and we have not even touched the reliability issues or operational/logistical side yet! So one could say that German "high end" tank stuff had better armour and guns than allied standard tank stuff (in 1943-1944), but. 75mm and 76mm armed M4 were fine against this stuff, Pzkpfw IV's and in infantry support role. 21st Panzer Division in Normandy, there were French Somua S-35 in service in Finland when the Germans retreated in 1945) etc. In the armour area the real problem for the Germans was the kaleidoscope collection of outdated and improvised armoured vehicles they had - various Jagdpanzers, Panzerjaegers, SP-guns, old, captured and converted tanks (e.g. This was seen as a problem for allies to a certain extent and led to the introduction of more Fireflys, M36 Jackson and Pershing (Centurion also entered service in 1945, but only after the end of the war). Panthers, Tigers and some Jagdpanzers had frontal armour that was not possible for 75mm or 76mm M4's (or Cromwells, or Churchills etc.) to penetrate at reasonable ranges. Tiger was a different development.Ībout a half of the medium tanks Germans produced in 1943-1945 were Pzkpfw IV and about a half were Panthers (approx. It is kind of logical that M4 (30 tons) was in some aspects better than Pzkpfw III/IV (22/25 tons) and Panther, a 45-ton tank developed two years later than the 30-ton M4, was in some aspects better than M4. M4 Sherman was designed in 1940 and could also be sufficiently upgraded.
![axis history forum normandy 90 days axis history forum normandy 90 days](https://www.mdpi.com/heritage/heritage-02-00098/article_deploy/html/images/heritage-02-00098-g001.png)
Pzkpfw IV was planned in 1934, earlier than Pzkpfw III (1935), but remained in service because it could be upgraded (and Germans needed all tanks they could get - there was a plan to stop producing it by the end of 1944). It was phased out of frontline service by the end of 1943. Germans had to plan and built Panther (1942-1943) quickly because Pzkpfw III, intended to be the main tank of panzer forces, was seen and proved to be inadequate in 1941-1942. And whether 17-pounder was better or worse in armour penetration than Kwk 42 or Kwk 36, I do not know for sure - but Kwk 40 (75mm/48) did not have better armour penetration than 17-pounder.
![axis history forum normandy 90 days axis history forum normandy 90 days](http://abload.de/img/p01129353ugl.jpg)
They also had better anti-tank guns than 75mm or 76mm armed M4. Panther and Tiger I had better armour than all M4 variants. Kwk 42 (Panther) and 17-pounder (Firefly) both had very good AT capability at the expense of HE capability and (relatively) short barrel life when compared with other 75-76mm guns discussed here (higher muzzle velocity). The were both originally supposed to be lighter vehicles than they turned out to be, which again caused issues. Kwk42 and Kwk36 required a 45 ton and a 57 ton arrangements, respectively, to be used effectively as tanks/ tank guns (Kwk 42 was also fitted to turretless JpzIV/70). But both of these worked more or less well.
![axis history forum normandy 90 days axis history forum normandy 90 days](https://i1.wp.com/archaeotravel.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Apollo-St_Michael_Axis.jpg)
H & J (25 tons) also caused issues 'cause the chassis was originally designed for a vehicle with a weight of about 20 tons. Kwk 40 and increased armour in Pzkpfw Iv Ausf. It is true that installing 17-pounder on M4 chassis (30 tons) caused issues. 75mm M2 had better HE than the other 75/76mm guns (not much better than Kwk40, but still) 2) all the data I posted was for armour penetration at 90 degrees as I wrote in my post you quoted (you can see it in the quote.) 3) drawbacks on different guns on different platforms were not included on your original statement, but all guns had them. 1) I evaluated the HE capabilities of the guns in my first post.