Did the M4 Sherman really have bad defence?

The Panther's tendency to self-ignite was largely dealt with after the earliest issue, which were shipped out far before they were ready anyway. Many vehicles have had inbuilt fire safety issues over history, FV432, Bradley etc. all seem to have had some grief, and like the Panther they were largely dealt with as part of the development process. Convoluted starting routines to avoid fire risks seem common on many 'A' vehicles, old and new. - Panther's troubles at Kursk seem an unreasonable area on which to judge the vehicle as a whole (if judge we must), as it was a significant and briefly deadly teething problem more than a long-term flaw.
Sherman's poor reputation seems undeserved to me the more I look into it, but let's not get too glib about the German types.

Sherman still shows up as a bit of a burner in contemporary accounts even after wet stowage reduced the chances of certain kinds of ammunition fire, but on wider inspection (and as T.A. mentions) so do many other vehicles of both sides. A horrible burning death being an understandable tankers nightmare that's not uncommonly reported as a primary fear on many types, axis or allied (perhaps excluding Churchill & it's high crew survival rate).
One possible contributing factor to the perceptions of M4's being so 'ignitable' may lie in German ammunition types. Some testing was carried out around Tobruk in '42 and German base-fused armour piercing ammunition was found to do a lot more damage as it actually exploded when fully inside the target. Supplies of 75mm (M61?) solid/inert allied ammunition would penetrate the same targets but without the explosive bonus, a bonus that naturally was more likely to ignite fuel & ammunition.
The difference was considered great enough that 15-17,000 captured German rounds were machined and re-cartridged to be successfully fired from the 75mm on M3s.

Nothing's ever as simple as it first seems is it... I'm a trenchant defender of Sherman but everything's 100 shades of grey in the analysis... as ever.

:sherman:anther:

Cheers,
Adam.

 

Another reason the Shermans tended to burn more than they might otherwise is there was usually plenty of ammo around for them and the tankers really hated to run out of ammo so they'd often carried extra. This could be a problem if they were hit. The Germans usually didn't have this problem, at least that's my impression.

 

I really don't believe the Sherman brewed any more than any other tank. People just like to pick on the Sherman, the little tank that won the war!

 

But it still looks like the problems with "spontaneous ignition" continued even up to and even perhaps past Feb '44

 

And of course this Sherman Vs...... "Debate" keeps cropping up time and time again. And amazingly enough no real new info or evidence . Pretty much the same ol same ol LOL. I do agree too that from what I have read they did not "Brew up" more then any other type and they did not due to some flaw either. I think perhaps it is some inherent bias in some when discussing tanks that the Sherman and T-34 won the war against the "Superior" German tanks and Technology.

 

Yeah, and we all know about the superior German technology thread! I love that one!

 

LOL Thanks

 

Somewhere I saw average casualties per tank knocked out posted. From what I recall the German and western allied numbers were fairly close but the Soviets were significantly worse. Apparently when Shermans went up they often took enough time that their crews could bail out. My impression is the Soviets tended to stick with their tanks a bit longer although there may have been a tendency for the Germans to be able to bring mg fire on the KO tank more on the eastern front (this is conjecture)

 

The Russians suffered more casaulty probably because of their ability to maintain unit cohension after sustaining heavy casaulties in battle and more than a few commanders abused of that ability. Apparently some poor small unit tactics was still presistent in many units until the end of the war.

In after action reports, when Russians lost lead tanks to German antitank fire, they often continued to press the attack until they were all knocked out or won. When the American lead tanks were hit, the column would pause, laager up, and told the fire support elements shell and bomb the position and its viccinity until there were no more return fire.

As for Red Army tank crews, maybe they've had escape hatch problems? Hitting a tank until it burns was standard tactical procedure to make sure a knocked out tank stayed that way.

 

The losses were average number of tank crew lost when a tank was knocked out. So tactics like continuing an advance after you lost your lead tank should actually lower the number. You are giving your opponents something else to shoot at. They may have continued to try and fight the vehicle longer or it could be any of a number of other things including bad numbers or perhaps different numbers or medical treatment or ...

 

Everything I have read has stated that the M-4 was inferior to every other main tank such as the T-34,Tiger, and majority of the Panther models. Now I'm sure there are a few articles out there that state otherwise but the majority claim the Sherman was not a great tank.

 

Someone wrote once that the earth was flat too.

 

I have also read a book saying the Warhawk was a Hurricane.


What can you believe these days? Everything is made for money.

We should all write a book. One with real facts.

 

You think Sherman was a good tank? I do not have a strong opinion about it because I have not researched a lot of details about it?

 

As I have stated in every one of these threads, yes I do think the Sherman was a GREAT tank! There are a lot of people that put it down, but when you cut thru the crap that is written about her, she's got a lot of bang for the buck! Speed, agility, and yes, firepower! Maybe not as strong as her opponents, but when they are stopped fixing their hunk of iron, the little Sherman is like the energizer bunny, she just keeps going and going!!

But don't take my word for it, there is a lot of info at this site about her!

 

I do not think that. I know that. The Sherman was the best tank of the war.

 

You Sir, are a man of taste and distinction!

(i think it was you who said that to me, wasn't it?)

 

The three most common tanks of the war were probably the Sherman, the PzIV, and the T-34. They were all pretty close in performance with individual models sometimes giving one an edge in one place or another. However if you look beyond the fire power, protection, and mobility triangle then the Sherman starts looking better and better. Reliability, ergonomics, transportability, general utility, etc. I personally don't think any of the other tanks that appeared in WWII would have served the US as well as the Sherman.

 

Well said! You get my points!

 

Well, the army actually allowing the M26 development sooner. But yes if we take the Sherman out of the triangle, it's an excellent tank! Just comes to show (once again) that battles don't win wars. Logistics do!




Cheers...