First a Stinger is an anti-aircraft missile, not anti tank.

The sand bags were also added to protect against the most plentiful German anti-tank weapon, Panzer Fausts and Panzershreks. Any soldier on the side of the road in a bush could kill a Sherman, or almost any other tank for that matter. The Sherman was a good tank for 1943. the Army's failure was to grasp the idea that weapons would evolve and get more deadly as the war went on. Complacency was the problem.

Tom

Re: Tank destroyers

The thing with a cannon on it that's not quite a tank did not live long after the end of the war. However the dedicated anti-tank vehicle lived, and lives on in things like the M56, the Ontos, M150, M901, Stryker ATGM etc, etc.

Like I said, there's a need for vehicles that kill tanks that do not come with the cost/burden of a tank. The fact it doesn't look like an M10 is immaterial.

Re: "Begging"

It's worth noting that even when the 76 MM armed tanks they were left behind in the UK during D-Day because no one wanted them. Even then in the fairly limited US tank on tank fighting coming out of the Summer of 1944, while there was a press for a better gun, and then even a better gun on top of the 76 MM that existed it took the Bulge for the myth of the Sherman as utterly useless to start.

Looking back on it, with perfect hindsight we can see the M1 needed to be a full length gun. We can also see how useful the M26 would have been if it'd arrived in number in Summer-Fall 1944. But they didn't have that hindsight in June 1944. And until that moment the Sherman had proven to be one of the best tanks of the war.

The scandal thing irks me too. It's not like there was a sinister cabal of Army generals working in the basement of the proto-pentagon plotting how to lose the war by inferior tank designs. There were a lot of factors at the time that perfectly reasonable people fell victim to in regards to not building a better tank. We like to pretend it was just one general who screwed it all up, but literally hundreds if not thousands of senior and not so senior military folks and civilians all played their tiny part in ensuring that 75 MM armed Shermans would be as common as they were, while M26s would not be a factor.

As the case was the Sherman did about as good as any other tank would have, with the added advantages of being quite plentiful (I think there were two Shermans for every German full tracked AFV ever produced), and amazingly reliable*


*Which is odd in a way. We harp on McNair for keeping the TD doctrine alive well after it was due to be put down, but on the other hand his obsession with reliability is a big part in the success of US armor and motorized equipment.

Quoted Text

---

Quoted Text

---

Also: We could have had the M26 (90mm Main Gun) in service by early Autumn of 1944, had not the Army Ground Forces and Ordnance Department, supported by General Leslie McNair, put the M26 on the back burner. This establishment INSISTED on a separate, dedicated Tank Destroyer Force, and the misbegotten doctrine of designing a Tank (the M4) around the Infantry Support Mission, resulting in many needless casualties and deaths. THAT was the REAL SCANDAL...

---

It's perhaps possible that M26 development could have been a little further along by Autumn, 1944 but not much. The small number that were deployed to the Western front in early 1945 did okay, but were still not really ready for front line service. The fully developed/upgraded version of M26 turned was the M46 Patton that went into production in 1949.

---

I used "M26" as a general term- The M26 was actually designated as: Tank, Heavy T26E3, upon it's entry into official service in the US ARMY. 40 of these were produced, with 20 being shipped to Europe in the last few weeks of the war in Germany...

This look as good book with Sherman thematic.
I never understand, why WESTERN allies and WESTERN HQ ignored superiority of German Panzers over Allied tanks. All western tanks in WW II (excepts Pershing and Meteor) are obsolete, with poor, innefective guns (without 9Lbs and US 90mm). Christies suspension was US invent - and in America can´t make used it - HVSS and VVSS carriage... US and British tactics in tank fight was many hounds - death of wolf (hare). Dreaded Tiger I and Panther Panzers was launched to battlefields in 1942 and western HQ never build a beast killer to 1945. Sherman Firefly was a desperate improvisation, German soldiers nicknamed all Shermans "Ronson". In famous film from streetbattle in Cologne we can cleary seen Sherman vulneabrity. After only one direct hit from Panther late was Sherman destroyed. But when Persing firing to Panther, German Panzer was penetrated and destroyed from first hit. After second burned. In Soviet Union have from whole time of WW II minimaly one tank who was superior to German Panzers. Soviet tanks have poor optics, relative primitive mechanisation, but KV-2 or T-34/76 declassed from first day on war in East all German panzers. Soviet tank have better suspension (as modern tanks) and deadly canons. T-34 can knock out all German tanks - except Tiger (but here too in hound tactics) but standard Panzer III and IV isn´t too deadly competitor as are for Sherman or Cromwell. And Soviet heavy tanks are monsters, with large caliber guns, heavy armor (and in case of KV-85 and Stalin I and II) low silluete and high speed. KV or Stalin haven´t competitor and can used tactics one shot-one kill against Tiger I, Panther and Königtiger... Cromwell (when we can see in VIller Bocage battle on somevhere in Western Front) was fast as T-34, but have poor balistic protection and his gun (and gun from Sherman 75 too) was a Peashooter only. Sherman have tall silhuete, poor suspension, poor engine, was up-armored and innefectiove aganinst last version of Panzer IV and Beasts... Western tanks can´t operate without CAS. And used of Sherman from 1941 to 1945 against Beasts was - in my eyes - a war crime. Too many young soldiers dies for ignoracy of HQ allied command and very slow development of new tanks as Pershing. When have US troops in ETO Pershing in time of D-Day Battle of Bulge, Arnhem etc was have a clearly winner without terrible losses of allied tank crews.... Ironically - in air combat allies haven´t problems and allied fighters have still a little supperiority over Luftwaffe. When was losses in tank fight Sherman vs. Panter 3-5:1 -it was a BIG fault. All family members may still ask - Why our Grandfathers died ? Why haven´t better tanks against German Beasts (Panter and both Tigers) ?

I must this book bought !

Have you read this book? Spoken with the author?

Quoted Text

---

And here I was thinking that most of Cooper's BS had been finally staked in the heart and buried under running water with garlic in its mouth. I'm rather inclined to go with "Armored Thunderbolt" as the definitive word on the subject but perhaps the publisher's blurb is more sensationalistic than the book itself.

---

Re: "Tank Destroyers are useless"- Let's put it this way: If Tank Destroyers, both Towed and Self-propelled were SO GOOD, why doesn't any Modern Army have any use for them since the Korean Conflict? ...
...

This look as good book with Sherman thematic.
I never understand, why WESTERN allies and WESTERN HQ ignored superiority of German Panzers over Allied tanks. All western tanks in WW II (excepts Pershing and Meteor) are obsolete, with poor, innefective guns

.....

I must this book bought !

Re: Improvised Armor

The key thing to remember what US Armor was doing that German armor was not doing:

Going on the offensive and winning. In that regard Sherman tanks had to close with the enemy and crossed into the threat window for literally everything the Germans had that might be considered anti-armor. That was a very dangerous place to be, and whatever extra armor could be added to the tank was welcomed.

German armor on the other hand mostly fought from defensive or ambush positions. When they did venture out of their holes on the offensive like at Mortain, Arracourt, and much of the Bulge, German armor was well and truly mauled. Had it been able to go on the offensive more often in the west, I have no doubt you'd have seen a lot more improvised armor on many German vehicles considering the majority of them were no better armored than the Sherman. As the case was however there weren't many returning veterans from German armor offensives to carry on the lessons learned if you get my drift.

Re: Sherman vs Pershing in Korea

How well loved each tank is largely revolves around what phase of the war it served during. The Pershing was the greatest thing to ever tank when there were still T-34s operational in South Korea. Once the offensive kicked off though the better automotive performance of the M4A3E8 brought it to the front of the pack.

In practice the Pershing was superior to the T-34/85, while the Sherman was effectively on-par with it.

Re: Production

It's not all about how many tanks you build or have though. Looking at how many more tanks the Soviets had in 1941 vs the Germans you'd think it'd have been a tougher fight after all. However training, doctrine, leadership, logistics and a whole host of other features come into play.

Basically the Sherman was a good enough tank, that we could build enough of, tied to a doctrine that worked okay most of the time, on top of a logistical element that could keep it all rolling.

As to the Pershing, there were still 300+ of them in Europe on VE Day though so take that as you will.

Quoted Text

---

Re: Improvised Armor

The key thing to remember what US Armor was doing that German armor was not doing:

Going on the offensive and winning. In that regard Sherman tanks had to close with the enemy and crossed into the threat window for literally everything the Germans had that might be considered anti-armor. That was a very dangerous place to be, and whatever extra armor could be added to the tank was welcomed.

German armor on the other hand mostly fought from defensive or ambush positions. When they did venture out of their holes on the offensive like at Mortain, Arracourt, and much of the Bulge, German armor was well and truly mauled. Had it been able to go on the offensive more often in the west, I have no doubt you'd have seen a lot more improvised armor on many German vehicles considering the majority of them were no better armored than the Sherman. As the case was however there weren't many returning veterans from German armor offensives to carry on the lessons learned if you get my drift.

Re: Sherman vs Pershing in Korea

How well loved each tank is largely revolves around what phase of the war it served during. The Pershing was the greatest thing to ever tank when there were still T-34s operational in South Korea. Once the offensive kicked off though the better automotive performance of the M4A3E8 brought it to the front of the pack.

In practice the Pershing was superior to the T-34/85, while the Sherman was effectively on-par with it.

Re: Production

It's not all about how many tanks you build or have though. Looking at how many more tanks the Soviets had in 1941 vs the Germans you'd think it'd have been a tougher fight after all. However training, doctrine, leadership, logistics and a whole host of other features come into play.

Basically the Sherman was a good enough tank, that we could build enough of, tied to a doctrine that worked okay most of the time, on top of a logistical element that could keep it all rolling.

As to the Pershing, there were still 300+ of them in Europe on VE Day though so take that as you will.

---

To quote Bob Dillon:

The M4e8 was death trap when engaging a T34/85. Plus there were Chinese T34/85's in use till everybody quit shooting at each other
Gary

To quote Bob Dillon:

The M4e8 was death trap when engaging a T34/85. Plus there were Chinese T34/85's in use till everybody quit shooting at each other
gary

I have to ask one question: If American Sherman crews had to laden their tanks with sand bag armor and logs, how much faith in the design to thwart German tanks and German antitank guns did they really have?

http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii187/Stealth-Ranger/M4A3E8%20Sherman%20BM%20Group%20Build/14AD2025TB20B17203-14-45.jpg

I am not sure if I ever have seen any pictures of a German tank with so much added amour by their crew.

I am not here to pick a side on what country had the best tank during the war, I am just curious why American crews felt it so necessary to add so much extra amour.

The Sherman was a strategic success not a tactical sucess. If you allowed tank crews to choose between a German Mark 4 with a 75mm L48 gun or a Sherman with 76mm or a T34 with an 85 mm, I do not know if the sherman would be their first choice. If you removed the Mark 4 and said the Panther, then I seriously doubt the crews would pick the Sherman. I wounder if "mechanical reliability" was a comforting thought to the crew when their Sherman encountered a Panther. I Think the Sherman story would have turned out much worse if it had not been for the Air Force Shooting the @#$ out of any visible German tank. That seriously hampered German tank usage. If the German armor had been able to move freely the losses would have been much higher. Think of the additional armor that the allied tank crews would have faced without Allied air. How many German tanks losses were attributed to aircraft?
Knowing I would be on the offence, even crewing the Firefly would give me pause. Being on the offence means I usually don't see you first and the first shot is a distinct advantage. The Sherman hull was not particularly tough.

Quoted Text

---

I have to ask one question: If American Sherman crews had to laden their tanks with sand bag armor and logs, how much faith in the design to thwart German tanks and German antitank guns did they really have?

http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii187/Stealth-Ranger/M4A3E8%20Sherman%20BM%20Group%20Build/14AD2025TB20B17203-14-45.jpg

I am not sure if I ever have seen any pictures of a German tank with so much added amour by their crew.

I am not here to pick a side on what country had the best tank during the war, I am just curious why American crews felt it so necessary to add so much extra amour.

---

As said elsewhere in this thread the improvised armour was to combat infantry AT. You obviously overlooked the Schurzen fitted to German vehicles such as the Pz III, IV, Stugs and Panthers to combat infantry AT.
Al

Quoted Text

---

The Sherman was a strategic success not a tactical sucess. If you allowed tank crews to choose between a German Mark 4 with a 75mm L48 gun or a Sherman with 76mm or a T34 with an 85 mm, I do not know if the sherman would be their first choice. If you removed the Mark 4 and said the Panther, then I seriously doubt the crews would pick the Sherman. I wounder if "mechanical reliability" was a comforting thought to the crew when their Sherman encountered a Panther. I Think the Sherman story would have turned out much worse if it had not been for the Air Force Shooting the @#$ out of any visible German tank. That seriously hampered German tank usage. If the German armor had been able to move freely the losses would have been much higher. Think of the additional armor that the allied tank crews would have faced without Allied air. How many German tanks losses were attributed to aircraft?
Knowing I would be on the offence, even crewing the Firefly would give me pause. Being on the offence means I usually don't see you first and the first shot is a distinct advantage. The Sherman hull was not particularly tough.

---

Sigh.

1. Aircraft accounted for negligible tank kills. They just did not have the weapons or precision to reliably kill armor. Their contribution was greatly disrupting German road movements and destroying logistics assets though.

2. If you read the historical accounts, Sherman was at least somewhat popular with crews. I doubt there'd be many takers for the T-34 or Panzer IV. Maybe a few for the Panther but it had its own colossal issues and was hardly the unstoppable killer it gets the reputation for. Panzer IV especially once you get to the J variant was decidedly inferior, and the T-34 had about parity as the Korean conflict showed us.

The Sherman might not have been an unstoppable murder machine. But it seems some folks are rushing so hard to condemn it while whistling past major flaws in other vehicles. Was it a Tiger level tank, blowing stuff up from 1 KM out? Not really. But it was reliable, it got the mission done, and won wars.