"Tank Busting – Blowing Up the Myth of the Mighty...." Topic

…. M4 Sherman.

"THE SHERMAN TANK — who hasn't cheered it in Hollywood epics like A Bridge Too Far, Band of Brothers, or The Pacific? Just when all hope seemed lost, a column of Shermans arrives in the nick of time to save embattled American soldiers. Great cinematic moments like these are spot on, aren't they? The Sherman was the tank that won the war, right?

Well, not exactly.

According to British historian Sir Max Hastings, "no single Allied failure had more important consequences on the European battlefield than the lack of tanks with adequate punch and protection." The Sherman, he added, was one of the Allies' "greatest failures."…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Haven't we done this one to death?

Tell it to the nazis since they had all the best tanks and still lost.

Not a great tank, but good enough and definitely not the allies greatest failure.

I'm not sure a British historian has a lot to brag about tanks of British design and manufacturing.

VCarter +1

Someone has a book to sell.

Bill N

Said it right.

I would argue that the Sherman was the best tank of the war hands down. Yes, it was a series of compromises as is any armored vehicle, but they certainly were where they were needed and in quantities sufficient to get the job done.

Perhaps the "Esteemed" Mr Hastings could point out the vehicles that the British produced that were better and available in sufficient quantity?

The author of the article is Christian DeJohn. He wrote a stinker of a book a while back
link

The positive reviews are all his friends. The other reviews are real readers.
In short the article is worthless like his book.
Mr DeJohn has an incredibly short fuse and when his book was first published he spammed dozens of forums with plugs. Whenever he received any criticism he default to full-on beast mode where he unleashed a torrent of abuse on the unlucky critic.
Garbage article, garbage link, garbage book.
DeJohn is a professional victim. He sued his 'Leftist' University when his Thesis was rejected(that became his book) and he sued the US Army (which he also accused of being 'leftist') when he failed to get a position at Carlisle

Garbage article, garbage link, garbage book.

And citing Hastings, well known as anti-American, as an authority hardly lends credibility.

And citing Hastings, well known as anti-American

You know when Hastings has a book out because he always starts a controversy' to help it sell. Hastings is one of the old school who think the sun shines out of the backside of every German soldier and his admiration knows no bounds. When his Singapore book was published he made sure his remarks about Australian troops deserting got into the papers. He will say or do anything to sell his tripe. He has just as much a downer on Montgomery as he does on the Americans. In short a fanboise.
The opening link is from 2017 and this is very old news indeed.

Just curious. Has anyone looked into the correlation of opposing forces in the ETO and pondered what influence that may have had on the progress of events?

B

Yep – done and double done.

I bet most M4s never encountered an enemy AFV. The movies and TV shows distort the history to make it more exciting.

If they had improved the M4 to be armoured and armed like a Panther then there would have been a lot of GIs and Tommies conducting attacks without tank support and the war would have taken a lot longer and cost more lives [on all sides].

The only issue is that 76mm armed tanks or better yet 17pdr armed Fireflies should have been integrated earlier. Once they were fielded in numbers the tank on tank crisis was solved.

Hastings' book on Normandy has been out for decades, so his view on the subject is hardly news. As I recall he was just as harsh on the British designs, describing Allied tank design overall as a scandal. There were Parliamentary enquiries into the issue, I think.

Just because an idiot gets paid a lot and understands little of real military matters (or choses to ignore it) AND plays to what sells, does not mean its true, sensible or even based on a credible premise.

If you still believe that gun size and the size of the front plate are the final arbiters of the value of a tank and that tanks merely traded blows until one of them burned, then yes the Sherman was a horrible design.

But in that case you believe a completely artificial fabrication.

I did find it rather interesting to go to the link mkenny provided and read the reviews. For the most part the positive ones were a quick sound bite with even the most "in depth" comments short of specifics (with one possible exception). Also note one of the 5 star reviews ends with "Great tank in spite of all of its shortcomings…clearly a major assets for the Allies during WWII." which seems to directly contradict the main thesis of the book!

Those who are critical provide some amazing chapter and verse comments pointing out the inaccuracies in the book.

I posted some time ago that I worked with a veteran who Hastings interviewed for his book Overlord. He was unimpressed by the drooling over the German army.

Remember Private Eye used to refer to him as 'Hitler Hastings'. This might be a comment on his editorial style, however….

Somebody posted some stats here recently to the effect that only about 15% of a US tank's combat time was spent fighting other tanks. I don't know how one gets to such stats, but if true (and no reason to think otherwise), then the main charge against the Sherman – that it was not much use against other tanks, especially German ones – assumes the proper perspective.

This is before considering the further advantages of reliability.

It was perfectly adequate for the other 85% of its duties (infantry support, fortifications etc), and better at certain of them than 76mm or 17-pounder Shermans.

The author of the book seems to have a wargamer's perspective: if it can't defeat Tigers, it's useless.

It was perfectly adequate for the other 85% of its duties (infantry support, fortifications etc), and better at certain of them than 76mm or 17-pounder Shermans.

True, but it always strikes me as somewhat ironic that the current US MBT is a modern day Tiger. Hugely expensive, complicated, a gas guzzler and optimised for tank on tank combat, whereas the cheap and cheerful Russian tanks, produced in the thousands are derided as useless.

This is way past even flogging a dead horse! Its flogging the horse's skeletal remains. Despite what the data show which has been covered in post after post on TMP some people are still going to use anecdotal evidence of dubious value to insist Sherman's were Death Traps!

it always strikes me as somewhat ironic that the current US MBT is a modern day Tiger. Hugely expensive, complicated, a gas guzzler and optimised for tank on tank combat, whereas the cheap and cheerful Russian tanks, produced in the thousands are derided as useless.

The US has produced thousands of Abrams, though.

The big problem with the Abrams is how slow it is on a strategic level. Only way to get any number of Abrams across the world is by ship.

As long as the US has international defense commitments, the US really needs a much lighter tank, down about 20-35 tons. 20 tons makes it light enough to fly in a C130. 35 tons makes it a 2-per-C17 load, effectively doubling the transport rate. I think I'd design the minimal-armor version to 20 tons and a max-armor version to 35 tons.

Lion. Yeah and while you could get twice as many there they'd die ten times as fast. If the Sherman we are talking about couldn't do it in WWII with 35 tons by what magic do you think a 35 ton tank is anything but cannon fodder in today's world?

Hmmm! They have built about 10,000 and they have sold quite a few. They currently cost 10 million $ each. Today's 35t tanks have very thick composite armours, not to be confused with the stuff the Iraqis had as Russia never exported their tanks with the top grade armour, guns etc. And as Lion points out getting to them to where you need them is a problem.

I would design a lighter tank with sufficient firepower and add modular armour upgrades.

This way you could get armed vehicles anywhere faster than the Abrams and then send the armour later.

Then again – maybe the US should stop sending armed forces overseas so much…

Speaking of weight, it has always struck me as extraordinary that the first Centurion and the Tiger I weighed about the same. You look at the capability gap between them, off the same weight limit, and it's like they are 30 rather than 3 years apart.

From a Sherman Commander in WWII.
PDF link

Wolfhag

You look at the capability gap between them, off the same weight limit, and it's like they are 30 rather than 3 years apart.

Really? I don't find it surprising at all. War always spurs developments. When you look at the capabilities of aircraft, fighters going from piston engined designs with top speeds in the 300+ range to jet fighters with speeds in the 500+ mph. Tank armour and gun power increased enormously over the course of the war. 3 years is long time in development terms during a war.

What I do find surprising is how little additional capability the M4/76 had over the basic M4 considering there was nearly 3 years between them

You could say the same about the T34. It's upgrade the T34/85 Was very similar to the Easy Eight. IIRC the E8s gave them a run for their money in Korea. Both tanks are an example of get it right then mass produce and stop re-designing every year.

And everyone also seems to overlook the fact that the two most prevalent German AFVs encountered, the Stug III/IV and Pz IV were very comparable to the Sherman. And BTW the armor on the Stug or IV wouldn't have stopped their 75mm or 88mm guns either!

The one real shortcoming of the Sherman was it didn't have a better gun sooner. We built the Merlin for the P51 under license shame we couldn't work out a way to do that with the 17 pdr (Not going to rehash all the why's here).

What always amazes me is for a country that produced the largest navy and air force the world has ever … will ever … See, the M1 rifle for every GI, the Atom Bomb, the F4U and P51 and SPAM (That's a joke lol) always gets knocked because we didnt also produce the worlds best tank. We only made one that was good enough to win the war and which by the way was still being used 20 years later to win wars. What other WWII tank was WINNING wars in the 60's???

I think it was actually all a conspiracy by the US government so that armchair generals playing with toy soldiers would have something to complain about 75 years later! Happy Fourth!

Excellent find Wolfhag. The linked article is short and well worth reading.

I had the pleasure of meeting BG Irzyk in 2006 in Atlanta. He was one of the guests of honor at a modeling convention run by Dragon models in conjunction with the annual national IPMS convention. Dragon even issued a limited edition of his tank.

BG Irzyk served as commander of the 8th Tank Battalion, 4th Armored Division during the Battle of the Bulge. An amazing career we lost him last year at 101.

In fact I'll double down on the Sherman and other US AFVs right here and now. I'll bet if you had offered the Germans in Normandy the chance to exchange their gas guzzling prone to breaking panzers for the Allied Armor in Normandy, a we'll takes yours and you take ours swap, they would have ALL agreed and pushed us off the beaches by the end of the summer. Having said that, it makes a basis for some very interesting What If games. Cheers!

Haven't we done this one to death?

Some topics take on a life of their own !

Generally with any weapon system, it's only as good as the crew and it's leadership. Plus having the numbers can't hurt either …

Yes we have. It will, however, re-appear next month as scheduled.

B

I'll bet if you had offered the Germans in Normandy the chance to exchange their gas guzzling prone to breaking panzers for the Allied Armor in Normandy, a we'll takes yours and you take ours swap, they would have ALL agreed and pushed us off the beaches by the end of the summer.

I very much doubt that. There were too many other problems the Germans faced to make that happen. If the US keeps the naval gun fire support, artillery, air supremacy etc then it wouldn't matter what tank they had they would still lose. There is. I such thing as a war winning tank. What the allies had in 1944 was war winning armed forces. The Germans came closest to that in 1941, but couldn't knock Russia out. By 1944 the German Army was well past it's use by date.

That should have said no such thing as a war winning tank.

@ Lee494
What other WWII tank was WINNING wars in the 60's???
The Centurion.

Fwiw. I think a much lighter tank could be as survivable as an abrams in the asymmetric warfare of recent times. Slats are often the most important bit of armour vs rpg. The hull shape vs ied.
Any tank is better than none. Which was of course one of the sherman's plusses. Easy to ship, fix and pretty reliable. It was sufficient for the job.
Maybe a modern 35 ton tank could also be.

You can also stack some active defense systems on there, which are significantly lighter than armor.

It's the warship protection model: If the incoming attack cannot hit you, you don't need (much) armor.

You do still need some armor and hull shaping to deal with IEDs and whatnot. But jammers and hard-kill systems can make it so that the attack doesn't hit in the first place.

Dear 4th not really. The Centurian saw combat for about 5 minutes in WWII and is therefore disqualified. Sorry!

The Centurian saw combat for about 5 minutes in WWII and is therefore disqualified.

Then perhaps you could tell us what wars the M4 was winning in the 60's all by itself? The ones I can think of had a lot of more modern tanks doing the heavy lifting.

Marc,
That must have been a real treat to meet him.

I'm working on a game system that uses Action Timing to determine who shoots first and gives a good simulation of the OODA Decision Loop. It eliminates the need for activations, IGUG and initiative rules. Seconds count.

When studying the Sherman I came across some interesting features and tactics. The commander had a turret traverse override (the only tank in WWII to have it) and a vane sight that he could line up the gun for the gunner. With a German Tiger, Panther or StuG target off to 45 degrees the fast turret rotation (28 degrees per second) and fast reaction time of an unbuttoned commander, the Sherman could get a shot off in about 5 seconds and a second shot off in about 7 seconds at ranges of under one second time of flight. If the Sherman engaged a Tiger or Panther at a 45 degree off angle he'd most likely get two shots off before the German got off one. A hit or near miss with a WP round would blind the German and give the rest of the platoon a chance to maneuver on it and he might decide to withdraw. Try simulating this with most WWII rules.

It had two-speed hydraulic turret traverse which gave better control than electric motor driven traverse. It stopped when the gunner wanted it too. Electric driven continued to traverse for 1-2 more seconds. The vertical plane stabilizer (when used) allowed quicker engagement when stopping. Remember, seconds count in real combat.

The stabilizer allowed better accuracy when moving. While not very good for tank-tank shooting it was good for shooting on the move into tree lines with HE quick fuse that would give an air burst to any enemy units in the tree line keeping them suppressed. It also helped the coax mg be more accurate too.

The armor hardly spalled which meant fewer crew causalities as did a hatch for each crew member to bail out more quickly.

The .50cal mg had excellent range and was good for recon by fire. If multiple tracers were seen to ricochet at the same spot it most likely meant an armored vehicle was identified and could be taken under fire by HE and WP or artillery strike.

It was equal to or superior to enemy tanks in N. Africa and Pacific for at least part of the war. I'm not even going to mention all of the different models, guns, etc the Sherman could have and the ability for indirect fire. It soldiered on into the 1980's in some third world countries. Adding armor would not have made much of a protection difference at typical engagement ranges of 900m and less in W. Europe. A heavier and larger tank would have made logistics a real problem for amphib landings. Fortunately for the Allies, they did not invade Europe with Panthers and Tigers.

Wolfhag

The vast majority of sherman stabilizers were disabled or removed.

There were 2 units liked them. Everyone else decided they were worse than useless. Including the british who experimented with them and concluded they should all be removed.

link

Andy,
I'm aware of that, that's why I said, "when used". I didn't want to start a side discussion on stabilizers. They had many issues. They had to be calibrated for a specific shell type, took 15 minutes to spool up, harder to load on the move, etc. From what I've read the units that did take the time to use them had an advantage. Useful for some units and useless for others, not unlike other weapons and mechanical systems. Anything that could give you a few seconds advantage to shoot first could be a lifesaver.

They seemed to be most useful when moving at higher speeds to suppress defenders, recon by fire to get through a defensive area and halt fire. The British weren't doing much of that in N. Europe so I can see why they'd find them useless, so would I.

There is a Sherman manual that goes into a lot of the detail of the mil error in elevation and engagement times with and without a stabilizer.

Wolfhag

You read the link where it says under 10mph?

WO 291/1202 Tank armament stabilisation: User experience and the present situation
Westinghouse hydro-electric stabilisation on the Stuart, Lee and Sherman stabilised the main turret armament and co-ax in elevation only.
"Owing to the limitations inherent in the system, it was used very little operationally. It gave slightly
better results when shooting on the move than could be obtained with a shoulder-controlled gun; but the chances of hitting when using it on the move were so small, compared with firing from the halt, that users preferred to engage their targets from the halt rather than on the move with the stabiliser working."
In Italy, the stabiliser was used as a shock-absorber on 76mm Shermans, as the big gun subjected the elevating mechanism to large shock loadings when moving cross-country.
"The Westinghouse stabiliser was so little used during the campaign in NW Europe, that servicing and repair of the equipment ceased after the liberation of Belgium. Replacement vehicles were sent forward classified as "fit", regardless of whether the stabiliser was in working order or not."

For better or worse the M4 was mass produced, and had been upgrade a number of times thru out the war. It was a "successful" design, that did get job done. Some would say at a cost.

Would I'd rather have a M26 than an M4 if I was a tanker ? Short answer -yes.

Legion 4 wrote –
"Would I'd rather have a M26 than an M4 if I was a tanker ? Short answer -yes."

- – -

A more interesting and perhaps apropos question would be – "Would I rather have had a 90mm armed Sherman (even if only one or two per platoon)?"

B

I would guess you'd want bigger, beter more of everything if you're the guy inside the thing. From the individual's perspective if your ride breaks down you get a cup of coffee and a smoke and you wait. If you can't cross certain bridges then you wait until someone works out a better route.

Otoh thicker armour makes your tank more survivable. A big gun means your shells aren't going to bounce off any enemy tank.

The downsides of an overloaded transmission probably don't seem quite so important compared to a 75mm shell through your ride.
It's a very different perspective than the general's.

Would the thicker armour that some wished for be effective against later model 75mm, 88mm and panzerfausts? Or would you get all of the negatives mentioned with the unused heavier tanks and only marginal improvement in protection? I'm one that believes the M4 was the right tank at the right time despite it's faults. Nothing ever built that I know of that didn't have faults.

A more interesting and perhaps apropos question would be – "Would I rather have had a 90mm armed Sherman (even if only one or two per platoon)?"

Wasn't the M25 a Sherman with a 90mm ?

Legion 4 wrote – "Wasn't the M25 a Sherman with a 90mm ?"

Hi Legion,
I'm guessing that you are thinking of the T25 medium tank design which was a developmental way-station on the long and convoluted path to the T26/M26 90mm heavy tank.
This was not based upon the Sherman tank; it was an offshoot of the T23 medium tank project which evolved from the decision to experiment with mounting a 90mm gun in place of the 76mm in the T23. The ultimate design of the T25E1 featured the 90mm gun, torsion bar suspension, 23in wide tracks and a "battle weight" of 77,590 lbs. 40 were produced by May 1944

The M36B1 (which mated the M36 90mm gun turret to a standard M4A3 medium tank hull – 187 produced Oct-Dec 44) would have filled the bill. If I am reading the data correctly, "battle weight" this vehicle was in the range of 62,000 lbs (31 short tons). The Sherman M4A3E2 series Jumbos operated in action at 82,600 pounds (41+ tons). If I'm not mistaken, the T23 90mm gun turret fit the Sherman's turret ring also.

T25 development was set aside in order to pursue the more heavily armored T25 series which belatedly resulted in the M26 heavy tank which made a brief curtain call near the end of the war. Chamberlain and Ellis give a decent time-line of the succession of medium tank developmental projects to provide a successor to the Sherman tank. This program started in May of 1942 and proceeded through the T20, T21, T22, T23, T25 (not including multiple sub-marks), culminating in the T26E3 re-designated as a "heavy" tank. It took the shock of the Bulge direct intervention by the General Staff to break the persistent bureaucratic in-fighting ( as late as Nov/Dec 44, AGF was STILL arguing for completion of s stateside test and evaluation program by Armored Forces command before shipment to the ETO). 20 T26E3s finally reached the ETO in Feb 45, where they were immediately issued to units fighting in Germany.

The more one reads of the "management" of these projects, the greater grows the impression that precious few people in CONUS had any real sense of urgency to deliver a successor to the M4 Sherman. IMO, a 90mm Sherman could have been delivered in ample time for Normandy if any serious will to do so had been brought to bear.

Strictly my opinion, of course.

B

While I'm on my rant, I will take the opportunity to make one other point. No one here (IMO) is arguing that the Sherman was a "crap tank"; it performed many tasks very well indeed. What IS being argued (by me at least) is that by 1944 the Sherman had become distinctly sub-par in the anti-armor role versus updated German designs which then constituted one-half of the opposing tank force in the ETO. This obsolescence had been predicted as early as mid-1942, yet nothing was achieved to resolve this foreseen issue in two years.

[/Rant]

B