The Sherman Tank what an amazing vehicle!!

[Slipdigit]

The Pershing was fairly good counterpart to the Panther. Please note, I did not say equal or superior, just that it stood a far better chance against the PzKw V than did the M4.

Anyway, the M26 could very well have been produced and fielded in larger numbers than it was, were it not for intransigence of individuals like Gen McNair, who believed, until he died from friendly bombs in Normandy, that tanks don't fight tanks. This was an error in doctrinal thought, not in engineering or design. The M4 was ready and available in ever increasing numbers and it fit in completely with the idea of what role the US Army Ground Forces Command thought the tank should play.

Designers usually build what they are told to build and with tanks like the M4, that is what they did. For what it was designed to do, it did very well. Don't forget, in the Pacific, it was Lord of All It Surveyed, but it was called upon to do mostly what it was designed to do, due to the dearth of adequate Japanese tank designs.

Which brings to to another thought for another thread. Why didn't the Japanese attempt to develop superior tanks after having their butts handed to them by the Soviets in the Border War of 1939? Or did they and they didn't have the expertise to accomplish it?

[Owen]

Another little Vignette to show Shermans weren't always outgunned in tank v tank actions.
Back to Tunisia again with the 17th/21st Lancers. 23rd April 1943.

Their move stirred up the enemy and several German tanks opened fire on the 17th/21st Lancers from hull down positions, knocking out three Shermans. The advance was being led by A Squadron, who promptly withdrew to a position where they could return fire. A flanking move to the right was tried, which was soon confronted by eight Panzer IVs and a Tiger guarding a wadi which crossed their path.
B Squadron came forward to support and a tank-versus-tank battle ensued in which five of the enemy tanks were knocked out, including the Tiger, for the loss of three of the Lancers Shermans.Other enemy tanks were seen moving into position and C Squadron came forwards to join in the shoot. Seven more German Panzer IVs were hit before the enemy armour retired.

pages 93 & 94 of Mailed Fist by Ken Ford.
Seems to me the Sherman could hold it's own.

[Gotthard Heinrici]

The Sherman was more than a match for the Mark IV's until maybe the Ausf G or H

[kfz]

Originally Posted by 4th wilts

all too late,tank manufactures had imo time enough to build or keep up with later german designs.should have had centurian in 1944,they knew we would be attacking and needed better tanks.probably leyland managers having a row with each other.should have read letters from the men who fought.yours very sincerely,lee.

Lee,
You should read the thread from the begining, see what its getting at. The tiger is nothing to do with it. This is about the Sherman and what a fantastic peice of engineering it was and still is. Your falling into the journilistic trap of the Sherman was no good cos the tiger was better. I can understand that argument, but credit where credit is due.

Hope this helps, see what where all getting at.

Kev

[Gotthard Heinrici]

Bigger is not better in the case of tanks. THe Tiger could dominate the battlefield but I'm not so sure that it could be useful in an offensive role. Its exploitative ability was minimal due to its short range and slow speed.

[Owen]

QRL - History of the 17th/21st Lancers

It was after this encounter that the Regiment was withdrawn from the line and re-equipped with the American Sherman tank mounting a 75mm gun. This represented a great improvement on the old 'Tommy Cookers' (Valentines), both in terms of firepower and armoured protection.

One rather successful action I just read about was the attack on Hammam Lif.

The Regiment conducted a 'charge' along the beach totally out manoeuvring the German defensive positions. Enemy resistance crumbled, thousands of prisoners were taken,

In fact they and the rest of 26th Armoured Brigade , attacked a position that had been defended by at least twelve 88mm guns, six 50mm guns and sixteen 20mm guns.
As the 2nd Lothian & Border Horse advanced along the beach they were engaged by an 88 on a headland across the bay, one tank commander thought they were being engaged by a U-Boat!

[4th wilts]

after the battles of 41 and 42 it was noted that after breakthrough a tank would mostly be engaging dug in a/t guns and infantry,so the sherman with its 75mm dual purpose gun was deemed adequate for this purpose and it was.back in blighty we started work on a large cruiser with a gun similar to that of the sherman.this is 1942,a full 2yrs before the invasion of france.i know we were building churchill as well. however,did we not know what jerry was up to eg,the new mk4 panzer with a more powerful 75mm gun.did we not know about soviet tanks.i think we came up with the cromwell.this tank was adequate for the same purpose as sherman,but i think we could have done better or am i alone in critisizing the british tank builders.was approx 2yrs not enough time to build a new tank,i do not know.how long did the germans take to design and iron out the problems of the mk5 panther.maybe this may help.did typhoons destroy as many tanks as the pilots claimed.yours very sincerely,lee.

[Gotthard Heinrici]

Lee, in western Europe the Germans had NO freedom of movement in relation to the situation in the Air. The cream of the luftwaffe was destroyed in the East and in the Air War over the Reich. They had nothing left with the result that the ground forces had absolutely no freedom of movement when it came to large scale deployments. The role of tactical airpower in the west in 1944 cannot be overstated.

[4th wilts]

funky dj,iwas merely asking the question,did typhoon pilots destroy as many tanks as they claimed.yours very sincerely,lee.

[4th wilts]

thankyou for reminding me about the tactical situation in the air over normandy funky dj,i never knew that.yours very sincerely,lee.