Sherman Best Tank of WWII?

[Flexor the Mighty!]

The Germans had a lot of fun gadgets that were expensive to build, fuel hogs, and hard to keep operational. Later in the way they had steel quality issues affecting armor as well. 40% of the fancy armor was not operational later on on any given day in the field. But yeah a Sherman in one on one combat against a Tiger or Panther was at a disadvantage.

A good thing about the Sherman was it was very easy to get out of when it got hit and had very good survivability. In a T-34 you pretty much entered your own coffin and most of the German tanks were much more of a challenge to escape from when the tank caught fire.

Here is an interesting video on American armor in WW2.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNjp_4jY8pY

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Zardnaar]

Soviet crewmans opinions on the Sherman. Basically they liked it (except for 1 model due to gasoline engine+ transmission in Russia).

http://www.theshermantank.com/lee-a...-the-soviet-union-used-and-liked-the-sherman/

I liked the quote "Bad tank- compared to what?".

 

[Zardnaar]

I mean, this debate is kind of strange.

I am reminded of the cliche used in sports, that the most important ability is availability. In other words, all the talent in the world doesn't matter if you're not on the court (field, gridiron) to use it regularly.

It's similar here. The greatest advantage the US (and by extension, the Allies) had was a massive industrial base that was geared up for mass production and had the ability to use and source parts.

Was the Sherman the best tank in a one-on-one fight? No, probably not.

Would I rather have 10 Shermans and the ability to repair them with standard parts than any one other tank? Heck, yeah.

The Sherman quality wise compared quite well with most of the German armor as well. The ronson thing is vastly over rated you were almost safer in a Sherman than the Soviet and German equivalent and German tanks had a tendency to catch fire without getting hit and they never fully solved that issue by wars end. Things like the Hetzer, Panzer IV, StuG avoided that.

German high velocity anti tank guns and the 75mm/88mm they used were very good. No medium tank would have fared any better than the Sherman and a few like the T-34 fared worse. Even then allied crew losses were reasonably light around 5% IIRC, (18% for infantry, 1/3rd bomber crews, 2/3rds-80% for German U-Boat crew). The Sherman was quality and quantity. Even in the German kittehs alot of the advantages were on paper. Sure you might not be able to penetrate one from the front but they weren't very mobile and inside the armor would splinter in effect sending shrapnel through the tank. Late war you had a better chance of surviving in a Sherman getting knocked out than the T-34 and Panzer IV (wet ammo racks). If you were in a German tank getting hit with the allied equivalent (90mm, 76 pounder,special ammo from Easy 8 etc) of the German guns you had worse odds of survival than the Sherman.

Put simply you were a lot safer in a Sherman than most WW2 tanks. It wasn't so much the German tanks were uber it was the German crews, tactics, panzer grenadiers, and anti tank guns which were massive contributing factors. If the Allies had Panthers and the Germans had Shermans at D-Day both sides probably would have been worse off. Sherman a good all rounder, Panther was better on the defensive (basically because it didn't have to move much).

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Zardnaar]

So, I think there is a difference between the following two statements:

A. The legend of German armor has grown, and the reality is underwhelming compared to the legend. German armor was good, but it wasn't all that, and Shermans were pretty decent too (and had additional advantages).

B. Hot take- German tanks are OVERRATED and terrible, and Shermans were better.

I think A is a good point. Not on board with B.

German tank crews were good, German anti tank guns were good, and the basic German designs are good- Panzer III, IV, Hetzer, StuG.

 

[Derren]

The Sherman was quality and quantity.

Repeat it as often as you want, it still doesn't become true.

Shermans were lacking in several departments. Their armor was only adequate for the mid of the war, but completely lacking later and their gun lacked power to deal with enemy heavy armor. And even their off road performance was lacking compared to Tigers and Panthers because of their small tracks. They relied on massed charges or someone else doing the work for them. The only thing the Sherman really has going for it, is the large US economy and the stubborness to stick with the Sherman instead of continuing to develop better tank designs thanks to their "tanks do not fight tanks" strategy so that the Pershing could have rolled out faster. But winning by air superiority and massed numbers doesn't make the Sherman a good tank. If it weren't for the failing German industry the US would have been in a lot of trouble (or if they had listened to Churchill and attacked the Soviets where the weakness of Shermans would have really shown).

And your false facts about the Panther are still false.

If the US had the Panther and Germany the Sherman? Then the war would have been over a lot faster as now the US really had quantity and quality on their side instead of having to compensate for their weaker tanks with quantity and calling in artillery or air strikes to deal with everything Shermans couldn't handle.

 

[Zardnaar]

Repeat it as often as you want, it still doesn't become true.

Shermans were lacking in several departments. Their armor was only adequate for the mid of the war, but completely lacking later and their gun lacked power to deal with enemy heavy armor. And even their off road performance was lacking compared to Tigers and Panthers because of their small tracks. They relied on massed charges or someone else doing the work for them. The only thing the Sherman really has going for it, is the large US economy and the stubborness to stick with the Sherman instead of continuing to develop better tank designs thanks to their "tanks do not fight tanks" strategy so that the Pershing could have rolled out faster. But winning by air superiority and massed numbers doesn't make the Sherman a good tank. If it weren't for the failing German industry the US would have been in a lot of trouble (or if they had listened to Churchill and attacked the Soviets where the weakness of Shermans would have really shown).

And your false facts about the Panther are still false.

Name another medium tank that performed better vs heavies than the Sherman then? T-34 performed worse(massive casualties), PZ IV may have been better as the 75mm was better than the Shermans one but the 76mm Shermans performed a lot better. Heavies were also obsolete either by the end of WW2 or just after it. Shermans mauled the North Koreans .

The Panther had a good gun but was mostly trash. No design feature from it was really incorporated into western (or Soviet) tank design after the war. This contrasts with German jet, submarine, and rocket technologies the Allies were only to happy to take. Read the German reports on how many tanks were in maintenance depots due to mechanical failure- that could hit 40% late war. Why did the Germans not have that problem early war with the light tanks and Czech models. Why did they use those light tanks and Czech models as the basis for late war tank destroyers. The French had Panthers post war but replaced them with American tanks as they were unsuitable for French needs (and kept breaking down).

Once upgunned how did the Sherman destroy so many superior tanks post war if it was that badly outclassed? The tank itself was good (not perfect no WW2 tank was), the 75mm was a bit under gunned vs the heaviest German armor but once again most of the time that was not an issue. There were only about 4 encounters between US tanks and Tigers on the western front. Once you get past documented actual cases of encountering German heavies most of the time the short 75mm was adequate for any target they would encounter. For the heavies they had the 90mm. The only battle of significance between Panthers and Shermans the Panthers lost as the American mobility flanked them.

Sure an 88mm would knock out a Sherman in most cases, but any other medium tank of the war would fare no better and in several cases a lot worse (T-34, several British designs). I did provide links to problems the Panther had. Most of the time (80-95%) of the time you are not encountering German AFV's and the few times you would odds are its not a Tiger or even a Panther. I also provided links to Soviet Guard units using them, the Guard units being the Soviet veteran units. Why would you give a "bad" tank to your best troops?

The other problem you had of course was no mater how thick you made armor it wasn't thick enough. Something would defeat it. Sherman sloped armor was superior to T-34 and Panzer IV + it had wet ammo racks.

Combat Footage (not a Sherman but they had things to deal with Panthers and Tigers).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBI9d0-IfEM

Even then the 76mm (Easy 8, Firefly) Shermans could deal with the German kittens (Tiger II from the front being a possible exception).

Postwar the US kept the 76mm Shermans, Israeli's upgunned them to 105mm and used them against T-34/85's, T-54/55/62 and IS-3 and post war US designs like the M-48. In Korea the Sherman's shredded the Soviet T-34/85s (better optics, stabilisers etc).

 

[Derren]

A better medium tank for dealing with heavies? Easy. The Panther. And of course when you stuff post war technology into a WW2 hull it will perform better than a pure WW2 design. The reason why so many Shermans were used also simply was that there was a lot of them and the US sold them to everyone while no more Panthers could be produced, or only with great difficulties and few survived in the first place. This is also the reason why a "bad" tank was given to the troops. They simply had so many of them and completely misjudged the number of Panthers produced. And also the general US strategy of tanks being only for infantry support and fast tank destroyers like the M18 being used whenever the Shermans encountered enemy armor.

In the end all the successes of Shermans were not because of the merits of the tanks themselves, but because of the strong US industry which simply could outproduce Germany by the truckload and because they could call in air or artillery strikes whenever they wanted. But when just comparing the tank, the Sherman falls short as, while upgradeable, it simply was an outdated design from 1941 which was not up to date with the developments later in the war.
Just imagine how the war would have turned out if the US had mass produced the superior tank instead of the inferior one.

Not sure why you bring up the 88mm or fotoage of a Panther one shotting a Sherman before being destroyed by a Pershing.

The French by the way replaced their Panthers with their own tanks and not American ones.

 

[Zardnaar]

A better medium tank for dealing with heavies? Easy. The Panther. And of course when you stuff post war technology into a WW2 hull it will perform better than a pure WW2 design. The reason why so many Shermans were used also simply was that there was a lot of them and the US sold them to everyone while no more Panthers could be produced, or only with great difficulties and few survived in the first place. This is also the reason why a "bad" tank was given to the troops. They simply had so many of them and completely misjudged the number of Panthers produced. And also the general US strategy of tanks being only for infantry support and fast tank destroyers like the M18 being used whenever the Shermans encountered enemy armor.

In the end all the successes of Shermans were not because of the merits of the tanks themselves, but because of the strong US industry which simply could outproduce Germany by the truckload and because they could call in air or artillery strikes whenever they wanted. But when just comparing the tank, the Sherman falls short as, while upgradeable, it simply was an outdated design from 1941 which was not up to date with the developments later in the war.
Just imagine how the war would have turned out if the US had mass produced the superior tank instead of the inferior one.

The French by the way replaced their Panthers with their own tanks and not American ones.

Panther as a medium tank is being a bit disingenuous, western terms it was a heavy and it wasn't much lighter than some actual Soviet heavy tanks. They used the ARL- 44 briefly which was a early war design based on 1940 tech with a late war gun.

The US had better designs but the war ended before they were ready and they weren't needed. Had the US had the Panther they would have probably performed worse just like the Germans probably owuld have struggled had they had the Sherman. Different doctrines, different war goals. Panther was the right tool for the job with Germany on the defensive but even then arguably they would have been better off with more Panzer IVs at least on the western front. Your comment about the Sherman being upgraded is interesting though because that was also a common problem with the German tanks was that you could not upgrade them. The Tiger could not handle the 88mm L/71 the tiger II had, they could not get an 88mm into a medium tank (Americans got the 90mm into a Pershing), and the Panzer III could not be upgunned to a 75mm. Panzer IV could be upgunned and served the whole war for a reason.

The Panther arguably would have been better off as a lighter tank with sloped armor (a better Panzer IV basically). In hindsight the western allies could have had up gunned Sherman's available earlier than they did. Even the M-26 had mechanical problems though as in the 1940's the heavier you made your tank the more problems you would have with it (eg Tiger II, Panther, IS-3, KV, M-26). These days you can have King Tiger weights with BT-7 speed. Postwar they moved towards MBTs for a reason hence why the Panther was basically a flawed design/concept. Heavy tank armor on a medium tank suspension and powerplant, not such a great idea.

Whats your thoughts on the Sherman Firefly? Do you think the Germans would have been better off with a gun like that on the Panzer IV? How about the Soviet idea of a 100mm gun on a medium tank or the T-44 conceptually?