the M4A3 Sherman

mr_lewington

mr_lewington

King
Joined
Sep 4, 2007
Messages
627
Location
Canada
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
 
mr_lewington said:
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?
Click to expand...

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!
 
mr_lewington said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Esckey said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
 
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.
 
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
 
Adler17 said:
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
Click to expand...

yea well you

Moderator Action: Flaming and deleted.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

F
Civ VII Units
Replies
2
Views
529
faber_avgust
F
Methos
A Strategy For Harriet Tubman
Replies
12
Views
2K
JaeChunDaeSung
JaeChunDaeSung
V
Fireside chat with Andrew Frederiksen
2 3
Replies
47
Views
2K
Verified_Confection_Being
V
Fergei
[C3C] Late game tech rate confusion
Replies
11
Views
667
Fergei
Fergei
T
influence and other feedback.
Replies
1
Views
193
Krikkit1
K
Back
Top Bottom