shermans

Where does everyone stand on the american sherman tank here any comparisons to german tanks

 

Forumperson :

If we start off with the Normandy campaign the Sherman failed in every aspect except speed compared to the Pz. IV, Panther and Tiger I.

Let the thread begin !!!

E

 

Well my thoughts are that their is no doubt that the German tanks were better. If I had been in the war, I would not have liked to have served in the Sherman tank!......however, I belive that the overall stratigy to win the War was correct. The Chife of staff, I belive considered many factors when it came to picking a tank design to mass produse in order to win the War:...(1)Quanity, not Quality would win out in the end. In other words wear them down. This proved to be true...(2)More Shermans could fit into a "LCT" than say, tanks the size of a German Tiger...this also proved to be the right desision. Consider Normandy, the Allis had to get an enormus amount of stuff ashore, and do it fast, or the invasion would fail, and the War would be lost. To quote Nathan bedford Forrest"git their the firstest, with the Mostest"...Well, this also applies to getting as many tanks into Europe as fast as possible...(3)It stood to reason that as the Germans retreated they would destroy all bridges behind them. Therefor Allied tanks would have to be light enough to cross our pontoon bridges built by the Engineers.
I think the Army considered all these facters early in the War and came up with the right solution. The Sherman was fast, relieable, and easy to operate, and being 75mm, this ment that it fired the same round as the common "pack Howitzer. That could be a big addvantage at times.The War department had considered all the angles from the beginning, on how to go about winning, and what percentage of losses would be acceptable, weather talking about b-17's, Infantry, or tanks. They knew they would lose many more Shermans than the Germans would lose tigers...BUT, in the end, they would prevail because they would produce more medium tanks, instead of fewer heavy tanks.One on one, no doudt the German tank was better, but I think the right U.S. tank was picked to do what the Allies needed to do, which was win the War.....I realize, if I were the one in a Sherman going up against a German tank I may feel that the War department had not made the right choise, but the people who plan the war must look at the overall picture, and not consider how to minimize causalities....sad but true...thats one of the things that makes war so terrible.

 

Walt :

Good post. I would agree that the Sherman crews probably felt that their higher authority/commanders lied to them about the German Panzers, although they didn't really know what they(Germans)had or could do. The Sherman crews feared all the German tanks but by superior numbers and the Sherman's agility they felt a certain degree of confidence. Not until the longer barrel 75's and the larger 90mm came into existence could the Allies even compete with the long rod high velocity 75's and 88's that the German armor possessed.

E

 

Good topic. My simple answer for lack of time is:
The Shermans were out-classed by the German Panzers. 76 (later 75mm) mm gun versus an 88mm for example.

 

Yet the brave men in them still got the job done, in the long run.

 

While I agree with Walt in the majority of what was stated as far as the mass numbers, reliability and mobility of the Sherman. I disagree in the pure numbers would win. This would be true if the Sherman had a gun that would cause damage. In order for the Shermans to succeed, you would have to send in 3-5 against one Tiger. That is after dodging the rounds from the Tiger early on since it had a longer range. If you survive that, then try to out flank the Tiger. If you survive that, hit him in the rear without being hit by another Tiger or Pak. Would I want to be the commander of an armoured unit in this circumstance? Would I want to be a crew member in a Sherman?

The Sherman was a good tank in the 30s but not in the forty's since even the Pzkw III could knock it out.

Yes, the men who served in the Shermans are indeed brave and got the job done. They indeed should be commended. The price paid was very high and those to blame were the desingers, generals and higher ups.

 

Even with the battle hardened experience by the US armored crews I cannot understand why a larger, lower profile/better armored turret and chassis was not designed and implemented during the 1944 year. The US had the technology and the masses to produced and excellent tank. Any German pak during 44 could also knock out the high turreted Sherman with 1 round.

E

 

Erich, I agree that the US had the technology to build something better, but as Walt mentioned, the US had to ship their tanks overseas so space was at a premium. To keep the same body but add a thicker turret and bigger gun would have made them top heavy and would have negated thier speed and manouvering(?)ability. The Germans had the luxery(?) to build the proper tank knowing that they could transport everything by rail or drive it there if necesary.

 

YOU GUYS MAY BE RIGHT, BECAUSE RIGHT AT THE END OF THE WAR THE U.S. CAME OUT WITH THE T26E-3"PERSHING" THAT COULD TAKE OUT ANY GERMAN TANK. IT MOUNTED A 90 MM GUN.......SO SOMEBODY UP THEIR WAS THINKING, "HEY, WE GOTTA HAVE A BIGGER TANK"......THIS IS JUST A QUESTION, DO YOU THINK THAT SELF PROPELLED GUNS (AND THEIR WERE SEVERAL TYPES) WERE SUSSPOSED TO FILL IN THE GAP BETWEEN THE MEDIUM AND THE "HEAVYIES". I HAVE NEVER HEARD OF SUCH AN IDEA, AND HAVE NO IDEA IF ITS TRUE OR NOT....BUT AGAIN THEY WERE LIGHT AND MOBILE ?

 

This might be a strange comparison...but hey it's almost three in the morning so here i go!

The sherman and german tanks remind be of the scene in Blackhawk dowm (told you it was out there heh) reminds me of when the 2 snipers were trying to hold off hundreds of armed Somolies. for awhile they were able to hold them off...for they truly were superior fighting "machines" where as the Somolies were simply men who were handed AK-47s.
Now the snipers were able to make a good stand for awhile...but they were to few....and eventually the Somlolies won that skirmish...at greater cost but nonetheless won.
Same basic thing with the German tanks and Shermans...German tanks were always in less numbers than shermans...and were always able to hold them off for a while...but eventually the shermans numbers would overwhelm the german tanks and in the long run come out the victor. Now i'm going to BED!

 

Interesting.......

first my thought about US technology is that the US of A could easily have turned out a mobile heavily armed tank to counter the punch of all the German tanks at Normandy, and with that could of well figured out how to transport the units over water. It just wasn't done during that time .......period ! What a waste of US and British lives as far as I am concerned.
Many times the German tanks because of a superior gun won the battle(if we want to call it that), and retreated easily un-hampered by Allied armor to conceal themselves and dig in to take on another Allied thrust(talking about Normandy again). I can't totally agree with the Shermans finally winning the battle as the German armor was only defeated by attrition which was combat/mechanical breakdowns and fuel shortages to add to the ones "killed in combat". The principle problem to me was the lack of speed and mobility but in the case of a defensive engagement, surprise and camo'd position(s) is of the most importance.
As to self propelled units, I believe they were necessary to bolster the weaker guns of the units. Mobile support comes to mind. sure there are limitations to an ATV without a turret but I can think of the defensive properties which would be ideal......think of the German Sturmgeschutze and the Jagdpanzer IV. Low, sleek, gun forward, and the gun of excellent design and firepower; quite the defensie weapon for the time. In the Germans case as the Panzer IV was becoming nearly non-existent in 1945, the Stug's were comprising some times the II Abteilung or at least one Kompanie of the Panzer regiment(s) during 1945.

E

 

Ron--thats an EXCELLENT analogy.

Erich--I agree--they could have easily built a better tank to deal with the Panzers. I think basically they just wanted numbers on the battlefield and also thinking of having the P-51 Mustangs--and Hawker hurricanes on the scenes to help being the tank busters. What a sad way of thinking and a sad loss of too many British and American and Canadian tank crews.

 

I belive when you look at the overall plan to win the the war, and what weapons would have to be improved or invented....some of the smartest minds in the free world worked on this problem. The proper steps were then taken to "make it so"...Just a couple of examples....The B-29, to Bomb Japan.....The P-51 Mustang to escort Bombers all the way to the target.....The M-1 carbine.....The greese gun....Airborne troops...Radar.....Sonar....the list goe's on. You guys know them as well as myself. The point is, that It is not that the u.s. could not, or would not develope a larger or more powerful tank. I think ALL points were considered, and the Sherman was a compramise, because of all the things we talked about earlier. Great point about the Mustangs as Tank busters. I had compleatly forgotten about the air power, but the way I see it this renforces my point. I dont want to flogg a dead horse, but I still say you can have the biggest-badest tank in the world, but if you cant get them across the Atlantic....and then get them across the Rivers to engage the enemy..... then you might as well not have any Tanks at all. Seems to me that the overall Stratigy was (1) More is better. Lots of Shermans (2)add mobile big bore guns with more range than German tanks (3)add spotter-aircraft to call in fire missions( this was based on the assumtion that the Allies would have air supierorty, which they did by the time of overlord) (4)Heavy Bombers (5) Mustang tank busters (good one Ron) (6)Ability to cross all the Rivers between the coast of France and Germaney on pontoon bridges.....I belive all these sorts of things were taken into account from the very beginng by the WPB (war plans Board headed by Eizenhower)and the proper desision was made....It is the same kind of desision which had to be made wheather or not to fight our way through to relive Wake island...or the 75,000 troops fighting on Battan...the answer had to be no. Many hard choises had to be made in order to carry out the overall plan...Just one more exsample of what I mean, then I'll shut up....The United States was not ready to send troops to North Africa early in the war, but it simpley had to be done,if for no other reason,than to open a secound frount, to take some the heat off russia, and to keep the Germans fighting there instead of a total comitment of troops aimed at England. But again, I know you guys already know all that. I just dont think its fair to say that the designers and planners were doumb or indifferent to the fact that German tanks were better than ours. They knew that, but their were other factors involved, and they have my respect.

 

Just like to add another thought, but along a different line. I f the united States had old or outdated Weapons and equipment, it was the fault of the American people. They did not want to fund a large standing Army or Navy. Its hard to belive now, but in April of 1941, the U.S. had 9 understrenth Divisions....2 horse Cavalry Divisions....and 4 Armored Divisions....This to fight a War that sure to come. But the people were bound and determied not to get involved, so the Military was cut to the bare bone. That included money for weapons developments. In other words the Army was forsed to cut back in all departments, while the Japanese and the Germans were gearing up for a total and all out war.
Again its hard to belive, but in 1940 the United States had no draft and NO BASIC TRAINING! for soldiers....think of commuinications in world war two, and how important it was.....well in 1939, the year the Germans invaded poland the U.S.Army had 4,000 officers and Men in the Signal Corp.The Nation just wasent ready..hummm, sounds kinda like 2002 dont it!

 

Good post again Walt !

Guess the question then is this......how did we get the Pershing and the other heavy tank destroyer with the open top over the Atlantic ? It could of been done with foresight which we had at the time of the invasion. The Sherman was the result of the Afrika campaign which in it's entirety was a sluging match. As you said Walt, the thinking overall is that the Allies/Soviets were on the same wavelength. Attack in masse and suffer distasterous consquences. Victory was achieved and you know the cost like we all do.
The P-51 was the result for the RAF first and then the US fighter forces to counter higer altitude Bf 109's and achieve longer flying time. The P-47 was excellent as a shorter range lower altitude fighter and of course graound attack a/c. The Typhoon was the number one hitter of German armor though this is open to speculation, but destroyed quite a few MT's and soft-skinned vehicles during in course in the Normandy campaign.
As for the American people you the public followed it's government during this most trying time, and expected the best from it's resources.......as for the government being stupid, no I dind't say that .... nieve, yes it was. It did not learn from the afrika campaign and the resourcefullness of the Wehrmacht to the very end.

E

 

Thanks Erich, and good post yourself. And thanks for the info.

 

Amerikans are no idiots, but in their tanks designs I should doubt a little...

Whay did they make those filthy tanks? They wanted medium, reliable and easy to produce tanks? Here's my answer, the T-34 was all that and more and it was excellent!

Why, if the amerikans made the best aeroplanes, some very fine hand guns, ships and cannons did not do decent tanks?

That's my question!!!!!

 

Freidrich, that I think was our point. Fast, reliable and in huge numbers to conquer the enemy at hand. The US armored crews were brave fearless men and their tanks were fast but only until Normandy going against the lnger range 7.5's and 8.8's of the Panther, Tiger did they realize that the Sherman wasn't as good as they thought. The T-24 was an excellent tank but weakness's were found and the German's developed longer range and more hard hitting guns. German infantry tactics also changed as well to counter the thrust. Still from 44 -45 the T-34 was the most numerous tank on the Russian front and the Soviet troops took pride in manning the unit even though many times they charged in such large numbers and in return lost too many to achieve their objective(s).

E

 

Walt--Friedrich--guys-pick an avatar for your profile--I would be interested in seeing what you would pick.