The Sherman Tank what an amazing vehicle!!

[sapper]

Tigers in Africa. ?
Shermans ? Thin skinned... under gunned...Suicide....Tommy Cookers.
Bloody awful...."Light up first time, every time"
Goodwood 400 lost. The Countryside covered in black spirals of smoke from burning Shermans......A truly horrible tank that burst into flames if you looked at it. Then exploded ! Turret in the air WOOF !

No thanks !

Sapper. Who unfortunately travelled on the back of one.

[T. A. Gardner]

Originally Posted by sapper

Tigers in Africa. ?
Shermans ? Thin skinned... under gunned...Suicide....Tommy Cookers.
Bloody awful...."Light up first time, every time"
Goodwood 400 lost. The Countryside covered in black spirals of smoke from burning Shermans......A truly horrible tank that burst into flames if you looked at it. Then exploded ! Turret in the air WOOF !

No thanks !

Sapper. Who unfortunately travelled on the back of one.

I'm sure that British tankers would have prefered to be crewing say, Valentines or Crusaders in North Africa instead? Or maybe the boxy, unreliable Cromwell on its rubberband tracks? The Sherman has more armor than either and a better gun. With the Cromwell the armor is equal or better and so is the gun. It is faster than a Valentine and more reliable than any of them. Or, the early model Churchills? The Sherman has equal armor and again a better gun. It is also faster and more reliable.
While the Sherman definitely had its flaws it was a better tank than anything the British were fielding of their own. That is the unfortunate truth.

The fire problem with early models was largely alleviated by the addition of applique armor and wet ammunition stowage. By D-day the Sherman was sufficently reworked to have a lower chance of burning than German or British tanks. But, some myths die hard.
As for my earlier post on tank versus tank combat, you note I stated I left the British out of the survey. Why? Exactly because of things like Hill 112, Reichwald, and Goodwood. The US rarely attacked in such "set piece" WW 1 style battles where casualties were much higher. Aside from that, how many Shermans (or other tanks) even in these actions were victims of panzers and not of antitank guns or panzerfaust?

[Owen]

I'm fed up of this German tanks were great British tanks were rubbish.
This is from Churchill's Desert Rats (pages 53 & 54) by Patrick Delaforce (a 11th Armd Div Vet). Here is a quote about 5 RTR in 7th Armd at Op.Goodwood.

5 RTR and 1 RB occupied Soliers and then pushed into Bourguebus at 1800 hrs on the 20th. They destroyed two Tigers and a Panther for the loss of one Cromwell, and then, going in again the next day, by midday had captured two Panthers intact and destroyed another Tiger without loss. Later in the day, despite very heavy shelling, they set another Panther on fire.

Norman Smith , 5 RTR wrote.

We moved into Bourguebus where we lost another tank. Sgt Pluto Ellis, commander of one of the Fireflys with my friend Harry Ireland as his main gunner, then knocked out two German Tiger tanks and one Panther tank, one of which he spotted through his binoculars about 600 yards away, seeing just the 88mm gun sticking out beyond the haystack. He got harry to fire his AP shot straight through the haystack and we all watched the thick black plume of smoke as the Tiger burned. Pluto was a cool customer...

Hardly the stuff of five Shermans to one Tiger is it?
A myth, I think so.

[kfz]

Originally Posted by T. A. Gardner

I'm sure that British tankers would have prefered to be crewing say, Valentines or Crusaders in North Africa instead? Or maybe the boxy, unreliable Cromwell on its rubberband tracks? The Sherman has more armor than either and a better gun. With the Cromwell the armor is equal or better and so is the gun. It is faster than a Valentine and more reliable than any of them. Or, the early model Churchills? The Sherman has equal armor and again a better gun. It is also faster and more reliable.
While the Sherman definitely had its flaws it was a better tank than anything the British were fielding of their own. That is the unfortunate truth.

The fire problem with early models was largely alleviated by the addition of applique armor and wet ammunition stowage. By D-day the Sherman was sufficently reworked to have a lower chance of burning than German or British tanks. But, some myths die hard.
As for my earlier post on tank versus tank combat, you note I stated I left the British out of the survey. Why? Exactly because of things like Hill 112, Reichwald, and Goodwood. The US rarely attacked in such "set piece" WW 1 style battles where casualties were much higher. Aside from that, how many Shermans (or other tanks) even in these actions were victims of panzers and not of antitank guns or panzerfaust?

The problem with arguing with Sapper is that he was damn well there.
You cant argue with that.

I love the Sherman, I think it did exactly what it was designed to do and more, but that meant cock all if your in one and came round the corner to see a faust, 88, Panther, etc.

Kev

[MikB]

Originally Posted by T. A. Gardner

I'm sure that British tankers would have prefered to be crewing say, Valentines or Crusaders in North Africa instead? Or maybe the boxy, unreliable Cromwell on its rubberband tracks?

Admiration for the reliable and adaptable Sherman is not an excuse to slag off these workmanlike tanks that were criticised out of all proportion to their drawbacks.

The Germans actually admired the Crusader's turn of speed, and it was a good match for the PzKwIII for most of its operational life. Very many losses were due to British 'cavalry' bravado in the desert coming up against German 'sword and shield' techniques. Boxy the Cromwell may have been, but it could outpace any other tank in any army at the time, and was comparably armoured to the Sherman. And the Churchill's frontal armour was actually proof against the Tigers and Panthers. They all had their drawbacks, but for the British the most important advantages of the Sherman were (a) its plentiful availabilty and (b) the ability to shoehorn in a gun that worked against big German tanks.

'S like the dinosuars innit? The vast, roaring monsters are great to impress the kids, but it's the smaller things scuttling in the undergrowth that survive to shape the future...

Regards,
MikB

[Owen]

Right here I go again.

Five German tanks to one Sherman


B 6222
Description: The crew of a Sherman tank named 'Akilla' of 1st Nottinghamshire Yeomanry, 8th Armoured Brigade, after having destroyed five German tanks in a day, Rauray, 30 June 1944. Left to right: Sgt J Dring; Tpr Hodkin, Tpr A Denton; Tpr E Bennett; L/Cpl S Gould.

[Owen]

B12253
Description: Major J K Holman (in the turret) and his Sherman tank crew of the Nottinghamshire Yeomanry (Sherwood Rangers), 8th Armoured Brigade, photographed after his squadron ('C ' Squadron) destroyed three Tiger tanks, Germany, 30 November 1944.

[Owen]

They can also survive an 88, damaged, yes, but not brewed.
E18707
Description: A soldier in the tank recovery section of the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (REME) examines damage inflicted by an 88mm anti-tank gun to the barrel of a Sherman tank, which is about to be recovered from the battlefield, October 1942. Another shell hit can be seen on the side of the turret.

[Owen]

The Sherman's gun was far from useless.
NA15178
Description: Troops examine a knocked-out German StuG III assault gun near Cassino, 18 May 1944. Two 75mm AP rounds from a Sherman tank have neatly penetrated its front armour.

[von Poop]

Originally Posted by Owen D

B12253
Description: Major J K Holman (in the turret) and his Sherman tank crew of the Nottinghamshire Yeomanry (Sherwood Rangers), 8th Armoured Brigade, photographed after his squadron ('C ' Squadron) destroyed three Tiger tanks, Germany, 30 November 1944.

That's Stuart Hill's unit isn't it?, veteran and author of the recent 'By tank into Normandy', an excellent and lucid memoir of a Sherman Crewman/Commander who had no real problem with the vehicle and saw it for what it was, a perfectly adequate and exceptionally reliable tool for the job in hand, when used appropriately.
I'll say it again, If not the Sherman then what else?
Almost every Tanker Veteran I've talked to says they feared the AT gun and Panzerfaust more than any tank v tank encounter. If you're advancing against dug in 88's with excellent crews (either mounted on a carriage or a vehicle, just count either as 'a gun') and you're driving a Sherman, a Cromwell, a Stuart, a Tiger, a Panther, a JS2 or even a 1960's spec Centurion... whatever, you're going to suffer huge attrition.