The Sherman Tank what an amazing vehicle!!

[von Poop]

Originally Posted by drgslyr

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.

My thoughts exactly on wastage. Been looking for stats on percentage loss-rates on both sides since Owen posted that to see if it can be backed up, can find lots on airforce attrition but less on armour. I'll keep looking, unless anyone has them to hand?

Firefly was pretty much a standard Sherman (in as much as such a thing exists) with the modification being mostly to fit the bfg in. Interchangeability of mechanical parts largely retained.

[BulgarianSoldier]

Originally Posted by drgslyr

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?

Not true iv seen action the tanks are like a magnet to the aircraft and if aircraft attack tank its really hard the tank to escape.
I say it befor and i will say it again tanks are not for fighting in the citys.

Von Poop why dont you go and drive one Sherman and attack the british base right now?

[kfz]

Originally Posted by Von Poop

My thoughts exactly on wastage. Been looking for stats on percentage loss-rates on both sides since Owen posted that to see if it can be backed up, can find lots on airforce attrition but less on armour. I'll keep looking, unless anyone has them to hand?

Firefly was pretty much a standard Sherman (in as much as such a thing exists) with the modification being mostly to fit the bfg in. Interchangeability of mechanical parts largely retained.

What people seem to forget the firefly was a flawed weopen. ITs was top gap measure to fill strict need. Complete oppisite of the orignal design brief of the M4.

Its while since I looked at it, but wasnt the radio rellocated to make room for the breach and it was down a crew member. The 17 pouder was an anti tank gun (developed from an anti aircraft gun??) and did not have the range of ammunition types to make it a usefull as *proper* tank. Hence it was
never deployed by itself but allways mixed with conventionally armed vehicles.

Kev

[lancesergeant]

My sympathies are with those who had to crew the Shermans. It can't be much help to one's confidence knowing that in a one and one against a Tiger, it would come off worse. Someone put through a comment that we were losing 4 shermans to every one tiger.-in Normandy. It could be mass produced at a rate of knots, two auto engines merged together.

If they outnumbered the tiger in an engagement they stood a chance - otherwise. Looking at the way they blew up it doesn't inspire confidence.

It has it's followers and one can't deny it's qualities, but one prevalent fact stands out -without it the Allies would have come unstuck in Normandy -period.

I agree with Sapper about it's rep, but it filled a gap , which Britain nor any of the other allies was able to fill. A battle winner but on sheer numbers.

[Owen]

Reading today that the US General Staff had a choice go ahead with development and shipping the M6 heavy tank or transport two Shermans for each M6.
Simple maths came into play.

[von Poop]

That would be the M6 which was declared "too heavy, under-gunned, poorly shaped and requiring improvements to the transmission"... by the US Armoured force approval body? A victim of the need for Aircraft production in it's proposed factories and the fact that nobody in the US saw any real need for heavy tanks in 1942. Officially declared obsolete in 1944... I can only say that working on the principle "if it looks right it is right" looking at the M6 in the Chris Chamberlain book from which much of the above was culled It seems it wasn't so hard a decision for other reasons than maths.
mmmmmmm... twin tracks.

[Owen]

Will admit the M6 looks a dodgy design,best forgotten.

As for the M4 Sherman, I know one Canadian ex-Infantryman who has nothing but praise for the South Alberta's and their Shermans.

[kfz]

Originally Posted by lancesergeant

My sympathies are with those who had to crew the Shermans. It can't be much help to one's confidence knowing that in a one and one against a Tiger, it would come off worse. Someone put through a comment that we were losing 4 shermans to every one tiger.-in Normandy. It could be mass produced at a rate of knots, two auto engines merged together.

.

statistis eh?

I think the official figure is 6 shermans to a Tiger, But then it was 9 T34's to a tiger and a tiger is clearly not worth 9 T34's so it shows that figure for what it is.

I didint think the twin cadalic engines where ver put inthe sherman. I t was tried in the Grant and found not up to scratch. The best motors where supposed the Wright radial and the ford. But then the tank had a choise of a lot of engines and thats my point.

Kev

[von Poop]

Chrysler Multibank anyone?
5 auto engines joined to a common crankshaft. The Americans didn't like it so nearly all went into British lend-lease Sherman V's (M4A4). Most common Commonwealth Sherman on the beaches (?).
Funnily enough it was rejected by the US on grounds of reliability, this proved not to be the case.

These Belgian chaps are restoring/have restored a Firefly. Interesting site.

[MikB]

I don't know how much sense such numbers make. Because engagements hardly ever involved just the one type on each side, and the figure for Shermans is for all models consolidated, the true picture is just too confused. Of course, there are numerous stories of Fireflies successfully stalking and knocking out Tigers and Panthers, and you don't hear so many specifics the other way round (even if there were Fireflies in the Villers-Bocage column), and it's obvious that you could get a Firefly into concealment more easily than either of the big panzers - but these stories were written by victorious troops who were proud of what they did. And such German accounts as there are, are often written in a more obvious style of propaganda-speak which undermines their credibilty in Allied minds.

The only thing not in doubt is that Sherman did the work that was put in front of it, even if at great cost.

Regards,
MikB