By Nicholas Moran, USANG armor commander and adviser to the game World of Tanks:
US AFV Development in WWII: Why the Sherman was Great
- Thread starter Nickdfresh
- Start date
- Status
The Sherman Firefly was surely a very competent hunter-killer.
I'll have to watch this later...the Sherman remains a very controversial tank.
Viewed as almost a wonder weapon in 1942, by 1944 it was largely seen as well behind the times but there is a lot of argument as to how much that really affected its success in the types of combat it generally saw. The upgrade from 75mm to 76mm cannon was generally disappointing and there is evidence now that the US could have easily introduced a 90mm version of the Sherman in limited quantities like the Brits did with the Firefly 17pdrs to give their formations far more antitank bite. Seems like the US decision makers said, gee, the turret is cramped with the big gun and the Pershing is coming soon (barely before the end of the war as it turned out)...while everybody else fighting in Europe was rushing more powerful weapons in as fast as they could. Of course, the unique shipping needs of the US forces came into play there, too!
I read Belton Cooper's "Death Traps" some years ago and his perspective as a member of the unit that recovered and repaired (when possible) US 3rd Armored tanks in WWII was unforgettable...
My father was in the 2nd Armored during WWII, but as armored infantry and not as a tanker...he wasn't quite so negative about the Sherman, but he told me terrible stories about the tank destroyers and how vulnerable they were. He said the crewmen of the TDs were terrified of taking any kind of fire and that 5 were knocked out in one night when they were mistakenly left at the perimeter of their camp after dark...with those loss of all crew members but one.
Viewed as almost a wonder weapon in 1942, by 1944 it was largely seen as well behind the times but there is a lot of argument as to how much that really affected its success in the types of combat it generally saw. The upgrade from 75mm to 76mm cannon was generally disappointing and there is evidence now that the US could have easily introduced a 90mm version of the Sherman in limited quantities like the Brits did with the Firefly 17pdrs to give their formations far more antitank bite. Seems like the US decision makers said, gee, the turret is cramped with the big gun and the Pershing is coming soon (barely before the end of the war as it turned out)...while everybody else fighting in Europe was rushing more powerful weapons in as fast as they could. Of course, the unique shipping needs of the US forces came into play there, too!
I read Belton Cooper's "Death Traps" some years ago and his perspective as a member of the unit that recovered and repaired (when possible) US 3rd Armored tanks in WWII was unforgettable...
My father was in the 2nd Armored during WWII, but as armored infantry and not as a tanker...he wasn't quite so negative about the Sherman, but he told me terrible stories about the tank destroyers and how vulnerable they were. He said the crewmen of the TDs were terrified of taking any kind of fire and that 5 were knocked out in one night when they were mistakenly left at the perimeter of their camp after dark...with those loss of all crew members but one.
The best things about the Sherman was: there was so many of them, they were very serviceable, fixes and upgrades were constant, and the gyro stabilized gun sights made it reasonably accurate while on the move. Not much was written about the gyros because it was classified at the time, but the Germans were happy to copy them later in the war.
Yes they were inferior in gun and armor to the Tigers and the Panther, but outnumbered them by an order of magnitude.
The infantry support role of the Sherman versus the anti-tank role of the tank-killers was primarily the policy of one general. That policy saved a lot of infantry lives and killed a lot of tankers and tank hunters.
Yes they were inferior in gun and armor to the Tigers and the Panther, but outnumbered them by an order of magnitude.
The infantry support role of the Sherman versus the anti-tank role of the tank-killers was primarily the policy of one general. That policy saved a lot of infantry lives and killed a lot of tankers and tank hunters.
Originally Posted by HangFire
The best things about the Sherman was: there was so many of them, they were very serviceable, fixes and upgrades were constant, and the gyro stabilized gun sights made it reasonably accurate while on the move. Not much was written about the gyros because it was classified at the time, but the Germans were happy to copy them later in the war.
Yes they were inferior in gun and armor to the Tigers and the Panther, but outnumbered them by an order of magnitude.
The infantry support role of the Sherman versus the anti-tank role of the tank-killers was primarily the policy of one general. That policy saved a lot of infantry lives and killed a lot of tankers and tank hunters.
That was basically the same principle of the Panzer division. Avoid strong points and attack weak formations and maneuver. It was dangerous to go tank to tank and they were expensive so the losses weren't worth it. Lots of T-34's were just knocked out by 88's.
The best things about the Sherman was: there was so many of them, they were very serviceable, fixes and upgrades were constant, and the gyro stabilized gun sights made it reasonably accurate while on the move. Not much was written about the gyros because it was classified at the time, but the Germans were happy to copy them later in the war.
Yes they were inferior in gun and armor to the Tigers and the Panther, but outnumbered them by an order of magnitude.
The infantry support role of the Sherman versus the anti-tank role of the tank-killers was primarily the policy of one general. That policy saved a lot of infantry lives and killed a lot of tankers and tank hunters.
That was basically the same principle of the Panzer division. Avoid strong points and attack weak formations and maneuver. It was dangerous to go tank to tank and they were expensive so the losses weren't worth it. Lots of T-34's were just knocked out by 88's.
Belton Coopers book was excellent, and he paints so many bad pictures of the Sherman that its hard to understand why nobody overruled Patton and put more emphasis on the Pershing. He documents very clearly that Patton said "forget anything but the Sherman- we do not need anything else- halt work on the Pershing and make as many Shermans as possible". The issue was that the US intelligence underestimated how many Tigers, Panthers and Tiger II's (but mostly Panthers) the Germans would produce and field, so armoured losses were far higher than expected. It was only after the Allies started running into more Panthers than expected after D-Day that they came back and said "Oops, you still have that Pershing available ?". They lost 6-12 months of valuable time before it could be fielded in even limited numbers. Also, Belton Cooper was responsible for the extra shield that was mounted on the Pershing's gun to give it a bit more resistance to frontal turret hits, when field reports convinced the US that the Pershing was still deficient in frontal armor.
https://www.amazon.com/Death-Traps-...95&sr=8-1&keywords=belton+cooper
https://www.amazon.com/Death-Traps-...95&sr=8-1&keywords=belton+cooper
Sherman=Tommy Cooker. Horrible tank.
Next?
Next?
Mass quantities, speed and maneuverability, was the only advantage this tank had. The nickname "Ronson" was well earned.
My father-in-law went to Germany right after WWII during reconstruction. Since he spoke fluent German, he was put in charge of a bunch of former German soldiers.
They repeatedly told him that when their tanks needed major repair, they had to get out and fix them. When an American tank needed repair, the U.S. tank drivers just got out of their broken down tank and got into a new one.
In their opinion, that was why America won the war.
They repeatedly told him that when their tanks needed major repair, they had to get out and fix them. When an American tank needed repair, the U.S. tank drivers just got out of their broken down tank and got into a new one.
In their opinion, that was why America won the war.
I once met a reserved older man who told me that he drove onto Normandy as a Sgt and was a Captain by the time he made it to Paris. The Germans called them Ronsons. I worked for yrs with Tony "Macaroni " a heck of a nice guy who drove a tank for the USMC in the Pacific. Patton moved his tanks 100 miles in 24 hrs to counter the Bulge. That was considered a feat.
Nick Moran thinks Belton Cooper was misinformed in many cases about the Sherman. I viewed the entire video and found it quite informative, so I might have to rethink my position that the Sherman was a POS. Certainly the field serviceability of American tanks was far superior to German tanks.
Originally Posted by Brons2
Sherman=Tommy Cooker. Horrible tank.
Next?
Complete nonsense. The Germans might have called a Sherman a "Tommy Cooker", but they might well have been commenting that the Sherman looked like a small British Army stove, not because the "Sherman brewed up". There was an issue with ammunition storage, but certainly not that simple as "horrible tank, next"....
The "Ronson" is also likely a post-war construction as few German soldiers knew what a Ronson lighter was and most American GI's used Zippos....
Sherman=Tommy Cooker. Horrible tank.
Next?
Complete nonsense. The Germans might have called a Sherman a "Tommy Cooker", but they might well have been commenting that the Sherman looked like a small British Army stove, not because the "Sherman brewed up". There was an issue with ammunition storage, but certainly not that simple as "horrible tank, next"....
The "Ronson" is also likely a post-war construction as few German soldiers knew what a Ronson lighter was and most American GI's used Zippos....
German tanks didn't have that far to go and they shipped the tanks to battle on rails. After the fall of France, they were able to just ship their tanks home to rebuild them. The Americans knew that they wouldn't be able to do that so they designed their tanks accordingly. I think I remember reading about the tanks like the Panzer 35/38 were worn out after about 8k miles. I think some of the early T-34's were worse, they'd be broken down after 200 miles and they'd strap a spare engine on them so they could replace it after a long march.
There's a lot of debate on the Ronson nick name. That slogan of them lights first every time wasn't even in use til after the war, but there something close to that before the war.
There's a lot of debate on the Ronson nick name. That slogan of them lights first every time wasn't even in use til after the war, but there something close to that before the war.
Big problem is that both sides built up the Germans in the post war period. One side out of national pride, and the other to have to seemed to face a more formidable foe.
The French operated the Panther Mk V as a post war stopgap tank until they could get their own tanks online and operated maybe around 100. They did extensive testing and found severe problems with the final drive and the engine. The best case scenario for a Panther engine life span was about 1000 miles in peace time garrison maintenance conditions. Think of Germans suffering supply issues and under constant duress, so maybe they destructed at 500 miles - even after the Panther's extensive teething issues were worked out after Kursk. That Panther's armor was massively thick in the front and it's gun was an excellent armor killer. But it should be noted the side armor was much thinner to compensate and was easily penetrated, even a 40mm Bofors gun firing AP could pen it...
I forgot to mention the Sherman's powered turret.
Post 3000 for me.
Post 3000 for me.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
