Replies

When the M4 was first built it was the equal of the German and Russian tanks of that time. In Africa even the M3, using the same 75MM that the M4wound up with, was able to take on German tanks, the MarkIII and markIV Panzers(Marks 1 and 2 were not in Africa, IRC), had no better gun than the M4, in fact the MarkIII had a 50MM, the MarkIV had a 75MM. After we reached Europe was when the problems started. The Russians had built the T34 and made a mess of German MarkIIIs and MarkIVs with their long barreled 76MM, so Germany built the Panther(probably the best tank in WWII)and the over weight and break down prone Tiger.

The Panther had a long barreled 75 that was better than ours plus it had sloped armor(copied from the T34)which made it harder for our gun to penetrate. The Tiger, of course, had the much vaunted 88MM which could shoot through anything. The British took our M4 and put a 76MM into it and called it the firefly, they loved the M4 and even had kind things to say about the M3 since their tanks were woefully under gunned.

The M4 was a marvel of mechanical reliability, where as the German tanks were over engineered and prone to break downs(the newer tanks, the Panther and the Tiger, not the older MarkIII and MarkIV). Sorry if I repeated anything you said, most likely I did but I started typing before I noticed how detailed your article was. The M4 was a fine tank, it was prone to being shot to he** when up against Panthers and Tigers and had a hard time, in particular, knocking out Tigers. Rumor was it took 4 M4s to take down one Tiger. Since I wasn't there at the time I can't say for sure but when I was in the army,1959 to 1962, I had the opportunity to talk to many troopers who were there, I was in a Tank unit and there were still a lot of old timers who had fought the M4 during the war, they all said the 88MM of the Tiger and the long barreled 75MM of the Panther would take them out at a very long range, whereas the 75 of the M4 bounced off of the German tanks. The newer 76MM solved some of those problems as well as the new M26(IRC)with a 90MM gun, which came along late in the war.

I was a tank gunnery instructor at FT. Knox after my return from Vietnam as a tank commander on an M48A3 MBT, Tanks and M113 ACAVs provided excellent service as infantry support on the DMZ.

I spent much spare time in the Patton museum and was fascinated by the M4 cotroversy vis a vis German armor in WWII in NW Europe. You are mostly quite correct in your assesments, but the Brits installed their 17 pounder high velocity anti-tank gun into the M4. The bore diameter is close to the US 76MM, but the shot is heavier and delivers much more kinetic energy than did the US gun which fired the M93 HVAP shot anti tank round (APCR-T) The Sherman crews had to be within 300 yds of a Panther to assure frontal armor penetration with that gun.

The 17 pounder firing the SVDS round would penetrate over 6” of armor at 30 degrees of obliquity at 2000 yards, 7” at 1500 yards and over 8” at 500 yards, sufficient to crack the frontal glacis plate of a Mark V Panther most of the time.

The US put off plans to regun their inventory of M4s due to the M36 Tank Destroyers and the M26 Pershings coming on line with 90MM guns with even better performance than the 17 pounder.