Your Favorite Sherman...

definatley the M-51 it does look like its ready to put some holes through other tanks . The M-50 is my second choice as well

 

I, being of the school of thought that the only thing the sherman had going for it was numbers, elect the M4A1 Callope as my favourite sherman!!! The not-so-great Sherman tank turned out to be a not-so-great artillery piece as well, proving just how rugged and versatile the sherman can be

 

Do you have any arguments for that, taking the late version of the Sherman into account?

And could you make your case without using the words "Ronson" and "Tommy Cooker"?

 

I have two favorite Shermans.The original M4 and the Firefly.There is just something I like about the turret and gun.

 

Sure! i could use words like "underpowered", "weak gun" and "insufficient armor". One on one, i don't admire the sherman very much, but even so, it is the tank that won the war in the west Not because of any technical superiority (or even competence ) but because of its ability to be mass produced in short amounts of time and to overwhelm the enemy. Also it had a simple design and thus was less prone to breakdowns, i like the sherman because it is essentially the "AK47" of tanks. American tanks vs German tanks seems to be a case of quantity beating quality, and the sherman was the perfect tank for the job.

 

Roel did state that you should take the later versions into account...

'Underpowered' is a new one on me - the Sherman seems to have had a reasonable power-weight ratio.

 

The M4A3E8 is equal in quality to the Panther in my opinion. Heavy armor, good gun, HVSS, welded hull, wider tracks...

 

So I imagine you have the same opinion of the vaunted T-34 and PzKw IV (altough the PzKw Mk IV didn't even really have quantity going for it although PzKIV made up half the panzerwaffe between 1943-1945. Comparing contemporary models of all three (M4A1; T-34/76C Model 1942; and PzKw Mk IV G), they seem about equal.
T-34 had a slight (16.7 to 13.3) hp/wt advantage over M4A1 and Mk IV G, along with better speed and range. T-34 and Mk IV turing radius was less than half the M4.
The Sherman's M3 gun was better than the T-34's F34 (75mm to 56mm penetration at 500m) , but not as good as the Mk IV G's KwK 40 L43/48 (110mm). T-34 had the lightest armor (max hull 45mm, max turret 70mm), at best equal to M4A1 (max hull 51mm, max turret 76mm) even taking that great T-34 slope into account. Mk IV had 80mm hull and 50mm turret. The Sherman was by far and away the most reliable of the three.
The M4A1 was only 150mm taller than the T-34 or Mk IV and actually had a smaller frontal area than either.

 

Yes! the T-34 was similarily a mass produced tank which was mediocre one-on-one, but effective in big big numbers. I'm afraid i really don't know a thing about the Panzer IV, but i have heard that reliability aside, it was better than the M4. Lets be fair though, the sherman (and the T-34) did not win the war because they were brilliant tanks, but because they were cheap, reliable and easy to manufacture. I cannot possibly imagine a Sherman in any form being superior to a Panther

 

The M4A3E8 was equal to the Panther.

Even though the Panther is in a completely different weight class, and thus cannot really be compared. IIRC, most M4 variants weighed in at about 30 tons, while the Panther was 45 tons, making it 50% heavier. I would rather compare the Panther with the IS 2, which weighed 46 tons.

The IS 2 outclasses the Pz. V in pretty much every regard, despite weighing only a ton more.

As to Sherman vs T-34 vs Pz IV, previous debates in this forum have concluded that late versions of all these tanks are pretty much equal in quality, and none is dramatically superior.

 

No weapon ever wins the war on the merit of its own brilliance, it always depends on how it is used, when, where and by whom. The M4 and the T-34 may not have been excellent in any particular aspect, but they were definitely not bad tanks and they were used well.

Later versions of the Sherman actualy weighed 34 tons, actually. Still a lot less than the Panther, but the two tanks are still comparable because they were designed for the same role.

 

Let's be fair on both sides, the M4A3E8/76 was adequate (not better) for facing the Panther, and the armor on the Jumbo was as good. The Panther was a much heavier tank, imagine what the T-34 or M4 could have done with another 10 tons of gun, fuel, engine and armor. The relaibility of the Panther was never good (although finally much improved over it's debut at Kursk). The Panther excelled as a heavy defensive tank killer* with great frontal armor (it's side armor was no better than a T-34 or M4) capable of withstanding it's prime opponents (T-34 & M4) weaponary in most cases. Any allied tank would have to have had 200+mm of armor to do the same, adding around 6 tons to an M4A1. Use the other four tons to put in a 750hp engine and 105mm gun and you've got a better tank than the Panther.
For all their (debateable) technical excellence (the relatively) small number of Panthers basically retreated for two years.

*Note to Roel: The Panther was medium only in the eyes of the Germans, and it was not designed for the same role. The Sherman at least, and I believe the T-34, was intended as an explotation tank in the manner of cavalry, the Panther was intended to win tank duels. Bad doctrine on the US side, at least the Germans recognized that a tank was simply a new weapon in a combined arms group (Panzer division).

 

That has nothing to do with the Panther, though - that overall situation of the German Army. No "Wonder Weapon" was going change the Red Army by the time the Panther came into service.

 

But that's exactly what the Panther was supposed to be, the wonder weapon that would restore supremacy over the Red Army. Wasn't waiting for the Panthers one of the reasosns Citadel was delayed two months? And then these technically superb tanks took themselves out of action in the first couple of days with breakdowns. Compare the combat debut of the M4 at El Alamein (or even the M3 earlier). By all accounts British tankers considered the automotive performance to be superior to then current British tanks.
It only enters in the quantity versus quality debate. More expensive, labor consuming Panthers or plentiful and relaible mass produced M4 or T-34's.
Actually I agree with you, no 6,000 tanks (you can even throw in the 2,000 Tigers), no matter how good they were, were going to be able to stand up to 100,000 M4's and T-34's.

 

The Panther being a new wonder weapon - probably only in the mind of Hitler and his "out of touch with reality" posse! It was superior to the T-34, but not THAT superior... same goes for the King Tiger. I don't think any realistic generals thought it would change the tide of war... Guderian wanted for example to continue with Pz. IV development, and could thus not have placed that much faith in the Panther.

 

Right again, but realism wasn't exactly a trade mark of the Third Reich, especially post 1942.

 

Indeed, indeed I do think the Panther was a better choice than the Pz IV. Germany had so few crews by the end, it was better to put them in heavy tanks.

 

my favourite sherman is the firefly

 

brilliant.....

I was always under the impression that anything cheap, reliable, and easy to manufacture was brilliant!

If I had to actually serve in a Sherman, I'd choose a Jumbo.

 

i dont actually thinl the jumbo is that good