YOU are right. The Sherman was fantastic and all those who don't think so obviously don't understand.
Challenge: Better Tank for US in WW2
- Thread starter Killer300
- Start date
- Status
YOU are right. The Sherman was fantastic and all those who don't think so obviously don't understand.
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.
That's an easy strawman to put up, but that's only been said in your mind.
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.
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.
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.
Are you going to address, or contest his numbers?
If not, what are you going on about?
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.
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
Banned
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
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.
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
Banned
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.
The Shermans were a little weakly armoured, yes, but most of that 'ronson' issue was bad ammunition stowage and handling, not the vehicle itself.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.
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.
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.
No, just tired of the myth that the Sherman was a bad/lousy tank.
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.
Because said M4 Sherman mechanics who wrote that Death Trap was writing about his perceptions, not the reality.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.
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.
Gun specs
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.
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.
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)
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)
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
- Status