Picture of a Sherman withstanding a clean hit of a pak40 or better

[Christianmunich]

As discussed in another thread it looks like there is no picture available of a Sherman withstanding a 75mm high-velocity gun or better on the frontal plate.

Following criteria for the picture:

* pak40 hit or better ( 88mm guns kwk 42 ... )

* No glancing blows

* No edge hits

* No applique armour in form of spare tracks or other materials that could add relevant extra protection

* Either deflection or defeated projectile

Bonus:

* Good quality picture

* Documentation detailing the event, range etc

* No partial penetration.

Are there pictures for both? A deflected hit and a hit that failed to make a full penetration due to be absorbed by the actual plate.

The closest I have found which I believe does not qualify but could is Sherman A.42 from the British sample.

A.42-2.JPG

Bad quality obviously.

Two partial penetrations, one clear penetration and several non-penetrating hits in the middle of the tank, rightish. The tank was covered in spare plates per documentation but it stands to reason that it is possible, or even likely they were knocked of by prior hits. Notable are the varying degrees of impact damage despite all hits coming from the very same angle ( Sherman was abandoned at this point therefore not moving, no indication the German SPG moved ). The vertical angle was about 45% which means a near perfect situation for the Sherman armour. Range sadly unknown. Due to reported track links it is impossible to tell if the tracks influenced the impacts. This is the best I got.

Historical context of the request

The Sherman on paper should have been able to withstand hits from pak40 derivates on medium to high ranges depending on vertical angles. The armour quality as main factor is used to explain the lack of protection of early war Shermans against German projectiles which perfect steel should have offered. It is generally claimed Sherman late war steel was near perfect RHA and should have defeated pak40 PzGr 39 from 750 ranges or lower depending on angle. The German weapon and respective derivates were the main AP weapon used again Shermans and likely represented more than 2 thirds of the incoming projectiles. It stands to reason fully withstood hits must have happened in quite significant number. Even "inferior" armour of the Sherman glacis should have offered protection under more favourable conditions, either longer distance or bigger impact angles. Yet we have no clear pictures of such events. So I am looking for some...

About 10k Shermans were destroyed far more employed in combat, can't be so difficult to find a single picture of the Sherman armour actually withstanding a proper hit, right?

edit: Some further research: Apparently photos of Sherman Jumbos withstanding hits are indeed not rare, given their tiny production run compared with normal Sherman this goes to show that there was an interest in documenting such hits.

M4A3E2_30.jpg

Note: This is a E2, I am searching for regular Shermans being documented to have achieved the same.

Same tank after war, the gauges are filled but indicate the size:

M4A3E2_30-2.jpg

Only 200ish were produced and apparently at least three have pictures.

[Sheldrake]

You may not have seen a photograph - but the OR team in 21 AG saw a few.

OR 12 extracts M4 casualties.jpg

What exactly is the point you are trying to prove?

[Christianmunich]

Such reports include glancing blows and all kinds of hits on the edges of the vehicle et cetera. Examples for this can be found in the British late war sample of Sherman tanks. I am aware of the reports but I am looking for a direct clean hit on the front.

Not trying to prove anything at the moment, just curious if such pictures exist.

[Michael Kenny]

What exactly is the point you are trying to prove?

That he is always right.

He originally claimed :

The fact that apparently not a single photo of a Sherman with a withstood 75mm or higher hit exists should be telling.......... unable to find a single clear picture of a M4A3 withstanding a frontal plate impact.....................but not a single picture?

I responded with 2 such pictures and he immediately changed his 'burden of proof' to an impossibly high standard as well as re-defining the type of hit so that he is in effect asking for a clear photo of a penetration that did not penetrate!

viewtopic.php?p=2189008#p2189008

[Christianmunich]

The burden of proof is on you. You claim those tanks fulfil the criteria when asked for evidence you have given none. In one picture there is literally spare tracks on the front hull still and you claim those are clear examples of the Sherman front withstanding 75mm hits...

[Michael Kenny]

you claim those are clear examples of the Sherman front withstanding 75mm hits...

By any standard a hit on the front of a tank that does not penetrate is a classic example of a tank 'withstanding' a hit

[Christianmunich]

Like I said in the other thread if you honestly believe this to include actual applique armour and not factory armour then I am sorry you wasted your time.

My literal first post about this on Reddit included the following sentence:

The issue is that the report of the vehicles states the front was covered with spare tracks so if any hits were actually withstood by the glacis is unknown. Other hits penetrated cleanly.

My very first post in the thread you linked. This was typed before you copied my Reddit posts here, it is clear that I consider hits on spare tracks to not be clear withstood hits. And quite frankly everything else makes no sense, obviously, if you put enough stuff on a Sherman eventually it will withstand hits, that is not the question. You can agree with that or not but don't claim I changed any criteria. You failed to provide pictures that fulfil my initial criteria.

If you actually believed applique armour counts I wonder why you didn't tell me when I asked you if those tanks had applique armour.

[Mobius]

Not a German 75mm but..

sherman ballistic tests 2.jpg

[Christianmunich]

Thanks for the picture. To my layman's eye, the supposed deflected hits on the Shermans in the other thread appear substantially smaller than the majority of those.

[Sheldrake]

Such reports include glancing blows and all kinds of hits on the edges of the vehicle et cetera. Examples for this can be found in the British late war sample of Sherman tanks. I am aware of the reports but I am looking for a direct clean hit on the front.

Not trying to prove anything at the moment, just curious if such pictures exist.

Let me get this right.

You are looking for evidence of hits on tanks that do not penetrate, but want to ignore "glancing blows " which are , by definition, hits that have not penetrated. What do you think a non penetrating his would look like? A Sherman tank with a 75mm AP round sticking out of it?

You are also missing a lot of images of tanks which were penetrated. Paragraph 2 in the extract goes on the mention that many tanks that had been penetrated were patched up and re-issued. So there ought to be photographs of patched M4s. Maybe the patch job was an invisible mend to disguise an obvious weak spot.

[Michael Kenny]

My literal first post about this on Reddit included the following...........

You also posted this on Reditt:

''Got a short temp ban for repeatedly listing some "shady" stuff of more senior members but didn't care to go back yet. Got even warned beforehand privately that a moderator who is US vet doesn't like factual analysis of US combat performance and was then banned by this mod''

Are you still saying you were banned by a biased Mod?

[Christianmunich]

Such reports include glancing blows and all kinds of hits on the edges of the vehicle et cetera. Examples for this can be found in the British late war sample of Sherman tanks. I am aware of the reports but I am looking for a direct clean hit on the front.

Not trying to prove anything at the moment, just curious if such pictures exist.

Let me get this right.

You are looking for evidence of hits on tanks that do not penetrate, but want to ignore "glancing blows " which are , by definition, hits that have not penetrated. What do you think a non penetrating his would look like? A Sherman tank with a 75mm AP round sticking out of it?

You are also missing a lot of images of tanks which were penetrated. Paragraph 2 in the extract goes on the mention that many tanks that had been penetrated were patched up and re-issued. So there ought to be photographs of patched M4s. Maybe the patch job was an invisible mend to disguise an obvious weak spot.

I am looking for pictures of the Sherman glacis actually stopping a directly incoming projectile from penetrating into the tank. Not sure if you know what I mean with glancing blows.

Sometimes projectiles just scrap by the tank and keep flying. They hit the armour but don't have the vector to actually ever go into the tank they just move through the peripheral armour.

Here an example.

A.3.JPG

My interpretation of this hit is the following, the projectile had a trajectory that was never heading towards the interior of the tank but merely the outer border. It hits, moves through the armour and keeps flying. The projectile did not penetrate but it wasn't withstood either. The armour did nothing to the shell, the shell was simply never heading for the interior.

Another example:

A.45.JPG

This tank was hit from behind onto the protruding armour of the side turret, it simply took the armour with it and hit the driver. The projectile didn't penetrate but again it was never heading towards an area where it could actually penetrate.

In both cases the armour did nothing to protect the tank and yes I am not interested in such glancing blows, there are plenty. Even M5 Stuarts have glancing blows of 88mm. If a projectile hits the outer boundary of a tank it just passes through.

I am looking for a projectile heading directly for the interior of the tank being completely stopped by the armour.

Interesting side fact, the Red Army apparently excluded glancing blows from their analysis, they have penetration rates in their studies up to 99%. They knew a glancing blow is irrelevant to armour protection.

[David Thompson]

An off-topic post from Christianmunich, containing personal remarks about another forum member, was removed pursuant to AHF rules.

[MarkF617]

Since most shermans had extra, makeshift armour attached and most combat in Western Europe took place at shorter ranges than those you say the glasis should have deflected shots of the type you stipulate I don't think you will find too many, especially when you consider that someone in the middle of a war is going to be bothered to take a picture and that if they do it is likely sat in someone's personal collection and never published.

Thanks

Mark

[Yoozername]

Perhaps this could be moved to the photo threads?