I honestly don't remember about the cutters. My outstanding memory of the book is the author's recounting of tank recovery and the awful things he encountered in the battle damaged US tanks. It was really harrowing. Well worth reading. -- Al
The Sherman tank's place in history (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Currahee Chris
- Start date
uksubs
Lieutenant Colonel
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2006
- Messages
- 7,050
Yep great read Al
Very interesting that Patten did not want the M26 Pershing tanks ready for D-Day
This is a really interesting thread. Now, as to the Sherman as an MBT, I believe that a MBT must have a reasonable chance of survivability, for itself and crew, in battle against an enemies weapons. The Sherman was marginal, at best, at least in NWE against the Germans. It certainly was not a generation ahead of the German mediums and heavies in this regard. -- Al
Currahee Chris
Sergeant Major
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 4,776
as opposed to a reasonable chance of death??
I would hope that a reasonable chance of survivability for the crew would be inherent in the design of any tank- though admittedly, someone may have missed that class with the Sherman. No, I do not count "survivability" as an MBT qualifier as I feel it's inherent in the design process.
This does raise a great question though- fire control suppression systems- standard pretty much for anything today (halon)- did the Germans (or anyone) have anything like that in WW2? I know they had night vision capabilities on the KTs.
Louis Badolato
Lieutenant General
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2005
- Messages
- 17,368
The hedgerow cutter was invented by Sergeant Curtis Grubb Culin III from Cranford, New Jersey, who was awarded the Legion of Merit.
Currahee Chris
Sergeant Major
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 4,776
Got it- i typed belton cooper into wiki- he was an LT- must have recalled him from some other book or something.
panda1gen
Major
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2005
- Messages
- 6,208
Chris
You know I don't like to argue but...............................
I will agree with you to a point. In 1942 the Sherman was as good an MBT concept as there was - good calibre 75mm gun with useful HE and AP capability, good sloped armour and reliable with reasonable mobility.
It was incredibly generous of the USA to send the early run to the Commonwealth Desert forces in time for El Alamein.
Contemporaries were:
Pz4 with L43 or 48 75mm gun, useful HE excellent AP, reliable, good armour but straight not sloped.
T34 76mm with excellent mobility, armour and useful gun AP and HE, if the machining was a little rough it didn't matter as they didn't survive more than six weeks anyway. Arguably as good (and numerous) as the Sherman?
By 1944 though the Sherman had not changed much or at all and was now up against:
L70 75mm gun with excellent optics on the panther with far superior armour and excellent mobility, not as numerous though at 5000 units compared with 50000 - but destroyed 8-10 per shermans per panther.
T34 85mm same excellent mobility, lots of them, superior gun, superior armour.
I could live with the MBT argument for 1942 if it wasn't for the T34 76mm in 1940/41, but by 1944 most US tankers I am sure would have preferred to be in panthers. I totally accept the concept of using airpower to destroy tanks and use tanks as battlefield bullies breaking through, this was the German Blitzkrieg doctrine and they always tried to avoid tank v tank in the desert.
Late in 1944 and 45 the range and reliability of the Sherman was paramount as a strategic weapon - re 3rd Army to the Rhine and over, and not forgetting the 17000 given to the UK who used them to bounce straight through Belgium into Holland, so I accept the MBT exploitation argument, just not happy with the overall picture.
I agree with Louis (though I will find something to argue with him on later) the metal side skirts not fitted to Allied tanks would have saved many lives, the Germans designed them after understanding the hollow charge weapon potential after studying captured bazookas then designing better infantry weapons themselves.
Overall then, good points but don't buy it as the first MBT, if it wasn't the Pz4 the T34 should get it for 1940/1. By 1944 the Sherman was outdated but could have probably been upgraded as the pz4 constantly was. Why wasn't it by the USA? It was junior British officers I understand that lobbied for the 17pdr gunned Fireflies.
You know I don't like to argue but...............................
I will agree with you to a point. In 1942 the Sherman was as good an MBT concept as there was - good calibre 75mm gun with useful HE and AP capability, good sloped armour and reliable with reasonable mobility.
It was incredibly generous of the USA to send the early run to the Commonwealth Desert forces in time for El Alamein.
Contemporaries were:
Pz4 with L43 or 48 75mm gun, useful HE excellent AP, reliable, good armour but straight not sloped.
T34 76mm with excellent mobility, armour and useful gun AP and HE, if the machining was a little rough it didn't matter as they didn't survive more than six weeks anyway. Arguably as good (and numerous) as the Sherman?
By 1944 though the Sherman had not changed much or at all and was now up against:
L70 75mm gun with excellent optics on the panther with far superior armour and excellent mobility, not as numerous though at 5000 units compared with 50000 - but destroyed 8-10 per shermans per panther.
T34 85mm same excellent mobility, lots of them, superior gun, superior armour.
I could live with the MBT argument for 1942 if it wasn't for the T34 76mm in 1940/41, but by 1944 most US tankers I am sure would have preferred to be in panthers. I totally accept the concept of using airpower to destroy tanks and use tanks as battlefield bullies breaking through, this was the German Blitzkrieg doctrine and they always tried to avoid tank v tank in the desert.
Late in 1944 and 45 the range and reliability of the Sherman was paramount as a strategic weapon - re 3rd Army to the Rhine and over, and not forgetting the 17000 given to the UK who used them to bounce straight through Belgium into Holland, so I accept the MBT exploitation argument, just not happy with the overall picture.
I agree with Louis (though I will find something to argue with him on later) the metal side skirts not fitted to Allied tanks would have saved many lives, the Germans designed them after understanding the hollow charge weapon potential after studying captured bazookas then designing better infantry weapons themselves.
Overall then, good points but don't buy it as the first MBT, if it wasn't the Pz4 the T34 should get it for 1940/1. By 1944 the Sherman was outdated but could have probably been upgraded as the pz4 constantly was. Why wasn't it by the USA? It was junior British officers I understand that lobbied for the 17pdr gunned Fireflies.
Wraith
Major
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2006
- Messages
- 6,777
Careful Kiven, he's Airborne (US variety
)Careful Kerin, he's a Lawyer (Monty loving variety
)
panda1gen
Major
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2005
- Messages
- 6,208
Careful Kiven, he's Airborne (US variety
Careful Kerin, he's a Lawyer (Monty loving variety
Be cwarfull orr Isle responde in kinde
panda1gen
Major
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2005
- Messages
- 6,208
Currahee Chris
Sergeant Major
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 4,776
Nice post Kevin.
Since you have readily admitted to wanting to argue with me, someday when i get to Britain for the London show, you have to buy the first pint
You do make some valid points- which raised a question in my mind. As everyone since 1945 has been caught up on the Sherman kill ratio- what is the kill ratio between panthers and a P51?
Perhaps the Sherman could qualify as an MBT simply out of sheer luck/misfortune that is was deployed all over the big blue marble, unlike panters, KTs and T34s (for Ww2 strictly speaking). Wonder how a T34 would have handled Iwo or a Panther cut across the african desert- hmmmmmm
Since you have readily admitted to wanting to argue with me, someday when i get to Britain for the London show, you have to buy the first pint
You do make some valid points- which raised a question in my mind. As everyone since 1945 has been caught up on the Sherman kill ratio- what is the kill ratio between panthers and a P51?
Perhaps the Sherman could qualify as an MBT simply out of sheer luck/misfortune that is was deployed all over the big blue marble, unlike panters, KTs and T34s (for Ww2 strictly speaking). Wonder how a T34 would have handled Iwo or a Panther cut across the african desert- hmmmmmm
Currahee Chris
Sergeant Major
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 4,776
Careful Kiven, he's Airborne (US variety
Is there any other kind???? Help a mate out here.
fmethorst
Command Sergeant Major
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2008
- Messages
- 2,447
Alright-
figure I'd kick off a discussion around the most advanced tin can that ever stormed out of the US of A- The SHERMAN!!
From my understanding, tanks used to be produced and developed based on, in part, weight classes- I am sure each country had their own specs- but generally- there were three weight classes- light, medium and heavy. Each tank in these classes had a general roll to fill. The US sort of plodded around and offered up the Sherman to fill the "tank" roll.
Since the coldwar, the superpowers have moved to a Main Battle Tank (MBT) concept. The idea is that technology has advanced to the point where the hitting power of a king tiger can match the speed and manuerverability of a lexus (and even a jet airplane). These tanks can now perform all the roles of single purpose tanks back in WW2.
I have often felt like the Sherman, and her variants, was essentially the worlds first MBT. It saw action in the deserts of Africa, the winters of Bastogne and the humid hell of the island hopping with the Marines. I don't seem to recall seeing Panthers, Tigers or T34's being deployed in ALL of these types of battlefields- not that they probably couldn't, they just weren't (with the exception of the Tigger).
Anyone have any thoughts or follow my thinking here?
I think technically the US followed the practice of the day of fielding light (i.e. Light Tank M3 "Stuart"), medium (i.e. Medium Tank M4 "Sherman"), and eventually heavy (i.e. Heavy Tank M26 "Pershing") tanks.
Each country had their own weight classifications for the categories. For instance, The German medium Panther tank would have been consdered a heavy tank by Soviet standards.
For reference here is the breakdown of "Sherman" production:
Here are the numbers in regards those shipped to allies:
In both cases M3 "Grant" numbers are included.
fmethorst
Command Sergeant Major
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2008
- Messages
- 2,447
Nice post Kevin.
As everyone since 1945 has been caught up on the Sherman kill ratio- what is the kill ratio between panthers and a P51?
Actually that is an interesting question. Actual Fighter/bomber "kills" of tanks in WWII is often way overstated. If we were to factor in fighter/bombers lost to ground fire (i.e. attached flak units etc.) the answer to this question might be surprising.
panda1gen
Major
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2005
- Messages
- 6,208
Nice post Kevin.
Since you have readily admitted to wanting to argue with me, someday when i get to Britain for the London show, you have to buy the first pint
You do make some valid points- which raised a question in my mind. As everyone since 1945 has been caught up on the Sherman kill ratio- what is the kill ratio between panthers and a P51?
Perhaps the Sherman could qualify as an MBT simply out of sheer luck/misfortune that is was deployed all over the big blue marble, unlike panters, KTs and T34s (for Ww2 strictly speaking). Wonder how a T34 would have handled Iwo or a Panther cut across the african desert- hmmmmmm
Chris
When you get over the pond I would be honoured to buy you the first pint. BTW the tradition is you then buy the rest.
I would then love to take you for a currahee down the local currahee house, but hope it doesn't become a diodrama
panda1gen
Major
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2005
- Messages
- 6,208
Nice post Kevin.
Since you have readily admitted to wanting to argue with me, someday when i get to Britain for the London show, you have to buy the first pint
You do make some valid points- which raised a question in my mind. As everyone since 1945 has been caught up on the Sherman kill ratio- what is the kill ratio between panthers and a P51?
Perhaps the Sherman could qualify as an MBT simply out of sheer luck/misfortune that is was deployed all over the big blue marble, unlike panters, KTs and T34s (for Ww2 strictly speaking). Wonder how a T34 would have handled Iwo or a Panther cut across the african desert- hmmmmmm
Well handled super shermans with 105mm guns seemed to manage T34s, but would the 75mm version?
Currahee Chris
Sergeant Major
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 4,776
great point. do youhave any numbers sir?
Currahee Chris
Sergeant Major
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 4,776
Chris
When you get over the pond I would be honoured to buy you the first pint. BTW the tradition is you then buy the rest.
I would then love to take you for a currahee down the local currahee house, but hope it doesn't become a diodrama
Hope you don't mind drinking Coors light!! No, I do not think the 75 Sherman would have a hope in you know where of tackling any T34.
panda1gen
Major
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2005
- Messages
- 6,208
No, I do not think the 75 Sherman would have a hope in you know where of tackling any T34.
Chris, I don't mind watching you drink Coors light at all. I would be pleased to offer you a few real pints though...........real ale
binder001
Command Sergeant Major
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2005
- Messages
- 2,729
Well boys, Louis and I have ben all over this.
First, the Shermans were forced to be the first "MBT" or to the British term, a "Universal Tank". THe British tank development followed two courses - the Cruiser Tank for maneuver warfare and the Infantry Tank for plodding along with the grunts. The Sherman was really more of a "cruiser" but could do both roles.
The BIG question for Louis - with what would you have replaced the Sherman? The Allies were generally on the attack and the US Army was operating on a supply line that stretched back across the Atlantic Ocean (at the very least). You say you've done your research, but you only quote some observations from an Aussie infantryman and a paratrooper. I submit that there was not a tank in the world in 1942 that could do what the M4 series did. T34 is close but it would never have fit US armor units and production standards.
Certainly by 1944 the Sherman was past its prime. This is less a design problem than playing catch up with an enemy who had a two year lead in armored combat. The fact that the M4 series could be upgraded continually speaks well for the original design.
As far as the "skirts on the German tanks - they didn't start out as anti-bazooka weapons. Do you know why the Germans originally added them?
Perfect weapon, certainly not. Warfare tends to be a "come as you are affair". The M4s were there in the numbers required, not only for the US Army, but our Marines, the British Commonwealth, the French, the Poles and even the USSR. Shermans were still running long after Panthers had mostly been melted down for razor blades. Shermans managed to kill T34s in Korea and other Soviet tanks in the Mideast. Are the Israeli tankers somewhat smarter than the British ones? Sure they added bigger guns, but the armor was never thickened.
The Sherman was a product of its time and the limited experience of the US Army. The T23 was the only real design that could have been placed into series production in time for the war in Europe. Even then it would have gone overseas with the 76mm gun.
Gary B.
First, the Shermans were forced to be the first "MBT" or to the British term, a "Universal Tank". THe British tank development followed two courses - the Cruiser Tank for maneuver warfare and the Infantry Tank for plodding along with the grunts. The Sherman was really more of a "cruiser" but could do both roles.
The BIG question for Louis - with what would you have replaced the Sherman? The Allies were generally on the attack and the US Army was operating on a supply line that stretched back across the Atlantic Ocean (at the very least). You say you've done your research, but you only quote some observations from an Aussie infantryman and a paratrooper. I submit that there was not a tank in the world in 1942 that could do what the M4 series did. T34 is close but it would never have fit US armor units and production standards.
Certainly by 1944 the Sherman was past its prime. This is less a design problem than playing catch up with an enemy who had a two year lead in armored combat. The fact that the M4 series could be upgraded continually speaks well for the original design.
As far as the "skirts on the German tanks - they didn't start out as anti-bazooka weapons. Do you know why the Germans originally added them?
Perfect weapon, certainly not. Warfare tends to be a "come as you are affair". The M4s were there in the numbers required, not only for the US Army, but our Marines, the British Commonwealth, the French, the Poles and even the USSR. Shermans were still running long after Panthers had mostly been melted down for razor blades. Shermans managed to kill T34s in Korea and other Soviet tanks in the Mideast. Are the Israeli tankers somewhat smarter than the British ones? Sure they added bigger guns, but the armor was never thickened.
The Sherman was a product of its time and the limited experience of the US Army. The T23 was the only real design that could have been placed into series production in time for the war in Europe. Even then it would have gone overseas with the 76mm gun.
Gary B.