the M4A3 Sherman

[FriendlyFire]

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.

 

[Swedishguy]

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.

 

[Zardnaar]

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.

 

[privatehudson]

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.

 

[JohnRM]

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.

 

[Zardnaar]

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.

 

[mr_lewington]

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

 

[Vietcong]

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.

 

[sabo]

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.

 

[mr_lewington]

but werent the m10's even more lightly armoured?

 

[sabo]

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?

 

[Zardnaar]

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.

 

[Dubai Vol]

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.

 

[Zardnaar]

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.

 

[privatehudson]

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.

 

[Zardnaar]

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?

 

[privatehudson]

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

 

[Zardnaar]

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.

 

[privatehudson]

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.

 

[Zardnaar]

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.