Jump to content


The Sherman and The Cat


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
69 replies to this topic

Sqn Ldr B #21 Posted 01 January 2016 - 11:53 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 6141 battles
  • 18,352
  • Member since:
    02-14-2014

View PostTurboclicker, on 01 January 2016 - 11:42 PM, said:

 

I am not using it as an end all. I'm using it as a "Hey look, Shermans killed Panthers and Tigers."

 

A Sherman can kill a Tiger. A Tiger is just better able to kill the Sherman before the Sherman can kill it.

"Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first prize in the lottery of life" ~ Cecil Rhodes

Click For a Compilation of My Ideas


Turboclicker #22 Posted 01 January 2016 - 11:57 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 22110 battles
  • 34,726
  • Member since:
    08-20-2013

View PostSqn Ldr B, on 01 January 2016 - 07:53 PM, said:

 

A Sherman can kill a Tiger. A Tiger is just better able to kill the Sherman before the Sherman can kill it.

That's a nice opinion you have there.



Sqn Ldr B #23 Posted 02 January 2016 - 12:04 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 6141 battles
  • 18,352
  • Member since:
    02-14-2014

View PostTurboclicker, on 01 January 2016 - 11:57 PM, said:

That's a nice opinion you have there.

 

Fact actually. Tiger has more armour. Tiger has better gun. Tiger can bounce Sherman rounds. Sherman cannot bounce Tiger rounds. Imagine this scenario. Sherman shoots Tiger hurriedly. Round bounces. Sherman fires again. Round bounces. Tiger shoots Sherman. Sherman brews up. This scenario will happen maybe 6 times out of 10.

 

Now imagine this. Sherman shoots Tiger. Round goes through the turret ring shot trap, Tiger is abandoned. That'll happen maybe 2 times out of 10.

 

Now imagine this. Tiger shoots Sherman. Round bounces. Sherman shoots Tiger. Tank brews up. That's going to happen maybe 1 time out of 100-ish.

 

Do you see where I am getting at with this? The Tiger is more survivable. It can and will bounced 75mm rounds from Sherman tanks. And it also has a much better gun. The Sherman does not have that survivability. It will almost never ever bounce a Tiger's 88 round. And it is much harder for the Sherman to kill the Tiger than it is for the Tiger to kill the Sherman.


"Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first prize in the lottery of life" ~ Cecil Rhodes

Click For a Compilation of My Ideas


Turboclicker #24 Posted 02 January 2016 - 12:05 AM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 22110 battles
  • 34,726
  • Member since:
    08-20-2013

View PostSqn Ldr B, on 01 January 2016 - 08:04 PM, said:

 

Fact actually. Tiger has more armour. Tiger has better gun. Tiger can bounce Sherman rounds. Sherman cannot bounce Tiger rounds. Imagine this scenario. Sherman shoots Tiger hurriedly. Round bounces. Sherman fires again. Round bounces. Tiger shoots Sherman. Sherman brews up. This scenario will happen maybe 6 times out of 10.

 

Now imagine this. Sherman shoots Tiger. Round goes through the turret ring shot trap, Tiger is abandoned. That'll happen maybe 2 times out of 10.

 

Now imagine this. Tiger shoots Sherman. Round bounces. Sherman shoots Tiger. Tank brews up. That's going to happen maybe 1 time out of 100-ish.

 

Do you see where I am getting at with this? The Tiger is more survivable. It can and will bounced 75mm rounds from Sherman tanks. And it also has

a much better gun. The Sherman does not have that survivability. It will almost never ever bounce a Tiger's 88 round. And it is much harder for the Sherman to kill the Tiger than it is for the Tiger to kill the Sherman.

 

Opinions ≠ Facts



Metalrodent #25 Posted 02 January 2016 - 12:06 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 10186 battles
  • 14,433
  • [KMD]
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014

View PostTurboclicker, on 01 January 2016 - 11:57 PM, said:

That's a nice opinion you have there.

 

That''s a nice opinion you seem to have that all M4s were armed with the 76mm. They were not.

 

Since it's introduction in 1942 the M4 was outclassed by the Tiger in every battle until the 17pdr, and then then 76mm guns were introduced - even then they were not the majority.


<a data-cke-saved-href='http://i.imgur.com/sCeAbYa.gif' href='http://i.imgur.com/sCeAbYa.gif' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/sCeAbYa.gif</a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s...sCeAbYa.gif</a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s...bYa.gif</a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s...gif</a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'>http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>

There’s a mask upon my face
I can’t live without
So you won’t recognize me
When I am in the crowd


Turboclicker #26 Posted 02 January 2016 - 12:09 AM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 22110 battles
  • 34,726
  • Member since:
    08-20-2013

View PostMetalrodent, on 01 January 2016 - 08:06 PM, said:

 

That''s a nice opinion you seem to have that all M4s were armed with the 76mm. They were not.

 

Since it's introduction in 1942 the M4 was outclassed by the Tiger in every battle until the 17pdr, and then then 76mm guns were introduced - even then they were not the majority.

 

Report shows 75mm armed Shermans shooting standard armor piercing shells and destroying Panthers (Better armored than Tigers) and Tigers at range.

 

So, no.



Metalrodent #27 Posted 02 January 2016 - 12:12 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 10186 battles
  • 14,433
  • [KMD]
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014

View PostTurboclicker, on 02 January 2016 - 12:09 AM, said:

 

Report shows 75mm armed Shermans shooting standard armor piercing shells and destroying Panthers (Better armored than Tigers) and Tigers at range.

 

So, no.

 

That proves absolute jack all.

 

75mm M4 could take down a Tiger, Tiger will take down an M4 if it scores a direct hit.

75mm Cromwell could take down a Tiger, but I don't see you arguing that as a better tank.

 

You still seem to be trying to talk down on us as if we're suggesting the M4 was not capable of hurting Tigers, not a single one of us has said that.


<a data-cke-saved-href='http://i.imgur.com/sCeAbYa.gif' href='http://i.imgur.com/sCeAbYa.gif' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/sCeAbYa.gif</a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s...sCeAbYa.gif</a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s...bYa.gif</a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s...gif</a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'>http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>

There’s a mask upon my face
I can’t live without
So you won’t recognize me
When I am in the crowd


Sqn Ldr B #28 Posted 02 January 2016 - 12:14 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 6141 battles
  • 18,352
  • Member since:
    02-14-2014

View PostTurboclicker, on 02 January 2016 - 12:09 AM, said:

 

Report shows 75mm armed Shermans shooting standard armor piercing shells and destroying Panthers (Better armored than Tigers) and Tigers at range.

 

So, no.

 

So? The Tiger does it better. The Sherman isn't as good at it. That doesn't make it impossible for a Sherman to kill stuff at range.

View PostTurboclicker, on 02 January 2016 - 12:05 AM, said:

 

Opinions ≠ Facts

TIGER HAS MORE ARMOUR. 102mm>76mm. FACT. 76mm penetration<138mm penetration. FACT. See? They're facts. Because they're quantitative. There's no if or but about it, Tiger's gun has more penetration, it's better at killing tanks. Tiger has more armour, it's more likely to bounce a round. See? FACT.


"Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first prize in the lottery of life" ~ Cecil Rhodes

Click For a Compilation of My Ideas


Turboclicker #29 Posted 02 January 2016 - 12:15 AM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 22110 battles
  • 34,726
  • Member since:
    08-20-2013

View PostMetalrodent, on 01 January 2016 - 08:12 PM, said:

 

That proves absolute jack all.

 

75mm M4 could take down a Tiger, Tiger will take down an M4 if it scores a direct hit.

75mm Cromwell could take down a Tiger, but I don't see you arguing that as a better tank.

 

You still seem to be trying to talk down on us as if we're suggesting the M4 was not capable of

hurting Tigers, not a single one of us has said that.

 

The Tiger's gun did not have good penetration for the caliber. It could and did bounce off of the Sherman's front if it did not hit correctly. The KwK 36 needed new ammo developed just to have enough penetration to destroy the tanks it faced. The Soviet 76mm and 57mm guns actually beat the 8,8 KwK 36 in penetration when using APCR, which IIRC the Soviets actually had in enough quantities.



Turboclicker #30 Posted 02 January 2016 - 12:16 AM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 22110 battles
  • 34,726
  • Member since:
    08-20-2013

View PostSqn Ldr B, on 01 January 2016 - 08:14 PM, said:

 

So? The Tiger does it better. The Sherman isn't as good at it. That doesn't make it impossible for a Sherman to kill stuff at range.

TIGER HAS MORE ARMOUR. 102mm>76mm. FACT. 76mm penetration<138mm penetration. FACT. See? They're facts. Because they're

quantitative. There's no if or but about it, Tiger's gun has more penetration, it's better at killing

tanks. Tiger has more armour, it's more likely to bounce a round. See? FACT.

 

Saying the gun has more penetration is factual. Saying it is the better gun is an opinion.

 

You learned this in school. You should know better



Sqn Ldr B #31 Posted 02 January 2016 - 12:16 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 6141 battles
  • 18,352
  • Member since:
    02-14-2014

View PostTurboclicker, on 02 January 2016 - 12:15 AM, said:

 

The Tiger's gun did not have good penetration for the caliber. It could and did bounce off of the Sherman's front if it did not hit correctly.

How often? Not very I'm betting.

View PostTurboclicker, on 02 January 2016 - 12:15 AM, said:

The Soviet 76mm and 57mm guns actually beat the 8,8 KwK 36 in penetration when using APCR, which IIRC the Soviets actually had in enough quantities.

The Sherman is not Soviet. Do not bring the Soviets into this, they are irrelevant.


"Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first prize in the lottery of life" ~ Cecil Rhodes

Click For a Compilation of My Ideas


Sqn Ldr B #32 Posted 02 January 2016 - 12:18 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 6141 battles
  • 18,352
  • Member since:
    02-14-2014

View PostTurboclicker, on 02 January 2016 - 12:16 AM, said:

 

Saying the gun has more penetration is correct. Saying it is the better gun is an opinion.

 

You learned this in school. You should know better.

 

And here we are, me saying my opinion, and you telling me it's wrong, and not actually providing the proper facts needed.

"Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first prize in the lottery of life" ~ Cecil Rhodes

Click For a Compilation of My Ideas


Turboclicker #33 Posted 02 January 2016 - 12:19 AM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 22110 battles
  • 34,726
  • Member since:
    08-20-2013

View PostSqn Ldr B, on 01 January 2016 - 08:16 PM, said:

How often? Not very I'm betting.

The Sherman is not Soviet. Do not bring the Soviets into this, they are irrelevant.

 

I am pointing out how bad the penetration on the 8,8 KwK 36 actually was for the caliber. It was an outdated gun at the time of use.

 

If you use penetration records, use Soviet records. The Germans did not have a clue on how to test a guns penetration.



Turboclicker #34 Posted 02 January 2016 - 12:20 AM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 22110 battles
  • 34,726
  • Member since:
    08-20-2013

View PostSqn Ldr B, on 01 January 2016 - 08:18 PM, said:

 

And here we are, me saying my opinion, and you telling me it's wrong, and not actualI ty providing the proper facts needed.

 

Where did I say anything about your opinion specifically? I didn't. I said it was an opinion and nothing more. Try not to put words into peoples' mouths.



Sqn Ldr B #35 Posted 02 January 2016 - 12:22 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 6141 battles
  • 18,352
  • Member since:
    02-14-2014

View PostTurboclicker, on 02 January 2016 - 12:19 AM, said:

 

I am pointing out how bad the penetration on the 8,8 KwK 36 actually was for the caliber. It was an outdated gun at the time of use.

The 75mm M3 had awful penetration as well.

View PostTurboclicker, on 02 January 2016 - 12:20 AM, said:

 

Where did I say anything about your opinion specifically? I didn't. I said it was an opinion and nothing more. Try not to put words into peoples' mouths.

 

My opinion is Tiger is better than Sherman. You are repeatedly telling me that the Sherman is the better one in the face of facts, whilst not providing any of your own.

"Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first prize in the lottery of life" ~ Cecil Rhodes

Click For a Compilation of My Ideas


Turboclicker #36 Posted 02 January 2016 - 12:33 AM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 22110 battles
  • 34,726
  • Member since:
    08-20-2013

View PostSqn Ldr B, on 01 January 2016 - 08:22 PM, said:

The 75mm M3 had awful penetration as well.

 

My opinion is Tiger is better than Sherman. You are repeatedly telling me that the Sherm. Ut thean is the better one in the face of facts, whilst not providing any of your own.

 

I provided plenty. Since I actually provided some, unlike yourself barring the comment about the pen and armor, I will list them.

 

The average engagement range was ~600-800 meters but the median was closer to 300-400 meters. This means that the Sherman did not have penetration problems in 90%+ of times with the 76mm.

 

The 75mm has two perspectives you can look at.

 

If loaded with the new ammo they developes for it, it would actually gain as much pen as the 76mm. This ammo waa ready to be produced on a mass scale when the man in charge of the whole gig inserted his opinion that tanks are not meant to fight other tanks. This made the 75mm stick with the inferior AP round which still allowed it to be effective in killing almost all tanks but the more well armored German vehicles such as the KT or Panther frontally.

 

The only reason this ammo was not put into use is because of a decision from the higher ups, as suggested before. It was great otherwise.

 

If you say "But that's just an ammo upgrade, not the tank!", then you should realise, as I have said before, that the Tiger only gained the pen it had was because of a choice to implement a superior AP round.

 

The Sherman also was FAR easier to produce, which is a huge factoe in how good a tank is. You could say the Maus would kill all tanks but since it was awful to produce, it just wouldn't get used. The Sherman is so easy to produce that they could afford to outnumber the German armor by 4:1 in some engagements. This is a huge factor and should not be ignored.

 

The Sherman also had IIRC one if the first widely used stabilizers for its gun and thus made it one of the first vehicles to be able to fire on the move relatively accurately if need be.

 

The reliability does not need to be spoken for.

 

Do I need to go on? 



Party Poison91 #37 Posted 02 January 2016 - 12:37 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 16129 battles
  • 2,650
  • [X-OFF]
  • Member since:
    08-22-2013
Do you need to go on? You started a whole new [edited]thread with that express purpose.
"That's a typical, shabby NAZI trick!"

Metalrodent #38 Posted 02 January 2016 - 12:46 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 10186 battles
  • 14,433
  • [KMD]
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014

Ok ok fine it occurs to me I haven't actually answered the original question, and just for the purpose our good friend the OP here I will underline it for him.

 

I believe that, in general the M4 was the better tank.

 

It was more versatile, mobile, easier to produce/maintain, decent fuel consumption and much more mechanically reliable.

 

However, in context of the two tanks from 1942 onwards the Tiger was the better tank killer.

 

It had a bigger, higher penetration gun for the duration of the war, had armour that was, while un-sloped, still very capable of bouncing shots right up until the wars end and, unlike Shermans, didn't need to work in groups to take down enemy armour as even in 1945 it could hurt and kill most of it.

The Sherman had to have huge amounts of money and upgrades thrown at it to reach the 76mm beast that Turbo describes, whereas the Tiger remained relatively unchanged and was still a formidable fighting force right up until the wars end.

 

 


<a data-cke-saved-href='http://i.imgur.com/sCeAbYa.gif' href='http://i.imgur.com/sCeAbYa.gif' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/sCeAbYa.gif</a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s...sCeAbYa.gif</a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s...bYa.gif</a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s...gif</a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'>http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>

There’s a mask upon my face
I can’t live without
So you won’t recognize me
When I am in the crowd


Sqn Ldr B #39 Posted 02 January 2016 - 12:49 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 6141 battles
  • 18,352
  • Member since:
    02-14-2014

View PostTurboclicker, on 02 January 2016 - 12:33 AM, said:

If loaded with the new ammo they developes for it, it would actually gain as much pen as the 76mm. This ammo waa ready to be produced on a mass scale when the man in charge of the whole gig inserted his opinion that tanks are not meant to fight other tanks. This made the 75mm stick with the inferior AP round which still allowed it to be effective in killing almost all tanks but the more well armored German vehicles such as the KT or Panther frontally.

 

The only reason this ammo was not put into use is because of a decision from the higher ups, as suggested before. It was great otherwise.

Why mention it then? The ammo was never used, so it had no bearing on the comparisons.

View PostTurboclicker, on 02 January 2016 - 12:33 AM, said:

The Sherman also was FAR easier to produce, which is a huge factoe in how good a tank is. You could say the Maus would kill all tanks but since it was awful to produce, it just wouldn't get used. The Sherman is so easy to produce that they could afford to outnumber the German armor by 4:1 in some engagements. This is a huge factor and should not be ignored.

We are talking which tank was superior to the other at engaging the other and winning. The fact you can easily make a Sherman in a factory has no bearing on how it fares against a Tiger. Likewise neither does the number advantage. Just saying that there were lots of them does not make the Sherman an individually superior tank. We are talking in a tactical sense, tank versus tank, not in a strategic sense, as in, we are not concerned with how hard it is to make a Sherman, or what is involved in maintaining a Tiger. Just because it takes a few hours to replace a track link on a Tiger, it does not diminish its operational capabilities against a Sherman.

View PostTurboclicker, on 02 January 2016 - 12:33 AM, said:

The average engagement range was ~600-800 meters but the median was closer to 300-400 meters. This means that the Sherman did not have penetration problems in 90%+ of times with the 76mm.

So? The 76mm could kill Tigers at ranges from zero to, what, 800 metres? And the 88 could kill Shermans from zero to, what 1600 metres? Granted, engagements at 1000 metres and further did not happen as often at ones at up to 800 metres, but they did happen. And when they did happen, who would fare better? Tiger.

View PostTurboclicker, on 02 January 2016 - 12:33 AM, said:

Do I need to go on? 

View PostParty Poison91, on 02 January 2016 - 12:37 AM, said:

Do you need to go on? You started a whole new [edited]thread with that express purpose.

 

What he said.

"Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first prize in the lottery of life" ~ Cecil Rhodes

Click For a Compilation of My Ideas


Turboclicker #40 Posted 02 January 2016 - 12:51 AM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 22110 battles
  • 34,726
  • Member since:
    08-20-2013

View PostSqn Ldr B, on 01 January 2016 - 08:49 PM, said:

Why mention it then? The ammo was never used, so it had no bearing on the comparisons.

We are talking which tank was superior to the other at engaging the other and winning. The fact you can easily make a Sherman in a factory has no bearing on how it fares against a Tiger. Likewise neither does the number advantage. Just saying that there were lots of them does not make the Sherman an individually superior tank. We are talking in a tactical sense, tank versus tank, not in a strategic sense, as in, we are not concerned with how hard it is to make a Sherman, or what is involved in maintaining a Tiger. Just because it takes a few hours to replace a track link on a Tiger, it does not diminish its operational capabilities against a Sherman.

So? The 76mm could kill Tigers at ranges from zero to, what, 800 metres? And the 88 could kill Shermans from zero to, what 1600 metres? Granted, engagements at 1000 metres and further did not happen as often at ones at up to 800 metres, but they did happen. And when they did

happen, who would fare better? Tiger.

 

What he said.

 

And you say I disregard your "arguments".






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users