Did the M4 Sherman really have bad defence?

yep, on the farm they used to say "opinions are like a**holes, everybody's got one, but you don't really want to hear it!

 

They were both slow tanks operationally. The Israelis installed new engines into their chieftains because they felt the original set was inadequate. The M26 was well recieved in Korea when there were still T-34-85s arround to fight; after the elimination of NK armor the tank commanders wanted their Shermans back. M-26 was too slow to keep up with mobile operations.

You'd right if you compare TDs to M4A3s. But a the M36B tank destroyer had M4A3's hull and a regular M36 turret. The M10's armor compared favorably to the M4 and M4A1, the contemporary American medium tank at the time when M10 was designed.

It wasn't an insurmountable challenge to arm a fully armored Sherman tank with the 90-mm. It was the solution the Ordnance favored over designing and retooling for a new tank. You're right about M50/51's armament. Both were equipped with French knock-offs of modern guns.

 

Very simple question for you SMLE. What source is there that it took "5 Shermans firing at once to destroy a Tiger"? You made that statemnet. Back it up. In what battle or engaement did that occur? Please tell us.

 

Guess you aren't interested in what we have to say. Why would you need a forum if you don't discuss or exchange information?

 

Unfortunately I do have to assume that by his comments and actions he suffers from the symptoms of some of those who has the videogame mentality and source of history and knowledge. And of course he is the only one that is right and everyone else is wrong. . Instead of "opinions" and what ever excuses you have.Give us some facts. Prove any of the info other then yours wrong.

 

Aren't you forgetting the three historians in his family?

 

was the m4 fast in comparison to other tanks ?.

 

As ever it depends on what you compare it to, yes it was fast if you compare it to a Matilda, Valentine or Tiger, no it wasn't particularly if you compare it to a Cromwell, PzIV or Vickers Mk VI. For a medium tank it had a decent top speed, put it that way.

The posters saying that the Sherman had no redeemable features are quite wrong. God knows why they get so worked up about it, too.

 

o.k,medium tanks?.so why do people say it was fast?.also,did it have better range,or m.p.g than other medium tanks,like t34,german tank mk4,cromwell or german tank mk5?.cheers.

 

On mobility of the Sherman:

While the off road performance varies depending on which model you have, which track and suspension is fitted, the road performance is normally something else. A Sherman fitted with any suspension and using the rubber bushed double pin tracks gets its best road performance at about 20+ mph.
This track has a unique feature that actually lowers rolling resistance at speeds between about 20 and 30 mph. This means the Sherman gets better engine performance, can maintain higher road speeds and, gets way better gas milage. Most Shermans were also very easy to steer and drive. The driver's seat can be adjusted up to allow him to have his head out of the hatch. A windshield and cover are provided in the tank's equipmemt to protect him in inclement weather (although rarely used).
So, as an exploitation vehicle running on paved or even hard flat dirt roads the Sherman is very mobile.

For comparison, the German and Russian tanks using all-steel tracks got poorer milage and higher rolling resistance the faster they went. Their tracks also had a short life measured in hundreds of miles versus thousands for a Sherman. In fact, many Shermans went across Europe on a single set of tracks!

 

One of the problems with the M4's multi-composite (rubber/steel) tracks was that they also functioned extremely BAD on thin ice on hard surfaced roads. Think of a pig on roller-skates. We have seen the films of Shermans sliding sideways off the road and such, Whoo-hoo!!

 

"The Sherman was so good you could have a 6-yo commanding it!"