Tank Design: Why not a modernized Sherman post-war?

As others said updating the Sherman would really have resulted in a new tank. And unlike the T34 it had a lot of unfavourable characteristics even an update would have had, like the height.

Alright, I think I probably should have rephrased my opening question--perhaps I should have said "why not a continuation of the M4's evolution" or "a Sherman-inspired modern light MBT" rather than "modernized Sherman". But I still don't see why it wouldn't have been feasible.

I continue not to see why the height is insurmountable. The main reason for the Sherman's height was the radial engine so let's put a different engine in it. The T34 was also "tall" (at least relative to the T44/54) and the Soviets managed to fix that so why couldn't the Americans?
 
I felt the picture spoke for itself. :p It should be noted however, that the Israeli M51 Sherman did fairly well taking on T-54/55s, and T-62s.

And Jordanian M48's in 1967. Not to mention it still holds the world record for longest tank shot-and-kill at 11 clicks (1965 with the French 105mm gun).

Still, the Sherman was not considered as good as later designs. The only reason it was kept in service is the inability to aquire new tanks. The Sherman was converted into tankbulance, SPG, mobile rocket arty and other variants back in the 60's and 70's because it was not considered good enough against modern tanks, and upgrading it would cost about the same as making/buying new tanks.
 
Alright, I think I probably should have rephrased my opening question--perhaps I should have said "why not a continuation of the M4's evolution" or "a Sherman-inspired modern light MBT" rather than "modernized Sherman". But I still don't see why it wouldn't have been feasible.

I continue not to see why the height is insurmountable. The main reason for the Sherman's height was the radial engine so let's put a different engine in it. The T34 was also "tall" (at least relative to the T44/54) and the Soviets managed to fix that so why couldn't the Americans?
I admit that a new tank in the same weight class might loose the unfavorable characteristics. That still leaves the problem of a lack of need for such a design. For the Sheridan´s role it would be to heavy, but not as capable as a heavier design. For various reasons (economical, political, logistical) NATO had to expect a numeral inferiority, especially in the initial stages of WW3. For instance four major western MBTs during the middle stage of cold war, Challenger1, Leo1, M60 and AMX30 alltogether numbered at the end of production, including exports, 25 to 30 000. The T-72 alone reached that number, the T54 with variants at least 86 000, probably closer to 100 000 or more. No way the Nato states can built and crew that number indefinitly. And an only comparable tank, like a Sherman-successor, would not be able to counter it. NATO needs superior tanks. Thus why not concentrate on those?
 
I admit that a new tank in the same weight class might loose the unfavorable characteristics. That still leaves the problem of a lack of need for such a design. For the Sheridan´s role it would be to heavy, but not as capable as a heavier design. For various reasons (economical, political, logistical) NATO had to expect a numeral inferiority, especially in the initial stages of WW3. For instance four major western MBTs during the middle stage of cold war, Challenger1, Leo1, M60 and AMX30 alltogether numbered at the end of production, including exports, 25 to 30 000. The T-72 alone reached that number, the T54 with variants at least 86 000, probably closer to 100 000 or more. No way the Nato states can built and crew that number indefinitly. And an only comparable tank, like a Sherman-successor, would not be able to counter it. NATO needs superior tanks. Thus why not concentrate on those?

Exactly. Even if you could somehow turn the Sherman into a viable option like the Israelis did, it's till only a stopgap measure.
 
I admit that a new tank in the same weight class might loose the unfavorable characteristics. That still leaves the problem of a lack of need for such a design. For the Sheridan´s role it would be to heavy, but not as capable as a heavier design. For various reasons (economical, political, logistical) NATO had to expect a numeral inferiority, especially in the initial stages of WW3. For instance four major western MBTs during the middle stage of cold war, Challenger1, Leo1, M60 and AMX30 alltogether numbered at the end of production, including exports, 25 to 30 000. The T-72 alone reached that number, the T54 with variants at least 86 000, probably closer to 100 000 or more. No way the Nato states can built and crew that number indefinitly. And an only comparable tank, like a Sherman-successor, would not be able to counter it. NATO needs superior tanks. Thus why not concentrate on those?

This Sherman-inspired modern medium MBT would have had the same armor and armament as the heavier Patton series. But I didn't say we should only focus on it. We should have built more dedicated heavy tanks too. Why did the M103 have such a short and limited life? It was America's King Tiger.
 
It wasn't just the height either, the Sherman was also quite a narrow tank (only 2.62 m, compared to 2.91 m for the Cromwell, 2.88 m for the Panzer IV and 3.00 m for the T-34, all of which weighed less), which would have limited the size of the turret ring that could have been used, even with modifications to the hull.
 
It wasn't just the height either, the Sherman was also quite a narrow tank (only 2.62 m, compared to 2.91 m for the Cromwell, 2.88 m for the Panzer IV and 3.00 m for the T-34, all of which weighed less), which would have limited the size of the turret ring that could have been used, even with modifications to the hull.

Although the Pershing turret actually fit onto the Sherman hull:
T26_turret_on_M4_chassis.jpg
 
It's still narrow and tall though, and the fact that it's been up-gunned means it can't carry as much ammunition.
 
It's still narrow and tall though, and the fact that it's been up-gunned means it can't carry as much ammunition.

So, I'm sure it can be widened some. Remember the goal here isn't rebuilding actual M4s, it is evolving the design into a new modern medium MBT that still retains some discernible Sherman heritage.
 
So, I'm sure it can be widened some. Remember the goal here isn't rebuilding actual M4s, it is evolving the design into a new modern medium MBT that still retains some discernible Sherman heritage.

Like what? The engine, hull and armament have to be changed for it to remain competitive, which probably means a suspension change as well. There's not going to be much left of the original once the redesign is complete. What sort of continuity would count as "discernible Sherman heritage?"
 
Last edited:
This Sherman-inspired modern medium MBT would have had the same armor and armament as the heavier Patton series. But I didn't say we should only focus on it. We should have built more dedicated heavy tanks too. Why did the M103 have such a short and limited life? It was America's King Tiger.
And what do you sacrifice for the amor and main gun? The range? Ammo? Speed? The fourth crewman? You always have to give up something to save weight. Either you get an overall weaker tank or a more specialized one. If you still want to keep an MBT you basically have to follow the Russian model, replace quality with quantity. If you split the role you loose all the benefits both sides discovered in having MBTs: You loose versatility and flexibility. You raise procurement costs, as two models mean two times development and two production lines. You complicate your logistics. That was difficult enough iotl with the big NATO partners having different tanks. Even if only the US adopts this stupid split that adds another one with different spare parts, once the older models are replaced for a time two. If all partners adopt it, we could have up to 16 different battle tanks active during replacement periods (4 US, UK, French and German models each).
The excessive number of models was one of the biggest problems the Wehrmacht had. The hasty rearmament and mistakes in anticipating future needs forced it to produce them. No sane military planer would aim for that situation if he can avoid it.
 
Like what? The engine, hull and armament have to be changed for it to remain competitive, which probably means a suspension change as well. There's not going to be much left of the original once the redesign is complete. What sort of continuity would count as "discernible Sherman heritage?"
The suspension has to change anyway, the Volute Springs on the Sherman were a dead end and the US would use torsion bar suspension going forward. Another reason they chose the already torsion bar using Pershing to develop and not the Sherman.

I just can't think of any redeeming feature of the Sherman that you'd want to develop and keep, given OTL post-war doctrine.
 

NothingNow

Banned
I just can't think of any redeeming feature of the Sherman that you'd want to develop and keep, given OTL post-war doctrine.

Maybe the radial engine, but that's questionable, and compared to a multi-bank inline, doesn't have many advantages.

The Sherman was ditched really because it was a dead-end, and more or less about as far as you could take the M2 medium's basic design without having to go to a clean-sheet design anyway.
That said, Christie or Horstmann Suspension on the Pershing/Patton line would've been preferable.

As for Heavy tanks, they're really not that great of an idea given how much more important mobility is starting in the 50's, and after the advent of the practical ATGM, more trouble than they're worth.

There are the Brasilian M41s a tank much more suited for sale to Latina America than revamped Shermans?
In fact, South America is a light tank paradise, with French AMX-13 and US M41 being the default tank there in the 50/60s
The M41 and AMX-13 were much better for the market, but the Sherman could also mount some serious armor while remaining mobile. Not enough to keep it effective in the Old world, or to make it that much better looking for a potential buyer, but if you could get a deal on some E4 Shermans, you could keep them effective with up armoring- although something like a Sherman Jumbo would be hell to keep combat ready, and that really wouldn't save it against the firepower an AMX-13/105 brought to the table. So, you were really just better off with something lower, wider and lighter.

There were some AMX 30 sales later on, and surprisingly T55 replaced old Shermans in Peru, and Paraguai still had Shermans active in the 80s, including Fireflies...
Yeah, but that was after 1973 (about the time the Sherman was dead everywhere save South America.) Before the Peruvian purchase in '73, only the Cubans were operating any number of MBTs. Everyone else had Shermans or light tanks (There were also the Cuban A34s, but let's just say Cuban procurement was weird at times and move on.)
 
I'm wondering what's meant by "revamped". Does it mean keeping the original hull, engine, & transmission?

Does it mean re-engining & re-gunning (with new turret)?

Or does it mean starting with the basic chassis & adding new hull, engine, trans, turret, & gun?

I can just hear you saying, all new hull &c is "all new tank". Maybe so. Or maybe using the M4 chassis makes it a developed variant, just like the T-44 & T-55 weren't direct copies of the T-34, either...
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Yes I know about the Israeli derivatives of the Sherman, which proved that the M4 is simply a very solid design even if very obsolete. What I was getting at in my question is why couldn't the M4 have produced a new family of main battle tanks like the T54. Is there a reason why the answer was no or was it just not pursued?

The Sherman was not really a good design to expand into a larger vehicle. It was great for what it was, but the Pershing (M-26) was a better platform for modification into the future (demonstrated by the fact that the M-60 is still a front line MBT in many militaries, and was in full service with U.S. forces until the mid-90s).
 
Amen to what folks have posted here about the M26 Pershing. For both the M4 Sherman & the M26 Pershing THE reference are Hunnicutts two books on these tanks. Zalogas books on the same subject are less expensive & still in print, but contain about 15% of the detail Hunnicutt provides.

There was a remark up thread about the engine making the M4 Sherman hull unsatisfactory. This was not the case. The same engine was used in the entire T20 series (T20, T22, T23, T25, T26) from which the M26 was derived. The height of the M4 Sherman came from having the transmission in front. that required a drive shaft be run from the rear mounted engine to the front. Aside from requiring the turret basket to clear this driveshaft it also added to the maintinance burden on the tank. Removing the drive shaft allowed the T20 ... T26 hulls to be four inches/10cm lower than the M4.

The turret ring of the T20...T26 series were the same size as the M4 (65 inches). That allowed several of the prototype series to mount the same advanced turrets & guns that went onto the late production (1944 +) M4 models.

The second significant difference between the T20...T26 hulls & the M4 was the elimination of the sponsons & their internal compartments. The sponsons were a manufactoring complication, and represented a weakness in the side resistance of the M4 to hits by enemy ammunition. If you look carefully at the M26 Pershing the sides are much better covered by the tracks & suspension, with a smaller portion of the hull sides exposed to direct hits. Unlike the M4 the side armor of the T20 ... T26 tanks has the upper portion sloped toward the top.

The T20...T26 series were the result of the US Army Ordnance Dept sending engineers to Europe & Africa from 1941 to study the existing tank deigns in combat. In early 1942 two officers with a background in tank & heavy equipment design spent several months in Africa inspecting damaged tanks of all makes on the Western Desert battlefields & discussing their observations with the Brits. The report from this team contributed directly to the basic design of the hulls for the T20 ... T26 tanks. Thickness in armor was the principle difference between these tank hulls. The T20, T22, T24 used nearly identical hulls. The T25 & T26 had progressively thicker frontal & side armor.

The primary variation in these tank designs were in suspension: HVSS, VVSS, & torsion bar; transmissions: clutch, hydraulic, & electric; five or six different models of turret, two of which were used on the M4; and four or five different cannon models. Of the five basic prototypes & several sub variants the Ordnance Dept originally proposed production of the T20. It weighed in the same class as the M4, & was to carry the high powered 76.2mm gun of the late models M4. The alternate proposed was to use a electric transmission, that is the engine drove the tracks via a electric generator/motor combination. The Army Ground Forces command rejected production of the T20, but eventually approved limited production of 250 of the electric drive model & some 300 of the T26 with its extra thick hull and 90mm gun as a "heavy tank".
 
Top