Sherman Tank frustration & strategies?

[Blackcloud6]

The 75mm Sherman was an excellent infantry support tank as the gun had a high rate of fire and the shell had a high amount of HE. The gun was really the famous French 75 Field Gun modified and turned sideways to fit in the Sherman turret. The Army proposed to cease production of 75mm gun tanks in mid to late 1944 and go only with those that had the long 76mm M3 gun. But the infantry commanders in the ETO protested strongly so both gunned versions of the Sherman remained in production tho the end of the war.

BTW, in the Pacific, the Sherman reigned supreme because of its most important aspect: strategic mobility coupled with high readiness rate in very austere environments.

[JayTownsend]

Yeah and the Japanese had very weak protected armor with the exception of some newer tank models the Japanese kept on the home island, like the Type 3s & Type 4s. I hope AP does a 1945-46 Japanese Homeland Invasion: Operation Olympic & Operation Coronet.

[campsawyer]

The Firefly was originally undervalued in Beyond Normandy but the 8 range might be a bit high as German optics were superior.

I would agree 8 is too high, I am thinking 7-7 is better. As the 17pdr was slightly better than the 76mm but not as good as the 88mm of the Germans. I also believe the Panthers 75mm is slightly overrated making it 8-8 it is the same as the 88mm 7-8 would be better. It still gives the range that the everyone is talking about.

[Poor Yorek]

I would agree 8 is too high, I am thinking 7-7 is better. As the 17pdr was slightly better than the 76mm but not as good as the 88mm of the Germans. I also believe the Panthers 75mm is slightly overrated making it 8-8 it is the same as the 88mm 7-8 would be better. It still gives the range that the everyone is talking about.

Source: Panzertruppen: The Complete Guide to the Creation & Combat Employment of Germany's Tank Force: 1943-1945, Thomas L. Jentz ed., Schiffer Military History, Arglen PA

Data in Appendix D on penetration of tank guns shows that the 7.5 cm Kw.K. 42 L/70 performed slightly better than the 8.8 cm Kw.K. 36 L/56 for both the Pzgr 39 and Pzgr. 40 ammunition out to ranges of 1500m (at 2000m the performance was probably within the margin of error being only 4mm different). Granted there are other issues involved such as trajectory (probably favoring the Panther as its gun produced a higher muzzle velocity (1120 for Pzgr 40) than the Tiger I's (930 for Pzgr 40) and optical suite; stability of the chassis and so forth, but based on these data for gun/ammunition penetration there is no basis for the Panther's gun to be rated lower than that of the Tiger (Ausf E.). Interestingly, the 8.8cm Kw.K. 43 L/71 of the Tiger II achieved an 1130 muzzle velocity with the corresponding ammunition, but due to the larger/heavier shot achieved much higher penetration values as reflected in the 11 AT factor in PG.

Regarding the Firefly, the work by Jarymowycz I cited in a previous post above (Stackpole Military History Series) states that "A 17-pounder firing armor-piercing self-discarding sabot could defeat a Tiger in a frontal engagement at ranges of 1700 to 1900 yards" (p. 262). This was not true of the HEAT round variant. The Osprey Duel series "Sherman Firefly vs. Tiger" has some further discussion, particularly a good picture on p. 23 of the differing ammunition types employed.

[campsawyer]

I would agree 8 is too high, I am thinking 7-7 is better. As the 17pdr was slightly better than the 76mm but not as good as the 88mm of the Germans. I also believe the Panthers 75mm is slightly overrated making it 8-8 it is the same as the 88mm 7-8 would be better. It still gives the range that the everyone is talking about.

Source: Panzertruppen: The Complete Guide to the Creation & Combat Employment of Germany's Tank Force: 1943-1945, Thomas L. Jentz ed., Schiffer Military History, Arglen PA

Data in Appendix D on penetration of tank guns shows that the 7.5 cm Kw.K. 42 L/70 performed slightly better than the 8.8 cm Kw.K. 36 L/56 for both the Pzgr 39 and Pzgr. 40 ammunition out to ranges of 1500m (at 2000m the performance was probably within the margin of error being only 4mm different). Granted there are other issues involved such as trajectory (probably favoring the Panther as its gun produced a higher muzzle velocity (1120 for Pzgr 40) than the Tiger I's (930 for Pzgr 40) and optical suite; stability of the chassis and so forth, but based on these data for gun/ammunition penetration there is no basis for the Panther's gun to be rated lower than that of the Tiger (Ausf E.). Interestingly, the 8.8cm Kw.K. 43 L/71 of the Tiger II achieved an 1130 muzzle velocity with the corresponding ammunition, but due to the larger/heavier shot achieved much higher penetration values as reflected in the 11 AT factor in PG.

Regarding the Firefly, the work by Jarymowycz I cited in a previous post above (Stackpole Military History Series) states that "A 17-pounder firing armor-piercing self-discarding sabot could defeat a Tiger in a frontal engagement at ranges of 1700 to 1900 yards" (p. 262). This was not true of the HEAT round variant. The Osprey Duel series "Sherman Firefly vs. Tiger" has some further discussion, particularly a good picture on p. 23 of the differing ammunition types employed.

Late night typing and vacation = typos.

Thank Poor, my post meant to say, I also believe the 88mm is slightly overrated making it 8-8 it is the same as the Panthers 75mm, 7-8 would be better.

With regard to the Firefly, ammo makes a difference, but there is no accounting for that in PG. If so you could have 57mm taking out Tiger I's by the end of the war.

[JayTownsend]

As Poor stated, things really start to change toward the end of the war, depending on differing ammunition types employed. I remember reading some Shermans had it and some didn't, some only had a few rounds and saved them for engagements with heavy German armor when they could. Sorry, I can't remember where I read this?

But for PG, I don't think it would have effected game play too much, as it was kind of late in the war. If AP wanted to, they could create a scenario or two with a special scenario rule for newer AT types of ammo. Not sure it's worth it however?

[Michael Murphy]

That would bit a bid too fiddly for me. If I wanted that kind of detail I'd play some ASL.

[JayTownsend]

No, I agree with you Michael, I was just talking about one or two scenarios just to mess around with but personally, I don't care if that ever happens.

[Poor Yorek]

I also believe the 88mm is slightly overrated making it 8-8 it is the same as the Panthers 75mm, 7-8 would be better.

I am curious why you believe this - do you have supporting data? For example, the same appendix from the Panzer Truppen volume reports the L/70 penetration values compared to the L/43 and L/48 (curiously treated as a single row) as being 150mm and 87mm respectively at 1000m using Pzgr 40 ammunition. So the L/70 gun's performance, particularly at 1000m+ is significantly improved. I am only citing one source, so I am certainly interested if you have contrary supporting data.

Of course, this is predicated on internal consistency in PG ... but if one is satisfied with 5-8 and 6-8 ratings for the German PzIVF2 and PzIVH (with the 75mm L/43 and L/48 respectively) then it would seem that an 8-8 rating for the Panther is reasonably justified by the data presented in this one work.