Myth buster threads: comments

post subject

McRis, my regiment was the '1st.Kings Dragoon Guards', here is a photo I've posted before, to my old comrade Walter Haywood deceased.

 

This is not a conspiracy theory, it's plain ond obvious that the Sherman is getting much more bad publicity than it deserves. The Sherman is the only tank to star in a book of which the sole purpose is to make it look bad in spite of the facts.

You're still claiming that people complained about the Sherman catching fire while refusing to post any source to back this up. I say this now for the third time: show me exactly when and where people were complaining about the susceptibility to internal ammunition fires of the Sherman, and prove to me that this was specific to the Sherman even though all tanks of the war were equally vulnerable to this kind of thing. Chamberlain and Ellis make this perfectly clear in the part you quoted above.

Tigers and Panthers, apart from being destroyed by Allied fire a lot, also broke down a lot or were abandoned by their crews; this is how the retreating Germans often suffered 100% losses in terms of heavy equipment both in the West and the East.

 

What bad publicity he has?Sherman was not a bad tank ,it was among best tanks of WWII but he was not the best and not the one without flaws.If you want source about Shermans starting to burn then read Steel Rain ,there several times it will be show how would they start to burn.And about Tigers and Panthers ,well you just look how many times did they save the day around Caen area,just look what happened durnig Operation Goodwood,it was tank against tank and who came up worse.From those abandoned tanks,how many of them were left without fuel.And in the end what source do you have that so many historians don,t so that you can claim that what they wrote about Sherman was lie or myth.

 

"Death Traps" by Belton Y. Cooper, a very biased source which is nevertheless widely accepted as the last word about the Sherman, giving it aan underservedly bad reputation in the eyes of many (including yourself until very recently, isn't it?).

Certainly Shermans will start to burn when their ammunition explodes, just like any other tank. What I'm saying is it did not do so more often or more easily than other tanks for any reason other than armour thickness. Can you dispute this with anything other than "they complained about it", for example by specifying who or what or where is 'they'?

Actually, Goodwood was about British tanks advancing uphill against well-prepared German AT positions. Very few German tanks served in defence in this area, and the attacker would have lost this no matter what they would have had.

Facts, maybe? No particular characteristic of the early Sherman could explain the claim that they were supposedly quicker to burn out (other than thin armour and the location of the ammunition bins directly behind that). Since there is no such characteristic, the claim must be a hoax. The source for said hoax is obviously Belton Cooper, who has a massive bias against the tank.

Consider it from the opposite point of view. The Sherman burns more easily than other tanks - why? There is no answer to this question. Since there is no answer, the assumption itself on which the question is based is wrong.

 

I didn,t read that one so I can comment anything that he said but from other people reviews i see that he went to far.

Yes like this one.12:45 Panthers moved forward to the village Soliers to engage 29th Brigade, in space of few minutes 29 tanks are blow away,23rd Hussars are sent to rescue they are engage with Tigers and Panthers 20 more go awayLeibstandarte's stugs's arrive on scene 20 more tanks are in fire..........I can go on if you like.

Well when you prove me that all other historians wrote what they wrote was becouse they were using Belton Cooper for source than i will also say that what they all wrote about Sherman and cathing fire was lie.

 

The Panther actually had a tendency to burn; this has rarely been commented on. The Panthers burned for the same reason the Shermans did, hits set off ammunition. The difference is that while the Germans (and Soviets) accepted these losses as inevitable and worth the price, the western states, especially the US, promised their soldiers the best possible equipment and that everything possible would be done to ensure that the other side did the dying. Once the appliqué armor and wet stowage were introduced the Sherman's fire hazard was greatly reduced.
Look at it another way, to provide armor protection that would be 50% or more proof against the German anti-tank weapons would have required armor over 200mm thick, adding about 10 tons to the weight of the tank, making it weigh roughly as much as a Panther.
The Sherman was definitely not the best possible tank for an individual tank crew, but the overall combination of reliability, numbers and just adequate technology was good enough, and quite possibly the best strategic solution. The decision to prioritize production over improvement and rely on mass instead of quality, and the unbelievably bad tank destroyer doctrine of the US AGF, prevented the Sherman from being "all it could be", as well as preventing the earlier introduction of better types of Shermans and other AFVs.

 

I think that major disvantage of sherman tank was that he was to much tall for his class,and his armor was badly sloped.That makes him easyer target to kill.But shure u cant compare sherman and panther r tiger,they r just not the same class,but with T-34 and panzer IV u can.I think that bouth tanks was betther in oweral performances,only thing i can admit where sherman was betther was his fast mowing turet,so he can kill easyer on heawy trees cowerage terain where fight is on closer ranges.

 

The height of the vehicle is vastly overplayed, the Sherman was about 25-30cm taller (the length of your shoe) than comparable T-34 models. The 75mm gunned models were only 6cm higher than the German MkIV.
Armor sloping certainly good have been better, but again the difference was not decisive.
I fully agree that the Sherman can't be considered in the same class as the Tiger or even Panther (I've pretty well convinced myself that at the same weight the Sherman would have been a much closer match), but it was easily as good as the MkIV and T-34/76.
Turret traverse speed is another interesting statistic, as in most cases it doesn't look like the Sherman has an advantage. As near as I can figure out, the Sherman's hydraulic traverse allowed it to slew at any time, while the traverse of German and Soviet tanks seemed to require the tank to slow or stop and divert power to the turret. Maybe somebody out there knows the truth. There seem to be a large number of first person accounts from all sides that of Shermans getting off two or more shots before the German could respond. The Sherman was also equipped with gyro stabilized guns allowing tracking and even firing on the move, something the others couldn't do. It seems that proper use of the system required significant training and care on the part of the crew.

 

Good comments canambridge.
The Sherman was also noted as one of the best-climbing tanks of the war.

Given that the USA was coming-out of it's "Isolationist Period" we found ourselves playing "catch-up" in those early years of tank-production. I've read that the low-velocity 75mm was selected for the Sherman as it was something they had more of--on hand--than anything else. While it had good HE capability, it's AP left much to be desired... especially as the war progressed.

Most importantly, it was both reliable, and relatively easy to perform maintanence on, compared to it's competition. I don't believe the T-34 was any more reliable than a Sherman... but simply better-suited to Russian weather-extremes and maint. requirements.

I believe the best American AT gun--early war--was the 57mm wasn't it?
Did the US ever make a Tank Destroyer version of the Sherman with a high-velocity 57mm as main-gun? The Russians did experiment with a 57mm Tank Destroyer, the T-34/57.

Tim

 

Actualy Soviet JS-2 was in class like Panther,not tiger r king tiger,so it was betther tank then he was presented,but again,medium tanks was the fost in WWII heawy tanks usualy done defending roles good.

Point is that sherman was not bad tank owerall,certanly best western ally mass used tank,but german had best armor in WW II,only flaw was that armor was to expencive,but when german had shortage on human resources they made more expencive betther tanks,and Russia,who got huge human resources they use cheaper,but less expencive tanks.After all,quantity not quality win.

 

I think the common story is that the 75mm was chosen by the artillery branch, Ordinance wanted a more useful anti-tank gun, but got over-ruled by the artillery, and AGF/TD lobby. The low muzzle velocity was supposedly chosen because the gun would last longer.
The Sherman was a much more reliable and easier to maintain tank than any of the Soviet or German models. It had to be, with every spare part coming from 3,000+ miles away. Neither the Soviets nor Germans had that constraint. The US version of the British 57mm gun was a better AT weapon than the 75mm, but it lacked the HE punch. As far as I know there was never any attempt to fit a 57mm on a Sherman, although their may well have been one off prototypes or experiments.

 

Point taken, I can't disagree.

 

Russian did experimented with 57mm ZIS-2 gun on T-34,but i think that they newer sow combat.ZIS-2 was excelent AP gut for early war,but later,caliber was just to small,it had great velocity,but that couse shell to rickoshet more,when it hit on angle.That why Russia concentrate on heawyer calibers (85 mm,100mm,122mm,152mm)

Allso T-34 was extremly fast tank for his weight,what can be huge bonus in combat,especialy ws heawy german tanks,in close range T-34 can kill tiger (first king tiger kill was scored by T-34/85 in ambush)

 

Of course, at the same time, the Medium Tank M4 (76 mm) was about as tall as the Tiger II.

 

Actualy i must disagree with u T-34 u can reapir at local blacksmith,and proof was that he was used in war on EX Yugoslavia,only 10y a go (T-34/85).
German armor on otther side was extremly hard for that.I think that churchils and mathildas was nightmare for maintanance.

 

To be honest this is the first time that i hear that Sherman could do this,do you have a source for this.

And if I am not wrong all the others mentioned(T-34.Tiger and Panther) here were beter than him in that field.

 

I dont believe there is or was a tank without a flaw.

Yes actually you can compare a sherman to a panther or a tiger but it won;t necesarially be a fair comparison.

I could swear that was the Churchill.

Not necesarially as demonstrated by Barbarossa and more of infantry elite units who are better trained can hold off a much larger untrained force.

Unfortinutely I most of my files when we rebooted the hardrive from the spy-ware and viruses but I will try to find you see if I remember the link to a source about the gyro.

 

Okay, here are three sources for the gyro stabilization:
"Sherman Medium Tank 1942-45" by Steven Zaloga
"British and American Tanks of World War Two" by Peter Chamberlin and Chris Ellis
and "The Sherman Tank" by Roger Ford.
There are many, many more.
The gyro was also used on the M5 light and M3 medium and was developed from a naval gun stabilization system.

M4/76, T-34/85, Panther and Tiger were all tall tanks, between 2.74m and 3.00m. The height of the Sherman relative to the others is not that significant.
The Sherman was a more reliable tank than the T-34 (and German tanks), even accounting for Yugoslavian blacksmiths.

 

post subject

Thanks for reminding me Canam, the sherman with the gyro stabiliser I worked on at Lulworth gunnery School, have forgotten the name of the system though, remind me. The only other was the original Cent with a better system. Completely forgotten about that Sherman, must be age!

 

I heard that no one used the stabilisation on the Sherman as it was just too much hassle in the field vs the benifits it gave under perfect conditions.

FNG