As we have gone over before - the US Armored doctrine favored a weapon with good HE capability over AP. Yes, they were certainly incorrect, but by the time we absorbed the combat lessons it was too late to affect operations in Europe.
By the way, referencing "Report of Operations, First US Army" one of the statistical references shows that there was FOUR TIMES as much 75mm HE as AP fired. The 75 was a fine artillery weapon, descended from the classic French 75mm M1897. The 76mm was slightly less capable as an HE thrower and the 17-pounder came in dead last. The British AT guns of the period were good hole punchers, but the HE shells for them were so-so at best. (Personally, my feeling is that IF the US had adopted the 17-pounder that the HE "problem" could have been addressed). If the Shermans all had 17-pounders the USMC would never have wanted to use them - they wanted that 75mm (even keeping some post-WW2). As far as HE throwing, the original request for upgraded tanks in the ETOUSA (made before DDay) was to have half of them with 90mm guns and half with 105mm howitzers (the reason for the production of the M45 howitzer-armed version of the Pershing). US armor doctrine was still in flux as the Allies invaded Europe. How could Ordnance provide a new tank when the users couldn't finalize just what they wanted?
On to the ammo question: the HVAP (Hyper-Velocity Armor Piercing) shot for the 76mm gun used a tugsten penetrator core. This was similiar to the British APDS, except that the outer part of the shot didn't peel away. The problem was that tungsten was not only in short supply, but it is essential in the tool making industries. Every batch of tungsten used in ammunition meant that many less machine tools, etc to make new plane, tanks and ship parts. It's like John Gambale's want lists - you just CAN'T have everything at once! American doctrine relied on the TD's as primary anti-armor gun platforms - so they good the bulk of the "hot" ammo. The short supply is why most 76mm Shermans got about 2rds/month of HVAP and some crews never saw it during wartime.
The carnage at Normandy was not due as much to the deffective tanks as to outdated doctrine, mediocre training and a lack of appreciation of the terrain. Every unit had to learn that you can't charge tanks through hedgerow country. The German tanks were only a part of the problem. The Germans were well supplied with close-in AT weapons (PanzerFaust and Panzerschreck) as well as towed AT guns. They were trained in how to coordinate them effectively in combination with the countryside. The German army and their SS buddies were tenacious defenders and knew the tricks of the trade. The managed to bleed the US and British for every yard gained in Normandy. The US Army had to build up from nothing to a huge army in just a couple years. In the haste to build units they shorted tank-infantry cooperation training. Every unit committed to Normandy seemed to have to learn the hard way - how to take the hedgerows, how to work with tanks, how to get the best use out of air support, etc. That was one tough school!
Did the Sherman change suddenly in late July? I don't hear anybody discussing how bad the tank was in taking Paris or in pursuing the Germans right back to their own border. How about Patton's Lorraine campaign? US M4s and Free French M4A2s chewed up Panthers in brigade after brigade. Most of the Allied tanks had the old 75mm guns. In these battles the Sherman fought the battle its designers aimed for - breakout and pursuit. The M4-types worked just fine in the fall, which is strangely unfortunate as it took away the urgency for a new tank. The Sherman was forced into close country combat with German armor again in the winter and was found wanting. It wasn't a tank to stand and slug it out with the Panzers, but it was forced into that role on narrow roads in the Ardennes. That's when the major hue and cry went up about our tanks.
So the Sherman certainly wasn't the "best" tank, but it was better than many tanks of WW2. It enabled the US Army to expand from being smaller than the Portugese Army to a huge instrument of victory with Shermans ending up in ALL the Axis capital cities. No Panther or Tiger can ever claim that kind of success in spite of their technology.
Gary
