The Sherman in WWII

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

Firesparks wrote this reply to the Gentlemen Troll :

USF doesn't have nondoc dive tanks capable of brawling it out with other tanks. Therefore the jackson has to fill two roles while most other factions have 2 tanks for the given role.

Either way if the jackson isnt good then USF wont be good.

it's not like the sherman wasn't there to be the meat shield for the Jackon's nimble glass cannon. You're going to add 160 hp to something.

late 1944-1945 sherman is different from the "tommy cooker" used in the african compaign. The US did improved on the model in the two years.

Even without going into the E8 model the US added wet storage, improved frontal armor, cupola, gun shield.

The US was also the only nation in ww2 whose tanker worn protective helmet as standard. Beret might look nicer but helmet save life.

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?

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?

It depends on what you mean by inferior. Inferior at dueling head on at long distance, absolutely. Inferior the way they were employed in battle? Not really. The Shermans had 3 main advantages- better crews, lower maintenance, more production. Having a better tank is better for a 1v1 scenario, and since American tanks outnumbered the Germans you will just get outflanked. Lower maintenance might not come in to play in combat assuming you don't suffer an untimely malfunction, but it does mean the Allies were able to advance faster in the big picture.

And last but not least the crews...and I know this is going to make some guys butthurt. People always talk about the expertise of German tank crewman and renowned tanker heros like Wittman. From what I've read on the subject, the expertise and 4d underwater chess these guys played is a bad myth. They are not the tanker equivalents of real military legends like the Red Baron or Carlos Hathcock, they were just above average commanders in great tanks that got lucky on a few occasions. These guys are more comparable with bomber crews that survived 25 missions. Some military history buffs have gone deep in to combat records and came to the conclusion that these German panzer aces were not the 200 IQ superhumans that people make them out to be, they made deadly tactical mistakes all the time. On average Allied crewman were just as adept at operating and commanding tanks, possibly better.

On average Allied crewman were just as adept at operating and commanding tanks, possibly better.

Yeah they were much better than those noob eastern front vets that had years of experience in tank combat.

Americans and Brits are just better tank commanders because they are so naturally awesome. Only Allied tank commanders could manage to win a battle in which they outnumber their opponent 10 to 1 with complete air superiority and basically unlimited supply and replacements.

And those German tank commanders that got lots of tank kills just got lucky as you said.

Getting history lesson from Americans. FUCK YEAH

There are lots of debatable things but arguing that Allied tank crews were better than battle hardened German tank crews that had years of experience is just completly insane and idiotic.

If real WW2 was a coh2 game than it would be four allied level 5 noobs with 100 hours in the game using unlimited ressource cheat vs 1 high skilled level 20 player that has 5000 hours. Sorry to hurt your American feelings.

Well. I think there is a different perspectives of such a topic.
First of all the quality of crews. I will start with this topic here because it is linked with the "german side" too.
First of all i dont have any numbers so i will look at the basic stuff.
German tank crew training lost quality in ww2. Crews that were trained before the war were much better trained compared to the crews that were trained in 1941 or 1943/44. Lack of fuel, time and vehicles forced the german tank schools to train faster. So the quality of "new tank soldiers" dropped. On the other side the tank crews that had combat experience were battle-hardened and know how to move, fire and retreat on battlefields.
Furthermore tank units like the Tiger units were recruited from experienced soldiers. Tiger tank commanders were often former tank drivers. In general most of the german tank commanders were former tank drivers because moving the tank was an elemental part of commanding the tank. So all in all the quality or training argument is a difficult argument because it is very difficult to analyse and to define.
So you had to check any tank combat here to get a solide information for "crew quality".
Furthermore all this elements cant handle fortune and fortuity. E.g. Wittmanns tank raid at Villers Bocage was a high risk attack. Basing on tank tactics it was a stupide idea. But he had luck. He wasnt killed at the attack so most people think it was a brilliant attack of a legendary commander. Try to think of this scenario with a new fresh tank recruit commander. Would he have started such an attack too? Would he have success with such an attack? It is difficult to answer such a question. Perhaps Wittmann has started his tank rush because he was sure that a surprise will end in a british defeat. Or he was self-confident because of his eastern front experience. Or he thought that the british tank crews were fresh trained crews without experience that could be defeated by shock.
All in all the question for crew and tank soldiers quality is extrem difficult (and cant be implemented into CoH).

For the Sherman in general:
I think it could be a solide idea to look into the numbers.
Basing on Niehorster the 21st Army Group (british, canadian and polish units) fielded 2213 Sherman tanks in Normandy. 276 Shermans were Firefly tanks. 178 Shermans were unarmed versions of the Sherman (Command Sherman, Recovery Shermans, ect.). Basing on Zaloga "Armored Champion" the 21st Army Group has lost 1739 Shermans in 1944 (June till December). So the british army group lost ~80% of the Sherman tanks they have fielded in Normandy. Unfortunately i cant find the Sherman numbers for Normandy only. But i can look into the general tank loses of the 21st Army Group in Normandy here. 21st Army group fielded 4338 tanks (combat tanks, special tanks, funnies, AA tanks, pioneer tanks). Zaloga said that the british army lost 1142 tanks in Normandy (until liberation of Paris). So this were ~25% of the tanks of the 21st Army group. So compared with the lost ratio of Shermans in 1944 we can sum up that most of the lost tanks of 21st Army groups were Sherman tanks. Now it is up to you to rate the Sherman tank in combat.

But to end here i can say that the Sherman was a solide tank design (from my point of view). As far as i know it was a result of the experience of the car industry. So Shermans had a high rate of production. The US tank doctrine of the early ww2 was split between the infantry tank and the tank destroyer. The Sherman was the infantry tank that was not designed for a tank-vs-tank combat. That wasnt his job. After Normandy the Allies realised that the Sherman need improvements. The long barrled versions with improved armor were the best answer. Combined with the allied industrial power they could replace the old tank fleet with the modern Shermans within a couple of months. So the Sherman fleet entering Germany was different from the Sherman fleet in Normandy. I think it is in Germany were the "modern Shermans" gained the reputation of the Sherman as a modern, solide and well balanced tank design. So to get the best picture for the Sherman at all you should take his development into your considerations.

Sherman was an inferior Tank.

It's chassis was based on the Lee tank that was obsolete by mid WWII standards. (With high profile and narrow trucks)

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

General number of tank loses is rather irrelevant since many of them where unrelated to Sherman performance.

Finally German Tiger aces did not simply get "lucky" having multiple Aces with more than x10 more Tank kills than the USF ace is not simply luck.

Ok, wow. SO the Panther was designed better but as built it didn't meet spec? that is EXACTLY the kind of issue a weapons "system" is supposed to avoid. If the Panther chassis was a superior design, but reversing the tracks to achieve a shorter turn radius breaks the chassis, or the proper alloys are not available so adjustments are made that reduce performance and reliability, then it is not a superior design!

design<>build quality
if all alloys would have been existent as intended by the designers, the reliability would have been much better

One of the reasons they didn't change the chassis (and used it on so many other vehicles) is that it was GOOD! After all they changed everything else.

they did increase the armor on the front by quite a bit on the later models, so yes, they did change the chassis

Would you rather be in a mechanically functional and fueled Tiger or Panther surrounded by other working and fueled Tigers/panthers with properly trained crews or in a similar number of functional, fueled, trained M4s? The answer is easy.

Because the panther is a very well designed tank, while the sherman is not

More to the point, would you rather be a general in charge of an Army Group with 10,000 vehicles, all of which work and where losses can be replaced, or 2,000 of which at any given moment half might not be functioning and half of the remainder will break down, run out of fuel, or have untrained crews?

The allies won the war, therefore the answer is obvious. However, that does not mean that the american tanks were well designed. If it would have been purely tank to tank combat with equal production capability and no shortage of alloys on either side, germany would have won. No doubt.
But the nazis had less production capabilities, no alloys (which btw also made the armor very brittle), significantly worse air support and fewer numbers, that is why they lost.

And regarding the battle of arracourt:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Arracourt#This_entire_article_is_American_popaganda
https://www.feldgrau.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=29730

zaloga does not seem to be a good source

design<>build quality
if all alloys would have been existent as intended by the designers, the reliability would have been much betterthey did increase the armor on the front by quite a bit on the later models, so yes, they did change the chassisBecause the panther is a very well designed tank, while the sherman is not The allies won the war, therefore the answer is obvious. However, that does not mean that the american tanks were well designed. If it would have been purely tank to tank combat with equal production capability and no shortage of alloys on either side, germany would have won. No doubt.
But the nazis had less production capabilities, no alloys (which btw also made the armor very brittle), significantly worse air support and fewer numbers, that is why they lost.

And regarding the battle of arracourt:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Arracourt#This_entire_article_is_American_popaganda
https://www.feldgrau.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=29730

zaloga does not seem to be a good source

So your source is an entry in Wikipedia that starts off:

"Sorry, but I have to second that. I don't have any sources or numbers on this particular battle, but honestly this sounds like some Hollywood fantasy tale pulled out of someones arse. Sorry for the language. It's just so ridiculous that I am not able to process why there isn't further research done on the article before it's being published TheMightyGeneral (talk) 15:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)"

Here are other studies on the battle of Arracourt, with source materials listed, some including AARs from the actual units:

The 4th Armored Division in the Encirclement of Nancy
http://web.archive.org/web/20091126003657/http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/Gabel/gabel.asp

ARRACOURT- -- SEPTEMBER 1944 (care: this one is over 200 page thesis that goes into a lot of additional analysis)
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/b067783.pdf

Even the assertions to which you point don't claim there was no battle, only that calling it the "Battle of Arracourt" is a misnomer. There is a lot of hyperbole and not a lot of source material.

We keep learning more that is new about the war despite 70 years passing. Much of what we thought we knew (including much of the beliefs of the wehraboos) comes from accounts of the German Generals themselves after the war. We are now learning that much of it was self-aggrandizing.

design<>build quality
if all alloys would have been existent as intended by the designers, the reliability would have been much better

Here is one of the fundamental problem with the understanding of the US vs German weapon design programs. You don't get to go to war with the weapons you DESIGN. You only get to go to war with the weapons you BUILD. If you design great weapons you can't build they will fail you.

The US had a robust testing system for their designs. There were many design pursued to create better tanks. prototype were built and put through the paces. Anything that showed it could not be produced, or would not perform as required (including transport, performance in various environments, etc), was reworked or shelved in favor of something else that looked like it might do the job.

they did increase the armor on the front by quite a bit on the later models, so yes, they did change the chassis

Because the panther is a very well designed tank, while the Sherman is not

You aren't supporting your point. In fact your assertions are supporting mine. The Chassis IS NOT the armor. If They were able to add more armor and a heavier gun and still have a maneuverable and reliable tank then that shows the chassis was able to handle much more without degradation of performance (which was not the case with the Panzer IVs and Vs where the same additions degraded performance and/or reliability).

The allies won the war, therefore the answer is obvious. However, that does not mean that the american tanks were well designed. If it would have been purely tank to tank combat with equal production capability and no shortage of alloys on either side, germany would have won. No doubt.
But the nazis had less production capabilities, no alloys (which btw also made the armor very brittle), significantly worse air support and fewer numbers, that is why they lost.

GERMANY COULD NOT HAVE WON! I can't figure how many different ways this has to be said. There is literally no change of strategies or weapon mix in which this works. They didn't have the production, the fuel, the manpower, the economy, or the doctrines that could ever have made this happen.

Practically everything that could have gone their way in the first few years did, and they still failed. (France falling in 6 weeks? the crushing of the Soviet armies in Poland and the Ukraine? All went about as well as it could have.)

No Sealowe, no push on Moscow, no earlier start to Barbarossa, no continued attacking of the RAF instead of the cities, none of it would have made a substantial difference. Even the single biggest choice, to not attack Russia, would not havve madea difference because Russia was the only conceivable source of oil. no oil, no war. Simple as that.

Finally German Tiger aces did not simply get "lucky" having multiple Aces with more than x10 more Tank kills than the USF ace is not simply luck.

I would venture that German tank aces got their kill rates the same way the pilots did. A combination of:

- target rich environment (If there are 40,000 German AFVs and over 200,000-300,000 Allies, there are simply more to shoot.)
- being on the defensive
- not rotating experienced officers home to train what they learned
- An inflation of kill counts
- a different characterization of what is a "kill"
- ascribing to the Ace the kills made by others because that was better for propaganda
- many of the kills also being against earlier and less competitive opposition equipment

All of the above we know had a factor in high pilot kill counts.

See the below short youtube:

Yeah they were much better than those noob eastern front vets that had years of experience in tank combat.

Americans and Brits are just better tank commanders because they are so naturally awesome. Only Allied tank commanders could manage to win a battle in which they outnumber their opponent 10 to 1 with complete air superiority and basically unlimited supply and replacements.

And those German tank commanders that got lots of tank kills just got lucky as you said.

Getting history lesson from Americans. FUCK YEAH

There are lots of debatable things but arguing that Allied tank crews were better than battle hardened German tank crews that had years of experience is just completly insane and idiotic.

If real WW2 was a coh2 game than it would be four allied level 5 noobs with 100 hours in the game using unlimited ressource cheat vs 1 high skilled level 20 player that has 5000 hours. Sorry to hurt your American feelings.

Well sorry to burst your Wehraboo bubble but...

-Allied tank crews had experience too....there were these other campaigns before France called North Africa and Italy fyi
-Were they all hardened Eastern Front badasses? No.
-A lot of vets probably would've been promoted to commanders of new crews...meaning lots of undertrained (lack of oil) new recruits would be driving these tanks. Better drivers is one of the main advantages allies had in terms of crew.
-No they mainly got lucky that many of lived as long as they did making the decisions they did. Pivoting away from Wittmann case and point being that entire column of tanks was abandoned by Pieper at BoB because they advanced too far unsupported and with no fuel.
-A bit of a strawman to suggest I was calling the German tank crews noobs. There was a propaganda effort to paint skilled and accomplished tank crewman in to these infallible gods of war.

Well sorry to burst your Wehraboo bubble but...

-Allied tank crews had experience too....there were these other campaigns before France called North Africa and Italy fyi
-Were they all hardened Eastern Front badasses? No.
-A lot of vets probably would've been promoted to commanders of new crews...meaning lots of undertrained (lack of oil) new recruits would be driving these tanks. Better drivers is one of the main advantages allies had in terms of crew.
-No they mainly got lucky that many of lived as long as they did making the decisions they did. Pivoting away from Wittmann case and point being that entire column of tanks was abandoned by Pieper at BoB because they advanced too far unsupported and with no fuel.
-A bit of a strawman to suggest I was calling the German tank crews noobs. There was a propaganda effort to paint skilled and accomplished tank crewman in to these infallible gods of war.

You must have misunderstood.

Of course you are totally right. As I said american tank crews were far superior to German tank crews because they were AMERICAN.

FUCK YEAH!!!!!!!!!!

This entire thread is so full of bullshit it gives me a fucking headache.

Apparently this is what happens when you get your knowledge about WW2 from American Youtube videos.

Russian/Soviet history "intepretation" is bad enough but this stuff takes the cake.

This entire thread is so full of bullshit it gives me a fucking headache.

Apparently this is what happens when you get your knowledge about WW2 from American Youtube videos.

Russian/Soviet history "intepretation" is bad enough but this stuff takes the cake.

Yes yes. Ignore those who did the research and cited the sources. What do they know? Every with 2 IQ points to rub together knows that the ubermensch were just on the verge of winning.

Of course if you have a 100 or 150 IQ points more to rub together that might prove different.

This entire thread is so full of bullshit it gives me a fucking headache.

Apparently this is what happens when you get your knowledge about WW2 from American Youtube videos.

Russian/Soviet history "intepretation" is bad enough but this stuff takes the cake.

How dare someone challenge my preconceived notions that German tankers are the most and elite and skillful human beings in the history of warfare!

How dare someone challenge my preconceived notions....

Sadly doesn't that sum up a lot of the internet? (At least if you ever do see someone else's opinion and haven't completely cocooned yourself by now?)

I would venture that German tank aces got their kill rates the same way the pilots did. A combination of:

- target rich environment (If there are 40,000 German AFVs and over 200,000-300,000 Allies, there are simply more to shoot.)
- being on the defensive

Allot of kills where made during early war when Germany was in offensive.

- not rotating experienced officers home to train what they learned
- An inflation of kill counts
- a different characterization of what is a "kill"

Which was equal or bigger for Soviet or US inflation of kills

- ascribing to the Ace the kills made by others because that was better for propaganda
- many of the kills also being against earlier and less competitive opposition equipment

The German armor was inferior or equal at best to Soviet until the introduction of Panther.

All of the above we know had a factor in high pilot kill counts.

See the below short youtube:

If you want to comparison with planes I have to point out that since the allies had planes that matched or outperformed German planes they easily gained air superiority.

All has hardly anything to do with Sherman that was an inferior Tank.

No sources mean no facts.

No facts mean nothing of any worth has been said.

girls, keep it civil

The 4th Armored Division in the Encirclement of Nancy
http://web.archive.org/web/20091126003657/http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/Gabel/gabel.asp


We keep learning more that is new about the war despite 70 years passing. Much of what we thought we knew (including much of the beliefs of the wehraboos) comes from accounts of the German Generals themselves after the war. We are now learning that much of it was self-aggrandizing.

that was a very interesting read, although it did not really change my opinion:
-the american commander was far better than usual
-the germans were attacking
-quite a bit of nobz were on the german side
-fog meant lack of long range (which was the major advantage of german tanks)
-american air superiority

and only american numbers claimed by the division themselves, they might be right, but numbers from the other side would be nice

You don't get to go to war with the weapons you DESIGN. You only get to go to war with the weapons you BUILD. If you design great weapons you can't build they will fail you.

The US had a robust testing system for their designs.

its not like the germans did not test their stuff either.
as far is iam aware we are talking about the design of tanks, and purely that, not the build quality

The Chassis IS NOT the armor.

as far is iam aware the armor was structural part of the chassis, so therefore the armor is the chassis. anyway that is not the point.
the important point is why they did not change the height of the vehicle and that seems to be that changing that would have significantly slowed down production, which they did not want

to sum it all up: the sherman is definitely not an award-winning design, but it was reliable and available in large numbers, which was sufficient

GERMANY COULD NOT HAVE WON!

if they had captured the british army at dünkirchen and britain would have surrendered, then i firmly believe that a victory would have been possible. fortunately they didnt

How dare someone challenge my preconceived notions that German tankers are the most and elite and skillful human beings in the history of warfare!

the tankers that were there from the beginning were surely among the best if not the best at the end of the war, battle-hardened veterans. The new recruits on the other hand were due to fuel supply and need of soldiers undertrained. So if you go by the average then yes, you are right, if you look at the creme de la creme you are probably wrong.

Apologies in advance if it sounds like I am responding to an obstinate child.

Allot of kills where made during early war when Germany was in offensive.

Which goes to my point. Few were KV1s or T-34s. At this time the Germans destroyed almost 20,000 obsolete or obsolescent tanks. Those also went into the kill counts.

Which was equal or bigger for Soviet or US kills

But no one was making assertions about Allied "Aces". It is why you go to primary sources to check not just what you claim but what the other guy shows in his own records. It is why all research on losses of this periods starts with a preface that each country used different nomenclature for destroyed, damaged, mobility kills, etc.

The German armor was inferior or equal at best to Soviet until the introduction of Panther.

So the P3 was inferior to the T-26? Making a blanked statement needs qualification. Yes, the Soviets had some tanks that were superior, and this informed German tank design from 1941 onwards. But most of the Soviet designs were inferior to what the Germans fielded, and more importantly, their training and doctrines were inferior. But those things didn't stay static.

If you want to comparison with planes I have to point out that since the allies had planes that matched or outperformed German planes they easily gained air superiority.

But not kill counts. The US rotated out fighter pilots with high kill counts to do a variety of things:

- They were sent to train what they knew to new pilots, to reduce the losses of new pilots
- They were also sent on tours to sell war bonds, since financing a war is important
- they were pulled off the front lines to avoid the possible morale hit of having "heroes" killed.

All has hardly anything to do with Sherman that was an inferior Tank.

You were the one who made a point of German tank "Aces". I was responding by showing that tank aces, while talented and experienced combatants, probably had their total inflated, had higher totals due to multiple other factors than their tanks, and were an example of poor doctrine (using experienced troops in the field instead of having them use their experience to improve the training of new troops).