[MoMo]

I guess that we're being befuddled by lies, damned lies and statistics.

cheers,

MoMo

[mkenny]

Originally Posted by bernie

.
Everyone seems to comment on the height of the Sherman, the Panther was ,again according to Jentz 3.10meters height the M4/M4a1 was 2.74 high and M4A1 w 76 was 2.97meters high.Oh! the Tiger was 3 meters high so it seems the Sherman was actually smaller.

Not really. It depends on the model of Sherman you use. Early marks were not as high as later models.
When introduced it was considerably higher than all contemporary models.

[Spanner 28]

Originally Posted by mkenny

Not really. It depends on the model of Sherman you use. Early marks were not as high as later models.
When introduced it was considerably higher than all contemporary models.

Hi Guys, I'm new to this forum also and couldn't resist adding tothis "interesting" discussion. Firstly, If you look at the pictures you supply then you see that there is no SIGNIFICANT height difference between the early M4A1 pictured and the T34 and the Pz111, likewise the later M4A3 76 is not significantly higher than the KT and Panther. The M4A1 is slightly higher and thats it.

I cannot accept that such a successful design as the Sherman even be in the worst 10 designs. Lets get the emotion out and get down to assessment criteria.
A tank is assessed against three main design criteria:

Firepower

Mobility

Armour

For a 1940/1 design the Sherman had an excellent balance of all three. By wars end these had slipped against contempories but no more so than the late Pz IV J which had no more armour than the G that fought against the Sherman in NA and Tunisia in 42/3.

These three are the cornerstones of tank design but as with designs of all types there are other considerations, none of which has been considered in such an emotional assessment. Some of these are essential in understanding the Sherman.

Buildability/Complexity - How fast and cheaply can you build it. This defines qty avail to the frontline

Size constraint for Shipping - Critical in that the supply lines were by sea and a limited lift capacity was available. Shermans could be shipped at nearly 3 - 1 when compared to its successor the T26/M26. Rail gauges and infrastructure (tunnel widths etc) dictate the size of tank that can be shipped. The Sherman was deliberately designed to this limitation.

Reliability - The Sherman excelled at this and history supports this fact. The Sherman was easy to maintain and keep operational. The fact that the US 3rd Army managed to advance so far across France in such a short time whilst in contact had a lot to do with the reliability of the Sherman its main tank. NO german tank in service then, with the possible exception of the Pz III/IV, could have advanced even a third of that distance without suffering critical maintenance failures and if you take the time to read some of the German commanders memoirs and histories you will find they were continously losing significant amounts of the tanks to breakdown whilst moving up to the front. In the CAEN battles (which I will return to later) as many Panthers were lost to breakdown as to enemy air action. The British Shermans (and the oft maligned - unfairly Cromwell) managed similar advances (sometimes up to 80 miles per day) in Shermans with no adverse affects. To attempt this with Tigers and Panthers would see you arrive with nothing.

Logistics - This is the one the amatuer historians and armchair generals (such as myself) always ignore in these debates. The Sherman was standardised to a great degree with a lot of interchangeable logistic assemblies thus reducing the logisitic tail required and the maintenance burden. This cannot be stressed enough in the context of mobile TANK warfare at which the Sherman excelled and a Shawn pointed out - was designed for.

The Sherman fought in Tunisia with both the US and Commonwealth forces and like the Churchill also employed there achieved some fantastic results when employed correctly, it's main oponents were highly seasoned and elite German troops well armed with Mid series 75mm Pz IV and even a Bn of Tigers plus numerous excellent AT guns of 50mm , 75 and 88 varieties. Contrary to popular myth they were not operating under Air Superiority and in fact the Germans enjoyed this over Tunisia to until it fell as they held all the all weather Airfields and actually had more AC than the 8th and 1st Armies. As a result of this and the later Sicilian campaign where the allies engaged and defeated Tigers easily it was thought that the Sherman was adequate for Normandy.

During the Normandy Campaign it is a fact if you care to read up on it that more Allied tanks were lost to AT guns, SP Guns and Infantry AT than to enemy Tanks. In offensive operations the Defender usually has an advantage of at least 3-1. This is accepted and taught military fact (ask ANY serving officer). The advantadges are numerous and include knowledge of terrain, pre registered Defensive fire, prepared defences in depth and with obstacles to "Channel " the enemy onto prepared Killing Grounds.
The Commonwealth and Polish Forces committed at CAEN during the Goodwood, Bluecoat and Totalize battles did suffer 500 plus tanks lost as indicated in an earlier post (many were subsequently repaired and reissued). What is significant is that they could be easily replaced due to the policy of standardisation enabling a massive industrial output unlike the over complicated Tigers and panthers. Whether the Allies were using Shermans, Pershings, T 34 85 or even the later Centurian they were going to get slaughtered as the ground was so advantagous to the defender as to be a deathrap with 3 km advances across open ground to wards high gound held by the enemy. It must also be mentioned that a lot of allied losses were due to Blue on Blue courtesy of wayward attacks by RAF and US Heavy bombing of formation lines and Forming up Areas.
During these battles there were many instances where advancing Shermans totally destroyed local counterattacks of Panthers and Tigers crewed by seasoned veterans and elite troops. One Sgt of 11 AD 3RTR(Buck Kite MM and 2 bars) destroyed many panthers in a 75mm armed Sherman whilst defending a Hill against strong enemy counterattack.
A Canadian Major Radley Walters killed 9 Panthers in one battle with his Sherman. The key to these and other success was skilled use of their vehicles exploiting its advantages in fast turret traverse, dual purpose role of the gun (using HE and Smoke) and mobility. In those respects the Sherman excelled compared to the King Tiger, Tiger and Panther. At close ranges (<500) the shermans could kill all but the KT and freely out manaouvre the enemy.
Shawn Highlighted the Battle of Arracourt (which was actually a series of engagements). In one of these the US 4AD destroyed a German formation of two regts of Panther using a fluid mobile defence based in support of Dug in (hastily) Infantry and engineers. The Panthers attacked during morning mist and fighting was at close range where the Shermans and M10s were able to manouvre to advantageous positions and destroy the enemy. At one stage a Platoon commander saw a force of approx 12 panthers withdrawing towards High ground. The Plt Comd ordered his Plt to the feature where they arrived first and set about slaughtering the Panthers with no loss. These were 75mm armed Shermans against the much vaunted Panther.

Both the 3rd US Army and the Commonwealth/Polish breakouts indicated that the decision to stick with the Shermans was the right one. They could not go head to head with a Tiger, KT or Panther but by uses of tactics and TDs they could overcome them. If they were knocked out they could be replaced as the decisions made to keep them within Shipping criteria, keep them easy to manufacture, keep them easy to use and maintain, ensured there were adequate numbers available.
During the Battle of the Bulge Pattons 3rd Army managed to disengage from Contact and move approx 160 (through enemy) miles to relieve the 101st at Bastogne. The fact the Shermans were still going after such a feat is testament to what a good design it was and how it met its design criteria which was part of a force which includes Artillery, Air Support, TD support, Mobile Infantry and Engineers. In its designed role it excelled - the Breakout.

Someone mentioned the excellent tank the Churchill, this was a pure infantry tank designed for the Break THROUGH. The later marks of Churchill had as much armour as a KT (152mm) and the earlier marks had as much as Tiger (102mm). They were slow moving and utterly useless in the exploit or Breakout which was the domain of the Armoured Division Tank in US service or the Cruiser Tank in British Service. These were flawed doctrines which did much to denigrate the designs which did what they were designed to. Interestingly the Tiger was designed for a similar Breakthrough role. The British Cromwell was more than the equal of the Sherman and performed well in its role as a recce tank where its high speed was used to advantage.

The Sherman by virtue of all the considerations listed above definately does not deserve the sad indictment you wish to cast upon because none of the Vaunted designs you mention could have done what it achieved
Cheers
Spanner

[TopHat]

Yeah, Spanner, but the Panther and Tiger I look so cool!

[Shawn 507]

Originally Posted by TopHat

Yeah, Spanner, but the Panther and Tiger I look so cool!

Now quit acting like a Democrat with your flip floppin'

[TopHat]

Originally Posted by Shawn 507

Now quit acting like a Democrat .....

Ouch!

[mkenny]

These are the old Bellona plans for a side by side comparison. The 4 pictures are not to scale with each other but all tanks on the same page are scaled correctly.
I think the Sherman has a significantly bigger frontal area than any of the others.







I am sure there were 500 Allied tank casualties for Goodwood, Bluecoat and Totalize but NOT for Goodwood alone. I am equaly sure the Germans lost 300+ in the same encounters

[Spanner 28]

Originally Posted by TopHat

Yeah, Spanner, but the Panther and Tiger I look so cool!

Highly subjective issue and an irrellevant one. I personally think the Shermans deployed in NA , Sicily and Italy looked cooler and I note the germans copied their ambush scheme from the Shermans of the Royal Scots greys!
Cheers
Al

[Aircrafty]

Here are some WWII tank articles for you guys to discuss :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanks_in_World_War_II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman
http://www.chuckhawks.com/best_tanks_WWII.htm
http://www.awm.gov.au/korea/weapons/sherman/sherman.htm

Most agree that the T-34/85 was the best MBT in WWII having good mobility, armour and armament and available in similar numbers to the Sherman. Of course it would have been even better with the Shermans standard radio and stabilised gun.

[Shawn 507]

1. I would not trust Wkipedia as a reference for anything. Its written in such general terms, I think this is what the Military channel uses for it shows.
2. Who is Chuck Hawk? Tony's brother??
3. The M4A3E8 76mm was the equal to the T-34/85. And must have done its job holding them back in Korea until the M26s arrived from the US. I forget which, Canada I think even sent their M-10 (17 pounder) Achilles to Korea in the beginning until they could draw from US stocks.