Athlon64~SPARTA~ Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 Most of the M4 sherman tanks were not heavy enough to deal with the heavy German tanks, Like the Panther and of coarse the Tiger 1 But they could deal with the panzerkamphwagon 2 and 3 and 4 just fine. They made a lot of them and during the liberation of Europe swarmed the tigers with them. BUT they did make one Sherman to deal directly with a Tiger 1 or 2 and the panzer 5s, Used in General Pations Armor force M4A3E2 "Jumbo Sherman" with a HV 76mm gun. The Jumbos were originally armed with the standard 75mm gun, although they were designed for the 76mm, but as they were to presumably be used against static fortifications and troops, it was thought the 75mm short gun was a better choice. After the inital tanks were delivered, several units began to add armor on to their existing Shermans, especially those M4A3E8's with the 76mm gun creating over 100 "Field Expedient Jumbos", some of which spearheaded the drive to relieve Bastogne in the Battle of the Bulge. The Jumbos actually had thicker armor than a Tiger I tank and with the High Velocity 76mm gun could punch a hole in a tiger 1 tank and servive a frontal and side hit from the German HV88mm guns on the tigers. They were slower then a regular Sherman due to the thicker armor, but were still fast enough to out maneuver a tiger in open ground, the turrets could traverse faster then a tigers turret. They could circle a tiger and hit it until it exploded. The Standard m4 Sherman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athlon64~SPARTA~ Posted March 7, 2015 Author Share Posted March 7, 2015 M4A3E2 "Jumbo Sherman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athlon64~SPARTA~ Posted March 7, 2015 Author Share Posted March 7, 2015 These tough little thanks that could and did take on a tiger 1s and win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athlon64~SPARTA~ Posted March 8, 2015 Author Share Posted March 8, 2015 (edited) The Sherman tank had a weard engine the Crysler multibank 30 cyclinder engine If Chrysler had started from scratch to design a tank engine, they would have developed an engine that was nothing like the A57 Multi-Bank. But the need for speed – both in design and production – made use of existing tooling and design obligatory. The starting point was the L-head, 4.12-litre in-line six. A slightly revised cylinder head reduced the compression ratio to 6.2:1 from the standard engine’s 6.8:1, but production Dodge carburettors were retained. The five engines were arranged around a cast iron crankcase, with each ‘sub engine’ being geared to a common ring gear. A single central shaft handled all the output The result was 30 cylinders, 21 litres and an output of 470hp at just 2700 rpm!. Edited March 8, 2015 by Athlon64~SPARTA~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halli~SPARTA~ Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 Wow what a motor that thing could pull I bet. 30 plugs and wire sets bet it took a day to tune up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
custard~SPARTA~ Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 (edited) As much as I admire your engineering knowledge mate one on one a Tiger would have kicked the arse of any M4 variant and did during WWII including the 17 pounder British version which was at least able to compete because of its gun no US version came close to a Tiger. What won the the tank battles for us was not superior tanks it was good quality tanks in far greater numbers compared to great tanks in smaller numbers just look at the numbers of M4s produced compared to every variant of every German tank. I have the best armour, gun and speed speed vs up urs I have 20 for every one of yours guess what stat won. Bovington is a great tank museum it doesn't have 'Tiger' days for nothing. Edited March 8, 2015 by custard~SPARTA~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athlon64~SPARTA~ Posted March 10, 2015 Author Share Posted March 10, 2015 (edited) You must have missed where it said the Jumbo Sherman had thicker armor then the tiger>part Real tanks, not world of tanks, the picks showing the front lower part, of the Sherman jumbo has 6" of armor plateing. I think the tiger has 4" frontal plating. The panther has 3. something """M4A3E8's with the 76mm gun creating over 100 "Field Expedient Jumbos", some of which spearheaded the drive to relieve Bastogne in the Battle of the Bulge. The Jumbos actually had thicker armor than a Tiger I tank and with the High Velocity 76mm gun could punch a hole in a tiger 1 tank""" Custard my friend, the High volicity 76mm m62apc round gun could pierce 4.3" of armor@ 1000m And was also used on the m18 helcat tank destroyer, then later 90mm replaced the hv76mm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/76_mm_gun_M1 Using the M62 APC round, the 76mm gun penetrated 109 mm (4.3 in) of armor at 1,000 m (3,300 ft), with a muzzle velocity of 792 m/s (2,600 ft/s). The HVAP round was able to penetrate 178 mm (7.0 in) at 1,000 m (3,300 ft), with a muzzle velocity of 1,036 m/s (3,400 ft/s). Edited March 10, 2015 by Athlon64~SPARTA~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeno~SPARTA~ Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 I think Sherman production in WWII was around 43,000, the M4E2 production variant was 254 (although I have read 100 more were given the frontal armour upgrade in the field). It was the sheer weight of numbers of Shermans and T34s (as well as their simplicity and reliability) that beat the german tanks. As the war progressed and Germany lost air superiority many of their tanks were destroyed by roving ground attack aircraft. The M4 variants such as the E2 and the E8, not to mention the Firefly, certainly helped balance the fight, but in my humble opinion they were not statistically significant. The same can be said for the Tiger and Tiger II Total German Wartime production was 46,000, Panzers III, IV and V totaled around 35,000, whereas Tiger I production was 1,368 and Tiger II was 569. On top of their numerical inferiority they were unreliable and troublesome to fix in the field. From what I have read at any given time a significant proportion were out of commission. Anyway thanks for sharing, I am especially interested in the engine configuration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
custard~SPARTA~ Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 (edited) I would be very interested to know how many tanks of all types the Germans had in France before D-Day I know of the divisions that where there but I have never read of a definitive number of actual tanks as a lot of the divisions were depleted. There has been some debunking of the stats of tanks destroyed by allied aircraft I have read that although many light skinned vehicle were destroyed or disabled by aircraft very few tanks were. Stories of the M4 being a Ronson (because of it's likelihood to catch fire) have also mostly been debunked. Edited March 10, 2015 by custard~SPARTA~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halli~SPARTA~ Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 The Good thing about German Tanks in WW2 was that they ran out of Gas in Some places that crippled them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
custard~SPARTA~ Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 (edited) Even the armour was poor because they ran out of vital resources doesn't make them less interesting or well engineered machines I still stand by my argument that that they foolishly went for over expensive over engineered super machines and we beat them with never mind the quality feel the width. Edited March 10, 2015 by custard~SPARTA~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athlon64~SPARTA~ Posted March 11, 2015 Author Share Posted March 11, 2015 (edited) Only about 100 of the Jumbos were built in that config not all of them were. My post is about the 100 not all of them. The ones that could and did. Geroge patton used them in the spear head of battle of the buldge. If you read the wikapedia on it, the jumbo shemans were used to take out the T34s in later conflects. Edited March 11, 2015 by Athlon64~SPARTA~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
custard~SPARTA~ Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 Only about 100 of the Jumbos were built in that config not all of them were. My post is about the 100 not all of them. The ones that could and did. Geroge patton used them in the spear head of battle of the buldge. If you read the wikapedia on it, the jumbo shemans were used to take out the T34s in later conflects. I think you mean T-34 the T34 was a US tank. When we are comparing technology particularly tanks in a specific time period it would help mate if we were all comparing apples with apples and not apples with oranges. If you are saying we built a machine in 1944 that could beat a machine in 1942 I am not that impressed particularly if you are being honest the E2 should be compared to the Tiger II please don't say the E2 could handle that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athlon64~SPARTA~ Posted March 12, 2015 Author Share Posted March 12, 2015 (edited) Late ww2 anyway 1944, Well don't know about the tiger 2, Will the german 88 peratrate 6" of armor? How much frontal armor does the tiger 2 have? The HV76 gun will penatrate 4.3" at 1000 yards Must have been successful General pattion used them to spearhead the liberation of Bastogne in the battle of the buldge late in the war, You think they went up against a tiger 2 or so? I think It was a SS panzer devision they defeated. One could only gess. But ile bet sence it was a SS panzer division they probley had a few there in the black forest. What do you think? Why do you think they made the modification to the jumbo shermans anyway? Maybe they got tired of getting there asses blown off? They used the shermans due to they were the biggest tank that could be shipped by ship at that time. Remember The U.S has to ship everything in. We dident have a mfgering plant is Europe at that time. And Im sure that pattion raised hell about those wimpy shermans and probley had a lot to due with the mods to them. We gave the Ronsons to the British LOL! I ment the russan t34 Edited March 12, 2015 by Athlon64~SPARTA~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeno~SPARTA~ Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 The Tiger II was at the Battle of the Bulge, but as Halli indicated this offensive failed in part because they ran out of fuel. The Tiger II frontal armour was 7.1" sloped Its gun, the 88mm KwK 43 L71 using the PzGr. 40/43 APCR could penetrate 193mm (7.6") at 1000 meters (1093 yds). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeno~SPARTA~ Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 None of this takes anything away from the sherman, which was a godsend, and especially not from their crews. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athlon64~SPARTA~ Posted March 14, 2015 Author Share Posted March 14, 2015 (edited) It a good thing it ended when it did, becouse we had some Real monsters on the way for the Tigers and the Mause to deal with. M26 Pershing T28http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=331 T29http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=352 T30 http://www.militaryfactory.com/imageviewer/ar/pic-detail.asp?armor_id=353&sCurrentPic=pic1 All heavy tanks some super heavy, prototypes that were never needed. Edited March 14, 2015 by Athlon64~SPARTA~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter~SPARTA~ Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoot~SPARTA~ Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 Both tanks used in the film fury the Sherman M4A3E8 and the Tiger 131 — are real, and belong to the Tank Museum in Bovington, England. The Tiger 131 was built in Kassel, Germany, in February 1943 and was shipped to Tunisia to join the 504th German heavy tank battalion, according to the Tank Museum's website. On April 21, 1943, the Tiger was taken out of action by a Churchill tank of the British 48th Royal Tank Regiment, and was captured and repaired. On Sept. 25, 1951, the Tiger was given to the Tank Museum. GET YOUR WALLET OUT http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Tiger-131-Ride-for-One-Person-with-Two-Tiger-Day-Premium-Experience-Tickets-/191537570205?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_3&hash=item2c9887619d Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athlon64~SPARTA~ Posted March 16, 2015 Author Share Posted March 16, 2015 (edited) I saw the show making of Fury and that tiger was capured in north Africa after it was abondond buy retreating Nazis, it sat in England in front of some building for years. They graded a nice area for it to run back and forth, so the risk of drive line damage was at a min. Saw a vid on it at bovington running, sounded like crap spitting and back fireing, missfireing cyclinders as well. And The jumbo has 6" sloped armor. being sloped makes it thicker than 6" more like 8" or more that is the reasion for sloping and for round deflection as well. Edited March 16, 2015 by Athlon64~SPARTA~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoot~SPARTA~ Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 sounded good to me when i saw it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athlon64~SPARTA~ Posted March 17, 2015 Author Share Posted March 17, 2015 (edited) Had her wound up in that vid, the one I saw was when they first got it running, They must of done a bunch of tuning sence. Diden't hear it idleing, sounded good. Allthow could have shifted it smoother. they are worried about the driveline in it kind of a harsh shift. Edited March 17, 2015 by Athlon64~SPARTA~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athlon64~SPARTA~ Posted March 17, 2015 Author Share Posted March 17, 2015 They have a few tiger2 running around https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwdxCqLxNSU Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts