Tank Profile comparisons

[Kyt]

Originally Posted by Von Poop

Just as an aside,
A post on another forum got me thinking about the oft-cited excessive height of the Sherman.. Is it really excessively high?
A quick trawl of the web (tried to use the better sites but forgive me for errors) gave me these rough figures for AFV height:

M4 sherman - 274cm
Pz. IV - 268cm
Tiger - 300cm
Pz.III - 233cm
Panther - 299cm
Pershing - 277cm
Cromwell - 249cm
Comet - 267cm
Churchill - 350cm (?) *edit* 250CM.. now that I could be arsed to check.

Excessive? seems not. Top heavy? not that I've read of.
Cheers,
Adam.

Found this from the site I mentioned in another thread.

[von Poop]

They're great!
That Panzerworld site always seems to throw up surprising articles. Something to do with the navigation but it often feels like a different site on every visit. Good stuff.
So in short, they're all much of a muchness, I reckon the Sherman has this 'tall' reputation due to it's overall odd shape. Particularly from behind it's 'height to width ratio' (? ?) makes it look taller than it actually is.

[Kyt]

Originally Posted by Von Poop

That Panzerworld site always seems to throw up surprising articles. Something to do with the navigation but it often feels like a different site on every visit.

That's why I decided to cut and paste - I'm getting really frustrated with websites either changing so much that I can't find the info again, or even worse, really good sites becoming defunct.

As long as the source is clearly shown, and no claims of original work are made (), I think this is far useage.

[Owen]

Good one Kyt, I think this destroys anyones point of view about the M4 being tall, it's the proportions of the M4 not the actual dimentions, as Adam says.

[von Poop]

So; anyone for looking into the famous, often quoted & widely accepted '5 to 1' Sherman statistic then?...

[Owen]

Originally Posted by Von Poop

So; anyone for looking into the famous, often quoted & widely accepted '5 to 1' Sherman statistic then?...

Looking but not coming up with much.
How about 9 T34s to 1 Panther???
PzKpfw V Panther

According to statistics of the American army, destroying a Panther costed five Shermans or about nine T-34's.

Pity they don't give a source apart from "the American Army"

[Kyt]

Originally Posted by Von Poop

So; anyone for looking into the famous, often quoted & widely accepted '5 to 1' Sherman statistic then?...

Isn't that just the spreading of the Wittman kill that passed as lore for all Sherman/Tiger/Panther encounters? Depends on which Wittman story one believes.

But you maybe interested in this:

http://www.wcfia.harvard.edu/seminar...g_pvt_ryan.pdf

[Kyt]

This was published in Military Review January 1946. Have a look at the second column on page 3. I wonder whether this was the start of the 5:1 soundbite?:

[von Poop]

Originally Posted by kyt

This was published in Military Review January 1946. Have a look at the second column on page 3. I wonder whether this was the start of the 5:1 soundbite?:Tank V tank.pdf

If it were then it would be a misquote of his point of view.

Fascinating stuff which appears, to me, to be packed with common sense rather than instinct or emotion, recommended reading for the tankophile.

"It must be remembered that the German tank had everything it's way. It was fighting a defensive game, the terrain was in it's favour and the wet ground played into it's hands"

"Though the Shermans were easily bested tank for tank, they could always bank on a numerical superiority, which fact was considered in tactics and strategy employed
By banding together and maneuvering they were able to dislodge and knock out the heavier German tank. Even during those days, one German tank knocked out for one American tank was a poor score. It was in most cases three to one, four to one, and Five to one in favour for our side."

"Virtually never did a scrap take place with fifty German tanks against fifty american or twenty against twenty. The proportion was usually five American tanks to one German, even ten to one."

"We could not use nor did we want a lumbering, heavy, mobile pillbox type of tank and we could not have done what we did if we were so equipped."

"I will say to the persons that have so glibly sold our tank down the river that there's more to it than meets the eye."

Cheers,
Adam.

[kfz]

DOesnt look right to me that. Sherman is the the same lenght and height as a Tiger.

Let me compare the models. Guess what it is!! The tight is just half as wide again with a turret ring half the size again as the Tommie cooker.

See how low the Chruchil is for the size of it. Rear engine/ rear wheel drive for you.