Like Butter!

Reading B. Cooper's "Death Traps" and he makes some interesting observations about the deficiency of American armor. The 88 on the Tiger could knock out a Sherman after shooting thorugh a brick wall and, in at least one instance, shooting through another Sherman tank!

A highly recommended read.

 

I've read the book, think Kai has just read it,too. I'll keep my opinion about the Sherman to myself, as to not be pounced upon by TA Gardner when he reads this.
Good book by the way.

 

What did Cooper suggest would have been better?

 

M26 Pershing should have been picked for the main battle tank, said Cooper in his book.

 

Sounds like a tad suspicious evidence to call the Sherman a "death trap", although rather typical to focus exclusively on the armour vs armour aspect.

By the same token, I have read accounts of ISU-152s knocking Panthers out and the impact from the shell throwing them back like broken toys. This does not the Panther a death trap make!

 

Tank vs tank...how about tank vs Pak41?
From the book; "upon examining the front of the destroyed Sherman,I found that the shot struck the final drive casting[4inches thick],passed through about a foot of 50 weight oil,severed the 5 1/2inch driveshaft,then passed through another 8-10inches of oil and a 1inch armored back-plate before entering the driver's compartment".

I 'think' Cooper gave them the "death trap" title because young cadets were led to believe the Sherman was equal or better than anything out there.
Gen.Patton pretty much did the M-26 in,preferring to stick with the 'speedy and more fuel efficient' Sherman.

Had to beat Monty to Berlin,ya know.

 

Cooper says that tank v tank - the M-26 was only on par with the Panther, not the Tiger.
It was the close in armor protection with the Panther - the 90mm M1 gun had a lower muzzele velocity than the 75mm on the Panther - which had a slight edge in penetration capability. In one incident, the projectile from the 90mm struck the Panther directly on the glacis plate at less than 300 yards range and ricocheted.

It's interesting that although the Sherman was supposedly more "mobile" - although it was a lighter tank in tons - it's ground bearing pressure was higher than the Panther/Tiger - and less mobile over snow and mud. (those damn narrow tracks) Cooper sums up that the Sherman was deficient in almost every area - from armor protection to gun - and he blames its failure (and the lack of foresight by certain people) for the deaths of many, many Americans.

 

Don´t forget this either:

On Shermans

One of the most needed maintenance parts was spark plugs. Most of the M4 tanks had R975 Wright nine-cylinder air-cooled radial engines. When the engine was started the tank usually backfired with considerable noise which gave away the unit´s position.Most tank crews would idle the engines as slowly as possible when trying to maintain a defiladed position in the hedgegrows. Designed for high constant speeds in an aircraft the engine had excessive clearance between the cylinder walls and the pistons. In a tank, where the engine was run slowly, the excess clearance allowed then engine to pump oil which fouled the spark plugs.Each engine had nine cylinders and each cylinder had two spark plugs. This meant that eighteen spark plugs had to be changed every time the engine fouled.

 

US tank doctrine,tank forces should be divided into 2 groups.

Heavy tanks attached to infantry divisions would be used to make breakthroughs and penetrate fortified lines.

Armoured divisions supposed to penetrate behind enemy lines shooting up enemy artillery and such...
a job the Sherman was OK for.

But they had to make the breakthroughs and penetrate fortified lines as there were no 'heavy tanks'.
So here the German's,under constant bombing,come up with Panthers,Tigers,Jadgpanthers,StuGs, etc.

Russia comes up with T-34s, ISUs, etc.

The U.S.,with all her industrial might...comes up with the Sherman.

 

Right - what a mess - but I think that was fixed after the Sherman switched to the Ford inline engine. Goes to show you that the Sherman wasn't a full design - it adopted the chasis and suspension from the m2,m3 and used surplus airplane engines
Hell, but I still like the old girl, you get that ma' duce spraying lead as it rolls into battle - a vicious looking tank!

 

Yes, I too have read Cooper's book. It's ok, but no more. Harry Yeide's book Steel Victory is a bit better if you are choosing a new read though.
As far as it goes, the Sherman wasn't that bad. Yes, the early versions did have a tendency to burn easily, but so did most WW II armored vehicles with gasoline engines and ammunition stowed above the lower hull. The US quickly moved to fix this problem by providing wet (water jacketed) ammo boxes and applique armor (those little plates on the side of the hull and turret) to minimize this problem. These proved very successful, particularly the wet stowage models that were substancially less likely to burn when penetrated than virtually any German tank.
As for armor, the US provided about 300 M4A3E2 Jumbo Shermans in the ETO. These received mixed reviews from the troops. Some liked the extra armor (they were virtually impervious to 75L48 fire and could take both the 75L70 and 88L56 at about 800+ yards) others derided their reduced mobility.
Then there were the in theater developed applique armor kits to upgrade the glacis on the M4A1 and 3 using additional 2" plate. This gives a Sherman hull armor equal to a Panther on the front. Most 3rd Army tanks received such a fix by late 1944 for example.
As for engines, the US only used 2 varieties in their Shermans: The Wright radial in the M4A1 and the Ford GAA V8 (half a Merlin...what a versitile engine that was) in the M4A3. The diesel models went to the Marines and Russians for the most part while the Chrysler multibanks went to the British.
Only the Wright on the M4A1 has the plug fouling problems. Any German tank crew would have gladly given a protion of their privates to get the reliability of that Ford GAA engine.....Turn the magnetios on, push the starter and, Boom! the engine is running...cold weather, hot weather, wet weather...after being thrashed for weeks...it still ran.
Just one more observation: The Soviet T34/76 really isn't any better than the Sherman except in cross country mobility (do note that there are well documented cases of US crews "hot rodding" their tanks by removing the governor and tuning them up to get 35+mph out of a Sherman). The armor and gun have little to choose between them. The Sherman has the edge in crew efficency.
So, on the whole, the Sherman isn't all that bad comparatively. And, it is sour grapes that generally on the rare occasion that the Germans did have Tigers present they had but a handful available. Quantity has a quality all its own....

 

They could always have delayed the DDAY invasions to 1945 so as to equip the Allied Armies with Pershings & Centurions!

I'm sure that the Wermacht would have given their left..... to have enough M4's to fully equip their Armoured units and have a solid reserve.

They would have found the right tactics to use.....

 

Agree on the 'quantity' but morale is a factor too. From reading first-hand accounts, one gets the impression that German tank crews ( in Panthers and, particularly, Tigers ) felt that they had the best equipment and armament available. Sherman, and other Allied tank crews, didn't.

 

Hence the term 'Tigershock' and the id of virually all German tanks as 'Tigers' when spotted...

 

The "Death traps" book also mentions that "It was reported that the tank replacement crew training school at Fort Knox had been closed." and this seems to have happened before or during the invasion. The author says that at least he never found out whether they opened it again after hearing about the Normandy battle losses.Anybody got more info on this?

 

I think the biggest problem with the Sherman - for their crews anyway - was the fact that they were told that they were as good as or better than German tanks. This was a gross misstatement which, unfortunately plagued the reputation of the tank.

 

Have any of you taken a look at relative tank casualties for the Allies and Germany? I know Operation Goodwood pretty much was a disaster in this regard for the Allies, but what about others...?

Quite a few numbers I have seen seem to indicate the Allies actually knocked more of the supposed "super"-tanks than vice versa. Which seems to indicate the Allies actually were on to something with their approach.

 

interesting question. considering in Normandie that the Us forcecs ran up only agasint a relative few armored units compared to British tank corps to the east. Das Reich facing the Us forces claimed some 220 plus tanks for a loss of 78 of their own. the 17th SS lost all their stugs and probably claimed 15 tanks. Pretty pitiful although the unit as it was adressing to the front lines was continually bombed and strafed losing all its 7.5cm pak 40 and the panzerjüger Abteilung lost all it's MT during a strafing-bombing run. Das Reich lost tanks due to lack of fuel which were later claimed by US P-47 jabos. this happened at Mortain. the soft skinned vehicles strewn all over abandoned and then the US air forces pounded the machines to wrecks climing them as ground victories. Mortain in effect ws a bloodletting on the W-SS grenaider companies trying to capture the humps above them.

As to the British Krops they were hit several times not just Goodwood and it would take some time I beleive to put all the engagements together. the 502 W-SS heavy Panzer Abteilung although losing all it's tiger 1's claimed some 200 plus of the British armor. Cross checking would be needed of course and there is always going to be problems validating ALL British/German armor victories as it would be impossible, as there are still unknowns during personal battles.....we have chatted in the apst about one W-SS Kommanduer Will Fey claiming some 18 Shermans from a mysterious British armor unit that was not even present in the area or so it was stated by one of our forum members. things like this make researching though that much more profitable. Of course it is fantastic to have one such as Sapper(Brian) to give a first hand look as to what really happened on the bloody Normandie front whcih puts everything from a ground tropper into perspective....

v/r E ~

 

I had indeed read an Osprey book about the Sherman, pretty good I think, which gave me a very good insight of the tank and ist bad reputation.

I think that, rather than its armour and gun, the problem with the Sherman was its high profile and the narrow tracks, which made the 25-ton tank to have a pressure on the ground of about 900 grams per square centimetres, whilst the Tiger I & II, weighing 60-70 tons, had a pressure of 750 per square cm!

 

Yes that is true General. I have seen one at a museum in Austin Texas and it is very high and narrow compared to todays tanks.