Myths and facts about M4 Sherman and T-34

That's what i read about the usual method when new tanks were introduced.

 

No, that was the UNusual method.

 

Be all that as it may, the fact was German training, both quantity and quality, was indeed suffering during the latter half of '44 and onward. Gasoline was a critical issue in driver training-especially important in keeping Panthers on line. The horrific demands for ammo on all fronts meant that little was available for training. While the Germans were good at improvising, there was so much one can do without ammo and gas to drive the vehicles. Nor do I recollect any expedient such as a sub-caliber device for practice shooting. In some of these battles American tankers commented on the poor shooting of the Germans.

 

Recently I watched interviews with veteran Sherman crews. They have been asked a question "Which tank you would like to have if you had a choice?". Without exception their answer was "Tiger!". I understand them perfectly: for every destroyed Tiger, four Shermans were destroyed. At least Tiger crews had much better chances to survive.

 

Actually I think you will find that it was more dangerous being in a Tiger than a Sherman. I don't have a good number for the total losses or personnel casualties in Tigers vs Shermans but from the numbers I can find it looks like around 80% of the Tiger tanks were lost during the course of the war. Wiki pages indicate over 1,700 Tigers destroyed vs less than 2,000 built for Sherman's I've read that less than half were loss. Now if I were a tanker going into combat I would prefer a Tiger to a Sherman. On the other hand if I was in command of a division going into combat I'd prefer my division armed with Shermans rather than Tigers.

 

I'm sorry, but that is not a fact; it is an inference. I have dug into my German sources and have yet to find significant evidence of degraded training due to gasoline or ammunition shortages. The Panther was always problematic with regards to driver training and complaints about poor driving leading to breakdowns continued throughout its service. Nor have I seen any evidence the training of the last waves of Panther battalions organized at Mailly in spring 1944 were any worse than those organized in fall 1944 or that the re-built divisions of fall 1944 were any worse. The organizations we know were problematic were the Panzer brigades of September 1944, which had numerous faults.

Yes, the Americans used "sub-caliber devices", but given the only ones standardized were for the 37mm, 57mm gun, and 3" guns, I would question how valuable they were for training using the 75mm and 76mm-armed Medium Tanks M4? The 37mm device was adaptable to the 75mm, but I have also yet to find any real evidence of its extensive use in training; the "combat course" could have utilized it, but actually recommended single shots from the co-ax MG as the best simulation. In any case, the targets were mostly to be engaged by machine guns and high explosive...or by "crushing".

Otherwise, American tank gunnery used the 1,000-inch range to introduce gunners to proper sight pictures and the problems of cant and firing at moving targets, then proceeded to direct and indirect live fire MG and main gun) on a static range, before finishing with the combat course.

 

That issue was never completely fixed. T-34/85 introduced a commanders cupola (which was also a standard equipment on Beutepanzer T-34(r)) but that's kinda it.

 

Those crews most likely did not know of all the technical details. The legend of the Tiger is far greater than the real thing. Also, Sherman crews also had good chances to survive. Between 5000 and 6000 Shermans were lost in ETO but only a bit over 1000 crewmen were lost and most of them outside their vehicles. Those odds look pretty good to me.

 

The video I've mentioned earlier is below the text. What I find interrestong are the old chaps that actually drove tanks and footage of stil functional tanks. Interesting stuff but stil tv documentaries which should be considered as less reliable source.
Certainly, Sherman could be considered better for a simple reason: it won the war.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj0AzL95Weg&app=desktop

 

How many Shermans were used in the ETO and MTO? So 5000 to 6000 were lost in just France and the low countries and Germany, no the MTO? I know out of the 49,000 plus Shermans made, over 19,000 were issued to the US Army. That's not very many considering they made over 49,000. Out of those 19,000 the MTO, the Army in the Pacific, and the Marines that were supplied had to be covered. 17,000 Shermans were given to the British for lend-lease. That's surprising to me, because the British also manufactured their own tanks to support operations. We didn't start making the M24 Chaffee or M26 Pershing until late in the war. We had the M10, M18, and M36 TDs that looked like tanks without the covered Turret top, but the M18 and M36 wasn't available until late 1944. We also gave over 1000 M10s to the British out of the 6600 made. We just had that stupid looking small Stuart light tank with the small gun, and the M3 Grant.

 

49,422 Medium Tanks M4 of all types (75mm, 76mm, and 105mm) were completed as such, including production pilots, those converted later to other purposes, and some used for various tests, but not including chassis completed as other types.

Actual on hand and unit requirements for the U.S. Army as of circa VE Day (8 May 1945) were:

Total on hand with units of 12th AG as of 5 May 1945 was circa 3,738
Total TO&E 12th AG as of 30 April 1945 was 4,184
Total on hand with units Seventh Army as of 30 April 1945 was 996
Total TO&E Seventh Army as of 30 April 1945 was 1,029
Total TO&E 15th AG as of 1 May 1945 was 561
Total TO&E PTO as of 1 May 1945 was 789
Total TO&E CONUS and en route was 240
Total on hand with units was circa 6,324
Total TO&E with units was 6,731

Total reserve requirements (pipeline and in theater) was circa 2,309. Actual reserves on hand at the end of the war were about 50% of that or lower. As of [SIZE=10pt]20 March 1945 12th AG reserve requirement was 1,704 of which 848 were in theater and another 2,629 were on release, but not received – i.e., were still in CONUS or in transit.[/SIZE]

Known losses of the Medium Tank M4-series in the ETO, MTO, and NATO were:

Total Losses SHAEF (12th AG and 6th AG) to 12 May 1945 was 5,779
Total Losses Fifth Army to 11 May 1945 was 1,171
Partial Losses 6th AG 15 August-1 May 1945 was 295
Total Losses II Corps, Tunisia, 15 March-9 May 1943 was 60
Total Losses Seventh Army, Sicily was 8
Total Losses 1st AD, Tunisia, 14-21 February 1943 was 94
[SIZE=10pt]Total Known Losses was 7,407[/SIZE]

Lend-Lease (BTW, they were not "given"):

To the British Empire
With 75mm 15,256
With 76mm 1,335
With 105mm 593
Total 17,184 (34.9% of total produced)

To Canada (not included above)
With 75mm 4

To France
With 75mm 755
(Note that this apparently does not include the 36 M4 76mm assigned to the 2eme DB in August 1944 when it deployed to the continent. It is probable these came from theater stocks and were not counted as Lend-Lease.)

To USSR
With 75mm 2,007
With 76mm 2,095
Total 4,102

To American Republics
With 75mm 53

[SIZE=10pt]Total Lend-Lease 22,098[/SIZE]

 

I literally didn't mean "given" I meant through lend-lease. I wonder why we gave the British so many when they had their own line of tanks. Was the US Army ever at any materiel disadvantage in the ETO of Shermans?

 

I wonder why the US Army kept that Stuart Light tank in action for so long. The gun was small and it just looked un-modern and awkward. I don't know if it's because it appears tall but not long?

 

Then stop using "given" if you don't mean it. It's confusing.

Anyway, we sent so many to the British Commonwealth because they asked us for them and "paid" for them in return under the terms of the Lend-Lease Agreement. The reasons are many, but the primary one was the British were so desperate for tanks 1940-1942 they elected to continue to build substandard designs because they felt they could not allocate the resources to design, prototype, and - most critically - produce indigenous designs in sufficient numbers. So the peak year of production for the Infantry Tank .A12 "Matilda" was 1942 and it continued production into January 1943, the Infantry Tank "Valentine" never received an ".A" number because it was bought "off the shelf" from Vickers. It too saw peak production in 1942 and significant numbers of gun tank variants were built as late as 1943 and production did not end until 1945! The Cruiser tanks were as bad. Cruiser .A13 Mk III "Covenantor" was so bad it was never used other than as a "home defence" and training tank and yet just like Matilda they continued to build the POS until January 1943. The saga of the later Centaur/Cavalier/Cromwell wasn't much better - by mid-1944 indigenous British production was only sufficient to equip eight armour and recce regiments in NWE (including Poles and Czechs)...out of some 40-odd regiments total IIRC.

The US Army did suffer materiel disadvantages in the ETO, but not because of Lend-Lease. It was because of miscalculations about the length of time it took to requisition and ship tanks in theater, as well as the forecast number of losses based upon previous experience, which meant the reserves were too small and shortages continued to early 1945.

 

You're welcome, yes I have gone to a great deal of trouble compiling that.

It is background materiel for my work in progress, For Purpose of Service Test, which is a history of the Armored Force, not the Medium Tank M4. Most of that information was derived from the decimal files of the ETOUSA/SHAEF AFV&W Section as well as those of the 6th and 12th Army Group, First, Third, Fifth, and Ninth Army Armor Sections, as well as related files in the G3 and G4 Sections of those headquarters. If you want to look for it at College Park, they are in RG 338, RG 407 Entry 427, and RG 492. I first started looking in 2001...

 

Are you serious? I say "give" as a general description. I could say "hey, I gave my buddy a lawn mower to use last week" I don't mean I literally gave it to him. lighten up please, its basic lingo.

Do you know when M24 tanks began to appear in numbers?

 

Lighten up yourself. It was a ribbing. You said you shouldn't use the word and then immediately used it. It wad unintentional I'm sure but still funny.

I'll look up the M24 later; I'm at work.

 

Okay, the 744th Tank Battalion (Light) received its first M24 as a Christmas Eve present on 24 December 1944. However, it did not complete outfitting entirely with the new tank until 15 February 1945. It is often said those were the first issued, but actually the 740th Tank Battalion when it was committed in the Ardennes drew two from the ordnance depot at Sprimont and were engaged on 19 December. As of 5 May 1945, First Army had 153 operational, Third Army 385, and Ninth Army 339. Seventh Army I'm not sure.

 

The beginning of that video makes it sound like Tiger was the primary tank used by the Germans.