Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire The M-4 Sherman

The 30 Carbine was not underrated it was woefully underpowered

When you are outnumbered 10:! you can defeat anything. The Sherman did not become IOC until 1942, the same year as the Tiger I which would eat a Sherman's lunch all day. But just like the German tank Ace Krispel said, (sic) I could defeat ten Shermans any day, the problem was the Americans would always come up with that 11th one just in time. Hell, even a MKIV (with the long barrled 75) was superior to the Sherman. THe Firefly (an up gunned Sherman for all practical purposes), could and did successfully engage Tiger Is and Panthers, but it still was an inferior machine.

Sherman was a GI cooker…..friggin tin can! Amd the 30 carbine was another piece of s hit thought up by the Ordnance Dept.

Anybody that knew armor at the end of WWI knew that it was to perform in the stead of cavalry.

The Sherman was designed with that in mind and it performed superbly.

For all the Third Reich's genius, they quickly deviated from the concepts that gave them so much success. It was a massive error on their part.

Yes, the Sherman was not intended to go toe-to-toe.

Between the USA, UK and USSR, we had more of everything so we won.

Same story with Japanese.

Same story with Iraq.

May not be same story with Chinese.

This is exactly it.

They might have never been called that during the war. There is some disagreement in that regard.

This is very true.
The Germans would have been better off producing just Panzer 4's and upgrading through the war like the Sherman was. All things consider both Tigers and the panther were expensive, unreliable and in the end made no differance.

Should be noted that the Sherman was the most reliable and most survivable tank of the war.

Shermans did not have to rely on other Shermans to take out German tanks. You might, for instance, rely on a determined spotter aircraft pilot.

Great story -very short read

Bazooka Charlie

.

The Sherman gets a bad rap for the most part.

First, it was not called a Ronson during WW2 because that "Lights Every Time" ad campaign by Ronson didn't come out until the 50's and WW2 ended in 1945. The term Tommy Cooker was not directed at the Sherman either. That was a term that first came to use by the British during the North Africa campaign to describe all tanks. It's hot in the desert and being inside a tank in the desert was like being in an oven. Also the Sherman had no greater tendency to catch fire than any of the other tanks in use. It was a problem they all had until a better storage system was developed for ammo. Survival rates were actually very good for Sherman crews compared to all other tanks widely used in the war.

Second, the Sherman had armor that was just as thick as the armor on a t-34. Yet for some reason no one craps on the armor protection of the t-34 like they do the Sherman. But rest assured the 88mm gun of a Tiger would penetrate a t-34 just as easily.

Third, it's unfair to compare a 30 ton Sherman to a 52 ton Tiger. Gee you mean a tank that weighs 22 more tons than a Sherman can have thicker armor and a bigger gun? The hell you say. Do you compare cruisers to battleships? Then why compare a medium tank to a heavy one. The Tiger was also not the main German battle tank. They produced only about 1500 during the entire war and never had anywhere close to that many operational at any one time. And the overwhelming majority of them were sent to the eastern front. There are only 3 verified encounters between US Shermans and Tigers in the whole war and all were very limited engagements. If you compare the Sherman to the Panzer III or IV it's superior to the III and a match for the IV. And those were by far the most widely produced German tanks. Also the US produced 2000 up gunned Shermans with the 76mm gun. The brits also modified about 2200 Shermans with their 17 pounder anti tank gun. The 76mm gun was not wanted by many of the crews however. By far the greatest threat to a Sherman on the western front was anti tank guns not enemy tanks. And the 75mm Shermans had a very good high explosive round better suited to deal with that threat.

Finally, remember that every tank the US produced had to be shipped across the Atlantic where as the Germans only had to transport theirs by ground. The logistics of sending a tank the size and weight of a Tiger from the US to Europe by ship was no small matter in the 1940's. Also most of the bridges in Europe would not support the weight of 50 ton tanks. Not as big an issue if you are on the defensive and waiting for your foe to come to you like the Germans were from 1944 onward. It's another story if you are the one trying to rapidly advance however. There is no free lunch either. The weight of tanks like the Tiger or Panther strained the transmissions and final drives of those tanks to the limit. Go check on the operational life expectancy of those systems on the Panther for example. But again if you are on the defensive these problems are lessened.

The Sherman was a compromise. It was a medium tank designed for ease of manufacture, ease of repair, ease of transport, reliability, speed, and multiple functions. If you compare it only in the area of tank on tank combat to a much heavier tank built purely for that one purpose like the Tiger then yeah it will seem like a failure.

good write up Willto

- and I might add, lets see how many Shermans were lost to German spotter aircraft!

Successful Blitzkrieg tactics required all arms coordination and massive air attack by the Luftwaffe to open the offensive was effective as well as demoralizing for the opposing forces.

After Stalingrag Hitler's main goal was to hold on to what he had rather than take more. The sweeping offensives of the early years were not going to happen and surgical, local "back hand" strikes like Manstein's retaking of Kharkov in Feb 43' were the best he could hope for.

Following their summer offensive in 1943 German air superiority on all fronts dwindled making a successful, full scale, Blitzkrieg attack improbable, Winess the Ardennes offensive (Battle of the Bulge) Although the Germans were out of fuel. their fate was sealed when the skies cleared and US and British pilots took advantage. The Germans had no means of defense.

Their (supposedly Hitler's) decision to use the ME-262 as a bomber rather than an air superiority fighter is another perfect example of that.

I read the book "Death Traps" by Cooper who relays the failings of the Sherman very effectively. Probably all over-stated to some degree. In actuality the Sherman had a bunch of things going for it. 1) Reliability.... built to the American Automotive standard it was by far the most reliable tank in the field. 2) Armour... American armour was of good, consistent quality and sloped in places giving it pretty good protection... of course the Panther 75 and Tiger 88 could defeat it...but those were excellent guns. 3) the 76mm Sherman gun was a pretty good combination of accuracy, penetration for anti-tank use with a decent explosive charge for anti-infantry. 4) Quantity... American industry really rolled the M4-s off the assembly line in huge numbers. It couldn't take on a Panther or Tiger in a frontal slugging match but America probably made 25 Sherman's for every heavy German tank. Chances are pretty good that the Tiger or Panther would be broken down when it came time to have the fight as well. 5) With the introduction of wet ammunition storage the risk of catastrophic fires went way down.... The Russians in 2022 in the Ukraine are having way more issues with the ammunition in the auto loaders cooking off than the later Sherman's had. The M4-76mm was equal to or superior to the T34-85 in Korea. It was a good solid piece of kit. Up-gunned it was used throughout the world well into the 70's and in some places beyond.

Folks who don't perform as well often blame hardware (gear) for a software (training & grit) issue.

The Germans plainly were more effective man-for-man than the Allies up until most all the German fighting men were turned into corpses and they had to dip into men too old and boys too young.

The Germans took out the French and the Brits and Czechs while using VASTLY inferior tanks. Some German tanks were nothing more than glorified tracked 20mm cannon carriers.

As for the Sherman, sure it had some shortcomings. Gasoline engine and weak cannon being most important. In the hands of a maneuver-minded commander like Patton, it was more than adequate. In the hands of plodders like Bradley, Eisenhower, etc., its shortcomings were laid bare for all to see and more of our boys died to make half of Europe slaves to their Bolshevik masters.

In the end, the Sherman was good enough for the and US Gov't and our ruling class was more than willing to see any number of American boys die to save Bolshevism.

A: the german tanks used gasoline.
B: Once the Sherman was given a longer barreled gun and the big Ford V-8 engine they were a different machine. A neighbor that lived across the street from us worked on tanks in France. He told me "Once they got the Shermans with the big V-8 and the more powerful gun the Germans could outgun or out run us."

We built so many that we swarmed the nazis but it was an inferior tank to go against any of the enemies tanks. Leadership didn’t place a very high value on our soldiers and the casualties prove it.

This is not aimed at anyone's post and is not meant to demean anyone's service.

I think that sometimes (note: sometimes) the veterans bemoaning the deficiencies of equipment such as the Sherman or the M-1 carbine can be seen in the same light as some of the wisdom heard in gun shops and at gun shows.