M4 Sherman VS. PzKpfw IV.
- Thread starter Lonkut
- Start date
SeleucusNicator
Diadoch
Sherman tank would probably get owned in straight up one-on-one with anything. It was very easy to pierce.
privatehudson
The Ultimate Badass
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2003
- Messages
- 4,821
Depends on the marks of course 
Generally speaking though the neither is greatly better than the other. The Panzer IV would rate slightly higher protection wise for example, and depending on the version slightly better arnament wise. To be honest though, in a one on one battle the chances for each were close to even.
Don't fall into the trap of assuming that all late war German tanks were greatly superior to their allied counterparts, the Panzer IV overall was not really that much different than a Sherman. What it did have in later marks was additional spaced armour which helped against some types of enemy fire.
On the other hand though, it depends on the Sherman variant. A firefly sherman would waste a Panzer IV due to it's immensely better arnament. A M4A2 76mm armed sherman would also significantly improve the odds in it's favour.
Generally speaking though the neither is greatly better than the other. The Panzer IV would rate slightly higher protection wise for example, and depending on the version slightly better arnament wise. To be honest though, in a one on one battle the chances for each were close to even.
Don't fall into the trap of assuming that all late war German tanks were greatly superior to their allied counterparts, the Panzer IV overall was not really that much different than a Sherman. What it did have in later marks was additional spaced armour which helped against some types of enemy fire.
On the other hand though, it depends on the Sherman variant. A firefly sherman would waste a Panzer IV due to it's immensely better arnament. A M4A2 76mm armed sherman would also significantly improve the odds in it's favour.
nonconformist
Miserable
Regular Sherman?
Technically, I'd say yes. In practice, maybe not.
Technically, I'd say yes. In practice, maybe not.
Darth_Pugwash
wobble wobble
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2003
- Messages
- 2,873
Uh, I dunno, maybe. A firefly would mince a Panzer IV though.
Specialist290
Terracotta Statue Man
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2003
- Messages
- 1,335
...And, of course, both of them could probably get "owned" by a T-34/85 
At any rate, though, the PzIV would probably have a slight edge, unless of course you consider the variants, like hudson said.
At any rate, though, the PzIV would probably have a slight edge, unless of course you consider the variants, like hudson said.
TrailblazingScot
I was kittenOFchaos
Specialist290 said:...And, of course, both of them could probably get "owned" by a T-34/85
At any rate, though, the PzIV would probably have a slight edge, unless of course you consider the variants, like hudson said.
As long as that T-34 was crewed by Germans
JohnRM
Don't make me destroy you
A direct hit by a Sherman 75mm round, on the Mark IV, would certainly damage and, or destroy the Mark IV.
People often give the Sherman less credit than it deserves. During the opening months of World War II, the tank was still primarily an anti-infantry weapon, not an anti-tank weapon. For this duty, the Sherman was perfect. It was fast, highly maneuverable, and able to be produced in large numbers. It was not built to combat other tanks.
However, even to combat other tanks, it proved quite capable for the simple reason that, as it was said, something like this...
A German tank could beat ten Shermans, but the Americans always had eleven.
People often give the Sherman less credit than it deserves. During the opening months of World War II, the tank was still primarily an anti-infantry weapon, not an anti-tank weapon. For this duty, the Sherman was perfect. It was fast, highly maneuverable, and able to be produced in large numbers. It was not built to combat other tanks.
However, even to combat other tanks, it proved quite capable for the simple reason that, as it was said, something like this...
A German tank could beat ten Shermans, but the Americans always had eleven.
FriendlyFire
Codex WMDicanious
Hudson is right depends on what version and "mods".
Easy8 were versions that had additional 15mm of plate armour welded the front and turret making it slow but very well amoured and hard to stop "front-on". The other version the Firefly with the british 17ponder could take on Tigers.
Panzer IV was barley adequet by this time, beingup armoured as well with its speed also suffering. Its early design meant it had trap shots in many places. It too suffered a high ratio of losses.
Easy8 were versions that had additional 15mm of plate armour welded the front and turret making it slow but very well amoured and hard to stop "front-on". The other version the Firefly with the british 17ponder could take on Tigers.
Panzer IV was barley adequet by this time, beingup armoured as well with its speed also suffering. Its early design meant it had trap shots in many places. It too suffered a high ratio of losses.
Jawz II
Oh Dear
its called shot trap, isnt it?
Either way, the Panzer IV is a kick-ass machine. It looks alot cooler.privatehudson said:Depends on the marks of course
Generally speaking though the neither is greatly better than the other. The Panzer IV would rate slightly higher protection wise for example, and depending on the version slightly better arnament wise. To be honest though, in a one on one battle the chances for each were close to even.
Don't fall into the trap of assuming that all late war German tanks were greatly superior to their allied counterparts, the Panzer IV overall was not really that much different than a Sherman. What it did have in later marks was additional spaced armour which helped against some types of enemy fire.
On the other hand though, it depends on the Sherman variant. A firefly sherman would waste a Panzer IV due to it's immensely better arnament. A M4A2 76mm armed sherman would also significantly improve the odds in it's favour.
sabo
My Ancestors were Vikings
Like John HSOG said, the sherman was basically an anti-infantry or anti-light armored vehicle (armored cars and such) it was very expensive to ship heavy tanks over the Atlantic so the USA opted to ship a lot of shermans instead, I guess Eisenhower decided the same thing as Stalin that "Quantity is it's own Qaulity" I think the Americans depended on the British for Anti-Tank tanks, although the USA did come out with the Perhing tank by the end of the war to fight the Tigers and Panthers they didn't show on the western front in any great numbers.
Adler17
Prussian Feldmarschall
I don´t think the famous 10th tank was decisive for taking down German tanks but air superiority. Battle planes could shoot down the majority of German tanks. It was still a hard fight but much easier. Whenever this air superiority was not there, Africa, Ardennes for instance, even outnumbered German forces were able to start successfull offensives gaining much territory.
Adler
Adler
EdwardTking
Deity
The
"hull down camoflaged stationery tank"
usually beat the
"exposed advancing moving tank"
unless the moving tank's crew could manouevere it to get behind the static tank.
Combat skills, tactics and luck as to where the shot landed were more important than slight technical advantages in encounters between tanks of the same class (light and light, medium and medium and heavy on heavy).
By the time the US joined the war (late again), the Germans had gained a lot of experience with tanks in Poland, France, Russia and/or Africa and were surviving victors or escapees of previous tank battles; but the Americans, while trained and brave, had no combat experience. This was likely as significant as the quality of the tanks in determining the destruction ratio.
"hull down camoflaged stationery tank"
usually beat the
"exposed advancing moving tank"
unless the moving tank's crew could manouevere it to get behind the static tank.
Combat skills, tactics and luck as to where the shot landed were more important than slight technical advantages in encounters between tanks of the same class (light and light, medium and medium and heavy on heavy).
By the time the US joined the war (late again), the Germans had gained a lot of experience with tanks in Poland, France, Russia and/or Africa and were surviving victors or escapees of previous tank battles; but the Americans, while trained and brave, had no combat experience. This was likely as significant as the quality of the tanks in determining the destruction ratio.
JohnRM
Don't make me destroy you
Early American tank crews, during WWII, were trained very well.............for WWI-class tank warfare. This was highly ineffective in the type of armored combat that took place during WWII.
Case
The horror, the horror
John HSOG said:
That's not the slightest bit true. The US's tank doctrine was based on post-war theories, and proved to be basically sound (though tank destroyers were a questionable idea). Before being deployed, US armoured formations were trained intensively in modern blitzkrieg tactics, and were very sucessful in employing these tactics when the opportunity arose.
In contrast, they didn't do enough training for 'WWI-class tank warfare" [which I assume you mean infantry-tank co-operation], and this resulted in problems in 1943 and 1944 when armoured units were required to act in close support of infantry.
Re: Sherman vs Pz-IV, the Sherman tended to outperform the Pz-IV. It was mechanically more reliable, more mobile, and upgrades to the Shermans armour and armament pretty much kept up with that of the Pz-IV.
Reno
The Studio Ghibli Fanatic
Panzer IV would one on one flat the Sherman out, but if the Sherman could get arround the the unsuspecting Panzer IV and hit into the rear or back armor then the Sherman would win.
Ace
Emperor
The Sherman was a death trap! It was under armoured and under gunned. Its main strengths were its reliablity, speed, and its vast numbers. And there was a reason the British called them "Ronsons". (Which for you youngsters who don't remember...were cigarette lighters guaranteed to light every time....)
For those of you who really want to learn about the Sherman, read "Death Traps" by Belton Y. Cooper. He was an ordnanace officer in the 3rd armored division from D-day to the end of the war.
The Sherman was so bad the Russians asked the allies not to send them anymore, and the ones they did receive were only used for training. They were not considered "good enough" for use on the eastern front.
For those of you who really want to learn about the Sherman, read "Death Traps" by Belton Y. Cooper. He was an ordnanace officer in the 3rd armored division from D-day to the end of the war.
The Sherman was so bad the Russians asked the allies not to send them anymore, and the ones they did receive were only used for training. They were not considered "good enough" for use on the eastern front.
