M4 Sherman: Was It Really That Bad?
by An analysis challenging the myths surrounding the American medium tank.
Headnote: As of January 14th, 2010, to correct some factual errors and improve writing quality, the article underwent a significant update.
Of the many armored fighting vehicles in recent history none other is quite so famous (or, rather, infamous) as the American M4 “Sherman” Medium tank of the Second World War. Indeed; it has many less than flattering nicknames, more than its share of well-documented and supposedly irrefutable criticism, and overall the reputation of a lemon. Authors of books such as Death Traps: The survival of an American Armored Division in World War II are best sellers particularly because its whole premise is negatively scrutinizing the venerable M4, its designers, and the very country that it originated from.
These days (in the armored enthusiast circle) “sherman” is practically a bad word. But does it really deserve all the criticism? I don’t think so. There is a minority of people who will argue in favor of the tank saying that it was well suited to mass production and that this was an indomitable strength; and arguably the only one that mattered in the end. I utterly refuse to fall back on this argument on the grounds that it is somewhat flawed. If the fates had been reversed where the Germans were producing M4s and the United States was producing any given panzer, which one do you think would have outnumbered the other, given the overwhelming industrial capacity of wartime America?
In my experience watching television documentaries, reading various encyclopedias, and general wikiality there are a number of common misconceptions about the M4 Sherman that need to be understood by any self respecting tread-head.
Nicknames
It’s not exactly certain just when the M4 might have picked its names, but it is understood that it had them; the most well-known of which are “Ronson” and “Tommy Cooker.” The fact that soldiers called these tanks by such unflattering nicknames is crammed down our throats in every single television documentary that even so much as makes an offhand mention of the tank! Both of these nicknames were in reference to the common attribute of the Sherman to experience a catastrophic explosion in the fighting compartment or otherwise burn upon being struck by an anti-tank shell. This is generally blamed on the gasoline (rather than diesel) engine which drove the tank. Were these grim nicknames real wartime nomenclature for the tank, or are they merely postwar fabrications? Furthermore, what was the true cause of the tank burning?
Liked it
-
-
-
Post CommentT.Rex McGoogle
On March 22, 2009 at 4:13 pm
A nice informative article, Sir. I enjoyed learning a lot about
the tank which I was somewhat familiar with looking at but ignorant of its history. I don’t like articles that put my country down but truth is truth. lol!
Eric Smith
On June 24, 2010 at 11:36 pm
In regards to the hardness of Sherman’s armor. testing during the war revealed that the cast armor of the M4a1 had only 2/3 the protective value of the welded plate armor of the M4 or M4a3. This as ine reason that most M4a1s were passed on as aid to America allies. It’s also one reason that the 76mm gunned M4a1s were refused prior to Day. That cast armor was an imperfect science is noted by the reference to Soviet armor in the article. German armored vehicle crews noticed quite quickly that Russian JS2 tanks would withdraw if taken under fire 75mm Pak or KWK guns. They found this puuzzling since the Russian tanks seemed relatively immune to these guns at normal combat ranges. It wasn’t until many years later that Russian JS2 crew members revealed that the armor of the tank spalled so badly that even hits that didn’t penetrate caused significant crew casaulties. As early as 1943 fully 50% of Russian tank crew casaulties were caused by spalling. US armor being somewhat softer was less likely to do this. The wartime report concerning cast was kept fairly quiet as some US crews would be going into combat in tanks featuring cast armor. After the war the report was convienently forgotten and the next three generations of US tank were built with cast armor.
With regards to fire, both the T-34 and the Panther burned rather easily. As the author mentioned this was primarily due to ammunition stowage. The wet stowage system employed on late model Shermans was effective in reducing the number of fires. German anti tank shells had explosive fillers which Allied ammunition often lacked. Even so it is difficult to find a picture of a knocked out Panther that has not burned.
The 17pder was superior weapon to the US 76mm gun but was not offered to the US in time to be included in US production. The production of 75mm turrets, which were required for the conversion, was already scheduled to cease and the gun could not be fitted into the T23 turret. British produuction of Fireflies was brought to a halt by the lack tanks for conversion although by that time German armor had more or less vanished from the battlefield. The 17pder was also not a perfect gun. US observed was shocked when they observed the flareback from the guns breach during trials and by the amount of dust raised by the gun’s firing. The 17pder ammuntion was not well designed in terms of balance and this, combined with gun’s velocity caused the shells to strike the target sideways in some cases. I have seen photographs which clearly show this phenomenom although the shell still penetrated. It was a great gun but wouldn’t fit the tank and the US would have a 90mm gun on their next generation of tanks.
Andy Marshall
On April 4, 2011 at 5:46 am
Exellent article and reply, refreshing amid so much rubish perbetrated by some documentrys etc. However, a an Englishman, perhaps I can comment on the 17 pounder.
It was indeed offered to the US early on (G,Macleod Ross – The Business of Tanks) but was declined. Not due to the NIH syndrome (Not Invented Here) but because the US ordnance were sure that the developing 76mm gun would be its equal – it was to prove a disapointment. By the time it was realized it was too late, though there was a plan for the British to start converting Shermans into Fireflys for US units. This was a non-starter as British production couldn’t keep up with thier own demands. The big three (Chrysler, Ford, GM) produced superb automotives which had the all important requirement – reliability- but the US ordnance did not produce a matching gun. Sad, but better than the British experience which – until the end of the war – produced neither. Talking to British Sherman crews from WW2, the only criticism of the Sherman I have heard is that they were too high. After bitter experiences with previous British designs the Shermans reliability was everything and the crews were thankful for it.