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.

[Scrambler Bob]

M4L

[moehoward]

“Quantity has a quality all its own”?

[RayChuang88]

Actually, the original T-34 was technologically WAY superior to any German tank during the first year of Operation Barbarossa. Once the T-34's took on the German tanks, the Panzer divisions suffered heavy losses because the T-34 could better withstand the relatively small caliber cannon of the German tanks at the time.

And when the Russians switched to the even better T-34/85, German tank losses really soared, even with the better German models coming by late 1942. It didn't help the Germans that the arrival of the Il-2 Sturmovik anti-tank attack plane in large numbers also resulted in heavy German losses.

[wally_bert]

Nobody said nuttin about locking horns with tigers....

[Gaffer]

.... but we made a zillion of them,

I don't know for sure, but I'd expect the Russians made more T-34s and did the same damage Shermans did.

[Charles Martel]

Battle doctrine for the Allies differed from that of the Germans. We used the Sherman more in support of infantry than to kill enemy armor. That job was done by air power and field artillery (including tank destroyers).

Given the way we employed the M4 and the need to field them in the largest possible numbers, as well as the fact that we had to ship them across the Atlantic (unlike the Soviets, who drove their T-34s straight from the factories into battle), it's tough to argue with the choice.

[Gaffer]

IIRC, America produce at least one LST per day by the end of the war. Could be wrong, but that number just floored me when I read that.

[Enterprise]

"Or doesn’t it matter in time of war?"

I had read about a tactic the Shermans used against the Panzer. Four Shermans would attack a Panzer. The goal would be to get one Sherman on the side or behind the Panzer in order to destroy it. The tactic worked. Unfortunately three Shermans would be destroyed to take out one Panzer. In terms of victory over the Panzer it was worth it. In terms of loss of American tanker crews it was tragic.

[Enterprise]

By the end of the war, the American Navy was larger than all the Navies of the world combined!

[DesertRhino]

American tanks in World War II were generally inferior to their German counterparts.

In a sense. But not exactly. In 42 when it was fielded, the Sherman was the better of everything the Germans had fielded. By the time the Nazis built some behemoth monsters, Shermans were rolling off the lines in incomprehensible numbers.
We didn’t duplicate the Germans superweapon fantasy and stop production in hopes of some grand scheme.

They Nazis were morons to build the Tiger around 1400 built, and King Tiger with around 500 built. Meanwhile their panther was a far better tank then either Tiger and they built 6000 of them. Better to have another 4000 panthers than the handful of monsters that were mechanical nightmares.

But either way, the P-47s ate them all alive.
But the Sherman was speedy, dependable, easy to repair in the field, and a mass production success. The Germans couldn’t keep up.

[LouAvul]

and the Sherman wasn’t a piece of junk. It was more reliable than the kraut’s tanks. It was just outclassed. Not enough armor. Too little a gun.

[wally_bert]

ARNG 19k myself.

[PIF]

Israel sold or scrapped all of their M4 variants and their early Merkavas last year.

[C. Edmund Wright]

Well the two fronts were very very different. We had to ship our tanks over, the USSR could roll them out of the factory and into battle. They also had a much larger battlefield - the USSR is HUUUGE. And Germany was strung out with such a long supply line.

The Sherman was the way for the US to go. The T-34 was the way for the USSR to go. But almost any tank commander will tell you their singular dream tank would be the Tiger.

[C. Edmund Wright]

semantics dude, semantics.....yes, reliable, weak armor, wimpy gun.

[PGR88]

The Sherman was adequate because we produced so many - and because we had the BEST AIRPLANE of the war.

The P-51 cleared the skis of German fighters, which allowed bombers to operate with near impunity from April 1944 onward. The P-51 could then go after targets like trains and trucks behind the lines, while the heavier P-47 could attack tanks on the front-lines

[Enterprise]

By 1943, three liberty ships were completed daily. So roughly 90 liberty ships were being built per month! No other country could match that!

[Gaffer]

I won’t argue with that. Just with the numbers. IMO the T-34 was a better tank, but you are right about the terrain, the disposition and the tactics.

[nascarnation]

One book I read talked about how the radial aircraft engine wasn’t well adapted to a ground vehicle, and idling (which tanks did a lot of especially in cold weather) caused the spark plugs to foul frequently. Changing/cleaning plugs was a prime job of service crews.

[Gaffer]

An LST was not a landing craft as one would think of as in D-Day where the troops were delivered. It was a pretty big ship. I think they were called Victory ships and they were pretty big and could unload tanks and other vehicles. To me, one per day is a pretty big deal.