The Sherman Tank what an amazing vehicle!!

[BulgarianSoldier]

Originally Posted by Von Poop

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.

I dont care that hes a nazi.I dont like Churchill he wanted to stab a knife in the back of Russia but this dont make me hate any of you mates

[Owen]

Back to the SHERMAN, please, everyone.

Had a decko at latest Military Modelling magazine yesterday and saw an interesting book that looks worth a shufti.

"Codename Swallow" British Sherman Tanks at Alamein by Dennis Oliver.

http://www.mmpbooks.biz/books/books-green.html

[von Poop]

so,
To compare Oranges with Oranges, rather than grapes with Melons.

Late model PzKw.IV, or Sherman Firefly?

(Swallow books rather good.)

[MikB]

Originally Posted by Von Poop

so,
To compare Oranges with Oranges, rather than grapes with Melons.

Late model PzKw.IV, or Sherman Firefly?

(Swallow books rather good.)

Not really. The late PzIV was at the limit of its development, overweight and overstressed - the front bogie springs became permanently bowed. Its agility and turret traverse was always inferior to the Sherman's, and in a tight melee the Shermans generally won easily. Plus the 17-pounder's performance equalled or exceeded the Panther's 75mm L/70.

I'd say the Firefly was the poor man's Panther. Or perhaps the thinking man's, in view of the man-hours and resources needed for the latter.

Regards,
MikB

[Owen]

Anything with a 17 Pdr, Firefly, Achilles even Archer (muffled giggles) and later the Comet (with 17Pdr in all but name) was too good for a Panzer IV H or J.

[von Poop]

Originally Posted by Mikb

Not really. The late PzIV was at the limit of its development, overweight and overstressed - the front bogie springs became permanently bowed. Its agility and turret traverse was always inferior to the Sherman's, and in a tight melee the Shermans generally won easily. Plus the 17-pounder's performance equalled or exceeded the Panther's 75mm L/70.

I'd say the Firefly was the poor man's Panther. Or perhaps the thinking man's, in view of the man-hours and resources needed for the latter.

Regards,
MikB

Which does rather underline that the Sherman is all too often dismissed too easily.

(I like the "thinking man's" comment, I shall use that.)
Cheers,
Adam.

[Paul Reed]

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

The HQ troops had Fireflys at Villers-Bocage, and there was at least one M4 OP tank knocked out in the village.

I have some operational reports on Shermans from the National Archives in London. I will see if I can find them and post some extracts here over the next week. They make interesting reading.

Incidentally, I am living proof a Sherman can take a direct hit from a Tiger and survive; my father was inside one at the Po Battle in 1945 which took a direct hit from a 88 - and it was an OP tank armed with a wooden gun and a .50 cal only! Considering I was born in 1967, it shows my father lived to relate that particular incident!

[Owen]

Found an interesting quote on wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman
I'd say it goes to show how quickly the losses could be made up. The industrial might of the USA just kept pumping them out.
What about crews though...........

According to Belton Y. Cooper's memoir of his 3rd Armored Division service, the Shermans were "death traps"; the overall combat losses of the division were extremely high. The unit was nominally assigned by table of organization 232 medium tanks (including 10 M26 Pershing tanks that made it into combat). 648 tanks were totally destroyed in combat, and a further 1,100 needed repair, of which nearly 700 were as a result of combat. According to Cooper, the 3rd Armored therefore lost 1,348 medium tanks in combat, a loss rate of over 580%. Cooper was the junior officer placed in charge of retrieving damaged and destroyed tanks. As such, he had an intimate knowledge of the actual numbers of tanks damaged and destroyed, the types of damage they sustained, and the kinds of repairs that were made. His figures are comparable to those given in the Operational History of 12th U.S. Army Group: Ordnance Section Annex. Some WWII Army officers made similar arguments during the war.

[BulgarianSoldier]

Originally Posted by Paul Reed

The HQ troops had Fireflys at Villers-Bocage, and there was at least one M4 OP tank knocked out in the village.

I have some operational reports on Shermans from the National Archives in London. I will see if I can find them and post some extracts here over the next week. They make interesting reading.

Incidentally, I am living proof a Sherman can take a direct hit from a Tiger and survive; my father was inside one at the Po Battle in 1945 which took a direct hit from a 88 - and it was an OP tank armed with a wooden gun and a .50 cal only! Considering I was born in 1967, it shows my father lived to relate that particular incident!

Who said it is imposible Sherman to survive by a hit?
Its imporatnd where the tank is hit however 50mm armor is really small it can be destroyed easy by fact.The importand of the tanks is the speed if the tank is fast its harder to be hit no wounder why the soviet tanks were so fast.If Tank is hit the posability the crew to survive is around 75% (if the engine and if the ammonitions dont blow up)

[drgslyr]

Originally Posted by Owen D

Found an interesting quote on wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman
I'd say it goes to show how quickly the losses could be made up. The industrial might of the USA just kept pumping them out.
What about crews though...........

Wasn't the loss rate of tanks in all armies extremely high, regardless of type? Tanks were like a magnet for enemy fire. I'd rather take my chances as an infantryman.

Regarding earlier comments on the Firefly, were there any other modifications to the tank, or did it have the same problem with lighting up as the standard Sherman when hit?