The Sherman could have and might have been the best tank, just that all the modification never want into full production before the war ended.
The (rare) M4A3E2 Sherman Jumbo variant had even thicker frontal armor than the Tiger I. Intended for the assault to break out of the Normandy beachhead, it entered combat in August 1944. They where to late due to a decission by Lt. General Leslie J. McNair. General Marshall intervened, and the tanks were eventually brought into production. Unfortunately, they did not arrive in the ETO until early 1945.
Exambles Life after 1945 there was the Sherman M-50 and the Sherman M-51 were modified versions of the M4 Sherman tank that served with the Israel Defense Forces from mid-1950s to early 1980s. The M-50 was known abroad as Super Sherman and the M-51 as Super Sherman or Isherman.
The was also the Egyptian M4 Sherman tank with AMX-13 tank turret
One of its biggest strengths was its gun sights and gun stabilization system as well as its ability to be up graded and modified. Most where in the battlefield.
Shermans operated by the US 37th Armored Regiment at Arracourt destroyed 57 Tigers and Panthers while losing only 14 Shermans.
Also German reports from North African, I’ll have to get you the reference, that Sherman’s where getting kills on German Mark IV and III at 2,000 yards. This was possibly a result of the gun sights and stabilizers.
I don’t think there where many opportunities in Europe to get 1,000 yards shots let alone 2000 yards. One of the things we never take into account other than in the desert is firing over and behind obstacles in environments like Europe. Thus it might have been very easy for Sherman’s to get within point blank range.
Lets face it U. S Air and Artillery would have had a field day with German tanks in the open fields.
From Wikipedia, During the Korean War, US Shermans performed well against their T-34/85 adversaries, which could be due to a combination of better training and better equipment such as gunsights and gun stabilization.
Shermans defeated heavier tanks by use of superior tactics, or by using upgunned Shermans working with tank destroyers such as the M36 Jackson (with a 90 mm anti-tank gun) and the M18 Hellcat (a mobile, fast tracked vehicle with the same 76 mm gun).
The Sherman Firefly program was initially viewed as an insurance policy against the possible failure of the 17-pdr-equipped Challenger design based on the Cromwell tank. Fireflies were introduced to British armoured divisions in 1944 just in time for the Normandy landings. M4 versions, the 17-pdr anti-tank gun offered far better performance than the standard 75 mm gun which had been chosen for the infantry support role. Even using the regular APC round it could penetrate the front armour of a Tiger I at up to 1,000 meters; with the more advanced APCBC and APDS rounds that became available towards the end of the war, it could penetrate at over 2,000 meters. The principal disadvantages of the Firefly were its low rate of fire (about half that of a 75 mm Sherman), due to the cramped nature of the turret and difficulty in reloading a gun turned on its side, and the very large, bright muzzle flash of the 17-pdr gun.
Growing numbers of Panthers on the western front led the US Army to deploy 76 mm-gun Shermans to Normandy in July 1944. The higher-velocity 76 mm gun M1 gun gave Shermans anti-tank firepower superior to most of the German vehicles they encountered, particularly the Pz IV, and StuG vehicles. However, with a regular AP (Armour Piercing, Shot) ammunition (M79) or APCBC (M62) shells, the 76 mm could only reliably knock out a Panther at close range, or with a shot to its flank. At long range, the Sherman was badly outmatched by the Panther's 75 mm gun, which could easily penetrate the Sherman's armor. This contributed to the high losses of Sherman tanks experienced by the U.S. Army in the European Theater of Operations (ETO) maily during the invasion.
I don’t think there where many opportunities in Europe to get 1,000 yards shots let alone 2000 yards. One of the things we never take into account other than in the desert is firing over and behind obstacles in environments like Europe. Thus it might have been very easy for Sherman’s to get within point blank range. Any GERMAN tank sitting out in the open was a sitting duck for Air and Artillery. My guess is that a lot of tank battles in ETO where close range affairs. Very few in open fields.
Hypervelocity Armor Piercing HVAP ammunition standardized as M93, was developed for the 76 mm gun in July 1944. This new projectile could penetrate the front turret of the Panther at longer ranges than standard ammunition. Its distribution was, however, limited to US Tank Destroyer units.
My Uncle, twice Purple Heart and bronze star was with a tank Destroyer Unit. The U.S Army, these units one day would be attached to one group and reassigned the next. We seldom take into account a Company of Sherman’s having a Anti-Tank Unit or Modified M4.
I’ll have to find the reference in my military library but I remember something mentioned to the effect that during the development of the German Panther’s turret they mounted a gyro gun stabilizer from a recovered Sherman, which improved the Panther’s accuracy my 50%.
There was a lot of field modification made to the Sherman’s. Progressively thicker armour was added to hull front and turret mantlet in various improved models, while field improvisations included placing sandbags, spare track links, helmets, wire mesh, or even wood for increased protection against shaped-charge rounds. chassis suffered from the extra weight, forbade the use of sandbags and instead George Patton ordered tanks under his command to have the front hull welded with extra armour plates, salvaged from knocked-out American and German tanks. Approximately 36 of these up-armored Shermans were supplied to each of the armored divisions of the Third Army in the spring of 1945.
When we compare M4 to German and Russian tanks we don't take into account later models like the M4A3E2 Sherman Jumbo variant which had even thicker frontal armor than the Tiger I.
If you are defining "best" by thick frontal armour- then the jumbo could be considered, but tanks are usually judged by a paradigm that constitutes multiple aspects ie. (production possibilites, mobility, servicing, etc).
The tiger 1 and all other heavy tanks in WW2 contributed greatly in the psychological aspect of warfare- but they cost tremendous amounts to produce, were hard to transport, and required a lot of field service. The production of these tanks also took away resources that could have been used to produce greater numbers of medium tanks and tank destroyers.
The reason why the regular Shermans were chosen over the Jumbo variants, was because they could be produced in much greater numbers and be implemented into the battlefield faster.
The M-50 and M-51 super shermans performed admirably against the most modern of Arab tanks (then the T-62). The T-62's 115mm smoothebore gun was capable of destroying any NATO tank at ranges of 1500 meters. The Israelis mounted a 105mm that was shortened to reduce recoil - and these performed well. The main drawback was armour protection. These tanks were kept in reserve and were only used because of the dire circumstances of the 73 war.
One of the biggest drawbacks of the Sherman was that it was riveted instead of being welded. Riveting allowed it to be produced faster and cheaper, but if a sherman took a round, the rivets would bounce around inside hitting the crew/ammo.
I think one of the best tanks, that was never mass produced, was the Russian T-44. It was a better idea to produce t-34s, but it was a tank that was able to come close to matching the Panther but at only 65% of the panthers weight.
Shermans were not of riveted construction. They were either cast or welded or a combination of the two, depending upon model. Versions of the M-3 Lee were riveted.
Jumbos were intended for breaching strong points. They were also found to be useful at the head of columns where they stood a much higher chance of survival. They were never intended to replace the standard Sherman.
The T-44 was a failure. Mechanically unreliable, it was produced only in limited numbers. While some were rushed into production in 1944, most were built between 1946 and 1949. They were not widely issued and never exported. They may have been used as training tanks up into the early 1960's. Their replacement, the T54, actually entered the stage in 1947.
I have to agree that the Sherman was the best overall tank of the War. It could be produced in large numbers, it was reliable and maintainable, it had good balance (firepower, protection & mobility) and it fulfilled its intended roles quite well.
We can all agree that it was not worst. The reason given for not deploying the Jumbo was because it required a crane and loading dock, which made it unsuitable for the landings at Normandy. But later became available.
The M4’s narrow tracks made it suitable for the narrow roads in Europe as well as for crossing bridges as well as its high for forging shallow rivers and streams.
It also had excellent range.
It was ideally suited for its western European environment.
The big mistake was telling American tankers that they could go head to head with the best German tanks.
I read that more Sherman’s where lost to anti-tank mines than to German tanks. Seems that underneath escape hatch might not have been a good idea against mines.
Yet the Marines found it useful in the pacific. It allowed them to retrieve wounded on the battlefield by driving over them.
When the M4 did finally face the T34 it did very well against them as well as you pointed out even stood up to T62’s….
The old M60’s where supposed to be far inferior to the Russian tanks but did well in the gulf war used mainly by marine units as well as Israelites.
As a note more tanks where destroyed by APCs in the gulf war than by our tanks. My guess is that while they where focused on our tanks it allowed the APCs to get in shots unimpeded. Perhaps thickness of armor is over rated?
Just how often do head to head battles really occur? Speed, firepower and armor, if you have speed and firepower how much armor do you really need.
I heard the M4 had the fastest turning turret of all the WW2 tanks, does anyone know? Being able to aim and fire first would be a big advance as well as accuracy.
I heard that certain parts of the Sherman were riveted. A while back, I was watching a show where they interviewed a ww2 tanker who talked about the rivets bouncing around when hit. I'll try and find the source but you may be correct.
I wouldn't say that the t-44 was a failure. It was the testbed and provided the roots for the T-54/55 series which have been produced more than any other tank in the world. The main reason why they weren't produced was because it was cheaper to make larger numbers of T-34s which was more important to fight the nazis. Early t-44s had teething problems but so did all new tanks. Look at the Panther- at kursk many broke down before they even got into battle but once these glitches were worked out, the Panther was a formidable beast. The t-54-1 was a utter failure. The turret was cramped and only a few thousand were produced. THe t-54-2 with the hemispherical JS turret that offered no shot traps was the success.
Fbrets,
Very interesting points about the escape hatch. In gulf war 1, the m-60s were superior to anything the Iraqis fielded. The t-55s, type-69s, t-72s etc had no night vision, gun stabilization, and were equipped with sub-caliber ammo. The m-60 was inferior to frontline soviet tanks back in the day but could not compare with the rabble the Iraqis conjured up. Plus you have to remember that the Iraqis had no air power or credible way to defend themselves against close air support.
Many of the engagments were at night, so the Iraqi tankers were pretty much blind. THe antpq sights on the Bradleys, when combined with the 3000 meter TOW range was why so many tanks were taken out.
The Israelis fielded both the M-60 and the T-55s upgunned with the famous L7 105mm gun. The reason that they liked the M-60s more was because of heavier armour, more crew comfort and space inside, more ammo storage and the threat of attracting friendly fire when in a T-55.
The main drawback that soviet tanks faced was not being able to depress their guns in a hull down position. To be able to get a shot, they had to reveal their cross section; whereas, western tanks were able to depress the gun and be a smaller target.
The closest thing to riveting on a Sherman was the early models with bolted on transmission housings. Otherwise, there was no riveting.
The T-44 never got over its mechanical failures. It did serve as the springboard for Soviet post-war designs, that is true. It was soon replaced by the T-54, which owed much of its design to Soviet experience with the T-34, T-44 and IS-III. The T-54 moved past its teething problems but the T-44 never did. Nor did the Panther. Its mechanical reliability was bad right up to the end of the war.
I have been inside a functioning T-55: Wasn't impressed.
I too have clamored aboard a t-54. The interior was crude and very cramped- would hate to go to war in that machine. Same goes for a t-34 - very cramped. The soviet tanks were not known for crew comfort.
I think you are correct about the riveting, but I shall still look for that source.
At it's time, the t-54 was superior to it's American counterpart the M-48 patton. It was a shock because the tank had a very good balance of mobility and armament and was easily produced and widely exported.
The Panther was unreliable up until the end of the war but I think Hitler would have been better off investing the millions of reischmarks in the panther than in the tiger 1 and 2 series.These resources could have been diverted to fixing more of the glitches and he could have fielded more panthers.
Also since germany was on the defensive, the panther was useful in certain areas despite the engine glitches. The 75mm high velocity cannon was very powerful and it had thick frontal armour that was sloped. One of the drawbacks was the flammable turret hydraulic fluid and thin rear armor. (aside from your previous points on the panther).
The t-44's suspension had some quirks in the early models but I thought that they fixed them.The suspension is very similair to the later t-54 series which have great cross country mobility. As far as the engine problems, I thought the t-44 engine was a direct advancment of the proven T-34 diesel engine. The t-54 mated the t-44 body/suspension with the JS turret.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: a1rao,
I made an error on the Sherman: All models had the transmission housing bolted on. In revising an earlier thought I forgot to delete the "early" part.
Finding data on the T-44 is a bit hard to come by. What I have indicates the mechanical failures were not corrected. The problems with the suspension were apparently non-correctible on the T-44 and had to wait until the T-54. Not unusual for an interim tank to have failings with new technologies that can be corrected on their heirs.
Germany could have certainly built a lot more Panthers than Tigers. That would probably have been preferable. At least the Panther could be deployed a lot easier. However, they should have focused on reliability and ease of manufacture instead of trying to build "Super Tank". The Panther also had other flaws that did not have a direct impact upon combat but which were also important (i.e. seating and controls for the driver). Some of the flaws were known but the Germans did not feel a need to correct them (after the war, engineers stated that they knew the steering was flawed but saw no need to fix the problem as other related systems would fail first and they would take care of it then).
O ok, do you think that was what the tanker might have been referring about? Would an impacted round make these rivets bounce around, or are they placed where they wouldn't have any effect if struck?
Also, during ww2, what advances did the allies make as far as wet storage of ammo? Was it just simple water tanks placed next to the ammo crates with a quick release button to douse the rounds with water- in case of fire? Or was the process more complicated?
I guess the t-44 had its flaws- o well atleast it served its purpose as an interim model.
Instead of these super tanks, would Germany have been better off with producing the more reliable mark 4s (but with heavier armour, engine and perhaps a higher velocity 75?)
Speaking of shermans and panthers- after ww2, the french apparently produced their own version of the panther's 75mm gun. These eventually found themselves on Indian Shermans- which saw combat against Pakistan.
Regarding the bolts, I don't know. I have never heard of them shearing off and there were not that many. Of course, bolts from equipment mounted inside the tank could also have sheared off but I have never heard of them doing any damage either. I can't really say what the tanker was talking about, unless he was thinking back to the riveted version of the Lee or there is some facet of the Sherman I don't know about.
Wet stowage were steel boxes with double walls. The space in between these walls was filled with water, anti-freeze and a rust inhibitor. Shrapnel hitting the boxes were doused when they penetrated into the water mixture. I forget the total amount of water but it was somewhere around 30 gallons. Unprotected Shermans had a burn rate of 60-80% while those with wet stowage burned 10-15% of the time. Of course, tankers can be their own worst enemy at times. A lot of crews (in all armies) took on more ammo than they were equipped to carry which made the wet storage rather mute in cases.
I think Guderian's idea of reverse engineering the T-34 with German modifications would have been their quickest and best option (a carbon copy would have been a mistake for many reasons including design flaws). The Mark IV was mediocre even with the long 75, but a modified version would have been a better option that wasting resources and time developing a "super tank", like the Panther, which was unreliable, unsustainable and limited in production. Panthers and Tigers were tactical machines that could dominate the local situation but that meant nothing when their opponents simply breached the lines in other areas. Then the Big Boys had to run to avoid encirclement, except that they couldn't run very well and many were destroyed by their crews. They needed a good tank that could be deployed in large numbers and that was able to conduct long range operations both on the offense and in the defense. That tank also needed to be a realistic tank in terms of maintenance, supply, transport (while the Sherman is oft criticized, designers put a lot of thought into how they were going to get that tank over rail lines, roads, bridges, oceans, etc), support (i.e. Germans never built a dedicated recovery vehicle for the Tiger) and so on. Of course, Germany's production facilities were not geared for mass production of armored vehicles so they could not have kept up with demands even if they took the quickest option of carbon-copying the T-34. They thought about remodeling their factories for mass production with the Tiger but they would have been forced to stop production at each factory for 1-2 years. They decided the short term loss would have negated the long term gain and opted out of it (they were probably right). Germany had very good engineers but they were expected to fulfill fantasies which could not face up to reality.
Thank you for the technical info, it is very interesting. Having steel walls with double layers is quite ingenious. Also makes much more sense than manually releasig the water- as the biggest threat to the ammo cooking off is hot splinters and fragments, which are both reduced by having to travel through water and armour mediums.
Excuse me for the multitude of questions, but I remember reading about how Sherman crews would place add on armour to protect them from infantry held panzerfausts/shrecks and also from german guns. This was usually logs, scrap metal, or extra track links welded on.
I have heard conflicting reports on how effective this was- some people say that it added some stand off protection, while others say that it did not do much at all. Patton supposedly gave orders to forbid add-on armour because it weighed the tank down and reduced fuel efficency. What are your thoughts?
I remember the show, it was on the history of battle tanks on the Hist. Channel- the tanker was a ww1 veteran who also fought in North Africa.Much respect to the gentleman, but I think he passed away and there was a tribute for him on the show. Now that you mention it, I think he might have been referring to the m3, and I might have been confusing it for the m4. Was quite a while back.
Interestingly, Germany used a number of captured vehicles including the t-34.I am assuming that the Mark 4's 75mm gun was different from the panthers. If shermans could have been refitted with the French version of the panther's gun, could not mark 4s?
Questions? No problem. I get into these discussions to exchange ideas and pick up info I don't know myself. Of course, sometimes its just fun to argue.
About the "soft" armor, many items were tried including reinforced concrete (the book WEAPONS OF THE TANKERS by Harry Yeide has an interesting photo of a Sherman covered in concrete on page 57). The reason you haven't found anything about its success is that there is nothing to find. No technical data exists that I have been able to locate. All information is anecdotal, thus, whether it worked or not was exclusively the opinion of the person telling their story. Patton forbade it for the reasons you gave plus he just did not think it worked. Many agreed with him while others swore by it. I know, no help. There are two things that are generally agreed upon: (1) Some soft armor like concrete and the sandbags could detonate the warhead far enough away from the tank that the jet stream entering the tank was limited. Some say that even if the tank had to be abandoned, it could be repaired and no crewmen were ever seriously injured (again, this is anecdotal, there is no data to confirm this). And, (2) The crews felt safer improving morale and their willingness to take risks (Patton did agree with this later point despite his order).
The 75mm used in the Mark IV F2 thru G was the KwK 40 L/43. Starting in March, 1943 the L/48 was installed in the Ausf. G and all subsequent models of the Mark IV. The Panther used the KwK 42 L/70 which is a larger and longer gun. The KwK 42's ammunition contained a longer casing and much more powder than the shorter L/43 and L/48. If I remember correctly, the Mark IV's turret ring was too small to allow for a larger gun than the KwK 40 but I could be wrong on that point.
I'm not really knowledgable about the French adapting the KwK 42 L/70 for their use. I would have to research that one. I do know they used Panthers for a time after the war until their own indigenous designs could be produced.
I will have to check that book out next time I have a chance. The other tanks that I have heard of being armoured with concrete are the Iraqi T-55 "enigma" tanks, that used a combination of low quality ceramics, concrete, and rubber. In the GW1 they survived multiple Milan hits before being destroyed.
Def. Agree with the morale aspect of add on armor, but I thought that for Heat warheads to be disapated, there needs to be a space between the armour and the first barrier (hence wire or slat cages). The modern evolution of that problem could be seen in the early up-armoring of Hummers to protect from IEDS. THe hill-billy armor proved unfeasible because it was ruining the Hummer's suspension and mobility. Hence the stryker came in-
France operated panthers after ww2 and developed their own version of the gun. This was armed on the Amx-13 recon tank, and was also fitted on various Shermans.
Spaced armor dates back to WWI with French designs (it can be useful against kinetic weapons too). The idea is to have the warhead detonate as far away from the armor plate as possible. This decreases the effect as the stream loses focus. The Sherman crews had the right idea about stand off devices but the wrong method (the jet stream did not lose focus). I have never found an explanation for this anywhere. My best guess is that a bunch of guys tried something and it caught on. Towards the end of the war, the Soviets attempted the same concept except they used steel wire mesh, which would probably have been more effective but there isn't much info out there that I have found.
I don't have any info on the soviets during the war, but after they developed the ZET program in 1964. The acronym stands for 'zaschita ekrannaya tankovaya' and is Russian for "tank screen". The protective mesh was like an umbrella and was 'folded' out during combat. These wire meshes pre-detonated shaped charge warheads and were combined with flipper aluminum hinges. The soviets did not adopt these on large scale and would regret it during their occupation of Afghanistan.
During their experiences in Afghanistan, the soviets found that combat losses amounted to 16% from rpgs and almost 59% to mines.
The big killers of Sherman tanks were not German tanks. They were antitank guns, mines, panzerfausts and panzershrecks. In reading tanker interviews and unit logs, there is also another weapon system out there that they truly feared: the sniper. One unit claims to have blown the bell towers off of every church they came across whenever they first entered a town.
Yes you are right, the U.S lost more tanks to mines than to tanks.
Did you hear about the Russina mine clearing techq? The lined up so call russian crimmals and they had to march in formation across a mine field.
They said to be a coward in the Russina military you had to be a brave man.
They shot anyone going the wrong way on the battle field.
They use to have troups armed with machine guns walking behind the front line solders with orderd to shoot anyone that retreated or did not move forward.
I don't believe I have ever heard of that. I know the Soviets formed penal battalions (just as the Germans did). These guys had to serve until their CO released them. They were used for hazardous duties that included clearing mines, but I don't recall any reference to them being to actually set off the mines.
The Soviets did employ various devices for clearing minefields including tank plows and rollers. The Western Allies made wide use of mine clearing devices including the famous flail tanks. The Germans did very little in this area. That was one of many reasons why their heavy tanks often failed in the attack. Their method was to either try to bull their way through by driving over the mines with one tank after another, resulting in heavy losses to armor (destroyed and damaged), or they used engineers. These guys, with nothing protecting them except tank fire, had to clear the mines while exposed to the enemy. They took a lot of unnecessary casualties because of it.
i have found a couple interseting attempts to defeat technology that would be used to destroy mines during world war II. the germans actually made mines with on the outside instead of metal to defeat metal detectors. the russians at the battle of stalingrad trained dogs to run under tanks while they were traing the dogs behind the lines. when they were brought up to the lines they strapped an anti tank mine to the dog and the dog would run under the tank and the mine would detonate.
On the Soviet dogs, it was actually a vest filled with explosives, not a mine. Whether this worked or not is unknown. The Soviets claim to have disabled 300 tanks during the course of the war. Germans say it didn't work, nevertheless, they issued a warning to their troops initially saying dogs were rabid and to be shot on sight. It is also claimed that the dogs were trained to find food under Soviet tanks, which looked different and smelled different (due to the diesel), resulting in the dogs going after Soviet tanks instead of German tanks. Another claim says that the dogs ran amok within Soviet lines on one occassion causing a Soviet division to route. This is one of those footnotes of history that no one really seems to know the facts on and which is prone to wild imaginations. One fact is that the Soviets continued to train "antitank dogs" until the mid-90's. Another fact is that it was not good for the dogs. Who knows the rest?
This is try #3. A pox upon the trigger word people. Actually, the antitank dogs were equipped with an e-x-p-l-o-s-i-v-e [ha! figured out a way to beat the trigger words] filled vest, not an a mine. There is no reliable info on how well this worked. Soviets claim to have disabled 300 German tanks during the war. Germans claimed the program did not work. They even claimed that the dogs, having been trained with Soviet tanks, ran under their master's own vehicles. It was also claimed that the dogs shied away from the noise of tanks. They did, however, tell their troops to shoot all dogs on sight due to a rabies epidemic. Another claim is that the dogs ran amok within Soviet lines on one occasion forcing a Soviet division to retreat. This is one of those items that can't be really verified and is open to imagination. The Soviets maintained the antitank dog program until the mid-90's. Whatever the truth was, it was not a good program for the dogs.
it did work once. in mansur abdulin's memoir red road from stalingrad he talks about finding a cage full of dogs during the battle of stalingrad. after feeding the dogs he went back to his trench. later that day two german tanks were attacking his unit and two dogs ran out toward the tanks. the first one was destroyed immeaditly after the dog ran under it and the second one retreated after the first one was destroyed before the second dog could reach them.
