M4 Sherman Bum Rap

[gecko NZ]

I found these diagrams while researching the Sherman. As you can see from the locations of the ammo storage, there was almost nowhere you could hit the Sherman from the firewall forward that you didnt run the risk of hitting ammunition Storage. The problem was mitigated slightly with the advent of the Wet ammunition storage from the Mid production M4A3 and on which surrounded the ammunition storage tubes in a box filled with Ethelyne Glycol (anti freeze). Before the addition of the wet storage, so called "dry" shermans had one inch thick armor plates welded to the upper hull sides over the areas where the ammo was stored. Front left, front right, and midships right, about even with the rear of the turret basket. There were also ready rounds clipped vertically to the inside of the turret basket, and stored under the floorboards. All Fuel was stored in tanks in the engine compartment. As I have said before, there was more possibility of an ammunition fire in a sherman than there was a fuel fire unless the tank was penetrated in the engine compartment. Most fuel fires in a Sherman were a result of an initial ammunition fire in the fighting compartment.

 

Wayne

 

i should of explained myself alittle better my grandfather always said aslong as the german shells didnt hit anything/anyone on their way through and out the other side you were fine, he said their armour was no match for a german tank and that all he told us, i just found out recently from a family member that the co driver in my grandfathers tank was killed by a round that went through and out the other side so im guessing thats where that came from.

[Jim Baker]

Wayne,

 

Do you have Hunnicutt's Sherman book? You'll never need another. It is the Bible on the Sherman.

[CW4AFB]

Wayne---nice summary ....

and lets not forget that Germans were only half the battle....

 

there were a lot of Shermans on the other side of the world fighting the Japanese...I don't read a lot of literature or hear a lot of discussion from pacific tankers about how they sure wish they had some of those great japanese Chi-Ha tanks...

I guess one size doesn't fit all but the Sherman, for its time and place, comes pretty darn close. I don't think its a coincidence that in one of the few photos I have of my dad in the phillipines he's standing next to a Sherman with a big a smile on his face....

 

 

By WWII Doctrine, Tanks were not meant to combat other tanks. They were meant as infantry support vehicles. Fighting other tanks was, by doctrine, the purview of the Tank Destroyer Corps. Indeed, if you do some research, at least looking into some of the numerous books and references on the Sherman, there was a severe shortage of 76mm APC rounds in tank units as the majority of the Armor piercing ammo went to the Tank Destroyers. I have seen references where a Sherman Crew was lucky to have two rounds of "Hypershot" aboard at any given time. Most 76mm armed Sherman crews would try to barter with the M18 Hellcat crews for Hypershot rounds.

 

As far as reference material goes, I lean towards the more technical references than a book that tells a story and forwards a person's personal opinions. Squadron-Signal's In Action and Walk Around Series, Osprey, Concord and Zenith all put out fairly good references on the Sherman that tend to all support each other in the facts they represent.

 

Something else to take into account as well, is the fact that when we were attacked on 7 Dec, 1941, the technology was just emerging to make better tanks. Tanks were not well received by the pacifist leaning government of the day. At the time, say between 1939 and 1941, just prior to our entry into the war, tanks were looked upon with disdain. In that time period, "tanks" were nothing more than small "combat cars" or lightly armed tanks. The M1, was basically the same hull as the M3 Stuart, with a machinegun armed turret. The M2 and M2A1 introduced the basic running gear that would find its way onto the sherman, but still was only armed with a welded turret mounted 37mm gun and .30 caliber machine guns. When the war began, we were just starting to experiment with mounting larger guns on tracked chassis... the M3 Lee and Grant series tanks wound up with the Casemated 75mm gun because we lacked the technology and facilities to make such large castings to house them. Therefore, it was the 37mm that was mounted in the turret while the heavier gun was mounted in a limited traverse mount in the hull.

In August of 1940, the design of the Sherman (begining with the pilot design T6) finally mounted the 75mm gun in a cast rotating turret. At this point in time, it was only a wooden mock up, the actual pilot model of the T6 being completed six months later. At the time of Pearl Harbor, the M4 Sherman was still in testing.

 

An interesting note on the production of the Sherman is the pilot model was designed with the cast hull. It was this model that got the Sherman approved for production, however there werent that many companies who could cast such large castings as the hull, so a welded hull version was produced, and it was the welded hull version that was accepted as standard and designated M4, while the first model, the cast hull Sherman was designated M4A1 and accepted as limited standard. Both models remained in production in various models throughout the war. The Sherman was designed and accepted when the Germans were using the Panzer III and IV (Armed with 50mm to 75mm guns), so the larger tanks the Germans fielded later in the war, the Panther, Tiger and Tiger II were not in any way an inluence on the original design.

 

Part of the problem was there were four entities responsible for design and production of tanks. The Army Ground Forces (AGF) decided what types of tanks the army needed and specified the testing regimen. The Armored Board performed the testing on the tank's mobility Firepower and maintainability (non-tactical testing). The Ordnance Department did the engineering testing of the prototypes submitted by civilian contractors and could grant authority for production. Lastly, individual Generals often moved forward on their own perogitives, often based on experiences from prior wars. Inaction by the AGF on what types of tanks were wanted or needed, often left the Ordnance Dept to make these decisions, however infighting between the main players in tank design and implementation often led to production of ideas based on gut feelings, trial and error and personal ideas rather than research and developement of viable armor designs. (paraphrased from the introduction of Zenith Press' M4 Sherman at War).

 

The one constant during the war was that production of the tried and dependable Sherman design not be slowed. It did not become apparent until the battles later in 1944 that the idea of losing 4 or 5 Shermans for each Tiger or Panther was a bad idea, and even though there were I think 50,000 Shermans produced between 1942 and 1945, the sheer cost in manpower losses could not be sustained.

 

Hope this bit of info helps

 

Wayne

[Jeeper704]

Well, all considered, I guess it comes to how (un)lucky one was when driving/handling the Sherman.

 

If you get your Sherman shot from under you the first week you're in France, recover, get another assigned to you and then get that one shot from under you in - let's say - Belgium, then it is obvious you're not a big fan of the tank.

 

On the other hand, if you go all the way into Germany with a Sherman, knocking out some German hardware along the way, getting out at the right moment, without getting wounded ..... well, then you're quite a happy soldier.

 

Over the years, I spoke/wrote to quite a number of Veterans; not only Armor but also Infantry.

The Infantry guys were quite happy when Armor showed up when the sh.t hit the fan.

At least the guys I spoke to.

One - 328th Regiment - said to me in his letters "Be sure the next time you talk to the Armor friends to let them know I'm thankful they were there".

He referred to some Shermans of the 4AD getting him out of a very bad situation.

 

If I can recall what a 702nd Tank Bn Veteran wrote me, I can tell you he was quite pleased with the Sherman as well.

And he got his tank shot from under him twice!

He had the "privilege" of being sent into Ettelbruck, Luxemburg first as his tank was up-armored.

A German AT-gun and a Panzerfaust decided he wasn't welcome ......

The same happened to him somewhere in Germany.

But he never complained about the Sherman.

 

Others stated the Sherman was quite reliable.

Unlike some German armor which had to deal with mechanical problems, shortage in spare parts, bogging down, etc ,etc.

But most stated the Sherman was fine for a supportive role, not to go head on with German tank(s).

It was never built for that purpose anyway ......... the US Army had something called a "Tank Destroyer Battalion" for that task.

And even they knew not to go head on, but to sneak up, destroy and get the hell out of there!

 

No matter what you say about the Sherman; negative or positive .... it is the tank that helped win the Second World War ..... in the ETO, PTO, MTO ..... whether in US service or British or Canadian or Polish.

That's a fact that can't be denied or shoved aside.

A well-trained tanker in a Sherman can be a very lethal weapon as well.

 

Erwin

[mpguy80/08]

Lets not forget that the Sherman continued to soldier on with other countries well into the 80s. Not to mention the Israelis, who still use the Isherman, don't they?

 

gecko NZ: I posted the diagrams of the ammo storage locations to sort of make the point that anywhere you hit a Sherman was likely to brew up the ammo forward of the firewall. Kinda mad your point more than argued it, but then, I dont think anyone is in disagreement about the Sherman catching fire when hit, more WHAT caught fire... the Fuel or the Ammo.

 

Jim Baker: I cry every time I see Hunnicutt's Sherman book... At $100, it's kinda of hard to justify a book costing that much, but you are right, that one book is the one everyone wants for Sherman Reference. Now, I wonder if I can get somone to get it for my birthday...

 

Jeeper 704 said: "If you get your Sherman shot from under you the first week you're in France, recover, get another assigned to you and then get that one shot from under you in - let's say - Belgium, then it is obvious you're not a big fan of the tank.

 

On the other hand, if you go all the way into Germany with a Sherman, knocking out some German hardware along the way, getting out at the right moment, without getting wounded ..... well, then you're quite a happy soldier."

 

Good analogy. Right wrong or indifferent, the Sherman was what we had to fight with, and our Crews made the best of what they had. Imagine some of the Cavalry or reconnaissance guys with M3's or M5's... I imagine they would have given an arm or a foot for a Sherman.

 

CW4AFB: Thanks. The odd thing is, that most of our tank crews werent as afraid of the German tanks as they were of the German soldiers with Panzerfausts or the panzerschreck!!!

 

I love this thread and the civil debate it has created. I think we all have learned a little from this one!!!

 

Wayne

[gecko NZ]

hi wayne, wasnt trying to argue anything just adding some more background info on what i first said, thanks for the diagram of the sherman, ive never really seen the inside/layout of one, hoping to in person one day.

[101combatvet]

I think the M4 was a great tank..... near the end of the war it could have had a little more punch. T-34 was an excellent tank.... that is a given. The German Mark IV was the backbone of the Panzer forces. All things considered I would say that all three were rather equal..... it was the crew that would have made up the difference in a all out duel. I find it interesting that the Germans made good use out of the Czech type 35 and type 38 light tanks during the early stages of the war.

[mpguy80/08]

I think the M4 was a great tank..... near the end of the war it could have had a little more punch. T-34 was an excellent tank.... that is a given. The German Mark IV was the backbone of the Panzer forces. All things considered I would say that all three were rather equal..... it was the crew that would have made up the difference in a all out duel. I find it interesting that the Germans made good use out of the Czech type 35 and type 38 light tanks during the early stages of the war.

 

They made use of captured Shermans too. The Germans tended to use anything they could get their hands on, even the old french Souma S35.

 

Wayne

[101combatvet]

Very true.... apparently Rommel and other Panzer Commanders liked the Czech tanks for their fuel economy. This proved to be a rather smart move for the Germans during the North African Campaign.

 

They made use of captured Shermans too. The Germans tended to use anything they could get their hands on, even the old french Souma S35.

 

Wayne

[john.manguso]

A few comments:

 

If you check the specs, the 76.2mm in the T-34 had about the same muzzle velocity as the 75mm in the Sherman. Yet most authors rate the Sherman as unable to defeat the German Tigers & Panthers while praising the performance of the T-34 over the Germans.

 

It is true that a single Tiger or Panther could take out five Shermans. This is taken as showing Sherman inferiority. You also hear about a single Tiger or Panther taking out a dozen T-34s. Shouldn't this mean that the T-34 is inferior, too?

 

In the Korean War, the North Koreans had T-34/85s with a gun roughly equal in caliber to the German 88mm. The US had Shermans and M24s with the 76mm. The Eighth Army forces occupying Japan had to deal with bridges which would not support heavy armor (besides, who needs tanks in an occupation?). Until 90mm armed tanks were shipped from CONUS, the Shermans and M24s were all there was. After 1950, you don't hear much about T-34s, just Allied tanks in an infantry support role.

 

The US had a heavy tank, the M-6, at about 60 tons (it's in the Hunnicutt book, of course) but it was not sent overseas due to the amount of shipping space it required.

[101combatvet]

One big advantage of the T-34 was the low profile and sloping armor.

[bent barrel]

yeah, that was a fun thread. It was gratifying to hear from at least a few others that shared much the same opinion. Now to start one on the much-maligned P-39!! or maybe the Brewster Buffalo??

Cheers.