I must admit, I had no idea about Sgermans until I saw the History Channel special last night, engineering disasters or whatever it was called. They stated that it took 4-5 Shermans to defeat a Tiger or Panther, with that said, one had to come up from behind to knock it out. I was shocked that the distance of 600 yards for Shermans was compared to 2000 for the German tanks in terms of range. I assume this is all true. If so, why in the world were we so far behind in tank technology? Did we ever catch up? Is the Abrams our idea? Someone please educate me. Thanks,
Imagine the the feeling a crew member of a sherman must of had when entering a battle against tigers and panthers. Scary stuff…
Dave
true, but the advantage we had which was the factor was the sheer number of shermans we were able to produce versus the numbers the germans could produce… We caught up some, with the pershing and the various tank destroyers (M-10, M-18, M-36)
We lagged behind in so many areas at the beginning of the war following WWI , USA had no intention on getting into another world fight , we wanted to remain nuetral , the japanese ended that thought in Pearl Harbor .
The sherman was an outdated tank , lightly armored , weak short barreled gun , but it was faster than German tanks . The funny thing about our tank development prior to the war , was the torsion rod suspension idea was presented to the USA brass first, they rejected the idea and Germany bought it instead , it is still used to this day on many tanks .
The Abrams tank was an answer to the problems of those days , heavily armored fast , and one of the most powerful guns on any tank .
The Sherman was designed to be an infantry support tank and not for tank hunting. That role was given to the very thin armored tank destroyers like the M10.
From what I have been reading more German armor was destroyed by air or artillery then by Shermans. And even more was destroyed by their crewmembers to keep their vehicles from being captured when they broke down, were mired in mud, fell thru or off of bridges, or ran out of fuel.
I met a Jadgpanther crewman when I was stationed in Germany, he fought on the Eastern front. He said that just about every week they got less fuel and ammo to fight with. once they were waiting for a Russian tank to get into position for a shot and the driver started to back up! When asked he replied that if they did not get back to a refuel point they were going to run out of fuel. The commander called out a target to the gunner and the loader replied they were out of ammo. What a way to fight a war, your expected to give your life for your country but they don’t have the supplies to back you up. That was when he realized he was just wasting his life if he died.
He was wounded and when he got home his father gave him his brother’s papers and his were put with his dead brother’s body that was just removed from the bombed out home. Last couple of weeks were spent with what was left of his family heading west.
The reason we we so far behind in tank technology, was that tanks and armored vehicles received little attention after WWI, mostly due to budget and politics. During the '20’s and '30’s, very little real development occured. So in 1940, our new tank was the M2 medium, which was sort of a mobile armored machine gun nest, topped by a 37mm cannon. At this point German armor wasn’t actually all that brilliant, but it advanced enough to make the M2 immediately obsolete. Since our ultimate participation in the war was probably a foregone conclusion, and the M2 was useless, we needed a better tank ASAP.
The fastest way we could at least deploy a 75mm gun was to cobble together a 75mm field piece into an M2, with the result being the M3 Medium (Lee/Grant). It was actually a bit more complicated than that, but the M3 was still developed in a very short time. For as bad as the M3 was, with its hull mounted main gun, it was actually a marvelous improvement on the M2. Deployed in early 1942, improved the British armor situation in North Africa, and could havereally helped out at Gazala, but for the better tactics employed by Rommel. Although possibly the best game in town for the allies at that point , it was nonetheless acknowledged as a stopgap measure, until a tank with a full traversing turret could be developed.
Much like the M3’s development, the M4 designers started with the M3’s chassis and drivetrain, adapted a new hull and turret with the 75mm gun, and voila, you have a Sherman. Deployed in late 1942, they really helped out Monty and El Alamein which started the process of ultimate defeat for the Afrika Corps.
Although hardly perfect, considering what the state of American armor was just a couple of years before, the Sherman actually a pretty decent design.
Regardless of whether or not the Army wanted an infantry support vehicle vs. a tank killer, to some degree, I think the Sheram simply represented the best thing that could be put onto the battlefield, in the available time given the state of existing technology. When it first went into battle, the Sherman was a pretty decent tank. The thing was very mobile, at least on semi-firm ground, it was reliable, and easy to operate. The Panther didn’t exist yet, and it could beat up the Panzer II’s and III’s, and matched very well against the Panzer IV’s. It certainly wasn’t perfect. The ammunition was poorly located, leading to explosions when the tank got hit, thhe hull hatches were too small for rapid egress, and the tracks were too narrow for really soft, muddy terrain. However all these issues could be solved.
Given that background, why were we behind in tank technology? Basically, I see it as that the Army was slow to adapt, being perfectly happy with focusing on the maximum tank production, and putting on the backburrner, fixing the Sherman’s flaws and producing a better tank for the next generation. The M4A3E8, fixed as best as possible, most Sherman deficiencies, with larger hatches, wet ammo storage, wide tracks, and a higher powered 76mm rifle to boot, but it took two years or more for it to hit the battlefield.
As far as an advanced tank, the M26 Pershing was an excellent tank: thick armor, 90mm gun, stabilization so that one could target and fire on the move, and an advanced Advanced suspension system. Unfortunately, this tank didn’t see action until early 1945.
With the Pershing we clearly caught up. With a different midset from the Army, we probably could have caught up earlier. Whereas the Germans reacted to the Soviet T-34’s superiority over their tanks by developing the Panther and Tiger, we more or less kept going with the same old thing. Had we been more adaptable, we might well have invaded Normandy with a mixture of M4A3E8’s and M26’s, and the whole issue of American tank inferiory would be moot.
Andy
I think just about all nations were way behind the Germans as far as military hardware & also tactics are concerned. Let’s not forget the fact that as the Germans were re-arming, everyone else were scaling down their armed forces.
German armoured units had seen a hell of a lot of combat by the time the US entered the war. The US tankers first found this out to their horror when they landed in North Africa.
Lessons need to be learned, & combat is the only real way to do this.
You have to keep in mind that Tigers and Panthers are heavy tanks. A Panther weighs 15 tons more than a Sherman. The Sherman’s real weakness was it’s gun. The gun wasn’t designed to defeat armor and as such couldn’t. It’s armor is another matter. Looking at German firing test results shows the Sherman is every bit the equal of the T34/85 at resisting pentration every where except the gun manlet; where the T34/85 is far superior. It’s not so much a case of the Sherman being poorly armored as it is a case the German anti-tank guns were so much superior.
Another point is that we produced so many shermans before D-Day that well, what are you going to do with them? We were told that the sherman was at least equal to anything the germans had and it took Normandy to disprove that. It’s a case of having to use what you borught. The real kidney punch was when The generals were asked if they wanted the M26 production moved up thay said no, We don’t have a need because the shermans won’t be going up against tanks, that was the job of the tank destroyers.
Shermans are still awesome…
Soviet/Russian armor was far superior to German armor during the early stages of Operation Barbarossa. When the Germans first encountered the KV series tanks, they were dumbfounded becausetheir current vehicles just weren’t getting the job done. Eventually, Flak guns had to be used against them, in desperation to shoot them down. Many stories abound but one I’m familiar with is where the 6th Panzer Division was held up by two KV-IB’s in Estonia. They sat on a road for about two days plinking away at the Germans until the Flak cannons were brought up and finally took them down. When pictures were taken, the KV 's had more pock-marks on it than the surface of the Moon…
The war went so badly for the Soviets/Russians on the Eastern Front because of poor training, lack of leadership, poor coordination, and Stalin’s purges of the officer corps. Heck, the guy that developed the T-34 was considered a traitor and sent to prison shortly after the German invasion.
U.S. leadership was fragmented in the North Africa invasions. The habit of piece-mealing the armored units to support operations here and there, with little or no coordination, led to the disasters at Kasserine Pass and others. Once control of the armored forces was centralized under Patton, things changed dramatically in short order.
And as posted earlier, the Sherman was a “mutli-purpose” vehicle. It’s time spent in infantry support was at least equal to ots time spent in tank vs. tank, most probably moreso.
There is an element of quality inherent in quantity that shouldn’t be overlooked, either. Our factories were pumping out reliable vehicles fast because of standardization. Germany, while some engineering aspects were superior, relied on handcrafted components throughout their vehicle ranges, and their factories habitually had to re-tool their infrastructure just to satisfy the whims of Hitler.
The Shermans armament could have been improved enough to give it a fighting chance against the Panthers and Tigers.When Britain was tinkering around with the 17pounder that resulted in the Firefly an example was sent to U.S. in the hope that it would be put into mass production.Pity more Allied tankers might have survived if it had.
According to Belton Cooper in his book “Deathtraps”, it was Patton more than anyone who shot down the Pershing. He supported the Sherman because it was believed to be more mobile and fuel efficient than the Pershing, which fit the criteria of the US armor tactics which called for the armor to bypass enemy armor and attack objects in the rear. Gen. Rose and others portested his views.