Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

why was the sherman so bad...

Discussion in 'The Tanks of World War 2' started by general_grevious, Oct 29, 2006.

  1. general_grevious

    general_grevious New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2006
    Messages:
    44
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    daventry
    via TanksinWW2
    in comparison to the comet /panther/pz4
     
  2. Siberian Black

    Siberian Black New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    1,097
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Hunting Panzer IV's
    via TanksinWW2
    someone else will be able to give a better (more correct) answer but I think on of the main problens was engine reliability. I guess that'd be from lack of tank construction experiance.

    Was the 75mm on the standard Sherman or on the Firefly version?
     
  3. general_grevious

    general_grevious New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2006
    Messages:
    44
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    daventry
    via TanksinWW2
    the standard sherman had a 75mm gun the firefly had a 17pdr gun.
    also the reliability of the various shermans egines was quite good
     
  4. Siberian Black

    Siberian Black New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    1,097
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Hunting Panzer IV's
    via TanksinWW2
    I've heard there was a joke among Sherman crews to avoid hitting anything or it would burst into flames.

    (When I find it I will let you know)
     
  5. Lone Wolf

    Lone Wolf New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2006
    Messages:
    788
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Merseyside, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    It certainly wasn't bad in comparisson with the pz4. Also, many improvements were made during its long production run addressing such things as survivability and firepower. One weakness that persisted throughout, of course, was its high profile. It is worth remembering that when Shermans first arrived in North Africa they were a considered quite an improvement on what the Brits had been using up until then. The inadequacies that Shermans had when going toe to toe with the big cats was largely the result of the US doctrine that tank destroyers rather than tanks should be used in that role.
     
  6. merlin phpbb3

    merlin phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,724
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    middle England
    via TanksinWW2
    sherman

    The Sherman was the tank that won the war for the allies, not because it was better but because there were so many of them and readily supplied.
    And we don't want any more jokes about 'Ronsons' we've heard them all before, we seem to be going down the same roads again quite often these days, I'd advise some of you to read some of the back posts.
     
  7. smeghead phpbb3

    smeghead phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2006
    Messages:
    1,269
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Melbourne, Orst-Ray-Lia
    via TanksinWW2
    Did the Sherman actually have superior armor to the Pz. IV? All sources I've read have indicated it either had thicker armor or the same amout, which is true?
     
  8. FNG phpbb3

    FNG phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    depends on the version of sherman and the version of the PIV

    But all in all the sherman in all it's versions was a sound medium tank

    FNG
     
  9. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    The Sherman only appears bad when it ends up in a situation that it wasn't designed for such as facing a heavy tank like the Tiger or Panther (medium tank according to the Germans but not really).
    In most all other situations the Sherman was quite capable.
    As Merlin says this has been discussed to death in previous threads though.
     
  10. Lone Wolf

    Lone Wolf New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2006
    Messages:
    788
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Merseyside, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Do we reeaallly have to stop talking about something because it's been covered before ? This is a discussion forum after all. Simply referring people (particularly new members) to old posts as if they were some kind of definitive referrence source seems counter to the spirit of open discussion to me. Are we to stop posting about subjects that have been discussed before - surely it's just down to the individual to decide whether they want to reply or not - if a member is bored with discussing a well-worn topic then don't reply - the fact that others are contributing would suggest that there is still life in it for them at least.
     
  11. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    Certain topics are fed more by ignorance of the facts than anything else, such as the persistent myth that the Sherman was a bad tank. For this purpose, instead of repeating ourselves over and over to everyone who brings it up, we have created the Mythbuster Threads. Here's the one on the Sherman:

    http://www.fun-online.sk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3752

    It should take away most of your doubts and questions concering this tank's effectiveness. I can assure you that this tank was not at all inferior to the Panzer IV; even compared to the Comet it's a matter of debate.

    By the way, the Panther was actually an inch or so taller than the Sherman, and its side armour was thinner.
     
  12. shermanologist on watch

    shermanologist on watch New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2005
    Messages:
    72
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    PARIS-FRANCE
    via TanksinWW2
    The Sherman was a very good tank in 1943. Sad it was not quickly replaced by the T25 in time for the D Day.
    What the US brass did not understand soon enough was the Panzerwaffe turned to heavy tanks and much worse to medium tanks (Panther) with the weight of their own heavies!
    By Medium I mean the intended normal tank in Panzer Divisions, gradually replacing the aging and too light Pz IV.
    The Sherman was roughly equal to the Pz IV but the long 75mm (L/43 and later L/48) gave the Panzer a longer arm while the 80mm (hull front) and 50mm (turret front) was not impervious to the 75mm of the early Shermans.

    I wrote T25 and not T26 (soon known as the M26 Pershing) because the later had too much armour for its powerplant (the same as the M4A3). What the US needed to replace the Sherman was not much more armour but much more punching ability and the 90mm was the answer in 1944-1945.
     
  13. dennis trowbridge

    dennis trowbridge recruit

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
  14. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    I think it's a bit strong to say that the Panzerwaffe "turned to heavy tanks"; after all, they produced less than 2000 of them during the war. Late-war Sherman types could deal with Tigers if they had supplies of HVAP ammunition.
     
  15. shermanologist on watch

    shermanologist on watch New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2005
    Messages:
    72
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    PARIS-FRANCE
    via TanksinWW2
    A heavy tank meant in my sentence a tank that weighs much and referred not to the tactical role (I should have stated that more clearly), and a Panther, meant to be the standard tank of the Panzer Abteilung but the production delayed that for a long time, weighs much more than a Sherman or a T-34.

    When you say the late-war Shermans (with their 76mm - or do you think of the 105 with HEAT?) could deal with 'Tigers', do you mean also Tiger II-King Tiger? They had a chance from the flank at close range but from the front...
    And the Hyper velocity rounds remained rare and more often sent to TD units. This was discussed in much detail on past Tanknet threads, with the overall numbers sent to Europe.
    The M36 and the T26E3 had a much better chance against all the 'numerous Panzers' ie those that were met most of the time - that is not the Tiger IIs that were rare at best and not operational for long when the battle was joined.
    And the T26E3 was sluggish as its armour was too much for the chosen engine. Hence my reference to the T25.
     
  16. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    I did not mean to include the Tiger II when I said that the Sherman with the 76mm gun could handle Tigers. With HVAP ammunition, though, it could penetrate the Tiger's armour from over 2000 meters from the side, and over 1000 meters from the front. Even if the rounds were relatively rare, the Sherman/76 was not, and the Tiger was.
     
  17. shermanologist on watch

    shermanologist on watch New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2005
    Messages:
    72
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    PARIS-FRANCE
    via TanksinWW2
    But the Tiger I was phased out of the units fighting in the West (with rare exceptions) when the HVAP ammo arrived - having been replaced by KTs-, and was found in dwindling numbers in the East against the 2000 or so M4A2 76 Ws in Soviet hands.
    The ammo would have been useful against the better sloped even if thinner armour of the various Panther and derivatives, or Jagdpanzers. These were appearing in larger (or not so declining?) numbers then.
     

Share This Page