Jump to content

M4 Sherman Bum Rap


bent barrel
 Share

Recommended Posts

I don't know if this is the right place for this, but something's been bugging me for a long time about the utter disdain that the military historians seem to unanimously hold for the US tank of WWII, the M4 Sherman. I think they are wrong-really wrong. The German Tiger and Panther and the Russian T34 are usually cited as being far superior, but nobody claims that anybody else had a better tank. So:

1. tanks are not designed to go head-to-head, so for the intended purpose, that of infantry support and knocking out fortifications, the Sherman was at least as good and maybe better in that it was far more reliable and compared well in speed and range.

2. Compared to it's true contemporaries, the Panzer III and IV, it had thicker armor and a bigger gun.

3. The Sherman's rep as a "Tommy-Cooker", because gasoline powered, was partly true when compared to the early German tanks which were diesels, which made them more fire-resistant, but the Tiger and Panther were gasoline powered, so no advantage there.

4. The Sherman was too high and an easy target-yeah right, like an extra foot of height on a 10 foot tall, noisy, clanking, machine like this is going to make a difference. Where? Tanks prefer open country to operate in, there's no place to hide anyway.

5. The Brit's had the Churchill, better armored but no better gunned, slower and not too reliable and also gas powered, so no edge there.

6.The T34 was superior in probably every critical way-it's a good thing we didn't have to go up against them!!

Copmments?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The T34 was superior in probably every critical way-it's a good thing we didn't have to go up against them!!

 

Well actually the US did go up against the T34 in Korea and at the beginning of the war certainly the US was outgunned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bent,

 

Lots of folks will have lots of opinions on your comments above. If you haven't already read it, I'd STRONGLY recommend "Death Traps" (see comments below, from another thread), written by an Ordnance Man (tank BN maintenance officer) who worked with these tanks throughout the campaign. His comments will be more instructive on why the Sherman isn't well-regarded today than anything one of us armchair generals will have to say.

 

Armchair general perspective:

1) I'd say that you have a good point with 1. above, but it was eclipsed as a major lesson of the war that tanks SHOULD fight other tanks, rather than be infantry support.

2) The Sherman's biggest advantage was the US' industrial capability to turn out huge quantities of them. Cooper will explain the shortcomings of the vehicle if/when you read "Death Traps.

 

 

HTH,

Thrasher

 

http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/ind...16996&st=60 The comments below are copied from Pg 4 of the other topic, with the link before.

 

For you armored guys...

 

Death Traps

The Survival of an American Armored Division in World War II

by Belton Y Cooper

Foreword by Stephen Ambrose

 

$16 at Barnes and Noble bookstore

 

 

324 pages including 10 pages of b/w photos

softcover

 

From the back jacket:

 

"In a down to earth style, Death Traps tells the compelling story of one man's assignment to the famous 3rd Armored Division that spearheaded the American advance from Normandy into Germany. Cooper served as an ordnance officer with the forward elements and was responsible for co-ordinating the recovery and repair of damaged American tanks. This was a dangerous job that often required him to travel alone through enemy territory, and teh author recalls his service with pride...[readers] will be left with an indelible impression of the importance of the support troops and how dependent combat forces were on them."

 

Stephen Ambrose wrote in part:

 

"[Cooper] saw more of the war than most junior officers and he writes about it better than almost anyone. His stories are vivid, enlightening, full of life - and of pain, sorrow, horror and triumph."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, you read this book and you'll come away with a diff feeling about the M-4s. You can find it for sale on Ebay often, too.

 

Unlike the vast majority of "Sherman" authors, Cooper was there to literally pick up the pieces. His being THE 3rd AD Ord ofcr carries a great deal more weight for me than an armchair author. After reading his book, and doing more research, I am not a Sherman fan at all. As gpw_42 wrote, it was the sheer numbers that propelled the Shermans on the battlefields, not its design.

 

I will only address two of your points:

 

1. Only Patton and those he was able to convince believed that "tanks don't fight tanks". Historical note - C-Kursk, 1942. The largest tank battle of the war.

 

4. "Open country?" One of the largest intell failures in WW II was the negligence in determining the existence of the hedgerows in Normandy. And on a personal note, 40 years ago, I preferrred secreting myself and springing ambushes to being caught out in the open.

 

Please read the book. It is eye opening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd suggest reading some tank tactics as well and compare them to the real situation on the battlefield.

And not to generalize the views of one man in one book.

"Death Traps" is a good book, but it is not THE book on Armor or the Sherman tank.

No book is actually.

 

I personally know and knew quite a number of Armor Veterans who were quite happy with their Shermans.

They knew they could rely on it unlike the Germans who had to deal with a lot of mechanical defects.

The thing I heard the most complaints of was the lack of an "rump-kicking" gun.

And something else I heard a lot was "we had to fight with what we had".

It is amazing how inventive US tankers were trying to "up-armor" their Shermans (logs, sandbags, etc), finding ways to knock heavier tanks, etc.

My hat is not off to the Sherman tank, but to the guys who formed its crew.

 

People tend to forget that the Sherman initially was made as an answer to Germany's Panzers II and III.

It was NEVER meant as an answer to the Panther or Tiger who both appeared later on the Western Front.

Not even as a real answer to the Panzer IV.

Besides, the heavier tanks were to be dealt with by Tank Destroyer Forces equipped with M-10s, M-36s or M-18s or towed units.

 

I never can understand why people try to compare the Eastern Front with the Western Front.

Both are totally different in areas, units, unit sizes, tactics, etc.

Only a very few tank battles on the Western Front can be compared - and even then it is no real comparison - with those on the Eastern Front; i.e. Lorraine Campaign of the 4th Armored Division slugging it out with 111th Panzer Brigade.

 

Erwin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd suggest reading some tank tactics as well and compare them to the real situation on the battlefield.

And not to generalize the views of one man in one book.

"Death Traps" is a good book, but it is not THE book on Armor or the Sherman tank.

No book is actually.

 

I personally know and knew quite a number of Armor Veterans who were quite happy with their Shermans.

They knew they could rely on it unlike the Germans who had to deal with a lot of mechanical defects.

The thing I heard the most complaints of was the lack of an "rump-kicking" gun.

And something else I heard a lot was "we had to fight with what we had".

It is amazing how inventive US tankers were trying to "up-armor" their Shermans (logs, sandbags, etc), finding ways to knock heavier tanks, etc.

My hat is not off to the Sherman tank, but to the guys who formed its crew.

 

People tend to forget that the Sherman initially was made as an answer to Germany's Panzers II and III.

It was NEVER meant as an answer to the Panther or Tiger who both appeared later on the Western Front.

Not even as a real answer to the Panzer IV.

Besides, the heavier tanks were to be dealt with by Tank Destroyer Forces equipped with M-10s, M-36s or M-18s or towed units.

 

I never can understand why people try to compare the Eastern Front with the Western Front.

Both are totally different in areas, units, unit sizes, tactics, etc.

Only a very few tank battles on the Western Front can be compared - and even then it is no real comparison - with those on the Eastern Front; i.e. Lorraine Campaign of the 4th Armored Division slugging it out with 111th Panzer Brigade.

 

Erwin

 

 

Agreed. And when crewed by a properly trained and motivated crew (Sgt. Lafayette Pool - In The Mood), they performed pretty well.

 

Whatever the tactics at the end of the war, the Sherman was not built to fight tanks. The TD's and Pershing's were the late war answer to tank vs tank warfare. It should also be considered that shipping these vehicles across the ocean was a concern.

 

If the Germans would have stuck to the Panzer IV, built them in swarms, and kept them upgunned when possible, perhaps they would be having this conversation. As it was, they may have out smarted themselves with their technology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, didnt the Shermans first met the Paner IIIs and IVs on the open deserts of North Africa as part of the British Army, to replace the Grant/Lee tanks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mostly Panzer III and Italian tanks first, later the Panzer IV appeared.

These Shermans were indeed in the British Army.

Later in the North African Campaign, the US Shermans entered the battlefield.

 

Erwin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My whole point was more to rail against the perception that people have today versus the reality, fed by History Channel and Military Channel et. al. The furthur we get in time from the actual events the more these people just regurgitate the same old same old. There are so many of these half-truisms about so many facets of the war floating around that bug me to no end, every once in a while I've just got to try and remind people that the TV is not always right.

I'm not an armchair general, I get most of my opinions from having lived then, and from having a good friend who was a Sherman gunner and had nothing but good things to say about it. I would say his feelings and opinions are probably as good as any other tanker of the time, keeping in mind that they ALL remember even the same things differently, as do we all. I'm not even a tank man, more of a rifleman, don't know much about them at all, but I know what little I do know.

All of the other factors mentioned above are valid, certainly, such as transport logistics and need to get a tank on-line ASAP and availability of the gun and ammo and all the rest, but are somewhat besides the point that for it's time and purpose, it was a good machine. Outclassed pretty damn soon, sure, but they ALL were eventually, even the Panther by the Pershing, which incidentally took out at least one Tiger, as I recall.

And as far as tank-on-tank capability, yeah it's nice but an RPG is a whole lot cheaper. Patton may have been a horse's rump, but he knew his stuff and used the Sherman well.

It'd be great to discuss all this over a couple of beers--wait, I think I will!

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Patton might have been an expert on tank warfare, but in the end it all boils down on the poor sap who had to drive, fire, command, live in that tank .....

 

Erwin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Sherman story...Bob is a long time friend of my parents. When I was a teen, I was building a model Sherman and asking Bob lots of questions to aid in my research. Bob was a Sherman gunner and had seen enough action that he typically didn't talk about it much. However, one day after a lot of my questions he told me about one episode that was still quite vivid in his memory.

 

A column of Shermans was rounding a bend in the road through a wooded area. As they rounded the bend, the first three tanks were quickly "brewed up". Bob's tank was #4 in the column and he said they "highballed" through the brush and trees as best they could followed by the other 2 tanks behind him. After some excited maneuvering in coordination with the other 2 Shermans, they found the Panther and blew it up. In the process, however, the Panther blasted the other 2 Shermans.

 

One Panther took out 6 of the 7 Shermans in that column. Bob and his crew mates were pretty shaken up by those odds. He told me not to spend too much time building that Sherman kit, as in real life, a Sherman didn't last too long. It would have been a somewhat funny comment except for all those young American tankers killed in that short fight. Bob would have gladly traded his Sherman for a Panther anyday.

Terry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ambush tactics were widely used by the Germans.

Another reason why they were hiding is the air cover US forces had once the Luftwaffe was chased out of the European skies.

I also had contact with a few German panzer crew members and they all said it was near impossible to move into open air without a "Jabo" shooting them up.

 

Thanks for the story though.

It is interesting and it only happened too often, sad to say.

 

Erwin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting story, Meatcan.

 

I guess what would be good to hear is if the reverse ever happened, where one M4 took out several Mk IVs or Panthers. If such stories exist then IMO it lends itself to the concept that the equipment was just as capable. Given the same tactic - ambush - would the M4 perform the same?

 

To be honest I can't recall hearing of such a counter-story. But then again I have not read much on the M4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most stories you hear of ambush tactics by US Armor is from TD crews.

Seek, Strike, Destroy (and as a Veteran friend added "and get the hell outta there!"). :lol:

 

You do hear of "lucky shots" also; i.e. a shot bouncing off the gun mantlet of a Panther, penetrating the upper deck, killing driver and wounding the other crew severely.

 

Most stories I heard are from crews trying to sneak behind these Panthers or Panzer IVs and drilling them in their rear.

 

HVAP was a welcome "present" for these men and a lot of crews tried to get their hands on a stack of them.

 

Erwin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most stories you hear of ambush tactics by US Armor is from TD crews.

Seek, Strike, Destroy (and as a Veteran friend added "and get the hell outta there!"). :lol:

 

You do hear of "lucky shots" also; i.e. a shot bouncing off the gun mantlet of a Panther, penetrating the upper deck, killing driver and wounding the other crew severely.

 

Most stories I heard are from crews trying to sneak behind these Panthers or Panzer IVs and drilling them in their rear.

 

HVAP was a welcome "present" for these men and a lot of crews tried to get their hands on a stack of them.

 

Erwin

 

Erwin is quite correct in the success of the Sherman crews lay in sneaking behind the German tanks; they were most vulnerable w/ rear shots - and the Shermans didn't have to be in as close as for a frontal or side shot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Actually most of the stories that you hear about the Sherman "Brewing up" as a result of fuel fire are almost completely false. Most Shermans were destroyed as a result of the AMMUNITION brewing up, not the fuel. I read in one of my references that in 90% of incidents where Shermans were destroyed by fire, it was the ammunition that caught fire, and the fuel was usually the last thing to burn. Keep in mind that tank gunners are taught to aim center of mass, or at least at the occupied portions of the tanks they are fighting against. Gunner training is pretty much the same from army to army when it comes to where to aim to kill another tank. Also, lets not forget that we gave them really good aiming points too... putting big white stars over the very points where the ammo was concentrated in the tank hull. From head on, the star on the front of the transmission cover used as in aiming point could ensure at the very least, a mobility kill on a sherman. Look at a cut away drawing of a Sherman, and look at where the ammunition is stored... Directly behind where the Hull star is painted there are ammo bins. Most of the remainder of the ammunition is stored below the floor plates in the hull. Also, lets not forget the crew's tendency to take on as much ammo as they could, stashing it away in every nook and cranny in the tank. "Loaded to the rafters" I believe it was referred to as. The Brits actually started the fuel fire rumor, calling the Sherman the Ronson (lights every time), and it was the Germans I've heard that coined the phrase, "Tommy Cooker".

 

Thats the fun part of researching all the rumors instead of taking one reference's word for it. Its amazing what you can learn. I tend to agree with the opinion above that stated that in its intended role, the Sherman met and often surpassed expectations. It's also interesting that once the Sherman was upgraded with the 76mm gun, units often tried to keep some 75mm armed Shermans around because the 75mm HE shell was vastly superior to the 76mm one.

 

Wayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you can't kill the enemy then you shouldn't be there, and there is no way the 75mm gun could reliably kill the enemy.

After 1943 the Sherman was outclassed in just about every-way.

The only decent Sherman was the British Firefly with its Panther and Tiger killing 17 pounder gun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you can't kill the enemy then you shouldn't be there, and there is no way the 75mm gun could reliably kill the enemy.

After 1943 the Sherman was outclassed in just about every-way.

The only decent Sherman was the British Firefly with its Panther and Tiger killing 17 pounder gun.

 

The point was made earlier in this conversation that the doctrine of the United States Army Armored force was not to fight in tank to tank battles, but to use tanks as infantry support. As stated before, the Sherman exelled in this. The Sherman was pretty evenly matched against the Panzer III and Panzer IV tanks. Granted, the Panther and Tiger tanks were somewhat better armored, and had better, longer ranged guns, but as history has shown, they did not equal the vast production capacity of the US.

 

I'd like to make a few points...

 

1. The German designers vastly over-engineered just about every weapon designed and put into production. Take the Panther for example. The tank was too heavy for the designed drive train, resulting in numerous breakdowns. both Tiger series as well. Panthers especially were known for engine fires. The transmissions and final drives were using straight toothed gears which put enormous strain on specific arts of the gear teeth, often resulting in failure. The Panther, JagdPanther, Tiger, Tiger II, JagdTiger, and SturmTiger all had interleaved road wheels. Any damage to a torsion bar, suspension arm, or roadwheel would result in having to take several sets of roadwheels off to affect the repair.

 

2. Weight. Most German tanks were just too heavy to be used for anything but static position defense. When engaged in a running battle, most of the German heavy tanks (Panther Tiger and Tiger II) could be outflanked and overwhelmed. This was due to thicker armor, but the weight had a detrimental effect on the drive train. See Above.

 

3. German armor that was damaged or disabled was often abandoned. Conversely, US armor was often retrieved, repaired, and returned to the battlefield. Those american tanks that were too badly damaged to repair, were stripped for parts to repair other tanks.

 

4. The US Sherman tanks were better from an automotive reliability standpoint. There were tanks that landed at Normandy still in service in Germany in 1945... a thousand miles later.

 

5. The US industrial might was able to replace lost Shermans at a far greater Rate than the Germans could replace theirs.

 

6. The Sherman was the basis for most of the tanks, tank retrievers, SP guns (M7 priest, M10 Tank Destroyer, M12 Howitzer, M40 Howitzer, and even the M35 Prime Mover). With the Serman as the basis for so many vehicles, supply of parts was easier than for the Germans, who had The Panzer II, Panzer III, Panzer IV, Panzer V (Panther), Panzer VI (Tiger), and the Tiger II based vehicles. The only two of these even remotely alike was the Panzer III and IV. We found something that worked, and stuck with it. The Germans tried to produce everything that came off the drawing boards it seems, vastly complicating their supply problems, and draining their raw materials.

 

7. In Europe (including Italy) and even as early as North Africa, the US Shermans were often on the attack, the Germans most often in the defense. It is common knowledge that the odds vastly favor the defender except when the attacker vastly outnumbers the defender. My opinion is that the high cost paid in the loss of so many Shermans is due to this fact than any other. The story of Michael Wittman, holding a crossroad with a single Tiger by destroying the lead and trailing tanks, then picking off the vehicles in the middle is proof of this. A defender in a prepared defensive position can wreak havoc on an attacking enemy.

 

8. The later models of the Sherman armed with the higher velocity 76mm gun were better against the Panther, and only marginally better against the Tiger series. As I stated before, US tanks were used more doctrinally for infantry support than for fighting tanks, so the need to replace the 75mm gun wasnt really an issue until after D-Day and was very much understood after the battle of the hedgerows in france. Still, after the upgunned Shermans were deployed into theater, it was found that for instances requiring an HE shell, the 75mm HE shell was found to be superior in effect than the HE shell from the 76mm gun. It was this fact that saw the M4A3E2 JUMBO Shermans armed with the 75mm gun as opposed to the 76mm gun although a later field order approved the replacement of the 75mm gun with the 76mm gun, I have only seen one photo of such a conversion. I have never seen a modern Jumbo anywhere in a museum or as a static display that is armed with the 76mm gun.

 

9. When the M4A3 series introduced the Ford GAA V-8 gasoline engine, it was noted that the use of the new engine would allow a redesign to allow a lower silhouette, however in a move to maintain production numbers, this was forgone in lieu of not interrupting the assembly lines and maintaining production of standard M4 series.

 

10. I have heard arguments that the US should have switched to Pershing production and that Patton, in advising that the US should keep producing Shermans instead of another new tank, effectively sentenced many US tnakers to their deaths (In this statement, the person said Patton committed murder on American tankers). I disagree. The Pershing was a relatively untested design. The tank had not been tried in battle, and when it finally made it's combat debut, out of ten tanks that made the drive on the bridges over the rhine, only three made it to the bridges, and only one made it across due to mechanical breakdowns. The initial combat debut of the T26E3 (The pre-production M26) was a sad disappointment from an automotive standpoint. As a result, the M26 wasnt released for full combat deployment until certain issues had been addressed and only token numbers saw any combat in WWII.

 

In conclusion, I respectfully submit that the Sherman was the best thing we had, and we stuck with it. It was this decision to make vast numbers of relatively easy to produce tanks that allowed us to overcome the German's technologically advanced (but ultimately flawed) designs and win.

 

Wayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just my 2 cents, my grandad was a shermand tank driver in italy and north africa, he said the pertol ones were horrible and called roman candles they didnt like them. the sherman's armour was perfect for going up against any german tank, as the german shells didnt explode so aslong as the german shell didnt HIT anyone inside the sherman tank on its way through and out the other side you were all good. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

post-3743-1238924587.jpg

post-3743-1238925226.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DwightPruitt

Just a couple of points before I head out the door-

 

Remember that not only did the US have to manufacture tanks, it had to ship them thousand of miles to the battlefront. IIRC, with contemporary shipping space, one M26 took up the same space as three M4.

 

As noted in this thread previously, ammunition storage, not gasoline was the cause of the "Tommy Cooker" reputation. Wet storage of ammunition greatly reduced the fire hazard.

 

Death Traps is a fine book when taken as the memoirs of an ordnance officer in the ETO. As a history of the M4 Sherman and the decisions of procurement, doctrine and fielding of the tank , the book is factually wrong on many counts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a couple of points before I head out the door-

 

Remember that not only did the US have to manufacture tanks, it had to ship them thousand of miles to the battlefront. IIRC, with contemporary shipping space, one M26 took up the same space as three M4.

 

As noted in this thread previously, ammunition storage, not gasoline was the cause of the "Tommy Cooker" reputation. Wet storage of ammunition greatly reduced the fire hazard.

 

Death Traps is a fine book when taken as the memoirs of an ordnance officer in the ETO. As a history of the M4 Sherman and the decisions of procurement, doctrine and fielding of the tank , the book is factually wrong on many counts.

 

Thank you!! IMHO, that is the fair and correct assessment.

 

Another consideration often forgotten is that this whole tank doctrine was still new in practice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...