WW2 myth busting info sought
I'm reading the new regimental history of the Sherbrooke Fusilier Regiment (27th Canadian Armoured), and a footnote has made me mad. It claims that the Shermans were very tall compared to the PzKw IV and Panther V tanks.
A little wiki research didn't satisfy my curiousity. What are the definitive heights of these three tanks - to the top of the turret roof and the top of the cupola? One specification which I bumped into for the Panther was its bore height. In other words, who cares how much more turret there is when the tube is the most important factor in a tank fight. So, collective wisdom, where can I find good quality dimensions? |
Tank Heights
M4 Sherman 2.97m 9ft 9in
PzKpfw IV 2.68m 8ft 10in Panther 2.99m 9ft 10in |
That surprises me, Ed, particularly the numbers for the Sherman and the Panther, as visually, the shape of the Sherman looks taller.
Do you have any data for the height of standard turrets for all three by any chance? I am thinking perhaps higher turrets for the two German designs, as part of the need to cope with effective operation of larger guns and the Sherman went with a lower turret height because they could get away with it with the 75 Main Gun. David |
Quote:
|
Quote:
And just to complicate things, which model of Sherman? Because not all had the same cupola. Hence my quandry. http://the.shadock.free.fr//sherman_...s/cupolas.html |
Quote:
The 'Fire Height' of an M4A2 Sherman III twin diesel was 88" (edited to metric 224 cm), and the height over the cupola was 108" (edited to metric 274 cm). https://web.archive.org/web/20130517...rmany/pz5.html The "Fire Height" of a Panther Ausf.G was 88.9" (edited to metric 226 cm), and the height over the cupola was 117.9" (edited to metric 300 cm). Same deadlink source - https://web.archive.org/web/20130517...pz4.html#AusfJ The 'Fire Height of a PzKw IV Ausf.H was 77.36" (edited to metric 196.5 cm), and the height was 105" (edited to metric 267 cm). Therefore: the Sherman wasn't necessarily overly tall at 108", but the small diameter cast turret probably accentuated that perception. The bore height of 88" meant the commander had to be careful because he would have exposed himself, the cupola, the various fittings on the turret roof, and the top of the mantlet before clearing the bore for a shot; the Panther seems to have been the tallest at 118", and yes all models had a distinctive rounded tall commander's cupola. So, subtract about 8" to get to the turret roof at about 110". For a commander he still had to show some of the turret above the bore at 88.9" when in concealment; and the PzKwIV intrigues me. It seems so small compared to the other two, even while it was a dominant combat tank. At 77" for the bore, that is only 6'5", and here too, the cupola was an obvious feature above the turret. |
Quote:
Also, it doesn’t include a height to the turret roof, but does indicate the turret is 1.15 m tall including the cupola. Measuring in a drawing in the same book has the turret with cupola as 20 mm tall and the cupola alone as 6 mm, so the cupola would be 115 ÷ 20 × 6 ≈ 35 cm tall, meaning roof height would be 2.50 m. Similarly, his Der Panzerkampfwagen IV und seine Abarten gives a total height of 2.68 m for all variants I checked. Again, the height to the turret roof isn’t shown but a little quick measuring in a drawing gives an approximate height of 2.33 m. Hunnicutt’s Sherman: The History of the American Medium Tank has the height of the basic M4 with 75 mm gun as 108 inches, or 2.74 m, to the top of the turret hatch. For the M4A3 (75) W, so probably with the later vision cupola, the height is 115.7 inches, or 2.94 m, and for both the M4A2 (76) VVSS and M4A3 (76) HVSS, as 117 inches, or 2.97 m. Height to the turret roof is not indicated, but with the original two-piece hatch would be only a little less than with the hatch — call it 5 cm or so. |
And this gentlemens bun fight about tank heights shows why single source information should be taken with a big grain of salt. Even the "little" T-34 tank stood eight foot tall. I think the German tank on tank killing prowess was well established with years of experience gained on the eastern front and that Shermans, in the open, in the attack, where relatively easy to pick off from prepared positions. German AT guns would be next to impossible to see till a couple Shermans blew up around you so there is that to consider also. I think the wildest two minutes inside a Panther turret during WWII would have been when in two minutes time a Panther crew knocks out five Polish Shermans at Hill 262.
|
Quote:
|
Tank Losses
It looks like the events of 8 May, 1945 demonstrated which side could afford to loose five tanks in a row.
|
Quote:
|
Surely your viewpoint on height depends if your considering your vehicle as being a potential target or an offensive weapon and nature of the terrain/vegetation you're operating in.
As a tank gunner you're taught to aim at the centre of the visible mass so the more you can see, the more target area you have to mitigate any errors in your accuracy. On the offensive having additional height is an advantage so you can see over hedgerows or cutty grass etc noting you do need to get crest clearance on the main gun if that is the weapon you need to fire. Paul |
Quote:
I agree 100% that height is an advantage all its own. Where I get a little confused, is the M4 and Panther were/are comparable height and the Pz IV not so much, but the Sherman is perceived to be quite tall. |
Another illusion shattered. As far back as I can remember, the conventional wisdom has been that:
The Sherman's vulnerability was due in part to its high profile. The high profile was necessitated by the radial engine initially used. The radial engine was used because it was the only engine powerful enough that was available in quantity at the time the Sherman was being designed. When other engines became available, the Sherman design wasn't modified to reduce its height because that would have delayed production. Now that the first premise has been debunked (Is it possible that nobody bothered to look up the actual dimensions until now?) does anyone know if the others are also myths? |
Let me refer you to a post of mine above.
Which other supposed myths are you referring to, exactly? That the tank wasn’t redesigned when lower engines became available because it would slow down production? That would hardly be a myth: redesigning the basic shape would cause all sorts of delays, not to mention logistical problems that you can do without in the middle of a war. Fact is that there were several designs for improved Shermans, including things like welded turrets, hulls with sloping sides, a lower hull and more, and none of those were put into production. |
|
All times are GMT +2. The time now is 17:17. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Maple Leaf Up, 2003-2016