Click here to access the Tanksim website
SUBSIM Radio Room Forums

BUYING GAMES, BOOKS, ELECTRONICS, and STUFF
THROUGH THIS LINK SUPPORTS SUBSIM, THANKS!

The Web's #1 BBS for all submarine and naval simulations!

Go Back   SUBSIM Radio Room Forums > General > Tanksim.com

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-19-11, 10:10 AM   #1
Freiwillige
The Old Man
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Phx. Az
Posts: 1,458
Downloads: 24
Uploads: 0
Default Panzer IV (VS) Sherman (VS) T-34

These were the MBT's for their army's. This is a discussion on the tanks themselves not numbers produced etc. For the sake of argument we shall act as an independent research firm who has access to these vehicles to decide who is the average medium tank champion.

The three have more similarity's than differences so this should be interesting.

All three are battle proven reliable design's

All three are capable in late forms of knocking each other out at combat ranges.

discuss!
Freiwillige is offline  

Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-11, 01:20 PM   #2
frinik
Grey Wolf
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 897
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Default Panzer IV,Sherman, T34

Good topic Freiwillige but first you have to define which models of the 3 tanks do you wish to include in the comparison? The T34/76 and T34/85 models? All versions of the Sherman? All versions of the Panzer IV(up to Ausf. J)?

If yes then the T34/85 had the advantage over the other 2 in termsof armour protection because of thicker, sloped armour and much faster speed than the other 2 not to mention better cross-country traction thanks to its wide tracks.

Gun-wise I think all 3 guns are fairly well matched, the 75 mm L48 of the late Panzer IV is equal to the 85 mm C53 of the T34/76 and much superior to the 76 mm variant of the T34/76.The 76 mm of the Sherman is slightly inferior but not thta much.

The Panzer Iv had the edge over the T34s in the optics and ergonomics.While the Sherman also had better optics and ergonomics than the T34s.

The T34/76 was severely handicapped by its small turreet which forced the command er to act as loader and gave terrible visibility.The Optics were awful and reliability was also questionable because of the poor qulity filters they were using.

The Panzer IV and Sherman were vey reliable. However the Panzer IV did not have strong armour even though the late versions had more frontal protection and the Sherman while offerign better protection had the reputation(not sure if not exaggerated ) of being prone to catching fire easily after taking hits.

1) T34/85
2) Panzer IV but only ausf. G,H,J
3)Sherman
4)Panzer IV ausf. F2
5)T34/76 all versions incl 1942 Mickey Mouse Turret
6)Panzer IV F1

The difference between the Panzer IV G,H and J and the Sherman would not be great but I would give a slight edge to the PZ IV.Likewise the T34/85 is ahead of the other 2 but not by a huge margin.

Cheers
frinik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-11, 01:33 PM   #3
Freiwillige
The Old Man
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Phx. Az
Posts: 1,458
Downloads: 24
Uploads: 0
Default

I like how you sorted that out and your reasoning behind it, Very logical and I almost outright want to agree with you except you forgot one variable The Sherman Firefly!

Also I was reading that the first few years T-34's had terrible reliability. One unit had to move 3oo kilometers and lost half of its vehicles to breakdowns!

Also I know that T-34's didn't have radios in their tanks early on, the commander had flags he would wave for formation changes etc. That is why the Germans in under gunned tanks were able to hold on due to radios, training and therefore tactical superiority.

Also how fast was a t-34 compared to a MK IV or a Sherman?

I know its tracks were wider and much superior to the skinny Sherman and mark IV so mud and snow it would dominate the others.
Freiwillige is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-11, 01:37 PM   #4
CCIP
Navy Seal
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Waterloo, Canada
Posts: 8,700
Downloads: 29
Uploads: 2


Default

I don't really regard the Panzer IV and Sherman, at least as designed, to be 'true' medium tanks designed to take on other tanks - although both later acquired some of that capability. Both were initially designed as hard platforms support infantry, and neither initially had the 'teeth' for other tanks. While this gradually improved, the T-34, pound for pound, was still a much more ambitious design, with a lower profile and armament suited to true medium tank role. Its real initial flaw was the inefficient two-man turret, along with poor communication and under-developed tactics. Once that was corrected and the tank was employed in the numbers and tactics suited to its design, I don't think the other two were a match for it, although the superior German optics and excellent crew training kept the PzIV relevant long past its due. The Sherman meanwhile had very effective logistics backing it up, and in its Firefly variation with the long gun could hold its own, although I think its main contribution to the war was still as essentially an infantry tank.
__________________

There are only forty people in the world and five of them are hamburgers.
-Don Van Vliet
(aka Captain Beefheart)
CCIP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-11, 02:57 PM   #5
Sledgehammer427
PacWagon
 
Sledgehammer427's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Drinking coffee and staring at trees in Massachusetts
Posts: 2,901
Downloads: 280
Uploads: 0
Default

CCIP, I just remembered that the Panzer IV was built to be the infantry tank and the Panzer III to be the tank fighter, but their roles were switched.

Freiwillige, The T-34 was designed for the terrain it fought on, it had a wide stance, with wide tracks, as well as the fact they put the turret right in its center of gravity to keep it from nosing or tailing into the mud. a very efficient and, I think someone here said it, ambitious design.

The Germans didn't fare well in the mud of Russia simply because it was a war that Hitler didn't think of fighting back when the tanks were designed, the Tiger was outright too heavy and even though it had wide tracks it bogged down because the turret was planted ahead of its center of gravity.

but we aren't talking about the Tiger, are we?

Frinik, the T-34/76 you speak of, the commander had to be the GUNNER, not the loader. I prefer it because instead of having someone else calling targets for me to shoot at, or me having to trust someone else to shoot, I can do both! But, I'm basing my experience off of simulation and thus, I'm sure its more efficient to have gunner and commander separate.

but, frinik, I have to agree with your post. you said basically what I would have said.
__________________
Cold Waters Voice Crew - Fire Control Officer
Cmdr O. Myers - C/O USS Nautilus (SS-168)
114,000 tons sunk - 4 Spec Ops completed
V-boat Nutcase - Need supplies? Japanese garrison on a small island in the way? Just give us a call! D4C!
Sledgehammer427 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-11, 03:44 PM   #6
Freiwillige
The Old Man
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Phx. Az
Posts: 1,458
Downloads: 24
Uploads: 0
Default

Having the commander be the gunner is a terrible idea, First off who's watching out for other forces? If your head is in your gun sight you lose perspective of the bigger picture quickly.

Also I respectfully have to disagree with you on the Tiger that were not talking about. Everything I have ever read is that it was a dream to drive for a world war two tank and its wide tracks gave it a very light ground pressure. The only real negative I have read was that the interleaved wheels would get mud built up and that mud would freeze over night and the next day they would have a pillbox!

But neither snow nor mud nor sand was much of an issue for der Tiger.

I have a book about the Tiger I will have to dig out and reference but it discusses in detail the luxury like ride and amazing cross country mobility for a 57 ton tank.

Also the sights were so good infact that the British were able to do this according to a Wikipedia article~
"The Tiger's gun had a very flat trajectory and extremely accurate Leitz Turmzielfernrohr TZF 9b sights (later replaced by the monocular TZF 9c). In British wartime firing trials, five successive hits were scored on a 16 by 18 in (410 by 460 mm) target at a range of 1,200 yards (1,100 m)."

The same article states that the Tigers wide tracks and interleaved road wheel gave it less ground pressure than both the Sherman and the T-34!

Based on gunsights alone I would be curious to know what the Panzer IV uses?
Freiwillige is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-11, 09:34 PM   #7
frinik
Grey Wolf
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 897
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Default PzIV, Sherman, T34

Freiwillige I like how you sorted that out and your reasoning behind it, Very logical and I almost outright want to agree with you except you forgot one variable The Sherman Firefly!

Also I was reading that the first few years T-34's had terrible reliability. One unit had to move 3oo kilometers and lost half of its vehicles to breakdowns!

Also I know that T-34's didn't have radios in their tanks early on, the commander had flags he would wave for formation changes etc.

I took all the flaws of the T34/76 into account which is why I put it in 5th position.

Yes the T34/76 was a revolutionary design as CCIP pointed out but revolutionary does not necessarily mean the best.The Messerschmitt ME 262 Schwalbe and ME163 Komet were also revolutionary designs but their teething problems and flaws were such that they were not terribly effective and older and more classical designs produced in large qunatities won the day...In the case of the Soviets they were ucky to have the chance to design a better second model the T34/85 which combined both solid improvements and large production numbers.I personally think the Panther was a much better tank overall than the T34/85 and had it not been produced in insufficient numbers and direly affected by the lack of fuel it would have carried the battlefield.

I took the Firefly into account in my rating but it was only one of the variants and not produced in large quantities.

The Tigers (both I and II) were legends and formidable machine much more agile than what people think but they had 2 basic flaws;

1) too complicated to produce( less than 1900 of both variants were made partly due to the disruption in production due to heavy Allies bombings it's true) which led to slow production rate and required frequent and time-consuming maintenance and repairs.

2) overweight and mechanically fragile;their excessive weight led to frequent transmission and suspension breakdowns and excessive fuel consumption a definite con for a fuel-poor country like Germany.The Tiger II at 68 tons weighs more than modern tanks such as the Leopard A6, the Abrams, Challenger 2 or the Leclerc not too mention the Russian equivalents!Krupp was planning a Klein Tiger weighing only 33 tons but the end of the war put an end to that project.

The Sherman for all its imperfections did what it was designed to do.It reflects very much the practical American mind; easy to produce , maintenance light and reliable.Swamp them with numbers!(that and air supremacy did the job).

All 3 contenders were designed initially for infantry support but had thei role changed as the nature of war evolved and changed.

Sledge the T34 could clock up to 63 kph on the road.The Sherman up to 48 if I remember correctly and the Panzer IV up to 45.But tanks are not race cars and faster means aldso more wear and tear on the engine and transmission and high fuel consumption.

one major flaw of the T34/85 which most Soviet tanks shared; a very low AP complement; it had only 14 AP rounds against 35 to 37 for the Panzer IV ( ausf. F onwards), 60 for the Tiger I and 43 approx for both Panthers and Tiger II.It meant the Sov tank commanders and gunners could not afford to make too many mistakes...

Last edited by frinik; 03-19-11 at 09:45 PM.
frinik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-11, 05:19 AM   #8
L.T
Torpedoman
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Denmark
Posts: 112
Downloads: 25
Uploads: 0
Default

Im a lucky one who have driven two of them and been sitting in the 3rd of them

In 95 i was on MBT training in a Area close to münster "bergen" and sat in the Pnz IV at the museum

In poland i was lucky to drive a T-34-85 when i was in millitary training in 96.

in 98 i had the chanse to dríve a Sherman in the US who was privatly owned by the father of a US soldier i got friends with in Bosnia.

Im not going to speak about armour or guns, just the crew side of things.

T-34-85 is a tractor on tracks, if not carefull the driver will wreck hes head doing ofroad driving at speed. The tank it self is small and when you look around in it you feel that this is made for direct combat. Its an awsome driving machine especialy of road, on road it feels sluggish and from what they told me it actualy tends to over heat. Its engine needs to be worked hard. Its not made for any small bit of crew comfort, and since its only the turret they did major changes to, the all ready small interior was getting filled up with radio gear etc that there realy isnt room for.

As a tank its impressive, werry simple, werry good off road driving and a gun that did the job. As a crew member, i wouldnt want to be in one of them..

Sherman (cant remember model)

Feels way different that the T-34-85. Drivers location is up high, but in combat you might feel abit exposed. Inside there is way more room, and the layout of it is easy to understand. Deffently no need for 6 months training to operate one. But my isue with it is that you dont feel safe. It drives decent, not the same terrain eater is the T-34, but it does it good. The narrow tracks compairing with the T-34 makes you kinda concerned driving in water or deep mud. I know it might sounds wierd, but i felt as safe in a Sherman as i did in a M113 APC.

Sherman is a decent tank. You have an average base, with average performance, good crew comfort compairing with the T-38, and an average gun (compairing it with German or Russian latewar Guns)

PNZ IV

Didnt drive it only sat in it and atleast back then it was not restored 100% inside(dont know if it is now) Sitting in it it feels more tank like, you do feel that you sit in an Iron coffin. There is no doubt that it was createt with efficiency in mind. It can be hard to figure out everything on it, but with training it feels more crew friendly than both the T-34 and the Sherman. All stations are effective in layout, every bit and bobs are placed for a reson, and there is nothing realy out of place. Driver have pretty good space and easy controlls radio operator Ball MG have almost the same space and i do understand the almost identikle layout on most of the German tanks atleast when it comes to driver/radio.

The best tank would be one

T-35-85 chassis
Panzer IV crew positions (layout)
Sherman turret
Russian 85mm gun
Russian engine
Sherman transmission
German sights (main gun)
German MG`s

ps.
About the front MG on the Panzer IV. I kinda had a laugh about it, but the tank i sat in had no way of disposal of the empty casings. I noticed 4 racks for ammo boxes around 250 rounds in each, that is 1000 empty casings on the floor of the radio operator. I know the front MG could have up to 2500 rounds stored. Down at the floor there is a wire canal for the wires to electrical stuf, its not closed all the way and will fit a casing. I could suspect that sometimes the hot casings doing prolonged firering could burn over some of the electrical wires or atleast burn over the insulation, causing electrical shortouts....I know both the MG34 and the MG42 had casing bags you could mount on the MG but there is not much room to have it and i realy dont think they would use it since it only carrys around 150 rounds and emptying it in combat would cause 10 secs with out protective fire from the MG...

**pps**
panzer 4 sight

Tanks Pz.lV originally equipped with monocular telescopic sight TZF 5b, but starting with Ausf.E-TZF 5f or TZF 5f / 1. These sights were 2.5-fold increase. MG 34 machine gun equipped with 1.8-fold telescopic sight KZF 2.

nice panzer IV arthicle
http://quazen.com/shopping/medium-ta...-construction/

Last edited by L.T; 03-20-11 at 05:39 AM.
L.T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-11, 11:18 AM   #9
Sledgehammer427
PacWagon
 
Sledgehammer427's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Drinking coffee and staring at trees in Massachusetts
Posts: 2,901
Downloads: 280
Uploads: 0
Default

Wow!
Thanks for the insight L.T.!

You know, the T-34 comes off to me as a tank you just beat the crap out of. It just seems to be a tank that is asking to be driven hard.
__________________
Cold Waters Voice Crew - Fire Control Officer
Cmdr O. Myers - C/O USS Nautilus (SS-168)
114,000 tons sunk - 4 Spec Ops completed
V-boat Nutcase - Need supplies? Japanese garrison on a small island in the way? Just give us a call! D4C!
Sledgehammer427 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-11, 12:59 PM   #10
Freiwillige
The Old Man
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Phx. Az
Posts: 1,458
Downloads: 24
Uploads: 0
Default

I don't know if I would choose the Russian 85mm gun over the German 7.5 cm KwK 40 L/48

IKnow it's larger but I have heard that the Soviets had to make that choice to match the German's in technological superiority of tank round design.

www.tarrif.net has some great insight into these guns and their armor penetration.
Freiwillige is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-11, 01:30 PM   #11
L.T
Torpedoman
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Denmark
Posts: 112
Downloads: 25
Uploads: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freiwillige View Post
I don't know if I would choose the Russian 85mm gun over the German 7.5 cm KwK 40 L/48

IKnow it's larger but I have heard that the Soviets had to make that choice to match the German's in technological superiority of tank round design.

www.tarrif.net has some great insight into these guns and their armor penetration.
didnt want to get into the gun/armour thing just wantet to explain it from a former RL tankers perspective on crew stuf

About guns i think its hard unless you look at pure tank destroyers. The HE round from the 85 do pack a better punch to assist infantry, but do lack abit penetrating power, its all about what you need/want....

To make sure i dont come out Russian biassed my favorite tank is not realy a tank, but my favorite one is the jagdpanther with the stug G right after....lol....back in ww2 online i was a pure stug G driver lol...
L.T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-11, 01:58 PM   #12
Freiwillige
The Old Man
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Phx. Az
Posts: 1,458
Downloads: 24
Uploads: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by L.T View Post
didnt want to get into the gun/armour thing just wantet to explain it from a former RL tankers perspective on crew stuf

About guns i think its hard unless you look at pure tank destroyers. The HE round from the 85 do pack a better punch to assist infantry, but do lack abit penetrating power, its all about what you need/want....

To make sure i dont come out Russian biassed my favorite tank is not realy a tank, but my favorite one is the jagdpanther with the stug G right after....lol....back in ww2 online i was a pure stug G driver lol...
Yes I have a fondness for the Ol' Stug as well.

Last time I played WWII online it was only early war and Panzer III short barrels and Cz-38's vs CharB1's that no matter what you couldn't kill!
Freiwillige is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2024 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.