I was recently watching a TV show on North Africa. The show claimed the Sherman tank was superior to the Panzer IV. I’m not sure I would agree, what does everyone think? I’m sure the Sherman Firefly was better, so please do not consider that version. :tank:
Why cut out the Sherman Ic, IC composite and Vc.
Are you limiting it to the Panzer IV to the - Ausf A, B, C, D, E, F1, F2, G, H etc which version to compare with what.
Since you don’t want the ‘Firelfy’ versions uncluded what about the 76mm and 105mm versions in use during WW2 or the Sherman Crocodile
In North Africa the M4 would predominantly be armed with the 75mm which was capable of knocking out the Panzer IV in use there - the Panzer IV’s were still a mix of L24 75mm and L43/48 75mm ‘Specials’ which could knockout the M4.
The Sherman was more than a match for the Mark IV’s initially. The Mark IV’s were up-gunned and armored continuously throughout there war whereas the Sherman wasn’t until very late. But I’d say that even the M4A3E8 version was probably superior to the later Mk IV’s and served with distinction well into Korea and was more than a match for the T34/85 when firing the appropriate HVAP ammo as it became more plentiful…
Yes, it really does depend which Sherman variant, and which PzKpfw IV variant, one wants to compare. The issue is complicated by the number of Sherman variants (involving significant variation), as compared with the substantial but relatively limited number of Panzer IV variants. The substantial point, as far as I am concerned, is that by the latter part of the war, the Germans were lagging significantly behind the Allies, both in terms of quantity of production and of innovation. Nonetheless, the PzKpfw IV and its assault gun and tank destroyer variants, were the most important armoured vehicles produced by the Germans during the war. Whether it would have done them much good to concentrate on producing more and upgraded Mk IVs, rather than veering off into the field of medium-heavy and heavy tanks (more expensive, complicated, difficult to replace or repair …), well, I doubt it. Best regards, JR.
I dont know to much about armored and their units. I believe that the panzer IV out matched the Sherman tank in that specific campaign. I believe that the Sherman tank was slightly less effective to the panzer performance but But BUT i think with America fresh in the war they had a lot more material to produce tanks (( also since it was early in the war the U.S had plenty of young men eager to fight)). They just out massed produce the vehicle
I didn’t realize there were that many variations. So for arguments sake I will limit the comparison to the types that were present in North Africa, I guess that goes up to the F2. Thanks
Is there a possibility that my theory could be correct?
Which “campaign” for your theory? North Africa? If so, you’re not correct IMHO…
In North Africa then no, the Panzer IV was predominantly still armed with the L24 75mm support gun firing HE the Panzer IV Specials with L43/48 75mm were in short supply. The main Panzer still being Panzer III’s until Tunisia.
Lack of fuel, crews and spares of course impeded their abilities as well as a lack of supporting elements (Artillery, Engineers, Infantry, Airpower) - coupled with a lessening of the ability of the German command at all levels (possibly due to fatigue, war weariness, orders from OKW/Hitler).
Always hard to get a definitive answer when there are so many factors to consider.
Which of course is why many people just go to
On a perfectly flat field, infinate distance, perfectly working tanks, equally trained and experienced crews, 1 on 1, M4A1 Dry Stowage 75mm v Panzer IV Ausf F2 -
Which is the best?.
An ideal and impossible situation and basically looks at paper stats.
So all in all, I would guess that both were pretty evenly matched.
On balance, yes. The definitive versions of both tanks: the M4A3E8 HVSS 76mm Sherman and the Panzer Mk IV Ausf. H/J were both pretty comparable, AFIK. Both were solid, workhorse tanks for their respective armies…
The Sherman Firefly was the best Allied tank. It had the 17 pounder(76.3 mm) main gun.
However I would take the IV if I had to go into battle.
Was the firefly better than the IS Series - the IS3 entered service before the end of WW2 and was a Soviet tank who were allies.
The allies were not just the US and British Commonwealth.
A Panzer IV as we have said is a little subjective - a Ausf A-F1 would be hopelessly outgunned and the earlier mks having extremely thin flat armour.
The Ausf H got the transmission from the Panzer III as it was cheaper and quicker to produce but not as good as its previous version - the Ausf J was a cheaper to produce version that did away with power turret traverse in favour of increasing the operational range of the tank (good choice with fuel shortages).
The Aust G or early Ausf H would probably be the best version produced.
Are we talking about both tanks through out the war or just from a certain year to year because the little knowledge I know about tanks. The Panzer IV seemed to have the edge for a bit but later I think the Sherman finally surpassed the panzer IV. With the lack resources and metal. While the Americans were able to improve their tanks quite easily compared to anyone else. since the didn’t have war on their home front.
Panzer IV first produced 1936
Sherman 1942
In 1942 both had long 75mm guns in although the majority of Panzer IV still had the short 75mm HE support gun still (german long 75 was better than the US but both could penetrate each other at usual Western Europe combat ranges).
In 1944 US introduced 76mm and the UK the firefly - both now outgunned the Mk IV - which was also being reduced in capability - lack of power traverse being the main one.
So Mid war (42/43) the new model Panzer IV had the edge but by mid 1944 it was changed to the new upgunned Shermans having the edge in armour V armour combat.
In terms of the more common role which was support to the infantry they were pretty evenly matched all through.
They were very evenly matched. In Nort Africa the short 75mm Panzer IV was not as good as the Sherman in my eyes but the long 75MM Panzer IV was better then the Sherman until the 76MM Sherman came out. I agree the 76 mm Sherman was a good tank and did good against the T-34/85 tank in Korea. Both were the main workhorse tanks for both armies. Ron
The Americans could have improved the Sherman much earlier, but chose not too out of a dogmatic view called the Tank Destroyer Doctrine, where Shermans were seen as cavalry designed to exploit breakthroughs. But Sherman crews were to avoid tank vs. tank engagements and leave the panzers for the tank destroyers. Actual combat did quite work that way and the transition away from TD’s to better armed tanks began after Normandy…
As Johnny Carson used to say, " I did not know that"! 
For more info: http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/gabel2.pdf
The U.S. Army also could have fielded the M26 Pershing tank as early as August of 1944. There was also a ready replacement for the Sherman called the M27 that looked like a slightly smaller Pershing tank. But there was an ongoing feud between the U.S. Army’s Ordnance Dept. that wanted better, more powerful tanks and the Army Ground Forces command --headed by a massive dunderhead named Gen. Leslie McNair (who was killed but USAAF bombs in Normandy prior too Operation Cobra) that wanted to keep tank destroyer units, despite their commanders with actual combat experience requesting less and less of them and demanding better tanks…
So then in a way I am correct about my thoughts about this?