The Power of sherman Tanks during World War II

64
rate or flag this page

By daryl2007


Sherman Tank was one of the powerful tanks during World War II, making it as the armies best friend during combat operations. What makes Sherman the best, is its superb mobility and it's fire power especially in offensive and in close combat operations. Many had been protected by Sherman in European theatre and had accomplished many of their missions because of the Sherman assistance even facing the German's pride, Tiger Tank.

During World War II, the M4 Sherman served with the US Army and US Marine Corps. US service history accommodated the large transfer of US Shermans to the allied forces of the United Kingdom (including Commonwealth), Soviet Union, Free French government-in-exile, Polish government-in-exile, Brazil, and China.

The US Marine Corps used the diesel M4A2 and gasoline-powered M4A3 in the Pacific. The Chief of the Armored Force, Lt. Gen. Jacob L. Devers ordered that no diesel-engined Sherman tanks be used outside the Zone of Interior (ZI). The US Army used all types for either training or testing within the United States but intended the M4A2 and M4A4 to be the primary Lend-Lease exports. British needs also claimed a large share of the M4 and M4A1.

Last type in US service: M4A3E8(76)W Sherman used as artillery position during the Korean War

The first US Shermans in combat were M4A1 used for Operation Torch in November 1942, shortly after the first M4A1 Shermans saw battle with the British 8th Army at the Second Battle of El Alamein in October 1942. Additional M4 and M4A1s replaced M3 Lees in US tank battalions over the course of the North African campaigns. The M4 and M4A1 were the main types in US units until late 1944, when the preferred M4A3 with its more powerful 500 hp engine began replacing M4s and M4A1s as the main US version. However, older M4s and M4A1s continued in US service for the rest of the war.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

The Medium Tank M4 was the primary tank produced by the United States for its own use and the use of its Allies during World War II. Production of the M4 Medium tank exceeded 50,000 units, and its chassis served as the basis for thousands of other armored vehicles such as tank destroyers, tank retrievers and self-propelled artillery. In the United Kingdom, the M4 was dubbed the Sherman after Union General William Tecumseh Sherman, following the British practice of naming its American-built tanks after famous American Civil War generals. Subsequently the British name found its way into common use in the US. Following WWII, the M4 medium tank was used by the US until the end of the Korean War. Many nations continued to use the tank in both training and combat roles into the late 20th century.

US Design Prototype

The US Army Ordnance Department designed the Medium Tank M4 as a replacement for the Medium Tank M3. Detailed design characteristics for the M4 were submitted by the Ordnance Department on 31 August, 1940, but development of a prototype had to be delayed so final production designs for the M3 could be finished, and the tank put into full scale production. On 18 April, 1941 the final design characteristics for the new tank were approved at a conference at Aberdeen Proving Grounds attended by representatives of the Armored Force and the Ordnance Department. The stated goal was to produce a fast, dependable medium tank that was capable of defeating any other tank currently in use by the Axis nations. The first pilot model of the M4 was completed on 2 September, 1941. The M4 was standardized and placed into production in February of 1942.

US Production history

During the production period, the US Army's seven main sub-designations, M4, M4A1, M4A2, M4A3, M4A4, M4A5, and M4A6, did not necessarily indicate linear improvement: for example, A4 is not meant to indicate 'better than' A3. Instead, these sub-types indicated standardized production variations, which were in fact often manufactured concurrently at different locations. The sub-types differed mainly in terms of engine, although M4A1 differed from M4 by its fully cast upper hull rather than by engine; M4A4 had a longer engine system that also required a longer hull, longer suspension system, and more track blocks; M4A5 was an administrative placeholder for Canadian production; and M4A6 also elongated the chassis but totaled fewer than 100 tanks. Only the M4A2 and M4A6 were diesel: most Shermans were gasoline. "M4" might refer specifically to the single sub-type with its Continental radial engine or generically to the entire family of seven Sherman sub-types, depending on context. Many details of production, shape, strength and performance improved throughout production life without a change to the tank's basic model number; more durable suspension units, safer "wet" (W) ammunition stowage and stronger armor arrangements such as the M4 Composite, which had a cast front hull section mated to a welded rear hull. Note that the British nomenclature differed from that employed by the US.



  • The Reason Why Hitler started World War 2!

    World War II, the second greatest war that re-shaped the planet's political arena. People now a days think only one thing about how it all started, and they thought that because of the Evil plans of Adolf... - 8 months ago

  • Know how Hitler Lost the War in Europe

    What is the reason why Hitler lost the war in Europe? There are many explainations and many ideas emeging just to answer this popular questions that mostly raised by many historians. At the middle of... - 14 months ago

  • World War I: Aerial Combat

    Aerial combat or dogfights emerged in World War I. Bi-plaine and tri-planes were initially used as mobile observation vehicles and early pilots gave little thought to aerial combat- before enemy pilots ... - 2 years ago

  • World War II: The Battleship Yamato

    Rationale: During World War II, A powerful battleship had entered the coast of pacific, superb fire power and with armaments that can sink all kinds of ships, Yamato . She joined the Japanese fleet in... - 2 years ago

  • Tiger Tank of World War II

    Rationale: World War II is the war for new weapons with superb firepower. Battle tanks were introduced during the First World War, although the purpose was not properly utilized but instead Battle tanks... - 2 years ago

  • The German Luger - Germans Favorite sidearm

    THE MEN WHO CREATED THE LUGER contributed from: www.handgunsmag.com Two men created the Luger. Georg Luger and Hugo Borchardt both worked at the company that was closely associated with the manufacture of the... - 2 years ago

  • World War II Snipers

    A sniper is an infantry soldier who specializes in shooting from concealment and/or longer ranges than regular infantry, often with a specially designed or adapted sniper rifle. It requires skill in... - 2 years ago

Early Shermans mounted a 75 mm medium-velocity general-purpose gun. Although Ordnance began work on the Medium Tank T20 as a Sherman replacement, ultimately the Army decided to minimize production disruption by incorporating elements of other tank designs into Sherman production. Later M4A1, M4A2, and M4A3 models received the larger T23 turret with a high-velocity 76 mm gun M1, which traded reduced HE and smoke performance for improved anti-tank performance. The British offered the QF 17 pounder (76.2 mm) anti-tank gun with its significantly better armour penetration to the Americans but the US Ordnance Department was working on a 90 mm tank gun and declined. Later M4 and M4A3 were factory-produced with a 105 mm howitzer and a new distinctive mantlet in the original turret. The first standard-production 76mm-gun Sherman was an M4A1 accepted in January 1944 and the first standard-production 105mm-howitzer Sherman was an M4 accepted in February 1944.

The US accepted in June-July 1944 a limited run of 254 M4A3E2 Jumbo Shermans with very thick armor and the 75 mm gun in a new heavier T23-style turret in order to assault fortifications. The M4A3 was the first to be factory-produced with the new HVSS suspension with wider tracks for lower ground pressure and the smooth ride of the HVSS with its experimental E8 designation led to the nickname Easy Eight for Shermans so equipped. The US developed a wide array of special attachments for the Sherman; few saw combat and most remained experimental but those which saw action included the bulldozer blade for Sherman dozer tanks, Duplex Drive for "swimming" Sherman tanks, R3 flame thrower for Zippo flame tanks, and the T34 60-tube 4.5 inch Calliope rocket launcher for the Sherman turret.

The M4 Sherman's basic chassis further undertook all the sundry roles of a modern, mechanized force, totaling roughly 50,000 Sherman tanks plus thousands more derivative vehicles under different model numbers including M32 and M74 "tow truck"-style recovery tanks with winches, booms, and most with an 81 mm mortar for smoke screens, M34 (from M32B1) and M35 (from M10A1) artillery prime movers, M7B1, M12, M40, and M43 self-propelled artillery, and upgunned M10 and M36 tank destroyers.

As part of the deception plan of Operation Fortitude that drew German attention to the Pas de Calais rather than Normandy, inflatable rubber Shermans were manufactured and deployed across fields in Kent alongside plywood artillery pieces; another version of dummy Sherman was made from painted canvas over a steel frame and could be built over a Jeep and driven to simulate a moving tank.

After WWII, the US kept the M4A3E8 "Easy Eight" in service with either 76 mm gun or 105 mm howitzer. The Sherman remained a common US tank in the 1950-1953 Korean War but the Army replaced Shermans with Patton tanks over the 1950s. The US continued to transfer Shermans to allies which contributed to wide foreign use worldwide.

US Combat performance

Armament

When the Sherman first saw combat in 1942, its 75 mm M3 Gun could penetrate the armor of the German tanks it faced in North Africa at normal combat ranges. However, immediately following the invasion of Normandy, it was discovered that the 75 mm M3 Gun was completely ineffective against the front of the German Panther and Tiger I tanks at typical combat ranges. The 75mm M3 Gun was thereby rendered obsolete, and the European Theater of Operations quickly demanded deliveries of the Sherman armed with the 76mm M1 Gun, as well as tanks and tank destroyers carrying the 90mm M3 Gun. Although Shermans armed with 105 mm M4 Howitzers provided even more powerful high-explosive armament, they were of limited use in fighting enemy tanks due to the problems of hitting the small targets with a howitzer, and the lack of power traverse which hindered getting the howitzers on target in a timely fashion.

Growing numbers of Panthers on the western front led the US Army to deploy 76 mm-gun Shermans to Normandy in July 1944. The higher-velocity 76 mm gun M1 gun gave Shermans anti-tank firepower superior to most of the German vehicles they encountered, particularly the Pz IV, and StuG vehicles. However, with a regular AP (Armour Piercing, Shot) ammunition (M79) or APCBC (M62) shells, the 76 mm could only reliably knock out a Panther at close range, or with a shot to its flank. At long range, the Sherman was badly outmatched by the Panther's 75mm gun, which could easily penetrate the Sherman's armor. This contributed to the high losses of Sherman tanks experienced by the U.S. Army in the European Theater of Operations (ETO).

Hypervelocity Armor Piercing HVAP ammunition standardized as M93, was developed for the 76 mm gun in July 1944. This new projectile could penetrate the front turret of the Panther at longer ranges than standard ammunition. Its distribution was, however, limited to US Tank Destroyer units.

In the relatively few Pacific tank battles, even the 75 mm gun Shermans outclassed the Japanese in every engagement. The use of HE (High Explosive) ammunition was preferred because anti-tank rounds punched cleanly through the thin armor of the Japanese tanks (light tanks of 1930s era design) without necessarily stopping them. Although the high-velocity guns of the tank destroyers were useful for penetrating fortifications, Shermans armed with flame throwers also destroyed Japanese fortifications. There was a variety of types of flame throwers, differing primarily in the type and location of launcher (and the US used similar devices on other tanks and LVTs, and also used flame-throwing Shermans in Europe).

Armor

Sherman armor was more evenly distributed and thicker at the side than the Panzer IV medium tank. The Sherman's frontal armor was designed to withstand a 50mm gun, which was a common German anti-tank gun and tank gun on the Panzer III medium tank during the North African Campaign in 1942. However, the Sherman's armor, while good for an early war tank, was inadequate against the German 75mm KwK42L70 (used only on the Panther or PzV tank) and the famous 88mm used on "Tigers." It was this deficiency in its frontal armor that made the Sherman very vulnerable to German high velocity 75mm and 88mm tank guns that German Tigers (PzVI series) and Panthers (PzV) series in 1944. The Sherman's armor was not invulnerable to the 75mm KwK40/42 used on the German PzIV-G/J series vehicles, but the lower velocity of the Pz IV guns and their vulnerability to the Sherman's main armament gave Shermans a competitive edge against the most common German AFVs.

For crew survivability, the M4 had an escape hatch on the hull bottom and, in the Pacific, Marines used this Sherman feature in reverse to recover wounded infantry under fire. Combat experience indicated the single hatch in the 3-man turret to be inadequate for timely evacuation so Ordnance added a loader's hatch beside the commander's. Later Shermans also received redesigned hull hatches for better egress.

Early Sherman models were prone to burning when struck by high velocity rounds. The Sherman gained grim nicknames like "Tommycooker" (by the Germans who referred to British soldiers as "Tommys"; a tommycooker was a World War I era makeshift trench stove). The British called them "Ronsons", after the cigarette lighter with the slogan "Lights up the first time, every time!", while Polish tankers referred to them as "The Burning Grave". This vulnerability increased crew casualties and meant that damaged vehicles were less likely to be repairable. US Army research proved that the major reason for this was the use of unprotected ammo stowage in sponsons above the tracks. The common myth that the use of gasoline (petrol) engines was a culprit is unsupported; most WW2 tanks used gasoline engines and petrol was unlikely to ignite when hit with AP shells. Further, the diesel-engined M4A2 used by the Marines was considered far less prone to burn and explode than the diesel Soviet T-34.[1] At first a partial remedy to ammunition fire was found by welding one-inch thick applique armour plates to the vertical sponson sides over the ammunition stowage bins. Later models moved ammunition stowage to the hull floor, with additional water jackets surrounding the main gun ammunition stowage. This decreased the likelihood of "brewing up".

Progressively thicker armour was added to hull front and turret mantlet in various improved models, while field improvisations included placing sandbags, spare track links, or even logs for increased protection against shaped-charge rounds. General George S. Patton, informed by his technical experts that the standoff produced by sandbags actually increased vulnerability to shaped-charge weapons (a controversial opinion) and that the machines' chassis suffered from the extra weight, forbade the use of sandbags and instead ordered tanks under his command to have the front hull welded with extra armour plates, salvaged from knocked-out American and German tanks. Approximately 36 of these up-armored Shermans were supplied to each of the armored divisions of the Third Army in the spring of 1945.

The (rare) M4A3E2 Sherman Jumbo variant had thicker frontal armor than the Tiger and Panther. Intended for the assault to break out of the Normandy beachhead, it entered combat in August 1944

Mobility

Strategic Mobility

The US Army required the Sherman not to exceed certain widths and weights to permit it to use a wide variety of bridge, road and rail travel for predicted strategic, industrial, logistical and tactical flexibility. In the summer of 1943, Lt. General Jacob L. Devers, commanding the ETOUSA, demanded 250 examples of the T26, later to be designated the M26 Pershing, heavy tanks from Lt. General Leslie J. McNair for use in the invasion of France. McNair refused, and Devers appealed to General George Marshall, the Army Chief of Staff. Marshall summarily ordered the tanks to be provided to the ETO as soon as they could be brought into production. Shortly after the invasion of Normandy, General Eisenhower urgently requested the T26 tanks, but production had been delayed due to Lt. General McNair's continued opposition to the project. General Marshall intervened, and the tanks were eventually brought into production. Unfortunately, they did not arrive in the ETO until early 1945, too late to have any effect on the battlefield. The size and weight of the new tank created no serious problems in transportation to the theater or in its tactical employment. Thus, the theoretical advantages of the M4 Sherman in this respect proved to be illusory. However the M26 could not be landed across a breach and required a fully equipped port with cranes, this disadvantage would have become apparent had it entered service before Normandy.

Tactical Mobility

The Sherman had good speed both on- and off-road. Off-road performance varied. In the desert, the Sherman's rubber tracks performed well. In the confined, hilly terrain of Italy, the Sherman could often cross terrain German tanks could not. However, US crews found that on soft ground, such as mud or snow, the narrow tracks gave poor flotation compared to wide-tracked second-generation German tanks such as the Panther. Soviet experiences were similar and tracks were modified to give grip in the snow. The US Army issued extended end connectors or 'duckbills' to add width to the standard tracks as a stopgap solution. Duckbills were original factory equipment for the heavy M4A3E2 Jumbo to compensate for the extra armor weight. The M4A3E8 'Easy Eight' Shermans and other late models with wider-tracked HVSS suspension corrected these problems, but formed only a small proportion of the tanks in service even in 1945.

Sherman Tank Vs The Tiger

Comments

RSS for comments on this Hub

Jurgen Brandt  says:
11 months ago

The Sherman was a toy compared to the best tanks of WWII which are the Awesome panzer forces of the Third Reich!!!!!! It only took 5 of these poor excuses of a tank to knock out a Panther or a Tiger that is if the American tankers could summon enough courage.

You Nazi  says:
10 months ago

The germans manufactured only about 1355 tigers at a cost of about $250,000 each.

48,000 shermans were built at a cost of about $40,000 each.

And its 4 not five.

Johny  says:
8 months ago

Actually, the Panther's kill ratio was anywhere near 4:1. The best that the Germans had ever done in the war was Normandy, when they lost 1 tank to alle's 2. In actual tank to tank engagements, the defenders almost always win in the kill ratio game. Whole platoons and companies of Panthers had been knocked out to no allied loss when they blundered into Sherman tank's cross fire. Vice versa.

Eric Smith  says:
8 months ago

The actual statistics compiled after the war indicated the ratio of Panther tanks destroyed vs Shermans destroyed in fighting involving both type was 1.2 to 1 in the Sherman's favor. The 4-1 and 5-1 figures appeared later and have no basis in fact. The Panther was a "superior" tank in many ways but not superior enough to change the course of war. It also had some defects that made it much more difficult to use it to best advantage. Firstly, it's side armor was too thin, thinner than the original specification in fact. It was impossible for a platoon of Panthers to approach a platoon of Shermans on a 500 yard front without being vunerable to flanking fire. During the early days of the Ardennes fighting, the period during which the legend of the Panther's superiority had it's genesis, armor of both side was confined to the roads by muddy conditions created by heavier than normal autumn rains. The roads in the Ardennes were narrow and lined by trees. This meant that two sides met head-on where the Panther's thick frontal armor and pwerful gun were distinct advantages. Later, when the ground froze, the advantages were easier ( not necessarily easy) for the Americans to overcome.

The Panther's transmission gave significant trouble. Not only did it break down easily it was difficult to repair in the field. 40% of the Panthers examined by U.S. Survey teams after the battle were broken down as were 45% of the tanks that survived the battle. The U.S. First Army had less than 10% of it's tanks sidelined after the battle and some these were suffering from combat damage.

Most U.S. tank casaulties were caused by antitank guns and Panzerfausts although mines took a toll as well. The most effecient German armored vehichles in terms of use of resources and reliabilty were the PzKw IV and the Stug III, the two most common German AFVs. Both performed well throughout the war.

Eric Smith  says:
8 months ago

The actual statistics compiled after the war indicated the ratio of Panther tanks destroyed vs Shermans destroyed in fighting involving both type was 1.2 to 1 in the Sherman's favor. The 4-1 and 5-1 figures appeared later and have no basis in fact. The Panther was a "superior" tank in many ways but not superior enough to change the course of war. It also had some defects that made it much more difficult to use it to best advantage. Firstly, it's side armor was too thin, thinner than the original specification in fact. It was impossible for a platoon of Panthers to approach a platoon of Shermans on a 500 yard front without being vunerable to flanking fire. During the early days of the Ardennes fighting, the period during which the legend of the Panther's superiority had it's genesis, armor of both side was confined to the roads by muddy conditions created by heavier than normal autumn rains. The roads in the Ardennes were narrow and lined by trees. This meant that two sides met head-on where the Panther's thick frontal armor and pwerful gun were distinct advantages. Later, when the ground froze, the advantages were easier ( not necessarily easy) for the Americans to overcome.

The Panther's transmission gave significant trouble. Not only did it break down easily it was difficult to repair in the field. 40% of the Panthers examined by U.S. Survey teams after the battle were broken down as were 45% of the tanks that survived the battle. The U.S. First Army had less than 10% of it's tanks sidelined after the battle and some these were suffering from combat damage.

Most U.S. tank casaulties were caused by antitank guns and Panzerfausts although mines took a toll as well. The most effecient German armored vehichles in terms of use of resources and reliabilty were the PzKw IV and the Stug III, the two most common German AFVs. Both performed well throughout the war.

freeman84  says:
6 months ago

What needs to be considered in the comparison of tanks is what the tactics of armies were and what they wanted their tanks to achieve. General Patton never intended the Sherman tank to directly take on German tanks. He wanted speed and maneuverability to outflank the enemy and the Sherman tank acheived that very well. The Shermans helped to find where German tanks were so that anti tank guns could be brought up that specialized in taking out the German tanks. Or of course the air force could take them out. At the same time they got around and behind German lines to do a lot of damage and seize key ground positions. Its my understanding that even when the more modern M26 Pershing tank was introduced late in the war, which could successfully take on the best German tanks head on, Patton wasn't that interested in them because they used up a lot of gasoline and were not as mobile compared to the Sherman.

Paul Marion  says:
6 weeks ago

A friend of mine and workmate in the 70's was a tank Platoon leader in Patton's 3rd Army throughout its actions during that war. He said his casualty rate was 300% for his unit. He and a few others were the only survivors of his original crews. For this my friend never forgave Patton.

Frequently the Shermans had to face Panthers and Tigers. If the tactical situation permitted movement and defilades such as buildings and hills then the Shermans could take on the Tigers and Panthers with success. If the Panthers and Tigers were accompanied by infantry with anti-tank weapons it became more dicey unless our infantry was on the ball. He mentioned that if at all possible the Shermans would when many discounted the Sherman out of hand erroneously. Contrary to our German writers comment on our Tankers bravery, there was no shortage of bravery on the either side German or allies. All German prisoners of war I have talked with ever stated anything but thankfullness for being captured by the US or Britain and never dissed allied bravery.

We could ship munitions from New York city to Normandy faster than Germany could send munitions from Berlin or Hamburg. We controlled the skies and made any axis transportation difficult. We strangled Afrika Corps out of existence by destroying almost every ship sent to refuel them. The Tigers range was about 70 miles and the Sherman was 120 miles. This makes a huge difference in battlefield realities. Most of the Tigers on the Eastern front were destroyed by their own crews when they ran out of gas. Over 2,000 Tigers were added to Soviet armor due to this failure of Germany to keep their tanks filled with fuel.

The T-34 tank which is considered the best tank of the war was also not a match for the Tiger of the Panther is a straight out shoot out but 70,000 of them were made. Germanmy destroyed perhaps 50,000 T-34's but Soviet forces had plenty to lose and they could keep them supplied with gasoline. If this one factor could have been allieviated by the Nazis, shortage of gas or diesel, the war could have been different for them.

The big tank actions of the war were on the Eastern front anyways and it seems it was always about numbers. Soviets could always produce more tanks than the Nazis could destroy no matter the horrendous casualties of Soviet tankers.

Submit a Comment

Members and Guests

Sign in or sign up and post using a hubpages account.


optional


  • No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked
  • Comments are not for promoting your hubs or other sites

working