I was in my World History 2 class today (covers WWII) and someone said the Sherman was the worst tank of WWII. Hmmm. Apparently he didnt consider the tankettes, or the early Italian tanks, or the other worse tanks that some nations had. I dont mean to start an arguement about the quailty of the nations armor, I just wanted to show that before you voice an opinion, or in this case a flat out statement, you should be well informed.
And the folks here on the forums are some of the best informed about their particular subject! Seems like your classmate is not a very avid student of history, like many of us are…I guess you can’t blame him – compared to the general public, us modelers really have a better understanding about the subjects of our craft. No-one can be an expert on everything all the time – that’s why I come here…you can learn something new every day [tup]
The person making the statement might not have been so much poorly informed as making a rather simplistic statement. What are the criteria by which tank quality was evaluated?
Obviously the Sherman’s predecessor, the M3 Medium is a less capable tank than the Sherman. The Panzer I, II, III would not stack up well against the Sherman either. However these designs were interim designs and pulled from front line service after fairly brief front line service careers. Perhaps an unspoken criterion was that the tank in question be employed as a primary tank for most or all of the war.
Given that was the criteria, love it or hate it, the Sherman had a whole lot of deficiencies, and arguably it may well have been the worst tank to be used significantly throughout most of the war.
On the other hand, if simply considering the Sherman design on the basis of being an expedient replacement for the M3 Medium, one could probably argue that it was a really good design. It just depends on how you judge what makes a good tank vs. a bad tank.
The way I see it, a statement about a particular tank being the worst or the best is a personal oppinion and can never be a historical fact.
I kind of agree with this statement, after all, most of us have are own opinions, some based on fact and others on heresay. Some will even argue the Tiger or King Tiger was among the worst, simply because it tied down resources and so few were actually built. The Sherman had it’s shortcomings, but it was reliable and our factories cranked them out in numbers our then enemies couldn’t hope to match. It was vital in winning the War in Europe.
If I were to really take a stab at this, I’d opt for the colossal German heavies that never quite made it, the E-100 and Maus(yes, 1-2 got into combat), for they drained resources the German could ill afford at that time and they were too heavy and so on. That is if we are talking WW II. This topic should stir alot of debate.
Well, did you set him straight?? Defend the Sherman old boy!!!
Seriously, not that one person’s opinion of the Sherman is going to sway public opinion, but you need to speak up in instances like this. Most modelers generally had the ability to argue these points (we certainly do it quite well here, don’t we?)
Shermans were certainly outclassed by 1944, but there were alot of them, and once upgunned, were capable of dealing with most enemy tanks, if not by firepower, by sheer weight of numbers. The common misconception held by many is that every tank the Sherman came up against was either a Tiger or a Panther, which is, of course, not true. The Panzer IV variants were far more common and easily dealt with than the Panther, Tiger, or King Tiger. The upgunned Shermans had a far better chance of killing a Panzer IV.
I think there’s also two perceptions here that often get confused…and that’s armor versus firepower. Initially, the Sherman lacked both, but then again, so did the Panzer III and IVs. When the Sherman was upgunned, it’s ability to kill Panzers improved, but it still retained a relatively weak armor defense.
At any rate…I digress…I hope you informed him that the worst tank in the world was the M1 Abrams…(I’m only kidding).
Jeff
Oh no! [:0]
I’d better just have my lips sewn up then. [(-D]
I think your classmate’s opinion is influenced by the allure of the superpanzer, which infects most every aspect of popular culture concerning WWII. It’s understandable. You watch a 60s war movie and you see the big nasty German tank squashing the little weenie American tanks. And then to add insult to injury the German tank shoves the destroyed American tank off the road. “Get zat piece of junk out of ze vay,” says Robert Shaw.
The problem with all this is exemplified by Woody Allen’s old observation:
90% of life is showing up.
The Sherman showed up. More often than not, superpanzer did not. Superpanzer often wound up having a white star painted on it along with the words “Stay off – property of the US Army.”
Also something to keep in mind is that WWII was not being fought in Rome, NY. It was being fought in Rome Italy. We had to ship our tanks across the ocean in ships to get them where the action was. I’d like to see how eager the Germans would have been to design obese vehicles if they had to deliver each of them to the front by ocean-going transport vessel.
Final observation – as Rob mentioned, Shermans were still reaching out and touching someone in the early 70s, though upgraded of course, winning tank encounters with tanks designed in the 50s and 60s! Still running, still fighting, still winning – the Sherman. Nothing like a little American engineering …
In thinking more about this…there’s so many variables to consider.
I lump the Sherman and the T-34 into the same category…and here’s why…by 1943, they were both obsolete in the forms in which they existed at that point in time. For the Russians, the answer was the T-34/85, for the Allies, it was the upgunned long barrel 76mm and the 17 pounder. While it didn’t improve the survivability of either tank, it did improve it’s offense. Both the T-34 and Sherman were classified as medium tanks, and the Russians considered the Panther and Tiger to be heavy tanks.
Given that mindset, then you try to find 1:1 opponents…in the case of the Panther and Tiger, I’d have to say the IS-2 Stalin from the Russian side and the M-26 pershing from the US side. For the King Tiger, the IS-3 for the Russians, and nothing on the US side until the M-47. This is in terms of offensive power and survivablity.
The aura of these tanks was not because they were superior wonder weapons, it’s because they were the first on the scene (for a short time) and developed a reputation. When the T-34 came out, it was the best on the field. Then came the Panther, and it could kill a T-34. So the Russians develop the T-34/85 to counter the Panther. The Tiger comes along, and it’s the dominant weapon on the field. Then the IS-2 comes along and can kill a Tiger, then the King Tiger comes along and can kill an IS-2. It’s a simple game of King of the Hill really.
Russian crews loved captured Panthers, they were a prize…not because of the gun, but because they knew that they’re T-34/85 couldn’t penetrate the Panther head-on. It’s a matter of survival. T-34s were notorious for mechanical failures. Not because of over-engineering, but because of the lack of it. There are dozens of photos of T-34s carrying an extra transmission strapped to the rear deck. Their air filtration system stunk, so the engines were sucking in dust and dirt, killing their power. If I’m given a choice of an equal gun, about the same level of reliability, and better armor protection…that’s what I’m banking on…increasing my chances of staying alive.
There are so many variables…sloped armor, the development and use of hypervelocity, sub-caliber rounds, mechanical reliability, tactics and deployment, etc., that one could argue this and never come up with an agreement, save for one…
Regardless of what side you were on, being a tanker in WW2 took guts, because you knew that no matter how well armed and armored you were, there was always something out there that could kill you.
Jeff
Some interesting observations Jeff. You nailed a few good points.
The reason why you can NEVER come up with a worst or best tank is beacuse there is a large variable in every tank … the crew.
Ofcourse weapons and armor plays a factor here, but the crews ability to make proper use of it is often the deciding factor.
I have just finished reading the 2 Tiger project books, which are the last in a long line of books I have read that are written by old WWII tank veterans.
Its interesting to read how the Tiger commander, Horst Krönke, describes the JS 2 tank, he will never forget the sound of the gun “Ratsh-boom” the sound of the gun and the impact almost simultanously. But they quickly learned that it took the Russian’s twice as long to load, so if you managed to stay clear of the first shot, you could bag him. Further more the russian’s almost always went into combat buttoned up, which made them practically blind and they were thus very slow at recognizing new targets.
Its also interesting to read how the improper deployment of a heavy tank such as the Tiger makes it an absolutely useless weapon, many military commanders in the German army didn’t understand how these heavy weapons sould be used, to them it was just another tank.
To discuss which tank of a certain period in time is the best or worst would require a completely un-biased comparision of all tanks of that period, and a common set of criterias … both are in my eyes impossible. No one is un-biased and we would never agree on a common set of criterias… the tank designers can’t so how are we supossed to.
Absolutely.
I agree with your opinion on doctrines as well, and we have to remember, that prior to the development of Blitz tactics by the Germans, tanks were thought of as an armored extension of the cavalry, or as a support unit for the infantry. In that role, the Sherman was superb, when used to support infantry in an urban environment. I honestly believe that the first US tank designed to fight other tanks was M-26. Yes, there were tank destroyers, the M36 and M18 being very formidable, but they lacked the protection.
Jeff
It is safe to say that the Germans invented the “Main Battle Tank”. The rest of the world were forced into doing the same.
I wonder where tank design would be today if it hadn’t been for WWII or indeed WWI?
Chris
Many people , tend to know very little about armor , unless, they are enthusiasts like us . Like me and aircraft , I know what an F-15 , F- 18 , B-52 , etc. look like , but don’t ask me what vesion it is , for instance if an F-15 , is the " D " , or " "E " , version . As for the " Good Ole " Sherman . It played a major role in the Victory in Europe , due to its numbers produced , commonality ot spare parts , and ease of maintenance . And lets not forget the Logistics , that kept them rolling . How often have we read about the German " Heavies " , being abandoned due to lack of spare parts , fuel , or the inability to be recovered .
Frank
" PERSEVERANCE "
Wow, quite a long thread and just an hour after I posted. As for the “superpanzer” I think thats what he thought because he also said something like “o look a paner, boom we’re dead” or something basically like that.
so, NEway…wut did u wind up doin scer? jst let it pass, or did u call him out on it?
I let him pass, he was on the other side of the room. But later this year I might say something about it.
Rob is right on the development of US tanks, the Sherman was not designed to fight other tanks but to support the infantry. The ability of to mass produce the Sherman and the eas of maintenance in the end overwelmed the more complex German tanks
Hey scer, how many days has or is your class spending on WWII. MY class spent 2 DAYS!!![:(!] Personally I dont even think thats enough to lightly know the main concept of DDay. But, welcome to California.
we didnt spend much time, only basically learning the highlights, even though my teacher loves wwii, such as invasion of Poland, Invasion of the Low Countries and France, Maginot Line, Russia, North Africa and El Alamein (no Tunisia or the back and forth between the British and the Axis), DDay, Bulge, Stalingrad, surrender. Really only the “important” things
You know, I have heard so many opinions about all the tanks concerning WW 2 pros and cons its really hard to say who is right and who is wrong. But uummm…I just like Russia’s T-34 and the Tiger tanks myself. [:D]