Posts
GURPS: World War II has stats for WW2 vehicles, surprisingly enough.
Since I've been mentioning the performance of Cold War stuff, and many people are more familiar with WW2 shit...
It's Front/Sides/Back/Top/Bottom (if needed)
Sherman M4A1 Hull: 300/150/150/75/50; Turret: 300/200/200/100
Gun Motor Carriage M10 Hull: 255/85/85/55/50; Turret: 275/100/100/0
Panzer IV Ausf H Hull: 315/120S/80/40/40; Turret: 200/120S/120S/40
Panther Ausf G Hull: 540/190S/160/60/120; Turret: 600/260/260/60
Tiger Ausf E Hull: 400/420/320/100/100; Turret: 425/310/310/100
Königstiger Ausf B Hull: 850/310/310/155/100; Turret: 700/310/310/170
T-34/76 1940 Hull: 350/250/175/75/75; Turret: 350/250/175/80
Guns!
M4A1 Sherman's M3 75mm firing the M61 APCBC or just AP does 6dx7(2) pi++ and linked 4d+2 cr ex. That's good for a whopping 294 DR.
The "long 75mm" 76mm M7 cannon firing M62 APCBC delivers 6dx10(2) pi++ and a linked 4d+2 cr ex. This was considered HOT ammo and it only punches 420 DR with average rolls.
The 7.5cm KwK40 L48 on the Pzkw IV-H firing a PzGr 40 APCR or APHC does 6dx12(2) pi++ that will penetrate DR 504 with most dice.
A KwK42 7.5cm on a Panther G lobbing a PzGr 40/42 does 6dx15(2) pi++. That's good for punching holes in DR 630.
Tiger E's KwK36 8.8cm gun gets the most penetration with the PzGr 40 which is an APCR round doing 6dx14(2) pi++. That'll punch 588 DR on average.
The heavier Tiger II's KwK43 8.8cm gun shooting a PzGr 40/43 round gets 6dx18(2) pi++ to routinely stab through 756 DR.
The pride of the Soviets 76mm L-11 gun firing BR-350SP APBC does a mere 6dx6(2) pi++ for an average penetration of 252 DR. And people were bagging on the M3 in the Sherman!
Update: The D-5T 85mm gun from the T-34/85 firing a BR-365K APHE round will do 6dx10(2) pi++ with a linked 5d-1 cr ex. That will penetrate 420 DR on average.
As a reminder, the 90mm gunned M48A3 has Hull: 606/314/96/113/87; Turret 716/314/281/129; Cupola: 386/386/386/193.
The M41 gun firing M332 APHC does 6dx21(2) pi++ for 882 DR penetration. Even the mighty King Tiger is punched. The Patton is somewhat vulnerable to the King Tiger's gun, but it's even more mobile than the Sherman that maneuvered around it to get rear shots.
People mock the Sherman, but they were tougher than a Mark IV. And the 75mm gun often overperformed against German armor due to quality control issues using slave labor. Then again, the American way of fighting tanks was to use either a tank destroyer, drop a truckload of artillery or call in the Jabos.
ReplyDeleteThe Sherman was far better than the T-34 line. And up-gunned to the Super Sherman, could stand up to the next-gen of Soviet armor as fielded by the various Arab League forces.
Then there's the mechanical reliability of the M-3/M-4 medium tank carriage and equipment. No other country fielded such a reliable series of vehicles. And the US armor steel was very high quality in comparison to other countries' armor steel.
I wonder how the M-103 fairs in your GURPing of vehicle stats.
While the Sherman had its advantages (and the Russians LOVED their Lendlease Shermans) the gasoline engine of the Sherman vs the diesel engine of the T34 made all the difference.
ReplyDeleteTactics count, the Sherman and T34 had to seek out flank shots to deal with German Armor.
The Sherman was known as the Zippo for its ability to burn up when hit.
The Sherman wasn't really more likely than any other design to brew up after taking a hit than any other tank. Nicholas Moran has a couple videos on the topic.
DeleteSomething else the Sherman had going for it was easy egress in the event of catastrophic penetration.
The first tank the US fielded that had a diesel engine was the M48A3, and that was to get more range, not to reduce fire hazards.
The Sherman also had variants powered by diesel, the M4A2, used by Russia, the USMC, Britain, Polish forces, Free French forces and others during WWII.
DeletePart of the reason that the British considered the Sherman as 'flammable' was the difference in tactics used by British forces vs American forces. Brits used it as a front-line assault anti-armor vehicle, which it wasn't designed for. That role was the job of tank destroyers in the US Army. So, yeah, break through the lines and expose your flanks or rear and any vehicle will go up in flames.
The US Army doctrine was to lead with artillery and air strikes to immobilize or destroy anti-tank guns and enemy armor, shoot the enemy armor with tank destroyers while the 'tanks' provide cover for the infantry.
Which, come to think of it, is the doctrine behind Britain's infantry support tanks like the Matilda 2 and Churchill. Just the Sherman was meant to support infantry in a group of other Shermans while the Brit infantry tanks were designed to be mobile fortresses and act alone or in pairs rather than a gaggle of vehicles.
If the Brits used them en-mass and behind an over-protective artillery and air barrage, their Sherms wouldn't have burnt as much as they did.
But, well, Brits loved long armored columns not supported from the sides, thus, Michael Wittman's successes against British armored columns and the actions in Belgium during 'The Bridge Too Far' campaign where, again, long armored columns with no side support were shot to poop.
A lot of 'fantasy' has been used to justify slamming the Sherman. Find another armored vehicle of the time that could be disabled and abandoned, then towed to a just-behind depot and put together right as rain as quickly as the Sherman. Or modified so many ways like the Sherman. Or last as long in a campaign as the Sherman (mechanical reliability of the Sherman was geometrically above even the best of other nations' tanks.)
The Commie version was diesel because that's what the Scumbags had in their log-chain.
DeleteI need to get copies of several of the books Moran recommends and do a half-ass write up about US tank and tank-destroyer misconceptions.
Too many folks read "Death Traps" and get a jaundiced idea of the doctrines and operational uses.
People also act like the gun motor carriages were actually better at killing German tanks, when they really aren't. The 76mm M1 and M7 guns were just marginally better than the 75mm M3.
The better protected Sherman using "tank destroyer" tactics did quite well.
For a good skim of the topic Moran has a LONG YouTube where he's giving a talk at a PNW museum. Well worth the time.