The Sherman Tank what an amazing vehicle!!

[BulgarianSoldier]

Originally Posted by Kyt

The only problem with the fact that they kept on coming was the human cost - sending out wave after wave of Shermans because they were easily replaceable should actually be translated as the death and injury of wave after wave of young soldiers.

Everything give casultys airplanes tanks.Its not because of the tank its because of the crew and if the crew is discipline enough and work fast as a team they are more stronger and if the officer is smart tactic this is also a plus never mind of the tank.If the Loader is skilled enough he reload faster if the driver is skillfull he will not have a problem to escape from outher tank or place the tank that way so the gun wouldn't stuck.If the Gunner is skillfull he can hit everything even if the tank is moving.And if the comnader is enough skillfull he can tacticly outdone the enemy with some tricks like puting the tank betwen two houses or etc.
I can bet that if Wittman and his crew were alive and they were driving Tiger they can beat T-55 even T-72(Well its too fast but it can be easy tricked).So i dont think that the tank model is the most importand thing.Sorry that i have to say that but the german crew and tank comanders were far beter trained.

[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.

British Sherman 1 (Codenamed 'Swallow' as a new weapon) Alamein 1942:


Israeli M51, 1973:

[Kyt]

I'm surprised that nobody's mentioned the Firefly - now that was effective (shame there weren't enough of them)

[MikB]

Originally Posted by BulgarianSoldier

I can bet that if Wittman and his crew were alive and they were driving Tiger they can beat T-55 even T-72(Well its too fast but it can be easy tricked).

But they're not. Sherman Fireflies got him, which is rather to the point, nicht wahr?

Regards,
MikB

[BulgarianSoldier]

Originally Posted by MikB

But they're not. Sherman Fireflies got him, which is rather to the point, nicht wahr?

Regards,
MikB

Wittman destroyed more Sherman tanks then you ever seen tank in your life.
Do you know how hard is to shot so good in the target while the tank is moving we all hear how wittman destroyed a colum of british tanks and halftrucks.You cant imagen how fast the loader must load.This all can be made only with unbalivable skillfull crew and unhuman discipline.The point isnt that Wittman was killed the point is that he was with only one tank.There was a Mongolian saying "Only the fool enter in battle that cant be win" but Wittman enter in the battle and we have seen the what one Tiger and the crew can done.Now imagen if all the German tankers were like Wittman and his crew.One unbaliveble strong tank and the perfect crew and comander.
PS Von Poop did you read Sapper post?

[kfz]

I thought this one would get your all going. I dont think anyone has addressed my points though. I talking about the tank from an engineering and problem solving point of view. Im talking about the tank being a solution to the Allied need to

Catch up a massive gap in technolagy.
Have a vehicle that can me mass produced
Have a vehicle that could take on any theatre without modiifcation
Have a platform to develop


Prowess on the battlefiled is one thing (a important part I grant you) but its not everything and modern literture forgets that.

Kev

Sapper,
compare.
I cant argue with you mate, You have lot more expereince than I. But I suspect allied tactics where not all they should have been. Monty gets some grief for Market Garden but for me Good wood was a worse applicaton of statagy.

Kev

[kfz]

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.

British Sherman 1 (Codenamed 'Swallow' as a new weapon) Alamein 1942:


Israeli M51, 1973:

WELL SAID THAT MAN!!!

We can get all bogged down in who has the best sloped armour and thats not a bad discussion to have, but Not seen many pics of T34's wading ashore in the pacific, and where were the Panthers at El Alemain (on the drawing board), or Tigers in the Jungle of the far east?

The Weopen system does it

I dont think the designers ever got the credit.

Kev

[MikB]

Originally Posted by BulgarianSoldier

Do you know how hard is to shot so good in the target while the tank is moving we all hear how wittman destroyed a colum of british tanks and halftrucks.You cant imagen how fast the loader must load.This all can be made only with unbalivable skillfull crew and unhuman discipline.

No, he didn't hit that column moving. He had them bottled up in a sunken lane and knocked out the lead and tail vehicles. It was a turkey shoot after that. I don't know whether he planned it, or just took an opportunity offered by carelessness. IIRC only one British tank, a Cromwell, missed a chance of replying with a round through Wittmann's turret side.

Come to that, I'm not even sure there were any Shermans there....

Regards,
MikB

[BulgarianSoldier]

Originally Posted by MikB

No, he didn't hit that column moving. He had them bottled up in a sunken lane and knocked out the lead and tail vehicles. It was a turkey shoot after that. I don't know whether he planned it, or just took an opportunity offered by carelessness. IIRC only one British tank, a Cromwell, missed a chance of replying with a round through Wittmann's turret side.

Come to that, I'm not even sure there were any Shermans there....

Regards,
MikB

You understand me incorectly i didnt mean that he hit the column moving i mean it for outher battles.Im more the sure that there were Shermans in the column.
You could argue with me as much as you want but i drived T-55 one fantastic tank even if i dont wanted i learn a lot about the tanks even about the Sherman and like it or not M1 Sherman isnt good tank 50mm armor dont forget that the Tiger have 100mm this outdone even the time now T-55 is 100mm armor and 120mm and T-72 120 mm you see Tiger can compere to the tanks now.Sherman M51 is far more beter tank.Germans had the best tanks in the whole war there were biger,beter and more perfect.Of course every tank have a weeknes for example Elipfant doesnt have MG42 and this make him easy to be destroyed by inf. even you can trow a molotov or light the tank.Panzerjager and some of the Murder series are open from the back so you could easy trow a molotov or just shot the people inside the tank.Most of the german tanks are really weak in the citys because they are big and manytimes they stuck betwen two buildings or can be easy destroyed from the back with bazooka(this is maybe a problem of many tanks).Tiger is large tank its just not for the city its field tank.
PS:Wittman is a legend, maybe even a hero and an example for any tanker even me so please dont defile his name infront of me.

[von Poop]

Originally Posted by BulgarianSoldier

PS:Wittman is a legend, maybe even a hero and an example for any tanker even me so please dont defile his name infront of me.

I'll defile his name just a little.

Dedicated Nazi.

While his military reputation seems well deserved there are others who don't seem to attract the same 'hero worship', I sometimes wonder where all this began and find myself thinking it was probably in the pages of 'Signal'.


This all underlines the Glamour of certain vehicles, the thread is on the M4 Sherman but drifts, as such things often do, onto Wittman, probably purely because he eventually rode a Tiger. If any real comparison is to be made with the Sherman then the Pz.3 & 4 are far more appropriate comparitors.

(I can't remember mentions of Shermans at Villiers bocage either??, I'll have to double-check though)
Cheers,
Adam.

Edit: Paul states later that there were indeed Shermans present at VB.