The Sherman in WWII

Snip

If you keep your eyes on the forums, you will see something which might interest you very shortly.

I hope that somebody has an answer on the production rate.
As for the battle of Villers-Bocage, every side has its own biased point of view. And indeed, i never heard of a British force going to help in this battle

Well if we were to stoop to wiki it suggests that 50,000 Sherman’s were built upto 1946 and about 1500 tigers. Obviously the Sherman’s were probably being built before (and after) tiger production but even so...

I am confused by you saying that you hadn’t heard of a British force going to help at Villers-bocage. Is this because you didn’t think the British fought there or that you just not aware of the action in the following days?


A good account here: http://www.desertrats.org.uk/battles1944.htm

All of you didn't mention one thing while comparing the Sherman to Panthers/Tigers and other German tanks.
Those tanks had different roles. At the beginning, the first Shermans were supposed to support infantry. It wasn't called a tank. It was called "Infantry Support Vehicle". It is easy to understand why it couldn't challenge the enemy's armor.
On the production rate, as i have read, Americans were producing 4 Shermans for each Tiger tank the Germans made.

The production discrepancy was far far greater than that:

German production:
8300 Pz IVs (plus another 5,000 Stug IVs, jagdPz IVs, etc.)
6500 Pz V's (Panthers + Jagdpanzers),
1370 Tigers
550 King Tigers.

Compared to that the US Produced 50,000 Sherman variants, (not including TDs, Stuarts, Chaffees, Pershings, etc.) and the Russians 84,000 T-34 variants (also not including KV's, IS's, SUs, etc.). The Germans also built a myriad of other AFVs, using pretty much anything they could get their hands on, creating the Marder, Hetzer, StuG III, etc, etc, etc with various types of guns, creating a parts, and logistical nightmare.

An even bigger production discrepancy was in non-fighting vehicle transport. The Germans produced less than 10% of the tonnage (cargo) and vehicles as the Allies.

But producing more would have only exacerbated their fuel shortage problems. They didn't even have enough fuel to run the tanks and transport they had, let alone train personnel in their proper use.

Sherman's armor was probably its speed (like the M10 and the Jackson). All these tanks (although different roles in battle) had sacrificed their protection for speed.

The Sherman wasn't particularly fast and had lesser rough terrain performance than the Panther. A lot of that was due to the way it ran its drive wheels. This also lead to its taller profile, a shortcoming that was never fixed because the current design was so robust. However it was decently armored. By late war the Sherman was arguably equivalent to late model Pz IV in armor and gun, superior in maneuverability and maintenance, and better trained rookie crews.

A small source about the Tiger, regarding the battle of Villers-Bocage :

Επί αρκετές ημέρες μετά τη μάχη, ακόμη και η θέα γερμανικού άρματος προκαλούσε πανικό στους Βρετανούς, οι οποίοι κατέληξαν σε έναν γενικό, εμπειρικό κανόνα: "Εάν υπάρχει αναφορά για την παρουσία ενός Tiger, πρέπει να στείλεις πέντε Sherman, υπολογίζοντας να χάσεις τα τέσσερα."

Translation (since it's in Greek) : Many days after this battle, even seeing this german tank, British were panicked. This made them create a general, empirical rule : "If there is a report for a Tiger nearby, you need to send 5 Shermans, and expect losing 4 of them"

This is just one of those myths that won't die. Like the danger of the m1 Garand "ping" and many other myths, it started somewhere with someones statitics and gets larger with each retelling.

The production discrepancy was far far greater than that:

German production:
8300 Pz IVs (plus another 5,000 Stug IVs, jagdPz IVs, etc.)
6500 Pz V's (Panthers + Jagdpanzers),
1370 Tigers
550 King Tigers.

Compared to that the US Produced 50,000 Sherman variants, (not including TDs, Stuarts, Chaffees, Pershings, etc.) and the Russians 84,000 T-34 variants (also not including KV's, IS's, SUs, etc.). The Germans also built a myriad of other AFVs, using pretty much anything they could get their hands on, creating the Marder, Hetzer, StuG III, etc, etc, etc with various types of guns, creating a parts, and logistical nightmare.

I will repeat the important war-fighting take-away. If you ask the tanker which tank he would rather be in, remember he assumes it works and that "somebody" provided it with fuel and ammunition. In those circumstances he probably wants a Tiger, particularly if his last 3 shots didn't knock it out. He doesn't care as much that someone else got it 20 minutes later from behind or that it ran out of fuel and had to be abandoned.

The answer is markedly different if you are an infantryman or a general and your choice is plenty tanks to go around, with the fuel and parts to keep them moving, or having no tanks at all in some, if not many, locations. Ask any infantryman facing the choice of attacking dug in MGs with or without tank support (particularly tanks that have a gun that is effective in infantry support rather than one that isn't, like the Panther's).

The Sherman wasn't just decent, it was far better than that FOR WHAT THE US ARMY NEEDED. It could be made in large quantities, would work in the sands of N. Africa, the Jungles of the Pacific, over the myriad small bridges of Europe, etc. It was very transporatble, with many more fitting in LSTs and cargo ships, and in the rail tunnels of England. The parts of one would fit easily to replace the parts of another. They experimented with a lot of "T" models during the war and none fit those requirements the same way.

In a discussion about the Jackson, this interesting off topic discussion emerged.

Firesparks wrote this reply to the Gentlemen Troll :





https://www.coh2.org/topic/68096/about-jacksons/page/2#here

But the question (for me) is: had the Sherman been improved that much by D-Day?

this m4a1 is an early production sherman, similar to the one use in africa

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flickr_-_davehighbury_-_Bovington_Tank_Museum_276_SHERMAN_2.jpg


the most distinct feature is the cast armor and the small gun shield. The smaller gun shield meant a more weakly protected turret. The cast armor was found to be flaw due to its shape, it presented too many shallow angle or even flat surface.

In addition, ammo was stored along the side hull, where it was easy to hit and led to the reputation of being easy to lid. (the ammo rack would be roughly at the location of the side name plate of the first picture)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2013-Ch%C3%A2teau_de_Belfort_04.JPG

later the gun shield was enlarged, protecting more areas of the turret. welded hull started to appear in number, but this early welded hull had the notable (large) weak spot in front of the crew hatch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:M4_Sherman_tank_at_the_Imperial_War_Museum.jpg

an expedient measure was to weld extra plating infront of the weakspot.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxgdvi_5ZYE

this tank fought in the battle of the bulge, and roughly represent the final 75mm model.

The hull is a single flat plate of 63mm at 47 angle from the vertical, translating roughly to 90mm armor. This remove the crew hatch weak point of the early version. (notably the easy 8 use the same hull)

By comparsion the panzer4 had inferior armor. 80mm on the front hull and 50mm on the front turret. The panzer4 maintained parity with its superior gun but the E8 left it behind.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4kdbx6/tanks_what_exactly_is_a_wet_ammo_rack_are_the/

Wet ammo storage was also added to the sherman tank, greatly reducing the chance of "brewing up".


there's also the fact US tanker wore the m38 helmet as standard, unlike every other nation. this is bit harder to dig up.


lastly. The panther and tiger are generally superior in direct combat, but they achieve this partly due to weight. The panther weighted 45 ton compare to ~33 on the sherman. The tiger is even heavier.

This presented logistical problem because tanks preferably do not drive themselves to the battle. They rode on a truck.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M19_Tank_Transporter

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M25_Tank_Transporter

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_transporter#/media/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-154-1991-07A,_Russland-Mitte,_Sturmgesch%C3%BCtz_III_auf_Anh%C3%A4nger.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sd.Kfz._9

the panther and tiger were notably too heavy to be carried long distance by truck, and need to be carried on train and drive themselves to the battle rest of the way. Towing a tiger with two trucks is not the same as carrying a tank on a flatbed.

This significantly increase the wear and tear on panther and tiger and notably limit the strategic mobility of the tank. The doubled layered bogie wheel on the panther and tiger were famously a pain to maintain.

The t34/85, comets and E8 were generally the best ww2 tank you could have use while being able to carry it by trucks. The soviet themselves generally relied on lend lease truck.

even today, we still prefer to carry tank using truck. Here's the current model used by the US for the Abrams.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_Equipment_Transport_System

When it comes to mass production and maintenance T-34 was far superior.

it's worth noting that Soviet guard armor preferred the lend lease sherman over their domestic t34/85, and as guard armor they have first pick over equipment.

Well if we were to stoop to wiki it suggests that 50,000 Sherman’s were built upto 1946 and about 1500 tigers. Obviously the Sherman’s were probably being built before (and after) tiger production but even so...

I am confused by you saying that you hadn’t heard of a British force going to help at Villers-bocage. Is this because you didn’t think the British fought there or that you just not aware of the action in the following days?


A good account here: http://www.desertrats.org.uk/battles1944.htm

I never heard about the force going to help there.

it's worth noting that Soviet guard armor preferred the lend lease sherman over their domestic t34/85, and as guard armor they have first pick over equipment.

If it was an actual preference and not "special weapons" going to "special units",it would probably had more to do with secondary equipment like gun optics and radios than the performance of the Tank itself.

T-34 mobility was vastly superior to that of the Sherman.

I never heard about the force going to help there.

Well it was a divisional attack and a whole brigade was in the area. one of the cavalry regiments got trapped in the village and had it’s hq destroyed but there were other elements like 5th royal tank regiment to the west of the village. The British held the village and even shot Wittmann out of one tiger (he came back with more) before destroying a number of tanks and mowing down a few hundred panzergrenadiers. They then withdrew to a brigade box a couple of miles north and fought off a counterattack inflicting heavy tank losses (20?) in exchange for 3 Cromwell’s. There were at least 5 tigers involved so I’m not sure they were that afraid of them.


Just to be clear this was a British battle

If it was an actual preference and not "special weapons" going to "special units",it would probably had more to do with secondary equipment like gun optics and radios than the performance of the Tank itself.

T-34 mobility was vastly superior to that of the Sherman.

everything is a trade off. The soviet was able to produce the number that they did in large part because they skim on "secondary equipment" like gun optics and radios.

they also skim out on stuff like trucks and rail car, relying on lend lease supply.

everything is a trade off. The soviet was able to produce the number that they did in large part because they skim on "secondary equipment" like gun optics and radios.

they also skim out on stuff like trucks and rail car, relying on lend lease supply.

The T-34 was build in factories that produced tractors and was design to be used by farmers. Yet as vehicle it was superior to the Sherman.

Soviet simply lacked the technology to produce high quality optics.

The T-34 was build in factories that produced tractors and was design to be used by farmers. Yet as vehicle it was superior to the Sherman.

Soviet simply lacked the technology to produce high quality optics.

Well not really an even comparison because one was designed to be a main battle tank and one was designed to be infantry support and had variants that were better for fighting tanks.

In a discussion about the Jackson, this interesting off topic discussion emerged.

Firesparks wrote this reply to the Gentlemen Troll :





https://www.coh2.org/topic/68096/about-jacksons/page/2#here

But the question (for me) is: had the Sherman been improved that much by D-Day?

British tank troops usually had one 'Firefly' in each troop of four, the other 3 tanks being 'ordinary' Shermans. The Firefly was undoubtedly capable of taking on the Panzers in a way the other Westerm allied tanks could not e.g. the Churchill, or the Sherman, or the Cromwell. The Firefly carried a 76.22mm gun (which was the equivalent of the UK 17lber) This is without the Sherman Tulips, which did not arrive until the Rhine crossing at Wesel in 1945.

I want to suggest that while the Shermans were the best of the Western Allied tank fleet, nevertheless the design was profoundly flawed for facing the Axis Panzers - equivalent at best to the Panzer IV, and worse than the Panther or the Tiger, or the King Tiger.

Anyone disagree?

In 1943 they introduced the M4A1 76w that sported the new M1 76mm gun and also a wet ammo stowage that decreased cases of tanks "brewing up" down to 10%. Combine this to any equivlent tank either Russian or German, they would have ammo rack detonations at a way higher rate compared to the 1943 Sherman.


Most 76mm variants are easy to distinguish because of the lack of extended HVSS suspensions

The 76mm M1 and M1A1 was easely capable of dealing with a Panzer IV at any range, beyond impractical ranges. While the Panzer IV would struggle to deal with any Sherman model beyond 500m because of the slope coeficcent with 51mm armor at 56 degrees which equals an armor efficiency at about 110mm (more than the Tiger against 75mm shells) according to WWII Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery by Robert D Livingston.



The 76mm Sherman variants are the following:

M4A1 76w
M4A2 76w (lend lease tank sent to the USSR, was told by Sherman tanker Dimitry Loza to be a very safe tank to drive in that would never explode even how much you hurt the ammo racks.)
M4A3 76w
M4A3E8 (the easy 8 with HVSS suspension)
M4A3E2 Jumbo 76w (101mm armor at 56 degrees, more armor than a Tiger 1 and a Panther.)

All these were produced in a total of 10.000, more than all the Panzer IVs ever produced.

The 76mm M1 and M1A1 were extremely potent and the most accurate gun also according to WWII Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery by Robert D Livingston, it even surpassed the 75mm PAK40 and the 88 models.



Heres the penetration satistics for the 76.

106mm of penetration at 1000m with APCBC

175mm of penetration at 1000m with HVAP (APCR)

And then you need to take into account that the average range for a tank fight was about 800m according to Canadian studies. Beyond that it starts getting impractical.



Basically the 76mm Sherman is considerable more armored than the Panzer IV, has a much more potent gun and much less likely to brew up in an ammunition detonation compared to any other tank in the war. (Both the Americans and the Germans used petrol/gasoline, only the Russians used diesel which didnt catch fire, although fuel catching fire was seldom the cause of fatal tank knockouts, it was almost always related to ammunition detonation.)

Well not really an even comparison because one was designed to be a main battle tank and one was designed to be infantry support and had variants that were better for fighting tanks.

And that is my original claim. When Panther was introduced it was a 2 generation ahead of the Sherman that was based on infantry support tank design and was modified again and again instead of being redesigned.

Sherman was an inferior Tank to the Panther.

And that is my original claim. When Panther was introduced it was a 2 generation ahead of the Sherman that was based on infantry support tank design and was modified again and again instead of being redesigned.

Sherman was an inferior Tank to the Panther.

2 generation ahead and 2 impractical.

the panther was too heavy to be carried by the trucks of its days. for strategic deployment it needed to be carried by train, which is significantly more limited and vulnerable than road network.

Driving the tank itself for redeployment will significantly wear it down. Tanks were not meant for marathon.

It's not until the post war era that anyone product truck capable of carrying ~45 ton tank.

2 generation ahead and 2 impractical.

the panther was too heavy to be carried by the trucks of its days. for strategic deployment it needed to be carried by train, which is significantly more limited and vulnerable than road network.

Driving the tank itself for redeployment will significantly wear it down. Tanks were not meant for marathon.

It's not until the post war era that anyone product truck capable of carrying ~45 ton tank.

There where no real road network in the Soviet union. The majority of transportation was made by trains.

You are overestimating the value of tank truck transportation that would be almost impossible in muddy road of Soviet union.

Soviet union units move for hundreds of kilometers thru Europe and far east with little truck support.

Panther was a far superior tank than the Sherman weather it could be loaded on truck or not is rather irrelevant.

There where no real road network in the Soviet union. The majority of transportation was made by trains.

You are overestimating the value of tank truck transportation that would be almost impossible in muddy road of Soviet union.

Soviet union units move for hundreds of kilometers thru Europe and far east with little truck support.

Panther was a far superior tank than the Sherman weather it could be loaded on truck or not is rather irrelevant.

the infrastructure in the soviet union were pretty bad by western Europe standard, both rails and roads alike. Neither system were extensive by any means.

In practical terms you can't rely on rail entirely, nor would you want to fight so close to a front line supply hub. Supplies are usually carried extreme long distance by rail and rest of the way by trucks (or horse).

Rail lines are also known and limited geographical feature. Basically everyone know where every rail line is, thus further limiting the venue of advance and make your attack more predictable. (road also have this problem but to a significantly less degree).


and logistical consideration for a tank is never irrelevant. Having the best tank means nothing if you can't get it to the front.

The heavy axis tank were stretching/breaking the practical engineer technology of the time. The panther was significantly less reliable than the sherman and the tiger even worst. Forcing them to drive itself is just exacerbating the problem.

Tanks are definitely heavier on average nowadays, but they are also supported by better engine and transmission technology since. Medium tanks in ww2 hover around the 30 ton range for a reason: It was basically what the limit of what engine and transmission could reliably support in those days.


I would definitely prefer to be in a panther over the sherman in a fight, but it is the harsh reality that the weaker sherman is more suited to logistic and thus winning a war.

...

I would definitely prefer to be in a panther over the sherman in a fight, but it is the harsh reality that the weaker sherman is more suited to logistic and thus winning a war.

Sherman did not win the war, the German army was simply not able to beat the combined armies of the 3 of the most powerful countries of the time simultaneously.

Sherman did not win the war, the German army was simply not able to beat the combined armies of the 3 of the most powerful countries of the time simultaneously.

the soviet t34 itself worked on similar idea as a medium tank. The kv-1 itself were also plagued with various problem. Is-2 was actually reliable but joined the war late.

the t34 and sherman were vehicle built within the technology capable at the time. The germans had to stretch the technology to make the panther.

and ironically the German reached the zenith of its expansion using the panzer 3, a medium tank. The invasion of France was done mainly using the pz38t.

They didn't start using the tiger and panther until they were losing.

2 generation ahead and 2 impractical.

the panther was too heavy to be carried by the trucks of its days. for strategic deployment it needed to be carried by train, which is significantly more limited and vulnerable than road network.

Driving the tank itself for redeployment will significantly wear it down. Tanks were not meant for marathon.

It's not until the post war era that anyone product truck capable of carrying ~45 ton tank.

People also forget to mention that both the Panther and Tiger were heavily susceptible to mechanic breakdowns and were overengineered in many ways.

People also forget to mention that both the Panther and Tiger were heavily susceptible to mechanic breakdowns and were overengineered in many ways.

You can't really make reliability comparison unless both vehicles receive the same level of service and usage.

Panther and Tiger had great K/D ratios vs Shermans, they where reliable.

.. The germans had to stretch the technology to make the panther.
...

Let me try to explain this another way. Panther was for tanks what MG-42 for machine guns and what ST44 was for small arms.

The weapon that all future weapons would have as benchmark.