"Sherman 75mm gun knock out a Tiger 1,Panzer 4 model “H” " Topic

Can you explain what your thinking is here?

Quite simple. I don't believe they lost that many during that period. I think the total includes tanks that were lost earlier and finally written off during that period.
So it seems to me comparing allied vs German losses for a specific period is almost impossible. If you look at German returns runners plus those in short term repair probably gives you a reasonably accurate total over a period of time, but even then it is impossible to know how many of those in long term repair were eventually written off. For allied losses if you take casualties on a given day ie those needing longer than 24 hours to repair you over estimate, but if you use write offs you likely under estimate as some of those write offs might not be declared until several months later.

It looks like he is using the total losses for 1945 in which case it is 120+ days.

No he quotes losses from 1st February to 30th June 1945. I assume the Brits didn't lose many tanks after 7th May when the Germans surrendered so we are talking 96 days in total. Loses upto 31st January are included in the previous total. Check Zaloga if you don't believe me.

Not the fixed ones that I mentioned. They (the majority) were not going anywhere

And you think those caused significant numbers of allied tank casualties? Isn't that rather negligent to let a fixed position shoot up your tanks, rather than taking it out with artillery, air strikes or simply bypassing it altogether?

Coox and Naisawald of the US Operations Research Office (Johns Hopkins University) undertook, at the instruction of the US Army, a major study of Allied tank casualties in WW2. There is a great deal of value to be found in their work, but one important point made by the authors was that the records were so incomplete and fragmentary as to preclude any confident assessment of total tank casualties suffered by the Allies.

It was written in the 1950s and used info from War Diaries and AARs and they simply do not have the information about total losses. They count tank casualties rather than losses. Its a guide not a record

mkenny wrote – "It was written in the 1950s and used info from War Diaries and AARs and they simply do not have the information about total losses. They count tank casualties rather than losses. Its a guide not a record".

Good Lord – With all due respect, your above response is a complete misrepresentation of the document and calls into question the reliability of any of your other posts.

B

It was written in the 1950s
Tell me what is the date of Truth?

For example how do you explain the 4,000+ losses to 30th June 1945 as documented by Zaloga and Napier? Virtually all German armour went east in January 1945, leaving only a couple of hundred left and there were no large armour battles and yet the losses are 3 times that for the Normandy campaign.

So the explanation comes from some combination of a few possible directions:

1) The percentage of "uber panzer" tanks kept in the west had relatively little impact on allied tank losses. That Panthers and Tigers didn't have much total net effect on Shermans as the allies fought their way into Germany.

2) The numbers are being misunderstood, and consequently misapplied, by people who do not understand that the numbers in the reports are NOT the numbers they are interpreting them to be. That the reporting mechanisms generated different information than what they are looking to read from the reports. That reports describe tank write-offs at the depot level, while some people are interpreting those write-offs as combat "kills".

3) The numbers are being conflated by someone (or someones) who DO understand that the numbers in the reports are NOT the numbers they are trying to make them out to be, but who are so emotionally committed to proving their point that they care not a bit about what the numbers represent, but only how they can use (and misuse) them.

4) The numbers were hidden away by a vast conspiracy of hundreds, no thousands, of clerks, administrators, librarians and historians over a period of 50 years, who never met, saw or so much as heard of each other, as they processed and forwarded and sorted and collated the all-important tank loss numbers among the many thousands of other items they were tracking and reporting and collating and researching. Because, you know, Corporal O'Reilly was obsessed with coordinating how to hide the loss rate of Shermans in Longeville in 1944 with Marianne the Archivist in Gaithesburg in 1978 and Harry, before he posted to AHS from his home in DC in 2008.

I'm betting it was a little bit of 2. I might wish, but I'm afraid I'm not much convinced, that it was not too much of 3. I'm pretty confident there isn't any realistic path that it could be 4.

And that leaves, as possibly the dominant explanation … 1 !

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

Good Lord – With all due respect, your above response is a complete misrepresentation of the document and calls into question the reliability of any of your other posts

Does it?
I spent years trying to get a copy of that report going so far as to contact Naisawald but even he could not help. When I got it I thought I had the answer to everything but the deeper I looked the more general I found the numbers. Its a good overview but does not have the detail I would have liked. For certain the numbers on Commonwealth losses were lifted from The War Diaries and they were not written to be detailed listing of losses.

That reports describe tank write-offs at the depot level, while some people are interpreting those write-offs as combat "kills".

What figure would you consider represents tank kills better? mkenny considers that the daily strike offs from unit reports to be an inaccurate representation as it includes tank subsequently repaired and returned to combat. Tanks written off at whatever level would seem to come as close as you are you going to get to a figure for combat kills.

That Panthers and Tigers didn't have much total net effect on Shermans as the allies fought their way into Germany.

Hmmm! Except it wasn't just the tanks that went east. The Germans were running short of everything and for much of the period German soldiers seemed more interested in surrendering to the first allied soldiers they encountered rather than putting up much of a fight. At least that is what I have read.

The numbers are being misunderstood, and consequently misapplied, by people who do not understand that the numbers in the reports are NOT the numbers they are interpreting them to be.

The figures come from Zaloga. I suppose he could be deliberately trying to mislead us, but I think that unlikely.

The numbers were hidden away by a vast conspiracy of hundreds, no thousands, of clerks, administrators, librarians and historians over a period of 50 years, who never met, saw or so much as heard of each other, as they processed and forwarded and sorted and collated the all-important tank loss numbers among the many thousands of other items they were tracking and reporting and collating and researching.

Now you are just being daft! I don't think anyone has suggested a vast conspiracy theory.

There is a 5th possibility that seems, to me, the most likely. The figures include a significant proportion of tanks that sustained combat damage during an earlier period and with the fighting winding down and less pressure to get tanks that could be repaired relatively quickly back into action they started working their way through the backlog of damaged tanks needing extensive repairs and started writing them off.

Quick sanity check … a few points in order here re the poor US tankers who got slaughtered in their Death Trap Sherman's.

1. Interesting that so far nobody has been able to support the 3 or 4-1 loss ratio with other than one off events like Villers Bocage. (If I missed a post with that Hard Data, my apologies)

2. While the 76mm Sherman was not the equal of the Panther, it was better than the 75mm at least for tank dueling. And IIRC the US built as many or more of them than the Germans built Panthers. The US built more 90mm TD than the Germans built Tiger I's. Throw in Assault Sherman's (105mm howitzers) and Jumbos and a few Pershings and it's obvious it wasnt just the 75mm version versus the Uber Panzers.

3. The King Tiger. I can think of only one battle where they played a major role when they slammed the door on XXX Corps at Elst during Market Garden. Cant recall a battle during the Bulge where they crushed the Death Traps. But maybe I'm missing a battle or two?

4. Villers Bocage is often held up as the quintessential Uber Panzer victory. I'll counter with Arracourt. Seems the Death Traps gave the Uber Panzers a real run for their money. There are always exceptions to the rule and in my experience gamers always want to game the exceptions).

My point is this, aside from anecdotal stories of tankers complaining about their Death Traps (just like Wildcat pilots complained about Jap Zeros … troops always complain about being outmatched) and a few legendary battles like Villers Bocage, where is the hard emperical evidence that the US lost 3 or 4 Death Traps to every German Uber Panzer?

And dont muddy the waters with "many German tanks were abandoned or blown up by their crews" lost is lost. That's like the absurd German argument that "we scuttled the Bismarck you didnt sink it". Dudes! Is it on the bottom of the ocean or not??

QED. Cheers!

For example how do you explain the 4,000+ losses to 30th June 1945 as documented by Zaloga and Napier? Virtually all German armour went east in January 1945, leaving only a couple of hundred left and there were no large armour battles and yet the losses are 3 times that for the Normandy campaign.

1. Those old men and boys put up quite a fight. Like everywhere on the west front there was a Battle for Berlin.

Fred's #5.
2. The urgency of repairing damaged tanks and other vehicles just went out of the Army. On VE day the work shops went through their inventory of damaged tanks and wrote off any and all that would keep their men in theater any longer than a few days. Probably any that were scratched.

"And dont muddy the waters with "many German tanks were abandoned or blown up by their crews" lost is lost. That's like the absurd German argument that "we scuttled the Bismarck you didnt sink it". Dudes! Is it on the bottom of the ocean or not??"

….. Maybe not so "absurd". A great deal depends upon exactly what one is trying to measure.

B

mkenny wrote – "Its a good overview but does not have the detail I would have liked."

I'm sure Coox and Naisawald felt similarly when they put their pens down. But an examination of their bibliography and the introductory remarks wherein cooperating parties are identified shows that their investigations went far beyond simply unit battle reports and war diaries.

These sorts of investigations (IMO) are in no way akin to a simple accounting exercise; they far more resemble a cold case crime investigation, in which the evidence is spotty, uncertain or perhaps altogether absent.

Taking the topic one step further, consider the current, consider the current furor between Krivosheev and Kavalerchik (both Russians) over Soviet war casualties and Soviet versus German combat "exchange ratios". No one has ever excused Soviet bureaucracy of a lack of documentation. Yet, where Krivosheev asserts an exchange ratio between 1.3:1 and 1.1:1 (depending upon which edition of his work one consults), Kavalerchik stands upon an overall value of 2.5:1 over the course of the Eastern Front campaign. Who's right? Who's wrong? Who made a mistake? Who's lying? None of this is straightforward.

B

A weapon is only as good as the crew manning it. But I think all things being equal if a standard M4 with a 75mm met a Pz. V, VIa or b. One on one the Sherman would generally be at a disadvantage, so to speak. Until it closed the range and got flank or rear shots.

However, it seems the US 76mm or UK 17lber mounted on the M4. Would stand a "better chance" with it's larger, higher velocity main cannon.

I really question whether any useful calculation can be possible now, 70+ years after the fact.

And that's the truth !

(If I missed a post with that Hard Data, my apologies)

Almost impossible to get reliable hard data on tank losses. If you have been following the discussion you will see that comparing German and allied losses because of the different ways they were counted is problematical. German units wrote off tanks at the unit level and some would remain on the unit counts as in long term repair that were ultimately written off, but you can get a rough estimate from the numbers of runners and those in short term repair. Allied units were different and non runners that couldn't be repaired in 24 hours were struck from the unit register and moved to repair depots. If you take figures from units of daily losses that is artificially high as some of those tanks would be repaired and returned. If you use the figures for write offs at depot level it is difficult to know how many were lost over a given period as tanks might remain several weeks or months at a depot before being written off. If you use numbers for claims of enemy tanks killed they are generally widely inaccurate. I would agree that using anecdotal evidence from a small number of actions such as Villers-Bocage, Barkmann's Corner or Arracourt are not a good guide as they are well known and remembered because they are unusual, not typical. All of that means you can chose the evidence you want to prove the point you are trying to make.

Quick sanity check … a few points in order here re the poor US tankers who got slaughtered in their Death Trap Sherman's.

And here is a sanity check for you. Much is made of the M4's 75mm HE round, but what hard evidence is there that the Panthers 75mm round was ineffective? What evidence is there that the M4's HE round was key to winning a battle? And I don't just want the tankers liked it and preffered to keep the 75mm as most didn't know any different.

Fred,

I've never been able to get German AAR's regarding their Panther HE rounds. I wouldn't say it was "ineffective".

Panther 75 Sprgr 42 HE – 1.4 pounds filler, MV 700
Sherman 75 HE – 1.9 pounds filler, MV 750

The Sherman had about 30% more HE but I think the HE filler the Germans used may have been a little more powerful. Both have the same MV so same trajectory against point targets like infantry and AT guns. The Sherman HE had a delay fuse of 0.05 seconds which allowed and a ricochet air burst aiming 50m in front of a target. The Panther delay fuse was 0.15 seconds and not effective for an air burst because it went too high. I'm not sure which one had a more effective fragmentation pattern.

Not mentioned is the Sherman 75 use of WP and canister, the Panther did not have those rounds. Even though the Sherman gun stabilizer was not very effective and hard to use it was useful in an attack to fire HE into a tree line while moving for air bursts. The Sherman also had indirect fire capability. I'm sure the crews liked shooting at the enemy when they could not shoot back. To understand the overall effect you need to evaluate the tactics too.

Wolfhag

Fred, the accounts I've heard are about the 75mm being preferred over the 76mm, not the Panther. Some of the issues were thicker shell casing meant less HE filler and less fragmentation. Also the early models without muzzle brake had a serious muzzle blast issue preventing rapid follow up shots. And the longer gun was an issue in wooded terrain or towns. Or hedgerows. Finally there us some evidence that German gunners single out "long barrel" Shermans.

Not saying a tanker wouldn't want the biggest gun possible, but suggesting there were other considerations as command level increased. I'm sure every American tanker would have loved the Panthers gun if they could have gotten it. When did you ever hear a tanker ask for less armor or a smaller gun???

Re Death Traps everyone in the thread has made excellent points about the difficulty of defining a "kill" and keeping "score". Ny point was that if Shermans really were so outmatched and slaughtered wouldn't you think it could be "proved" with Hard Data?

I'll stick to my guns, pun intended, that the Sherman was a War Winner and that "conventional wisdom" and "20/20 hindsight" not withstanding, the data to prove otherwise are simply not there!

Cheers!

Hi Lee484.
If your intention is to say that the Sherman was a member of the team that won the war, then absolutely fair comment. Without question, it made valuable contributions in areas outside the arena of armored combat circa 1944/1945.

If, on the other hand, you are suggesting that the Sherman tank was responsible for the Allies winning the war (which I trust was not your intention) ……. I cannot go there.

B

Ny point was that if Shermans really were so outmatched and slaughtered wouldn't you think it could be "proved" with Hard Data?

Well Lee if you can find any I would love to see it. There simply isn't the detail in the data to draw many firm conclusions. Operational analysis tells us that the largest cause of tank losses overall was from high velocity guns, but whether they were on tanks, tank destroyers or towed it is impossible to say. To seperate out all the other factors, crew quality, tactical situation, who shot first, numerical disparity etc you would need detail from a large number of battles.

I've heard are about the 75mm being preferred over the 76mm, not the Panther.

Yes, but what is the objective evidence that the 75mm was significantly better than then the 76mm or that the Panthers HE was so bad that it douldn't do the job when needed. The M4's 75mm HE being so superior is the accepted mantra, but if it is indeed the case there should be hard data to support it. You can't have it both ways. If you insist on data that "proves" the Panther was no better than the M4 at tank vs tank combat then there should be an equal standard in support of the M4 HE claims.
As for the crews preferring it well the Brit tankers certainly did, but the 75mm guns in the Grant and Sherman were the first tanks that could fire a useful HE round and at the time they got them were as good as anything against contemporary German tanks, so no wonder they loved them. But the US tankers coming to the ETO had no experience of fighting with the 76mm gun or for the vast majority any experience of fighting German tanks, so the initial rejection of the 76mm has more to do with familiarity. Once German tanks had been encountered enthusiasm for the 76mm gun rapidly increased suggesting that the "superior" HE round of the 75mm was not as great a factor overall.

I'll stick to my guns, pun intended, that the Sherman was a War Winner and that "conventional wisdom" and "20/20 hindsight" not withstanding, the data to prove otherwise are simply not there!

While the data might not be there for WW2 the US Army conducted a more complete study of tank effectiveness in Korea and gathered enough data to judge the effectiveness of the M4A3E8 vs the Pershing and the conclusions as quoted by Zaloga. The study concludes that the Pershing was 3.5 times more effective than the M4, which is interesting in that the Pershing matches the Panther quite closely for armour and firepower. The study has the advantage of both tanks being US Army and thus had same quality crews, same support service, supply etc. It is perhaps an indication of the potential of the Panther design had the Germans been able to get all the other things right, which fortunately for them and us they didn't.

"Yes, but what is the objective evidence that the 75mm was significantly better than then the 76mm "

WO 291/741 Comparison of the performance of 75mm and 76mm tank gun ammunition

The 75mm M48 is longer and heavier than the 76mm M42A1 and has greater capacity. 76mm M42A1 is assumed identical to the 3-inch M42A1. All three use the M48 fuze.

Vulnerable areas against men in the open, in square feet, are given as:

3" or 76mm M42A1 2200 sq ft
75mm M48 2900 sq

lack of HE performance can be compensated for by using more of the less effective shell

(AP tables deleted).

So there you go, 76mm HE is approx 75% as effective as 76mm HE, according to War Office trials.

Interestingly in another WO document, I found that the vulnerable area for a 3 mortar bomb is 6000 sq ft!

So both shells are rather less useful than a mortar, against lightly protect targets anyway.

N4636B Terminal Ballistics data 1944 vol. II

75mm HE shell M48
casualties 60 ft. 640 effective fragments.

3-inch HE shell M42A1
casualties 60 ft. 409 effective fragments.

So there you go the 3-inch/76m HE is 64% as effective as the 75mm.

So both shells are rather less useful than a mortar, against lightly protect targets anyway.

To my reading it is rather typical that a mortar will perform more effectively than an equivalent gun shell against soft targets in the open.

It will have a higher angle of strike, and so produce more even distribution of fragments. It will have thinner shell walls, and so have a higher explosive content and produce smaller (hence more) fragments. And it will strike at a lower velocity, so detonating more clearly above ground and transferring less downward momentum into the fragments it produces.

All in all I would expect to see a mortar's effectiveness about equivalent to the next larger common caliber in guns.

All of that being the case only so long as we are not speaking of dug-in and hard targets.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

Mark,
I think that's a good rule of thumb regarding a mortars effectiveness.

But again, consider the tactics. Many times a light mortar has a direct LOS to the target so no delay and FO needed between barrages. At 500m a good crew can drop three rounds 25m apart and most likely straddle the target on the initial barrage and then correct for the next barrage to be on target. The downside is that it can take 15-25 seconds to arrive depending on range and charges used.

A good tactic is a light mortar and MG team working together in a defensive position. The mortar is ranged in on certain choke points and landmarks. The MG opens up and the target hits the deck to take cover. Seconds later there are 3-4 mortar rounds in the air that are going to be on target. Use WP to get troops out of their trenches and fighting holes.

Wolfhag

Sure some mortar crews can have more than 2,3,4, rounds in the air at one time.

Yes some light mortars may have direct LOS. So they can fire direct as they can see the target.

What figure would you consider represents tank kills better? mkenny considers that the daily strike offs from unit reports to be an inaccurate representation as it includes tank subsequently repaired and returned to combat. Tanks written off at whatever level would seem to come as close as you are you going to get to a figure for combat kills.

The problem comes from how everyone was accounting for them.

The Allied combat units wrote off a tank if they couldn't get it back to full working order in 24hrs. Even if that same tank was then repaired and reissued to them two days later. I mean, as long as the tank didn't burn, the Allied workshop units were usually able to fix it eventually. Any tank that burned was written off entirely because the armor was softened.

So you're going to run into some issues with the numbers not matching up.

You'd need to compare tanks totally written off by the workshop units on the Allied side with the German numbers, and that still won't give you a day-by-day kill total.

Might give you 'lost-for-combat-purposes' numbers useful for wargaming, though!

Not saying a tanker wouldn't want the biggest gun possible, but suggesting there were other considerations as command level increased. I'm sure every American tanker would have loved the Panthers gun if they could have gotten it. When did you ever hear a tanker ask for less armor or a smaller gun???

Actually, Guderian (?IIRC) said that the German tankers in Italy were clamoring for a bigger gun but less armor and better mobility.

I recall reading an account in one of those postwar Vietnam veteran accounts of a 60mm mortar tube without bipod being used by a platoon sergeant in hand-aimed direct fire mode against a MG bunker as if it were a big M79 grenade launcher.

B

I could see that as a mortar is just a big grenade launcher … I know I've heard of SF, etc., using the 60mm in hand-held mode without bipod. And the M79/203 are 40mm so 60mm is not that big a difference. Both are fairly small rounds. However, 81, 4.2, etc., not so much.

But again mortars and FA can be used in the direct fire mode. If you can see the target. And with the shorter range of the 60mm that could probably happen. Even I could fire the Co. 81mms in direct fire mode. And did …

But generally as we know most mortars and FA are fired indirect. However we know thru out modern history, FA has been used at "0 elevation". And fired directly at a target, e.g. like an AFV, structure, etc.

On Okinawa, a mortar team was being charged by a group of Jap infantry from less than 100 yards away. The team started dropping 60mm rounds with no charge. The detonator was basically a 12 gauge shotgun shell that alone would propel the round less than 100 yards in a low trajectory arriving in only a few seconds. They walked the rounds to within 25 yards of their position and stopped the charge.

On Peleliu, the Marines used a shoulder mounted 60mm mortar for direct fire, 2/3 of the way down: link

The recoil was too much to handle.

Wolfhag

Actually, Guderian (?IIRC) said that the German tankers in Italy were clamoring for a bigger gun but less armor and better mobility.

It is in Jentz' Panzertruppen. It is from a report by a Panzer division on the performance of Panzers in Italy. From the date and the unit it seems they are referring to the Panzer IV. Not surprising re the mobility the late PzIV's were at the limit of the chassis. The tank's weight had increased by 6 tons with no upgrade to the power train or suspension.

The recoil was too much to handle.

I don't doubt it !

The recoil was too much to handle.

And yet, the British Army in WW2 issued a shoulder-fired 4-inch mortar as a platoon AT weapon.

Ruddy bonkers, that lot.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

Ruddy bonkers, that lot.

Yes no namby-pamby recoiless weapons for us!

You mean the PIAT ?

You mean the PIAT ?

I do indeed. A shoulder-fired 4-inch mortar. Spigot mortar, so a heavy-weight firing pin rather than a barrel served to guide the projectile until it was moving fast enough for aerodynamic stabilization, but a mortar none-the-less.

In fact, if I'm not mistaken, the PIAT came with directions for how it could be set-up and angled for more typical mortar-fire at longer ranges.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

Hells bells a terrific response but maybe I should have asked the question which Wargames rules better represent the combat interaction between a Sherman armed with a 75mm gun and a Pz IV model H . The reason for posting this question was the difference that I found between the likelihood of a a Sherman armed with a 75mm gun knocking out a late model panzer 4 in the early WRG rules compared to the later version of the rules. No set of rules that I have ever used made the Panzer IV so resilient to a Sherman 75mm gun . As a reminder in the earlier rules a hit on a Panzer 4 under a 1000 meters was a kill in the later rules a 6 was required on the dice. It is true that the earlier rules didn't distinguish all the different versions of the panzer mark lV and in Tunisia the Sherman's had no problems knocking out panzer IVs also someone has mentioned maybe the tankers in 1944 Europe thought they were firing at Tigers because of the extra armour plates the Panzer 4s sported as a defence against Russian anti tank rifles. The early version of the WRG rules were written in part by a few men who actually fought in World War Two some of them in tanks. Imagine a set of Ancient rules written by veterans from the Punic war….doesn't make them experts but to me it deserves consideration. yes the Germans ran out petrol. The tanks broke down and got blew up by aeroplanes , sometimes they got shot at by phosphorus, however what I'm trying to represent on a wargame table is the ability of a basic Sherman to knock a late war Panzer IV and the WRG rules game as a surprise to me, but again thank you for the tremendous response.

Hi Jefthro3 -

See below the text of a message I posted back on page one of this thread –

Go to the CARL digital library site and search for -

Vulnerability Tests of German Tanks
Pzkw III, Pzkw IV, Pzkw VI
19 July 1944

The tabulated test results reflect Mk IV frontal protection as follows -

Angle of attack in all cases cited as 25 degrees.
Range given in yards.
X = no penetration.

Guns – – – – – – – – 76mm – – – – – – 75mm – – – – 57mm
Projectile – – – – M62 / M61 – – M61M3 / M61M2 – – M86

Turret Front – – – 3080/2960 – – – – 1280/840 – – – – 2040
Upper Hull Front – 1740/1520 – – – – – X / X – – – – – X
Lower Hull Front – 1600/1360 – – – – – X / X – – – – – X

Interesting side note – The Pzkw III show a similar nature of protection with respect to turret front vs hull front.

FWIW.

B

- – -

The question to be answered is exactly when the Mk IV (and Mk III for that matter) received the armor enhancements reflected in the above test document. That will require a bit of homework.

I can tell you this: Mk III Model H operating in the Desert Campaign fitted with face-hardened frontal applique plates that would break up and defeat 2-pounder AP frontal hits on the hull and superstructure at more or less all combat ranges.

A book you REALLY want to get (trust me on this!) is "Tank Combat in North Africa" by Thomas Jentz.

B

Well we have wandered rather far afield from the OP in the 4 pages of this thread.

The table in Blut's post gives us the core issue on the late-war Pz IV.

The hull was almost invulnerable to fire from the US 75mm gun. In Blut's table shows it, in fact, as invulnerable. But the information behind that table shows some minor likelyhood of penetration if hit exactly square-on at short range.

But …

The turret was vulnerable at up to 1280 yards.

So the question is, does a given set of rules distinguish between turret hits and hull hits? If yes, then it is easy to model. If no, then you might be satisfied with the "averaging" effect, or not.

The hull is a larger portion of the frontal aspect. Pz IVs have relatively small turrets compared to a lot of other tanks.

But the hull is more likely to be masked by terrain. Many tanks have less armor on the lower hull front, driven in large part by the assumption that at any reasonable combat range at least the first couple of feet of the lower frontal aspect will be masked by something that lies between the shooter and the target. And German tankers were particularly adept at finding and using hull-down positions, it having been a part of their training and doctrine for several years by that time.

So how do you think it should be modeled? Only when you get past the personal preferences can you answer the question of whether a given ruleset models it better or worse.

I like to game at a level where each player runs a force of a company or more, that is modeled at one-to-one vehicle scale (and one-to-squad infantry scale). On the vehicle side that matches WRG's rules. (On the infantry side not so much -- but the vehicles are the topic of this discussion.)

I prefer averaging the defensive capability of each facing. I still want front/side/rear, because that helps drive tactical behavior on the game board to be more like tactical behavior on the battlefield.

But I don't believe that platoon or company commanders were able to control what part of the target was hit by the various guns under their command. At some level (my level, for gaming preferences) whether Corporal Numbnuts shoots well and hits the turret front, shoots super well and puts a round right in the MG mount, shoots not-so-well and hits the hull at it's strongest point, or shoots poorly and misses the danged thing altogether, is an issue for the dice to tell me. So I'll accept the average protection level of the facing.

I think a 6 at close range on a D6 is not right. A 6 on a D10 out to 1,000m I could get with. I might accept a 5 on a D6, but I'd be more content with a 4 on a D6.

As I noted, I don't think I've ever seen a first-hand account of Allied tankers complaining that they couldn't kill Pz IVs. They complained about a lot of stuff -- there is no shortage of accounts of what they did and didn't have trouble with. But killing Pz IVs just doesn't appear on the "b!tch list", from what I've seen.

Your mileage may vary. If you do find a different WW2 Allied tankers b!tch list, I'd love to see it.

Now, as to timing … I am pretty confident that the upgraded hull armor appear on the -IVH and -IVJ models. This takes it out of Tunisia, and places it's starting point in Sicily or the Italian campaigns (and Kursk on the Eastern Front).

An interesting side question for me is the StuG -- which as we all know didn't HAVE a turret. If the hull front was effectively invulnerable, does that mean the StuG was effectively invulnerable? Let us consider that when we speak of the Sherman's 75mm, we might also extend our conclusions to the Russian's 76.2mm gun too (reasonably similar in performance). How do our wargames model this vehicle's resistance to the most common Allied tank guns?

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

I do indeed.

I thought so … thanks !

Hi Jefthro3 -
Another book you might be interested in -

"Tank Battles in Miniature 1 – A Wargamer's Guide to the Western Desert Campaign 1940-1942", by Donald Featherstone

This book dates back to the mid-1970s, but the author served 18 months in North Africa as a member of the Royal Tank Regiment. Mr Featherstone therefore knows whereof he speaks, not only as a noted wargaming authority but also as a real soldier who has heard real guns fired in anger. I do not know how deep you want to dive into this period, but the book provides both great insights and a great deal of real historical flavor.

B

But killing Pz IVs just doesn't appear on the "b!tch list", from what I've seen.

But according to allied tankers a lot of the tanks were Tigers, so maybe they had more problem than is apparent. So Corporal Numbnuts sees a German tank, hits it, it doesn't brew up, must be a Tiger!

But according to allied tankers a lot of the tanks were Tigers, so maybe they had more problem than is apparent. So Corporal Numbnuts sees a German tank, hits it, it doesn't brew up, must be a Tiger!

Tank recognition was poor everywhere. At present I am going through a list of over 120 tank-wrecks (with map co-ordinates) recovered from a small area of the BLUECOAT battlefield by a REME Battlefield Clearance Unit and even they are getting it wrong. Several 6pdr armed Cromwells are listed and a 'Tiger SP' which is from a well-known engagement and is in reality a JagdPanther

Thanks Blutarski, actually read Featherstones Western Desert Campaign book in the 70s and bizarrely picked it up to read last night !
have original copies of the Whole Tank Battles in Miniature series, lots of Nostalgia this is why I keep returning to The 1970s WRG rules pure Nostalgia , like comfort food just wish the later version had kept to the spirit of the first version. , the original set of rules are set out so nicely with good quality paper and are a pleasure to behold, version 2 is nightmare to work through and not user friendly which is a shame the more recent copy facilitated by John Curry employs a bigger type set and better spacing ids much better and our small group has played a few enjoyable games using these rules but all Russian v German battles it was preparing a 1944 German v American battle which prompted my original question , that game never happened , To save time I prepare sheets prior to a game detailing tank v tank abilities etc to save reference to the main body of the rules and that's when I was greatly surprised by the different stats between the two versions of the rules when the pz4 h in the later version was as far as the humble Sherman with a 75mm was concerned was as difficult to destroy as a Tiger 1 was in the earlier version, when in every other set of rules I've played in the past 40; years or so they were more or less equal apart from the Panzer 4 having a better anti tank gun range apparently according to WRG later version this was true against all the versions of the panzer 4 apart from G / H onwards according the 1980s this makes them a very lone voice and does not make sense to me but I do respect WRG, but these rules a very much out of date and many other factors other than armour penetration are deciding factors on tank v tank duals , but trying to convince my small band of friends that a six on the die is needed to knock out a panzer 4 when playing the 80s version WRG by a Sherman , is problematic when in the earlier version they destroy the same tank with a hit at 1000 metres.

Jeftrow3. You might find a similar, albeit not as drastic, situation in my rules.

From my research the Sherman and Pz IV armor are "similar" and you are correct the Pz IVs gun is much superior. Problem is the Pz IVs frontal armor, depending on where you hit it, is marginally superior to the Sherman's Penetration except at fairly short ranges.

So at longer ranges the Pz IV has a slight advantage over the Sherman in a direct frontal engagement. Trick is most combat in NW Europe occured at rather close range and was often not head on. But I can agree with rules that show the Pz IV is not a "sure kill" when hit by a Sherman.

In fact in my rules I strongly reject the Can't Kill or Sure Kill syndromes so loved by gamers. A Sherman can survive a hit by a Tiger and a Tiger can get killed by a Sherman … both at very low percentages but it is possible. I wanted to call it the S#@t Happens Rule but the publisher talked me into calling it No Sure Thing Rule.

And you'd be amazed at how that rule makes players behave more realistically just like in real life if they were really being shot at! Cheers!

Tank recognition was poor everywhere.

Must have been a lot easier for the Germans! If it is Yank, it is a Sherman, Ivan a T34 and if Brits or Commonwealth, probably a Sherman!

10th SS Panzer mis-identified Guards Armoured Div as 'Americans' petty well all the way to Nijmegen.

I guess one lot of OD Shermans look much like another.

In my rules there is a differentiation of turret armor and hull armor. This makes the armor of the Sherman superior to that of the Panzer IVH. The gun of the panzer is superior to that of the Sherman. There is penetration variation so often there is not a sure thing penetration.

Hi Lee494

Are your rules Panzertruppe if so I like them and use them regularly, if not which are they I would be happy to give them ago.

Jethro3 my rules are Skirmish Actions which has the No Sure Thing rule and Combat Action Command (CAC) which is very detailed with the Combat Action Interrupt Command (essentially let's you Freeze Play to command a response to an enemy action) and a unique Data Card for each tank and team. Its definitely for grognards lol.

I use my FoW armies to play CAC and my Bolt Action guys to play Skirmish Action. To give you a "size" flavor I demo Pegasus Bridge using SA and Saving Private Ryan (final battle) using CAC at major Cons.

Website is actionsrules.com

And there are some free items to download to get a feel for the rules. Enjoy! Lee

oops, forgot to respond to this:

Actually, Guderian (?IIRC) said that the German tankers in Italy were clamoring for a bigger gun but less armor and better mobility.

It is in Jentz' Panzertruppen. It is from a report by a Panzer division on the performance of Panzers in Italy. From the date and the unit it seems they are referring to the Panzer IV. Not surprising re the mobility the late PzIV's were at the limit of the chassis. The tank's weight had increased by 6 tons with no upgrade to the power train or suspension.

Thanks!

Still, it's a case where the troops wanted more mobility and a bigger gun, and were willing to trade armor to get them.

If I were to design a tank today, I'd do my best to maximize mobility (both tactical and strategic) and gun, with crew protection a lower priority.