Sherman Tanks of WWII

[Steve S]

I've been watching a lot of the Military Channel, especially the ones about the Greatest Tank Battles. What I see so often is how lightly armored the Shermans were compared to the German tanks and that their main 75 mm gun was short barreled and not as efficient as the German 88's. The pictures of one German tank destroying several American and British tanks are gruesome. The Germans could sit far away shooting at Americans and not worry about return fire because they were out of range of the American guns.

Why didn't the United States use a better main gun?

When I watch film of the recent desert conflict, the American 120mm guns are extremely lethel which puts the opponents at a serious disadvantage.

[RonGillman3]

I think mainly due to production costs, we went into the war with older tanks, and didn't have a large army then. Though the Panzer tanks had strong front armer, the smaller Shermans, could slip around to the Panzers side and back, where the weaker armor was. I think the Shermans were a little faster too. Though I'm not sure on that one.

[bassteban]

I think several factors are involved, not the least of which would be Germany's prewar buildup vs our(US)isolationist leanings, at least prior to Dec 7.

[RonGillman3]

Originally Posted by bassteban

I think several factors are involved, not the least of which would be Germany's prewar buildup vs our(US)isolationist leanings, at least prior to Dec 7.

That too. We tried to stay out of the War, and didn't have a large army, same with WW1. We originally felt that it wasn't important to have a massive military force, since we were still thinking in a Isolationist way.

[Clark Dark]

the commanders were of the opinion that the numbers of sherman's would overwhelm their german adversaries (which they did) because all the auto manufacturers were turning out tanks 24/7 which Germany couldn't match. Add to that a lot of the German tanks had defects, but that's the cost you pay when using slave labor and they're disgruntled.

[Randall]

Best show ever. "Tank overhaul" fyi.
The sherman was produced in large numbers that overwhelmed the smaller number of german tanks.
Still would not want to be in any tank in a war.

[jugglingfreak]

Originally Posted by Clark Dark

Add to that a lot of the German tanks had defects, but that's the cost you pay when using slave labor and they're disgruntled.

Yes, basically out produced the Germans. The Sherman had it major flaws too apart for the previously mentioned stuff, the ammo was stored in a bad area. This earned it the nickname "Ronson," taken from the Ronson cigarette lighter. The Ronson slogan was "lights first time, every time."

[Steve S]

Originally Posted by Randall

Best show ever. "Tank overhaul" fyi.

Still would not want to be in any tank in a war.

Very true. What a horrible way to go...burned up in a tank. There was one vet who talked about a tank commander who was trying to get out of his turret when his tank was hit. The amunition inside exploded and literally enveloped the man who raised both arms above his head then fell back inside.

When I watch these films, I'm amazed at the courage of the American tankers when they knew that the Germans could hit them from so far away.

[RonGillman3]

Originally Posted by Steve S

Very true. What a horrible way to go...burned up in a tank. There was one vet who talked about a tank commander who was trying to get out of his turret when his tank was hit. The amunition inside exploded and literally enveloped the man who raised both arms above his head then fell back inside.

When I watch these films, I'm amazed at the courage of the American tankers when they knew that the Germans could hit them from so far away.

I think it takes a lot of Courage to be in any war, one bullet could kill you. Though dying in a tank, due to ammunition exploding, would be a very bad way to go.

[Jim Campbell]

Originally Posted by Steve S

I've been watching a lot of the Military Channel, especially the ones about the Greatest Tank Battles. What I see so often is how lightly armored the Shermans were compared to the German tanks and that their main 75 mm gun was short barreled and not as efficient as the German 88's. The pictures of one German tank destroying several American and British tanks are gruesome. The Germans could sit far away shooting at Americans and not worry about return fire because they were out of range of the American guns.

Why didn't the United States use a better main gun?

When I watch film of the recent desert conflict, the American 120mm guns are extremely lethel which puts the opponents at a serious disadvantage.

tank warfare had a bit of a learning curve....early on the allies saw them as close support for infantry,while the massed mobile armor was a german innovation.....later models of the sherman were fitted with more powerful 75 mm guns,but by june of 44,only one in 4 were equipped that way.....fortunately for the allies most of the big tank battles took place on the eastern front,and by 44,german efforts were limited by fuel/equipment shortages due to allied bombing...

[Relic]

The main strength of the Sherman were it's numbers. Basically, we had to build them, then ship them en masse across the Atlantic. The US was at the time totally capable of building a heavy MBT, but it would not have at all been practical. Later in the war the shermans were up-gunned (by the Brits I believe) and they did fairly well.
Also - to help even up the odds, the US fielded "tank destroyers" - they were thin-skinned but fast and have effective main guns.

[Jim Campbell]

Originally Posted by Relic

The main strength of the Sherman were it's numbers. Basically, we had to build them, then ship them en masse across the Atlantic. The US was at the time totally capable of building a heavy MBT, but it would not have at all been practical. Later in the war the shermans were up-gunned (by the Brits I believe) and they did fairly well.
Also - to help even up the odds, the US fielded "tank destroyers" - they were thin-skinned but fast and have effective main guns.

and versatility.....units were adapted to be amphibious,set up with rakes to penetrate hedgerows,and flails to clear mines....

[bassteban]

Like this M36, w/a 90mm gun(IIRC).

Edit: In response to Relic

[Jim Campbell]

Originally Posted by Clark Dark

the commanders were of the opinion that the numbers of sherman's would overwhelm their german adversaries (which they did) because all the auto manufacturers were turning out tanks 24/7 which Germany couldn't match. Add to that a lot of the German tanks had defects, but that's the cost you pay when using slave labor and they're disgruntled.

while slave laborers sabotaged on the assembly line,it is believed that the germans over built their tanks to very high qc standards that did not take into consideration the relatively short life expectancy of front line armor....

after the d day invasion the skies cleared up and much of the western front armor,transport,and logistics were destroyed from the air....

[Relic]

Originally Posted by bassteban

Like this M36, w/a 90mm gun(IIRC).

Edit: In response to Relic

Yeah the 90mm main gun was a pretty nasty weapon in it's own right.
Some of the Shermans were upgraded to 76mm main guns which also helped the odds a bit. I think those were called Sherman "Fireflies" but I may be remembering that wrong

[muzikman7]

It was doctrine Shermans were for infantry support not tank to tank engagements tank destroyers were for combating enemy tanks, The British were the first to upgun Shermans then the U.S. Towards the end of WWII the U.S. fielded the Pershing the Britsh fielded the Comet the Russians the JS II but all three were no match for Germanys Tiger II which was a viable until the '70s.

[Relic]

Originally Posted by muzikman7

It was doctrine Shermans were for infantry support not tank to tank engagements tank destroyers were for combating enemy tanks, The British were the first to upgun Shermans then the U.S. Towards the end of WWII the U.S. fielded the Pershing the Britsh fielded the Comet the Russians the JS II but all three were no match for Germanys Tiger II which was a viable until the '70s.

Very true - a lot of people don't realize that. The Allies generally used tanks for infantry support and not for tank vs tank battles. It was a general purpose vehicle and not made to combat other tanks specifically. In that respect the Sherman did just fine.

I'm not so sure that the Tiger was viable into the 70's though. On it's own and in and of itself, maybe. But you would also have to take into account technological advancements. A Tiger tank in the 70's would really have it arse handing to it unless you upgraded it to a better more reliable engine and fire-control system. Main gun too. The 70's was the era of the 105mm which could put a hurtin on a Tiger.

[Jim Campbell]

Originally Posted by Relic

Yeah the 90mm main gun was a pretty nasty weapon in it's own right.
Some of the Shermans were upgraded to 76mm main guns which also helped the odds a bit. I think those were called Sherman "Fireflies" but I may be remembering that wrong

it was a brit 17 pounder,adapted to a sherman,and was able to take out german mk 5's.....

[machine gewehr]

If these were manufactured in mass numbers I'm pretty sure we'd be making this conversation in German.



Also,the Soviet's t-35 is the most successfull tank of WW II.Just like the Sherman's biggest strength,it's biggest strenght was their numbers. The Soviets manufactured more tanks than the whole world combined.



I just love watching/reading WWII stuff.No matter the weapon,in the field,it all comes to the man.

I've read/heard stories of how good Sheman commanders hit the Tigers from behing with outstanding manuvers or how a German Tiger commander took down ~50 Shermans with 4 Tigers in one day.

[Relic]

Originally Posted by machine gewehr

If these were manufactured in mass numbers I'm pretty sure we'd be making this conversation in German.



Also,the Soviet's t-35 is the most successfull tank of WW II.Just like the Sherman's biggest strength,it's biggest strenght was their numbers. The Soviets manufactured more tanks than the whole world combined.



I just love watching/reading WWII stuff.No matter the weapon,in the field,it all comes to the man.

I've read/heard stories of how good Sheman commanders hit the Tigers from behing with outstanding manuvers or how a German Tiger commander took down ~50 Shermans with 4 Tigers in one day.

The most amazing "WW2 tank history" IMO comes from the Eastern Front - the battle of Kursk for instance was mind-boggling..