Handgun vs table

[The Second]

I've seen several tines in movies, TV, and other media where someone will take cover behind an overturned table in the midst of a firefight.

I'm not going to argue the tactic of taking cover (which is sound), rather that expecting a table to block a bullet is unsound. But then I'm no expert on the subject of tables or handguns.

So, let's have a discussion. What is the probability that a 3/16* inch thick stainless steelsteel tabletop will stop a bullet of any given caliber? How about 1 inch wood tabletop? Or a 3/4 inch stone countertop?

*Originally I posted 3/8 inch (9.5 mm) stainless steel. I had originally meant to post 3/16 (4.8 mm) of course; I doubt many tables are constructed with 3/8 inch steel.

[Fri]

I used to want to be a journalist, and I once talked to a journalist who used to cover wars and terrorist attacks and such.

He says, using car as cover in shootout is not recommended. In shootout, he recommend laying as low as you can and hide behind earth or trees.

So make that what you will.

[erikun]

Depends on the type of gun and type of bullet. Some bullets are specifically designed to expand when they enter an object, so that they won't pass through and hit a person behind it. As such, taking cover would be a lot more practical against them than rifle rounds. The material of the table would be a large factor as well: some sort of pressboard isn't going to stop much of anything, but a relative hard wood desk or somewhat thick metal might work better.

That said, taking cover is probably more for hiding yourself, so nobody could shoot directly at you and don't know where you are exactly. Keeping a small profile would probably help this quite a bit, since it makes you a harder target to hit.

[warty goblin]

Your standard dining room table won't do squat to stop most bullets. Maybe a .22 short, but I'd not bet the farm on that. It may cause the bullet to destabilize and start tumbling, fragment, or expand, which quite possibly means it makes a bigger hole in you. About the best it can do is to make you harder to hit because the shooter can't see you, but it isn't going to stop the bullet.

(The 3/8 inch steel countertop actually would, but I can't say I've ever encountered a 3/8 inch steel countertop. Bastard would be stupid heavy, and there's just no need for that sort of thickness in home furnishing.)

[Gnoman]

What is the probability that a 3/8 inch thick stainless steelsteel tabletop will stop a bullet of any given caliber? How about 1 inch wood tabletop? Or a 3/4 inch stone countertop?

0%, 0%, ~25%

Even a .22LR (one of the most anemic rounds available) will probably punch through the first two, although I don't have direct experience with this exact scenario. A more reasonable handgun round such as a 9x19mm Parabellum, .45 Automatic Colt Pistol, or 10x22mm FBI (.40 Smith and Wesson) will do so easily. Stone is more difficult to tell. A cinder block won't stop most handgun rounds, and it's of similar thickness to the example stone, but not very hard compared to what tabletops are generally made of.

Ammo choice matters as well.

[blunk]

This (http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Federal-Premium-Tactical-HST-Ammo-Comparison.jpg) seems like a good place to get your bearings. Shallowest penetration found in steel: 11". In plywood: 11.75".

[Khedrac]

This (http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Federal-Premium-Tactical-HST-Ammo-Comparison.jpg) seems like a good place to get your bearings. Shallowest penetration found in steel: 11". In plywood: 11.75".

"shallowest penetration" of steel 11 inches? In WW2 the Sherman tank (which for most purposes was regarded as excellent) only had 3 inches of armour at its thickest point. Yes, some anti-tank guns could penetrate, but no man-portable rifle.

Modern rifles may be considerably more powerful (I suspect something like a Barrett .5inch calibre might get through) but I would be surprised if any modern handgun would stand a chance of breeching a sherman tank. In short I don't believe the 11 inches in that table means they got 11 inches into steel.
It is not clear what that table does mean actually, as read no "bullet proof" gear in the world would work (which will be news to the people saved by it every day). At a best guess it is penetration into balistics gel covered by an unspecified thickness of the material, but that also would be odd as heavy clothing resulted in greater penetration than bare gelatin.

[Peelee]

I used to want to be a journalist, and I once talked to a journalist who used to cover wars and terrorist attacks and such.

He says, using car as cover in shootout is not recommended. In shootout, he recommend laying as low as you can and hide behind earth or trees.

So make that what you will.

Well, yeah. Cars have a lot of empty space. Trees and earth is nothing but a bunch of matter packed together. Well, ideally.

[Crow]

A topic that translates directly to my line of work!

Best practice is to always treat tables as concealment. You can't guarantee what your opponent will be shooting at you. They don't make good cover.

You can use a vehicle; but if you do, take cover using the engine block, or if that isn't possible and you're in a pinch, the wheels.


heavy clothing resulted in greater penetration than bare gelatin.

Fun fact: In ballistics tests it has been found that with some hollowpoint pistol cartridges, heavy material can "clog" the nose cavity and prevent expansion, which can lead to deeper penetration.

[Peelee]

A topic that translates directly to my line of work!

I am suddenly much more afraid of you.

[factotum]

I think there was a Buzzfeed video on this very subject not so long ago...let me see if I can find it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fCqz_JlIi8

Not terribly scientific, but interesting nonetheless.

[Xuc Xac]

This (http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Federal-Premium-Tactical-HST-Ammo-Comparison.jpg) seems like a good place to get your bearings. Shallowest penetration found in steel: 11". In plywood: 11.75".


"shallowest penetration" of steel 11 inches? In WW2 the Sherman tank (which for most purposes was regarded as excellent) only had 3 inches of armour at its thickest point. ... At a best guess it is penetration into balistics gel covered by an unspecified thickness of the material, but that also would be odd as heavy clothing resulted in greater penetration than bare gelatin.

It's inches of penetration into a block of ballistics gelatin after passing through two sheets of 20 gauge steel. The "steel" test isn't to test penetration into steel. It's to test penetration into a person standing behind a car door.

[Grinner]

I am suddenly much more afraid of you.

I think he's a security contractor or something.

At least, I remember someone posting a while back asking about what sort of vehicle would be ideal for sustaining gunfire. The thread ended up suggesting this really weird, old, and hard-to-find truck with a rear-mounted engine.

[Crow]

I think he's a security contractor or something.

At least, I remember someone posting a while back asking about what sort of vehicle would be ideal for sustaining gunfire. The thread ended up suggesting this really weird, old, and hard-to-find truck with a rear-mounted engine.

We actually went with a hybrid full-size pickup. My initial idea was for some sort of rear or mid-engine vehicle. The electric motor in the hybrid though could operate independently from the combustion engine, and the combustion engine was actually situated in a way that would it would shield the electric motor from incoming fire directed at the truck from the front and a little above. :smallbiggrin:

[Gnoman]

"shallowest penetration" of steel 11 inches? In WW2 the Sherman tank (which for most purposes was regarded as excellent) only had 3 inches of armour at its thickest point. Yes, some anti-tank guns could penetrate, but no man-portable rifle.

Modern rifles may be considerably more powerful (I suspect something like a Barrett .5inch calibre might get through) but I would be surprised if any modern handgun would stand a chance of breeching a sherman tank. In short I don't believe the 11 inches in that table means they got 11 inches into steel.
It is not clear what that table does mean actually, as read no "bullet proof" gear in the world would work (which will be news to the people saved by it every day). At a best guess it is penetration into balistics gel covered by an unspecified thickness of the material, but that also would be odd as heavy clothing resulted in greater penetration than bare gelatin.

A Barret is just a .50 BMG cartridge. It won't got through any tank.

[J-H]

http://www.theboxotruth.com/tag/original-chapters/ has plenty of data on this general topic.

Most things are concealment, not cover. If the BG knows where you are, and you don't have hard cover, movement to make yourself a harder-to-hit target is better than staying behind something that won't stop bullets. It's pretty hard to find a shooting range that provides practice shooting at moving targets (unless you count skeet).

[Traab]

Well, yeah. Cars have a lot of empty space. Trees and earth is nothing but a bunch of matter packed together. Well, ideally.

Yeah, especially modern cars. They are thin sheets of whatever fragile stuff they are made of over a mostly hollow frame. As someone said, tires and engine blocks are about the only place you might have decent protection from bullets. Those lame cop movies where they hide behind their doors during a shootout? Only marginally better than just standing out in the open. That marginal bit is only because its slightly more difficult to aim accurately when half your target is concealed. I think the mythbusters had to stuff three phonebooks onto and into the cars to make them relatively bulletproof. Even then I think some of the larger caliber stuff could penetrate, like deer slugs and rifle rounds. And of course the 50 cal just tore through it like a knife through butter. Hell, the 50 cal I think tore through the books AND the engine block, killing the car. Here it is (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctauhnIjnso) They sum it up nicely at the end.

[blunk]

It's inches of penetration into a block of ballistics gelatin after passing through two sheets of 20 gauge steel. The "steel" test isn't to test penetration into steel. It's to test penetration into a person standing behind a car door.Thank you! It seemed pretty suspicious, but I didn't know how else to interpret it. So don't listen to me, OP :smallsmile:

[Khedrac]

Fun fact: In ballistics tests it has been found that with some hollowpoint pistol cartridges, heavy material can "clog" the nose cavity and prevent expansion, which can lead to deeper penetration.Neat, you are right - that is a 'fun fact'.


It's inches of penetration into a block of ballistics gelatin after passing through two sheets of 20 gauge steel. The "steel" test isn't to test penetration into steel. It's to test penetration into a person standing behind a car door.That makes more sense, thank-you.

[The Second]

Thank you! It seemed pretty suspicious, but I didn't know how else to interpret it. So don't listen to me, OP :smallsmile:

Hey, its a discussion not a quiz.

Anyway, I've heard stories of kevlar helmetshelmets stopping .50 rounds, though according to the teller the kevlar was badly deformed by the hit, making it doubtful anyone wearing it would have sursurvived the impact.

[Adderbane]

Yeah, especially modern cars. They are thin sheets of whatever fragile stuff they are made of over a mostly hollow frame. As someone said, tires and engine blocks are about the only place you might have decent protection from bullets. Those lame cop movies where they hide behind their doors during a shootout? Only marginally better than just standing out in the open. That marginal bit is only because its slightly more difficult to aim accurately when half your target is concealed. I think the mythbusters had to stuff three phonebooks onto and into the cars to make them relatively bulletproof. Even then I think some of the larger caliber stuff could penetrate, like deer slugs and rifle rounds. And of course the 50 cal just tore through it like a knife through butter. Hell, the 50 cal I think tore through the books AND the engine block, killing the car. Here it is (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctauhnIjnso) They sum it up nicely at the end.

There was a Top Gear special where they were driving in Iraq and were worried about being shot at. They tried to bulletproof their cars by filling the inner hollow space inside with sand. Pretty clever...except when they tested it by having their security guy shoot it with his handgun it went right through the door and then out the other door as well.

[J-H]

It takes 8-12" of sand to stop a bullet, possibly more. I have a PDF somewhere with the data.

The advantage of having a wall with a hollow space full of sand (or gravel) is that the sand will fall down inside and cover the hole from a previous bullet, so multiple shots in a single area won't penetrate any better than a single shot (vs thick wood or concrete block that can be shattered or chipped away over time).

[Traab]

It takes 8-12" of sand to stop a bullet, possibly more. I have a PDF somewhere with the data.

The advantage of having a wall with a hollow space full of sand (or gravel) is that the sand will fall down inside and cover the hole from a previous bullet, so multiple shots in a single area won't penetrate any better than a single shot (vs thick wood or concrete block that can be shattered or chipped away over time).

Wont the sand pour OUT of the hole from the first shot?

[Spiryt]

Data about penetration against different media (some more 'official' some less:P) are relatively easy to find over the Internet.

It's probably best to consult few of those, because answer obviously really depends on heckload of things.

https://www.survivalmonkey.com/threads/bullet-penetration-on-wood.32448/

Different species of wood, treated in different ways will obviously react differently. Let's not even start about different projectile shapes, velocity/shape/mass.

So one inch thick table made of hard oak may actually be able to protect against some bullets, while pine table likely won't make any difference.

[tomandtish]

Depends on the type of gun and type of bullet. Some bullets are specifically designed to expand when they enter an object, so that they won't pass through and hit a person behind it. As such, taking cover would be a lot more practical against them than rifle rounds. The material of the table would be a large factor as well: some sort of pressboard isn't going to stop much of anything, but a relative hard wood desk or somewhat thick metal might work better.

That said, taking cover is probably more for hiding yourself, so nobody could shoot directly at you and don't know where you are exactly. Keeping a small profile would probably help this quite a bit, since it makes you a harder target to hit.

If the choice is being in the open or flipping over my kitchen table (5 inch thick hard oak, and weighs about 400 pounds), I know which I'm doing. I'd be willing to bet it will stop some rounds, and slow down a lot of others.

Of course, HOW I flip over my table is probably the biggest problem.... "Can you guys stop shooting at me and give me a hand?"


Hey, its a discussion not a quiz.

Anyway, I've heard stories of kevlar helmets stopping .50 rounds, though according to the teller the kevlar was badly deformed by the hit, making it doubtful anyone wearing it would have survived the impact.


Angle can also play a key factor. The primary role of those helmets isn't to save you from direct shots from military grade weaponry. It's to protect you from shrapnel, ricochets, and glancing shots.

[BannedInSchool]

When I first saw the title I thought it would be asking for purchasing advice. Ha.

[Triaxx]

For reasons too complicated to explain, I'd say always presume any round from a rifle is twice as powerful as the same caliber of handgun. That said, a .22 bullet, is the same diameter as a .223(5.56) round. But the latter has significantly more propellant pushing it. And for all that the .22 is anemic, it's still a bullet. It only really needs to penetrate into squishy things. IE, you. That's why body armor has pockets for rifle plates.

Table? I suspect quarter-inch penetration for a .22. And an additional quarter per caliber you go up. At least into solid wood. Once it's through though, it's not just the bullet trying to get you, but the splinters it's passage brings along with it.

Be it noted, all this presumes civilian or basic ball ammunition. Armor piercing is designed to do exactly that, and if it makes smaller holes, those add up.

[Dodom]

How does an insufficient cover act on the final damage? Lets say one is going to be hit, is it better to get hit directly or through a thin obstacle?

The bullet is slowed, but also deforms, may fragment, tumble and send debris at the target along.
Is the spent energy or the gnarled bullet the most significant factor?

[JustSomeGuy]

I have a couple of (repurposed - welded, but damage is still visible) steel plates from a 5.56 rifle and 9mm pistol range with several hits, next time i'm in the garage i'll video them or something.

Off the top of my head, half inch or so max pen.

[Peelee]

When I first saw the title I thought it would be asking for purchasing advice. Ha.

Now that's the kind of thinking we need more of around here!

[J-H]

How does an insufficient cover act on the final damage? Lets say one is going to be hit, is it better to get hit directly or through a thin obstacle?

The bullet is slowed, but also deforms, may fragment, tumble and send debris at the target along.
Is the spent energy or the gnarled bullet the most significant factor?
It depends on the bullet and the speed. If the bullet is slowed to 400fps, I'll take the "through the obstacle" hit with associated shrapnel. If it's a rifle bullet and is still going at 2600fps, it's probably better to have it not already tumbling and ready to fragment at the point of entry; with luck, it's a stable FMJ round and will just make a neat hole all the way through.


Wont the sand pour OUT of the hole from the first shot?
Only in small amounts, unless it's a big gaping hole. Armies have been using sandbags and earthworks to stop bullets since some time after gunpowder artillery was introduced.

[Spiryt]

It depends on the bullet and the speed. If the bullet is slowed to 400fps, I'll take the "through the obstacle" hit with associated shrapnel. If it's a rifle bullet and is still going at 2600fps, it's probably better to have it not already tumbling and ready to fragment at the point of entry; with luck, it's a stable FMJ round and will just make a neat hole all the way through.
.

On the other hand, there are plenty of bullet rounds that tumble and fragment violently precisely because of their high speed and/or balance and shape due to sharp profile.

So them hitting the table and fragmenting already could be life saving if all the collisions and fragmenting can rob the shrapnels out of enough energy.

[Traab]

It depends on the bullet and the speed. If the bullet is slowed to 400fps, I'll take the "through the obstacle" hit with associated shrapnel. If it's a rifle bullet and is still going at 2600fps, it's probably better to have it not already tumbling and ready to fragment at the point of entry; with luck, it's a stable FMJ round and will just make a neat hole all the way through.


Only in small amounts, unless it's a big gaping hole. Armies have been using sandbags and earthworks to stop bullets since some time after gunpowder artillery was introduced.

True enough, I just figured they used them because dirt is freaking everywhere, and rough canvas sacks are easy to repair and refill after a fight.

[halfeye]

... easy to replace after a fight.

FTFY. :smallsmile:

[gomipile]

Even 1/8" mild steel will stop many handgun bullets, if loosely supported. The 3/16" stainless steel mentioned by the OP would be similar in properties to mild steel, and should stop most common handgun bullets(standard pressure 9mm, 40S&W, .38 special, .45ACP) even if firmly supported. High pressure loads like 10mm auto, .357 magnum, and .44 magnum would likely penetrate 3/16" mild steel. I know 10mm auto blows right through 1/8" mild steel. This is all out of standard pistol length barrels.

Keep in mind, the sheet metal used in cars is .031" to .078", while 1/8" is .125", and 3/16" is .1875".

1" of wood will not help much against solid bullets in any common caliber. Even a .22 long rifle rimfire can penetrate 4" of pine, and is definitely still lethally dangerous after only 1".

1" of granite or marble is harder to quantify. I know rifle rounds from 5.56x45mm on up can shatter countertop granite, but I'm not sure about pistol calibers.

Here's an informal on YouTube done with 1/8" mild steel plate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4VmRiDuIwM

[Douglas]

How does an insufficient cover act on the final damage? Lets say one is going to be hit, is it better to get hit directly or through a thin obstacle?

The bullet is slowed, but also deforms, may fragment, tumble and send debris at the target along.
Is the spent energy or the gnarled bullet the most significant factor?
I once randomly watched a history channel thing about various long range sniper shots that have happened in military operations. One of them was at a group of three (I think) insurgents who took cover behind a concrete wall, or something similar. The sniper proceeded to shoot the wall with a bullet specifically designed to a) catch in the wall, b) explode there, and c) use the wall as shrapnel. The result was a single shot that turned all three insurgents into bloody shreds.

[JustSomeGuy]

http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8mKmyDCwOIlfUNMBaA8nqw

http://youtu.be/DQpv_iXGhe0


Not sure which works better, same video though

[wumpus]

Note, "handgun" is going to have a big difference over rifle, and moreso over ".50 BMG round".

In general, handgun rounds needs to remain in the victim for maximal damage (not always needed to be lethal or effective, but a general design principle). Rifles are going to cause damage just due to the shear speed of the thing ripping through, so don't have the same issues. The point is that if your table is as hard to penetrate as a human, you should be safe behind it (modulo getting a stake through the heart due to an unlucky large splinter coming your way).

The problem is that few tables seem to be designed for that type of stress. Certainly a pool table (w/slate) will work great the first (few?) shot, but I doubt that all that many are good. Still, it does provide concealment and should slow the bullet down a lot, hopefully enough to get it under fatal damage.

I'm surprised that sand didn't work. I'd especially assume that sand in front of steel would work well, and would have to know if there was a bullet-sized hole it came out of or larger. Doing real engineering instead of "top gear engineering" would probably involve filling a steel can with sand, shooting it, then moving on to things like "ballistic gelatin in said can" and "ballistic gelatin + sand in said can". Finally moving on to something like "ballistic gelatin with washers suspended in it", which might not weigh more than the sand.

[monomer]

I once randomly watched a history channel thing about various long range sniper shots that have happened in military operations. One of them was at a group of three (I think) insurgents who took cover behind a concrete wall, or something similar. The sniper proceeded to shoot the wall with a bullet specifically designed to a) catch in the wall, b) explode there, and c) use the wall as shrapnel. The result was a single shot that turned all three insurgents into bloody shreds.

Huh, didn't know it was a documentary :smalltongue:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZJWd-1oUCg

[Tyndmyr]

I've seen several tines in movies, TV, and other media where someone will take cover behind an overturned table in the midst of a firefight.

I'm not going to argue the tactic of taking cover (which is sound), rather that expecting a table to block a bullet is unsound. But then I'm no expert on the subject of tables or handguns.

So, let's have a discussion. What is the probability that a 3/16* inch thick stainless steelsteel tabletop will stop a bullet of any given caliber? How about 1 inch wood tabletop? Or a 3/4 inch stone countertop?

*Originally I posted 3/8 inch (9.5 mm) stainless steel. I had originally meant to post 3/16 (4.8 mm) of course; I doubt many tables are constructed with 3/8 inch steel.

Most car doors, tables, etc provide very limited ballistic protection. They're just not designed to do so. You could get lucky, and the right angle or whatever could save you, or decrease injury, but the sort of bulletproof armor they are portrayed as in movies is not really accurate.

In most cases, even with metal thick enough to stop penetration(which seems unlikely for most tables), you're going to get spalling off the far surface. Fragments of metal blowing off. The metal used for tables is usually not of a quality and thickness meant for armor.


"shallowest penetration" of steel 11 inches? In WW2 the Sherman tank (which for most purposes was regarded as excellent) only had 3 inches of armour at its thickest point. Yes, some anti-tank guns could penetrate, but no man-portable rifle.

The Sherman was considered excellent because it was easy to mass produce, not because it was individually hard to kill. Zerg tactics were essentially what was used against the individually more armored Panzer tanks. Panzers vary depending on model, but armor could be as much as 9 inches thick.

However, yes, 11 inches of steel is generally quite sufficient for protection from small arms fire. I suspect they are using a definition there that isn't a solid block of steel, and is defined elsewhere.

It's basically a hollywoodism. People like seeing lots of gunshots, scenery chewing, etc. A real world gunfight in such circumstances is likely to be far, far shorter and less spectacular. Fistfights are similar, with most real world fights having way fewer awesome reversals, special moves, etc.

[halfeye]

The Sherman was considered excellent because it was easy to mass produce, not because it was individually hard to kill.

In 1942, the Sherman was good, except against the first Tigers, which were rare and slow. In the pacific theatre, Shermans were awesome until the end of the war. In Europe in 1944, Shermans were not very good, but there were a lot of them.


However, yes, 11 inches of steel is generally quite sufficient for protection from small arms fire. I suspect they are using a definition there that isn't a solid block of steel, and is defined elsewhere.

We had this earlier in the thread, about three times so far, it was penetration into ballistic jelly (whatever that is) after going through two sheets of thin steel mimicing a car door.

In WW1 12mm of steel would stop an ordinary .303 (or similar) rifle bullet. Calibres have generally gone down since then.

[snowblizz]

We had this earlier in the thread, about three times so far, it was penetration into ballistic jelly (whatever that is) after going through two sheets of thin steel mimicing a car door.

You must not have watched the Mythbusters, like, at all.:smallbiggrin:

Ballistic jelly is a medium that provides comparable resitance and aspects of human flesh (density, mass, and even electrical resistance IIRC). Basically it's very close to the real thing but a lot easier to deal with than shooting pic carcasses. It is widely used by law-enforcement and other reasearch (and for fun!). And it will be more or less the same whereever you make it so tests are comparable.

[Gnoman]

In 1942, the Sherman was good, except against the first Tigers, which were rare and slow. In the pacific theatre, Shermans were awesome until the end of the war. In Europe in 1944, Shermans were not very good, but there were a lot of them.


The upgunned (76mm, not the British Firerfly) M4 Sherman was arguably (the T-34-85 was a strong contender) the best medium tank built during WWII. The Panther was extremely unreliable, had terrible side armor, and the excessively large gun made maneuvering difficult.

[HandofShadows]

In WW1 12mm of steel would stop an ordinary .303 (or similar) rifle bullet. Calibres have generally gone down since then.

Equaling caliber to penetration is not a good idea. In fact larger calibers will have less penetration than smaller ones if the rounds were fired with the same amount of power behind them. For best penetration you want a small round with high velocity. That's the reason NATO is moving away from the 9mm to rounds like the 5.7×28mm and 4.6×30mm to defeat body armor.

As for the Sherman here is an interesting take on things. https://youtu.be/bNjp_4jY8pY :smallbiggrin:

[JustSomeGuy]

Based on the rough measurements of my range metal, 12mm seems a fair generalisation

[Jay R]

The reason to hide behind a table or wall isn't armor; it's cover. If he cannot see you, he cannot be sure where to aim. Even if he can see part of you, it's much harder to hit an implied target than one you can see.

And yes, the movies always get this wrong. So what else is new?

[J-H]

Cover stops bullets. Concealment just hides you, but doesn't stop bullets. A table is concealment, not cover.

[BannedInSchool]

And wearing a table-patterned apron is just camouflage.

[Gnoman]

Well, the Sherman was mechanically reliable and a death trap for fighting in. The problem was that they didn't realize it until too late.

They deployed Shermans in North Africa, where they were up against early-mark panzers mostly and did well. This gave them a rather inflated notion of its usefulness.

During the 1943 Sicily and Italy invasions, they ran into relatively few Tigers, which were used in an idiotic manner (attacking along a coast road exposed to the guns of a battleship visibly right off the coast, etc.). So their fond imaginings about the Sherman weren't disturbed.

Then, in 1944, they came ashore in Normandy and the Panzer V Panthers tore them a new one you could carry a watermelon in. Eventually, they figured out that they could push ahead by using combined arms -- if you meet panzers, hit them with not only Shermans, but artillery, airstrikes, bazooka teams, etc. And they still took high losses.

The commanders finally realized they were fighting a 1944 battle with a tank that was great in 1941 and sucked in 1944. Hence they pushed the M26 Pershing into production. However, less than a year remained in the war at that point; so only around 100 Pershings made it to Europe. But they did prove capable of going toe to toe with the German heavies.

Yes, the Sherman was reliable -- so it definitely gets you quickly to the location where a lurking Sturmgeschutz III or Panther or Tiger turns your body into a gory paste spattered over the inside of your combat-obsolete vehicle.

This is a myth. There was a very brief period where, due to a combination of bad intelligence and the most beautiful tactical situation possible for the Germans, the Shermans had difficulty, but outside of a few months in 1944 the M4 was far more effective in all roles that the German counterparts. No, the armor couldn't stop all of the German guns - that is expected, because by 1944 the Germans were using guns that the armor on a heavy cruiser couldn't stop at the ranges involved. No, the gun originally fitted couldn't punch through the heavy-cruiser grade armor that the Panther and Tiger II fitted at long range - the 76mm gun adopted in early 1944 could with the proper ammunition. It was a medium tank, and adding that level of armor cripples the ability of a medium tank to fulfill the cavalry role that is the tank's only reason to exist, as evidenced by the Panther - the armor on the front (identical in thickness to the main belt of the Admiral Hipper) came at the cost of the side armor being vulnerable not only to every cannon in the Allied arsenal at any range but could be penetrated by the otherwise wholly-obsolete anti-tank rifles.

The monstrous gun (5.25 meters long) designed to penetrate armor of that grade came at a cost of crippling mobility in urban and heavily forested terrain. Note that the gun has very little benefit - the British 17-pounder had better penetration with all ammo at 4.19 meters long, and the M1 76mm on later Sherman tanks as well as the Hellcat TD (also 4.19 meters long, but firing at much lower pressure) came close with the proper ammunition (this, however, was issued to tanks in only small numbers as the regular ammo was usually good enough, and put less strain on the barrel). The monstrous armor on the Panther was mostly added weight - once the proper weapons went into the field, it wasn't enough to hold out the most common weapons (any TD could punch through at ordinary combat ranges, and the primary tanks of all nations except no-longer-being-built models that were still in service could do so if they got anywhere close, and came at the cost of allowing virtually anyting that got around the side (with guns all the way down to that on a prewar Panzer II) a fairly good chance of knocking the tank out. All this extra weight, which nobody except Hitler -not the engineers that were designing the tank, not the tankers that were consulted- thought was a good idea meant that the tank broke down if you looked at it funny (it was far from rare for half of a Panther unit to not make it to the combat area due to mechanical breakdown) and was far slower than they wanted it to be, opening up chances for a deadly flanking attack that a Sherman would not have fallen victim to. In actual combat, whoever shot first won 99% of the time, which is roughly the same as the Panzer IV except that the smaller PzIV had a lot more chances to shoot first.

The one time when the Panther performed spectacularly well was in France during the breakout from Normandy. US intelligence classified the Panther as a heavy tank based on armament and armor layout and expected it to be a very limited production tank like the Tiger they believed it was replacing. They also believed, based on an extensive set of specifications supplied by the Soviets from captured wrecks, that the upgunned tanks were not needed to penetrate the tank's frontal armor in the rare cases the tank was encountered - tests with US armor plates (which were not as hard as the Germans used because of the very serious spalling problem endemic to overly hard steel armor) showed that even the 75mm would do well enough and they could always bring up TDs or air support to knock out a stubborn Panther, or go around it. So they left the upgunned tanks in England to ease the supply situation. They instead met large numbers of Panthers in an area that formed a natural shooting gallery that the US forces had to cross, and took heavy losses.

The M26 Heavy Tank was never rushed into production. Quite the opposite - an absence of percieved need meant that it was a back-burner project until production started in November of 44.

[HandofShadows]

I think that Bulldog Psion needs to watch the vid I posted the link to earlier. :smallwink: Yeah totally agree the Sherman with a 76 and proper ammo was a great package. Heck the 76 on anything with a half way decent hull was killer. The Hellcat could be a terror when used properly. (Shoot and scoot).

[halfeye]

I think that Bulldog Psion needs to watch the vid I posted the link to earlier.

Which was as biased as the Sherman bashing.


Yeah totally agree the Sherman with a 76 and proper ammo was a great package.

It was an improvement, but the improved ammo was in short supply, and I'm not at all convinced even then it was enough to face the Panther.

[HandofShadows]

Which was as biased as the Sherman bashing.

It was an improvement, but the improved ammo was in short supply, and I'm not at all convinced even then it was enough to face the Panther.

http://knowledgeglue.com/dispelling-myths-surrounding-m4-sherman/

I would note that the 75 armed Sherman's where killing Panther's in Italy. And the 76 was a much better gun. Maybe it could not take the Panther in an open field at long distance, but not all battles are fought in open fields at long distance. There are hills, woods and many other factors at play.

[Bulldog Psion]

While it's true that the Sherman could potentially knock out a Panther in close quarters, the fact was that the Germans were on the defensive. This frequently allowed them to pick the battleground, at which point the Panther's long-range advantage enabled it to be placed in ambush with a good field of fire. Advancing in such circumstances, heavy losses among the Shermans were nearly guaranteed.

The Sherman was a good tank in 1941-42, but the war caused rapid weapons development, and by 1944-45 it was simply under-armored and frankly undergunned.

That doesn't mean you couldn't win in a Sherman. But the odds were that you would lose a lot of them -- which usually translated to the men inside, since retrieved knocked-out tanks could usually be repaired after you scraped the goo out of the inside.

Did it work? After a fashion, yes. Was it a good tank for 1944? IMO, no.

The factors that led to its employment can be basically summed up thus:

1. The US designed it early in the war, when it was still pretty tough among tanks.

2. They used in first in North Africa in 1942, where the Germans had mostly the early Panzer models, which were even lighter, and therefore the Americans got incorrect feedback on the tank, suggesting it was as good as they thought it was. Therefore, development of the M26 Pershing went slowly.

3. In 1943, the Americans used the Sherman in Sicily (Operation Husky) and Italy. The Germans had some Tigers there, but they used them very badly for the most part. On Sicily, for example, some second-rate panzer leader led his Tiger column along an open road on a slope exposed to sea where an American warship was anchored about 2 miles away. I'll let you guess what happened when the ship's 8-inch guns were brought to bear on those Tigers. This led the Americans to think the Germans didn't have anything better than the Sherman, because they really hadn't seen anything.

4. The next major tank clash was in Normandy 1944, when they got a Panther Surprise. Heck, the upgunned Panzer IV Ausf. H with the long-barreled high velocity L/48 75mm gun was a pretty formidable opponent for the Sherman, though not quite as overwhelming.

5. The Americans learned quickly that the Shermans could fight the panzers by using numbers, plus as much artillery and air support as they could dump on the enemy armor. That still doesn't make the Shermans equal competitors, though, it just means that they were still viable enough that they could be used to zerg the panzers, assuming that circumstances were favorable and that smart tactics were used.

6. The M26 Pershing got higher priority, but there was less than a year left in the war; you simply can't bring a vehicle into production instantly, especially when work wasn't too far along on it. So the Americans recognized the Sherman as inadequate, but they were stuck using it until the Pershing got into action. About 100 Pershings made it to the European theater during the war, and proved themselves able to go toe to toe with Panthers and Tigers, 1-vs-1, and win.

7. The Sherman actually did fairly well in the Ardennes, where it was able to rely on short-range ambush tactics in dense terrain. So it was a fairly good defensive tank, but on the offense, it was a lot weaker.

IMO, the Sherman was mediocre on the defense, and poor on the attack, but was what the US Army was stuck with at that point. It's notable that subsequent American tank design has greatly improved the anti-armor capabilities of American tanks; they're all designed, nominally at least, to take on their toughest contemporaries 1-to-1.

As for the 76mm gun, I'll quote Steven Zaloga's "Armored Thunderbolt," which attempts a reassessment of the Sherman but nevertheless states:



The 76mm gun was a mediocre, half-hearted attempt that was inferior to its contemporaries such as the German 75mm KwK 43 on the Panther, the 17-pounder on the British Sherman Firefly, or the Soviet 85mm gun on the T-34-85. In 1944, Ordnance again improvised using the 90mm antiaircraft gun, but this barely matched the capabilities of the smaller and lighter British 76mm gun (17-pounder) or German 75mm gun, and it did not approach the performance of the German 88mm tank gun. British tank officers serving in the United States during the war were mystified why Ordnance didn't exploit the talents of American industry to develop a better tank gun, given the poor performance of government teams in this regard.

Yes, the Sherman worked, but it was still far from a good tank. It was a fair-to-mediocre tank made in large numbers, but they could have done a lot better, too.

(On another note, if Hitler wanted to make the most of the Panther, he should have given his engineers a swift kick to get them to develop a variant with diesel engines, then mass produce the heck out of it. Lack of diesel engines in their armor and a failure to develop a strategic bomber didn't lose the Germans the war on their own, but both factors loom pretty large in explaining the result, IMO.)

[halfeye]

Lack of diesel engines in their armor and a failure to develop a strategic bomber didn't lose the Germans the war on their own, but both factors loom pretty large in explaining the result, IMO.

I more or less agree with most of the rest, but what lost the Germans the war was Hitler. He didn't believe in anything other than frontal attacks, didn't allow tactical retreats in the course of a strategic advance, and made production descisions on artistic grounds. Militarily he was an idiot.

[Bulldog Psion]

I more or less agree with most of the rest, but what lost the Germans the war was Hitler. He didn't believe in anything other than frontal attacks, didn't allow tactical retreats in the course of a strategic advance, and made production descisions on artistic grounds. Militarily he was an idiot.

True; and "no strategic bombers" and "no diesel tank engines" are both direct instances of his idiocy, actually. :smallwink:

[Gnoman]

5. The Americans learned quickly that the Shermans could fight the panzers by using numbers, plus as much artillery and air support as they could dump on the enemy armor. That still doesn't make the Shermans equal competitors, though, it just means that they were still viable enough that they could be used to zerg the panzers, assuming that circumstances were favorable and that smart tactics were used.


These "zerg rushes" never happened. Sure, the British loved to use 75mm Shermans to draw German tanks into a Firefly ambush, but that's basic tactics that would be done the same way on a Panzer I if there were any left. One on one, Shermans won more often than they lost against any German tank. Once you adjust the records so that all sides are using the same system to record losses (German wartime records only considered a vehicle a loss if it was beyond repair or they were unable to retrieve it, while Allied records considered any vehicle that was put out of action by damage to be a loss. This literally means that a Sherman that takes a round to the engine and the crew bails out without a scratch was considered a loss, while a Panther that took a round to the turret, lost the entire crew, and was converted into a JagdPanzer was only recorded as damaged.) the Germans came out behind on tank-to-tank combat - by a factor of three or five to one. The French took massive inspiration from the captured Panthers they were given after the war - inspiration to develop something, anything, to get rid of them.

[Bulldog Psion]

So you're basically saying that a Sherman was five times better than a Panther?

It's interesting how this war is probably better-documented than any other conflict in human history, and people still can't agree on stuff like the relative combat capabilities of tanks. Radically so.

[Gnoman]

So you're basically saying that a Sherman was five times better than a Panther?

IT doesn't have to be five times better. It just had to be at least as good, and as a medium tank it was. The Panther in the form actually produced was a terrible mishmash of tank destroyer and medium tank that performed both jobs poorly - id lacked a TD's concealability and a medium's mobility. What the designers wanted to build (if you play World of Tanks, this is represented by the VK 30.0X line) was a 30 ton tank with 60mm of sloped frontal armor with a gun slightly better than the T-34's 76mm (the Panther project started before the T-34-85 upgrade was known). Had this been built, it would have been an extremely effective replacement. Instead they got a 45 ton tank with 80mm of sloped frontal armor and a massive gun - with a suspension and engine designed for a 30 ton tank. As it was, it probably would have been better to stick with the proven Panzer IV design.


Huge amounts of the documentation from WWII is still being unearthed, and a huge part of what was around when German archives started becoming available was essentially boasting that the German General Staff dismissed but found useful for propaganda purposes.

[Bohandas]

It may not provide cover but it'll provide concealment

[HandofShadows]

I think people are concentrating a little to much on things like "who as the bigger gun" or "who as the most armor". There is much more to consider. For instance ergonomics. If your crew it tired after ridding in the tanks a few hours it's not a good thing. Optics. If the gunner can see a target and get it's range faster it can get a round on target first. How fast the gun can be reloaded is another factor. How accurate a gun in at range, how good the armor is (not thickness but quality of the materials) who reliable the tank was (a tank that breaks down all the time is not a good tank). And so on.

How many people here know that the M4 had an gyro stabilization system for its gun?

[halfeye]

How many people here know that the M4 had an gyro stabilization system for its gun?

I could even remember it (which is kind of rare). I also remember it was not good enough to shoot while moving. It was still a slight advantage.

I'm not saying the Sherman was a bad tank, in 1940 the Matilda2 was an excellent tank, in 1942 the Matilda2 was questionable, in 1944 if it had still been in service (it wasn't) it would have been bad. There is no way that the 75mm armed Sherman was the best medium tank in 1945.

[Gnoman]

I could even remember it (which is kind of rare). I also remember it was not good enough to shoot while moving. It was still a slight advantage.

I'm not saying the Sherman was a bad tank, in 1940 the Matilda2 was an excellent tank, in 1942 the Matilda2 was questionable, in 1944 if it had still been in service (it wasn't) it would have been bad. There is no way that the 75mm armed Sherman was the best medium tank in 1945.

I said the 76mm was, not the 75.

As for the auto stabilizer, it was good enough to fire on the move with a much higher accuracy - crews weren't properly trained on it and many deactivated it, giving it a bad reputation.

[halfeye]

IT doesn't have to be five times better. It just had to be at least as good, and as a medium tank it was. The Panther in the form actually produced was a terrible mishmash of tank destroyer and medium tank that performed both jobs poorly - id lacked a TD's concealability and a medium's mobility. What the designers wanted to build (if you play World of Tanks, this is represented by the VK 30.0X line) was a 30 ton tank with 60mm of sloped frontal armor with a gun slightly better than the T-34's 76mm (the Panther project started before the T-34-85 upgrade was known). Had this been built, it would have been an extremely effective replacement. Instead they got a 45 ton tank with 80mm of sloped frontal armor and a massive gun - with a suspension and engine designed for a 30 ton tank. As it was, it probably would have been better to stick with the proven Panzer IV design.

At Kursk it had teething troubles. They were mostly sorted by D Day.


I said the 76mm was, not the 75.

As for the auto stabilizer, it was good enough to fire on the move with a much higher accuracy - crews weren't properly trained on it and many deactivated it, giving it a bad reputation.

Don't be silly, higher accuracy than couldn't hit a hill, is still not enough to hit a tank at say 500 yards. To do useful damage, you had to hit particular points.


Huge amounts of the documentation <from WWII> is still being >unearthed< written.

FTFY


and a huge part of what was around when German archives started becoming available was essentially boasting that the German General Staff dismissed but found useful for propaganda purposes.

Propaganda was a function that the Nazi Party controlled almost entirely, the General Staff were neutered in almost all respects by D Day.


True; and "no strategic bombers" and "no diesel tank engines" are both direct instances of his idiocy, actually. :smallwink:

In the one case (diesel engines), I couldn't care less, in the other, nope.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walther_Wever_%28general%29

[Gnoman]

Don't be silly, higher accuracy than couldn't hit a hill, is still not enough to hit a tank at say 500 yards. To do useful damage, you had to hit particular points.




According to this (https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/1811/36137/OS_ENG_v28_i04_010.pdf?sequence=4) 1945 paper, a stabilizer-equpped M4 could hit what it was aiming at 70+% of the time while moving at 15 miles an hour, out to 1200 yards range.

[halfeye]

According to this (https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/1811/36137/OS_ENG_v28_i04_010.pdf?sequence=4) 1945 paper, a stabilizer-equpped M4 could hit what it was aiming at 70+% of the time while moving at 15 miles an hour, out to 1200 yards range.
That looks like advertising to me.

[Tyndmyr]

I would regret derailing the conversation accidentally, but...looks like it mostly came to a natural end anyway. And tanks are fun to talk about.


In 1942, the Sherman was good, except against the first Tigers, which were rare and slow. In the pacific theatre, Shermans were awesome until the end of the war. In Europe in 1944, Shermans were not very good, but there were a lot of them.

Granted, pacific theater had pretty much rubbish for tanks. Mostly, when folks are evaluating tanks, they're talking about Europe as far as WW2 goes. The island hopping made armor mostly irrelevant, and the Japanese never really invested that heavily into it. Germany produced maybe ten times as much armor as the Japanese did, and better stuff to boot(and the Allies made far more). Plus, they kept a lot of it in reserve, and never really used it. The Pacific is more a tale of infantry landings, air and sea war. Armor wasn't a big factor.

You've also got to evaluate the German armor performance in the context of the strategic scenarios, particularly when talking about late war, when they were undersupplied, frequently poorly supported, and thrown into hopeless situations where they were vastly outnumbered. Even great equipment can be sunk by poor strategic use quite easily, and the German high command had...issues. Plus, Shermans alone had about as many cranked out as the Germans made tanks of any kind. So, a number of fights were not really anything like a fair fight, but rather one side outclassed by utter industrial might, which makes evaluating on a 1v1 basis a little complicated/subjective.

[Brother Oni]

That looks like advertising to me.

While the test conditions aren't stated in the paper, I wouldn't be surprised if the 70% hit rate at 15mph over moderately rough terrain at 300-1200yds is with pristine, well maintained equipment under optimal conditions on a range rather than during combat with mass manufactured equipment that's been in the field a few months.

It does gives a good ballpark point of reference for the upper capabilities of the weapon system however.


So, a number of fights were not really anything like a fair fight, but rather one side outclassed by utter industrial might, which makes evaluating on a 1v1 basis a little complicated/subjective.

I think the classic saying is 'if you find yourself in a fair fight, you've done something wrong'.

[wumpus]

I would regret derailing the conversation accidentally, but...looks like it mostly came to a natural end anyway. And tanks are fun to talk about.



Granted, pacific theater had pretty much rubbish for tanks. Mostly, when folks are evaluating tanks, they're talking about Europe as far as WW2 goes. The island hopping made armor mostly irrelevant, and the Japanese never really invested that heavily into it. Germany produced maybe ten times as much armor as the Japanese did, and better stuff to boot(and the Allies made far more). Plus, they kept a lot of it in reserve, and never really used it. The Pacific is more a tale of infantry landings, air and sea war. Armor wasn't a big factor.

You've also got to evaluate the German armor performance in the context of the strategic scenarios, particularly when talking about late war, when they were undersupplied, frequently poorly supported, and thrown into hopeless situations where they were vastly outnumbered. Even great equipment can be sunk by poor strategic use quite easily, and the German high command had...issues. Plus, Shermans alone had about as many cranked out as the Germans made tanks of any kind. So, a number of fights were not really anything like a fair fight, but rather one side outclassed by utter industrial might, which makes evaluating on a 1v1 basis a little complicated/subjective.

Interesting point. I suspect that Pacific armor would be relatively slow and have the armor concentrated on the front (flanking wouldn't be much of an issue when the island is barely large enough for any movement). Just slow and methodical, possibly with the idea of trying to get a direct shot at artillery (and holding the Japanese off or your artillery). And then just let the meat grinder grind as much of the enemy instead of Marines.

Instead pretty much all the material went to Europe, and the Marines bled instead. I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't find ways to bolt on more sheets of steel to the front of what tanks they had.

[Gnoman]

Interesting point. I suspect that Pacific armor would be relatively slow and have the armor concentrated on the front (flanking wouldn't be much of an issue when the island is barely large enough for any movement). Just slow and methodical, possibly with the idea of trying to get a direct shot at artillery (and holding the Japanese off or your artillery). And then just let the meat grinder grind as much of the enemy instead of Marines.

Instead pretty much all the material went to Europe, and the Marines bled instead. I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't find ways to bolt on more sheets of steel to the front of what tanks they had.

Quite the opposite. The Pacific was where the British sent the older tanks no longer fit for the battlefields of Europe -the Matilda II in particular- because Japan's antitank capability was almost nonexistent (their primary antitank gun for the entire war was the 37mm, although there were some relatively short 75s in service as well). The US used primarily new-build tanks that were particularly suited for the theater because the lines were pumping out so many tanks this was easily affordable, but even those probably wouldn't have done too well in Europe - the 76mm never made it to the Pacific in quantity because the Japanese never built a tank that could keep out a 75 from any realistic distance or angle, for example.

[Knaight]

Quite the opposite. The Pacific was where the British sent the older tanks no longer fit for the battlefields of Europe -the Matilda II in particular- because Japan's antitank capability was almost nonexistent (their primary antitank gun for the entire war was the 37mm, although there were some relatively short 75s in service as well). The US used primarily new-build tanks that were particularly suited for the theater because the lines were pumping out so many tanks this was easily affordable, but even those probably wouldn't have done too well in Europe - the 76mm never made it to the Pacific in quantity because the Japanese never built a tank that could keep out a 75 from any realistic distance or angle, for example.

The older tanks were sent there because Japan's antitank capability was assumed to be nonexistent, but this was a poorly educated guess that happened to get lucky. A similar thing was done early in WWII involving sending out low end outmoded planes, which then ran right into the Zero. That went about how you'd expect.

[HandofShadows]

Japanese tanks in WWII were mainly built as infantry support tanks. (Nothing else was really needed against the Chinese) That means thin armor & small guns. More or less in the same class of the M2 Stuart in many respects. The Sherman totally outclassed these tanks. Only near the end of the war did Japan develop tanks with a 75mm gun and only very small numbers were ever produced (a lack of steel was a huge problem). Even with equal tanks though the US had a LOT more experience with tank combat.

[Tyndmyr]

Interesting point. I suspect that Pacific armor would be relatively slow and have the armor concentrated on the front (flanking wouldn't be much of an issue when the island is barely large enough for any movement). Just slow and methodical, possibly with the idea of trying to get a direct shot at artillery (and holding the Japanese off or your artillery). And then just let the meat grinder grind as much of the enemy instead of Marines.

Instead pretty much all the material went to Europe, and the Marines bled instead. I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't find ways to bolt on more sheets of steel to the front of what tanks they had.

Yeah, pretty much the opposite...light armor, and crap outdated tanks.

A Japanese tankette could be carried on the back of a Sherman, they were so tiny. Also, not very good.

There's the obvious material requirements, and the big thing ends up being transport/amphibious landing requirements. For island hopping, tanks have more limited utility. Sure, the armored gun aspect is still super nice, but...you have ships and aircraft for much of that. And the speed of driving is less relevant on a small island. Plus, a lot of these islands were pretty rugged, and you'd lose a bunch trying to get them to shore.

Basically, the Japanese didn't need them to take the islands from the existing forces, which were generally not armor-centric, and the Allies thus didn't need to worry so much about what they sent to take them in turn.

[Jonzac]

You need to remember the US Army tank doctrine at the time. There was an anti-infantry tank (the Sherman) and an anti-tank tank (M10). A tank regiment was suppose to have Shermans follow the infantry and provide support with a 75mm short barrel and several Machine Guns to support an infantry attack. If the enemy had tanks in the area the regiment was supposed to counter with the M10 and its 3" gun that could penetrate the armor from a tank fighting distance.

This doctrine was used by more than the US, the Germans did as will with the PzIIIs providing the anti-tank capability and the PzIVE providing the anti-infantry support. Now once real life showed up and it was shown that you couldn't always separate the two missions the Germans continued to upgun the PzIV...not because it was better but because the design and specifically the turret ring could support a larger 75mm gun that you started seeing on the PzIVF2s. The Sherman was also chosen as it was required to fit a 57mm, 75mm and 105mm gun.

[Gnoman]

You need to remember the US Army tank doctrine at the time. There was an anti-infantry tank (the Sherman) and an anti-tank tank (M10). A tank regiment was suppose to have Shermans follow the infantry and provide support with a 75mm short barrel and several Machine Guns to support an infantry attack. If the enemy had tanks in the area the regiment was supposed to counter with the M10 and its 3" gun that could penetrate the armor from a tank fighting distance.

This is not correct. Field Manual 100–5, Operations (May, 1941) explicitly classes tanks as the primary striking arm, with the role of infantry being to support the tanks.

Prewar US planning worked under the assumption that, due to the ability of an attacker to pick exactly where they wanted to strike, it was impossible for either side to prevent the other from punching armor through pretty much at will as the attacker would always find and punch through a weak point in the lines. This is why the US was the only power that designed and built turreted TDs with relatively light armor and high mobility instead of the casemated style with low profile and mobility favored elsewhere. The idea was for the TD battalions to be held in concentrations along the line, cut off any tank penetration, and exterminate it. As envisioned, the Tank Destroyers (the M10, M18, and M36) had no offensive role.

Medium tanks like the M4 was intended to punch through the enemy lines, cut off and exterminate defensive strongpoints, hit attack columns in the flank and rear, shoot up supply trucks, and other cavalry roles. Their organic weapons were intended to be able to take out anything, which is why the L/40 gun was used instead of the L/31. As soon as indications appeared that the 75 was headed toward obsolescence in the anti-armor role, an upgunning project was started to ensure the antitank capabilities remained up to par. This project was completed late in 1943, and production had changed over almost completely by January of 1944.

[wumpus]

You need to remember the US Army tank doctrine at the time. There was an anti-infantry tank (the Sherman) and an anti-tank tank (M10).

So are those 70+mm rounds acting as fragmenting shells (anti-infantry) or armor penetrating? Anti-infantry tanks make all kinds of sense, but I would prefer more machine-guns (and presumably use some sort of quickly rotating missile launcher in case a panzer rumbled nearby).

[HandofShadows]

You need to remember the US Army tank doctrine at the time. There was an anti-infantry tank (the Sherman) and an anti-tank tank (M10).

Have you ever seen the specs on the M10? It had ONE INCH ARMOR at it's thickest. You put it in an offensive roll it would get killed in short order by infantry. Even the name says it's not a tank. It's a Tank Destroyer. Anytime they tried to use the M10 like it was a tank, it usually led to a failure (and a dead M10).

[snowblizz]

So are those 70+mm rounds acting as fragmenting shells (anti-infantry) or armor penetrating? Anti-infantry tanks make all kinds of sense, but I would prefer more machine-guns (and presumably use some sort of quickly rotating missile launcher in case a panzer rumbled nearby).

You pick the shell type according to target. If you are lucky.

Too often you weren't given any or enough of the other type of round because someone done goofed.

[Jonzac]

Have you ever seen the specs on the M10? It had ONE INCH ARMOR at it's thickest. You put it in an offensive roll it would get killed in short order by infantry. Even the name says it's not a tank. It's a Tank Destroyer. Anytime they tried to use the M10 like it was a tank, it usually led to a failure (and a dead M10).

Two things with this.

1. The doctrine that led to the development of the split roles was developed in the late 30s and 1940 and was based on the doctrine developed by Guderin. The 3" gun on the M10 would be able to defeat ANY german tank that was seen before 1941 and could penetrate the Tiger at almost 1000m especially if the APCR rounds were used. Also the Sherman was able to defeat all PzIII and PzIV armor with the short barreled 75, it was the optics and the inherent inaccuracy of the short barreled gun that was the biggest problem.

2. Your right the Shermans were to be used in conjunction with the infantry to breakthrough and then follow up any breach with infantry supporting them, my bad. Regardless, the Sherman wasn't designed to fight tanks as its primary mission. It ended up doing a lot of that which is why the Army started the upgunning process. The Sherman had a lot going for it...thin width made cross Atlantic shipping easier, it was a fairly reliable tank (didn't break down a bunch), finally there were something like 4 or 5 plants building them and the retooling process to change would have slowed down any attack on the Atlantic Wall and finally the early part of the war showed that MASSIVE tank battles were not the norm so the Sherman was fine for what it needed to do...push the line forward in conjunction with the infantry.

[Wardog]

Those lame cop movies where they hide behind their doors during a shootout? Only marginally better than just standing out in the open.

What I want to know is why in Movieland, they armour the car doors, but don't bother putting any protection on the fuel tank? Especially as everything seems to run on nitroglycerine rather than petrol.

[factotum]

What I want to know is why in Movieland, they armour the car doors, but don't bother putting any protection on the fuel tank? Especially as everything seems to run on nitroglycerine rather than petrol.

You can't actually set fire to the contents of a fuel tank using bullets anyway--Mythbusters tested it, and even when they used tracer rounds (which contain phosphorus and thus glow white-hot while flying through the air) they couldn't get the fuel in the tank to ignite.

[wumpus]

You can't actually set fire to the contents of a fuel tank using bullets anyway--Mythbusters tested it, and even when they used tracer rounds (which contain phosphorus and thus glow white-hot while flying through the air) they couldn't get the fuel in the tank to ignite.

The real catch is that most "fuel" won't burn in liquid form. All you can set fire to is the vapors escaping from the tank. A really lucky shot would likely ignite the vapors (and send the heated mixture back out the hole) and then likely go out (due to lack of oxygen). Note that it is commonly said that the Mitsubishi Zero's lack of a self-sealing fuel tank was its undoing*. Presumably after a few rounds perforated the tank, it would be leaking fuel into a howling wind that would evaporate enough gas for the next tracer round to ignite the whole trail.

* No idea on the truth of this, just a commonly internet "fact". Note that this presumably should cover the many derivatives, apparently there were very few true "Zero" planes made (there is one at the Smithsonian (Udvar-Hazy), and it something like 1 of 3 surviving zeros).

[AMFV]

You can't actually set fire to the contents of a fuel tank using bullets anyway--Mythbusters tested it, and even when they used tracer rounds (which contain phosphorus and thus glow white-hot while flying through the air) they couldn't get the fuel in the tank to ignite.

An incendiary round probably could, or something purpose designed for that. Incendiary rounds are already used against vehicles and I suspect that's part of the reason why. Although there's a lot of other nice benefits from that particular usage (although to be honest, it's kind of rare on today's asymmetric battlefield).

[factotum]

Note that it is commonly said that the Mitsubishi Zero's lack of a self-sealing fuel tank was its undoing*. Presumably after a few rounds perforated the tank, it would be leaking fuel into a howling wind that would evaporate enough gas for the next tracer round to ignite the whole trail.


Or, you know, the plane would run out of fuel miles from its base and have to ditch...no need for it to become a fireball for that to be a bit of a problem, especially since most of them would have been flying over water at the time and the Pacific is a very, very big place!

[HandofShadows]

The real catch is that most "fuel" won't burn in liquid form. All you can set fire to is the vapors escaping from the tank. A really lucky shot would likely ignite the vapors (and send the heated mixture back out the hole) and then likely go out (due to lack of oxygen). Note that it is commonly said that the Mitsubishi Zero's lack of a self-sealing fuel tank was its undoing*. Presumably after a few rounds perforated the tank, it would be leaking fuel into a howling wind that would evaporate enough gas for the next tracer round to ignite the whole trail.

* No idea on the truth of this, just a commonly internet "fact". Note that this presumably should cover the many derivatives, apparently there were very few true "Zero" planes made (there is one at the Smithsonian (Udvar-Hazy), and it something like 1 of 3 surviving zeros).

I did a lot of study on WWII in the Pacific. And the lack of self sealing tanks on the early versions of the Zero was a huge drawback. Aviation fuel can be very volatile and is a real fire hazard if you tank starts to leak (and not just from enemy fire, a short in the electrical system might also start a fie). But there are other problems than fire. For one the plane will run out of fuel faster so you could crash flying back to base. The fuel flowing around inside the aircraft could also cause problems as it could affect the stability the craft (if it leaks inside the airframe). Sometimes a damaged tank could even rupture and damage the airframe.