German T-34?

[usertron2020]

Huh?

Better armor? They were about the same. The M4 had better mobility than the Pz IV, but the Panther and Tiger actually had better mobility than the M4.

??? If they had better mobility then how could M4s (as a group) ever be able to maneuver around them to nail their rear armor?

 

[Deleted member 1487]

??? If they had better mobility then how could M4s (as a group) ever be able to maneuver around them to nail their rear armor?

By other M4s distracting it and using terrain to hide their maneuvers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman#Mobility

However, while this may have held true compared with the first generation German tanks such as the Panzer III and Panzer IV, comparative testing with the second generation German tanks (Panther and Tiger) conducted by the Germans at their Kummersdorf testing facility, as well as by the U.S. 2nd Armored Division, proved otherwise, possibly hinting at the complex overlapped and interleaved Schachtellaufwerk road wheel system used on the Panther and Tiger I, and the simpler overlapping all-steel, internally sprung road wheels of the heavier King Tiger German tanks.
Lieutenant Colonel Wilson M. Hawkins of the 2nd AD wrote the following comparing the US M4 Sherman and German Panther in a report to Allied headquarters:

It has been claimed that our tank is the more maneuverable. In recent tests we put a captured German Mark V [Panther] against all models of our own. The German tank was the faster, both across country and on the highway and could make sharper turns. It was also the better hill climber.[95]
​

This was backed up in an interview with Technical Sergeant Willard D. May of the 2nd AD who commented:

I have taken instructions on the Mark V [Panther] and have found, first, it is easily as maneuverable as the Sherman; second the flotation (ability to avoid bogging down) exceeds that of the Sherman.[95]
​

Staff Sergeant and Tank Platoon Sergeant Charles A. Carden completes the comparison in his report:

The Mark V [Panther] and VI [Tiger] in my opinion have more maneuverability and certainly more flotation. I have seen in many cases where the Mark V and VI tanks could maneuver nicely over ground where the M4 would bog down. On one occasion I saw at least 10 Royal Tigers [Tiger II] make a counter attack against us over ground that for us was nearly impassable.[95]
​

U.S. crews found that on soft ground such as mud or snow, the narrow tracks gave poor (i.e., high) ground pressure compared to wide-tracked second-generation German tanks such as the Panther and the Tiger — these two tanks used the so-called Schachtellaufwerk overlapping, and interleaved roadwheel suspension system pioneered on German half-track vehicles before World War II, but which were troublesome in both muddy road and bad winter weather conditions and when repairs were needed. Soviet experiences were similar, and tracks were modified to give better grip in the snow. The U.S. Army issued extended end connectors, "grousers" or "duckbills" to add width to the standard tracks as a stopgap solution. Duckbills began to reach front-line tank battalions in July 1944, and were original factory equipment for the heavy M4A3E2 Jumbo to compensate for the extra weight of armor. The M4A3E8 "Easy Eight" Shermans and other late models with wider-tracked HVSS suspension and twinned road wheels on each axle — rather than the single road wheel of the VVSS suspension designs — corrected these problems but formed only a small proportion of the tanks in service even in 1945.

 

[Andras]

re faster Panthers, In late '44 (from sept/oct) production Panthers had the output of the engine lowered for better reliability so they were restricted to 28mph, meanwhile the M4A3s with Ford GAAs could, and almost always did, have their governors wired shut which allowed them to rev to 3800rpm and hit 34mph. So while the Panther was faster in the summer of 44, after autumn the M4A3s could be faster depending on terrain.

 

[marathag]

U.S. crews found that on soft ground such as mud or snow, the narrow tracks gave poor (i.e., high) ground pressure compared to wide-tracked second-generation German tanks such as the Panther and the Tiger — these two tanks used the so-called Schachtellaufwerk overlapping, and interleaved roadwheel suspension system pioneered on German half-track vehicles before World War II, but which were troublesome in both muddy road and bad winter weather conditions and when repairs were needed.

By other M4s distracting it and using terrain to hide their maneuvers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman#Mobility

https://www.youtube.com/v/SmXEly5_u38

Shows the difference between average and maximum ground pressure

That said, the Germans complained in Italy that Shermans were going where the Panzers couldn't go.

The big Cats had great tactical mobility

Terrible Strategic mobility

 

[sonofpegasus]

The Abilty of the British Churchill tank to climb mountaons like a goat was one of it's saving graces and why so much effort was expended in doing the field modification to fit the US 75mm gun into the turret. This conversion was known as the 'Churchill NA75 ' IIRC this conversion carried out in the base dpot workshops set up in North Africa was only used in Itally for infantry support in the mountain capaign. Once the Ordinance QF75 became available as a strait swap for the 6 pounder this conversion became unnecesary.

 

[fastmongrel]

Shermans had rubber block tracks which were excellent on roads and hard packed sand or frozen ground but were less good on soft ground. Everyone else used Magnesium Steel for the tracks and there are descriptions of British tanks sliding all over wet icy roads in NW Europe.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

https://www.youtube.com/v/SmXEly5_u38

Shows the difference between average and maximum ground pressure

That said, the Germans complained in Italy that Shermans were going where the Panzers couldn't go.

The big Cats had great tactical mobility

Terrible Strategic mobility

Panzers sure, as the article mentions, but I think that was Pz IVs. Not sure how many Panthers or Tigers were in Italy.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

Panzers sure, as the article mentions, but I think that was Pz IVs. Not sure how many Panthers or Tigers were in Italy.

A battalion of Tigers in 1943, usually badly understrength. A demonstration battalion of Panthers was sent very late in the year. At least one of those was captured circa Dec 1943. At least one other Panther battalion was establsihed in early 1944. By summer these independant Panther battalions were incoporated into the tank divisions. The German counter attacks on the plains around Anzio used a lot of tanks including Panthers.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

A battalion of Tigers in 1943, usually badly understrength. A demonstration battalion of Panthers was sent very late in the year. At least one of those was captured circa Dec 1943. At least one other Panther battalion was establsihed in early 1944. By summer these independant Panther battalions were incoporated into the tank divisions. The German counter attacks on the plains around Anzio used a lot of tanks including Panthers.

So the majority were not the cats?

 

[marathag]

A battalion of Tigers in 1943, usually badly understrength. A demonstration battalion of Panthers was sent very late in the year. At least one of those was captured circa Dec 1943. At least one other Panther battalion was establsihed in early 1944. By summer these independant Panther battalions were incoporated into the tank divisions. The German counter attacks on the plains around Anzio used a lot of tanks including Panthers.

Hermann Göring Division had some Panthers before they went to the Eastern Front in July 1944