The Sherman Was America’s Best Worst Tank

War is Boring ^ | November 9, 2014 | Kyle Mizokami

[C19fan]

American tanks in World War II were generally inferior to their German counterparts. German tanks boasted better armor protection and more firepower.

But armor and lethality don’t tell the whole story. The same American tanks were superior to their rivals in other important ways. The M-4 Sherman, in particular, helped the U.S. Army win the war—even though, in battle, German tanks destroyed them en masse.

[Little Ray]

And the British proved you could hang a sufficiently powerful gun on the Sherman.
The Israelis took it up to a 105mm.
It was just “doctrine” that kept the Sherman inadequately armed.

Also, US tanks had powered traverse, which meant our tanks could get on target faster.

[Little Ray]

The Pather was a mechanical nightmare - hard to maintain and prone to breaking down, throwing treats, clogging roadwheels, etc.
IF the Germans had copied the T-34, as they originally intended, or at least kept the design simple, they could have caused all sort of mischief.

[USS Alaska]

A serious war today would involve unheard of munitions that spread disease amongst the populated areas the way rainfall sweeps across a field. Billions will die and for what? So somebody can say, “We won.” Indeed, that’s a worthy goal. Or is it?

OK, but I'm not sure I get your point.

Are you saying that in a "serious" war we would use biological weapons?

[Starstruck]

M60A1 after training on M48.

[nascarnation]

Very interesting. Years ago I had involvement with the Abrams powertrain, and there’s as much politics as engineering in the development of these machines.

Guessing it was that way in the 30s and 40s too.

[TalonDJ]

even though, in battle, German tanks destroyed them en masse.

The stats don't back this up.

[TalonDJ]

IF the Germans had copied the T-34

When late model Shermans went against late model T-34s in Korea the Sherman kicked butt.

[TalonDJ]

but tank for tank, the Sherman was quite mediocre stacked up against the body of German tanks.

False. Tank for tank the bulk of the German forces were made up of tanks such as the PZIII, PZ IV and the StuG. All of these they Sherman compared very favorably to. Just because the Germans had SOME better thanks does not mean all or even most of their tanks were better. Did you know that the Sherman Jumbo had effectively the same frontal armor as a Tiger (taking into account the slope)? Or that E8s with APCR ammo could trash just about anything the Germans had? Comparing the most common American tank (75mm armed M4) with the most rare German tanks is unfair. A more clear comparison is the comparing common to common and rare to rare. Did you know we built more 90mm armed M36s than the Germans built Tiger 1s?

[TalonDJ]

that the US could have fielded a high velocity 75mm gun to take on the Panthers and Tigers. There is absolutely no reason that the Sherman crews had to suffer poor armament for the entire war.

We DID field one! Just because every tank did not get one, so what? We certain had more with 76's than they had Tigers. Plus we had M10s, M18s and M36's. But aside from all that, did you know many French tanks had so much armor that the tanks blitzing them could not penetrate? Or that in Barbarossa the Russians had KVs that the Germans could not take out? It was proven over and over that a few 'super tanks' loses out to a large number of more reliable and better led vehicles.

[wally_bert]

M1A1 in a couple of Saturday afternoons. The rest ojt.

[bert]

ok, so the T-34 by extensio outclassed the Sherman

[Starstruck]

I have a lousy Marksman badge for the M-14 but have an Expert badge for tank gunnery. Too bad I don’t have a tank in my gun safe,

[wally_bert]

I learned driver and loader. The NG unit was disbanded and I went back to Naval Reserves.

[Tallguy]

“Hitler’s mistake—invading Russia (didn’t he read Napoleon)”

The more recent example of Russia’s collapse during WW1 was probably the model which the German Army & Hitler were seeking to replicate. People tend to forget that.

[AppyPappy]

The Panther’s 75mm was better than the 85mm on the T-34. The only reason the T-34 was successful was sheer numbers.

[ErnBatavia]

I have a lousy Marksman badge for the M-14

That brings back topsy-turvy memories...in USMC Boot Camp (1966) during our two weeks at the range I could run Expert one day, and Marksman two days later...with a Non-qual in between....and then go back to expert.

Ended up Sharpshooter, IIRC. But at the end of my enlistment I Non-qualed and didn't give enough of a sh*t to try again. In those days, we all wanted OUT more than anything; there were no "lifers" in 1968.

[Starstruck]

I could run Expert one day, and Marksman two days later...with a Non-qual in between....and then go back to expert.

That's why when I see these shows where Lee Harvey Oswald or James Earl Ray couldn't make that shot I'm not buying it. I couldn't make a 300 meter shot in the prone non-supported position but sometimes I could.

[Glad2bnuts]

Germans, as they do sometimes, over engineered magnificent machines - so great were they that they could not be mass produced..........................

Sounds a bit like America has a tendency to do in the years since WW 2. High dollar, and the best is the norm. Instead of small, agile, safe and inexpensive. Witness the numbers of Carriers that really will be sitting targets in any new full out war. I think there was a Sci-Fi book where one side kept upgrading until they had the very best machinery, but were beaten because of the “changing horse in mid stream” phenomenon.

[B4Ranch]

Every conflict we have been involved in since WWII has been an economic war, fought to aid the US economy or the military industrial community. We weren’t fighting them to protect our style of government or our national borders. Bring those two issues into the picture and then the dirty weapons will be brought out of the bunkers.

[C. Edmund Wright]

I don’t know, the Abrams were awesome in the Gulf.