M4 Sherman. Right tank for the wrong war?

Was the Sherman a bad tank?

  • Yes it was terrible. Italian machines were better.

    Votes: 15 21.7%
  • No it was not. It was invincible and could not be killed. The USA rules all!!

    Votes: 54 78.3%

  • Total voters
    69
Indeed, IIRC, Shermans that landed at D-Day drove themselves to the Elbe, a straight car drive today of over 800 miles.
.........................................................................................
My regimental mythology disagrees with your history books. After WW2, the Sherbrooke Fusiliers Regiment (now Sherbrooke Hussars) brought home "Bomb" a Sherman with a 75mm gun. Regimental legends claim that "Bomb" was the only WALLIE tank to survive fighting from the Normandy beaches to VE Day. "Bomb" may have been assigned to SF headquarters troop, but she returned to Canada with a few bullet scars and two of her crew commanders never came home.
All of the other original (D Day vintage) SF Shermans were destroyed in battle or suffered repairable mechanical failure.
 
Wow. What a false dichotomy in that poll, there. I refuse to answer.

The Sherman was a pretty damned good tank. Not a great tank, but not a crappy tank, either. Incredibly reliable by the standards of the time. It was also eminently modifiable, but this characteristic wasn't exploited fully for logistical reasons. (We should have had a lot more 76s for D-Day.)
 
Wow. What a false dichotomy in that poll, there. I refuse to answer.

The Sherman was a pretty damned good tank. Not a great tank, but not a crappy tank, either. Incredibly reliable by the standards of the time. It was also eminently modifiable, but this characteristic wasn't exploited fully for logistical reasons. (We should have had a lot more 76s for D-Day.)
Pretty much agree with all this which is why I didn't vote either. TBF, I think the OP had tongue firmly in check when limiting us to those alternatives! :biggrin:

I think there's a consensus that at a strategic or operational level the Sherman could well claim to the best tank in the War. Reliable, produced in large quantities and adaptable. Planners and operational staffs could love it unreservedly. Tactically it was a great tank in 1942, good or very good in 1943 and adequate for most purposes in 1944. Though by then it was in need of upgrades for both Armour and armament.

AIUI the UK used the 17pr Fireflies as an A-Tk platoon per squadron, with the remaining three platoons with the standard 75mm gun for infantry suppression etc. This seems a reasonable mix, given that the 75mm was still useful in the A-Tk role. It might have been better to fit all the tanks with the "77mm" or have half Fireflies and half "jumbos" with the US 105mm or UK 95mm howitzer. But probably production issues would have made these options unattractive and I'm sure the tactical and weapons experts here could find fault with either option.

The US by 1944 should probably have had a mix of 76mm armed M4s and "jumbos", whether equal numbers or in a ration of 2:1 for 76mm to "jumbos". And for both nations the standard gun tanks needed uparmouring as far as possible.

Anything I've missed??
 
Pretty much agree with all this which is why I didn't vote either. TBF, I think the OP had tongue firmly in check when limiting us to those alternatives! :biggrin:

I think there's a consensus that at a strategic or operational level the Sherman could well claim to the best tank in the War. Reliable, produced in large quantities and adaptable. Planners and operational staffs could love it unreservedly. Tactically it was a great tank in 1942, good or very good in 1943 and adequate for most purposes in 1944. Though by then it was in need of upgrades for both Armour and armament.

AIUI the UK used the 17pr Fireflies as an A-Tk platoon per squadron, with the remaining three platoons with the standard 75mm gun for infantry suppression etc. This seems a reasonable mix, given that the 75mm was still useful in the A-Tk role. It might have been better to fit all the tanks with the "77mm" or have half Fireflies and half "jumbos" with the US 105mm or UK 95mm howitzer. But probably production issues would have made these options unattractive and I'm sure the tactical and weapons experts here could find fault with either option.

The US by 1944 should probably have had a mix of 76mm armed M4s and "jumbos", whether equal numbers or in a ration of 2:1 for 76mm to "jumbos". And for both nations the standard gun tanks needed uparmouring as far as possible.

Anything I've missed??

My understanding was that the Firefly was issued with 1 tank in each troop (with the crew being the most experienced) of 4 with enough produced to eventually have 2 Firefly's in each 4 tank troop for a 50:50 mix

I think the US could get away with just upgrading all of their tanks in the field with the 76mm but temper this with the fact that Basic M4s with the 75mm did meet and defeat big cats and in general the tank that detected and shot first was usually the victor as it would range in and start getting hits first while the other tank would frantically try to get to cover while trying to spot the firing tank. As tank units usually operate in Platoons of 3 -5 tanks and generally engage the same target until it burns or buggers off I think the 75 was good enough.

I often hear or read the myth that it took 5 Shermans to defeat one Panther/Tiger - the truth of this is that US Tank platoons were generally 5 strong and a platoon is the smallest element that will operate independently on the battlefield - so if some one sees a Panther or a tiger they send a platoon to deal with it rather than get an abacus out and work out the minimum number of tanks for a fair fight.
 
Last edited:
I often hear or read the myth that it took 5 Shermans to defeat one Panther/Tiger

About 5.5 Shermans in W/Europe were lost to every German tank lost. Most Shermans were not killed by other tanks but by Anti Tank guns, mines, Self Propelled guns, Infantry Anti Tank weapons. The US Army reckoned iirc the ratio of Shermans lost in tank v tank engagements was 1.2 Shermans to 1.0 German tanks. German tanks were usually on the defensive or trying to prevent a breakthrough they often were fighting at a number disadvantage.
 
My understanding was that the Firefly was issued with 1 tank in each troop (with the crew being the most experienced) of 4 with enough produced to eventually have 2 Firefly's in each 4 tank troop for a 50:50 mix

I think the US could get away with just upgrading all of their tanks in the field with the 76mm but temper this with the fact that Basic M4s with the 75mm did meet and defeat big cats and in general the tank that detected and shot first was usually the victor as it would range in and start getting hits first while the other tank would frantically try to get to cover while trying to spot the firing tank. As tank units usually operate in Platoons of 3 -5 tanks and generally engage the same target until it burns or buggers off I think the 75 was good enough.

I often hear or read the myth that it took 5 Shermans to defeat one Panther/Tiger - the truth of this is that US Tank platoons were generally 5 strong and a platoon is the smallest element that will operate independently on the battlefield - so if some one sees a Panther or a tiger they send a platoon to deal with it rather than get an abacus out and work out the minimum number of tanks for a fair fight.
Fair points. I think the original British use of the Firefly was indeed one tank per troop (of 4) but that as that became the prime target for enemy tanks they later switched to concentrating them in one troop per squadron. But I could be wrong on this. Didn't know that the ratio was later increased to 50:50.

I wonder if the perception that the Sherman was markedly inferior to German tanks is based as much on the overall loss ratio rather than losses in tank on tank combat. Crews may not have been inclined to care whether their mates were killed by anti-tank guns or the same gun mounted on a tank or Stug/Jagdpanzer. If they even knew at the time. And Lanchester's Law might have operated in tank on tank battles with the German tanks too outnumbered for superior tank quality to tell*. Poor performance of the hurriedly raised Panzer Brogades post Summer 1944 could be done to lack of training also.

However, it's useful to dwell on the Sherman's good points too.

* Episodes like Villiers Bocage apart, which was due probably to a mix of British incompetence and terrain.
 
My understanding was that the Firefly was issued with 1 tank in each troop (with the crew being the most experienced) of 4 with enough produced to eventually have 2 Firefly's in each 4 tank troop for a 50:50 mix

I think the US could get away with just upgrading all of their tanks in the field with the 76mm but temper this with the fact that Basic M4s with the 75mm did meet and defeat big cats and in general the tank that detected and shot first was usually the victor as it would range in and start getting hits first while the other tank would frantically try to get to cover while trying to spot the firing tank. As tank units usually operate in Platoons of 3 -5 tanks and generally engage the same target until it burns or buggers off I think the 75 was good enough.

I often hear or read the myth that it took 5 Shermans to defeat one Panther/Tiger - the truth of this is that US Tank platoons were generally 5 strong and a platoon is the smallest element that will operate independently on the battlefield - so if some one sees a Panther or a tiger they send a platoon to deal with it rather than get an abacus out and work out the minimum number of tanks for a fair fight.
The Sherman had a powered turret, even if they didn't see the enemy first they could get in the first shot,that's how that firefly killed Michael Whittman at Normandy.
 
Right tank for 1942. The US expected to invade Europe in 1943, so would need lots of good tanks in time. The Sherman was great considering the fast development cycle and the need for massive production. Considering that the war went on, and with the volume problems out of the way, a next generation tank for 1944 would have been the right choice, to progressively supplement and replace the Sherman. The M25 (T25E1) would have been a good choice.
 
The Sherman had a powered turret, even if they didn't see the enemy first they could get in the first shot,that's how that firefly killed Michael Whittman at Normandy.

Probably more relevant is that Wittman led his unit of 3 Tigers across an open field with no regard to his flank security which as it happens was occupied by elements of two Tank Regiments (2 Tank Battalions for those of you 'hard of British commonwealth') who had nothing else to do at the time but shoot the hell out of them.
 
Could the Sherman have been improved even more than it was? I'm sure it could have been. Sloped armor on the sides. Reduce the height of the hull. A better gun from the start. A stronger engine. Wet ammo storage from the start. The first two reduce the room in the hull. But it might mean that the weight savings could mean thicker armor for the front of the hull. Wide tracks to lower ground pressure. After the abortion of the M3 Lee/Grant the Sherman must of seemed like the best thing since sliced bread. One question though. Were any constrainsts on rail shipping in the US that determined some of the things in the design stage. Specificaly width and overall weight for shipping on rail cars. If existing rail flat cars are unable to handle higher weight that means any new tanks need new rail cars which adds cost and increases steel demand for which there is a lot of competition.

As to engines two possibilties that come to mind are the Curtiss D-12 and Conqueror V-12s built in cast iron and detuned for lower horsepower. Another possibility is Pratt and Whitney's R-2060 Yellow Jacket. Again in cast iron or steel
 
As to engines two possibilties that come to mind are the Curtiss D-12 and Conqueror V-12s built in cast iron and detuned for lower horsepower. Another possibility is Pratt and Whitney's R-2060 Yellow Jacket. Again in cast iron or steel

The M6 heavy tank used the 800HP Wright R-1820
diameter: 54 1/4 inches.
Length: 52 inches
Dry weight (geared): 1,350 pounds.

Wright R-975
Diameter: 45 inches
Length: 43 inches
Dry weight 1137 lbs dry

V-12 Hall-Scott Model 2269, Industrial gas engine, 2181 ci. 575 BHP, 1500 torque lb. ft. wet weight 3600 lbs. Common in Marine and oilfield pumps
Similar in size and power to the Soviet aluminum V-2 engine, but far more reliable, being cast iron. In Marine form. supercharged to 750HP, but still reliable in rescue boat usage
Auxiliary Vessel, Rescue-- the AVR-63
63ft._Crash_Boat_2.JPG
 
Top