Challenge: Better Tank for US in WW2

[Killer300]

By the time of 1942, get it a better tank than the Sherman. Now, it can be named the same thing if you wish, but it needs to perform better. From what I've heard, the Sherman tank is... okay? Well, get something better for the US, and many allies.

[Kome]

You could probably accelerate the development of the Pershing tank.

Another POD for you though. An American tank company somehow manages to get its hands on Char G1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Char_G1) plans, ether through industrial espionage before the war or it gets smuggled out in the aftermath of the Battle of France. They see some good ideas there, and incorporate the advanced features, like the rangefinder and gun stabilizer in to the Sherman.

Heh, thats a pretty convoluted scenario for minor improvements.

[Flubber]

By the time of 1942, get it a better tank than the Sherman. Now, it can be named the same thing if you wish, but it needs to perform better. From what I've heard, the Sherman tank is... okay? Well, get something better for the US, and many allies.


This thread (http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=179323&highlight=Sherman+tank) from January of this year - a thread you participated in by the way - explains why the Sherman wasn't what you want to believe it was.

The question now becomes one of why you're posting a question based on assumptions you already know to be wrong.

[juanml82]

Which wouldn't disqualify the thread unless someone believes the Sherman is the best possible tank the USA could build in the 1940s.

[Flubber]

Which wouldn't disqualify the thread unless someone believes the Sherman is the best possible tank the USA could build in the 1940s.

I'm not suggesting the Sherman was the best possible tank the US could design and build in 1940.

I'm questioning why the OP would write "From what I've heard, the Sherman tank is... okay?" when he was fairly active in a thread which showed that the Sherman was better than "okay". The thread I linked to shows that the OP "heard" something far different in January than what he's claiming now.

Why is he repeating something he knows to be false?

[Kome]

I'm not suggesting the Sherman was the best possible tank the US could design and build in 1940.

I'm questioning why the OP would write "From what I've heard, the Sherman tank is... okay?" when he was fairly active in a thread which showed that the Sherman was better than "okay". The thread I linked to shows that the OP "heard" something far different in January than what he's claiming now.

Why is he repeating something he knows to be false?It looks like your just arguing over semantics. :rolleyes: Its perfectly okay to say okay to describe the performance of the Sherman, even in the context of the thread you posted.

[Peabody-Martini]

The M4 Sherman was a good enough tank for its time and place. One of the rules of warfare is "He who gets there first with the most stuff, wins". So having thousands of a single type of tank that can do the job makes perfect sense. The Sherman was by no means a perfect design as evidenced by the firefly and Israeli mods. The question is what could have been done to improve the design by incorporating the lessons of the European theater. Better armor, ammo storage and upgrading to a high velocity cannon.

[hairysamarian]

The M4 Sherman was a good enough tank for its time and place. One of the rules of warfare is "He who gets there first with the most stuff, wins".

I once had a conversation with my son that went something like this:

Son: "Why didn't the Germans crush the Americans if their tanks were better?"

Dad: "Well, the German tanks were better. They could beat anything the Americans fielded one on one."

Son: "And...?"

Dad: "Well, the Americans made sure the Germans never saw one on one odds. More like ten on one probably. If they ever even saw four on one they'd probably think it was their birthday."

[Flubber]

Dad: "Well, the Americans made sure the Germans never saw one on one odds. More like ten on one probably. If they ever even saw four on one they'd probably think it was their birthday."


The old Zerg Rush excuse, right?

Go read the thread I linked and read the thread linked to that one. Then explain to your son what you got wrong.

[hairysamarian]

The old Zerg Rush excuse, right?

Go read the thread I linked and read the thread linked to that one. Then explain to your son what you got wrong.

I never said, to him or to the forum, that the Sherman was an awful tank for its day. I said that, one on one, the German tanks (and I was thinking of the Panther at the time) were better. As for the numbers, there were just shy of 50,000 Shermans built (wiki says 49,234) and around 6,000 Panthers. So the 10 on 1 scenario I described to him was actually pretty close, over all.

Personally, I like the Sherman; I think it was an elegant response to a host of logistical concerns. Make'em cheap, fast, adaptable and, above all, reliable and serviceable in the field. That doesn't make them better tanks one on one, but it makes them a good fit for the American situation.

[KyleB]

The Sherman wasn't designed for tank v. tank combat, instead idiotic Army doctrine put the M4s theoretically in an infantry-support role and the tank destroyers in anti-armor operations. In practice, the reverse was true just as often.

Still, the Sherman was decent in 1944, and fantastic in 1942. I can't think of much that would help. Perhaps a more powerful gun with a longer barrel, though I don't know how feasible that is.

Wider tracks would certainly be a bonus.

[Cook]

Perhaps a more powerful gun with a longer barrel, though I don't know how feasible that is.
Sherman Firefly.

[KyleB]

Sherman Firefly.

Well yes, but I was talking about a better tank in 1942. In OTL the sane thing would be for the US Army to adopt the Firefly in 1944. But the 17pdr certainly could not have been fitted into Shermans before then.

[MattII]

The Shermans were pretty good tanks for 1942, and were still pretty good in 1944, except for their ammunition stowage procedures, and the fact that they weren't properly up-gunned. The Sherman Firefly was what the Sherman - 76mm should have been.

[Riain]

No power ever built great stuff across the board, I'd hate to see the US have the world best tank and have the Mustang or Corsair be a heap of shit to even things out.

[Andras]

The Sherman wasn't designed for tank v. tank combat, instead idiotic Army doctrine put the M4s theoretically in an infantry-support role and the tank destroyers in anti-armor operations. In practice, the reverse was true just as often.

Still, the Sherman was decent in 1944, and fantastic in 1942. I can't think of much that would help. Perhaps a more powerful gun with a longer barrel, though I don't know how feasible that is.

Wider tracks would certainly be a bonus.

Wrong, the Sherman was designed for the Exploitation after breakthrough phase. It was considered the 'modern-day' cavalry. US Army doctrine had infantry break the enemy line and then the Shermans/Armored Divisions would race deep into the rear of the enemy and destroy his command, guns, and supplies.

This worked to perfection in the encirclement of Nancy and the Cobra Breakout.

An infantry support tank wouldn't need the high top speed and mechanical reliability designed into the Sherman.

Re 4th Armored's CCA at Nancy, excerpts:

Day 1
The head of the CCA column reached high ground west of Chateau-Salins at 1700 and established a 360-degree defensive perimeter. Combat elements closed on the bivouac throughout the night. The combat command trains, which had bivouacked separately, arrived the next morning (14 September) and replen- ished the fighting forces. CCA’s thrust to Chateau-Salins repre- sented a penetration of twenty miles and had so far yielded 354 prisoners taken and 12 German tanks, 35 vehicles, and 5 guns destroyed. CCA’s losses on 13 September were twelve dead and sixteen wounded.

Day 2
The day’s advance netted a further 400 prisoners and cost the Germans 26 armored vehicles, 136 other vehicles, and 10 88-mm guns. CCA sustained a total of thirty-three casualties and lost two medium tanks.

Day 3
WA’s raids and ambushes around Arracourt resulted in the capture of another 1,000 German troops and the destruction or capture of 8 tanks, 16 large-caliber guns, and 232 vehicles. CCA lost only three killed, fifteen wounded, and four tanks destroyed. More important, CCA’s raid across the 553d Vdksgrenadier Divi- sion’s rear prompted the 553d to withdraw from Nancy, allowing the 35th Division to occupy the city on 15 September against little opposition.

Finally, after the German counterattacks petered out:
In the defensive actions fought around Arracourt, the 4th Armored Division claimed 281 German tanks destroyed, 3,000 Germans killed, and another 3,000 taken prisoner. The 4th sustained only 626 casualties in all,

Well yes, but I was talking about a better tank in 1942. In OTL the sane thing would be for the US Army to adopt the Firefly in 1944. But the 17pdr certainly could not have been fitted into Shermans before then.

In 1944, the US had the 76mm M4s and 90mm M36s in production. By the end of August the Germans had just 184 AFVs on the entire Western Front. 184! One US Armored division had about that many medium tanks.




M4 (76mm) Notes

US Army Ordnance began working on the 76mm gun in early 42 on its own initiative. While there were several 76mm guns already in service, the most likely weapon was the M7 Heavy Tank gun, this gun was too large to fit into a Sherman sized turret. The T1 gun was developed to use the same projectiles, but a smaller case. To avoid confusion, the M7 gun was labeled ’3-inch’ and the new T1 as ‘76mm’. At first the T1 had a barrel 57 calibers long, but this was too long and it was cut back to 52 calibers.

Unfortunately, though the new gun could penetrate almost 1 inch more then the 75mm weapon, it did not offer the same anti-tank performance as other comparable guns. The new gun only had a 3.6lb propellant charge, the Brit 17lbr had almost 9lbs, the 7.5cm German gun had 8.1lbs.

Several concerns were raised with the gun in other areas- Large muzzle blast and dust cloud, smaller explosive charge in the HE shells, no smoke shells. The Tank Destroyer Battalions were supposed to be the primary offensive anti-tank arm in the US army, and the M4 medium tanks were to fight infantry, artillery, and exploit breakthroughs into the enemy rear. Since the TDs already had the 76mm gun, objections were raised about the unsuitability of the 76mm gun to infantry support missions. During the war, 70% of all tank ammunition fired was HE, 20% AT, and 10% smoke. It was recommended that 1 tank in 3 be armed with the 76mm gun, either one company per battalion, or one platoon per company.

The Brits decided to arm 1 or 2 tanks per troop with a 17lbr. They also offered to ship 200/month 17lbr guns to the US for installation on US tanks in Aug 43. Trials between the 17 and the new 90mm gun in March 44 showed that the 17 had better penetration performance then even the new 90mm gun. However by the time these trials took place, 76 and 90mm ammunition was already in production and any new tanks would not be available until after Normandy. Ordnance was also developing new HV ammo for the 90mm gun at that time.

By Normandy, there were 200 76mm armed Shermans in Depots in Britain, but there was no plan to distribute them to the units involved in the invasion. Most of the commanders were reluctant to see the 76mm gun replace the 75mm gun in any significant quantities. While the 75mm could not penetrate the Panthers glacis or mantlet at any range, the 76mm also could not penetrate the glacis at any range, but could pierce the mantlet of the Panther at 200yds. US intelligence did not expect the Panther to be deployed as a Medium tank with the PzIV, but as a heavy tank like the Tiger. The numbers of Panthers encountered in France was a significant shock to the combat arms.

However, by September, the ‘Panther Problem’ appeared to be much less urgent, the US believed that most of the Panthers had been knocked out. A few days later 4 newly formed Panther brigades were crushed conducting a local offensive by 75mm armed tanks due to superior tactics and training on the part of the US forces.

An additional problem was that units were short of tanks across Europe, 335 tanks short of ToE by the end of September. Ordnance was reluctant to switch to a new tank line and worsen the tank shortage.

In August 1944, a new HV round was issued to the existing 76mm units. This round could pierce a Panthers mantlet at 1000yds, but still bounced off the glacis. Production of the tungsten cored ammunition was never able to meet demand and distribution was hardly more then one round per tank per month on average. By February, each 76mm tank had received only 5 rounds of HV on average.

After Ardennes however, there was a marked change in opinion about the 76mm tanks. In January, the 12th Army Group formally requested that no more 75mm Shermans be sent to the ETO and in February stopped bringing 75mm tanks up from repair depots. By April 600 75mm Shermans had accumulated in rear depots. Some of these were sent to Britain to be converted to 17lbrs but never reached the front before the surrender.

2095 76mm armed Shermans were sent to Russia. The M4E2 was a popular tank, called the ‘emcha’, a contraction of M-Chetire (M4 in Russian). The M4 equipped the 1st, 8th, and 9th Guards Mechanized Corps.

Development of the US 90mm Tank Gun

In 1942 Ordnance (Ord) began the study of more powerful tank guns even though there was no user requirement from the Army. The potential use of 90mm anti-aircraft guns was spurred by the reported use of German 88mm guns in the anti-tank role. The first attempt, the 90mm GMC T53 mated a 90mm turret to a M4 tank chassis.

At an August 1942 conference, the Army Ground Forces (AGF) and Ord agreed to begin production of 500 T53s and planned a further 3,500. However, the T53 proved to be a poor design and Ord realized that the 90mm gun had to be redesigned to be an effective tank gun. In October, 1942 Ord began work on a new T7 90mm gun and its mounting system. One of the 2 pilot guns was mounted on a M10 late in 42. Due to the greater volume of the 90mm cartridge, the standard M10 turret had to be changed, to include power traverse and other improvements.

Gen. Bruce of Tank Destroyer Command (TDC) objected to the design. He felt that the M10 based chassis were too slow, and that the existing 3” gun was sufficient. He was ignored by both Ord and AGF, and TDC continued to be marginalized in future Army decisions due to a history of poor decisions.

Ford took over the design of the new T71 90mm turret, and the first prototype was delivered in Sept 1943. AGF approval for production was won in Oct 1943. The designated hull was the M10A1, which in turn was based on the M4A3. Almost 1200 M10A1s had been built by then, and had been retained in the US for training (4,993 M10s were built for overseas deployment). An additional 520 M10A1 chassis were built Nov 43-Jan 44, the last 300 without turrets.

AGF recommended that the M10 production be terminated and 10 battalions be equipped with T71s. Slight changes were made through January 1944. Conversions of the 300 turretless M10A1s began in Apr 1944 and were completed in July. The requested number of T71s was increased to 600 in May. Also in May, AGF asked ETO US Army command if they wanted any of the new T71s, and were told that there was no need as the M10s were adequate.

The 90mm Tank destroyer was designated M36 on June 1.

On July 6, ETOUSA cabled AGF and asked for every M36 they had, and for all M10 Battalions be converted to M36s as soon as possible. On July 29, the total number of M36s ordered reached 1,400 after the tank fighting in Normandy. Resistance to the M36s evaporated at both the TDC and ETOUSA. 12th Army group requested that of the 52 TD battalions committed to the ETO, 20 become M36, 20 retain M10 or M18, and 12 remain equipped with 3” towed guns.

M36s arrived in France in September 1944, and entered combat in early October. The 90mm gun was a definite improvement, able to penetrate the Panther glacis at up to 500yd, in addition, the powerful 90mm shell could cause the glacis to collapse if struck with multiple non-penetrating shells, and still score a kill. One of the first Panther kills occurred at 1,500 yds, a M36 from the 776th TD Battalion scored 2 hits, one broke the track, and the second entered the turret, blew the breechblock off the 75mm cannon, and blew the top off the turret.

There were 6 M36 battalions in service by January 1945. The Ardennes fighting renewed pressure to field the M36, and convert all towed 3” battalions. In addition, the HVAP 90mm projectile was becoming available.

While the total numbers of German vehicles encountered was going down, the individual vehicles were becoming more heavily armored. A M36 from the 776th encountered an attacking German column including a captured Sherman and two JagdTigers on January 5 1945. The M36 flanked the German vehicles and put a 90mm round into one of the JagdTigers, destroying it. The M36 then destroyed the captured Sherman, and fired HE shells at the accompanying Panzer Grenadiers, driving off the attackers.

From Osprey’s M10 and M36 Tank Destroyers, 1942-53; New Vanguard Series #53

Lastly, something that really irritates me is that in 1939-41, the Germans used inferior tanks with superior tactics and training to run all over Eastern and Western Europe, and everyone went "OMG Blitzkrieg!" In 1944-45 the US used "inferior" tanks, and superior tactics and training to crush the German armor, and everyone goes "OMG Tiger!"

[Flubber]

As for the numbers, there were just shy of 50,000 Shermans built (wiki says 49,234) and around 6,000 Panthers. So the 10 on 1 scenario I described to him was actually pretty close, over all.


No, it isn't. The total number produced bear little relation to the number actually deployed in northwest Europe between '44 and '45.

Of that roughly 50K produced, the US Army received less than 20K and only a simple majority of that served in France and later Germany. The numbers of Shermans used in combat against the number of German tanks and the kill rates those Shermans achieved do not support the usual "Zerg Rush" B.S. trotted out in threads of this type.

Please read the thread I linked this thread to and the other thread linked in that one. Andras did some excellent work in both and it's a shame that too many people have failed to avail themselves of it. The interview with the Soviet Sherman tanker should be quite an eye opener for you.

[Seraph]

Likely the easiest POD to drive the US Army to design a better tank is have the Intelligence overestimate one of the new German tanks, perhaps due to a combination of various human errors.

Like they mistake the Panther to be lighter then it really is and is a major 'medium' tank production. Suddenly, the US thinks the Germans are mass producing a M4 Sherman killer! This would renew efforts to both upgrade the M4 Sherman and to get a better tank/gun/AP ammo design into the field. It would also ramp up training of armor units on countering the new 'super medium' tank.

However, I think you'll more likely see a new tank based on the T-20 tanks rather then what became the M26.

[Andras]

Likely the easiest POD to drive the US Army to design a better tank is have the Intelligence overestimate one of the new German tanks, perhaps due to a combination of various human errors.

Like they mistake the Panther to be lighter then it really is and is a major 'medium' tank production. Suddenly, the US thinks the Germans are mass producing a M4 Sherman killer! This would renew efforts to both upgrade the M4 Sherman and to get a better tank/gun/AP ammo design into the field. It would also ramp up training of armor units on countering the new 'super medium' tank.

However, I think you'll more likely see a new tank based on the T-20 tanks rather then what became the M26.

OP says 1942, the Panther didn't see action until 1943. Actually the Panther was supposed to be lighter. The 80mm sloped frontal armor changed that and made the Panther the 'terror' it was. It also killed the transmission reliability, and the Panther suffered 90% transmission failures after only 150km. A lighter tank would have been easily killed due to the lighter armor.

BTW, look at the timelines- 1941 Germans get surprised by the T34 and develop the Panther, first in combat by 1943, two years later. In 1942 the Americans encounter the Tiger and in 1944 they have the 76mm and 90mm guns in action, two years later; ignoring the M10 which was a perfectly capable Tiger killer in 1943.

Lastly, the PzIV was more likely to burn from fewer hits then an early Sherman, and 5x as likely to burn as a wet stowage M4, the T34 killed 3x as many crew when it was knocked out as the M4, the Panther was 3-4x as likely to burn as wet stowage M4s, Panther were far more likely to spontaneously combust as Shermans, up to 8% of a Panther unit was destroyed before the action even began due to catastrophic engine fires. Sherman E8s went 49:7 against T34/85s in Korea and M26/M46 only went 48:14.

[Gingerdave]

With all this talk about guns & ammo . . .

The Sherman's 75mm gun was a good infantry support gun, but the 76mm was not. Too little explosive charge in the shells, which was the reason 75mm Shermans were required all the way through the campaign.

The Firefly was even worse - IIRC, there was no useful 17pdr HE round until the modified 17pdr (77mm HV) was developed, and this was only fitted to the Comet, which entered service in late 1944.

However, there is one simple way to improve Sherman performance.

In 1944, the British used Armour Piercing Discarding Sabot ammunition in their 6pdr anti-tank guns. This was entirely capable of penetrating a Panther's glacis - AP data is similar to that of the 17pdr. Mass production was in place in time for Normandy, where it was available down to the level of infantry battalion's AT platoons.

The British 75mm was essentially a bored out 6pdr. Fitted to Churchill and Cromwell tanks, it was developed because experience from the desert showed that the 6pdr's HE charge was too small. It used the same 75mm ammunition as the Sherman's 75mm gun.

So: what if the British develop a 75mm APDS round? There's very little design work - the penetrator could be the same, a new sabot would be required to fit the larger shell case, but that's all.

With this in general use, all 75mm Shermans would be able to defeat a Panther from the front.

[AdA]

The M4 was designed in 1941 for mass production from 1942, For the time it was a very good design, bein meant to face the PzKfwIII. The tank also had clear growth potencial, as demonstrated by 50s/60s israeli models. What was missing was a serious developemnt to take the tank to the next level. The major flaws were corrected (better fire prevention, new suspension, etc) but when the M4 got a bigger turret for the 76mm it could have been upgunned with the 90mm gun, at the time being fitted in the T25 and T26 prototypes. That would have been a US equivalent tothe T34/85, and would have made life for allied tankers a lot easier. The israeli M51, with the 105mm gun gives a good idea of the M4 ultimate potencial.

[Devolved]

How about General Lesley NcNair has a change of heart about heavier tanks or meets an unfortunate accident in 1942. He met one in 1944.

[MattII]

The Firefly was even worse - IIRC, there was no useful 17pdr HE round until the modified 17pdr (77mm HV) was developed, and this was only fitted to the Comet, which entered service in late 1944.The British equipped one Firefly to ever three or four regular Shermans at D-Day, thus they got the panther-killing power of the 17lbr, without significant loss to their ability to output good HE shells. Also, developing a APDS round for the 75mm so that it can match the 17pdr just highlights the weakness of the 75mm, namely, it's too short and you can't pack enough propellant into it. Also, I understand there were accuracy issues with the early APDS rounds, which reduces the effectiveness, especially if the Panther tank can get a shot off before you reload, and his is accurate. And yes, the Americans eventually got the M36, which had a 90mm gun, but it also had a different drive-train, whereas the Firefly had more-or-less the same drive-train as the regular Sherman, simplifying the logistics a bit.

[BlairWitch749]

the sherman had it's flaws

1. It's gun (minus the British modified versions) had a very difficult time knocking out German AFV's from medium and longer ranges
2. It's armor could be penetrated by German anti tank rounds at medium and long ranges too easily
3. It had an high/conspicuous height profile
4. It's startup was an immediate giver away of position which drew artillery fire


Still given that they had to be shipped 3000 miles across an ocean then fight across 1000 miles of various landscapes in europe; they did the job decently... keep in mind that American doctrine didn't expect tank vs tank battles; the shermans where to be the mobile mailed fist, and the enemy tanks where to be taken out with TD's artillery and air strikes

I can think of a lot fewer flaws in the Sherman than I could in the Tiger or the Panther

[Killer300]

I'm not suggesting the Sherman was the best possible tank the US could design and build in 1940.

I'm questioning why the OP would write "From what I've heard, the Sherman tank is... okay?" when he was fairly active in a thread which showed that the Sherman was better than "okay". The thread I linked to shows that the OP "heard" something far different in January than what he's claiming now.

Why is he repeating something he knows to be false?

I don't remember participating in that. You're confusing me with KillerT.

[modelcitizen]

How about General Lesley NcNair has a change of heart about heavier tanks or meets an unfortunate accident in 1942. He met one in 1944.


It took some reading (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M26_Pershing#Delayed_production) for me to understand that. :cool:

Since the M26 Pershings apparently could not cross a number of European bridges on their own, I'm guessing that putting as big a gun as possible on the Sherman could have been a workable alternative. (And McNair et al even opposed that, because it didn't fit his idea of how tanks were supposed to fight... As if because he didn't believe in it, it wouldn't happen, or something like that. That and any equipment coming over could be less equipment that would be genuinely needed, etc.)

[AdA]

The M26 is just too heavy for it's engine and transmission, and just to light to stand up to really powerfull AT Guns. The T25 would have been a better compromisse, with the good things of the M4 (Mobility, reliability), plus the good things of the M26 (90mm Gun).
The US went from the useless M2 to the useful but flawed M3 in one year, and from the M3 to the state of the art (for 1942) M4 in another year. If they had kept that pace they could have gone to the T25 in 43, the M47 in 44, and have something that looked like a M48 on the prototype phase in early 46. The air force and navy kept the pace, going from Wildcat to Hellcat and to Bearcat in that time span for example, the army, having caught up with most of the world by late 1941, when the sherman concept was aproved, just lay back and went for a smooth continous production run. What they did btw 39 and 42 was impressive (M4, M7, M10, M12 etc, all were in massproduction in 1942). They just needed to have kept the pace...

Just a note on Sherman armour. No medium tank in the world could stand up to the German 75L70 or 88L56, and when the 88L71 came along it was virtually unstopabble by anything short of a Battleship... The Sherman was't really underarmoured, it just was a 30 ton tank facing weapons that could take out 50 ton tanks with ease...
Later in the 50s the French built a copy of the German 75mmL70 to equip the AMX13, because it could deal with the T54 at long ranges.

[Killer300]

Okay, well, as a comparison, what about the T-34? It seemed to excel all the way into 1945, even with the massive juggernauts running around.

[Julian]

The Sherman greatly outmatched the majority of German tanks that were in mass production, save for the Tiger and Panther along with some heavy tank destroyers.

[kclcmdr]

Okay, well, as a comparison, what about the T-34? It seemed to excel all the way into 1945, even with the massive juggernauts running around.
I don't recall any Reverse Lend-Lease by the Soviets of their Heavy Weaponary to the U.S.A. and with the level of paranoia and worry for security,
I doubt that they would even give the USA even One of their T-34s for evaluation unless it was captured by the Germans on the Eastern Front, repaired and used somewhere in the North African Front in 1942 and captured there by the British or American and evaluated in GB or USA...

[Julian]

Okay, well, as a comparison, what about the T-34? It seemed to excel all the way into 1945, even with the massive juggernauts running around.

Not exactly excel. Against tanks like the Panther and the Tiger it would still get shredded, especially at long ranges. But in large numbers with the long range support of the ISU-152 and IS-2 heavy tanks it was an extremely potent tactical force.

[T3h_shammy]

According to a small but vocal group here, the Sherman was the best tank in the world, ever. Even the Abrams cant compete.

[PMN1]

Likely the easiest POD to drive the US Army to design a better tank is have the Intelligence overestimate one of the new German tanks, perhaps due to a combination of various human errors.



There is this interesting story from Bryan Perrett’s ‘Iron Fist’

That the Soviet Union Armoured Corps had adopted a 76.2mm calibre as standard for its main armament at a time when the German were making the transition from 37mm to 50mm is a story in itself. Stalin had appointed one of his old Civil War cronies, Marshall G I Kulik, as his Chief of Artillery, largely because he was too dim to be devious and could therefore be relied on. Although Kulik knew very little about his profession or anything else for that matter, he was much given to making Olympian but totally groundless pronouncements, one of which was that German tanks were being fitted with 100mm armour plate. As luck would have it, a team of Russian experts was visiting German tank production plants at the time and its members flatly refused to believe their hosts assertion that the PzKw IV, then being fitted with 50mm frontal armour, was Germany’s most recent design. The team’s suspicion tended to support Kulik’s assertions and as a result the Red Army’s newest generation of tanks was fitted with guns capable of penetrating the thicker, if as yet imaginary plate.

[Devolved]

According to a small but vocal group here, the Sherman was the best tank in the world, ever. Even the Abrams cant compete.

Shermans are being defended because:

1 They are American and many Americans find it difficult to find fault with anything American.

2 Shermans were easy to build and easy to maintain and broke down less.

3 Better than anything the British had.

4 People have misunderstood what the Sherman was. It was supposed to be an infantry support tank built in vast numbers and not designed for tank on tank battle.

5 Allied air and artillery superiority meant that having a crap tank didn't matter.

6 Any other minor technical points they can think of after studying manuals.

7 They will point to examples where they performed well. For example a Panzer division of mostly Panthers were shot up in France by a US armored division made up of mostly Shermans.

8 Shermans could knock out Panthers if they hit them on the sides. Tigers if you shot them in the back.

In other words not a good tank for a country that had more time and more resources than any other power in WW2.

[jaybird]

In other words not a good tank for a country that had more time and more resources than any other power in WW2.

But for a country that didn't fight a single mass armoured battle for two-thirds of the war? It was absolutely fantastic.

[Devolved]

But for a country that didn't fight a single mass armoured battle for two-thirds of the war? It was absolutely fantastic.

Indeed for a country that didn't even fight any battle in Europe until November/December 1942 (If you count Tunisia as Europe in this discussion) it was very, very good.

Luckily the Red army and the Allied airforce ensured that the Sherman was never truly humiliated in open battle the way say......The Crusader was.

[juanml82]

4 People have misunderstood what the Sherman was. It was supposed to be an infantry support tank built in vast numbers and not designed for tank on tank battle.So? A weapon can't be judged by what was in the designer's minds, it has to be judged based on what happens when its fielded in battle.
It's like discussing the Do-17 and claiming it was a good bomber because it wasn't designed to fend off attacks by Hawker Hurricanes.

But for a country that didn't fight a single mass armoured battle for two-thirds of the war? It was absolutely fantastic. They did have access to WAllies intelligence and probably limited access to Soviet reports on the eastern front. And if they didn't, shame on the American State Departement. They can not design a tank blindly.

[Julian]

So? A weapon can't be judged by what was in the designer's minds, it has to be judged based on what happens when its fielded in battle.
It's like discussing the Do-17 and claiming it was a good bomber because it wasn't designed to fend off attacks by Hawker Hurricanes.
They did have access to WAllies intelligence and probably limited access to Soviet reports on the eastern front. And if they didn't, shame on the American State Departement. They can not design a tank blindly.

The Sherman was in production by 1942, when the strongest German tank was the Panzer IV. In all respects the Sherman ate the Panzer IV alive.

[Andras]

Shermans are being defended because:



4 People have misunderstood what the Sherman was. It was supposed to be an infantry support tank built in vast numbers and not designed for tank on tank battle.



YOU don't understand what the Sherman was. 1 minute on Wikipedia will clear it up, but here I'll quote the relevant portions for you
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman#Doctrine

As the US approached entry in World War II, armored employment was doctrinally governed by FM 100-5 Operations (published May 1941, the month following selection of the M4 tank's final design). That FM stated that:

The armored division is organized primarily to perform missions that require great mobility and firepower. It is given decisive missions. It is capable of engaging in all forms of combat, but its primary role is in offensive operations against hostile rear areas.[9]

In other words, the M4 was envisioned to primarily fill the role of a cruiser tank — although the US Army did not use that doctrinal term. The M4 was not primarily intended as an infantry support tank; in fact, FM 100-5 specifically stated the opposite. It placed tanks in the "striking echelon" of the armored division, and placed the infantry in the "support echelon". Neither was the M4 primarily intended for tank versus tank action. Doctrinally, anti-tank engagements were the primary role of tank destroyers. The field manual covering the use of the Sherman (FM 17-33, "The Tank Battalion, Light and Medium" of September 1942) devoted one page of text and four diagrams to tank versus tank action (out of 142 pages).[10] This early armored doctrine was heavily influenced by the sweeping initial successes of the German blitzkrieg tactics. Unfortunately, by the time M4s reached combat in significant numbers, battlefield demands for infantry support and tank versus tank action far outnumbered the occasional opportunities for cruiser tanks.

The US built 7,000 M10s in a little over a year, and those M10s were the equal of any German tank on the field. They scored ridiculously high kill ratios against even Panthers, 19:1 in some circumstances and 6:1 on average in Ardennes.

[juanml82]

The Sherman was in production by 1942, when the strongest German tank was the Panzer IV. In all respects the Sherman ate the Panzer IV alive.
And the Do-17 was in production in 1936. That doesn't mean the RAF fought the Battle of Britain with Gloster Gladiators.

[Devolved]

YOU don't understand what the Sherman was. 1 minute on Wikipedia will clear it up, but here I'll quote the relevant portions for you
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman#Doctrine



The US built 7,000 M10s in a little over a year, and those M10s were the equal of any German tank on the field. They scored ridiculously high kill ratios against even Panthers, 19:1 in some circumstances and 6:1 on average in Ardennes.

YOU are right. The Sherman was fantastic and all those who don't think so obviously don't understand.

[jaybird]

They did have access to WAllies intelligence and probably limited access to Soviet reports on the eastern front. And if they didn't, shame on the American State Departement. They can not design a tank blindly.

You can't build an army on secondhand information and reports.

[TyranicusMaximus]

So? A weapon can't be judged by what was in the designer's minds, it has to be judged based on what happens when its fielded in battle.

Yes, and when it faced the main German production tanks, which were Mk III and Mk IVs, it cleaned their clocks.

And the "Airpower was how the WAllies killed the majority of the German troops they faced" is a flat out myth.

[TyranicusMaximus]

According to a small but vocal group here, the Sherman was the best tank in the world, ever. Even the Abrams cant compete.

That's an easy strawman to put up, but that's only been said in your mind.

[Andras]

YOU are right. The Sherman was fantastic and all those who don't think so obviously don't understand.

Post war analysis of battles fought by 3rd and 4th Armored showed their Shermans went 11.4:1 against attacking Panthers, and 6:1 when attacking Panthers. Tank Destroyers went 19:1 defending against Panthers. 3rd and 4th Armored also killed 2 Tigers with Shermans for no lost M4s, losing 1 M5 and 1 M10 to a 3rd Tiger. Antitank guns were the most effective Sherman killer against US forces.

Meanwhile the Brits lost 500 tanks in 3 days with Operation Goodwood, forgive if I'm not really impressed with their track record.

[Devolved]

Meanwhile the Brits lost 500 tanks in 3 days with Operation Goodwood, forgive if I'm not really impressed with their track record.

Not sure that I said anything about British tanks being good. Although most British tanks in 1944 were Shermans weren't they? They were also fighting most of the Panzer strength in Normandy at that time.

Also defence ratios are great but I thought the Allies were supposed to be advancing by that stage of the war.

Anyway, as I said I am sure the Sherman was fantastic and all that talk about 'ronsons' and 'tommy cookers' and a whole book written about Allied tanks as death traps (I am sure others will recall the author and the book title) is just a viscious rumour written by people who have some irrational hatred for Shermans. Why they would have such a phobia I don't know.:rolleyes:

[TyranicusMaximus]

Anyway, as I said I am sure the Sherman was fantastic and all that talk about 'ronsons' and 'tommy cookers' and a whole book written about Allied tanks as death traps (I am sure others will recall the author and the book title) is just a viscious rumour written by people who have some irrational hatred for Shermans. Why they would have such a phobia I don't know.:rolleyes:

Are you going to address, or contest his numbers?

If not, what are you going on about?

[Sam R.]

Why can't we discuss an early design of a sloped armour, wide tracked, over-specced suspension, large turret ring tank with wide tracks and an engine compartment large enough for retrofitting?

Instead of designing the perfect tank, why not the perfect tank that can take marginal upgrades? We could simply have a design process encourage this by "lucking out" on these over designed features.

yours,
Sam R.

[BlairWitch749]

The Sherman was in production by 1942, when the strongest German tank was the Panzer IV. In all respects the Sherman ate the Panzer IV alive.

umm the 1942 panzer IV was the Panzer IV G series which had a superior gun and was lighter and had a better profile than the Sherman

not to say the Sherman overall wasn't a superior tank at that point because it was BUT in all respects ate it alive is not true considering the Panzer IV's gun could penetrate a Sherman frontally at 1200 meters and in fact did so routinely in Africa and Italy

[juanml82]

You can't build an army on secondhand information and reports.
And what do you want to build it instead if that's the only thing you have? Besides, what did the USA built its army then? Their armored and mountain doctrines proved flawed.

Yes, and when it faced the main German production tanks, which were Mk III and Mk IVs, it cleaned their clocks.I do happen to remember something about Panthers,Tigers and the Sherman being employed in 1944-45. I mean, the Do-17 performed well against the Polish air force, but that doesn't make it a good bomber.

[NothingNow]

Why can't we discuss an early design of a sloped armour, wide tracked, over-specced suspension, large turret ring tank with wide tracks and an engine compartment large enough for retrofitting?

Instead of designing the perfect tank, why not the perfect tank that can take marginal upgrades? We could simply have a design process encourage this by "lucking out" on these over designed features.

yours,
Sam R.

The Sherman's actually pretty good for all that. Really, it's only shortcomings were inherited from the M2 and the M3 Grant/Lee, being the radial engine, and the tall hull it required, but that was to save time and to go with the best engine then available, and with what the mechanics were familiar with. As for everything else, it was an extremely adaptable design, and indeed, counting it along with the M2 medium and M3, that line of tanks was one of the few to be the basis of a really wide variety of vehicles over several decades, alongside the Pershing/Patton line, the T-34, The Centurion, and the T-54/55.

Really, even if it had been equipped with a lower hull, large wheel suspension (Christie or Horstmann,) and an engine made to fit all of that, it wouldn't have been much better or in general that much more adaptable.

[MattII]

Anyway, as I said I am sure the Sherman was fantastic and all that talk about 'ronsons' and 'tommy cookers' and a whole book written about Allied tanks as death traps (I am sure others will recall the author and the book title) is just a viscious rumour written by people who have some irrational hatred for Shermans. Why they would have such a phobia I don't know.:rolleyes:The Shermans were a little weakly armoured, yes, but most of that 'ronson' issue was bad ammunition stowage and handling, not the vehicle itself.

Also, to compare the size of the Sherman to the T-34:
Length - 19' 2" / 21' 11"
Width - 8' 7" / 9' 10"
Height - 9' 0" / 8' 0"

So the Sherman is shorter and narrower than the T-34, which may contribute somewhat to it's apparently huge height.

[Seraph]

OP says 1942, the Panther didn't see action until 1943. Actually the Panther was supposed to be lighter. The 80mm sloped frontal armor changed that and made the Panther the 'terror' it was. It also killed the transmission reliability, and the Panther suffered 90% transmission failures after only 150km. A lighter tank would have been easily killed due to the lighter armor.
I said that was the easiest POD and mistakes can made by human error to overestimate its abilities..
I already know the actual weight and faults of the Panther tank. I saying having something similar to where the USAF thought the Mig25 was an Air Superiority fighter and not an interceptor.
For a earlierPOD, you have to work with doing it with the Tiger tank, but that is a tougher stretch. Particularly since the M4 Sherman and Tiger tank only reached Production in 1942 . It would result in an improved M4 Sherman or a T20 tank which had a mock up in the same year(having a prototype may be cutting it close).

You do want a better 'Sherman' in production in 1942 as OP states, then you need a much bigger POD.


According to a small but vocal group here, the Sherman was the best tank in the world, ever. Even the Abrams cant compete.
No, just tired of the myth that the Sherman was a bad/lousy tank.

Post war analysis of battles fought by 3rd and 4th Armored showed their Shermans went 11.4:1 against attacking Panthers, and 6:1 when attacking Panthers. Tank Destroyers went 19:1 defending against Panthers. 3rd and 4th Armored also killed 2 Tigers with Shermans for no lost M4s, losing 1 M5 and 1 M10 to a 3rd Tiger. Antitank guns were the most effective Sherman killer against US forces.
To be honest, I remain dubious of those kill statics. Not in their truthfulness, but we can learn from them.
They basically say armor is useless in a tank. And towed AT guns are the best on defense when Battle of the Bulge showed a different experience from what I read.

Anyway, as I said I am sure the Sherman was fantastic and all that talk about 'ronsons' and 'tommy cookers' and a whole book written about Allied tanks as death traps (I am sure others will recall the author and the book title) is just a viscious rumour written by people who have some irrational hatred for Shermans. Why they would have such a phobia I don't know.:rolleyes:
Because said M4 Sherman mechanics who wrote that Death Trap was writing about his perceptions, not the reality.
The complaint about M4 Sherman burning up due to gasoline engines? That was due to poor ammo stowage, not due to the gas engine. The US Army thought so. So did British. And they fixed it by adding wet ammo stowage. And then the troops kills the fix by overloading their tanks with ammo that they had HE rounds around their feet....
Or how about the perception that General Patton blocked the M26 Pershing? Nope, that was the Army Ground Forces led by General Leslie McNair, fact agreed by 3 tank historians.

[NHBL]

One thing I recall reading (a long time ago, so I might be dead wrong--please take with a grain of salt) was that the gun for the Sherman had to be capable of firing as many shots as an artillery piece before being replaced. Since artillery has to fire an incredible number of rounds in battle, often fireingthousands of rounds, that resulted in the Sherman's gun firing a lower velocity round than competing guns. (Tank guns don't usually have to fire as many rounds before either being blown to bits, or the tank can recieve a new gun between battles)

No demanding such exacting longevity standards for the gun would have allowed a more potent gun to be mounted.

[Cryptic]

As a side note, the Sherman was never designed as a break through tank, but rather as a break out and pursuit tank. It was well designed for the second role (high speed, mechanical reliability, low weight etc).

[wietze]

the sherman has been discussed over and over, but the OP asked for a better tank in 1942, so the question is how much better than the sherman could they have come up with?

I have to agree that Leslie McNair getting an accident or getting bumped early on would help a lot.

So you would need changes in the us army armoured doctrine (no infantry support/ tank hunter division for example).

what would be the best tank composition possible?
Best possible medium/ heavy tank? (not asking light tank because with the chaffee they produced something pretty good)

[Andras]

Define 'better' first.

The US had the M6 Heavy tank in 1941. It was mechanically unreliable.

The US built the M26 in 1944, it was mechanically unreliable and withdrawn from service in Korea in favor of...more Shermans. The M46 force suffered 30% mechanical failures every month in korea, and 1/3 of those were permanent losses. M26s suffered higher loss ratios to enemy action then Shermans in ETO and Korea. The M26 could not shoot through the Panthers frontal slope, and the Panther could core it at 1000m from any angle. That's 'better'?

To change US Doctrine in 1941, you'd have to have the Germans fail miserably against the (heavier) French and British armor in 1940.

Decrease the number of tanks in the ETO, and infantry losses go up, but I guess there's no glory in saving infantrymen.

Someone needs to define 'better' and what they are willing to give up to get it.

[sharlin]

The M-6 still had issues even if they had worked out the mechanical kinks. It was basically a stretched Sherman, just as tall but longer as well with thicker armour but the same gun.

[Julian]

umm the 1942 panzer IV was the Panzer IV G series which had a superior gun and was lighter and had a better profile than the Sherman

not to say the Sherman overall wasn't a superior tank at that point because it was BUT in all respects ate it alive is not true considering the Panzer IV's gun could penetrate a Sherman frontally at 1200 meters and in fact did so routinely in Africa and Italy

Indeed, but in Normandy (Which I feel was the main proving ground for the Sherman) it effectively proved superior to the Panzer IV with some simpleupgrades.

[Killer300]

Okay, again, I point to the T-34 as an example of what a country with much more limited resources than the United States was able to get. It wasn't perfect, but it was easily one of the best tanks of the war, and was even produced far more than the Sherman. Additionally, it has AMAZING mechanical reliability. Recently, a farmer pulled a T-34 from out of a swamp, and after one false start, it started like it was fresh off the factory floor.

Also, okay, the Panther keeps getting brought up as an example, however how common was it? How likely was it that tanks would need to fight the Panther?

[omega21]

Additionally, it has AMAZING mechanical reliability. Recently, a farmer pulled a T-34 from out of a swamp, and after one false start, it started like it was fresh off the factory floor.

Hi Killer, do you have a link to this? I can't find it despite googling many permutations of 'farmer', 'swamp' and 'T-34'. :(

[Killer300]

Hi Killer, do you have a link to this? I can't find it despite googling many permutations of 'farmer', 'swamp' and 'T-34'. :(

Sadly, no.

[Julian]

Sadly, no.

T-34s were both less comfortable and less reliable than Shermans over long distances(Over short distances in snow or bad terrain they won hands down however).

[wietze]

i can't help but to be skeptic, it sounds too much like propaganda, to tell the praise about mother Russia.
Especially since lately they seem to revert to cold war habits.

[Killer300]

i can't help but to be skeptic, it sounds too much like propaganda, to tell the praise about mother Russia. Especially since lately they seem revert to cold war habits.

I actually don't think this was in Russia, but the Ukraine, however don't remember for sure sadly.

[wietze]

its not the same but this one comes close to that

http://www.vincelewis.net/t34.html

[Mad Missouri]

Additionally, it has AMAZING mechanical reliability. Recently, a farmer pulled a T-34 from out of a swamp, and after one false start, it started like it was fresh off the factory floor.


There is no way that's true unless the farmer parked the t34 in the swamp a week before he " pulled it out.". The very fact anyone would believe that shows how far from being a manufacturing society the US has become. It shows a clear lack of basic automotive understanding for anyone to believe a engine would still start after its fuel had been sitting for 60 years or that any of the fuel lines and seals would still be any good. Did it say he replaced the fuel?

You want a good idea the machinical problems of the early T34s engine google the tests the US Army did on the 2 they received from the Soviet union during WW2.

[Killer300]

its not the same but this one comes close to that

http://www.vincelewis.net/t34.html

WOW! Even the paint was preserved! More importantly, it could still run.

[Mad Missouri]

WOW! Even the paint was preserved! More importantly, it could still run.

No way that the fuel was still good after that time.

[Jello_Biafra]

No way that the fuel was still good after that time.
Diesel doesn't degrade like gasoline does.

The only major problem with long term diesel storage is keeping it from getting contaminated. Chances are, if it was submerged in a bog, that is exactly what would happen.

A bog is a good place to preserve something though. Peat creates an anoxic environment, which is likely why the tank's parts could all be restored, since there was almost no oxygen to corrode them.

[wietze]

Diesel doesn't degrade like gasoline does.

The only major problem with long term diesel storage is keeping it from getting contaminated. Chances are, if it was submerged in a bog, that is exactly what would happen.

A bog is a good place to preserve something though. Peat creates an anoxic environment, which is likely why the tank's parts could all be restored, since there was almost no oxygen to corrode them.

indeed the the link that posted was about a T34 that had been ditched in a bog after it had run out of fuel.

[Andras]

Okay, again, I point to the T-34 as an example of what a country with much more limited resources than the United States was able to get. It wasn't perfect, but it was easily one of the best tanks of the war, and was even produced far more than the Sherman. Additionally, it has AMAZING mechanical reliability.

You are on crack.


"The full name of the document is, "An Evaluation of the T-34 and KV tanks by workers of the Aberdeen Testing Grounds of the U.S., submitted by firms, officers and members of military commissions responsible for testing tanks." The tanks were given to the U.S. by the Soviets at the end of 1942 for familiarization.")
The condition of the tanks
The medium tank T-34, after driving 343 km, became disabled and could not be fixed. The reason: owing to the extremely poor air cleaner on the diesel, a large quantity of dirt got into the engine and a breakdown occurred, as a result of which the pistons and cylinders were damaged to such a degree that they were impossible to fix. The tank was withdrawn from tests and was to be shelled by the KV and its "Z/ 3" (?) -- by the cannon of the M-10 tank. After this it would be sent to Aberdeen, where it would be analyzed and kept as an exhibit.
The heavy tank KV is still functional. Tests are continuing, although it has many mechanical defects.
The silhouette/configuration of the tanks
Everyone, without exception, approves of the shape of the hull of our tanks. The T-34's is particularly good. All are of the opinion that the shape of the T-34's hull is better than that of any American tank. The KV's is worse than on any current American tank.
Armor
A chemical analysis of the armour showed that on both tanks the armor plating has a shallow surface tempering, whereas the main mass of the armored plating is made of soft steel.
In this regard, the Americans consider that, by changing the technology used to temper the armored plating, it would be possible to significantly reduce its thickness while preserving its protective capacities. As a result the weight of the tank could be decreased by 8-10%, with all the resulting benefits (an increase in speed, reduction in ground pressure, etc.)
Hull
The main deficiency is the permeability to water of the lower hull during water crossings, as well as the upper hull during rain. In heavy rain lots of water flows through chinks/ cracks, which leads to the disabling of the electrical equipment and even the ammunition.
The Americans liked how the ammunition is stowed.
Turret
Its main weakness is that it is very tight. The Americans could not understand how our tankers could fit inside during winter, when they wear sheepskin jackets. The electrical mechanism for turning the turret is very bad. The motor is weak, heavily overloaded and sparks horribly, as a result of which the device regulating the speed of the rotation burns out, and the teeth of the cogwheels break into pieces. They recommend redoing it as a hydraulic or simply manual system.

Armament
The gun of the T-34 is very good. It is simple, dependable and easy to service. Its weakness is that the initial speed of the shell is significantly less than that of the American "Z/ 3"

Aiming/Back-sight
The general opinion: the best in the world. Incomparable with any existing (well-known here) tanks or any under development.
Track
The Americans very much like the idea of steel tracks. But they believe that until they receive the results of the comparative performance of steel vs. rubber tracks on American tanks in Tunis and other active fronts, there is no basis for changing from the American solution of rubber bushings and pads.

The deficiencies in our tracks from their viewpoint results from the lightness of their construction. They can easily be damaged by small calibre shells and mortar bombs. The pins are extremely poorly tempered and made of poor steel. As a result they quickly wear and the track often breaks. The idea of having loose track pins that are held in place by a cam welded to the side of the hull, at first was greatly liked by the Americans. But when in use under certain operating conditions, the pins would become bent which often resulted in the track rupturing. The Americans consider that if the armour is reduced in thickness the resultant weight saving can be used to make the tracks heavier and more reliable.
Suspension
On the T-34, it is poor. Suspension of the Christie type was tested long ago by the Americans, and unconditionally rejected. On our tanks, as a result of the poor steel on the springs, it very quickly (unclear word) and as a result clearance is noticeably reduced. On the KV the suspension is very good.
Motor
The diesel is good and light. The idea of using diesel engines on tanks is shared in full by American specialists and military personnel. Unfortunately, diesel engines produced in U.S. factories are used by the navy and therefore the army is deprived of the possibility of installing diesels in its tanks.

The deficiency of our diesels is the criminally poor air cleaners on the T-34. The Americans consider that only a saboteur could have constructed such a device. They also don't understand why in our manuals it is called oil-bath. Their tests in a laboratory showed that: - the air cleaner doesn't clean at all the air which is drawn into the motor;
- its capacity does not allow for the flow of the necessary quantity of air, even when the motor is idling. As a result, the motor does not achieve its full capacity. Dirt getting into the cylinders leads them to quickly wear out, compression drops, and the engine loses even more power. In addition, the filter was manufactured, from a mechanical point of view, extremely primitively: in places the spot-welding of the electric welding has burned through the metal, leading to leakage of oil etc. On the KV the filter is better manufactured, but it does not secure the flow in sufficient quantity of normal cleaned air. On both motors the starters are poor, being weak and of unreliable construction.
Transmission
Without doubt, poor. An interesting thing happened. Those working on the transmission of the KV were struck that it was very much like those transmissions on which they had worked 12-15 years ago. The firm was questioned. The firm sent the blueprints of their transmission type A-23. To everyone's surprise, the blueprints of our transmission turned out to be a copy of those sent (?). The Americans were surprised, not that we were copying their design, but that we were copying a design that they had rejected 15-20 years ago. The Americans consider that, from the point of view of the designer, installing such a transmission in the tank would create an inhuman harshness for the driver (hard to work). On the T-34 the transmission is also very poor. When it was being operated, the cogs completely fell to pieces (on all the cogwheels). A chemical analysis of the cogs on the cogwheels showed that their thermal treatment is very poor and does not in any way meet American standards for such mechanisms.
Rolling friction clutches
Without doubt, poor. In America, they rejected the installation of friction clutches, even on tractors (never mind tanks), several years ago. In addition to the fallaciousness of the very principle, our friction clutches are extremely carelessly machined from low-quality steel, which quickly causes wear and tear, accelerates the penetration of dirt into the drum and in no way ensures reliable functioning.
General comments
From the American point of view, our tanks are slow. Both our tanks can climb an incline better than any American tank. The welding of the armor plating is extremely crude and careless. The radio sets in laboratory tests turned out to be not bad. However, because of poor shielding and poor protection, after installation in the tanks the sets did not manage to establish normal communications at distances greater than 10 miles. The compactness of the radio sets and their intelligent placement in the tanks was pleasing. The machining of equipment components and parts was, with few exceptions, very poor. In particular the Americans were troubled by the disgraceful design and extremely poor work on the drive/ gear/ transmission links/ blocks (?) on the T-34. After much torment they made new ones and replaced ours. All the tanks' mechanisms demand very frequent adjustments/ fine-tuning.
Conclusions, suggestions
1. On both tanks, quickly replace the air cleaners with models with greater capacity capable of actually cleaning the air.
2. The technology for tempering the armor plating should be changed. This would increase the protectiveness of the armor, either by using an equivalent thickness or, by reducing the thickness, lowering the weight and, accordingly, the use of metal.
3. Make the tracks thicker.
4. Replace the existing transmission of outdated design with the American "Final Drive," which would significantly increase the tanks' maneuverability.
5. Abandon the use of friction clutches.
6. Simplify the construction of small components increase their reliability and decrease to the maximum extent possible the need to constantly make adjustments.
7. Comparing American and Russian tanks, it is clear that driving Russian tanks is much harder. A virtuosity is demanded of Russian drivers in changing gear on the move, special experience in using friction clutches, great experience as a mechanic, and the ability to keep tanks in working condition (adjustments and repairs of components, which are constantly becoming disabled). This greatly complicates the training of tankers and drivers.
8. Judging by samples, Russians when producing tanks pay little attention to careful machining or the finishing and technology of small parts and components, which leads to the loss of the advantage what would otherwise accrue from what on the whole are well designed tanks.
9. Despite the advantages of the use of diesel, the good contours of the tanks, thick armor, good and reliable armaments, the successful design of the tracks etc., Russian tanks are significantly inferior to American tanks in their simplicity of driving, maneuverability, the strength of firing [reference to speed of shell], speed, the reliability of mechanical construction and the ease of keeping them running.
Signed -- The head of the 2nd Department of the Main Intelligence Department of the Red Army, General Major of Tank Armies, Khlopo... (end missing: Khlopov?)

As vision blocks were so crude, T-34 drivers often left their hatches open about a hand's width, even in combat. Even then they could not see except directly ahead.

If the tank flamed, the radio operator almost never escaped. He had no hatch. The extra seconds to follow the driver out or to go out through the turret were fatal.

Soviets found that their diesel T-34's burned more frequently than their gasoline powered tanks. To fit the tranny into the rear meant moving the fuel cells forward near the crew and the ammunition. Diesel does, in fact, explode at the temperatures caused during armor penetration and cordite fires. If a fuel cell was not full when it was hit it very often blew up.

During fire, fumes accumulated in the turret as the T-34 (all models) lacked adequate ventilators. Loaders often passed out due to these fumes in extended combat. Also, lacking a turret basket, the loader had to shuffle his feet as the turret traversed. With expended shell casings on the floor he was at risk of not only tripping but had difficulty in accessing the ammo boxes under his feet. Soviet tankers claim that loaders would try to keep their hatches open in hopes of ejecting as many of the spent casings as possible while trying to keep their feet and service their gun.

Shermans initially had problems with cordite fires due to the stowage of ammunition in their sponsons. This was corrected in later production models with the introduction of wet stowage. The ammo was removed from the sponsons and relocated to water protected boxes in the floor and a water protected ready rack. This reduced the likelyhood that a Sherman would catch fire down to around 10-15%.

Soviet studies found that their T-34's burned nearly 25% of the time. Part of the T-34's ammo was stored in the turret without any protection. Compounding this was the fact that fuel cells were installed in the crew compartment in order to make space for the rear-mounted transmission (diesel or gas doesn't matter, the flash points for both are easily exceeded under these circumstances and Soviet tankers often talk about those fuel cells igniting).

Another tank with the ammo storage problem was the German Panther which, like the early Shermans, used sponson storage. This was a major complaint, among others, that General Guderian wrote about in a letter from June 1944 when he demanded the Panther be modified. The German response to the sponson storage was nearly identical to the first American response: Weld thin sheet metal around the ammo. It didn't work for the Americans and it didn't work for the Germans.

[bsmart111]

The M-6 still had issues even if they had worked out the mechanical kinks. It was basically a stretched Sherman, just as tall but longer as well with thicker armour but the same gun.

Actually the M6 initially used the 3" gun that was used in the M10 TD mounted coaxily with a 37mm. Later there was a modified M6 with a 105mm GUN (not a howitzer, a long barrelled gun) that was offered to SHAEF in limited numbers. SHAEF decided that the limited numbers would not be worth while. The M6 was NOT a stretched Sherman. It had some advanced features such as a rear mounted drive train (instead of running the drive shaft through the fighting compartment) While the U.S. considered the M6 'unreliable' that was only in U.S. terms. It passed the 1000 mile test run (Could a Tiger do that?) The U.S. knew they would be supporting an army across the ocean so they demanded much higher reliability standards than any other army.

The U.S. also knew that they would have to ship their tanks overseas to theatres where port facilities would be marginal. So weight was important. 30 tons was pretty much the upper limit of standard shipboard cargo handling equipment. So while they could handle heavier tanks 30 tons was pretty much the upper limit for 'standard' tanks.

Others have mentioned some other Sherman myths. There was a book Faint Praise by Charles M. Bailey that did a good job of debunking them. (He also did an article I think in ARMOR magazine that covered the high points I have it filed away somewhere) The book DEATH TRAPS by Belton Cooper is also mentioned. Mr Cooper was also featured on some History or Discovery channel shows along the same lines. Mr Cooper was an Ordnance Officer with 2nd Armored Division. One of his primary tasks was recovering damaged tanks. And the 2nd Armored Division had I believe the highest tank casualties of ANY American Armored Division (and yes it is adjusted for the fact that 2nd and 3rd Armored were organized under the older 'heavy' organization) so his point of view may have been influenced by that.

The high British casualties in Normandy also have some other causes. The 7th Armoured Division (Desert Rats) came into Normandy feeling they knew everything about tank warfare based on their experience in North Africa. They quickly (and expensivly) found out that the tactics that worked in the wide open desert didn't work in Normandy.

The Sherman was getting a little 'long in tooth' but it was still a good tank. There were replacements that had been or were being developed but because of the logistics issues the tanks used in 44 had to be standardized in early to mid 42. In fact one reason M26s were not issued sooner was because the wider trackbase of the Pershing was marginal for the bridging equipment that had been stockpiled for the European campaign. So it was decided to hold off issuing them until most of the major rivers had been crossed.

[bsmart111]

There is no way that's true unless the farmer parked the t34 in the swamp a week before he " pulled it out.". The very fact anyone would believe that shows how far from being a manufacturing society the US has become. It shows a clear lack of basic automotive understanding for anyone to believe a engine would still start after its fuel had been sitting for 60 years or that any of the fuel lines and seals would still be any good. Did it say he replaced the fuel?

You want a good idea the machinical problems of the early T34s engine google the tests the US Army did on the 2 they received from the Soviet union during WW2.

I've seen that story (and a couple similar ones) and I believe in all cases the fuel was replaced.

The T34 was an excellent tank there was a certain 'form follows function' in that there was an acceptance that the vehicles life would be very short so why spend time doing 'finishing touches'

I was a volunteer at Aberdeen I've conducted tours of their tank collection and the 'cut open T-34/76 was one of my favorites. It allowed me to show the simplicity of he fittings (no turret basket, ammunition boxes on the floor where the crew had to move to follow the rotating turret) but it was an effective tank.

[Seraph]

One thing I recall reading (a long time ago, so I might be dead wrong--please take with a grain of salt) was that the gun for the Sherman had to be capable of firing as many shots as an artillery piece before being replaced. Since artillery has to fire an incredible number of rounds in battle, often fireingthousands of rounds, that resulted in the Sherman's gun firing a lower velocity round than competing guns. (Tank guns don't usually have to fire as many rounds before either being blown to bits, or the tank can recieve a new gun between battles)
This actually happened due to the overpowering influence of the artillery branch of the army.

So you would need changes in the us army armoured doctrine (no infantry support/ tank hunter division for example).
I don't think this alone at this stage would be enough. It just means you'll get a 76mm Sherman sooner, but even that is iffy if the US Army still thinks the Germans are still using mostly Panzer 3 and early Panzer 4 and that the M4 Sherman is 'enough'.
Part of the problem is that in 1942, the M4 Sherman is one of the best tanks out there. Getting the Army Ground Forces to upgrade or replace a tank it just finally got is the challenge here.

The US built the M26 in 1944, it was mechanically unreliable and withdrawn from service in Korea in favor of...more Shermans. The M46 force suffered 30% mechanical failures every month in korea, and 1/3 of those were permanent losses. M26s suffered higher loss ratios to enemy action then Shermans in ETO and Korea. The M26 could not shoot through the Panthers frontal slope, and the Panther could core it at 1000m from any angle. That's 'better'?
....M26 or M46? And what have you been reading? A 40 ton tank suffered greater losses to the enemy then the Sherman? According to what?
You're arguing that the M4 Sherman is a more powerful tank then the M26 Pershing?


Decrease the number of tanks in the ETO, and infantry losses go up, but I guess there's no glory in saving infantrymen.
I think you're presuming too much. A tank with better armor design for example can lead to far fewer tank losses. so fewer needs to replace tanks so your infantry losses doesn't go up.

[Andras]

....M26 or M46? And what have you been reading? A 40 ton tank suffered greater losses to the enemy then the Sherman? According to what?
You're arguing that the M4 Sherman is a more powerful tank then the M26 Pershing?




In WWII, the M26 killed 6 tanks, and lost 3 in combat.
Documented Sherman actions in WWII have higher kill ratios.

In Korea, the M26 killed 35 T34/85s and lost 6 (<6:1),
Easy 8s killed 49 T34s and lost 7. (7:1).
The M46, btw, scored 12 kills against 8 losses.
M26s and M46s combined had twice as many losses then the M4 while killing one tank less (49 vs 48 kills, out of 97 total T34/85s)

I repeat that M26s had worse loss ratios then the Sherman in both the ETO and Korea. I never said more powerful, but the M4 was more effective. One would also say that the Panther was more powerful then the Sherman, but it was also much less effective.

Both the M26 and M46 had mechanical loss ratios of about 35% per month. I mentioned the M46 because it was a more advanced tank and should have had better reliability then the WWII M26. Both the M26 and M46 had mechanical failure rates more then 50% higher then the worn out Shermans in Korea, and about 4x those of Shermans in WWII.

I think you're presuming too much. A tank with better armor design for example can lead to far fewer tank losses. so fewer needs to replace tanks so your infantry losses doesn't go up.

And the heavy tank has 4x the mechanical losses of the medium tank, so not only do you start with fewer tanks, a greater portion is also out of combat waiting for repairs. German tank guns were powerful enough that the Pershing's heavier armor was, in fact, not effective against them. You are also ignoring the high percentage of losses to mines and infantry HEAT weapons, and mobility kills would be higher since the ground PSI was greater. US engineers could throw a bridge across a river in under 24 hours that the M4 could cross, but not the M26.

[Killer300]

Ah, interesting. So, the Sherman traded some things to have long term mechanical range? I see.

[Seraph]

In WWII, the M26 killed 6 tanks, and lost 3 in combat.
Documented Sherman actions in WWII have higher kill ratios.

In Korea, the M26 killed 35 T34/85s and lost 6 (<6:1),
Easy 8s killed 49 T34s and lost 7. (7:1).
The M46, btw, scored 12 kills against 8 losses.
M26s and M46s combined had twice as many losses then the M4 while killing one tank less (49 vs 48 kills, out of 97 total T34/85s)

I repeat that M26s had worse loss ratios then the Sherman in both the ETO and Korea. I never said more powerful, but the M4 was more effective. One would also say that the Panther was more powerful then the Sherman, but it was also much less effective.

Both the M26 and M46 had mechanical loss ratios of about 35% per month. I mentioned the M46 because it was a more advanced tank and should have had better reliability then the WWII M26. Both the M26 and M46 had mechanical failure rates more then 50% higher then the worn out Shermans in Korea, and about 4x those of Shermans in WWII.
This why I dislike kill/loss ratios. They don't tell all that much you skip out on the context. Statics can be the most misleading fact out there.
I have wonder how many Sherman and Pershing were out there compared the T-34 at various times of the Korean War.
In WW2, the Pershing tank barely had any time to make any impact.


And the heavy tank has 4x the mechanical losses of the medium tank, so not only do you start with fewer tanks, a greater portion is also out of combat waiting for repairs. German tank guns were powerful enough that the Pershing's heavier armor was, in fact, not effective against them. You are also ignoring the high percentage of losses to mines and infantry HEAT weapons, and mobility kills would be higher since the ground PSI was greater. US engineers could throw a bridge across a river in under 24 hours that the M4 could cross, but not the M26.
The M26 is likely still much more reliable then Panther due to better design, crew training, and supply. Yes, its unreliable to the Sherman, but the Sherman is very reliable to begin with. The heavier armor would still make it more difficult for a Panther to penetrate its armor at long range. It becomes a very close thing on if the 75mm gun will penetrate compared to that it will penetrate a Sherman. And the 88mm AT guns and Tiger 1 tanks will have a even harder time trying to penetrate the front hull armor of Pershing.

Seriously, where is your source for your claims?

Ah, interesting. So, the Sherman traded some things to have long term mechanical range? I see.
Not really, it just had a better supply train and design that let it be much more reliable. You have to remember that in terms of armor and gun it is comparable to the T-34. But the Sherman is far better in reliability and in crew efficiencies.

[Andras]

This why I dislike kill/loss ratios. They don't tell all that much you skip out on the context. Statics can be the most misleading fact out there.
I have wonder how many Sherman and Pershing were out there compared the T-34 at various times of the Korean War.
In WW2, the Pershing tank barely had any time to make any impact.


Less then half the tanks sent to Korea in 1950 were M26/46 tanks. 309 Pershings, 200 Pattons, 679 E8s, and 124 Chaffee’s were sent.

According to "The Korean War" by the Korean Institute of Military History, the NKs had:

on December 27 1950:

120 Tanks (T34/85)
73 Self-propelled guns (SU-76s)
60 Armored Vehicles (BA-64s)

on May 12 1950:

173 tanks
176 Self-propelled guns
60 Armored vehicles

on June 25 1950:

242 tanks
176 Self-propelled guns
54 Armored vehicles



The M26 is likely still much more reliable then Panther due to better design, crew training, and supply. Yes, its unreliable to the Sherman, but the Sherman is very reliable to begin with. The heavier armor would still make it more difficult for a Panther to penetrate its armor at long range. It becomes a very close thing on if the 75mm gun will penetrate compared to that it will penetrate a Sherman. And the 88mm AT guns and Tiger 1 tanks will have a even harder time trying to penetrate the front hull armor of Pershing.


The fact is that you would have a fraction of the number of Shermans in action. Shermans fired HE shells 3.5:1 over AP shells. If you keep the number of AT missions the same (why else would you field the heavy tank?) then the HE missions will suffer, that's your infantry support. Good luck with the Race Across France in a fucking heavy tank. How many people will get killed fighting all the way across France now? How many Germans were captured in France that you now have to fight again?

The Panther and the Tiger can penetrate the Pershing's turret out to 2000m.

Pershing turret vs Panther
http://www.wwiiequipment.com/pencalc/99.jpg?74

Pershing turret vs Tiger1
http://www.wwiiequipment.com/pencalc/1.jpg?66

Pershing Turret vs Pak 40
http://www.wwiiequipment.com/pencalc/79.jpg?54

Pershing hull vs 8.8L88
http://www.wwiiequipment.com/pencalc/73.jpg?68

The Sherman 75 will penetrate the side armor of a Panther over 1000m, and the side armor of a Tiger out to 600m. Studies showed that 60% of hits on tanks were on the side and rear armor. Less obvious then sheer gunpower Tigers and Panthers were often set on fire by HE and WP shells. One Tiger in Italy was set on fire by a .50cal (well, the haybales wired to it were, and the tank burned as a result). The 76mm and 3" armed tanks and Destroyers could engage both successfully past 1000m. The average range for Allied tank kills was 893m in Western Europe.


Seriously, where is your source for your claims?


Osprey's books; US Army's Ballistics Research Laboratory Report no. 798; Operations Research Office Far East WO 342/1 Tank and anti-tank warfare: tanks; battle performance and tactics 1951 Feb - 1953 Sept; "Armor in Korea" Department of Operational Studies, Far East Command, 1951

[bsmart111]

Ah, interesting. So, the Sherman traded some things to have long term mechanical range? I see.
Actually all tanks are a series of tradeoffs. Weight, speed, size, reliability, armor thickness, cost are just some of the items that to mind that are part of the equation

Someone mentioned the short gun of the Sherman as being a result of the dominance of the artillery in the design process. I haven't heard it expressed that way before.
The Sherman's gun was based on several factors a major one is that it have a good HE capability. The 75mm gun that was used was based on the alread developed 75mm field gun that had a broad spectrum of ammunition already developed. When the tank was being developed most tanks had smaller guns. The Germans were using 37mm, short 50mm and short 75mm guns in their various tanks. The 75mm guns were meant for support firing primarily HE. The British used the 2 pdr (40mm) as the main tank gun that fired only an AP round and only had two CS (close support) tanks with 94mm howitzers firing only HE and smoke. Only the Soviets with the 76.2 mm gun in the KV-1 and T-34 fielded a comparable weapon with a broad range of ammunition.

There was a requirement that the gun barrel not overhang the hull. I have not seen the detailed justification for this requirement but it does make some sense when working in urban or forested environments.

In general the higher a guns muzzle velocity the less effective of an HE capability it has. Since the Sherman was supposed to be a general purpose tank and not specifically a tank killer its gun was a reasonable compromise. Given the usage pattern of the Sherman that was a reasonable choice.

As an aside I was watching a show about tank warfare in WWII today and they were interviewing a German Waffen SS tanker from 2nd SS Panzer talking about Shermans killing their Panthers with side shots from Shermans at 500-600 yards. He also talked about killing them but it was not a complete one sided situation.

[Killer300]

Actually all tanks are a series of tradeoffs. Weight, speed, size, reliability, armor thickness, cost are just some of the items that to mind that are part of the equation

Someone mentioned the short gun of the Sherman as being a result of the dominance of the artillery in the design process. I haven't heard it expressed that way before.
The Sherman's gun was based on several factors a major one is that it have a good HE capability. The 75mm gun that was used was based on the alread developed 75mm field gun that had a broad spectrum of ammunition already developed. When the tank was being developed most tanks had smaller guns. The Germans were using 37mm, short 50mm and short 75mm guns in their various tanks. The 75mm guns were meant for support firing primarily HE. The British used the 2 pdr (40mm) as the main tank gun that fired only an AP round and only had two CS (close support) tanks with 94mm howitzers firing only HE and smoke. Only the Soviets with the 76.2 mm gun in the KV-1 and T-34 fielded a comparable weapon with a broad range of ammunition.

There was a requirement that the gun barrel not overhang the hull. I have not seen the detailed justification for this requirement but it does make some sense when working in urban or forested environments.

In general the higher a guns muzzle velocity the less effective of an HE capability it has. Since the Sherman was supposed to be a general purpose tank and not specifically a tank killer its gun was a reasonable compromise. Given the usage pattern of the Sherman that was a reasonable choice.

As an aside I was watching a show about tank warfare in WWII today and they were interviewing a German Waffen SS tanker from 2nd SS Panzer talking about Shermans killing their Panthers with side shots from Shermans at 500-600 yards. He also talked about killing them but it was not a complete one sided situation.

Of course they are all a series of trade offs. The T-34 was a nightmare for the crew in order to get smaller size and more armor efficiency. With that in mind, I just thought that the USA perhaps could've done better, but now I see I'm wrong.

[pugsville]

The US simply did not have the experience in the very technical design to build a much better tank than the Sherman, there lack of building of tanks just generally left them to be playing catch up. The British similarly really didnt juts build or operate enough tanks prior to the war. The Russians did have larger experience no surprise they got a good design, the Germans started late but had better engineers and military thinking behind there efforts as well as resources pre war. But their late start left their early war efforts on the light side.

The Sherman packed and shipped easily with in the allies logistic system, no effect replacement would be viable if substantially bigger.

The US strategic production strategy of Standardize then mass produce had many benefits, aircraft was one were than had multiple designs, but the Idea of Standardization was a real strength of the US logistics. The Sherman was part of that.


The Sherman was the best they could do considering their tank design and operation experience, the principle of setting a standard model and producing a lot, would have been comprised if another tank had been introduced in what mid 1944.

[bsmart111]

Of course they are all a series of trade offs. The T-34 was a nightmare for the crew in order to get smaller size and more armor efficiency. With that in mind, I just thought that the USA perhaps could've done better, but now I see I'm wrong.

I don't know if you are wrong or not. Both the T-34 and the Sherman were superbly designed weapons. There were different assumptions made and different values assigned to features which caused two different vehicles to be developed.I suggest reading Commanding the Red Army's Shermans by Dmitry Loza. He was the commander of a battalion of Shermans in both Europe and Manchuria. He describes the differences and why both had good and bad features. It is a very interesting read