Sherman Best Tank of WWII?

[trappedslider]

Yeah it's French. Seen it if it's the one you are talking about.

History of tanks,I forgot it was french lol

 

[Derren]

Despite all the Sherman hype here, they were in the end just mediocre tanks and the AK47 of armored warfare. Cheap, good enough and available in large number. They only really worked later in the war due to the air superiority of the allies and the willingness to take large casualties when attacking superior tanks. It was simply insufficient when facing newer generation tanks like later Tigers, Panthers (which were quite reliably in later versions just like the Shermans solved the burning problem) and theoretically soviet tanks.

Yes, they could be upgraded, but either only in armor (what is now called Jumbo) or firepower (Firefly), but tanks like the Panther had both.

By the way, its funny that all the shortcomings the OP lists for the Panther are even worse for the Sherman. Their side armor was just slightly over 30mm (except for the Jumbo) and their explosive shells had even less explosive filler than the Panther. And the French replaced the Panthers with their own ARL44 tanks and not American ones.

 

[Hussar]

T-34's were used in Yemen in 2015, so it has latest use and most postwar production.

German tanks, one could drive up beside them and shoot them in the side, Sherman was notorious for doing this, it had fairly quick turret traverse with motors, vs German hand cranked turrets. The battle of Arracourt in the Lorraine campaign, was fought with these tactics.

Nevertheless, WW2 was not a tank war, tank vs tank shootouts were fairly rare. The most casualty causing weapon in America's arsenal, plus vehicle combination would be the M2 105mm Howitzer, and 2 1/2 ton truck (deuce and a half).

Well, that depends on what theater you're talking about. Africa was certainly a major tank war. As was a significant portion of the Russian front. Some of the largest tank battles in history are from WWII.

 

[CapnZapp]

Nothing about the African theatres was major. Saying WWII wasn't a tank war makes no sense.

 

[smbakeresq]

It depends on what your strategic and tactical requirements are.

1. USA had to ship everything over to fight, Sherman’s were easy to ship and could fit 2 side by side into a standard merchant ship width.

2. The USA understood mass production better then anyone at that time. The Sherman was designed for this and further improved for this as war went on. For example the Sherman Tank engine was two standard production 6 cylinder truck engines married together.

3. The USA also understood that many different tanks just leads to less production and increased supply chain. Remember USA had to ship supplies also.

4. USA production also had to include everything else such as ships, planes, etc for allies. They also had to produce for both fronts of the war, the USA was the main force in the Pacific.

5. USA tactical doctrine emphasized artillery, which the USA was good at and could produce and supply in great numbers.

6. Tactical doctrine also had the belief that tank vs tank was far less effective than using artillery to break up tank formations and attacks and then use armored vehicles to clean up. This of course was supplemented by air power later. This is of course true.

7. For example, Fury was a good movie but the scene where they attacked across an open field would be rare. They would have just called in artillery to paste them first. There are myriad accounts in German archives that Germans feared marker shells as they then knew the arty or air support was coming in.

8. The Sherman tank was very effective as infantry support, reasonable shell, good platform to shoot from, good rate of fire, etc. That was it’s design.

9. The Sherman tank was also easy to operate compared to other tanks, for the crew.

10. Mechanically the USA had a huge advantage as if you are moving forward you get to recover all your broken down vehicles. I read ( and will have find where) that contrary to popular belief Sherman tank breakdown rate was about the same as other nations, including Germany, but recovery rate was much better due to above and more standardized parts and equipment.

 

[dragoner]

Well, that depends on what theater you're talking about. Africa was certainly a major tank war. As was a significant portion of the Russian front. Some of the largest tank battles in history are from WWII.

Biggest tank vs tank battle is in the Dubno, Lutsk, and Brody area USSR, 1941. Kursk sometimes gets quoted, except is the Germans cutting though minefields, pre-registered artillery fires, and hedgehog defenses with anti-tank guns such as the ZIS-3. NA tank battles were similar, where most tanks were knocked out by AT guns (and the famous German 88) or mines; nevertheless, theater wide, it would be characterized more accurately as a "truck war" where the allies had the far superior trucks, and at the same time, drawing off huge amount of Axis trucks, such that after the disastrous retreat to the panther line in 1943 by the Germans, their truck fleet is decimated. Rommel, having written a book on Motorized Infantry before the war, knew this would be the struggle. By 1944 the Germans were reduced to stealing bicycles in Holland to give their forces some mobility. Trucks aren't a sexy part of war, nobody is going to make a "World of Trucks" video game.

 

[smbakeresq]

USA theories about conflict were actually born out as true. Tank vs Tank conflict is very rare now, and will be in future unless some advance in technology changes the situation. Its all about support for troops as communications has improved to the point where fire support is always on tap, either through the air or conventional artillery. The anti-tank gun flies now or is hand-held, supply now is at a state that WW2 soldiers could only dream about

 

[dragoner]

Prior to WW2, the world's technological, and economic superpower is the UK, and the Matilda is arguably one of the best tanks, the victor at the Battle of Arras, one of the larger tank engagements; which one can tell that tank shootouts are rather rare by their being so named, and that the biggest criticism for the Matilda is it's lack of a High Explosive shell for it's main armament. HE for infantry support, still the Matilda saw use all throughout the war on many battlefields from Western Europe, North Africa, Eastern Europe (Lend Lease to USSR) and in the Pacific.

 

[Zardnaar]

Prior to WW2, the world's technological, and economic superpower is the UK, and the Matilda is arguably one of the best tanks, the victor at the Battle of Arras, one of the larger tank engagements; which one can tell that tank shootouts are rather rare by their being so named, and that the biggest criticism for the Matilda is it's lack of a High Explosive shell for it's main armament. HE for infantry support, still the Matilda saw use all throughout the war on many battlefields from Western Europe, North Africa, Eastern Europe (Lend Lease to USSR) and in the Pacific.

Matilda lacked mobility. It the old armor, mobilty, firepower thing pick 2. Modern tanks can get around that of course but back in the 30's and 40's this was true for the most part until later model Shermans, Panzer IV, T-34.

Take away the propaganda about the German kittens the Sherman over performed relative to say the T-34 (which was only good due to numbers), its armor was better than all the other medium tanks and it had good mobility. Letdown a bit in the firepower department vs the heaviest German tanks and even tat was taken care of later and with Sherman variants.

The Panther was really a heavy tank, its probably fairer to compare that to a Pershing which was a similar weight and was a heavy tank in western eyes(and had an 88mm equivalent that the Germans could not get onto a tank that size).

USA doctrine at the time called for the tank destroyers to deal with the big German kittehs. The doctrine was a it flawed but it was not any worse than the German or Soviet doctrines which also had problems.

If the Panther was that good the Allies would have copied it or lifted design features from it. They did that with German planes, subs and missiles but not tanks so why not? The main reason was the German tanks were not as good as Nazi propaganda made them out to be, the best actual ones (StuG III, Panzer IV) the allies already had equivalents with the Sherman and with the high velocity AA guns in a tank the Allies also had the Sherman Firefly (Easy 8 sorta) M-36 and Pershing for that role. German suspension on the kittehs were also very flawed post war even the Soviets dumped the Christie suspension they used. M1 Abrams uses torsion bars which traces its ancestry back to WW2. Tank evolution the Allies were right the Germans and Soviets were wrong.

A few tanks were good on paper (early T-34) but were let down with low quality finishing or crew ergonomics. There are stories for example of Soviet tanks in 1941 shrugging off 20+ hits (mostly from 20mm and 37mm) but you can also wonder why these tanks were letting themselves get hit 20+ times. You can up gun to 50m and 75mm its hard to fix poor visibility or very cramped conditions where its difficult to load your gun in the st place let alone hit anything with it.

 

[Zardnaar]

Nothing about the African theatres was major. Saying WWII wasn't a tank war makes no sense.

Most of the time it wasn't. Battles like Kursk were the exception not the rule.

Even the German blitkrieg was also enabled by the rapid moving light tanks not the later slow Panthers/Tigers.

The German kittehs get the glory but the Stug III and Panzer III and IV were the workhorses and were good vehicles. Its like the Battle of Britain the Spitfire was the star, the Hurricane was actually the workhorse and got the most kills.

Losses for western tank crews were fairly light, the infantry and bomber command paid the butchers bill. On the German side the U-boat service was the worst one to be in.

Bit of useless info. I think the film Fury was the 1st film debut of a Tiger.