The Underappreciated, Adaptable M4 Sherman

4,272 Views | 32 Replies | Last: 4 yr ago by CanyonAg77
UTExan
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:09p, 1/3/21
The M-4 Sherman was a typical engineering tradeoff of available technology during WW2. But it was also much easier to maintain than peer tanks, being more reliable and flexible enough for a variety of upgrades, suspension systems, engines and armament. One was produced every 30 minutes at the height of its production and as the Israeli Isherman variable, was able to hold its own with Soviet T-54/55 tanks during the Arab-Israeli wars. Paraguay retired the last Sherman in 2018, marking almost 80 years of duty.

“If you’re going to have crime it should at least be organized crime”
-Havelock Vetinari
Reply Quote
4
2 edits
Ag_of_08
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:07a, 1/7/21
AG
The sherman is probably the most maligned tank in history. They aren't perfect, but they filled the role that really needed to be filled, and could be produced in numbers that made deficiencies irrelevant.

Some comparative numbers I dug up before Christmas:

Roughly 58000 Russian T34s
Roughly 50000 Shermans
The allies would build ~270,000 tanks and self propelled guns.

1500 German Tigers
6500 Panthers
Germany would build ~ 76000 armored vehicles and SPGs

Not always about being the best, if you overwhelm the enemy
Reply Quote
4
1 edit
thach
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:16p, 1/7/21
AG
I ran across this about a week ago, and in it, titan's co-author details American, Soviet, and Nazi tank design philosophy and production. It's mind-boggling (at least to someone who really doesn't study armor.

I've skipped ahead to the tank production stuff (so I can't imbed it), but the first ~26 minutes by Robert Citino aren't bad, either.

Kursk: The Epic Armored Engagement (2013)
Reply Quote
1
UTExan
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:40p, 1/10/21
One thing that should be remembered about the T34 is its problematic transmission and the track system. The final versions of the M4 in US service did not have the less flammable Diesel engine on the T34, but they were certainly reliable and maintainable as a class of vehicles. I read one piece about the Chileans using them into the late 1980s equipped with an Israeli made 60 mm high velocity gun.
“If you’re going to have crime it should at least be organized crime”
-Havelock Vetinari
Reply Quote
JABQ04
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:45p, 1/10/21
AG
Sherman Firefly!
Reply Quote
Ag_of_08
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to UTExan • 8:57a, 1/12/21
AG
UTExan said:
One thing that should be remembered about the T34 is its problematic transmission and the track system. The final versions of the M4 in US service did not have the less flammable Diesel engine on the T34, but they were certainly reliable and maintainable as a class of vehicles. I read one piece about the Chileans using them into the late 1980s equipped with an Israeli made 60 mm high velocity gun.



Didn't they find operational ones in Iraq, or at least stuff that they had attempted to get operational? The last place they saw action I've found was Lebanon/Yugoslavia uo into the 90s at least. I bet there are some still serviceable

*esit* if the Wikipedia article is correct, chile retired the Israeli built "super sherman" in 1999 for the Leopard. Sounds like the chassis are being used as SPGs and tow vehicles.
Reply Quote
1
3 edits
HollywoodBQ
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to JABQ04 • 1:15p, 1/12/21
AG
JABQ04 said:
Sherman Firefly!
Reply Quote
2
Smeghead4761
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ag_of_08 • 7:36p, 1/12/21
Ag_of_08 said:
UTExan said:
One thing that should be remembered about the T34 is its problematic transmission and the track system. The final versions of the M4 in US service did not have the less flammable Diesel engine on the T34, but they were certainly reliable and maintainable as a class of vehicles. I read one piece about the Chileans using them into the late 1980s equipped with an Israeli made 60 mm high velocity gun.



Didn't they find operational ones in Iraq, or at least stuff that they had attempted to get operational? The last place they saw action I've found was Lebanon/Yugoslavia uo into the 90s at least. I bet there are some still serviceable

*esit* if the Wikipedia article is correct, chile retired the Israeli built "super sherman" in 1999 for the Leopard. Sounds like the chassis are being used as SPGs and tow vehicles.

The Serbs were still using T-34s in the post-Yugo nastiness in the 1990s. 1st Armored Division brought one back and parked it in front of their HQ in Germany.
Reply Quote
2
Smeghead4761
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to thach • 7:42p, 1/12/21
thach said:
I ran across this about a week ago, and in it, titan's co-author details American, Soviet, and Nazi tank design philosophy and production. It's mind-boggling (at least to someone who really doesn't study armor.

I've skipped ahead to the tank production stuff (so I can't imbed it), but the first ~26 minutes by Robert Citino aren't bad, either.

Kursk: The Epic Armored Engagement (2013)
Citino was an applicant for a faculty position at A&M back in 2013 when I was finishing up my master's. Pretty much all of the grad students doing military history wanted him. Faculty search committee felt otherwise.

His book The Quest for Decisive Victory is a great book. It really brought out how badly European military leaders misread the lessons of the ground campaigns of the Russo-Japanese war and the Balkan Wars of the early 20th century.
Reply Quote
1
Madman
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:16a, 1/25/21
AG
I want to call the Sherman a pc of ***** I don't anymore after learning why we had to choose the Sherman.

Long story short, the men in charge of US tank selection had to choose

  • A tank that was ready
  • Was repairable far from home
  • And this is the big one, could be loaded onto and into a Liberty Ship using its small crane and small loading port.

We had already selected the Liberty and the ship had it's own shortcomings. That was the thing that tied their hands the most. The Sherman was light enough for the crane and tall/skinny enough to be loaded and shipped on a Liberty.

The first time I heard any of this was on Tank Chats with the Chieftain. But then other sources later.

He goes into how the Germans repaired tanks. They put it on a train and sent it back to the factory if possible. That was never going to be an option for us.

Even though the Sherman got the Job done I think I would have rather been in a submarine than in a Sherman.
Reply Quote
2
Post removed:
by user
12:53p, 1/25/21
Smeghead4761
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Madman • 7:46p, 1/25/21
Madman said:
I want to call the Sherman a pc of ***** I don't anymore after learning why we had to choose the Sherman.

Long story short, the men in charge of US tank selection had to choose

  • A tank that was ready
  • Was repairable far from home
  • And this is the big one, could be loaded onto and into a Liberty Ship using its small crane and small loading port.

We had already selected the Liberty and the ship had it's own shortcomings. That was the thing that tied their hands the most. The Sherman was light enough for the crane and tall/skinny enough to be loaded and shipped on a Liberty.

The first time I heard any of this was on Tank Chats with the Chieftain. But then other sources later.

He goes into how the Germans repaired tanks. They put it on a train and sent it back to the factory if possible. That was never going to be an option for us.

Even though the Sherman got the Job done I think I would have rather been in a submarine than in a Sherman.
A couple of other items to consider when evaluating the Sherman:

- American doctrine when the Sherman was introduced did not call for the Sherman's primary role to be fighting other tanks. That was the job of TDs and anti-tank guns, according to then current doctrine.

- When the Sherman made it's combat debut in late 1942 in North Africa, it was superior to the German and Italian tanks it faced. Thus, little pressure initially to field a more powerful tank.

- The Panthers and Tigers didn't start reaching the front lines until 1943 - 2 years after the Germans first encountered the T-34 and KV-1. Two years after meeting those German tanks, the Allies were in Berlin. (And the Americans and British didn't really encounter the Panther or Tiger in really large numbers until after D-Day. Italy was so terrain restricted - favoring the defender - that it's tough to give a fair evaluation of any tank used there.)
Reply Quote
3
JABQ04
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Smeghead4761 • 8:49p, 1/25/21
AG
From other sources I've read American tankers tended to have "Tiger Fever" where every tank they saw was a Tiger, when it was really a MK IV or III.
Reply Quote
1
BQ08
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:58p, 1/27/21
AG
One of the most overlooked aspects of the Sherman was its survivability- particularly after the introduction of the wet ammo storage racks.
Reply Quote
1
Madman
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BQ08 • 8:59p, 1/27/21
AG
BQ08 said:
One of the most overlooked aspects of the Sherman was its survivability- particularly after the introduction of the wet ammo storage racks.

Really?

There is a documentary out there centered around a WWII Sherman tank mechanic. He showed how the tanks that he was responsible for had some incredible rate of destruction. Something like the entire number of tanks he was responsible for were either destroyed outright, or damaged so severely they required major refit 2.5 times from D Day to VE day. With very few of the tank crews making it through the war.

He described how the tanks would come back full of blood and small remains. He would patch the tank up, give it to a new crew. Repeat.
Reply Quote
6
USAFAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:47p, 1/28/21
AG
Read "Death Traps" by Belton Cooper. Not so much for his opinions on policy or decisions he probably had no real knowledge of, but for the first hand accounts of the day to day destruction wrought on these tanks and their crews.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_Traps


12thFan/Websider Since 2003
Reply Quote
1
BQ08
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Madman • 9:38p, 1/28/21
AG
Madman said:
BQ08 said:
One of the most overlooked aspects of the Sherman was its survivability- particularly after the introduction of the wet ammo storage racks.

Really?

There is a documentary out there centered around a WWII Sherman tank mechanic. He showed how the tanks that he was responsible for had some incredible rate of destruction. Something like the entire number of tanks he was responsible for were either destroyed outright, or damaged so severely they required major refit 2.5 times from D Day to VE day. With very few of the tank crews making it through the war.

He described how the tanks would come back full of blood and small remains. He would patch the tank up, give it to a new crew. Repeat.


Really. Like I said, after the intro of wet storage, appliqu armor, and spring loaded hatches, they were one of the most survivable vehicles in the ETO, along with the Churchill.

Watch this and see what I mean:



And if you're talking about Death Traps by Belton Cooper, that's been debunked multiple times. Makes for a good story, but it's been debunked, and Cooper had a major axe to grind.

Reply Quote
1
2 edits
AgBQ-00
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:25a, 1/29/21
AG
I've always understood survivability in terms of armored units to refer to the vehicle not the crew. In other word if the vehicle can be repaired and put back into service it survived. Wash out the previous crew and get the tank/apc rolling again.
God loves you so much He'll meet you where you are. He also loves you too much to allow to stay where you are.

We sing Hallelujah! The Lamb has overcome!
Reply Quote
BQ08
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AgBQ-00 • 12:16p, 1/29/21
AG
AgBQ-00 said:
I've always understood survivability in terms of armored units to refer to the vehicle not the crew. In other word if the vehicle can be repaired and put back into service it survived. Wash out the previous crew and get the tank/apc rolling again.


As an armor guy, survivability most definitely applies to the crew. Metal can be easily replaced- a trained tanker is a little harder.
Reply Quote
AgBQ-00
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BQ08 • 3:35p, 1/29/21
AG
Good to know. My brother who was a gunner on a Bradley in desert storm era said his training mentioned survivability being vehicle focused. I vividly remember it because I was young when I heard him talking about it. Perhaps the focus has changed a bit
God loves you so much He'll meet you where you are. He also loves you too much to allow to stay where you are.

We sing Hallelujah! The Lamb has overcome!
Reply Quote
BrazosBendHorn
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:42a, 1/30/21
on a related note -

Last night I finally got around to watching Fury. Quite an entertaining film with a terrific ensemble performance. Kind of reminds me of Das Boot (the two films would make for a good double-feature). Brad PItt's performance is pretty much the same as in Inglorious Basterds and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, and that's OK because he's fun to watch ...

In any case, I came away from watching that film with a load of respect for the guys who manned those tanks ...
Reply Quote
2
BQ08
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BrazosBendHorn • 9:36a, 1/30/21
AG
BrazosBendHorn said:
on a related note -

Last night I finally got around to watching Fury. Quite an entertaining film with a terrific ensemble performance. Kind of reminds me of Das Boot (the two films would make for a good double-feature). Brad PItt's performance is pretty much the same as in Inglorious Basterds and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, and that's OK because he's fun to watch ...

In any case, I came away from watching that film with a load of respect for the guys who manned those tanks ...


I knew when they showed someone pissing in an ammo can in the first 5 minutes that they consulted real tankers...
Reply Quote
1
BQ78
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BQ08 • 11:33a, 1/30/21
AG
Air Force guys piss in 155 ammo cans, while tankers piss in rimfire 22 cans.
Reply Quote
1
BQ08
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BQ78 • 2:15p, 1/30/21
AG
BQ78 said:
Air Force guys piss in 155 ammo cans, while tankers piss in rimfire 22 cans.


Those 155 cans make it easier to squat, don't they?
Reply Quote
3
BQ78
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BQ08 • 2:37p, 1/30/21
AG
I slept with your mother last night
Reply Quote
2
JABQ04
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:01p, 1/30/21
AG
Since when is the air force in a place to take a piss in anything but porcelain?
Reply Quote
6
BQ08
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BQ78 • 3:42p, 1/30/21
AG
BQ78 said:
I slept with your mother last night


I'm sad we share genes.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
CanyonAg77
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BQ08 • 4:41p, 1/30/21
AG
BQ08 said:
BQ78 said:
I slept with your mother last night
I'm sad we share genes.
Spreadsheet updated
Reply Quote
3
Smeghead4761
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BQ08 • 5:52a, 1/31/21
BQ08 said:
BrazosBendHorn said:
on a related note -

Last night I finally got around to watching Fury. Quite an entertaining film with a terrific ensemble performance. Kind of reminds me of Das Boot (the two films would make for a good double-feature). Brad PItt's performance is pretty much the same as in Inglorious Basterds and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, and that's OK because he's fun to watch ...

In any case, I came away from watching that film with a load of respect for the guys who manned those tanks ...


I knew when they showed someone pissing in an ammo can in the first 5 minutes that they consulted real tankers...

I recall one particularly muddy rotation at Hohenfels, watching a tanker take a dump while hanging from the bustle rack on the side of his M1.

He did not appreciate the suggestion from me (an Infantry LT) that proper minefields should be buried, not surface laid.
Reply Quote
1
The_Waco_Kid
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to JABQ04 • 11:16a, 1/31/21
AG
When they get hazard pay - when the cable goes out, they get a cold meal, they have to sleep on a cot (or even worse, a tent!) and any time they spend more than five minutes with a dogface.
.357 magnum is the only 9mm worth carrying.
Reply Quote
3
USAFAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:10p, 1/31/21
AG
LOL...y'all don't let your poor choice of service eat you up too much.....

12thFan/Websider Since 2003
Reply Quote
1
MouthBQ98
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:35p, 2/2/21
AG
Sherman's were reliable, easy to repair, easy to fight from regarding crew ergonomics, and actually had a reasonably decent amount of sloped armor for its time. It's gun was not exceptional for anti armor work but could be adequate at normal engagement range and had a good HE ammunition.

I believe post war studies showed tankers had about a 2-3% casualty rate in combat while front line infantry was about something like 15%. The allies needed a tank that could operate away from support and stay in operation and do everything adequately well, and sustain offensive operations. The Sherman did that.
Reply Quote
6
BQ_90
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to MouthBQ98 • 3:35p, 2/2/21
AG
MouthBQ98 said:
Sherman's were reliable, easy to repair, easy to fight from regarding crew ergonomics, and actually had a reasonably decent amount of sloped armor for its time. It's gun was not exceptional for anti armor work but could be adequate at normal engagement range and had a good HE ammunition.

I believe post war studies showed tankers had about a 2-3% casualty rate in combat while front line infantry was about something like 15%. The allies needed a tank that could operate away from support and stay in operation and do everything adequately well, and sustain offensive operations. The Sherman did that.
also had to operate in several different environmental conditions from jungle to desert to snow
Reply Quote
4
CanyonAg77
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BQ_90 • 5:21p, 2/2/21
AG
Also operated in an atomic blast. A modified (lead shielded) Sherman was sent into the Trinity crater soon after the test to collect samples
Reply Quote
2
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.