WW2 myth busting info sought

[Jakko Westerbeke]

Originally Posted by maple_leaf_eh

Is that to the top of the turret roof, or the top of the cupola?

Spielberger’s Der Panzer-Kampfwagen Panther und seine Abarten has the Panther as 2.85 m tall with closed commander's cupola and 3.10 m with it open. Though it doesn’t indicate which Panther type these data are for, the 25 cm difference implies the later cupola with the hatch that has a “parasol” position.

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.

[James P]

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.

[maple_leaf_eh]

Originally Posted by James P

..... 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.

Or the 1st Hussars Firefly that knocked out 5 Panthers in one punch up in early June 1944.

[Ed Storey]

It looks like the events of 8 May, 1945 demonstrated which side could afford to loose five tanks in a row.

[James P]

Originally Posted by maple_leaf_eh

Or the 1st Hussars Firefly that knocked out 5 Panthers in one punch up in early June 1944.

True, fighting from a prepared position paid off when Henrys tank got the drop on them. The Germans did get some pay back on the 11th.

[dcrfan]

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

[maple_leaf_eh]

Originally Posted by dcrfan

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

Paul, glad to bump into you again!

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.

[Ed Landstrom]

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?