The Sherman tank's place in history (1 Viewer)

[Louis Badolato]

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.

Gary,

You obviously didn't bother to read my posts, or you would realize that those quotes were from a novel I wrote. The quotes were based on the results of research I did, which involved reading every piece of information I could about the Sherman itself, the tanks, anti-tank guns, and hand held anti-tank weapons the Sherman was up against, and solutions proposed by contemporary Allied soldiers to its numerous weaknesses. If you had read them, you would have seen that there were quite a few easily accomplished "quick fixes" which would have permitted the Sherman's crews to have a much greater chance of surviving the war, but the geniouses running our military ordinance departments had no interest in making the changes because of their adherence to "doctrine". As the Israelis demonstrated in the 1950's and 1960's, with an inproved drive train, armor, and main gun, the Sherman could be an effective tank, but those improvements were not made during by the Allied forces during WWII.

 

[uksubs]

The problem for the Allies in 1944 going into D-Day was lack of a good armour piercing gun beside the seventeen pounder gun witch was put in the Sherman Firefly they had no tank witch could take a Tiger or a Panther head on as the 75mm & even the 76 mm gun in US tanks could not go penetrate the front armour of these tanks , from what I read the 76mm gun was a big let down

 

[Currahee Chris]

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.

BINGO!! That is really more of what I was looking for there- I am not really sure the MBT concept/term was even part of US Army venacular in the 40's- from what I understand, it was a term that came about during the coldwar as the concept of combined arms was being fleshed out- WW2 really was the birth of modern combined arms warfare- imo.

I think looking back at it all, the Sherman could be the first of what we today call/term the MBT.

Great posts guys-

 

[uksubs]

BINGO!! That is really more of what I was looking for there- I am not really sure the MBT concept/term was even part of US Army venacular in the 40's- from what I understand, it was a term that came about during the coldwar as the concept of combined arms was being fleshed out- WW2 really was the birth of modern combined arms warfare- imo.

I think looking back at it all, the Sherman could be the first of what we today call/term the MBT.


The British first Universal Tank was the Centurion tank witch was tested at the end of WW2 in Germany

 

[Phantom Warrior]

In no way would I consider the Sherman of WWII to be an MTB. The concept of an MTB is a tracked AFV, capable of heavy firepower as in a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun to engage armoured and other targets; with high cross-country mobility; and having a high level of self-protection. Shermans in WWII never had a proper high velocity gun - the 17 pdr was makeshift and was less effective than the 75mm for HE targets and the 76mm didn't really fill either role. They never had a high degree of self-protection. With their narrow treads, they did not have the high level cross-country capability required of an MTB. I don't think the WWII Sherman meets any of the requirements of an MTB other than being a self propelled, tracked vehicle with a 360 degree turret.

Terry

 

[Currahee Chris]

excellent post, though you missed some parts of the textbook definition of the MBT- which, I readily concede isn't relevant here anyway.

I am actually surprised about the "protection" part of the definition- one would think that would be inherent in the design of a tank, guess not. I also would pose that it really isn't applicable in WW2 armor as the crew protection systems like we have today (halon and the like) really didn't exist then- did they? I really do not know.

So, looks like after review of the definition, the Sherman does not in fact qualify as the worlds first MBT- I stand corrected.

Nothing beats Sherman discussions on this forum.

 

[Phantom Warrior]

excellent post, though you missed some parts of the textbook definition of the MBT- which, I readily concede isn't relevant here anyway.

I am actually surprised about the "protection" part of the definition- one would think that would be inherent in the design of a tank, guess not. I also would pose that it really isn't applicable in WW2 armor as the crew protection systems like we have today (halon and the like) really didn't exist then- did they? I really do not know.

So, looks like after review of the definition, the Sherman does not in fact qualify as the worlds first MBT- I stand corrected.

Nothing beats Sherman discussions on this forum.

Some tanks like the Tiger, King Tiger and JS2 approached MBT status including crew protection against penetrating rounds, but fell down on cross-country mobility. They were too wide, too heavy and were underpowered with weak transmissions. They were in the class of Heavy Tank rather than MBT. The Panther would be closer to the idea of a MBT with some weakness in crew protection (side armour/fire) and possibly mobility.

I think among the first true MTBs would have been the Centurion and Israeli Super Sherman.

Terry

 

[fmethorst]

great point. do youhave any numbers sir?

Keeping in mind that the main armament of most allied fighters was the .50 cal MG this would not pose much threat to a tank. Bombs obviously could destroy a tank but would have been very difficult to use against such a small possibly moving target. That leaves AT rockets which were not very accurate and faced similar problems to bombs.

Don't get me wrong, allied fighter/bombers played a huge part in defeating the German units, my only argument is that this idea of German tanks being torn to pieces by roaming fighter/bombers is overstated. We're not talking about the A-10 Thunderbolt II after all.

Table 5.2 shows the results of three British studies of Panther tanks that were examined, two during the Normandy campaign and one during the Ardennes battle. No information is provided to describe the methodology used to come up with these results so I can hardly say this is representative of the actual totals but I think the numbers are large enough to be somewhat informative.

 

[Go for Broke]

Chris, you have come up with some excellent threads lately. Favorite quotes, Sherman tanks, etc. Keep up the good work. On another note, I thought I read somewhere that Germany could build 3-fighters for every 1-Tiger tank, but Hitler preferred heavy armour. Different armament strategy.

 

[Mitch]

That leads to another ''what if'' The germans had a perfectly good tank in the Panzer IV which, was relatively easy to upgrade and decided to do too many tanks with too many differences to produce sufficient. Had they stuck with one and produced sufficient then who knows comes into play.

The sherman for me has its place in history as there were 50,000 of them more than it was a good tank which, suffocated the life out of the german forces. a similar problem faced the german with the T-34 and its variants.

In a fight I think I would have opted for a german tank to be in
Mitch

 

[Spitfrnd]

Keeping in mind that the main armament of most allied fighters was the .50 cal MG this would not pose much threat to a tank. Bombs obviously could destroy a tank but would have been very difficult to use against such a small possibly moving target. That leaves AT rockets which were not very accurate and faced similar problems to bombs.

Don't get me wrong, allied fighter/bombers played a huge part in defeating the German units, my only argument is that this idea of German tanks being torn to pieces by roaming fighter/bombers is overstated. We're not talking about the A-10 Thunderbolt II after all.

Table 5.2 shows the results of three British studies of Panther tanks that were examined, two during the Normandy campaign and one during the Ardennes battle. No information is provided to describe the methodology used to come up with these results so I can hardly say this is representative of the actual totals but I think the numbers are large enough to be somewhat informative.

Interesting material as usual Frank. I would offer an elaboration about the allied fighter armament however. I think your comment is correct since the guns used by most American fighters were .50 cal and the Americans had the majority of allied fighters engaged after the landings. However, nearly all British fighters carried 20mm cannons by that time. Some even carried 30 or 40 mm cannons.

 

[binder001]

On air-ground tank "kills" there has been an extensive and interesting discussion on the Tank Net site. The actual tank "kills" by Allied aircraft were only a small fraction of what was claimed if one looks at "destruction". If one looks at the disruption of supplies, destruction of support vehicles and just plain scaring the Germans out of daylight movement, the airplanes achieved many "mission kills" - the rendering of the enemy armored force useless for its intended purpose.

Gary B.

 

[binder001]

Louis, I apologize that I answered late in the evening and I did miss that you were quoting your novel. The error was entirely mine.

By the way, the Israelis didn't do much, if anything, about the Shermans armor. The only substantive improvement in the drive train was changing the various models of gasoline engines to a Cummins diesel. The gun was the big change. I wonder if the M4s would have had such a "bad rap" if the gun had been improved earlier. The crews seemed able to deal wit the thinner armor if they had a chance to strike back effectively.

The Sherman was only one of te problems besetting the US Army in Europe. They had almost 20-25% of the tank force made up of a tank that was obsolete as soon as it was built. A bigger problem was the lack of research into good footwear. The US Army in Europe lost more men to trench foot and frostbite than were ever killed or woulnded in all the tanks ever deployed in our history.

Gary B.

 

[Currahee Chris]

Chris, you have come up with some excellent threads lately. Favorite quotes, Sherman tanks, etc. Keep up the good work. On another note, I thought I read somewhere that Germany could build 3-fighters for every 1-Tiger tank, but Hitler preferred heavy armour. Different armament strategy.

Thank you.

I think I read that as well- hard to believe that the planes were cheaper to produce for the Germans- amazing how things have changed today.

 

[Louis Badolato]

Louis, I apologize that I answered late in the evening and I did miss that you were quoting your novel. The error was entirely mine.

By the way, the Israelis didn't do much, if anything, about the Shermans armor. The only substantive improvement in the drive train was changing the various models of gasoline engines to a Cummins diesel. The gun was the big change. I wonder if the M4s would have had such a "bad rap" if the gun had been improved earlier. The crews seemed able to deal wit the thinner armor if they had a chance to strike back effectively.

The Sherman was only one of te problems besetting the US Army in Europe. They had almost 20-25% of the tank force made up of a tank that was obsolete as soon as it was built. A bigger problem was the lack of research into good footwear. The US Army in Europe lost more men to trench foot and frostbite than were ever killed or woulnded in all the tanks ever deployed in our history.

Gary B.

No problem, Gary. And I agree that the Sherman was only one of many mistakes made by the Allies during WWII. That's the point of my novel. Its an alternate history of WWII, where the mistakes are highlighted and solved, so the Allies win more quickly, at less loss of life, and, because the Americans and British take Berlin and liberate Eastern Europe before the Soviets can finish tossing the Nazis out of Russia, we avoid the cold war as well.

 

[lancer]

I think it well that the Germans made so many bad decisions. Tiger tanks were very labor intensive to manufacture. The time and effort would probably have been better expended on making many more Mk.IV's and Mk.V's. Tiger tank production totaled less than 2000 total units. It is interesting to speculate how many IV's and V's could have been made in their place. Just a thought, but the manufacture of the Tiger may actually have helped the Allied cause: fewer German tanks to face and destroy and worry about, maybe leads to a faster victory. A big what if, and totally unprovable, just interesting to think about. -- Al

 

[Louis Badolato]

I think it well that the Germans made so many bad decisions. Tiger tanks were very labor intensive to manufacture. The time and effort would probably have been better expended on making many more Mk.IV's and Mk.V's. Tiger tank production totaled less than 2000 total units. It is interesting to speculate how many IV's and V's could have been made in their place. Just a thought, but the manufacture of the Tiger may actually have helped the Allied cause: fewer German tanks to face and destroy and worry about, maybe leads to a faster victory. A big what if, and totally unprovable, just interesting to think about. -- Al

The Nazis made even more mistakes, but I have no interested in correcting them.

 

[Mitch]

Lancer...

Briefly mentioned this below and an interesting what if. The panzer IV was more than a match for allied tanks on both fronts when armed with the very good 75mm. If Hitler had not wanted bigger is better it may well have seen thousands of more IV's stugs etc on the battlefields especially, on the eastern front.

The germans did rather well against the allies with all these products on the go in terms of tanks imagine what could have happened with many more easier and quicker to make tanks.
Mitch

 

[DMNamiot]

Hi Guys,

Sorry for entering the discussion so late in the game but I have been reading and following it closely! Great points about the Panzer IV I am a major fan of this weapon system however we are not discussing them right and should focus on the M4. Also I have to give you credit Chris for coming up with a very interesting discussion point. The Sherman Tank as the first MBT. That’s an interesting concept and with some serious caveats I would nominally agree to some of the points made but I don’t think that we really see a true MBT until a bit later on down the road of Tank Development. We'll get there a little later on as well.

Now some points were made regarding the Sherman and its performance by late 1944 that are valid and I wont attempt to rationalize what the HQ’s were thinking by not going with a 90 mm Gun in 1943/44 because it was considered. But that really has no bearing on what I want to focus on. We need to look back to 1939-1940 to discuss something that hasn’t been touched on yet. That point is the really poor quality of the Tanks the British had developed up to this point and the fact that they were having a terrible time with the German Mk IVs they had encountered. Sorry guys and don’t get me wrong here its merely a statement of fact that the 3 main tanks in production for the UK were the Valentine, Matildas I (II’s were a great tank in 1940) and the horrid Covenanters. These tanks did their best but it wasn’t nearly good enough. In fact it’s really amazing that there was nearly no attempts in Britain to develop a tank that was armed with a dual purpose large caliber gun like the Panzer IV. What we see is the development of close support cruiser and infantry tanks armed with 76.2mm howitzers which were a very limited purpose weapon with zero armor piercing capability and were in no way comparable to the guns in use in German Tanks.

Enter the Americans in the form of the Grant/Lee. The Grant/Lee needs to be looked at briefly here because it was developed quickly from a design in the 1930s of the Experimental T5E2 but the kicker was the need to have a 75mm gun to match up with the biggest Gun the Germans were fielding at the time (1940) in the Mk IV so the British ordered them in Sept 41 and were fielded them in 42 Libya. Stunningly fast from back board to out the door of the factory and field use. As good as this weapons system was it was really only a stop gap put into action to gain time for the M4 to enter the fray. The reason they were able to get this tank into production so quickly was they mechanically quite similar and this was key to getting the m out the doors so quickly. The factory didn’t need to shut down IOT retool a lot of the line. As these were produced they because the principle weapon system for the US, British and French forces and we even sent a bunch to the Russians, which is funny when you consider they made a few more T34s that we did Sherman’s. I still find it strange that we never made any improvements to the armament of this vehicle until after Normandy and the 75 mm gun was really shown as obsolete. But this complacency about the armament as well as the armor of the M4 in the US Army High Command was due to the misguided thought process that Tanks don’t fight Tanks and that the primary role of the Armored Forces was to exploit breakouts and pursue enemy forces. Quite similar to the primary Tank Theory in play in the UK at that time. This very flawed thought process also lead to the development of a separate formation of Tank Destroyers and to the division of effort that could well have put a 90mm on the M4 in 1943. Now another interesting note here has to be the US Army wasn’t in the fight yet. They only had a total of 464 Tanks on Active Duty and these were light years behind in development due to the basic disbanding of the US Tank Corps after WWI but that’s a discussion for another time. So in 1940/41 on a pre war production footing with out the massive tank works that would be built starting in the spring of 42 and completed in record time the M4 was developed and brought into production with fielding in 1942. But these factors don’t make the Sherman an MBT as we know it today, in fact they make me believe that the first real MBT is not going to show up until the XM1 is developed. (See Chris I managed to get a plug in for our Abrams!) Actually I don’t think we really see an MBT until the Russian T54/55, British Centurions, American M48 hit the scenes. So I am sure we can discuss this for a while as well.

Thanks to Chris for the great topic.

Dave

 

[panda1gen]

Dave

Really good post. I think the points you make about the production of the Grant and Sherman are excellent and I refer again to my earlier post noting that the first production run was sent to Monty for Alamein, followed by 17,000 Shermans in British service.


http://www.treefrogtreasures.com/forum/showthread.php?t=25776&page=4

Arguably, nothing shows the amazing USA contribution to the war effort more than the production figures for the ubiqitous Sherman tank.

During World War II, approximately 19,247 M4 Shermans were issued to the US Army and about 1,114 to the US Marine Corps.[18]

The U.S. also supplied:

17,184 to Great Britain, a massive contribution to the British Armies.

while the Soviet Union received 4,102[19]

and an estimated 812 were transferred to China.[20]

The U.S. Marine Corps used the diesel M4A2 and gasoline-powered M4A3 in the Pacific. However, the Chief of the Army's Armored Force, Lt. Gen. Jacob L. Devers, ordered no diesel-engined Shermans be used by the Army outside the Zone of Interior (the continental U.S.). The Army used all types for either training or testing within the United States, but intended the M4A2 and M4A4 to be the primary Lend-Lease exports.

Chris is right about the M4 fighting everywhere.


I also agree with the comments about British tank production, as Britain re-armed it continued to make the 2 pounder gun as stopping to re-tool was such a problem.

The six pounder had good AT performance but as you say, it was the US 75mm gun on Grants and Shermans that allowed British tanks to engage German AT guns more effectively and at range.

This is where I had sympathy with Chris' arguement about the MBT, but as we have discussed, the Pz1V with long gun was superior arguably to any opponent in 1942?

Also the T34 had a potentially similar mix of armour, protection, gun with HE and AT capability, just apparently rough levels of engineering with short lasting engines, but from 1940/41.

The British would have been in real trouble without the US tank supplies, as the Cromwell was delayed so much, but in the event, it also meant that whilst the Germans were forced by the superb T34 to develop the Panther by 1943/44, the British had only US Shermans and Cromwells of 1942 design against the superior German armour. Without the Fireflies, it would have been even more desperate as the British and Canadians faced most of the German armour in Normandy, but one wonders why the US declined them or to use the 90mm?

Good job total air superiority was acheived and don't forget the artillery superiority too with junior officers able to call down flexible and heavy barrages.

I agree with your suggestion that the first true MBT was probably the Centurian with 105mm gun, excellent armour and good mobility - but expect an argument here for JS3, T54 and possibly the M48.

Good thread Chris.