M4 Shermans....death-traps?

[Sabrejet]

Quite a sobering insight from those who were there!

 

 

 

[Sabrejet]

It's a well-known fact that the Germans nick-named them "Tommy-cookers" because of their tendency to instantly go up in flames when hit. Likewise, GIs called them "Ronsons" after the famous brand of cigarette-lighters, for similar reasons!

[ghost]

The last few minutes of footage have alway been horrifying

[M24 Chaffee]

My father always said he preferred his M24 Chaffee light tank over the Sherman. He said it had the same 75mm gun but it was faster and they could get out of trouble quicker. Belton Cooper's book "Death Trap" is a great read! I've seen the end footage of this video many times before but I've never seen it with the captions! Thanks for that!

 

Frank

[Welshman]

Very moving footage.

[tredhed2]

The M-4 and M-26 were being developed by R & D at the same time. The Ordnance Dept couldn't afford both; Patton chimed in with his "tanks don't fight tanks" mantra, and the Shermans won out. The Shermans were an adequate match for the Mark IVs, but they were outdated by 1941....worked great against Polish cavalry.

 

What we sacrificed was crew protection. The first Shermans had a lousy 3" gun - the 75 MM which was a great anti-personnel weapon. The later models had a 76 which fired HV AP rounds, so they could fire at a greater distance. The Shermans didn't have the proper angle on the glacis and had a much too high profile. We saw the problems with them burning as easily as they did.

 

The M-26s got in too late and in too small a number to have much success - we we all saw it took three rounds from a 90 mm gun to blow up the Panther. I could go on and on but don't count me in as a Patton supporter on this one.

[Uncle BS]

It should also be noted that the footage of Patton actually showed Omar Bradley.

[Jeeper704]

That's why the TD branch was established .... to deal with enemy armor.

But as we all know ..... BIG difference between theory and reality.

 

Erwin

[Big Al]

The M-4 and M-26 were being developed by R & D at the same time. The Ordnance Dept couldn't afford both; Patton chimed in with his "tanks don't fight tanks" mantra, and the Shermans won out. The Shermans were an adequate match for the Mark IVs, but they were outdated by 1941....worked great against Polish cavalry.

 

What we sacrificed was crew protection. The first Shermans had a lousy 3" gun - the 75 MM which was a great anti-personnel weapon. The later models had a 76 which fired HV AP rounds, so they could fire at a greater distance. The Shermans didn't have the proper angle on the glacis and had a much too high profile. We saw the problems with them burning as easily as they did.

 

The M-26s got in too late and in too small a number to have much success - we we all saw it took three rounds from a 90 mm gun to blow up the Panther. I could go on and on but don't count me in as a Patton supporter on this one.

Regarding the Polish cavalry, that is a myth created by the Nazi propaganda machine. There was a photo of a cavalry unit that was ambushed by German light tanks in hiding and it was intentionally miscaptioned for propaganda purposes. Regarding knocking out the Panther, the tank was knocked out on the first shot. The others were insurance.

[Jim Baker]

We can go on about the Sherman. It did what it was built to do. Could it have been better? The Pershing is the answer to that question.

 

As far as the Panzers, consider all the issues that arose from development of the Panther and Tiger. They were extremely expensive. They took considerably longer to build and were a huge drain monetarily, materially, and in man power. At that point in the war, Germany could afford none of this. Then look at the logistics of keeping them running. Too complicated and too many types to keep adequately supplied. Imagine if the Germans had continued to improve and upgun, say, the Pz. IV. They did do some amazing things with a 75mm gun.

 

Then again, we could have lobbied the Brits for 17 pounders and turned more of our Shermans into Fireflies.

 

The US also worked wonders in recovering and repairing tanks. An important aspect of controlling the field of battle that was in our favor more times than not.

 

All things considered, coulda, woulda, shoulda, it's a tough subject to armchair QB when considering all the facts.

[Wharfmaster]

Considering the amount of German armor destroyed by the Russians, even the best of them, all tanks were death traps. Diesel engine powered tanks burn quite well also when hit.

 

If you are defending, you can destroy a very expensive tank with a relatively low cost, high vel. field gun. Even a hand held weapon up close.

 

We will never know how many German machine gun nests, bunkers and infantry positions were taken out by Shermans, allowing allied soldiers to march into Germany.

 

Shermans were used very effectively in the Pacific where Japanese armor was inferior. Even then, they were knocked out.

 

Every US weapon had to fit into Merchant ships of the time. German and Russian tanks did not.

 

 

 

W

[Jim Baker]

Every US weapon had to fit into Merchant ships of the time. German and Russian tanks did not.

 

 

 

W

 

There's that logistical problem. And of course we were already churning out those Shermans by the hundreds.

 

I have also wondered if the Russians would have pursued the heavy tanks that they did (Stalins) if the Germans were not trying to keep up with the KV series.

 

It's always fun to what if......

 

[Wharfmaster]

A quick firing BIG gun on a tank equals survivability. First on target always wins, be it an M1 Carbine or a cannon.

 

Speed also equals survivability, to include tanks, aircraft or ships. If you are going to attack, it's best to do it quickly.

 

 

W

[Sabrejet]

"Then again, we could have lobbied the Brits for 17 pounders and turned more of our Shermans into Fireflies."

 

Actually, the US Army declined the offer of armoured "funnies" ahead of D-Day. Likewise, they did not opt for the 17 pounder armed Firefly either, because of their "Tank Destroyer" philosophy.

[Jim Baker]

"Then again, we could have lobbied the Brits for 17 pounders and turned more of our Shermans into Fireflies."

 

Actually, the US Army declined the offer of armoured "funnies" ahead of D-Day. Likewise, they did not opt for the 17 pounder armed Firefly either, because of their "Tank Destroyer" philosophy.

 

Yes Ian, I'm aware of that. That is one of my what if's I think they should have considered. It was a great gun.

[rufus_firefly]

That's why the TD branch was established .... to deal with enemy armor.

But as we all know ..... BIG difference between theory and reality.

 

Erwin

In theory, theory and reality are the same. In reality, they aren't. With apologies to Yogi Bera.

[Indexred]

As a sidebar, we owe the 35-mm film footage of the tank fight shown above to T/4 James L. Bates of the 165th Signal Photo Company. Here's a picture of Jim with his Eyemo. He did great work that day in Köln.

.

[Jeeper704]

No matter how one looks at the Sherman, my hat is off to the tank crews who were operating it.

How many of you would have the guts to get into on and try to survive the war in it?

 

The Sherman tank will always be a point of controversy.

And a lot of misconceptions exist, even downright one-sided opinions.

Furthermore it is sad that - with many other things as well - it always depends on the influence of politics, lobbying of higher brass but NEVER the opinion of the most important factor; the soldier in the field.

 

I hold the tank (destroyer) crewmember - in a Sherman, Chaffee, Pershing, M10, M18, whatever - in high esteem.

A lot of times the odds were stacked against them but they did their job.

 

Erwin

[Sabrejet]

Wait for the release of the movie "Fury"...a film centred around a Sherman (M4A3 76mm HVSS) in combat! I was fortunate enough to spend a day on-set. Tanker's heaven!

[Jeeper704]

I wish I was that lucky, Ian.

 

Erwin

[king802]

Regarding the Polish cavalry, that is a myth created by the Nazi propaganda machine. There was a photo of a cavalry unit that was ambushed by German light tanks in hiding and it was intentionally miscaptioned for propaganda purposes. Regarding knocking out the Panther, the tank was knocked out on the first shot. The others were insurance.

I think your missing the point. The Panther may well have been knocked out after the first shot, however, after a few more shots the crew all got out ALIVE. After one shot most of the Sherman crew were killed.

Big Differece !!!!!!

[Wharfmaster]

Not sure every Panther crew was that lucky when hit.

 

I can't think of a greater deathtrap than sailing in U-Boat infested waters aboard a WW2 T-2 Tanker loaded with thousands of Bbls of Gasoline. Most Merchant sailors did it. Many paid the price.

 

During War, you use what you have at the time. That being said, we owe our Servicemen and women the best eqpt. we can build.

 

It took the Soviets some time to develop armor superior to Germany's tanks too.

 

 

W

[Sabrejet]

Not sure every Panther crew was that lucky when hit.

 

I can't think of a greater deathtrap than sailing in U-Boat infested waters aboard a WW2 T-2 Tanker loaded with thousands of Bbls of Gasoline. Most Merchant sailors did it. Many paid the price.

 

During War, you use what you have at the time. That being said, we owe our Servicemen and women the best eqpt. we can build.

 

It took the Soviets some time to develop armor superior to Germany's tanks too.

 

 

W

 

Au contraire. The T34 and KV already existed when the Nazis invaded Russia. Both immediately out-classed the Pz IIIs / Pz IVs. The Panther was the German response to the T-34. In fact, at one point they were even considering making a copy, but Teutonic pride wouldn't allow it! The Panther was technologically superior, but over-engineered and never available in sufficient quantities. And don't forget how the JS III tank the Soviets revealed at the Berlin Victory Parade sent shock waves through the allied armies and rendered their best tanks almost obsolete overnight!

[Wharfmaster]

Guess I should have said "in quantity". The Germans sure gobbled up a whole lot of Russia, initially, using "inferior" tanks.

 

 

W

[Sabrejet]

Stalin's purges of the Soviet officer corps left their army like a rudderless ship. Consequently, when the Germans invaded, the Soviets, though numerically superior were tactically inept and consequently suffered heavy losses and surrendered a lot of territory as they fell back. But, to borrow Yamamoto's comment about the USA, the Germans had simply awoken a sleeping giant!