Anti-tank solution

[PanzerJaeger]

Allied troops weren't in France until '44...

This could have occurred in Britain. V-1s were only used in '44 and '45. It doesn't seem like this would be a very difficult mystery to solve as only around 200 Challengers were made... IIRC.

[Tribesman]

I'm almost a complete ignorant on WWII tanks, but why could it only be after march '44?

As Panzer noted not many Challengers were made , and if you follow that then production started in March '44 .

[Uesugi Kenshin]

This could have occurred in Britain. V-1s were only used in '44 and '45. It doesn't seem like this would be a very difficult mystery to solve as only around 200 Challengers were made... IIRC.

They did say the photos were most likely taken near the Channel Ports though, on Continental Europe. Though since nothing was written on the photos there is some chance it could have been in the UK.


On another note Fireflies weren't particularly better armored than normal Shermans were they? My impression has always been that they were essentially Shermans with extremely high velocity guns which were actually effective against the heavier German tanks.

Also was the Pz. IV really any more effective than the Sherman? For some reason I have the impression that the Sherman and the Pz. IV had essentially the same gun, very close to the same thickness of armor, and that the Sherman had sloped armor making it perhaps a pinch better armored. Then again I haven't compared the stats in quite a while...

[Veho Nex]

They weren't better armored but I was led to believe that firefly's were a british take off of our shermans.

[PanzerJaeger]

On another note Fireflies weren't particularly better armored than normal Shermans were they? My impression has always been that they were essentially Shermans with extremely high velocity guns which were actually effective against the heavier German tanks.

Yes, the only notable modifications that distinguished the Firefly from a normal Sherman were in the turret. It was basically just a standard Sherman chassis with a British 17 pounder stuffed in, instead of the standard 75mm and 76mm guns. I think the hull gun was taken out to make room for more ammo as well.

Also was the Pz. IV really any more effective than the Sherman? For some reason I have the impression that the Sherman and the Pz. IV had essentially the same gun, very close to the same thickness of armor, and that the Sherman had sloped armor making it perhaps a pinch better armored. Then again I haven't compared the stats in quite a while...

It all depends on the versions being compared. Both models recieved upgrades in armor, engines, and weaponry throughout their developement cycles. Overall, armor was roughly equal, the Sherman had slightly better mobility, but the Pz.IV had a slightly less protrusive silhouette. The most important factor – the gun – changed several times during the production of both vehicles. IIRC, the PZ.IV started with a short barreled 50mm version more suited to assault purposes than anti-tank (which was originally what was planned), then went to the long barreled L43 and finally the L48. The Sherman began with a 75mm gun, again more suited for assault. A 76mm AT gun was later added, and the spread between the two versions during Normandy was roughly 50/50.

In North Africa, the Americans operated only 75mm Shermans, while the Germans benefited from the Pz.IVF2 and even some early PZ.IVG’s, both of which fielded the L43 – unmatched by anything in the Allied arsenal. The IV’s width and low centre of gravity made it more versatile in the sand, as well.

However, during Normandy, I would give the 76mm Sherman a tiny advantage over the Pz.IV, even the H and J variants with the potent L48, mainly due to turret traverse times. All and all, they were essentially equal in competence at that time.

Although the Firefly gets a lot of praise for being able to take on the bigger cats, it was really a one trick pony and was quite vulnerable if not operating with normal Shermans. It was almost completely devoid of HE capability, which was a far more utilized necessity during combat. The gun was difficult to load and, when fired from such a small platform, created an inordinate amount of smoke and dust – so much so that the tank had to relocate quite often for fear of being an easy target.

[KrooK]

I think we should listen to tank crews opinions.
Germans did not call PzkpfwIV "Rolsons".
And we can't compare tanks only by its cannons. Later German tanks had 75 or 88 mm guns , Allied 75 , 76 mm or 17 punder gun. Seems similar but German 75 mm was not Allies 75. Cannon was longer and ammo was better - it means that German 75 was far more devastating than Allied.

Anyway
I remember that using air-aircraft against tanks during ww2 was not only German tactic.
Russians used it during last German offensive on Budapest into 1945 = and it worked even
against strongest cats.

[Tribesman]

Seems similar but German 75 mm was not Allies 75. Cannon was longer and ammo was better - it means that German 75 was far more devastating than Allied.

Bollox .
Germany had many models of 75mm only two are similar in penetration performance to the 17 pdr(though with lower velocity) and neither can get anywhere near the performance of the 17pdr when it used the d/s rounds

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Bollox .
Germany had many models of 75mm only two are similar in penetration performance to the 17 pdr(though with lower velocity) and neither can get anywhere near the performance of the 17pdr when it used the d/s rounds

Reading the reports, it would seem that the 17lb AT weapon out-performed all but the German 75mmL70 in penatrating armor. The L70 was very slightly (<4%) better at ranges of 1km or less, though it performed substantially better (10+%) at ranges beyond that. This assumes AP ammo for both.

With APDS ammo -- a novel concept indeed at the time -- the 76.2 British weapon easily outperformed the Panther's main gun in pentration. Despite the limited destructive power of the smaller sabot rounds, penetration was vital in securing kills. The biggest drawbacks to the APDS rounds were their rarity (<6% of all 17lb AT ammo made) and the comparative instability of the sabot rounds which lead to a notable decrease in accuracy.


RE: Shermans and burnability. The use of very high octane Avgas by the Sherman's engines did make them much more fire-prone than an equivalent deisel design. OTOH, despite this tendency to burn, unless the ammo cooked off and blew the tank apart, it was still possible for recovery teams to repair these "lighters" and put them back into action -- not that this would be much of a consolation to the previous crew.

[Tribesman]

Seamus the limited destructive power is irrelevant , the material from the hole that is made and that which makes up the round will rattle around in the confines of the armoured space and keep doing so till it hits enough soft things to slow it down . A tank without a crew is just a pile of metal .

[PanzerJaeger]

RE: Shermans and burnability. The use of very high octane Avgas by the Sherman's engines did make them much more fire-prone than an equivalent deisel design. OTOH, despite this tendency to burn, unless the ammo cooked off and blew the tank apart, it was still possible for recovery teams to repair these "lighters" and put them back into action -- not that this would be much of a consolation to the previous crew.

Later versions in Normandy also had wet storage for the ammunition. This helped quite a bit compared to what was seen in the desert, but they still seemed to burn more readily than others.