Shermans were under-gunned when fighting German Tiger tanks and out-maneuvered when facing German Panther tanks. These disparities are shown in an account of the famous Lt. Colonel William B. Lovelady, commander of the 3rd Armored Division’s 2nd Battalion, retold by Lt. Colonel Haynes Dugan.
“One of his Shermans turned the corner of a house and got off three shots at the front of a Panther, all bounced off. The Sherman then backed behind the corner and was disabled by a shot penetrating two sides of the house plus the tank."
@@templar684 Sure it's a valid point. There was even a problem in world war II where US commanders laughably bought into exaggerated claims regarding US technology. See the fiasco on insisting that US heavy bombers could hit a pickle barrel and trying to use the B17 as a anti shipping plane because it was so "accurate". Thinking that your heavily armoured behemoth (German tanks) are automatically invulnerable to everything will get you killed. Thinking the performance of your tank is magical for the era (American tanks) will also get you killed.
@@templar684 *moot point, not mute.
Oohhh, as well sourced and reasonable as this video is, it could start a flame war. Personally, I want to give the Panzer the advantage but clearly it's not so simple. Excellent video as always.
I didn't read all 1,458 comments, sorry if it's been covered, but have you read the memoir "Death Traps" by Belton Cooper? He was a maintenance officer with the 3rd Armored Division in France 1944-45 who has immense real-world experience with the various aspects of M4 Shermans vs German armour. About maintenance, he says that under normal conditions the M4 got 2,500 miles before needing tracks replaced: "the metal-to-metal connections on German tracks was a high-wear item. With the rubber doughnuts and rubber tracks on the M4 we could get around 5 times the track life of a comparable German part." The M4 tracks were reversible which lead to much greater track life. The initial M4s in France had the Wright R975 radial engine which had constant spark plug fouling problems- they would salvage spark plugs out of knocked-out M4s. Later M4s had a Ford V8 water-cooled engine which was much more reliable. About the stabilizer Cooper writes "The M4 had a gyro stabilizer but our crews appeared to be hesitant about using this system and preferred to fire from a stationary position." About turret traverse speed, Cooper writes "In some instances a Sherman crew could get off two or more shots against a Panther before the Panther could get its gun around." He also states that he examined two King Tigers abandoned by their crews because they thought they were on fire, which were hit by White Phosphorus rounds fired by Shermans with the short 75mm guns: "the detonation deafened the crew, and opened up cracks in the welds (between the armour plates) which allowed White Phosphorus gas into the tank."
AM radio is more prone to interference because of the use of amplitude to modulate the carrier. The signal also has less bandwidth which means that less information can be transfered. This is the reason it is more prone to interference actually.
However, it is not as hindered by obstacles as the FM radio sets (meaning that in a forest for instance, German radios would function almost unimpeded whereas American radios could see their range massively reduced). This is just general radio knowledge so it holds true for tanks as well.
"There were only a couple of units trained in gun stabilization." Then names a whole armored division trained in it.
"Armored Division" *is* a unit, and when other divisions are not trained in it, the term is reasonable.
@@RonJohn63 It would depend also by what the term "trained" means. The Sherman was equipped with a gyrostabilized gun and sight as standard equipment. It only worked on the vertical plane but every gunner would be trained in it's use.
@@myronledford2642 1 minute 20 seconds in. Seems like some Divisions either were or not trained or decided not to use it
Nope, alas the device was secret and thus information circulation was restricted.
he assuned everyone was fully trained...... hence a good comparison
So, I watched this video because I like almost every thing you do, and I appreciate that you are as rigorous as possible in your comparisons. But imo, tank vs tank matchups are almost always meaningless if you don’t look at the “strategic aspects” (that you enumerated as logistics and production, iirc). These strategic aspects trickle have a major impact on the tactical level.
Tank vs tank comparisons are like comparing body parts isolated from the rest of the body. “If we ignore the rest of the body, who has the best toe?”
Excellent analysis, very well done ! , especially the last part, there is a saying, amateurs talk about tactics, professionals about logistics
The total biscuit hat when you talk about field of view warms my heart
Gone but not forgotten ;(
On the maintenance side, The Sherman engines were easier to service and even replace. The Germans had to remove the turret, not even possible without a crane.
On the question of reliability I would definitely give it to the Sherman very easy to repair and replace parts that were always available. Crews in the field could repair some issues that in the Panzer 4 would have been next to impossible if the parts were even available
like what can you quantify?
An example is the transmision. The entire upper hull and turret had to be removed and the driver and radio operators positions disassembled in order to remove /replace the transmision in the panzer. In the Sherman , the lower front hull could simply be unbolted to access/remove the unit.
@@mcmoose64 the idea you "simply" removing a front plate, sounds bullshit to me.
Such bolts must have been torqued to a very high force, thats already a potential issue, not to mention paint, rust, damage to threads, battle damage etc..
Working in civil aviation on Airbuses ive lerned it the hard way, some of the most frustrating and time consuming jobs, on paper looked like this, "just remove x of those screws and remove the part" ....and then you come to the plane, and oh my....the screws are shit, the access is such you unofficially have to remove extra panels, extra helping hands or extra time...etc etc....manuals are like statistics , neither tell the reality of how it went...
As with boxing etc., we should factor in weight in comparing tanks. The late model Panzer IV was about 25 tons versus 33tons for the Sherman both depending on model. So, what did we get for the extra 8 tons on the Sherman? We could also factor in cost. Wikipedia cites Zetterling Kursk 1943... 103K Reichsmark for the Pz IV. The M4 Sherman is $44K which works out to about the same as the Pz IV based on 2.4 RM to 1 USD. So while the US did not get much advantage for the extra 8 tons, they did get it for about the same cost as the Pz IV (shipping not included). The T-34 1943 is listed at 31 tons, and 135K rubles, but the conversion is difficult, at 2.66 : 1 in gold, 5.47 : 1 in silver and 8.2 : 1 in labor. Note: My understanding is US labor pay was extremely generous considering just prior to WWII, depression era unemployment.
The German money of the time barely qualifies as money. It's numbers moved around on paper by the Nazi German government and was subject to extreme manipulation. Comparing the costs of the tanks is deeply flawed, which is why man hours needed for construction is a more valid comparison.
Both the Sherman and T-34 maxed out at 25 thousand man hours, bottoming out as low as 17 thousand. Exact numbers for the Panzer IV are harder to find with a cursory search, but we do have a reference point, the 300 thousand man hour Tiger I, described to be more than twice as many man hours to build as the PzIV, and four times more than the StuG III. Ergo, the Panzer IV takes 100 thousand to 150 thousand man hours to produce.
Thus your comparison turns from a "cost paid for weight of tank" into "how much work does it take to build a product of a certain size". The results are extremely unflattering for the Panzer IV, taking 4-6 times more man hours to produce than the Sherman or T-34.
As for what do you buy with those extra 8 tons? Well, better armor over all. The frontal hull is better with sloping accounted for, the sides and rear are better, period, and the turret is a far cry from the Panzer IV's 50mm, which never say real improvement in any model. You also get one hell of an engine, ranging from the original radial to the pretty beastly Ford GAA.
I used this site, which looks at equivalency in labor-consumer goods, gold and silver cross-reference to Swedish. www.historicalstatistics.org/Currencyconverter.html
For USD to RM there is reasonably agreement between the 3, the Russian ruble is problematic.
It is expected that the US is very good at being manpower efficient. I am inclined to think that the Pz IV should require less than 1/2 the man hours for a Tiger I
The Stug III shows a cost of 82,500 RM per Wikipedia, about 20% less than the Pz IV. I recall hearing that one advantage of the Stug III over the Pz IV was cost. I am not sure if cost in RM or some other resource was the bottleneck. Anyways, that very good info you have
I don't buy the "shermans were only reliable because of spare parts" argument. The Shermans demonstrated long term reliability constantly and consistantly and performed better in mileage test than just about every other tank.
Wheraboos have bad arguments
@@emelgiefro don't forget about the t34 diehards.
When sweden bought 4 shermans for testing they could not find spare parts
mr wehraboo
Why would they?
Kit Kefner I say don’t generalize but History Channels, Movies and books all show big Wheraboo bias
Ease of maintenance clearly goes to the Sherman. Removal of the transmission, engine and wheels was much easier.
The Panzer IV is also has a much easier maintenance than the later Panzer V Panther and the Panzer VI Tiger. Panzer IV tank crews are able to make simpler repairs themselves unlike the Panther and Tiger tanks require specialized team to make the simplest repair. Many German tanks and other vehicles are captured by the Soviets on the Eastern Front. The Soviet also discovered the simplicity of the Panzer IV allows easier maintenance and along with large numbers of captured parts allows long-term repair and uses. They may even able to reproduce the necessary spart parts for the captured Panzer IV tanks.
One note on the tank guns. 70%-80% of all rounds fired by tanks were HE rounds, this is supported by a number German and US logistics sources. In the HE department the M3 75mm gun on the Shermanb was very good, and the M48 rounds has been said to have performed well. However there is not much data or info on the SprGr. 34 round from the mkIV.
In terms of reliability, I would of mentioned that it was easier to maintain and repair broken down sherman tanks due to the design allowing access to most major parts with relative ease when compared to the german tanks at the time.
Very little wrong with Panzer IV accessibility for maintenance.
If the Panzer IV really couldn't use the radio on the move, it's a major defeat. Imagine trying to stop a friendly tank from moving in the wrong or hazardous direction, but you cant reach him with the radio.
seems dubious since the whole concept for for the Panzerwaffe was Bewegungskrieg.
Actually, it’s not surprising because the electrical systems of the day produced a lot of electrical noise, and am radio is very susceptible to that. When the tank is moving, more noise is produced. Radios of the day had poor rejection of noise. On the other hand, fm was much better.
@@Karelwolfpup I think you're mixing tactical and operational level here.
@Alpostpone can't make the operational level happen without the tactical. We learned that at Arnhem when 1st Paras radios turned out to be paperweights.
The German radios worked and they were effective on the move and stationary. The range was simply less than the Sherman’s. Having practical radios was one reason the Panzerwaffe was able to deal with the T34. In some cases joining the Russian formation and firing from behind. The early Russian radios were poor and considered ineffective.
Bias is the bane of accurate information. Something I think we all have to fight when reading or writing on a subject.
Well put. There are many videos on this very topic, but many were found to be bias on the grounds of hand-picked data and misinformation.
Yeah clearly Bias.
@Caliban777 Why are FM radio waves horizontally polarised? That is entirely due to the orientation of the aerial.
The one thing that is unquantifiable is that, the Panzer IV G was near its last iteration of model, with all the fixes and improvements by 1942. At 4 war years, any potential of problems of equipment was fixed(better sights, better radio, etc) where as the M4A1 Sherman was still at its operational teething stage. The commander's coopula, gun sights and even problems of design, needed a baptism of fire to find what worked and what didn't.
Not saying that you are wrong in your assumptions, as you are picking 1 point in time where the combatants would meet, and not at the zenith of production. I have learned more respect for the Sherman through The Chieftain's vids and thoughts.
That is a fair point, while the two variants discussed were at about the same time, the US was a few years behind on experience. That could explain some of the issues discussed in the video.
@@SeismicHammer but the point of the vid was in 1942, so the later war mods and improvements are not taking into the comparison and rightly so, as the mk VI was the common german tank at the time, as was the Sherman. The biggest thing is, the Sherman for the most part, was recognized that minor improvements were needed and put into effect, either by field mods or newer models. And for all the panzer fanboys out there, no matter how well a thing does on paper, history rules the day. The Sherman won with its too high silhouette, zippo attitude, underpowered gun, superior numbers and longevity(Israel using shermans into the 80s, albeit not original). The mk4 is a fine tank and should have been improved upon, not replaced.
Very good video. Very informative!
Would have like to see some other stats for comparison but I understand you can’t squeeze everything into one vid. I can look them up
- silhouette
- Gun depression
- HE capability
- secondary armaments (.50 cal)
- fuel consumption and range
- maintainability and parts standardization - (replacing bogies vs torsion bar - final drive/transmission replacement...etc)
- transportability and clevises/lifting eyes
a good amount of german tanks were just left because they ran out of gas. something that almost never happened to shermans since the us was a major oil producer
Those were tiger and panther tanks
@@mrwehraboo5478 wasnt that almost anything that ran on fuel that the germans used?
@@matthewnunya8483 well mostly late war ones
And effective high level a bombing against artificial Fuel and ball bearing plants.
The Allies wished they had Panther tanks during WW1
The Central Powers would scream bloody surrender at the end of the first day!
15 million people get to live and 1914 humanity gets access and knowledge about 1942 technology
1916 cars would be so much better
Well, if I had known you were coming to Conneaut for the Dday re-enactment, I would have had you over for dinner. Keep up the good work.
The AM vs FM thing really can't be underestimated.If I recall correctly FM radio is about 100 times less susciptible to static noise interference.
I would say that the us industry was a big factor on the tank reliability, but I remember hearing a report from British officer during a us tank trial comparing the tanks Repair services. The report basically said US tanks were slightly less likely to brake down, and when they broke down the tanks averaged about 1/2 the standard man hours and 1/2 of the specialist man hours. I think that theis is at least a comparison that shows that the tanks were easier to fix than average tanks.
The Sherman’s ammo powder was slower to burn
Listening to a German try to say applique is pretty funny. It comes out like oblique.
My grandfather was an American tanker in WWII. He had five tanks shot out from under him. His crew had been with throughout the war. Except one guy that was wounded and sent home.
His crew had been fighting from start of the war. From operations torch to the end of the war in Europe.
My grandfather told me ones that the tank the M4 Sherman was easy to work on but could be replacement part heavy. And that most German tanks he shot at were.in the track, side and rear when possible because shooting at the german tanks in the front was not ideal.
So many people still believe the Sherman was a death trap.
Only tank of the War with a higher survival rate was the much heavier Churchill.
Still remarkable only had one crew member injured enough to be sent home.
@@leeprice2849 My Grandfather tank crew stay in the army after the war. Most retired as high ranking officer or warrant officers. When I joined up in 1998 I met on at a armored cavalry reunion. Here I was standing there in my class A uniform. My unit had to give up personnel for an honor guard and service ushers for banquet.
I was standing there when this old guy I remember him because he was old as dirt come up and grab me by the arm and he says my grandfather name which is my middle name. Apparently I look just like my grandfather in my uniform. His old tanker crew was there. All retired and guest of honor at the event.
@@leeprice2849 Survival rates don't necessarily reflect combat performance. Especially seeing as most German tanks were knocked out by aircraft or their own crews due to a lack of fuel on the Western Front. They also built 10 times as few Panzer 4's in comparison and ALL of them most likely saw combat. A good percentage of Shermans were never even sent to the battlefield. If you're referring to the crew surviving when the tank was struck, again, it depends on what hits it and how much fire the crew is under while trying to get out.
Problem with just going by numbers , is that WW2 was a war of the factories , one the Axis was going to lose from the begining . Because of this , If the Germans could even field over 10 panzers , of any type , in any particular area , they were lucky . Americans , on the other hand , could easily replace any losses , repair them easily , modify them easily , and produce them quickly . The Germans could do none of that . The P4 was a dead end platform , they had to design a new tank from the ground up , instead of modifying a current design to fill a need , without interrupting production very much to make the changes .
As an electrical engineer here is the fundamental difference, AM (Amplitude Modulation) is sensitive to static noise which randomly alters the amplitude or waveform which carries the AM signal information distorting the waveform and the received signal. In FM Frequency Modulation) the demodulation is only in frequency not amplitude and the FM signal and its information is frequency based. Thus FM is by nature much more static impervious than AM. A reliable FM radio with equivalent reliability and range will simply be superior.
Of course it would have been nice to see which tank was easier recovered and repaired, i.e. what is the time to switch out an engine or transmission.
You really did enjoy your recent adventure as a Yankee soldier, i see!
Keep up the good work!
One minor note on pronunciation - "appliqué" is pronounced "app-li-kay," not "app-leek."
@chris younts except that it's got that little accent aigu over the 'e', so it's pronounced "app-li-kay," en français as well.
@@thekinginyellow1744 sounds a bit different in Frnech than "kay"
I am an ex radiomen and also a licensed radio operator. FM vs AM is not even a fair fight in this context. FM would not be hindered while moving and provides clear and high fidelity. You are heard at 100% or not at all. AM fluctuations in volume and voices make it very tough in a noisy environment. FM starts to be a clear loser with long range communication over 20 to 50 miles or so. AM and SSB can bounce off the atmosphere depending on the frequency but FM is at huge disadvantage to do the same. This is why at night you can hear far away shortwave or middle wave "AM radio" (in your car, at least in the US where I am) from all over even 100s of miles away but FM, even sounding better in quality, you can only hear local stations for the most part baring a rare event. At 15 to 20 mile range on FM in the early 40's, not knowing more about the actual set, my guess is it was around the 40 to 50 Mhz range, which was widely used in the same era through the 60s or so in the US for State ("regional") police. You still can find photos of those cars with pretty long antenna whips.
The radio issue is hard to prove by example, because the US was the only force using FM at the time (it was very new tech, and had been pushed by peacetime police use in Connecticut in 1940). Unless the evaluator was up on tech, they literally wouldn't know what they were missing. It's a bit like Huff Duff, the Kreigmarine knew that radio signals could be direction found, but they had no idea it could be made ship-sized. FM use for transmission dated in the US from 1940, it was really cutting edge (broadcast FM would take 20 more years to take off). Fortunately there was a LOT of Radio parts makers to see that things got built, there was a "Radio Boom" n stocks in 1920s, a bit like the web boom of the 1990s.
One thing that comes up with Radar and radios and other electronics during WWII is that British theoretical research was up with and in fact often ahead of the US, their production engineering was FAR behind (not enough ordinary electrical engineers, just a handful of brilliant theorists). Which is why we see things like the US getting RADAR development handed over around 1943 and why there were more 4-rotor "bombes" than 3 -rotors(the originals were practically hand built, IBM knocked out 40 in about 8 months).
Is there any way to talk about HE shell performance as well? Tanks fired way more HE but it seems to get forgotten in these comparisons.
I would imagine that there were german tankers who wished they had shermans and there were american tankers who wished they had panzers. Everyone is a critic and the grass is always greener.
@Edgar Miller bet he didn't have to work on it or buy the parts.
Ah yes, I too suffer from a "Läck of Smoothness"
i have to admit, even as an history major, the little drawings to explain the characteristics is why i came here for.
LOG Germany produced seven different tanks and many different tank destroyers, usually based on older tank designs. It also used captured tanks in large numbers. The USA produced 3 tanks, the M4 and its parent the M3 medium and the M3 light and it's descendent the M5.
I love the skype conversation quoted like it's a scientific paper.
Experts are considered sources.
I'm suprised you didnt address sites, muzzle velocity and actual gun accuracy,
Same
Also how much explosive mass is there in standard AP shell, types of shells...
Another major point would be organisation/availability. A German Panzer battalion in 1942 had just 1 medium company of 10 Pz. IVs. while a US Army Medium Armoured battalion had over 50 M4s(or M3s;)).
That's more telling about the industrial and logistical capabilities of the respective countries and not directly saying much about the tanks themselves.
Pz iv has longer range but weaker turret armour. With a Pz you have to stay far away (over 3000m) for its turret armour (50mm) to even block a sherman round (penetrates at 60mm at 3000m & over 80mm at 1000m). The sherman can avoid any penetration at 1000m roughly from the front ( roughly 90mm armour in turret and hull front due to angled armour while KwK. 40 L/43 penetrates 90mm at a little under 1000m). So as far as armour goes (the most important factor) The sherman wins in both cases despite the slightly worse gun. It wins at long distances and at closer ones it fights evenly.
There is a huge bias here for the pz iv over very unimportant minor factors. Even with the M72 round the M4 can still penetrate the turret of the pz iv ausf g at 2000m & its hull armour at 800m.
Older vid I realize but a few points worth touching on:
One major, major downside of early model Shermans was the combination gun mount M34. The gunner aimed via a periscope gun mount, and one of the noted disadvantages of this configuration was that a pretty flimsy mechanical linkage connected it to the cannon, and it easily fell out of adjustment. This wasn't resolved until tanks were produced with the improved M34A1 gun mount that had a direct, conventional telescopic sight inside it that was rigidly attached to the gun. Of course the 76mm tanks used a completely different gun mount that had its own sight. The periscope also had a pretty low zoom, although the later model periscope sight had two sights, low and medium magnification.
There were conversion kits issued to rectify issues with the M34 gun mount, although it's thought not many saw use, so the M34A1 gun mount wasn't really seen on tanks until 1943.
The British generally added loader's hatches to their Shermans. I don't know when they started to do this, but it was pretty much universal on British service Shermans, like Fireflies. They heavily used Shermans so it's worth mention.
I think you were being a little bit unfair regarding the ammunition placement of the M4: The Panzer IV is almost identical, with the majority of its ammunition being placed in the sponson boxes. Any crew compartment penetration stood serious risk of detonating the carried ammunition.
Also, it is a bit complicated to compare mobility and armor because the US was using M4A1, M4 (Welded Hull), and M4A3 simultaneously. These changes are significant because the M4 and M4A3 welded hull was considered to have superior armor protection, and the M4A3 had considerably more horsepower and torque with the Ford GAA engine - which was also head and shoulders more reliable than the radial.
So, considering the Pz IV entered service in 1936 and the M4 entered service in 1941, this is something of a win for the Pz IV. The M4 is five tons bigger and five years newer, but isn't really any better.
Um no, panzer 4 entered service in 1939. He is comparing it to the Panzer 4 G which entered service in 1942 If he was comparing it to the Panzer 4 from 1939 which had much less armour and much worse gun it would be no contest.
Uh yeah in 1942 they were comparable. After the M4A3 and HVSS and later war advanced systems came into play the Sherman was way ahead of the Pz IV. Shermans were always considered the superior platform to the Pz IV with much more upgrade potential even into the late 60s and early 70s.
@@cattledog901 Though to be fair the Germans replaced the pz4 with Panther in 1944 and only used the made on the cheap pz 4J to make up numbers, so it's not really a valid comparison
@@DoddyIshamel I suggest you do some basic research. The Wikipedia article on the Panzer IV clearly states that the Ausf A variant went into production in 1936. 35 were built before the Ausf B of 1937. 42 of those were built before the 140 Ausf Cs and then the 248 Ausf Ds in 1938 and 1939 respectively. Ultimately I think you've rather missed my point - the Pz IV is a mid 30's pre-war design and the M4 in it's original form does not significantly improve upon it despite being five tons larger and designed with the benefit of witnessing several years of war experience from the sidelines.
@@cattledog901 I should bloody well hope so, otherwise the entire M4 platform would been a complete swing and a miss. Even so, the Pz IV Ausf H also had an improved gun and armour package and both tanks remained vulnerable to each others guns until the end of the war.
I hope you took proper slope multipliers into consideration when you compared armour.
EDIT: I'm not sure if you did.
i.imgur.com/FCuu2Lx.jpg
Given a T/D ratio of 0.68 (51/75) a slope of 55 leads to a multiplier of about 2.something. If you go for that average of 46, it leads to about 1.7. So that's an effective armour of between 86 and 117mm.
But then we need to apply the cast multipliers... which is 0.87 (I made an excel with the formula from WWII Ballistics), so between 72mm and 102mm. Hmm, you're actually pretty close if you went for that 46 degree average thing. Not bad!
Sources: WWII Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery.
I have read compaisons for the Sherman's armor, at 50(ish) mm being equal to about 88mm due to slope.
I laughed at the bad reputation symbol was Womble! I thank you!
"Bad reputation" and Soviet Womble :D
That made my day, made my day :) Keep it up!
Chyba tylko my to zauważyliśmy
I had expected a draw, but not this close! Thanks for an excellent episode.