Challenge: Better Tank for US in WW2

[AdA]

Growth potencial

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 for me to understand that.

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]

M26

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.