[FormerViperDriver]

Originally Posted by Shawn 507

You forget, the Sherman was NOT designed to take on other tanks, that was the Tank Destroyer branch's mission. Much like your beloved F-22 isn't really designed to get into a gun fight with another plane. The Sherman was designed to exploit the rear areas after the breech, much like the Calvary. And to its credit it did just that, see the break out from Normandy.
Also, the Tiger I had been met and defeated in North Africa by far lesser armed / armored tanks. So with that in mind there was no need to stop everything to come up with a new tank. The number of Shermans taken out can be atributed to the Germans fighting from the defense after oh say '42. And the kill usually goes to the first shot, adavantage the defender. There are enough cases where in open country the Sherman handed the Panther and the odd Tiger (not many deployed in NWE after Normandy) its backside.
Kinda like the Luftwaffe, with all the experience pilots drained or dead by whatever year. The Germans didn't have the cream of the crop in Panzermen after '42. Also there is a greater number of Shermans put back into service than completely written off. And that is a combat multiplier.
Had the Allies made a big deal of its successful tankers like oh say pilots, the panzer mania may not have taken hold of everyone past and present. But here is some interesting reading for a guy (SSG. Pool) who commanded one of these junk tanks. Look what he accomplished in 81 days of combat.
http://www.3ad.com/history/wwll/pool...ools.tanks.htm
Michael Wittman barely topped that and it took him until 1944 to rack up that number. As with everything else, don't believe the hype.
- Shawn

Shawn,

Good points all. I do think the Sherman, when all is said and done, did accomplish the mission. However, my point was that it was more due to shear numbers and the courage/determination/ingenuity/training of its crews rather than on any technical aspects, for which the M-4 series is known to have been seriously lacking in most respects. One can always point to this or that exceptional/anecdotal story of very successful Sherman crews (it's called "survivor bias" in statistical analysis), but that proves nothing. What counts are averages. On the average, the M-4 just wasn't very good as an individual tank. And yes, it wasn't designed to go tank-on-tank, but fact is it ended up doing just that quite often, more often than not coming out on the losing end (at the tactical level). German armor on the Western Front was operationally and strategically defeated not by the Sherman or other allied tanks, but by US and British airpower, directly on the battlefield (or on their way to it using interdiction - particularly true in the Normandy campaign just following D-Day) or indirectly by the bombing of factories and petroleum industry thus limiting tank production, repair/servicing capacity, and fuel available.

Bottom line is the US let its tanker crews down by not providing them with a more capable vehicle (until the Pershing, but a bit late to make any difference). We lost many more tank crews than we should have in WW II... The US should have been capable of designing and fielding a tank equivalent to the P-51 Mustang, or something like that. Instead we went the cheap-and-easy route and sacrificed a lot of good troops. Yes, it worked, but I just can't help wonder if we couldn't have done it a better way.

Anyway, I do recognize your expertise in this field, and don't want to come out as denigrating the Sherman too much. My impressions are based on what I've read about the opinions of most M-4 crews themselves, which I suppose have to carry some weight, plus what I have read in history and armor books written by hopefully knowledgeable people.

FVD

[wmosner]

After the war ended, Cooper and the two other liaison lieutenants with the 3rd Armored Division wrote a lengthy report on their experiences with the American tanks and detailed numerous shortcomings.

"We lost 648 medium tanks. We had another 700 repaired and put back into action," Cooper said. "When you compare that to the original 232 we had when we landed at Normandy, I don't know of any other division or service that took that kind of loss."

By the time Germany surrendered in May 1945, American tank crews had taken such disproportionately heavy losses that the tanks were being manned by a third generation of replacements, according to Tent.


from the book: "Death Traps: The Survival of an American Armored Division in World War II" by Lt. Belton Cooper.

[ZS-VAN]

Originally Posted by Cardinal

ZS-VAN you should purchase the excellent book Sledgehammers: Strengths and Flaws of Tiger Tank Battalions in WW II as it is very interesting, especially when one looks at the ridiculous (approx. 800 000 reichsmarks) cost of each Tiger Tank (e.g. same as B29) versus other options. As much as I Iike the Tiger, the Panther was far more economical, effective and versatile (in my opinion) . Also, the Tiger was not suited to Blitzkrieg.

Thanks Card. I agree with your comments regarding the Panther. The point I wanted to make has been more eloquently emphasized by FVD, the Sherman cost mens lives. Do you really want to be the crew whose tank get hit so that 10 other crews can follow?

[jim]

The British invented the tank but when the war came were way behind in tank developement and imho we didnt catch up until the war was nearly over.

I think the Allies were caught of guard by the speed with which the Germans developed their tanks and put them in the field.

[Shawn 507]

When bringing up the old chestnut of 11 to one, the German tank in question is the Tiger. And at smaller ratio the Panther. When one considers the total Tiger I production is about 1,355 give or take, scattered from North Africa, Sicily, Italy, Russia and NWE. There simply wasn't enough to back up that claim, especially by the summer of 1944. Panther numbers were about 6,000, deployed likewise save North Africa. In many cases the Tiger phobia was so great that the Panzer IV ausf G/H/J ( 9000+ Panzer IVs built ) with turret skirt arnor was often mistaken as a Tiger.
As Jim mentioned, not every Sherman loss was due to tank on tank engagements. Anti-tank guns, panzerschrek and panzerfaust got their licks in too. And not all 4-5 crew members were lost with each tank knocked out.
But if the Sherman, the primary Allied tank of WW2 was such a lemon. What then took out all the German armor? Allied aircraft? Well those numbers have been proven inflated, and the weather wasn't always perfect.
Artillery? Sure some but not all. Sticky bombs? Not hardly. And we all know the bazooka was a huge let down. Apparently the Sherman did its job. The sheer numbers of additional platfroms based on the Sherman hull show that it was a winner. And when units like the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 6th US Armored Divisions were considered Elite Divisions by the Germans themselves, apparently the Sherman was holding its own quite well.
Show me the tank, rifle or whatever that ground forces don't complain about. If US/Allied crews had to deal with the logistical and maintenance nightmare that German armor caused, I'll bet even belton Cooper would rather have the Sherman in the end.
- Shawn

[Cardinal]

I tend to support Shawn's arguments on the merits of the Sherman .

Although it undoubedly had its weaknesses, it was mechanically reliable and great in the infantry support role. Its reliance on a gasoline powerplant (like most of the German Panzers) is a fact which I've often wondered about, given that diesel may have been more appropriate .

Notwithstanding its flaws, the fact that it was used with some success in post-war conflicts (Middle East [Israel] & Korea), means that it was not as bad as its detractors would have us believe.

[Aircrafty]

You can argue about the effectiveness of the Sherman tank until the proverbial cows come home. But I still haven't noted ANY EXCUSEABLE reason why the Americans didn't have a combat suitable tank destroyer by D-Day. Believe me I've read plenty about this subject over the years but most excuses seem to focus on logistics, ease of manufacture etc. However at the end of the day the bottom line in battle is to try and kill as many of the enemy as possible with the least cost in your own soldiers.

[Shawn 507]

Originally Posted by Aircrafty

You can argue about the effectiveness of the Sherman tank until the proverbial cows come home. But I still haven't noted ANY EXCUSEABLE reason why the Americans didn't have a combat suitable tank destroyer by D-Day. Believe me I've read plenty about this subject over the years but most excuses seem to focus on logistics, ease of manufacture etc. However at the end of the day the bottom line in battle is to try and kill as many of the enemy as possible with the least cost in your own soldiers.

September 1944 brought the M36 TD with 90mm main gun, about 1400 produced. Four months after D-Day. That fall brought 300 M36B1s, a M36 turret on the M4A3 hull making it the biggest gun on the Sherman hull. Had the turret been better armored, it would have made a great tank.
It was also suggested that a Sherman with a Pershing turret and 90mm main gun be produced prior to D-Day. But that would dip into the available stocks of turrets slated for the T26E3 Pershing. And that tank ( Pershing) was thought to be delivered quicker than it actually was.
The M-10 had performed well in North Africa, Sicily, Italy and later because it had received a new HEAT round. This round also found its way into some 76mm armed Sherman but the supply never met the demand.
On the topic of ammo, most reports show that HE was the round used most often. Which says something about its use and tank on tank engagements.
- Shawn

[Aircrafty]

Originally Posted by Shawn 507

September 1944 brought the M36 TD with 90mm main gun, about 1400 produced. Four months after D-Day. That fall brought 300 M36B1s, a M36 turret on the M4A3 hull making it the biggest gun on the Sherman hull. Had the turret been better armored, it would have made a great tank.
It was also suggested that a Sherman with a Pershing turret and 90mm main gun be produced prior to D-Day. But that would dip into the available stocks of turrets slated for the T26E3 Pershing. And that tank ( Pershing) was thought to be delivered quicker than it actually was.
The M-10 had performed well in North Africa, Sicily, Italy and later because it had received a new HEAT round. This round also found its way into some 76mm armed Sherman but the supply never met the demand.
On the topic of ammo, most reports show that HE was the round used most often. Which says something about its use and tank on tank engagements.
- Shawn

The M-10 and especially the M-36 were ok, but their open turrets did not make them "combat suitable" imo.

The Germans had specialised tank killers such as Jadgpanthers, Hetzers, Stugs etc and the Russians had their SU-100's etc all having enclosed turrets.

[Shawn 507]

Originally Posted by Aircrafty

The M-10 and especially the M-36 were ok, but their open turrets did not make them "combat suitable" imo.

The Germans had specialised tank killers such as Jadgpanthers, Hetzers, Stugs etc and the Russians had their SU-100's etc all having enclosed turrets.

The Jadgpanther was a great Tank Destroyer no doubt.. The Hetzers and Stugs IIIs / IVs (easily popped open by the M-4) primary mission was Infantry support, though they could be used in the TD role. Problem with German assualt guns / TDs is the limited traverse of the main gun. You have to move the whole vehicle after a certian point. Same can be said of the Soviet stuff as well. Same issue as with the M3 Lee / Grant and the sponson mounted 75mm.
The idea behind the open topped American TDs were to one save weight, and two provide better overall vision of the battle field as compared to being buttoned up. There are cases mostly late in the war, where field shops made improvised overhead cover for the M-10 and M-36. Mostly to combat snipers as they cleared cities etc...
Another interesting note is the M-10 and early M-36 had the bolt mounting points for the hull ( M-10/M-36) and turret (M-10), but there never was an official armor suppliment for those. And of course we haven't even mentioned the M-18 Hellcat, a fast and furious TD.
The US Armored Force Doctrine and that of the Tank Destroyer Branch was interesting to say the least. They both had to fight for resources and against the big two ( Infantry / Artillery) over operational control. The designs were also drawn up to meet railroad requirements, which have allot to do with height/width/weight of tanks at the time. America was way behind the times when it comes to armor developement in the pre-war years.
Hitting on the Sherman was the best thing at the time, and again it performed well in its intended role. The mixed bag of future tanks between the M-4 and Pershing makes the German use of every requisitioned / home grown AFV seem logical.
- Shawn