ok i hear so much talk about the sherman: "its horrible, it was the perfect tank." i even hear that shermans would go head to head, 1v1, against Tiger II and they would regularly win,which i think is a joke. What do u guys think?

Isn't this a history question?

The Sherman was inferior to Heavy Tigers and Heavy Panthers. However, the US's combined arms tactics (with their tank destroyers) allowed them to win battles against superior armament

Probably one of the best allied tanks of the war.....but it was nothing more then tin foil and a BB gun compared to the heavier tanks of the war. I'm not even sure if it could beat a T-34.

theres nothing superior about the Tiger II its too big, too slow, too loud, and cost too much to produce

i even hear that shermans would go head to head, 1v1, against Tiger II and they would regularly win,which i think is a joke. What do u guys think?

Maybe 10 v 1.

The Sherman was a piece of crap that was stamped out 252635943258932 times making it a winner.

Low armour, low fire power (76 mm??!) and a high silhouette. I'd much rather be in the Tiger against 10 Shermans.

Mine is bigger!

ok i hear so much talk about the sherman: "its horrible, it was the perfect tank." i even hear that shermans would go head to head, 1v1, against Tiger II and they would regularly win,which i think is a joke. What do u guys think?
One against one, the Sherman would have lost to practically any tank in the war - certainly any of the heavy tanks. The Sherman worked because we had so many of them, they could overwhelm the enemy.

Story of the war. The Germans had some pretty sweet equipment, but they just got overwhelmed because there were just too many Allied soldiers coming at them from all sides.

Probably one of the best allied tanks of the war.....but it was nothing more then tin foil and a BB gun compared to the heavier tanks of the war. I'm not even sure if it could beat a T-34.

T-34 is the best tank of the war it was easily produced, fast, well armored, and had a decent gun (76 mm, Sherman was 75 mm)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_II

With the Third Reich hard pressed, the Tiger IIs were sent directly from the factories into combat. As a result of the abandonment of post-production testing and preliminary trials, the tanks had numerous technical issues. Notably, the steering control would often break down under the stress of the vehicle's weight. In addition, not only were the engines prone to overheating and failure, but they also consumed large amounts of fuel. This can be attributed to the fact that it used the 690 hp Maybach engine of the far smaller Panther tank. The engine had to constantly run at full power just to get the tank moving. Henschel & Son's chief designer Erwin Adlers explained that "The breakdowns can be attributed to the fact that the Tiger II had to go straight into series production without the benefit of test results." The engine and drivetrain was overburdened by the weight and would have required more testing to work out problems, a common problem among heavy tanks that pushed the limits of powerplants and transmissions. A version of the Maybach HL230 engine with direct fuel injection was being designed that would have improved power to about 1,000 PS (986 hp, 736 kW), Henschel proposed to use it for future production and retrofitting to existing Tiger IIs, but the deteriorating war situation meant the upgrade never left the drawing board. Other suggested improvements included a new main weapon, possibly of 105 mm calibre, but again this never got beyond the proposal stage.

Overall, the Tiger II was a formidable tank in spite of its problems. The Tiger II's 88 mm armament could destroy most Allied armoured fighting vehicles at a range far outside the effective range of the enemy AFV's armament. Also, notwithstanding its reliability problems, the Tiger II was remarkably agile for such a heavy vehicle. Contemporary German records indicate that it had a lower ground pressure and was as maneuverable as the much lighter Panzer IV. Also, like the Tiger I, its sophisticated suspension design provided excellent flotation, giving the tank a very smooth ride and making it an excellent gun platform. The tank's reputation as an unreliable, underpowered, and overly complex system is based on postwar testing of captured examples by the U.S. Army's ordnance branch.

see the tiger II was completely unreliable unlike the Sherman and that plays a huge role in a battle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_tank

The Sherman tank was comparatively fast and maneuverable, mechanically reliable, easy to manufacture and service, and produced in many special-purpose variants, whose capabilities differed greatly. It was effective in the infantry support role.

wat about the tiger 1? could a sherman evenlast a full 2 mins against 1 let alone dent it? the americans might as well got out the golf balls and 9 irons in the battlefield

Sherman was a piece of crap compared to the late German or Russian tanks. I heard that they needed 5 Shermans to destroy one Tiger in battle.

What was it the Germans said?

"One Tiger can beat 10 Shermans. Problem is, for every Tiger we make, they make 11 Shermans."

lol thats a good 1, is that an actual quote?

I am not sure anyone ever actually said it, and I don't remember where I heard it, so don't cite me or anything, but yeah, it pretty much sums it up.

People need to remember a few things about the Sherman.

The original tank first saw action in 1942, at that time having what would be considered a pretty good mix of firepower, armour and speed for a medium tank. Up until the Italian campaign it rarely met anything that was clearly superior to it. It was easy to produce and maintain unlike the German counterparts, factors that were important to a country fighting a war on a distant continent. Its also worth pointing out that early US military teachings said that the job of engaging enemy armour lay with the Tank Destroyers, not the tanks whose role would be primarily to support infantry. The Sherman was also highly adaptable producing a vast range of sucessful and varied modifications (various uparmoured, upgunned and modernised Sherman served with the Israelis decades after the much vaunted Panzers were gracing museums and town centres).

As to the question the comparison is pointless, the Sherman was a mid war medium tank, the Tiger II was a late war heavy tank. You might as well throw a Panzer IVF2 up against a Pershing or early Centurion and see what the result would be Of course the Tiger I or Tiger II would come out on top in a fair fight, but war isn't fair.

Now as to the comparsion with the T34 unfortunately the two didn't come to blows in the 75mm version of the Sherman to my knowledge. The upgunned 76mm version however generally fared pretty well against the T34/85 in Korea.

From what I understand, the Sherman was the right tank in the wrong place. It was not a "piece of crap"; it was specifically designed to be a lighter armed tank easy to maneuver. The problem is that this was not a good strategy against the heavy german tanks, hence the pretty high casualty rate of the soldiers operating the Shermans, and hence also the countless adaptations that the Sherman suffered throughout the war (and it must be said that it dealt relatively well with adaptations).

So the Sherman was a strategical failure, not a technological one.

sry i should have made this a bit more clear but when the ppl who were saying the sherman could beat these tanks i meant moreso the "Tiger family"

The problem with the Sherman was not that it was a bad tank. It was. But when entering the fights it was starting to be outdated as the new Pz IV variants were becoming better. Later the US relied on the mass tactics and did not introduce a new tank until shortly before the end because of that. They had to fight with light medium tanks against medium and heavy tanks. Only the masses and the air support lead to their victories. But when this was not possible they were lost. In fights against Panther they said they needed 6 Shermans. Against a Königstiger 11.
Additionally the Sherman was a fire trap once the tank was hit.

Adler

The problem with the Sherman was not that it was a bad tank. It was. But when entering the fights it was starting to be outdated as the new Pz IV variants were becoming better. Later the US relied on the mass tactics and did not introduce a new tank until shortly before the end because of that. They had to fight with light medium tanks against medium and heavy tanks. Only the masses and the air support lead to their victories. But when this was not possible they were lost. In fights against Panther they said they needed 6 Shermans. Against a Königstiger 11.
Additionally the Sherman was a fire trap once the tank was hit.

Adler

yea well you

Flaming and deleted.

yea well . .. .. .. . you
"...bless..."? '

I hope.

I'd personally take a 76mm or Firefly version of a sherman over a Panzer IV any day of the week and twice on sundays. Both of them were available from Normandy onwards also, well before the end of the war. Besides the US had a series of fine tank destroyers mounting either the 90mm or 76mm guns. Its worth remembering that the supposed organisation of a panzer division in 1944 consisted of Panzer IVs and Panthers. Heavier tanks such as the Tiger and Tiger II were much rarer.

Oh and only the earlier Shermans were "fire traps" later models relocated the ammunition storage and provided it with additional water jackets, reducing the chance that the tank would "brew up".

but by the time the sherman recieved its best upgrades were there even any point to them? the time when they most direly needed them had come and gone.

but by the time the sherman recieved its best upgrades were there even any point to them? the time when they most direly needed them had come and gone.

Normandy, man.

The Sherman demonstrates more the US's doctrinal inadequacies in early WWII, indeed even up to 1944, in the sense that American doctrine held that tanks were for infantry support, and that tanks were supposed to be countered using fast and powerful, but very weakly armoured dedicated tank busters like the Wolverine.
The US wised upeventually and started installing a 76mm gun on the Sherman, as well as looking mor einto heavy tanks, which was manifested in the Shemran "Jumbo", and later the Pershing.

wat could the m-26 pershing go up against?

wat could the m-26 pershing go up against?

From memory, probqably a Panther without being horrifically outclassed.

wat could the m-26 pershing go up against?

IIRC only 154 were rushed into action. it did have the same 90mm that the hellcat had though the heavier calibur was less effective then the 17pounder due to its slower verlocity. it had much better armour which could easily shrugg of 75mm fire though.

hmm, so was the tiger just unbeatable?

The tiger wasn't no, the King Tiger was something of a problem when deployed correctly and well supplied. Luckily for the allies the Germans rarely managed both of those.

Every play : COMBAT MISSION ?

I had six shermans and two bazooka squads facing off a Tiger, a stugIII. I set up a ambush guessing corretly where the germans would drive down. The german force being smaller then expected I allowed them to enter the killzone. But the two shermans sitting point blank behind a building missed the stupid StugIII leading at point blank range. It began reversing and was hit by a bazooka disabling it.

Now the tiger was alert to the shermans in front began moving up to engage them. Luckly for me It failed to spot the four shermans hidding flanking the road. I was able to drive two shermans behind it cutting of the tiger, one sherman worked its way point blank to the side the other was waiting for a side shot if the tiger moved up futhure.

I hit the tiger repeatly from the rear, the bazooka team from 2nd floor building hit it repeatly. At this point thou the tiger begain it slow turret turn to fire at the rear. At this point i pull the rear shermans back and opened up with the sherman point blank range (1m) from the side. It hit the damm turret and the shell bounced off. A second shot did nothing and I got the sherman behind the building again.

The situation now totally ludicous. I sent the shermans in the ambush postion to fire at it from the front. The ones at the rear also catching it in a cross fire. In the end with the tiger turret facing backwards engaging the shermans to its rear. One of the shermans finally penetrated it with a shot to the rear of the turret. Shells were still bouncing off this benhemoth when the crew finally abandoned tank and were gunned down by my waiting infantry


HISTOICALLY the allied would destroy tigers provided that the odds were sufficient in there favour. The did knock out wiitmans tiger once (disabling hit iirc) , and finally killed him with fireflys in ambush position

hmm, ever played CoH?

That game sounds like its never heard of the allies having specialist ammunition.

That game sounds like its never heard of the allies having specialist ammunition.

Its pretty accurate including everything from tank shot traps to metalogolistic conformarty of hull armour. (One interesting fact was when using Hertzers I found that the poor metal quality was rated at 80%) Only covers 41-43 we dont get to play with "jumbos" or "fireflys". I think i was using the E3 given there shorter barrels.

Dont think they issued tungsten rounds as standard given how rare the metal was to all tank crews ?


EDIT:

Iam sure the allies would have won simply by having shermans followed by squads of engineers constantly repairing them. aka COH
unlike COH CM tracks everything in a highly accurate fashion and is probably the most realistic ww2 combat similator miles ahead of anything else on the market.

Ahh well 1941-43 is another matter entirely.

Dont think they issued tungsten rounds as standard given how rare the metal was to all tank crews ?

I believe they began to be issued to the British tank/anti tank crews for 6pndrs in time for D-Day and the 17pndrs by August (or in some accounts October) of 1944. From what I've seen a crew would carry between 5 and 10 rounds in theory but usually were lucky to have a couple.

On an amusing note when I was still new to wargaming I was in command of a force of 3 Fireflys defending a small hill, but spent most of the game with little to do. Towards the end a group of 4 Tigers rolled up a slope a short distance away and pleased to have a target let fly. In my first volley I hit twice, and two tigers were brewed up. The survivors replied but missed, and my second attempt picked off one of the remaining tanks with the only hit I scored.

The opponent was understandably confused as he was one of those who tend to think that German tanks were all but invincable, so he tore the stats sheet from my hand. It was then we found that I'd been reading the line for APDS ammunition rather than the normal type. The umpire merely shrugged and said that since it was late 1944 we would have had some of that ammo anyway, so the result stood.

The remaining Tiger decided that discretion was the better part of valour and hopped it. :goodjob:

I remmeber that some of tungsten tip rounds were issued to Britishs crusaders armed with 2pounders, the crew reported that there shells were failling to penetrate the PZIIIs as they saw the round(s) bounch off the front hull.

After it was found that the tungsten tip and head had in fact penetrated while the rest of the round bounced off the armour. Inside the tank it wrecked damage to the internal sections but it still took numerous rounds to fully kill the PzIII.

There was also the capture of Tiger by 2pounder armed churchills. With a round bouncing off the underside 88 barrel and hitting the turret ring, locking the turret in place. The german crew paniced by this bailed out and the tiger was captured.

The AMERICAN Sherman was useless against anything the Germans produced, except maybe the Panzer III and early Panzer IVs. The BRITISH Sherman Firefly had a much better chance, with it's larger gun. The Pershing wasn't too much better then the ordinary Sherman, whilst the British Black Prince and Centrian would probably prove more then a match for a Tiger.

Wittman was killed by Brits, mind you. :p

The best war machine the Americans built was athe F4U Corsair. Apart from the Mustang and Jeep, everything else they built stank.

(Besides, I've tested in Faces of War that the Churchill would beat the Sherman. :D )

The best war machine the Americans built was athe F4U Corsair. Apart from the Mustang and Jeep, everything else they built stank.

(Besides, I've tested in Faces of War that the Churchill would beat the Sherman. :D )

Thats probably too harsh.

The general quality of our ships and planes was not surpassed by anyone.

We were too busy focusing on actually winning the war I guess, mop up was secondary :p

The best war machine the Americans built was athe F4U Corsair. Apart from the Mustang and Jeep, everything else they built stank.

I'd disagree on the following accounts:
-The Amtrak/Buffalo
-C-47 Skytrain
-DUKW
-LCVP
-M1 Garand
-.50 Cal H2
-Bazooka
-B17/B24/B29
etc.etc.

The Sherman wasn't a bad tank in itself, the problem was US armoured doctrine in the early part of the war which dictated that there was no need for heavy tanks ala KVs or Tigers. As a result the Sherman often found itself slugging with tanks above its weight class, as the Yanks didn't have a proper heavy tank to send in. As a medium/infantry support tank it was very respectable, despite a high silhouette.

Since COH has already been mentioned, the lack of US heavy tanks is pretty much the reason why the Pershing turns up in a game supposedly set in 1944. There wasn't really any other choice, unless they didn't include a heavy for the Americans at all, which of course would not have made for good marketing.

Since COH has already been mentioned, the lack of US heavy tanks is pretty much the reason why the Pershing turns up in a game supposedly set in 1944. There wasn't really any other choice, unless they didn't include a heavy for the Americans at all, which of course would not have made for good marketing.

Air support :p

The AMERICAN Sherman was useless against anything the Germans produced, except maybe the Panzer III and early Panzer IVs. The BRITISH Sherman Firefly had a much better chance, with it's larger gun. The Pershing wasn't too much better then the ordinary Sherman, whilst the British Black Prince and Centrian would probably prove more then a match for a Tiger.

Wittman was killed by Brits, mind you. :p

The best war machine the Americans built was athe F4U Corsair. Apart from the Mustang and Jeep, everything else they built stank.

(Besides, I've tested in Faces of War that the Churchill would beat the Sherman. :D )
what about the Fletcher class DDs? and the Iowa class BBs? they can stake at least some claim to being the best ever ships of their class.

Essex class CVs and the PT boats were indespensible components of the USN as well.

the M1 rifle was also a very good piece of equipment.

the M26 Pershing's main draw back was its poor power to weight ratio. other than that, it was far superior to the Sherman in terms of armor and fire power.

you either have a terrible bias against American made equipment or you're simply ill informed.

Black Prince never made it past the prototype stage.?
The US had the Hellcat (Wild ? uh something cat) with the 90mm Gun at least they had something with a decent gun. keep in mind the Brits had some shoddy tanks as well.

Some video games like Brothers in Arms make the Sherman look like some kind of super tank that can easily beat four PanzerIV tanks without effort.

5:1 is geerally the accepted ration for shermens vs most German armor. Even the Panzer 4 out performed it.

However apparently 80% of all german tank loses were due to airpower on the western from with tank vs tank combat being relativly rare. German tanks weren't invincable but I think there was no recorded case of the King Tiger 2 being knocked by a frontal shot from another tank. The Sherman is also better than no tank a situation the Germans found themselves in alot or with constant Jabos flying over head.

The reason Shermans were used after the was was because the Allies won and they were cheap for other countries to use. In Israels case they used Super Shermans which were drastically upgunned (105mm IIRC?), with new engines and armor.

One could only wonder what would have happened with postwar German tank design. Panther 2 with an 88mm gun or King Tigers 2 with the mechanical issues sorted out. France used Panthers after the war but ditched them for some inferior locally produced tank.

The Allies never had any reason to manufacture German tanks after wars end. National pride and the expense of retooling factories would have made it impractical anyway. If I was the French I would have just started up a Panther factory in postwar Germany and employed the tank designers. Panther or Panther 2 would have been a better tank they could have done themselves until the mid 50's or so.

The reason Shermans were used after the was was because the Allies won and they were cheap for other countries to use. In Israels case they used Super Shermans which were drastically upgunned (105mm IIRC?), with new engines and armor.

The Israelis started with upgunning Shermans with a 75mm French gun which was basically a development of the Panther's gun. It wasn't until the 1960s that they upgunned some Shermans with the 105mm gun. It all goes to show really what an adaptable and durable vehicle the Sherman was. Its interesting to note at this stage that the Syrians got their hands on a few surplus German AFVs, the Israelis captured a Panzer IV and Stug from them for example.


One could only wonder what would have happened with postwar German tank design. Panther 2 with an 88mm gun or King Tigers 2 with the mechanical issues sorted out. France used Panthers after the war but ditched them for some inferior locally produced tank.

Two Panther 2 prototypes were ordered but only one completed, and that with a Panther I turret - that is actually kept in Fort Knox believe at or not. I don't know whether it would have ever hit production to be honest, Speer and the high command preferred to concentrate on the King Tiger (which the Panther II actually held up) and besides the E50 series was supposed to replace both the Panthers in the long run. Besides it weighed 55 tonnes with the Panther I turret, and had an intruiging suspension, so probably would have had teething problems.

Some statements about the Sherman.

The Sherman was little more than some very thin armor and a gun mounted on a tractor.
The Sherman was above average in speed.
The Sherman was very cheap and easy to produce.
The average German tank could defeat ten Shermans.
We always had eleven Shermans.

Some statements about the Sherman.

The Sherman was little more than some very thin armor and a gun mounted on a tractor.
The Sherman was above average in speed.
The Sherman was very cheap and easy to produce.
The average German tank could defeat ten Shermans.
We always had eleven Shermans.


I think the allied air power and the eastern front had more to do with it than the 11th Sherman.

hmmm.. i wonder if an airsoft L.A.W. could take out a sherman :crazyeye:

the shermans did well aginst the t 34 in korea, but im not sure if its cus of the t 34 its self, or the korean tank crews.

People need to remember a few things about the Sherman.

The original tank first saw action in 1942, at that time having what would be considered a pretty good mix of firepower, armour and speed for a medium tank. Up until the Italian campaign it rarely met anything that was clearly superior to it. It was easy to produce and maintain unlike the German counterparts, factors that were important to a country fighting a war on a distant continent. Its also worth pointing out that early US military teachings said that the job of engaging enemy armour lay with the Tank Destroyers, not the tanks whose role would be primarily to support infantry. The Sherman was also highly adaptable producing a vast range of sucessful and varied modifications (various uparmoured, upgunned and modernised Sherman served with the Israelis decades after the much vaunted Panzers were gracing museums and town centres).



Hudson is exactly correct, the Sherman was never meant to be a Tank against Tank piece of hardware, they were meant for infantry support. The Tank destroyers were the ones that were meant to take on Panzers and Tigers.

but werent the m10's even more lightly armoured?

What I don't understand is why everyone compares a sherman to a panther or tiger, it's like comparing apples to oranges. Has anyone compared them to an M26 Pershing or 90mm GMC M36B2?

What I don't understand is why everyone compares a sherman to a panther or tiger, it's like comparing apples to oranges. Has anyone compared them to an M26 Pershing or 90mm GMC M36B2?

Its because Shermans were most likely to come up against a Panther or Tiger or at the ery least a Panzer Mark4. More or less most contemporary German tanks outclassed the Sherman.

M26 arrived to late to have any impact on the war. Its kinda like "we've finally got a tank to take on the German armor- in March 1945 when the Germans had sod all armor left and even less fuel.

I just finished reading an account of the Battle of the Bulge, written in 1959 with plenty of personal accounts from participants of both sides. The Sherman was more effective against German armor than you are giving it credit for.

I just finished reading an account of the Battle of the Bulge, written in 1959 with plenty of personal accounts from participants of both sides. The Sherman was more effective against German armor than you are giving it credit for.

The German army wasn't that great in the field by the time of the Battle of the Bulge. Didn't say the Sherman was totally inefective vs German armor and later in the war the Germans were short of fuel due to allied bombing.

Its because Shermans were most likely to come up against a Panther or Tiger or at the ery least a Panzer Mark4. More or less most contemporary German tanks outclassed the Sherman.

I think they came up against more Panzer IVs than Tigers to be honest, the IV's were part of the makeup of a standard Panzer division by the time of Normandy, making up 1 of the division's two panzer regiments (the other being made up of Panthers). The Tigers (of both types) were usually assigned to independent heavy batallions and as such were less common.

Panthers and Tigers tend to get all the attention though, so you often have allied crews mistaking different tanks for them (which wasn't that hard since the Panzer IVJ had a passing resemblence to a Tiger) or remembering encounters with them much more. Why recall a fight with a Panzer IV when your squadron destroyed it after maybe scoring 2-3 hits and it only took out perhaps 1 or 2 of your tanks? You'd be much more inclined to recall the occasions when you ran into that hulking monster that put 4-5 tanks in the scrapyard before you worked your way around its flank and destroyed it.

These days you'll find that they tend to be much more popular in scale modelling and wargaming circles too.

I think they came up against more Panzer IVs than Tigers to be honest, the IV's were part of the makeup of a standard Panzer division by the time of Normandy, making up 1 of the division's two panzer regiments (the other being made up of Panthers). The Tigers (of both types) were usually assigned to independent heavy batallions and as such were less common.

Panthers and Tigers tend to get all the attention though, so you often have allied crews mistaking different tanks for them (which wasn't that hard since the Panzer IVJ had a passing resemblence to a Tiger) or remembering encounters with them much more. Why recall a fight with a Panzer IV when your squadron destroyed it after maybe scoring 2-3 hits and it only took out perhaps 1 or 2 of your tanks? You'd be much more inclined to recall the occasions when you ran into that hulking monster that put 4-5 tanks in the scrapyard before you worked your way around its flank and destroyed it.

These days you'll find that they tend to be much more popular in scale modelling and wargaming circles too.


Maybe I should have worded that to say the Sherman was likely to encounter a Panzer IV or a Panther and if they're unlucky a Tiger. IIRC the Panther was a nasty shock to the Allies as they assumed it was another limited production tank like the Tiger but was a German mainstay vehicle and in the latter part of the war was almost as common as the Panzer IV.

Didn't the Panzer IV outclass the Sherman and had a lower profile?

Didn't the Panzer IV outclass the Sherman and had a lower profile?

Depends on which of each you want to compare. The Panzer IVH and J was probably slightly superior to shermans that mounted a 75mm gun. By the time either German tank was in widespread use however better Shermans were arriving to replace the standard 75mm. I'd say that the 76mm Sherman used by the Americans and the Firefly used by the British was noticeably superior to any Panzer IV.

Either way it was possible, and even not that unlikely that a 75mm Sherman could engage and defeat a Panzer IV on a one-to-one basis. Trying the same on a Panther or Tiger was suicide unless you had a very good combat situation

Depends on which of each you want to compare. The Panzer IVH and J was probably slightly superior to shermans that mounted a 75mm gun. By the time either German tank was in widespread use however better Shermans were arriving to replace the standard 75mm. I'd say that the 76mm Sherman used by the Americans and the Firefly used by the British was noticeably superior to any Panzer IV.

Either way it was possible, and even not that unlikely that a 75mm Sherman could engage and defeat a Panzer IV on a one-to-one basis. Trying the same on a Panther or Tiger was suicide unless you had a very good combat situation

The Firefly of course is better than a Sherman. Good old Anglo American technology there along with the Mustang. A Sherman is better than no tank which was a situation that the Germans found themselves in alot towards the end of the war. On Occasion Shermans did engage German armor on equal terms and win but that was more of an exception than the rule. I also read that something like 80% of German armor lost was due to air power.

On Occasion Shermans did engage German armor on equal terms and win but that was more of an exception than the rule.

I don't think you can draw much conclusions from any such rule given the wide variety of armoured vehicles the Germans used. Some were superior to the Sherman, many were not, the important point for the allies was that being outnumbered or on numerical parity with the Germans was the exception rather than the rule.

I also read that something like 80% of German armor lost was due to air power.

I would be interested to see the maths behind that statistic to be honest, however if true that merely displays the degree that the allies were able to co-ordinate their airpower with their ground forces to achieve the best affect. Whilst it would have been nice to have better tanks its not crucial how you destroy the enemy but the fact that you do.

I don't think you can draw much conclusions from any such rule given the wide variety of armoured vehicles the Germans used. Some were superior to the Sherman, many were not, the important point for the allies was that being outnumbered or on numerical parity with the Germans was the exception rather than the rule.

I would be interested to see the maths behind that statistic to be honest, however if true that merely displays the degree that the allies were able to co-ordinate their airpower with their ground forces to achieve the best affect. Whilst it would have been nice to have better tanks its not crucial how you destroy the enemy but the fact that you do.


ALot of allied Sherman crews died though because they had inferior tanks. 80% knocked out due to air power may have been high (ie my memory is faulty) but the fact a plane knocks out a German tank is cold confort to the poor bastard getting nailed in a Sherman. There are at least 2 instances I've read about where the Germans have knocked out Allied armor at extreme range of 4000 metres and the best I knowof is a Nashorn that got a tank at 4600 metres.

And the fact that the Germans had superior armour would have been little comfort to the tank crews killed when the tank they were in took a rocket up the backside, or when the "inferior" enemy tanks overan their position and put them out of action through sheer numbers.

War is hell.

As for the Nashorn they would be highly unusual circumstances, you would rarely find a situation in NW Europe where a tank could target an enemy at that range, let alone hit and destroy it.

As for the Nashorn they would be highly unusual circumstances, you would rarely find a situation in NW Europe where a tank could target an enemy at that range, let alone hit and destroy it.

Nahorn.. but now we're talking about tank destroyers again, not tanks. The Nashorn didn't have a traversable turrent.

That tended to be a common feature of most tank destroyers, but especially German ones.

Alot of the tank destroyers had the same weapons used in Panthers, Tigers, etc. They still count as armor even though technically they're not a tank. I'm not saying Shermans are complete crap or useless but as a general rule German tanks were better.

Another design restriction of the Sherman was height and width restrictions for American rail tracks from the midwest to the coasts. The brass was not unaware that the tank was underpowered, but they did the job and otherwise avoided having to replace or modify infastructure across the country.

Another design restriction of the Sherman was height and width restrictions for American rail tracks from the midwest to the coasts. The brass was not unaware that the tank was underpowered, but they did the job and otherwise avoided having to replace or modify infastructure across the country.

Was it Patton who claimed it was the best tank in the world though and then they encountered the German kitties in Normandy.

I think the comparison between the Sherman and its variants and late-war German medium and heavy tanks is prone to go out of context. After all, a battlefield does not consist of an array of one-on-one shootout.

Anyway ......

Among the design restrictions imposed on the Sherman is its narrow tracks. It had to be able to roll off landing crafts. The use of gasoline engine was problematic if it catches fire.

Much more than tanks themselves, the thing that turned the ground campaigns unfavorably for the Germans was the disparity of mobility. While all of the Allied ground units were motorized, only a small fraction (I think it was somewhere around 20%) of the German units were. Not to mention that the Allies enjoyed absolute air superiority, and the Americans in particular enjoyed superior fire supports from their artillery units. Finally, chronic fuel shortage suffered by Germany did not help.

Was it Patton who claimed it was the best tank in the world though and then they encountered the German kitties in Normandy.

Eisenhower actually requested a more beefy tank but was rejected for the previously mentioned reasons. He was the politician commander, Patton was the front line commander.

As for the Patton quote, I surmise there are a variety of reasons for it. The tank served him well in Africa and Italy due to its size and ability to go where larger tanks couldn't. The "cramped" landscapes of Western Europe were ideal for a smaller tank such as the Sherman to perform in as well. Other than that, Patton was not a man to encourage complaning in his ranks for obvious reasons.

Certainly, in a tank vs tank encounter, we'd all rather be in a Panther, but thats not the type of combat the Sherman was put in for the most part. It was just one more peg in the combined arms cog of the US military and it did that job extremely well. I assume things may have turned out differently if the US had been operating on the Russian plains though.

Eisenhower actually requested a more beefy tank but was rejected for the previously mentioned reasons. He was the politician commander, Patton was the front line commander.

As for the Patton quote, I surmise there are a variety of reasons for it. The tank served him well in Africa and Italy due to its size and ability to go where larger tanks couldn't. The "cramped" landscapes of Western Europe were ideal for a smaller tank such as the Sherman to perform in as well. Other than that, Patton was not a man to encourage complaning in his ranks for obvious reasons.

Certainly, in a tank vs tank encounter, we'd all rather be in a Panther, but thats not the type of combat the Sherman was put in for the most part. It was just one more peg in the combined arms cog of the US military and it did that job extremely well. I assume things may have turned out differently if the US had been operating on the Russian plains though.

the total inferiority of italian tanks to most allied tanks probably helped the sherman do so well in north africa

the total inferiority of italian tanks to most allied tanks probably helped the sherman do so well in north africa

The German armor for the most part was also 2nd rate. Only a few Tigers made it there as most were sent tothe Eastern fornt and no Panthers. Shermans not to bad vs Panzer III.

The German armor for the most part was also 2nd rate. Only a few Tigers made it there as most were sent tothe Eastern fornt and no Panthers. Shermans not to bad vs Panzer III.

In my opinion German armour was only "second rate" by the standards of later armour. By the standards of what was available before the campaign ended the armour used in the desert did not significantly lag behind the eastern front. The armour used in the desert has to be put into the context of the time frame the desert war was fought in. No panthers were sent for example because the tank didn't debut at the front until something like 6 weeks after the fall of Tunisia. On the other hand the two best armed tanks to that date (May 1943), the Tiger and Panzer IVF2/IVG were both deployed in the desert war, as were upgunned Panzer IIIs, which was a pretty common tank in 1943. The number of Tigers eventually deployed in Tunisia (around 30 or so I believe) may seem slight, but consider that this represents about 15% of entire production to that point, and the deployment of one and a half batallations of Tigers at a time when there was only 5 available. Considering the relatively small size of forces engaged in the Desert this gives an indication that it wasn't a side show for clapped out armour and Italians.