Posted on 10/23/2014 8:09:23 AM PDT by C19fan
The M-4 Sherman was the workhorse medium tank of the U.S. Army and Marine Corps during World War II. It fought in every theater of operation—North Africa, the Pacific and Europe.
The Sherman was renown for its mechanical reliability, owing to its standardized parts and quality construction on the assembly line. It was roomy, easily repaired, easy to drive. It should have been the ideal tank.
But the Sherman was also a death trap.
The fact that we put our guys in those things to go against what the Germans had was nothing less than disgraceful.
I was reading that two advantages of the Shermans were numbers and speed. In a tank battle, the advantage goes to the tank that’s already there, hiding or sitting behind cover, and waiting for the other guy to come into range.
Americans did not go for grand tank on tank operations like the Germans and Russians.
For Americans and Brits, the weapon of choice against German tanks was an airplane and we had total air superiority by the time D-Day had arrived
Correct sentiment, but a little off on the math. The US produced around 102,000 tanks and self-propelled guns, 49,000 of them Sherman tanks. The German equivalent workhorse tank, the Pzkfw. MkIV, had 8,500 produced.
“...In Lima, OH, they were turning out a tank ever 4.5 HOURS....”
One wonders if, had we been subjected to continual air attack that decimated our factories and production facilities, as the Germans were, how different that would have been.
Enjoying the relative security of having two oceans between us and the Japanese and Germans, we were able to go round the clock production...
I think a real astonishing fact is that the Germans could continue producing war material at all in the face of American daylight precision bombing and British night bombing... plus the Russians hammering them from the East.
They were tough SOBs. My old man had a lot of respect for them... didn’t care much for the SS, though. Said “we NEVER took them prisoner, unless ordered to...”
“..Americans did not go for grand tank on tank operations like the Germans and Russians...”
That’s an interesting statement... now that you mention it, you have giant tank on tank engagments, like Kursk on the Eastern Front (Operation Citadel), but nothing really equivalent like that in the West.
I guess maybe Operation Goodwood (massed armor attempt during the break out from Normandy) would be close...
The Germans absolutely HATED our rocket-firing P47s and the British Hawker Typhoon... Jabos, they called them.
Air power kills. Always.
What’s really sad is the worst tank ever made was named after Patton.
At the end of the day, nearly all of the 30 repaired Shermans had been knocked-out with heavy casualties. Tanks that didn't burn were taken to ordnance shops where they were rebuilt and repainted inside. These refurbished tanks were then reissued to the division's tank battalions. Veteran tankers knew how to recognize these refurbished Shermans. They said they could still smell the death that had occurred inside these tanks.
“...The German equivalent workhorse tank, the Pzkfw. MkIV, had 8,500 produced....”
They used the Mark III and Mark IV platforms for tank destroyer too, like the turretless Sturmgeshutz vehicles.
Are they included in that total, or were they considered a seperate class of vehicle?
Did the same with the Panther Mark V chassis - created the Jagdpanther tank destroyer.
And the Hetzer, another tank destroyer.. that was a Czech-designed chassis originally, I believe.
Yep. Part of the German problem was insisting on building the best parts possible. The Nazi tank engines had roller bearings on the crankshaft mains while the Sherman had much cheaper and easy to manufacture bimetal main bearings.
Backed up by M60 Patton tanks that began to see some M48's built with diesel engines.
One of my father's best friends was a tanker in Korea with the Marine 1'st Tank Battalion. They got drunk one night and took an M47 tank out of the motor pool for a joy ride and on a muddy wet road were about to go into a giant water filled crater and put the tank in full reverse, the tank lurched and slid into the crater pitching down and buried the muzzle of the gun in the mud. the tank stood on end and his buddy was thrown out of the top turret commanders hatch and he was thrown out of the open drivers hatch and they watched as a 44 ton tank nearly fell over on top of them. They could not get the tank out of the mud and water and he lost two stripes, so the story goes.
“...the worst tank ever made was named after Patton...”
M47/M48 Patton? Curious as to why you think that.
There’s some Italian and Japanese models that I would say fit that description better.
As far as American armor goes, that appelation might be better applied to the M3 Grant/Lee. High silhouette, nearless useless 75mm in a limited traverse mount, with a 37mm in the turret...
Just my two cents.
I think that the lesson to be learned from the Sherman isn’t that it was simply an inferior tank. The lesson also isn’t that quantity can beat quality. I think that the lesson to be learned from the Sherman is that our military equipment will reflect the thinking of our leaders. Our military leaders in the 1920s and 1930s were focused on WWI and the use of artillery and infantry. Most everyone gave up on horses. Our leaders had a horrible case of “Groupthink” that made outcasts of the old Cavalrymen. Farrago’s book on Patton is subtitled “ORDEAL And Triumph”. The ordeal was Patton trying to get the Army leadership out of their groupthink mode.
It is a lesson that we have forgotten, again.
Spoilsport.
I always thought it interesting how we had “tanks” and “tank destroyers” in WWII... (Germans did too).
The M24 Chaffee, M4 Shermans, M26 Pershings were tanks; while the M18 Hellcat was a “tank destroyer” (same with the M10 and M36).
The problem was that the War Department failed for too long to appreciate how significantly the Germans were up gunning and up armoring the Panzer IV, or how badly the Panzer V and Panzer VIs outclassed the Sherman, and it failed to upgrade the Sherman.
For Americans and Brits, the weapon of choice against German tanks was an airplane and we had total air superiority by the time D-Day had arrived.
American battle doctrine in WWII also leaned more towards the Gun Motor Carriages or "Tank Destroyers" for hunting enemy armor.
“read that two advantages of the Shermans were numbers and speed. In a tank battle, the advantage goes to the tank that’s already there, hiding or sitting behind cover, and waiting for the other guy to come into range.”
But that is precisely why the Sherman numbers and speed mattered very much. The Nazis could sit and wait forever in the defense. The Allies had to move to their position and attack them. Speed and numbers were crucial.
Had we made the mistake of aping the German concepts, we would have probably had a very bad time of it.
The German giant tanks were simply not reliable. And their size and complexity made them hard to crank out in huge numbers. A smaller number of less reliable ponderous monsters would have been the ruin of our fast moving war.
Can anyone imagine Patton’s sweeps happening in Tigers?
But anyway, they all fall to a P-47. ANd that was what Germans fears more than anything. The Jabo.
And politics aside, the best tank of the war is probably the T-34. Fast, reliable, simple to produce and use, with slope armor, and a very good gun.
Yep. Fighting a tank is truly a team effort. And every team is only as good as its weakest link.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.