Was the Sherman tank an "engineering disaster"?

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Thanks for the link.

Very interesting.
First, an interview with the Russian tanker who served in the M4 Sherman.
http://www.battlefield.ru/en/memoirs/369-loza.html

With regards to British 17 pounder, there is also the problems of logistics and fitting it into the Sherman's turret(I've read that rate of fire was halved due to the tight fit). And most of the advantage of the 17 pounder is more due the ammo(APSD) I suspect.

As for Sherman's burning up, that was due to improper ammo stowage which the Army did fix in time for Operation Overlord. However, tanker often blame the gasoline over everything else and would often over load their tanks with extra ammo, negating the wet ammo stowage that the Army upgraded the Sherman to prevent fires.
It should also be noted that in this regard, Soviet tankers found the Sherman must safer then the T-34 which tended to explode...

Lastly, BlairWitch749 makes a major point about US Army tanker training. They receive training that was only slightly better then Soviet tankers and didn't qualify for British tank schools until 1944 due to the rush to replace lost tank crews. The misconception that they had the best tank in the world also hurt them. And I suspect that due to poor training, many Panzer IV were confused for Panther tanks which would explain why the Tiger has a bigger reputation then the Panther which was more numerous.
 
Given America's poor experience with armored warfare, it was vital that we had a tank like the Sherman that was so simple. Being essentially an armored tractor with a gun, it was very easy for farm boys to learn how to drive and operate. As a purely military matter, it was a disaster. They were death-traps and entirely inadequate for the battlefield. We were way too far behind in development and should have done better than the Sherman.
 
German armament designs post 1942 didnt have much basis in reality. Designing a 47 ton tank with a 900 hp engine, 120mm armour and an 88mm L71 gun is easy. Building it and getting it to work is not quite so simple.

Although one of the approved verisions of it had the 88mm cannon (chosen only for parts simplification, so it could share components with the tiger) Rheinmetal, Krupp and MANN developed the KwK 44 ultra high velocity 75mm gun... this bore nearly identicle balistic properties to the KwK 42 75mm gun we normally associate with the panther, however, the gun was modified and trimmed down considerably so it could fit in the more narrow turret of the Panther II (I suspect this would have ended up being the actual gun on the Panther II since it was longer ranged and could penetrate more armor than the larger 88mm piece)
 

MacCaulay

Banned
As for Sherman's burning up, that was due to improper ammo stowage which the Army did fix in time for Operation Overlord. However, tanker often blame the gasoline over everything else and would often over load their tanks with extra ammo, negating the wet ammo stowage that the Army upgraded the Sherman to prevent fires.

Precisely. People who point out that the Sherman was called the Ronson don't often point out just how quickly the Panther brewed up once it got lit up because the turret was powered by flammable hydraulic fluid.

Even the tankers who drove it were nervous about it.
 
Precisely. People who point out that the Sherman was called the Ronson don't often point out just how quickly the Panther brewed up once it got lit up because the turret was powered by flammable hydraulic fluid.

Even the tankers who drove it were nervous about it.

Wait, who would put flammable hydraulic fluid in something that is going to be shot at?

I thought more highly of German engineers.
 
Precisely. People who point out that the Sherman was called the Ronson don't often point out just how quickly the Panther brewed up once it got lit up because the turret was powered by flammable hydraulic fluid.

Even the tankers who drove it were nervous about it.


Mac

The shielding over the hydrolic fluid was mostly corrected after kursk... however the problem where the transmission could spontaneously catch fire still existed into the final production runs
 
Given America's poor experience with armored warfare, it was vital that we had a tank like the Sherman that was so simple. Being essentially an armored tractor with a gun, it was very easy for farm boys to learn how to drive and operate. As a purely military matter, it was a disaster. They were death-traps and entirely inadequate for the battlefield. We were way too far behind in development and should have done better than the Sherman.


Good god...

Did you even read any of the posts in this thread? Or the thread which was linked to this one?
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Given America's poor experience with armored warfare, it was vital that we had a tank like the Sherman that was so simple. Being essentially an armored tractor with a gun, it was very easy for farm boys to learn how to drive and operate. As a purely military matter, it was a disaster. They were death-traps and entirely inadequate for the battlefield. We were way too far behind in development and should have done better than the Sherman.

Did you read any of the other posts in this thread? I only ask because you are repeating a myth that had been throughly exploded in this (and other) threads here.
 
I Love Repeating Myself!

The Sherman was a good-enough platform that needed some tweaking based on issues encountered in combat. As designed in 1941, a world-beater against Pz I-III and a match for the Pz IV.
It had several virtues- decently armed, easy to make and maintain, good fuel economy, easily adapted to different roles, etc. As with any weapons system it had some trade-offs.
It could've been heavier armored but that would've impacted speed and maneuverability. A better gun, possibly a loss in # of rounds available.
Plus, it wasn't designed to go toe to toe with Panthers or Tigers in massed maneuver warfare. It was designed as infantry support and did that role splendidly well. It made mincemeat of the Japanese in the Pacific Theater.
The Panther and Tiger were Germany's reactions to masses of T-34's, KV-1's and Shermans and iffy air superiority on the Eastern Front, hoping quality of tanks and maneuver doctrine could make up for inferior numbers, and thus a generation and a half ahead of the Sherman's armament and American tactics.
As CalBear and others have noted, in capable hands, it did even or better against Panthers. The big problem was range of engagement.
Whoever fires first and hits wins in armor engagements.
The German long 75 and 88 guns had longer ranges and the Wehrmacht were savvy about setting up ambushes that knocked out a lot of Allied tanks and tough to spot and knock-out with artillery or airstrikes in crowded urban environments and in the bocage.
IDK how much better the later versions were equipped with the 76mm gun and HVEAP rounds against the Panther and Tiger, but I'll bet they took less losses.
In short, the Sherman was actually well-designed, if initially ill-used.
Modifying the tank was nice, but improving tank combat doctrine did a lot to improve its effectiveness. A good-enough weapon we had plenty of IMNSHO.

For all-time US military engineering disasters, see the Polaris W-47 missile warheads (the dud rate was enormous, something like 80-90%),
Pre/early-WWII naval torpedoes (if they worked properly, US subs and torpedo bombers would've been 300% more effective and sent many more Japanese ships to the bottom from Coral Sea to Midway);
the M-16A1 (though I've heard that the smokeless powder adopted in mid-60's fouling the barrel something fierce was one of many culprits in its tendency to jam when you needed it to fire);
the B-58 Hustler (white elephant supersonic bomber that was vulnerable to interception and only useful in trucking nukes, not conventional bombs);
and V-22 Osprey (Not listening to the test pilots and having an anthill mob of subcontractors supplying parts and systems making quality control an oxymoron contributing to several deadly crashes over a twenty-year period).
All of which were bold ideas gone horribly wrong in execution.
 
Last edited:
The Sherman was a good-enough platform that needed some tweaking based on issues encountered in combat. As designed in 1941, a world-beater against Pz I-III and a match for the Pz IV.
It had several virtues- decently armed, easy to make and maintain, good fuel economy, easily adapted to different roles, etc. As with any weapons system it had some trade-offs.
It could've been heavier armored but that would've impacted speed and maneuverability. A better gun, possibly a loss in # of rounds available.
Plus, it wasn't designed to go toe to toe with Panthers or Tigers in massed maneuver warfare. It was designed as infantry support and did that role splendidly well. It made mincemeat of the Japanese in the Pacific Theater.
The Panther and Tiger were Germany's reactions to masses of T-34's, KV-1's and Shermans and iffy air superiority on the Eastern Front, hoping quality of tanks and maneuver doctrine could make up for inferior numbers, and thus a generation and a half ahead of the Sherman's armament and American tactics.
As CalBear and others have noted, in capable hands, it did even or better against Panthers. The big problem was range of engagement.
Whoever fires first and hits wins in armor engagements.
The German long 75 and 88 guns had longer ranges and the Wehrmacht were savvy about setting up ambushes that knocked out a lot of Allied tanks and tough to spot and knock-out with artillery or airstrikes in crowded urban environments and in the bocage.
IDK how much better the later versions were equipped with the 76mm gun and HVEAP rounds against the Panther and Tiger, but I'll bet they took less losses.
In short, the Sherman was actually well-designed, if initially ill-used.
Modifying the tank was nice, but improving tank combat doctrine did a lot to improve its effectiveness. A good-enough weapon we had plenty of IMNSHO.

For all-time US military engineering disasters, see the Polaris W-47 missile warheads (the dud rate was enormous, something like 80-90%),
Pre/early-WWII naval torpedoes (if they worked properly, US subs and torpedo bombers would've been 300% more effective and sent many more Japanese ships to the bottom from Coral Sea to Midway);
the M-16A1 (though I've heard that the smokeless powder adopted in mid-60's fouling the barrel something fierce was one of many culprits in its tendency to jam when you needed it to fire);
the B-58 Hustler (white elephant supersonic bomber that was vulnerable to interception and only useful in trucking nukes, not conventional bombs);
and V-22 Osprey (Not listening to the test pilots and having an anthill mob of subcontractors supplying parts and systems making quality control an oxymoron contributing to several deadly crashes over a twenty-year period).
All of which were bold ideas gone horribly wrong in execution.


The first does explain most of the cost of the Chevaline programme, (which proved to be a major political embarrassment for several British administrations during the 1970's, due to the escalating cost of said programme) for the British Polaris fleet, in the 1960's/1970's, as the the Polaris A3 missiles, did use a British version of the W-47 warhead, which originally was intended for Skybolt...
As for the B-58 Hustler, there were rumours of it being used as a possible launch vehicle, for a direct ascent anti-satellite missile system, similar to the ASAT tests in the 1980's, which used the F-15 as it's launch vehicle...
Basically, the B-58 would execute a "Zoom climb", and at the apex of the parabola, launch a missile which would kill said satellite, via kinetic energy...
(The unreliability of the proposed missile's electronics, most notably the Kinetic Kill Vehicle's (KKV for short) target acquisition sensors, were the rumoured reason for the project's cancellation...).
Evil thought, given my last two points, was the B-58 ever considered as a Skybolt carrier/launch vehicle, in a similar manner to the ultimately cancelled B-70...?
 
The Sherman was a great tank, and achieved what it needed to do especially in regards to meeting the demands of transporting it across the Atlantic. That imposed limitations to its design while the powers located in Europe did not need to worry about it.

The US could have a built a much better theoretical tank if it didn't need to take into practical considerations. Essentially, this is what many German designs were in the later were. Such tanks ultimately didn't help them avoid defeat. The US designed its tanks with the practical realities in mind and still win the war, not to compare theoretical design notes.

The only issue that was a real problem was not having a big enough gun in '44 and '45 once the Panthers and Tigers started showing up. If it's gun was good enough to knock them out, then its other flaws were tolerable.
 
*snipped*
The US Army DID build better tanks. But the decision was to stick with the M4 Sherman as it did the job in North Africa, not interrupt tank production, and the Panther and Tiger wouldn't be an issue as they would encountered in very small numbers.

As an example of a better tank that did get built, the T23 is a good example that was recommended to the Army. It was the first tank with the 76 M1 gun, much lower in height compared to the M4 Sherman and even had much better armor at inches rather then the 2 or 2.5 inches on the M4 Sherman. Few hundred had been made in mid 1943.
http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/mediumtankt23.html
 

RalofTyr

Banned
I don't think the Sherman was an ED; it was America's T-72. It was cheap, easy to build and it blew up on the first hit.

The fact it was out-classed by German tanks doesn't make it an engineering disaster. More like a tactical one. The Germans, having more experience in tank production and fighting, could simply build better tanks.

How well did the Sherman do against Japanese tanks (note; most of the Japanese weapons were also engineering disasters); what about against Soviet tanks like the T-34/85 in NK?

Sure, the Israelis used them (they had no choice); how well did they fair against modern Soviet tanks?

If the American-tactic of mass-production failed, then the Sherman would be an "Engineering Disaster".
 
I am by far NOT the biggest fan of the Sherman, but even I acknowledge that it was the right thing at the right time and got the job done.
 
what about against Soviet tanks like the T-34/85 in NK?


Just for the record, E8 Shermans killed 49 T34/85s in Korea, against a combined 20 losses of Chaffees and E8s (not broken out in my source).

Only 14 M26/M46 tanks were knocked out against 48 T34/85 kills.

US Army studies concluded that the M26 was 3.5 times as effective as the M4A3E8 in offensive operations and 3 times better in overall terms. 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. There were 119 tank v tank encounters, 104 involving Army tanks, and 15 by the Marines. The M26/46 tanks were involved in nearly half these, M26 in 38 actions, the M46 in 12. Only 24 involved more then 3 NK tanks. 34 US tanks of all types were knocked out, including 6 M26 and 8 M46. Of these 34, only 15 were totally destroyed. In return US tanks destroyed 97 T35/85s and claimed another 18 as probable. M26s were credited with 39% of the T34 kills, the M46 12%. Half the engagements took place at 350yds or less. The longest successful M26 engagement was 3,000yds.
 
Top