Panzer IV or Sherman, which do you think was better?

[Nickdfresh]

@Kilroy

So then in a way I am correct about my thoughts about this?

About what? The Mark IV being a superior tank? I don’t think so at all. Versions of the tanks were pretty much comparable with perhaps a reliability edge going to the Sherman. By the end of the war, over half of all American Shermans were “Easy-Eight” versions with the 76mm gun. The 75mm was still an effective infantry support weapon…

[JR11]

Two thoughts occur. Regarding, North Africa, I seem to recall that upgunned PzKpfw IVs only arrived in North Africa very late, and not in great numbers. Mind you, this seems to have been another example of advanced German equipment arriving in that theatre “too little, too late”; the Tiger I being another example. This had more to do with the chronology of tank development than anything else, but one wonders whether, by this time, shipping scarce advanced tanks to North Africa was a bit of a waste of resources.

Regarding the IS-III - this was perhaps the most advanced tank developed during the war, and it had substantial influence on tank development worldwide for decades afterwards. But did it actually see service during WW2 ? Best regards, JR.

[leccy]

@JR11

Two thoughts occur. Regarding, North Africa, I seem to recall that upgunned PzKpfw IVs only arrived in North Africa very late, and not in great numbers. Mind you, this seems to have been another example of advanced German equipment arriving in that theatre “too little, too late”; the Tiger I being another example. This had more to do with the chronology of tank development than anything else, but one wonders whether, by this time, shipping scarce advanced tanks to North Africa was a bit of a waste of resources.

Regarding the IS-III - this was perhaps the most advanced tank developed during the war, and it had substantial influence on tank development worldwide for decades afterwards. But did it actually see service during WW2 ? Best regards, JR.

I mentioned that the Panzer IV Special was in short supply in NA - more L24 75mm and Panzer III Specials being in service at least until late 1942 early 1943 in Tunisia.

The JS III (IS III) was in service during WW2 but was not used operationally - it was paraded in Berlin in 1945 before the Japanese surrendered.

Many equate service with used in combat and forget WW2 ended with the Japanese surrender and not the Germans.

[Nickdfresh]

I’m guessing then the JS III wasn’t used against the Japanese in August Storm? certainly they didn’t need. It was used against the Western Allies in a sense. The victory parade in Europe caused a bit of a row as squadrons of the JS III made the ground rumble before they were in site and gave a bit of heartburn to the likes of Monty and Patton…

[383man]

@Nickdfresh

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…

You are right as I have read the same thing. They also said the ships to take the tanks across the ocean were built to fit so many Shermans and used that as another reason not to bring out the Pershing sooner. And even some of the army comanders wanted to stay with the Sherman because it was reliable and fast enough to be a good open country tank and they had alot of 75 & 76 mm amo. They did bring out the M36 tank destroyer in September of 44 which had the 90mm gun which is the same gun the Pershing used. By the end of the war most tank destroyer battalions were changing from M10’s with the 3" gun to the 90 mm M36’s. Alot of tank destroyer battalion’s had the 76mm Hellcat which was the fastest armored vehicle in the war and many of the men liked them. But they should have got the Pershing out sooner as by the end of the war it had been many tank vs tank battles as there was more tanks in Europe then tank destroyers. Ron

[JR11]

leccy - thanks for the correction. I appreciate the distinction between “in service” and "in action. When I used the term “see service”, I meant “see action”. Careless of me. Nick - no, I am not aware of any evidence that the IS-III was used against the Japanese. As you say, the Soviets did not need to deploy it in this sector - they were more than capable of crushing the Japanese with T-34s. Best regards, JR.

[383man]

@Nickdfresh

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…

I know at the end of the war so many Tank Destroyers were used in the role of the tank that General Patton said to make Killer Tanks not Tank Destroyers. Ron

[leccy]

@383man

I know at the end of the war so many Tank Destroyers were used in the role of the tank that General Patton said to make Killer Tanks not Tank Destroyers. Ron

Due to lack of numbers of vehicles some Self propelled TD battalions were actually equipped with Shermans. Many tank destroyers were actually used as artillery for direct and indirect fire (as well as heavy and light AA units in both the British Commonwealth and US trained and equipped forces).