Posts
In point of fact, the Sherman was in the inventory of all the winning Armies in WW2.
People keep talking as if we won the war in spite of the thing.
They concede that it was OK if you consider the Firefly (which is a horrid adaptation).
The fact is that most Shermans had the "ineffective" 75mm M3 gun.
What one has to do when determining if the M4 was a good tank or not is to remove German propaganda from the research.
No, the M3 gun isn't as good at punching armor as the 76mm M1A1, but it was good enough against the Panzer IV right up to the end of the war.
It was definitely used incorrectly often, but that's not the fault of the design.
It's armor wasn't as thick as some other tanks, but it was enough to win most engagements.
No, it didn't catch fire more often than other tanks once it took a penetration.
Even if it did, you were more likely to escape from it than most other tanks.
No, it was not designed as an infantry support tank, even if infantry support was one of the main tasks tanks were expected to perform.
The 75mm was actually a really good gun. The HE load was better than the 76mm round, and if you factor in the somewhat spotty armor quality, could penetrate some of the 'better' tanks the Germans had. From the side definitely.
ReplyDeleteAmerican tankers often survived where other nations' crews didn't because of one piece of equipment. The Amis wore helmets. Brits did not, Russians had those padded things. But nothing was as good as the American tanker helmet.
US doctrine was for the tank destroyers to fight tanks and the tanks were expected to fight infantry and transport. That's why the army delayed fitting the 76mm gun, because the 75mm had better HE rounds. Since reality conflicted with doctrine, the Sherman got the 76mm, and tank destroyers were dropped.
ReplyDeleteAnother point in the Sherman's favor was,reliable, easily repaired components. Replacing a Panther transmission requires removing the main gun , turret, and driver's equipment before dragging the transmission back into the fighting compartment and lifting it out. Changing a Sherman's transmission involves blocking the tank, breaking the tracks and simply unbolting the nose casting and swapping.
Better re-read that doctrine.
DeleteTanks were expected to fight tanks from the very beginning.
Tank-Destroyers were, doctrinally, supposed to engage tanks on the defense and that's why they're lighter and more mobile so as to be more able to be Johnny on the spot.
The Chieftan on YouTube has more than one video with references dismissing the myth that US tanks were just for infantry support.
Tank destroyers weren't dropped because of an upgunning of the Sherman. They were eliminated from the doctrine as the idea of a main battle tank replaced the light/medium/heavy/destroyer paradigm.
I've been wrong before, I stand corrected, the Pershing had more to do with retiring the TD. The transmission replacement observation is still correct.
DeleteI would also note that the Sherman was a medium tank, not a heavy. Of course it is not the equal of a Tiger, it is not in the same class.
ReplyDeleteIf you outnumber the enemy tanks, there will be battles where the enemy doesn't bring a tank and you do. You tend to win those battles. Another reason the Sherman was great.
ReplyDeleteDaosus
Being able to recover your knocked out hulks helps a lot too.
DeleteIt's my understanding the Sherman was quicker and faster than it's German counterparts. Is that true?
ReplyDeleteThey could definitely go places that German tanks couldn't. More mobile doesn't necessarily mean faster, but it can.
DeleteBecause American automotive engineering was biased towards robust and reliable, our tanks tended to be able to take full advantage of the engine. German stuff trended to being fragile.
Like the difference between a Formula 1 car and a Civic. The F1 is faster and can corner better. Now, drive through pot holes, sit in stop and go traffic and then do a road trip. The Civic (and Sherman) will make it from NYC to LA. The F1 will not likely clear NYC.
FWIW, the Germans also used captured Shermans ("Beutepanzer") on the regular. They had whole units using captured T-34s.
ReplyDeleteThe Sherman was PzKpfw 748(a), the T-34 was PzKpfw 747(r). The specific variant was called out in the designation as well, so an M4A2 Sherman would be "PzKpfw M4A2 748(a)."
DeleteLet us also recall that a lot of Sherman "failures" likely stemmed as much from poorly-trained field replacements once we burned through the cadre of school-trained tankers.
ReplyDeleteBut if one side starts with 8 tanks, and the other one starts with 20, even if they're crewed by idiots the five surviving tanks on the larger side still trumps none on the defenders.
If the Sherman had sucked as hard as some people imagine, Patton's comments on that point would have been book-length, and raised blisters.
There were no such.