The Sherman Tank what an amazing vehicle!!

Discussion in 'Weapons, Technology & Equipment' started by kfz, Nov 11, 2006.

  1. sapper

    sapper WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran

    Highly inflamable!
    The terrible thing about the Sherman was that the Tiger could knock it out at long range, before the Sherman could get within an effective range for its gun.YUK.
    Sapper
     
  2. lancesergeant

    lancesergeant Senior Member

    statistis eh?

    I think the official figure is 6 shermans to a Tiger, But then it was 9 T34's to a tiger and a tiger is clearly not worth 9 T34's so it shows that figure for what it is.

    I didint think the twin cadalic engines where ver put inthe sherman. I t was tried in the Grant and found not up to scratch. The best motors where supposed the Wright radial and the ford. But then the tank had a choise of a lot of engines and thats my point.

    Kev
    I standed corrected kfz. I think it was two chryslers linked together -that's if the blurb at the Land Warfare building at Duxford is correct. They have an engine in the entrance, before you go down the stairs.

    They also talk volumes about the T34, but at Prokorovka, the T34's got in among the German tanks so that they couldn't use their main armament effectively.
     
  3. Owen

    Owen -- --- -.. MOD

    Going back to percentage losses of Armoured units, I asked Gerry Chester about the NIH's total tank losses. I know they are for a Churchill unit but here is his PM. He's back in Bali, by the way.
    As far a Churchills go, total losses in Africa and Italy (although I am still compling data on the latter)approximate something less than 100% of inventories. I have a page in the works with specific details for the North Irish Horse. Although stats for Italy are still to be done, checking 8th Army Tank States indicate the other five Churchill units had a similar loss ratio to that of the NIH.
    Here is info on Africa:
    http://www.northirishhorse.org/nih/A...anceSheet.html
    Please note as my site is still in the updating process the links to other Artciles are not yet open.

    The regiment's full quota was 60, with the three fighting squadrons having 18 each - most times at full strength when going into a major battle.
     
  4. Kyt

    Kyt Very Senior Member

    Look up this book at Amazon.com (you can browse the first few pages) and read some of the reviews. You may find it interesting'

    http://www.amazon.com/Death-Traps-Survival-American-Division/dp/0891418148/sr=11-1/qid=1163697734/ref=sr_11_1/102-5130764-9400922

    "Death Traps: The Survival of an American Armored Division in World War II" by Belton Y. Cooper
    • Mass Market Paperback: 384 pages
    • Publisher: Presidio Press (April 29, 2003)
    • Language: English
    • ISBN: 0891418148
    The publishers blurb reads (but make sure you read the reviews):

    "Without a doubt, this is one of the finest WWII memoirs ever written by an American junior officer. Lieutenant Cooper served with the 3rd Armored Division's Maintenance Battalion and saw action from Normandy to Germany in 1944-1945. One of the army's two heavy armored divisions, the 3rd lost 648 M4 Shermans and had another 700 tanks damaged, repaired and put back in service by the time the shooting ended in May 1945. Cooper, as one of the division's three ordnance liaison officers, was in the midst of the division's tank recovery operations. He writes about the tenacity of the maintenance mechanics and their ability to improvise and devise their own policies. Cooper is unsparing in his criticism of George S. Patton and other generals whose belief in mobility over heavy armor kept the Sherman medium tank as the standard. American tank crews quickly learned that these "death traps" were no match for heavier German tanks such as the Panther and King Tiger. Cooper describes the difficult maneuvering in the hedgerow country, the confusion of the Battle of the Bulge, the liberation of Nordhausen concentration camp and the destruction of an entire column of tanks and other vehicles. Cooper demonstrates convincingly that it was the unheralded work of the maintenance section that allowed the 3rd Armored Division to maintain its combat effectiveness. This detailed story will become a classic of WWII history and required reading for anyone interested in armored warfare."
     
  5. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    Same book/quote Owen referred to in post 28.

    I don't believe anyone would, or has here, truly seen the Sherman as a direct 'top trumps' match to the Pz.V or VIb, the more subtle point here is that it was remarkable that so much was achieved from such an unpromising beginning on paper. Full on though those German designs are, they didn't have anywhere near the appropriateness to a massed conflict that the M4 displayed (even if it took five Shermans to take on a Tiger I wonder what each side of that combat cost in overall 'war effort'? Considerably more expensive to the germans I'd guess.) What men like Cooper saw every day was the shot up remnants of the days combat, that's bound to put something of a slant on his perceptions, maintenence crews on the German side recieved knights crosses for doing the same amazing job in returning tanks to the line, destruction cuts both ways.

    On statistics,
    I'm a little hesitant to include the Churchill's replacement stats as it was such a resilient and tough tank. So much so that it could seriously distort such statistics if entered into the allied figures as a whole. There is one remarkable feature of the Churchill that would probably prove far more interesting than losses of vehicles, it had an exceptionally high survival rate amongst the men inside it, even if the tank was destroyed. In a production/attrition conflict this human survival rate would be a far more interesting area... (still digging for that info.)
    Having said that it is possible that the big boxes like the koenigstiger might get better stats on this as so many of it's crews had to destroy the thing themselves from a nice safe distance after a mechanical breakdown or running out of fuel ;).

    As an aside, Stuart Hill's 'By tank into Normandy' is an excellent and honest insight into life for the crew of an allied Sherman, at no point is he really over-concerned at the deficiencies of his vehicle, more appalled at the war in General and impressed by the bravery of his padre. (Sherman booklist anyone?)
     
  6. Kyt

    Kyt Very Senior Member

    Same book/quote Owen referred to in post 28.


    You're right VP - should have left the blurb out. I just wanted to highlight the book again (forgot to cross-reference it with the previous posting) because the reviews make interesting reading too.

    I hang my head in shame :blush:
     
  7. Owen

    Owen -- --- -.. MOD

    When the Americans first tested the atom bomb, what was the first vehicle at ground zero?....yup a Sherman.
     
  8. BulgarianSoldier

    BulgarianSoldier Senior Member

    I was woundering what do you all think about M10 tank destroyer ?
    [​IMG]
     
  9. Owen

    Owen -- --- -.. MOD

    Attached Files:

  10. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    TD's tend to get quite a slagging as people blindly work from the paper 'stats' to form an opinion, David Fletcher refers to them as SP-AT guns instead, seems a much more useful term to me than TD, their primary role was to get the AT guns up alongside the Infantry in a way that couldn't be achieved with conventional wheeled/towed carriages at less expense than a fully armoured tank.
    I agree with Owen that an Achilles seems far more reassuring than a Wolverine, beautiful Achilles comes to Beltring every year. Where's that memorial owen? It wasn't found in that state was it? :mellow:

    Edit: Just saved it for a 'name that vehicle' with mates, I see it's Moerbrugge, and if it was found in that state then some laws of physics may have been slightly distorted;)
     
  11. BulgarianSoldier

    BulgarianSoldier Senior Member

    I like the shape of the tank and hes fast tank.Its not big and its easy to drive it into the citys but this tank can't beat even a panther i mean the front armor of the panther.So the US tank army used a simple strategy.One sherman trik the panther and when the panther is aiming the sherman M10 tank destroyer go fast and hit the rear armor of the panther.

    Ah i almost forget M10 is open and the crew can be easy killed...
    And the tank dont have 30 cal. so its easy to be captured and destroyed.
     
  12. Owen

    Owen -- --- -.. MOD

    The M10 at Moerbrugge, the Memorial to SAR's, is modern er.....art.
    The M10 was not meant to be fought as a tank but as VP says an armoured, mobile platform for a AT gun. More mobile and better protected than a towed AT gun. It is not a "tank" as such.
     
  13. Za Rodinu

    Za Rodinu Hot air manufacturer

    ... but at Prokorovka, the T34's got in among the German tanks so that they couldn't use their main armament effectively.

    Hmm, this belongs in another thread but then certainly that explains the loss rate of 300 Sov tanks / 25 Pzs at Prokhorovka, otherwise it would be 300 Sovs / nil ;)

    LS, are you sure you have the most accurate and up to date sources?

    [​IMG]


    This kind of hand to hand combat did not occur in Prokhorovka! More bovine excrement here!

    http://www.isidore-of-seville.com/viewer/viewer.html?http://www.angelfire.com/nm/duga/duga.htmluxfiathttp://www.angelfire.com/nm/duga/prokh02.jpgluxfiat650luxfiat660
     
  14. Za Rodinu

    Za Rodinu Hot air manufacturer

    Sherman isnt good tank 50mm armor dont forget that the Tiger have 100mm this outdone even the time now T-55 is 100mm armor and 120mm and T-72 120 mm you see Tiger can compere to the tanks now.Sherman M51 is far more beter tank.Germans had the best tanks in the whole war there were biger,beter and more perfect.

    Bulgy, you have to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges, not walnuts to avocados.

    A Tiger weighs 57 tons and a Sherman some 32 tons so it can't be a surprise to anyone that the Tiger's armour is thicker, or can it? If you want anything in the same weight class of the Tiger you can pick the M-26 for instance, and even then the Americans were doing a damn great heavy tank that was 15 tons lighter than the Tiger, more on the Panther weight class.

    So what is the practical consequence of this? Again as I recently said elsewhere in this Forum, Goebbels was the most competent guy in the III Reich, his illusions still at work today. How many Tigers could you have available for the entire 3 fronts on a certain day? Total Tiger production was on the 1350 region, take or add a few depending on sources. Tigers were in the main organized in independent heavy tank battalions, of which there were thirteen in toto, used as fire brigades. Not wishing to go into detail on average strength per battallion, we can safely state that on a given day you would have only a few hundred Tigers over the three fronts. We can therefore conclude that Tigers were rather thin on the ground, the likelyhood of meeting a Tiger was rather weak really.

    What mattered were the numbers of Pz IVs, StuGs, Hetzers, Panthers on a good day, etc. These are the ones you have to compare the Sherman to, not the Tiger bugaboo.

    And please don't come up with that phantasy of comparing the Tiger with tanks today. Even against your T-55 the Tiger would be in severe trouble as the T-55 armour is much thicker than the Tiger - remember it is heavily inclined whereas the Tiger is a barndoor - and the 100mm gun was a heck of a piece for it's time, and all this at 37 tons, a bit over a Pz IV H. For tanks later than that, please don't even mention it.

    But of course the T-55 was proudly made in the USSR using all the lessons from the Great Patriotic War, whereas the Tiger was something done 10 years earlier, the main requirements being a thick armour box with an 88mm FlaK on top to defeat the trouser sh1tting scare the T-34s and KVs caused.:point:

    Za Rodinu!
    [​IMG]
     
  15. Za Rodinu

    Za Rodinu Hot air manufacturer

    I like the shape of the tank and hes fast tank.Its not big and its easy to drive it into the citys but this tank can't beat even a panther i mean the front armor of the panther.So the US tank army used a simple strategy.One sherman trik the panther and when the panther is aiming the sherman M10 tank destroyer go fast and hit the rear armor of the panther.

    Holy cow, it seems I'm picking on you, doesn't it? :)

    First of all, an M-10 is not a tank, it's a tank destroyer. And if you want to see a rally fast tank destroyer you look at the M-18.

    As for the antics you mention, perhaps it would be better if you tried to read something proper, I'd recommend Seek, Strike, and Destroy: U.S. Army Tank Destroyer Doctrine in World War II
     
  16. BulgarianSoldier

    BulgarianSoldier Senior Member

    За родину due to all my unbalivable respect to you i may say only a few things.I know that M-10 is tank destroyer you could check my posts.I know that M-26 Pershing is good and big but count how much of those were on the frontline.T-55 is nice tank but is really easy to be destroyed its big and its not really fast i know enough of this tank because i drive it.I see that i made TERIBLE (for you) mistake that i compere tiger with the sherman.And where i say that i want to see really fast tankdestroyer?

    PS:Please read my next words.As i read your posts i really start to think that you though that the tanks aren't controled by no one.The crew is MORE importand then the armor of the tank and the information you see in the internet.Ah and one more think yes i respect you i really respect people who ...how to say maybe like the soviet union (hope you understand it) but this doesn't give you the rights to tell me what i should like even my girlfriend cant control me.Maybe most of the people here already undrestand that im a little bit crazy character.

    Dany
     
  17. Za Rodinu

    Za Rodinu Hot air manufacturer

    Bulgy, please do not take offense at my words, I mean no disrespect for you, I was only pointing the many loose ends in your recent posts. I think it is benefical having somebody pointing out your mistakes, it's all part of the learning process.

    This is off-topic, but the T-55 at its time was a very very good tank that sent shivers down the spine of NATO planners and commanders. Of course 50 years later it does not look so good.

    As for the human factor, we can measure say tank front armour thickness and note its angle, or we can measure muzzle velocity, whatever. Measuring out crew proficiency, experience, esprit de corps, etc. is a different matter, it's something much more difficult, shrouded for ever in a mist of speculation.
     
  18. BulgarianSoldier

    BulgarianSoldier Senior Member

    Bulgy, please do not take offense at my words, I mean no disrespect for you, I was only pointing the many loose ends in your recent posts. I think it is benefical having somebody pointing out your mistakes, it's all part of the learning process.

    This is off-topic, but the T-55 at its time was a very very good tank that sent shivers down the spine of NATO planners and commanders. Of course 50 years later it does not look so good.

    As for the human factor, we can measure say tank front armour thickness and note its angle, or we can measure muzzle velocity, whatever. Measuring out crew proficiency, experience, esprit de corps, etc. is a different matter, it's something much more difficult, shrouded for ever in a mist of speculation.
    You didnt offend me.I say it befor its not the tank its the crew that metter.As you say befor 50 years T-55 was unbalivable but now.... let the photos speak better then me: In fact im a bit sad when i see those [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  19. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    Just as an aside,
    A post on another forum got me thinking about the oft-cited excessive height of the Sherman.. Is it really excessively high?
    A quick trawl of the web (tried to use the better sites but forgive me for errors) gave me these rough figures for AFV height:

    M4 sherman - 274cm
    Pz. IV - 268cm
    Tiger - 300cm
    Pz.III - 233cm
    Panther - 299cm
    Pershing - 277cm
    Cromwell - 249cm
    Comet - 267cm
    Churchill - 350cm (?) *edit* 250CM.. now that I could be arsed to check.

    Excessive? seems not. Top heavy? not that I've read of.
    Cheers,
    Adam.
    Further Edit: 'Spin off thread from Kyt Here.
     
  20. Kyt

    Kyt Very Senior Member

    Just as an aside,
    A post on another forum got me thinking about the oft-cited excessive height of the Sherman.. Is it really excessively high?
    A quick trawl of the web (tried to use the better sites but forgive me for errors) gave me these rough figures for AFV height:

    M4 sherman - 274cm
    Pz. IV - 268cm
    Tiger - 300cm
    Pz.III - 233cm
    Panther - 299cm
    Pershing - 277cm
    Cromwell - 249cm
    Comet - 267cm
    Churchill - 350cm (?)

    Excessive? seems not. Top heavy? not that I've read of.
    Cheers,
    Adam.

    The Churchill certainly is head shoulders above the rest (sorry for the cheesy graph, but I had to visualise VP's numbers)
     

    Attached Files:

Share This Page