how accurate is the sherman Jumbo?
- Thread starter Mosshadow
- Start date
Saphroneth
Banned
Right.
You may not quite understand how tanks are. There's often not such a thing as a "drivers compartment" so much as a "fighting compartment" which simply means the inside of the tank, and the trick isn't hitting but penetrating.
Getting a round through the vision slits is not possible, the vision slits aren't big enough to permit a complete 75mm round. Hitting the vision slits is possible, but mainly by chance - it's just not going to be doable to see the vision slits from that far off, let alone hit them pinpoint with an aimed shot. And if you hit the vision slits, it would get a bit of shrapnel into the tank but certainly not blow a huge hole in it or blow it up.
The 75mm L3 has a fairly poor penetration by 1945 standards, depending on the round loaded, but it's very good for 1942.
So in other words, the other issues include but are not limited to:
Eyesight of the gunner
Whether each vehicle is moving or not, and in which direction
Air quality (dusty means harder to aim)
How many times the tank's already fired (wears the lands of the rifling)
How used the tank team is to firing this tank's gun (experience)
What round's being fired
What the enemy tank is
Which orientation the enemy tank is in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman_variants#US_M4_sub-types
Just from a cursory search, the changes from the M4A3 are only in the armour and turret design (as well as grousers on the tracks), so this shouldn't affect accuracy (except when moving, as the tank is slower). However, it also says that most Jumbos were outfitted with the 76mm variant, which would have an effect on accuracy.
But if you're going by the production model, I don't think it will have a different performance outside of protection and speed compared tot he M4A3.
As far as I'm aware the Jumbo was designed to take the 76mm but early production models were fitted with the 75mm and later retrofitted with the 76mm as and when they were available. So early on there was a mix of 75mm and 105mm (howitzer) with the 76mm becoming more common as time went on.
A Sherman Jumbo could aim at the drivers' compartment of an enemy tank, but it would be unlikely to penetrate because the drivers' compartment of a Panther or Tiger because that is protected by the thickest armour. The flacks is plate (front of the hull) is the thickest armour on most tanks.
The second thickest armour was on the Langley (front of the turret). Third thickest armour was along the sides, etc. with the thinnest armour on top of the engine compartment. A Sherman could only kill a Tiger by shooting it on the ass.
Canadian Sherman crews learned to defeat Panthers by aiming at the bottom of the mantelet and ricochetting rounds into the thin armour on top of the drivers' compartment. Panther factories countered this tactic by adding a lip to the bottom of the mantlet of late-production Panther.
Keep in mind that Panthers and Tigers were in a minority in Normandy during 1944. Numerically, Sherman's were more likely to fight Panzerkampfwagon 4, which were their equals. During 1944 and 1946 the Germans fielded large numbers of Sturmgeschutz self-propelled guns, most of them based on Pz3 or 4 chassis, which Shermans could shoot holes in.
The second thickest armour was on the Langley (front of the turret). Third thickest armour was along the sides, etc. with the thinnest armour on top of the engine compartment. A Sherman could only kill a Tiger by shooting it on the ass.
Canadian Sherman crews learned to defeat Panthers by aiming at the bottom of the mantelet and ricochetting rounds into the thin armour on top of the drivers' compartment. Panther factories countered this tactic by adding a lip to the bottom of the mantlet of late-production Panther.
Keep in mind that Panthers and Tigers were in a minority in Normandy during 1944. Numerically, Sherman's were more likely to fight Panzerkampfwagon 4, which were their equals. During 1944 and 1946 the Germans fielded large numbers of Sturmgeschutz self-propelled guns, most of them based on Pz3 or 4 chassis, which Shermans could shoot holes in.
Sorry for being unclear but I understand quite well that there is no obvious driver compartment...
but..... the discussion was about a few Sherman Jumbos shooting at a Halo Scorpion tank, which does have a rather large drivers compartment that is not well protected at all. I just didn't want to ask this in ASB so I didn't write that down.
Saphroneth
Banned
...
ASB is the place for this kind of thing.
Anyway.
That answers one question, all the rest remain. And I'd argue that we know so little about the armour of this tank from 2525 or later that it would be like arguing if a basilisk (cannon from the 1500s) could hit a modern tank. From the point of view of someone in the 1600s.
Obviously it can be hit, but the real question is effectiveness - and we know as little about what the Scorpion's made of as 17th century people would know about the armour of a Tiger tank. (It's steel, but RHA steel or Krupp steel is very different from the steels they'd have experience with.)
I read an account in a book called "Armoured Guardsman" written by a young Officer in the Grenadier Guards (IIRC) - the chap was a troop / Platoon commander and during the Normandy campaign his troop came across a Panther Tank.
After he had ordered his Troops Firefly to engage it - the Panther had spotted them and immediately took out the Firefly (a Sherman with a 17 pounder gun shoe horned into the turret instead of the 75mm - in Normandy approx 1 in 4 British Shermans were up gunned).
The officers tank then stalked said Panther and killed it by shooting a 75mm round at the underside of the panthers gun and attempting to deflect the round down into the Drivers compartment.
In this they were successful and the German crew abandoned the Panther and fled.
The Author upon inspecting the Panther found the Driver dead in his seat the 'defected round' having penetrated the hatch above him
There is also Tiger 131 which was 'knocked out' by a series of similar shots from 57mm armed Churchill's
The Tank was only hit 3 times - but each shot would be considered a "Critical Hit" if one was playing a certain online PvP game involving tanks of this period.......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_131
"A solid shot hit the Tiger's gun barrel and ricocheted into its turret ring, jamming its traverse, wounding the driver and front gunner and destroying the radio. A second shot hit the turret lifting lug, disabling the gun's elevation device. A third shot hit the loader's hatch, deflecting fragments into the turret. The German crew bailed out, taking their wounded with them and leaving the knocked-out but still drivable and largely intact tank behind"
So I would say yes!
That works though what about the range? I did hear that the 17 pounders are much more accurate than a 75mm at the cost of much slower reloading.
Saphroneth
Banned
Everything's tradeoffs. Very few single actions are impossible, there's a concept called "golden BB" - where a low-powered shell or bullet manages to hit exactly the right spot. They can, however, be very, very improbable.
The 17-lber was much more powerful and accurate, which is why it was used when it was.
But remember - hitting is not penetrating.
It's alo about probability, really.
Delta Force
Banned
If it hits close enough, wouldn't the driver be at risk of concussion, being injured by spalling, or being blinded by fragments?
Saphroneth
Banned
It actually depends on the driver and the armour scheme. Remember this is about a 25th century tank as the target, it's entirely possible there's shock-dampening mechanisms built into the thing...
But yes, for a more normal tank, spalling is an issue.
The 75mm APC and 76mm APC had similar accuracy/dispersion. The 76mm had a 96% chance to hit a 5'x2' panel simulating the lower nose plate or turret on a Panther at about 1,000yds. In practice, that's a 2'x2' target since horizontal and vertical dispersion is similar.
(Mean dispersions for deflection and elevation were .115mil/.142mil for the 90mm, and .112 and .110 for the 76mm respectively.)
That's for stationary targets. Against a moving target, 76mm gunners hit 75% of the time.
76mm HVAP is reported to be more accurate then standard 76mm.
(Mean dispersions for deflection and elevation were .115mil/.142mil for the 90mm, and .112 and .110 for the 76mm respectively.)
That's for stationary targets. Against a moving target, 76mm gunners hit 75% of the time.
76mm HVAP is reported to be more accurate then standard 76mm.
Last edited:
Well the shells are twice the size due to the rather massive case on the 17 pounder shell relative to the M2 75mm
So it might be slower to load but not by much I would not have thought
The problem would be (and its the same with most tanks) that once the ready use ammo was gone - ie the ammo near by to the loader - the loader and possibly other crew men would have to scurry about the tank restocking the ready use ammo.
The larger the round the more difficult this operation would be
Also the Firefly having only 4 crew vs the normal Sherman's 5 would make this a bigger problem - but again not an insurmountable one given that Firefly's usually had the best crews in a given tank battalion or 'Tank Regiment' as the British like to call it (basically in order to confuse the continental types where a regiment is 2 or 3 Battalions).
Regarding accuracy - the firefly has a longer gun and the shell has much significantly more propellant than the normal US 75mm so the velocity of the shell is much higher - so yes its a lot more accurate than the M2
Umm, firing tests showed the 17lbr was less accurate then the 76mm APC, which was as accurate as the 75mm APC round.
The 17lb APCBC round had a 67% increase in dispersion in deflection (left-right) and 101% greater dispersion in elevation.
In addition, at 1000yds, the US 76mm had a 96% chance to hit a 5'x2' target, while the 17lbr APCBC only had a 45% chance, and the APDS round a 15% chance.
The 17lb APCBC round had a 67% increase in dispersion in deflection (left-right) and 101% greater dispersion in elevation.
In addition, at 1000yds, the US 76mm had a 96% chance to hit a 5'x2' target, while the 17lbr APCBC only had a 45% chance, and the APDS round a 15% chance.
That's a pretty drastic difference! If the 17pdr is so much more inaccurate than the 76/75mm guns, why bother with them in the first place? Seems like a well placed 76mm shot, while lacking in the raw penetrative power of the 17pdr, would be much better as it would be hitting a critical area 96% of the time...