"A Poor Defense: Sherman tanks in WW2" Topic

"Experiencing WWII from the inside of a M4 Sherman tank was famously dangerous. Henry J. Earl retells his experience with the Sherman in a 1983 letter to Lt Colonel Haynes Dugan, one of the G-2 intelligence officers for the 3rd Armored Division.

The hit was low on the side. The interior of the tank was lit by a ball of fire caused by the terrific friction of the penetration. A white hot eighteen pound projectile entered the empty ammunition rack under the floor. The earlier modes of the M-4 "Sherman" medium tank did not store ammunition under the turret floor. The steel walls of the compartment prevented the molten metal from striking the interior of the hulland ricocheting throughout the tank. This saved the crew."

Unfortunately, many Sherman operators of WWII were not this lucky. The M4 Sherman was the primary tank utilized by the United States army during World War Two. It also became the main tank of the other Allied countries, except for Russia. The popularity of the Sherman was not due to its superior design, but its availability and mass production. On the contrary, this tank suffered from serious design flaws. Perhaps it is more appropriate to say that it was the soldiers within these tanks that bore the brunt of the Sherman's problems."
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Oh good. TMP has not done the Sherman discussion for at least a few weeks………….

Or even the very same link posted yet again. Goldfish memory.

Haven't we beat this horse to death enough? Like once for each Sherman actually lost during WWII? Senior Moment Maybe?

I was sure I'd seen the same title posted here previously but cannot find it via search.

Gary

Yes, The Sherman was a flawed vehicle, but it was on the battlefield in numbers (because of both production and the ability to ship that production to Europe) and it was reliable. I believe it was a good tank and outclassed the German tanks it faced by many factors.

~ 15 years ago I attended a Historicon convention and played in a large Market Garden game. As the game master started placing a long column of XXX Corps Sherman tanks on the table, I asked him how many Shermans did he have? He smiled and said he didn't know, he had so many.

Now, after finishing my inventory of unfinished 15mm Sherman tanks (and most of my other 15mm stack of resin and lead), I find myself in a similar condition. I may be able to actually tell you the answer, but I really don't want to know the answer.

Oh, and more are on order!

Go Shermans! The wonder tank of WW2!

Yeah we have talked about this a number of times here before.
I don't see any thing knew in the article.

But seems we do like to discuss the good old M4 !

The Sherman is considered to be a "war winning tank" and had the sheer numbers the Nazis could not hope to match, but that's no consolation to the poor tankers and historians who regarded them as "Ronson" death traps. So there will never be agreement on the Sherman I'm afraid.

It should be noted that after WWII the US changed its approach from "quantity over quality" to "quality over quantity" in the Cold War. Of course, Stalin said "quantity has a quality all its own."

So how is that any different than this Panther.

All tanks burned and all for the same reason. They all burn today, pretty much for the same reason. If they can get the main tank gun to use compressed air rather than flammable propellent they won't burn as badly.

The Sherman was a great tank and had technology the Germans didn't have like helical gears for the final drive, stabilized gun (when the crew knew how to use it), wet ammo storage, electrical turret traverse (not on the Tigers and Panther), an auxiliary motor that could charge the batteries and traverse the turret without the need for the engine to be running, and commander turret override and the ability for the commander to make a snap shot without the need for the gunner to acquire the target. While the armor did have some problems it was ductile enough that spalling was not a problem like on other tanks of the era. Unfortunately, very few war games take these advantages into consideration.

In addition, they could effectively deliver indirect fire, they used WP rounds, rockets, flamethrower, anti-mine attachments and dozer blades, canister rounds, .50cal machine guns. they could ricochet delay fuse HE rounds off the ground for an airburst. It mounted guns up to 105mm and were in service over 30 years after the war was over. That's not bad for a pre-WWII (for the US) design, the T6 prototype was completed on 2 September 1941.

There was a diesel version but was not compatible with the Army using all gas engines but the US Marines and Russians used them because diesel was readily available. The Germans did not have any diesel engine tanks.

Wolfhag

I think it was in a Bovington video on Youtube on the PzIV that the speaker suggested that the Germans would have been better rewarded if they had simply put all their production potential into the MkIV instead of the PzV and VI. Crank out the PzIVs and get as many on the battlefield as possible. Obviously not as sexy a strategy as what the Germans did but a better strategy overall. Isn't that what the Allies did with the Sherman? Max production and get as many onto the battlefield as possible. It is too bad the short barrel 75mm wasn't upgraded sooner but beyond that it was the winning strategy.

All tanks burned and all for the same reason.

That's definitely true. However, if Sherman tankers were, say, Pershing tankers instead their survivability rate would likely have been somewhat higher. At the very least they would have been much more confident taking on German tanks.

the Germans would have been better rewarded if they had simply put all their production potential into the MkIV

Maybe, but did the Germans have enough manpower and trained crew to take the "quantity over quality" route?

Place your bets, gentlemen …..

[___] > 50 posts

[___] > 100 posts

[___] > 150 posts

B

However, if Sherman tankers were, say, Pershing tankers instead their survivability rate would likely have been somewhat higher.

True. Climbing around in the engine bay changing a thrown serpentine six miles behind the lines probably has a far higher survival rate than dualing with PAKs and 'faustnicks.*

Exchange 10,000 Shermans for 4,000 Pershings and you'll save probably save a couple hundred tankers' lives, at the cost of many thousands of infantry lives.**

Although for any individual I have to wonder if his odds of survival would go up or down. With only a fraction as many tanks in theater, one wonders how many of the surplus tankers would wind up re-assigned to the infantry ranks. Casualty rates among combat infantrymen were several times higher than among tankers, and would have been even worse in the all-Pershing scenario as the infantry would be conducting attacks without armored support perhaps two or three times more often.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

*The Pershing has the reputation as the worst US Army tank ever to be adopted for overseas deployment, in terms of automotive performance and reliability. It was underpowered, and required a highly skilled and calm driver to prevent breakdowns on the battlefield. Among other issues, any sudden increase or decrease in engine torque risked throwing or breaking the single serpentine belt. This problem was never resolved until it was replaced by the M46 with a new engine.

**US Army infantry in offensive operations consistently attained higher tactical success rates, with lower casualties, when they were provided with armored support. This same trend, when numbers are available, appears with other major combatants as well. The difference was that the US Army in ETO was able to provide armored support to more than 8 (closer to 9) out of 10 attacks of battalion or larger size. The German army, for comparison, managed to provide armored support to about 3 out of 10 attacks.)

I was sure I'd seen the same title posted here previously but cannot find it via search.

If my memory serves me well by the same poster as well.

The risk is to look at it from a "tanker's" perspective, or worse as a "wargaming general."

Let's imagine that you have a crystal ball and manage to persuade the US military to crank out Pershings instead of Shermans.

This means shutting down production lines available since 1940, making parts and tanks. They all need to be retooled and preferably you don't start this kind of project June 5 1944 … you want a two or three year headstart to get numbers ready. Say you start in 1942, this means that the Shermans needed for North Africa will not be delivered. Next there is a teeny tiny problem, there is no Pershing sitting on the shelf ready to hit production.

You have a whole series of T2X prototypes, so no problem there ? Even if you have a prototype it's going to take months to translate this to a production plan. Next you have to go talk to the corps of engineers because they have a problem, since none of their bridges can carry the weight they can't guarantee that they can get you across certain rivers. So production for entirely new bridges is underway.

Next issue is transporting all those tanks to the coasts, in case you forgot the US has a bit of a water problem isolating it from other continents, it's nice because people are less likely to come knocking on the door, but it makes the job of transporting these tanks a real issue.

Next you'll want these tanks to land en masse on the Normandy beaches, sadly none of the regular transports can carry them, so you need the big LST style transports, a much bigger and juicier target than the LCT.

Also there is another silly problem, it's getting the tanks onto the ships, in 1942 there are very few cranes in US ports that can move a weight above 30 tons. Another issue is that every loading master on a ship will hate your guts since loading 30tons in one go is a real pain for a ship designed in the 1940's, 45tons is a pain and then some. Let me drop you an extra hint, the problem is the same in the UK and probably much, much worse in Europe, unless you capture a port and install proper cranes your Pershings will need a lot of improvisation with ferry boats and all kinds of tricks to get ashore.

To make things worse you have to transport them, now the number of flatbed cars that can transport a Pershing tank are again limited. When they tried to move a battalion of them in 1946, in peacetime, without any disruptions, it took a month to get them ready.

Finally there is one last issue. AGF was in the habit of making sure the equipment Ordnance came up with by thoroughly testing it, so that if you sent, say a 45-ton tank 80% would not be in permanent maintenance, even further diluting your tank pool. The Pershing was not even considered combat ready in December 1944 when it was shipped into Europe, they said it was close enough, but there were still problems to iron out.

So you have saved the US Army with a tank that is setting production back a whole year, arrives in much more limited numbers, causing a huge backpain to your logistics requiring a huge extra effort to bring infrastructure to spec.

And for what ? Because you want a tank that can drive to one side of a field, you can stand in the turret and then exchange fire with a Panther until one of you burns …

US tanks in the ETO fought tanks 10% of the time, so you created an overweight tank, frought with problems for a problem that is less than 10% of all combat targets.

Yes Shermans were at a disadvantage from June to September 1944 when Panthers were still a force to be reckoned with. The Germans never had more than a thousand Panthers on the Western front at best and from what I understand only about a third were active in combat at the best of times.

The Allies deploy ten thousand tanks in the same period.

350 Panthers and some Tigers, that's the big boogaloo the US Army has to invest a huge effort to make sure it is safe from that threat.

I know there is a very heavy bias towards depicting US tankers as complete fools born yesterday forced to fight 12 foot tall Aryan demigods capable of shrugging off a 75mm shell fired point blank into their face.

They might not have had optimal tools for dealing with German heavy tanks, but they learned on the job, and the first thing they learned was to avoid your average wargame setup where panthers burn every tank in sight because the average table doesn't give people a chance to use real flanking tactics.

The Sherman was good enough, it was reliable, it was excellent ergonomics and many advantages over a German tank, but because they are not related to armour thickness and gun size, they are considered irrelevant and stupid.

We're talking about a period of less than a year. The Allies landed in June and the first 76mm Shermans arrived in July. Go look up how long it took for the Germans to get the first long 75mm Panzer IV. New Tank destroyers arrive by the end of the year with a 90mm gun and Pershing does arrive in March 1945 but crews have to be trained in its use. And when they are first deployed, they can't even press the attack since none of them can cross the bridge at Remagen, the Sherman could …

Yes, the Sherman was technically obsolescent. But obsolete doesn't always mean completely ineffective. A 1911 will kill you stone cold dead even if it is "obsolete" next to a modern gun and while the Sherman didn't have all the cool superlatives of a German tank, it was all things considered a good weapon system, part a much greater military structure that greatly cushioned any shortcomings it may have had.

A 1911 will kill you stone cold dead even if it is "obsolete" next to a modern gun

So will a flint-lock horse pistol, or a big rock.

US tank doctrine was move up until finding German tanks then back out and use artillery and aircraft to remove German tanks. Rinse and repeat. DO NOT get into a tank battle. For these tactics the Sherman was excellent.

(smile)

Amicalement
Armand

If you wish to see a review of why the Sherman then go to this you tube lecture:
YouTube link

As an interesting sidelight I was looking through a TO&E of the Russian army and found a Russian Guards tank Brigade which exchanged it's T34/85s for Shermans. It suprised me till I figured out that after you break out you've got to exploit and the biggest advantage of the Sherman was it's reliability. If you are going to go 300 miles how many Shermans will be there and how many T34/85s will make it.

If you are interested in the Russian experience with the Sherman M4A2 check out:
link

Commanding the Red Army's Sherman Tanks: The World War II Memoirs of Hero of the SovietUnion Dmitry Loza, translated and edited by James F. Gebhardt, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln,Neb., 1996, $25. USD

Until the Communist Party fell from power in 1989, Soviet histories generally tended to downplay or dismiss the assistance that the Soviet Union received from the United States and Britain during World War II. Since then, however, Russian scholars and veterans have been able to reappraise that foreign aid and put it in more accurate perspective. That trend has also made possible the publication of a more personal, firsthand account of fighting on the Eastern Front using an American weapon–in this case, an M4A2 Sherman medium tank.

Even discounting the novelty of the author's imported vehicle, Commanding the Red Army's Sherman Tanks: The World War II Memoirs of Hero of the Soviet Union Dmitry Loza is a fascinating story. A veteran of service in the indigenous T-34 medium tank and the British-made Matilda, Loza begins his narrative with the acquisition of new M-4s (M-Chetyrye in Russian, contracted into the nickname of "Emcha") in the autumn of 1943. Four tons heavier than the T-34s, with a higher center of gravity, narrower track and inferior maneuverability, the Shermans took some getting used to, but their relative roominess, superior navigational equipment and reasonably potent 76.2mm gun eventually endeared them to their Soviet crews. Stringing together a variety of colorful anecdotes into a running narrative, Loza relates his experiences with the 1st Battalion of the 233rd Tank Brigade, 5th Mechanized Corps (redesignated the 46th Guards Tank Brigade of the 9th Guards Mechanized Corps in September 1944). The unit fought its way from the Ukraine through Hungary into Austria, where Loza was badly wounded in combat with a German Tiger tank on April 16, 1945. Loza returned to action when the Red Army invaded Japanese-occupied Manchuria on August 9, 1945. He describes how the Sherman tankers learned to deal with a new enemy, who tried to compensate for his inferior armor ("more suited," the author remarks, "for colonial campaigns than serious war fighting") by sheer fanaticism–including air attacks on the advancing Soviet columns by suicide planes.

Combining technical comparisons of Soviet, American, German and Japanese armor and tactics with the human drama–and sometimes comedy–experienced by the author and his comrades, Commanding the Red Army's Sherman Tanks is an invaluable addition to the library of anyone interested in the Eastern Front in general and in armored warfare in particular.

Here is a 92 page pdf describing his experience.
PDF link

Wolfhag

Whole heartily endorse Wolfhag's choice.

Wolf +1

One of the most interesting stories is about a Russian tank commander who thought he could safely drive his Sherman through a German anti-tank minefield. He crewed the tank himself and got a 700-yard run-up to gain speed before entering the minefield. As he drove over the mines he was going fast enough that they blew up just behind him. Evidently they have a slight delay fuse. He successfully made it through the minefield and the rest of the platoon followed in his tracks.

Wolfhag

Wow ! Took some brass "eggs" to try that that !

I think my last couple of posts were deleted so there is no freedom of speech to speak your mind on these boards so why bother?