The Sherman Tank what an amazing vehicle!!

[freebird]

Originally Posted by Von Poop

The Sherman was/is indeed an amazing vehicle.
While it's tendency to ignite was never fully solved it was hugely improved by the introduction of the 'wet' stowage.
Mobility, firepower & protection are always cited as the key factors in vehicle design but there are others and in a WW2 context a primary consideration was manufacturing ability, given it's exceptionally short development time the M4 was a major success in this area, an extremely reliable vehicle (as illustrated by the many very early variants that can still be seen in pictures of Normandy) that was also very straightforward to mass produce. Talking to veterans they are fully aware of the shortcomings of their vehicle but still hold a great affection for it.
If not the Sherman then what else?
While it would have been nice for the engineers to wave a magic wand and produce a Tiger-killer. One must bear in mind that Germany began work on the Tiger with the DW1&2 as early as 1937 They were busy building up and preparing for war. They and Russia (with whom they cooperated greatly on such matters) were considering all aspects of armour design in some depth while the future allied nations had largely allowed the armoured concept that they had given birth to to wither on the vine. Look at the pottering indecision shown by the British and the almost complete lack of interest by the USA to underline this. Pre-war American armoured foundations were 'one man and his dog' setups.
Considering all this it is amazing that a design emerged that proved itself reliable, adaptable and long-lived. How many other class 1 AFV's served for so long from Alamein to the 80's in such diverse geographical areas? The Israeli's were able to cobble together Shermans made from scrap parts & whatever guns came to hand, (one of their parts sources was vehicles that had been dumped in the sea), the examples made from these bits of junk were no less reliable than any other. The chassis has carried an unbelievable amount of second line weapons and equipment. Variants were designed that could be manufactured by any engineering firm with some experience of producing large objects. Not many other vehicles can make these claims to fame, especially ones that were produced from a virtually blank slate in time of war.
As Dani touches on Doctrine & training were key factors. Armies that have operated Shermans and used them in an appropriate and thoughtful manner have had great success with them.

A much maligned and misunderstood vehicle that stands alongside the Churchill as hugely underated in the more 'glamourous' shade of other designs and deserves far more respect than it is often allowed.

errr..
I'm off for a lie down now.
Cheers,
Adam.

Considering the experience they had they could have done better, especially concerning armour & sloping. The "Grant" was supposed to be an interim solution while they designed a "really good" replacement. But when the Sherman came along it had the same armour protection as the Grant, and also had a too-tall profile. The "Grant" was also sent to the Soviets, who had their own name for it, "Coffin for 6 Brothers"! Of course the British did not have a really good tank either until the "Comet" IMHO.

However the Allies DID have one good tank, available in the end of 1941 that could have made a BIG difference in the desert, especially at Gazala. The sad part is that the British Tank Commission over-ruled the Canadian designers, who wanted a 75mm gun instead of the 6 pounder.

Compared to its contemporary, the Grant it had: a 360' turret, 50% better armour, turret radio & 18" lower profile. It used the same engine & drivetrain as the Grant, and was mechanicly reliable (unlike Crusader!)

[Slipdigit]

Originally Posted by freebird

[Sherman] also had a too-tall profile. (unlike Crusader!)

That is not exactly a fully accurate statement.
Heights:
Panther 2.99 meters 9.8 ft
Comet 2.67 8.76
Churchill 2.8 9.2
Tiger I 3.0 9.84
PzKw IV 2.68 9.8
Matilda 3.5 11.48

The M-4 is shorter than all of the above
Sherman 2.62 meters 8.6 ft

The perception of height comes from the ratio of height to width. The Sherman is narrower than every tank on the this page, save the Matilda, and they are about the same width with the Matilda being almost 3 feet taller.

Shorter tanks

T-34 2.45 meters 17 cm, 7 inches shorter
Crusader 2.24 38 cm 14 inches
PzKw III 2.6 8 cm 3 inches

[freebird]

Originally Posted by Slipdigit

That is not exactly a fully accurate statement.
Heights:
Panther 2.99 meters 9.8 ft
Comet 2.67 8.76
Churchill 2.8 9.2
Tiger I 3.0 9.84
PzKw IV 2.68 9.8
Matilda 3.5 11.48

The M-4 is shorter than all of the above
Sherman 2.62 meters 8.6 ft


T-34 2.45 meters 17 cm, 7 inches shorter

Where did you get these figures?
I have listed 9' for the Sherman, 10'3" for Grant, 8'11" for Pz. IV, 8'9" for comet, 8' for Matilda II. There is no way the Matilda could be 11'6" tall!

But you are right, it seems taller than it is. The main knock is that it should have better armour. Why else did it have such a poor reputation vs German tanks

[kfz]

The Matilda (any mark) is lower than a Sherman (any mark). Matlilda is surprising big tank (I tend to hold the Matilda II as a pre war model in my head, I know its not, but just it development owes more to 1930's designs), I always have this image that its quite a small thing, turret is, but the hull is fairly largeish.

Kev

Ps Ive got another sherman ki, this one may be in Russian camo. Need some good pics of early sherman 1's in Russian service.

[von Poop]

Originally Posted by freebird

But you are right, it seems taller than it is. The main knock is that it should have better armour. Why else did it have such a poor reputation vs German tanks

And how would you have waved a magic wand and provided such a tank with better armour mate? I'd also say much of the Sherman's 'reputation' was undeserved (as is apparent from my posts in this entire thread ), much of that reputation stems from perceptions in Normandy where it was fighting an enemy with HV guns in exceptionally advantageous defensive positions. And yet... the Armour loss rate for Normandy on both sides is not too unbalanced when considering the Germans defensive advantage (Just reading Buckley's 'British Armour in the Normandy Campaign' fascinating stuff).
I'd rather a vehicle that could and did run on it's tracks for hundreds of miles without breakdown rather than a 'wunderwaffen' lying immobile in a ditch because it's gearbox has failed or it's been blown up by the crew.
The 'too tall' thing as a major issue isn't so either, while later cupolas raised the profile somewhat it's still broadly the same as any other ww2 tank.
I don't think Sherman was perfect, far from it, but I do agree with the threads title that it is an amazing vehicle with an undeservedly negative reputation.
Anyway... blah... covering old ground here.

Ram's an interesting suggestion as a wonder weapon, why's that then?

Cheers,
Adam.

[kfz]

In Von Lucks bio about he mentions what an unwelcome surprise the Sherman was with its powerfull gun abd strong well sloped armour. Of course the majority of Von Lucks force where Pz3's, of which the M4 compares quite well.

Kev

[von Poop]

I've got an intelligence intercept that ADM199 kindly sent me telling of initial encounters with Sherman in the desert, it implies the Germans were more than impressed with the M4's first appearance.

[Gotthard Heinrici]

Ah give me the T-34 any day!!!! Production that could match the Sherman, just as good if not better in Combat and had a potential to be upgraded to keep it competitive on the battlefield!!

[Owen]

reputation stems from perceptions in Normandy

(Massively heavy on the sarcasm.)
You mean there was more to WW2 than just Normandy?
Well bugger me, I didn't know that.

So a tank that served well from 1942 , across the Desert, through Tunisia to Sciliy and up Italy as well as in The Far East was utterly crap because it had to attack enemy postions in Normandy that were well sited with very good anti-tank weapons which would have defeated any armour on any side at that date.

[Slipdigit]

Originally Posted by Slipdigit

Matilda 3.5 11.48

Originally Posted by freebird

Where did you get these figures?
There is no way the Matilda could be 11'6" tall!

And you are correct.

I got the numbers from various sites, Achtung Panzer for the German ones, various sites for the others.

I wrote down the numbers on a steno pad and then typed them in. I wrote down 2.5, typed in 3.5 for the Matilda. When I was adding the metric to feet conversion, I thought it odd, but as it was late at night (for me anyway) when I typed in the numbers, I blissfully unware of my error. I had remembered the Matilda as a squattie-looking tank