Jump to content

Talk:M4 Sherman

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 95.149.53.190 (talk) at 10:51, 17 March 2018 (→Armor effectiveness at range verses the 7.5cm KWK 40 L/48: Again). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on M4 Sherman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Armor effectiveness at range verses the 7.5cm KWK 40 L/48

The 3rd paragraph of the "Armor" section has this line.

The KwK 40 7.5 cm L/48 tank gun that armed late war versions of the Panzer IV could penetrate a Sherman's armor up to a range of 1,370[1]–1,500 meters, and larger guns could penetrate past 2,000 meters (2,200 yd).[2]

The wording of "up to a range of 1,370 - 1,500 meters." is rather confusing to me. If it could penetrate up to 1,500m, why mention the 1,370m? I don't currently own the source linked as it may actually specify the 2 numbers in that manner. However I feel it would be a lot more understandable if a single accurate number was used. Unless there is a specific reason for the 2 numbers. If there is a specific reason for it, the text should probably be updated to include that reason. I have no problem with the 2000m claim. Just left it because I copied the whole line. Linkxsc (talk) 04:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's highly dependent on the ammunition type, just as with any gun. DMorpheus2 (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the numbers do look like they could be about right to the late Panzer 4's APCBC, and APCR rounds, however nothing is given in the text to clarify this to the reader.Linkxsc (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The problem is that this kind of statement ( "Tank X could be knocked out by gun Y at such-and-such range") is common in wikipedia and is inherently misleading. Gun performance can only be specified when the ammunition type is also specified. Ammunition type can make a huge difference.
I understand that in wikipedia we want some kind of easy-to-understand, nontechnical way of approaching this information. But leaving out the ammunition type and then been overly precise with range isn't, perhaps, the best combination of information ;) DMorpheus2 (talk) 20:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The figures possibly refer to the gun's performance against the thickest armour on a Sherman, e.g. the glacis plate and turret mantlet, and also against the more thinly-armoured parts of the vehicle. Fired against parts of the Sherman that were less heavily-armoured, e.g., the sponson sides, the rear plate, would increase the range the Panzer IV's gun was effective at.
The thickest tank armour is usually concentrated on the front-facing parts of a vehicle, as that is usually the side facing the enemy. The sides and rear are usually less-heavily armoured, due to weight constraints. Thus a gun that will not penetrate the front of an enemy vehicle may well still prove useful provided it can be brought to bear against the side or rear of the vehicle. Unfortunately needing to do this may result in your own losses due to the delay while waiting for an opportunity to fire, during which the advancing enemy vehicle (with its front facing you) may well knock out two or three of your own tanks using his better gun. It was for this reason the British developed and used the Sherman Firefly as it eliminated this delay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.209 (talk) 14:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edits of Jan 20 2017 - english to metric

Are the english - to - metric edits actual measurements or derived? DMorpheus2 (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on M4 Sherman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed broken URLs. Pennsy22 (talk) 09:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image

I was surprised coming back to this article after a long time away to see that the infobox image is a relatively atypical for Sherman 105mm gun variant. Is there a) a better choice of variant for the infobox b) an image that faces into the article?

Foreign Users

Does anyone know if the People's Republic of China East Germany, and West Germany get any M4s?2601:245:C101:6BCC:9C12:2C88:8320:887F (talk) 13:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Reid, p. 374
  2. ^ Buckley, p. 126
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:M4_Sherman&oldid=830869844"