M4 Sherman: Was It Really That Bad?
by An analysis challenging the myths surrounding the American medium tank.
“On the Southwest Front, opinions are in favor of the Sherman tank and its cross-country ability. The Sherman tank climbs mountains that our Panzer crews consider impassable. This is accomplished by the especially powerful engine in the Sherman in comparison to its weight. Also, according to reports from the 26.Panzer-Division, the terrain-crossing ability on level ground (in the Po valley) is completely superior to our Panzers. The Sherman tanks drive freely cross-country, while our Panzers must remain on trails and narrow roads and therefore are very restricted in their ability to fight.
All Panzer crews want to receive lighter Panzers, which are more maneuverable, possess increased ability to cross terrain, and guarantee the necessary combat power just with a superior gun.” – Albert Speer, November 1944
Ironically the Sherman variants that used aircraft engines, the M4 and the M4A1, were the less powerful of the bunch. The M4A3 with its Ford V8 had a higher power-to-weight ratio.
The author of Commanding the Red Army’s Sherman Tanks, Dmitri Loza, was a veteran of the eastern front and hero of the Soviet Union. He is rather unique in that he served in a unit of M4A2 Sherman tanks and has plenty good to say about it. Although the M4’s mobility, in any variant, wasn’t up to par with the exceptional ground pressure and power-to-weight ratio of the T-34 its rubber padded tracks offered the M4 a longer track life and increased strategic mobility.
Dmitri highlights two weaknesses of the rubber pads, however. The first of which, having been corrected in short order, was one which was experienced by American and British crews as well. On icy surfaces the tank would “slip and slide” around! I have seen footage of this, and trust me it is a hilarious thing to see. The fix issued was special pads with grousers in them to give the tanks traction. The other disadvantage was that in exceptionally hot weather the rubber was prone to sheering off the tracks and disrupting movement. It should be noted that the M4 had many types of track links, some of which were all-steel like those of its contemporaries.
Sources
- American Armored Fighting Vehicle Database
- wwiivehicles.com
- Panzerworld
- The Russian Battlefield
- The Sherman Register
- Isaac D. White. United States vs. German Equipment. Merriam Press
- R.P. Hunnicutt. Sherman: A History of the American Medium Tank. Presidio Press
- WO 185/188 DDG/FV(D) Armor Plate Experiments. National Archives
- Special thanks to the Tanks in World War II Forum
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.