Did the M4 Sherman really have bad defence?

I have heard about it getting a bad reputation from people who used it (Tommycooker, etc); yet at the same time the on-paper statistics seem pretty good (even some of the earlier M4 variants have over 50mm of armour, sloped).

Am I missing something, or is there a key reason why the on-paper statistics don't translate to actual combat efficiency?

 

ye teh sherman woz terrible da panzer and tiger woz invincible it took leik 10 shermans 2 kill one tiger

.

It's mostly modern-day sources compare it to the Panther or Tiger, wich makes it
seem like a terrible tank.
It was as good as the PzKpfw IV, which is also a medium tank, like the Sherman.

 

Well put, if compared to the panzer it was designed to compete with, the PzKw IV it was as good as or better than that unit until the G model when it was simply "comparable". However when it was modified to the Wet Storage (W) version it was less combustible than previously.

Of course the German panzers (tanks) were also gasoline powered, so they were just as flammable as the M4 fuel wise, it was ammo storage that was more of a problem for the M4 until the (W) appeared. Another thing which is occasionally ignored is that the fuel in the German units, even though it was gasoline, was of very low octane which makes it slightly less "explosive" when hit by a round or other stuff.

The Sherman M4 eventually had both automatic fire extinguishers in the engine compartment, and hand held systems scattered though the crew compartment. I recall there was one in the turret, and two in the driver/assistant driver area with two mounted in the engine bay which could be activated by the tank commander or by heat detectors (could be wrong on that part).

It is also true that it most likely took "ten" Shermans to take out either a Panther or Tiger (either model), the difficulty for the Germans was expressed by one of their tank commanders; "the problem was the allies always had one more than we could handle!"

 

I wonder how many times that the subject of the Sherman can be beaten to death? There are soooo many threads and posts on the subject that it get ridiculous :headbonk: :fuse: :deadhorse:. Why not post in one of those rather then start this all over again?

 

JCF, I think Za's signiture pretty much provides us a very good counter to the internet assambled myth.

But yes, the horse has now been beaten so much it is just a small pool of blood on the floor.

 

Please guys, cut the new fella a bit of slack. The new poster (2 posts) doesn't have a clue as to how to use the "search" (I've been here only about six months), and sometimes I don't think to do that first. Please don't jump the new guy for not knowing how to use this forum yet. That begins to look "exclusinonary" rather than "inclusionary".

 

LOL Clint. Im not coming down on him . This subject always ends up with the same result.All he had to do is look at the last few pages and he would have noticed that it has been discussed before. When I first started here and from experience from other sites I tried to look and see if a subject was discussed before. And with the subject of the Sherman the odds are that on every WWII site someone has brought it up LOL. Then I discovered the "Search" function!!! . Everyone at some time will post something that may have been discussed before. Thats a given.

A couple of recent examples,

http://www.ww2f.com/weapons-wwii/20793-best-tank-ww2.html
http://www.ww2f.com/weapons-wwii/26416-top-10-worst-tanks-war.html

Not to mention the various other sub discussions in regards to the Sherman in other threads .

And everyone's favorite!! LOL

http://www.ww2f.com/weapons-wwii/12597-sherman-vs-panzer.html

 

I do aplogize Otto.

 

Yes, I apologise too Otto. And to the original poster too.

.

Suppose I better answer the blooming question then...

Okay.

The reason the Sherman has a such bad reputation is that todays games and films always show German tanks as being Tigers, the best tank of the war. People do not know about the PzKpfw IV, You hardly see it in the media.
The Sherman was certainly not as powerful as the Tiger, as this is comparing a heavy tank and a medium tank. A Melon vs an Apple.

It seems bad today, but in it's day it was a war-winner.


So to answer the question in the title, no, the Sherman did not have bad defence. It have average defence. Along with the T34, Cromwell, and most Pz IV variants.

 

ChaosSamusX, we have discussed the Sherman more times than a dog has fleas

It would be a great idea if you took a browse to places where we did that. These are some recent threads:

http://www.ww2f.com/weapons-wwii/20793-best-tank-ww2.html

http://www.ww2f.com/weapons-wwii/12215-overall-favorite-weapon.html

http://www.ww2f.com/weapons-wwii/12664-top-10-tanks-war.html

You may find something to do with your questions. If this is not enough, please feel entirely free to bring back to life any of those older threads

 

AWWWW c'mon Za. Everyone loves the Sherman Vs. Panzer thread LOL.

 

JCF, if there is one sure-fire way to get your blood pressure up it is that thread! Argh!

 

Hmm, it looks like JCF had anticipated my move already Or else he edited his post to include the links

In any case, Samus, do read the info there.

 

...and be sure to check your blood pressure levels every 10 minutes.

 

LOL Like I was a psychic and edited it hours before he posted LOL.

 

The Sherman has almost exactly the same armor overall as a T34 of any model. It has equal or better armor to that of any Pz IV model. Its side and rear armor are roughly equal to that on a Panther while the frontal armor is considerably thinner.
The aforementioned "wet" versions had a very low propensity to burn; much lower than German tanks. Gasoline was rarely the problem in immediate cook offs or catastrophic explosions in tanks; ammunition was.
For example, I have mentioned that the Tiger II carried 22 rounds in the turret bustle (rear part of the turret). These proved such a hazard to even non-penetrating hits that a secondary "splash" armor screen was added on each side of the ammunition to prevent non penetrating hits from setting the ammunition off. Some crews simply refused to carry rounds in these racks for fear they would detonate if hit.
The T34 was hard to light up simply because all of the ammunition was stored on the bottom of the hull and rarely got hit when the tank did. This made it very hard to get cooking.
Another good Sherman feature on all but the early models was the redesign of the hatches so that the crew could easily escape the vehicle. Larger driver hatches and a loader's hatch were added. There were quite a few other tanks in service in WW 2 that proved death traps when they did get hit and start to burn. Escape was in some cases nearly impossible. The Hetzer is a great example of this. The crew has just one small hatch to get out of the vehicle by. The commander, isolated on the starboard side has a small hatch of his own. To make matters worse, if the remotely controlled machinegun is in the wrong position it blocks the hatch for the crew shut.
Getting hit in a Hetzer is almost surely going to end in digging graves for the crew.

 

you scared him off!

but I will tell you that I love the Sherman in all it's models!

 

M4's armor wasn't too bad. The problem was the M3 75-mm gun that was inadequate against German heavies by 1944. According to a "lessons learned" article written by the 9th Army, what their tankers wanted was, above all, more firepower. Ideally they wanted a gun that could kill a German heavy up front. They also desired better tactical mobility over sodden fields or rough terrain. Armored protection came a distant third as most tankers believed that speed was more protection than a couple of inches of steel.