The Sherman Tank what an amazing vehicle!!

The same could be said of my 1973 Pontiac Astre. Where would I have been without it? Cheap transportation for a teenager, to and from school for 4 years.
But, having said that, it was really a nondescript vehicle and just about any other model would have done as well. It suited my purposes at the time and it was readily available, but that, in and of itself, does not confer any particular greatness.

Hello,

I'd suggest that a better analogy might be with a Toyota Camry or Honda Accord. Perfect in the tasks they were designed to do, reliable, adaptable, comfortable and the best around.

Dave

 

The greatest composer of the Baroque was Johannes Kepler.

There you are. It's the truth because I said so, no justification needed.

Za it could not go toe to toe with the Panther and Tiger tanks. There is nothing new I can add as all the facts have been presented here already. I was shocked it performed ok in Korea against the T-34. I think ammunition improvements had alot to do with that, however, I have not looked into it that much.

 

Von Poop Zaloga loves everything that is American. I have some of his books. There is not a more pro American out there as far as military affairs are concerned.

 

Von Poop Zaloga loves everything that is American. I have some of his books. There is not a more pro American out there as far as military affairs are concerned.

Zaloga cut his teeth as a 'Soviet' armour expert but he (wisely) decided he could no longer compete with the growing number of home-grown experts that were emerging.
The 'trouble' some have with Zaloga is he refuses to bow to the the uber-panzer myth and this upsets a few that are still wedded to the slanted post war stranglehold that the German Generals had on WW2.
Thankfully most have moved on since those days.

 

Za it could not go toe to toe with the Panther and Tiger tanks.

By the same argument the Pz II was crap because it couldn't go toe to toe with the Sherman. The Pz V was 50% heavier than the Sherman and that weight had to go somewhere: armour and a loooong gun. If you want to make fair comparisons you have to use tanks of the same tonnage. The comparable German tank would be the Pz IV, L/48 for fairness.

 

the sherman

great at the start, mediocre in the middle and better at the end with the 76mm gun

 

By the same argument the Pz II was crap because it couldn't go toe to toe with the Sherman. The Pz V was 50% heavier than the Sherman and that weight had to go somewhere: armour and a loooong gun. If you want to make fair comparisons you have to use tanks of the same tonnage. The comparable German tank would be the Pz IV, L/48 for fairness.

We can take it a step further and say that Bismark was crap because it couldn't go toe to toe with the Iowa. Technology was advancing pretty fast during WWII.

Dave

 

the sherman

great at the start, mediocre in the middle and better at the end with the 76mm gun
Sums it up pretty decently.

Lousy armament compared to the P-1000 Ratte, but somewhat better mobility

 

That's what I was looking for, degunned M7 Priest self-propelled guns to work as Kangaroos, humorously known as Defrocked Priests (I kid you not)

Thanks Fruitcake!

I was reading in this book this morning:

Amazon.com: Montgomery in Europe, 1943-1945: Success or failure? (9780531097694): Richard Lamb: Books

The author mentions that in Operation Totalize, the Canadians under Simonds used M7 Priests with the main guns removed to carry infantry along with the tanks during the attack.

 

Please excuse me if this topic/statement has occured in an earlier mail/txt, as have not read the total thread due to the volume of replies. Many of the comments are (in my opinion) thoughtful and correct....the Sherman's ease of manufacture, the plentiful numbers and the ready spares to repair in a theatre of war. But has any ex tanker from this conflict commented here? I would like to hear their views;

In fact, I can speak for one, my Father. He is an ex tank man, in Churchills; and from his point of view for survivability, he would not have swapped with the Sherman. Yes the Sherman did some functions that the Churchill could not cope with....namely speed of breakout and attack, and the sheer numbers and availability. Conversely, the Churchill had advantages over the Sherman, namely thicker armour (particularily the mk vii) and ruggedness over terrain. But, as passionate as the members are commenting here over it's good points and flaws, I would leave the last word to ex tankers, as these guys have 'been there,seen it...'

and I know my Father would have had more trepidation and fear having to face German tanks and anti-tank weapons in a Sherman than the Churchill. Basically the previous comment summised the situation.

The lack of application (with exceptions the Firefly and the Comet) to deal with the known defficiences of Allied tanks in comparison to the German ones, meant that the crews were ultimately more expendable.

 

The only problem with the fact that they kept on coming was the human cost - sending out wave after wave of Shermans because they were easily replaceable should actually be translated as the death and injury of wave after wave of young soldiers.

There's a dose of reality injected into the conversation. Thank you. "Wave after wave" of young soldiers who were expensively trained, transported and equipped and then wasted.

The Sherman was a feeble design. Mr. Christie apparently didn't have enough friends or shareholders in the right places.

Why the principle of sloped armour was so difficult for Allied designers to understand I don't know.

The British were hamstrung to some extent by what would fit through their railway tunnels and clearances and obsolete industrial practices like riveting instead of welding. The US had no such excuse.

Slab sided boxes, it's a pity they didn't take some of those designers and bureaucrats out to the field of battle so they could see the results of their incompetence.

If a proper tank was beyond their abilities you'd think they could have at least fielded a simple tank destroyer along the Jadpanther lines, with sloped front armour and an armoured roof over the gun position. No doubt the biggest worry was what arm should operate it: the RAC wanted "proper" tanks with turrets, the RA wanted "proper" guns with trails and limbers and all that.

We won, but not because of our tank designs, so there's no cause for self-congratulation there at all IMO.

 

Why the principle of sloped armour was so difficult for Allied designers to understand I don't know.
...
Slab sided boxes, it's a pity

I must be missing something here. Tiger on the left, Sherman on the right. No, wait...

 

There's a dose of reality injected into the conversation. Thank you. "Wave after wave" of young soldiers who were expensively trained, transported and equipped and then wasted.

OK then let us inject some reality.

What where the Allied losses in tank crews?
How much greater were these losses than German losses?
Can you make a calculation that shows (roughly) the much safer regime that existed for German tanks crews?
Obviously (as you are able to say Allied losses were wasted 'wave after wave') you must have the figures as otherwise you would be making it up.


The Sherman was a feeble design. Mr. Christie apparently didn't have enough friends or shareholders in the right places.

What exactly has the designer of a type of suspension got to do with tank armour?


Why the principle of sloped armour was so difficult for Allied designers to understand I don't know.

The Soviets fielded the T34 in June 1941.
In June 1943 the German answer made its debut.
2 years lead time

In June 1944 the Allied found out about the advantages of sloped armour.
In 1945 the Centurion made its debut.
1 years lead time

 

I must be missing something here. Tiger on the left, Sherman on the right. No, wait...

View attachment 67805 View attachment 67806 View attachment 67808 View attachment 67809

No Sherman I Hybrid, Za? I know that certainly compares well. Ditto Sherman II, probably.

 

You'll have to forgive me if I've mentioned this before, but aficionados of the Sherman might like to know about one of it's shortcomings.

In December 1944, I spent 3 months in Rieti (Italy) training on Shermans and therefore believe I am entitled to make this judgement.

Despite it massive weight, the Sherman could really move, particularly if it was on flat open ground, and occasionally we would be allowed to use some of the roads outside the town to get a bit of speed up.

No problems going up through the gears until you had reached it's max of around 30 mph,the problems started when you tried to slow down.

Say you were batting along a straight road at your maximum speed and were in top gear.

You saw ahead of you a T junction and wanted to slow down to do a right hand turn.

You took your foot off the accelerator and immediately double de-clutched (Accelerator-select gear-accelerator) intending to drop into the next lower gear.

The trouble was that the weight of the monster had caused it now to be much slower than the gear you had just selected and you had to frantically do the whole double de-clutching operation all over again.

By this time you had probably reached the T-Junction and your vehicle had ground to an embarrassing halt

Is there anyone out there who can confirm or add to my comment ?

Ron

 

Thank you Ron for your comments and observations. Like my Father, you guys have been through the 'grist and mill' and so, for me, your comments will carry heavier weight than others texting here (myself included). I wish there were more ex wwii posting comments here, as they add more to the conversation than the ( sorry to say) bits of 'one upmanship or sniping' which detracts badly from the thread and means that voices such as Ron's are often lost in the 'fog' of tit for tat replies. Please refrain.

As far as I know, tank design (and production) had a lower priority than that of Aircraft and Shipping in the U.K, hence designs that at best were on a par with the German models. This is not to detract from the hard work and effort put in at the design and test offices for war production/ Vauxhall motor plant at Luton, but a reflection on reality. As for the U.S, I cannot comment, but would be useful to this discussion if some have links or first hand knowledge in the U.S war department in their design and thoughts on tank design for combat in wwii.

Then again, so far, I can only see a view of the European theatre; was the Sherman as good, if not better than the Japanese tanks? hence a standard production tank....one size fits all.....and mass production made easier.

 

I started my working life as a mechanical engineer (production) as we have already touched on. designers did have great ideas that could have taken the front line fighter aircraft or other weapons to much higher performance. Much mention is made of advances in technology. often this was held back made in prototype or small batch only, Every component of a Spitfire or other weapon had a jig or a fixture for unskilled or semi skilled labour to produce the components in different locations to close tolerances. Major design changes or new aircraft took time to produce from prototype -testing and the many jigs and fixtures, retraining the workforce - time, money and resources judged to be more useful keeping production of acceptable weapons and delivery to the front line. Material specifications had to be tested, a component might be made in prototype from S96 High Tensile steel only to fail in test. The idea is often the easy part, all of the specifications, production design, each jig and fixture has to be designed made and tried before it was made in numbers and sent to other sites. John Isaacs an engineering lecturer would say we were talking of aircraft in 1943 that were not built until post war, as designers we had to concentrate on improving known technology a few more knots from engines and airframes that were being built. 1966 the summer holidays the apprentices always started holidays a couple of days later than the men. we stripped down jigs and fixtures with Air ministry serials and 1940s dates! These few days are imprinted on my mind, shelves of Morris Motors spares mostly pre war, including fuel viewers glass U pipe, flexi pipes, instruments. light bulbs the list goes on - what shall we do with these - the works manager waved a hand and said bin them! We did!


Ron reminds me of a Jock on his driving test AFV432 - the master driver gave the word -stop, The dear old 432 when going flat out made noises that sounded as though she was not a happy machine. Stop! Gdsm M had her attemping a nose stand, the master driver popped out of the cupola laying on the front flotation box area. Tied up in the cable of a No 5 Mic, the Gdsm in the back made intimate contact with each other in a mass of arms and legs, mixed in with the contents of the rear cages which had opened up. The master driver was in the process loudly of suggesting a funeral director for Gdsm M as we viewed the stripped area of tarmac outside Waterloo Barracks on the road up to the railway flats.

 

I must be missing something here. Tiger on the left, Sherman on the right. No, wait...

View attachment 67805 View attachment 67806 View attachment 67808 View attachment 67809


I think he must be referring to the Churchill, Cromwell, and Comet, non of which had any sloping armour, just flat slabs.

 

I think he must be referring to the Churchill, Cromwell, and Comet, non of which had any sloping armour, just flat slabs.

Thanks Bigmal, I was thinking of the Sherman only. What I was trying to show was that the vertical or near-vertical frontal plating is not an (Western) Allied exclusive, it was the Germans used in the Pz III, IV and VI (Tiger), until they were confronted with the T-34 and developed the Pz V (Panther) directly inspired by it. So it was an Allied tank (well, not "an", rather thousands of) which made the Germans think of sloping armour.

Even so the British designed tanks might be vertical plate, but they were not so badly off, with the Cromwell at 110mm thick (with applicqué armour), and the Churchill going to a whopping 152mm (6") with the Mk.VII. Not really sardine can thin.