Obtained this response to a question on G104 site in 2003
You should all find these comments enlightening:


A report prepared for Eisenhower (at his request, after Ike had heard of a number of negative news reports about the inferior quality of the M4 tank against German armor based on comments made in letters sent home by American soldiers) by the 2nd Armd Div in Mar 45.

It refers to how deep the vehicle will sink into the ground--since the Panther and Tigers had very wide tracks, they had superior flotation and could easily traverse all types of terrain while the Sherman could get easily bogged down. Here are some excerpts:


Colonel Paul A. Disney
Commanding 67th Armored Regiment

Armor: Insufficient to prevent penetration by high velocity ammunition used by German tanks and anti-tank weapons.

Armament: Both 75-mm and 76-mm guns with available types of ammunition are incapable of neutralizing enemy tanks at ranges at which the latter are capable of neutralizing our tanks. When engaged at closer ranges with HVAP [high velocity armor piercing], 76-mm guns have disabled German tanks but penetration of armor seems to be rare.

Flotation: Not sufficient on Sherman M-4. Very good on M4A3E8.

Maneuverability: Not known, except that statements of tank crewmen indicate that of German tanks equal if not superior to ours. This is due in part probably to better flotation of enemy tanks and consequent greater maneuverability over muddy ground.

I believe the necessity for equipping troops with tanks capable of engaging enemy tanks on an equal basis outweighs all other considerations. Being close to the using personnel I am acutely aware of the morale factor involved in equipping troops with present tank equipment.

My opinion as to ability of M26 with 90-mm gun to meet Panther and Tiger on equal terms is based only on knowledge that present tank destroyers equipped with 90-mm gun and 'souped up' ammunition have been able to knock out such tanks where 75-mm and 76-mm guns were unable to. It is therefore reasonable to believe that a more equal footing would be obtained by supplying the M26.



Brigadier General J. H. Collier
Commanding Combat Command "A"

The consensus of opinion of all personnel in the 66th Armored Regiment is that the German tank and anti-tank weapons are far superior to the American in the following categories:

Superior flotation.

Greater mobility. This is directly contrary to the popular opinion that the heavy tank is slow and cumbersome.

The German guns have a much higher muzzle velocity and no tell-tale flash. The resulting flat trajectory gives great penetration and is very accurate.
The 90-mm, although an improvement, is not as good as either the 75 or 88. If HVAP ammunition becomes available, it will improve the performance of both the 76-mm and 90-mm guns.

German tank sights are definitely superior to American sights. These, combined with the flat trajectory of the guns, give great accuracy.

German tanks have better sloped armor and a better silhouette than the American tanks.

The M24 tank has not been available long, but has created a very favorable impression.

It is not possible to comment on the M26 tank, as we have had no experience with it.

The fact that our equipment must be shipped over long distances does not, in the opinion of our tankers, justify our inferiority. The M4 has proven inferior to the German Mark VI in Africa before the invasion of Sicily, 10 July 1943.

It is my opinion that press reports of statements by high ranking officers to the effect that we have the best equipment in the world do much to discourage the soldier who is using equipment that he knows to be inferior to that of the enemy.



Lt. Col. Wilson M. Hawkins
Commanding 3rd Battalion, 67th Armored Regiment

My experience with U.S. Army equipment in combat has extended over a period of two years, five months, and includes the following campaigns: North African, Tunisian (attached to 1st Armored Division), Normandy, Northern France, Belgium, Holland, and Germany to date. I have served in succession as Battalion Executive (medium tank battalion), Regimental Operations Officer, Regimental Executive Officer, Armored Regiment, Combat Command Executive Officer, and Battalion Commander (medium tank battalion).

My personal opinion about the comparative quality of U.S. and German tanks can be stated briefly as follows: if such a choice were possible, I would prefer to fight in the present German Mark V or VI tank against the present U.S. medium tank and tank destroyer with the 90-mm gun. Facts leading up to such a conclusion are stated in the following paragraphs. The feeling among the tank crew personnel, men who have four, five and six full campaigns to their credit, is the same. Everything has been done and every effort made to instill a feeling of confidence in their equipment in these men. No effort has been spared to train them to use it properly.

Our M4 tank does not compare favorably with the German Mk V or VI in armor plate. Theirs is much thicker than ours and sloped so as to prevent strikes against it at angles approaching the normal. I have inspected the battlefield at Faid Pass in Tunisia, being with the force which retook it. Inspection of our tanks destroyed there indicated that the 88-mm gun penetrated into the turret from the front and out again in the rear. Few gouges were found indicating that all strikes had made penetrations. Our tanks were penetrated by 88, 75, and 50-mm caliber in this engagement in all parts of the hull and turret. I personally measured many of the holes.


The matter of flotation is less vital now than it was during the past winter season. There will be occasions in the CBI theater when it will be important. I have compared the depth to which our tanks sink alongside of German Mk V and VI tanks in soft ground. Before the addition of track extensions, our medium tanks sank six to eight inches while the Mk V tracks were not over four inches. We had to be very careful to avoid "tracking" tanks or turning sharply, as either resulted in bellying-up and sticking. This was checked on the plain between the Wurm and Roer Rivers west of Julich. The new E8 suspension, with the wider track is about equal, on our M4 tank, to what the German Mk V has always been. The use of track extensions proved a good temporary expedient, but one which required continual replacement, and was not adaptable to the tank dozer which needs good flotation.

The tank gun is the most vital factor in tank fighting. I know of many cases to prove the fact that the German 75-mm and 88-mm mounted on Mk IV, V, and VI tanks will penetrate our tanks, while our weapons will not penetrate theirs at the same range. Many tests have been made and results have been published of these facts. We have been out-gunned since Tunisia, when the Germans brought out their Mk IV Special with the long-barreled 75-mm gun. The higher muzzle velocity of the German guns increases their accuracy, as range estimation are of less importance with such a flat trajectory. I have fired all our tank weapons and know this to be so. Our 76-mm gun is a big improvement over the 75-mm.

The light tank is being used for working with the infantry. We subject it to direct fire just as little as we can, for it is realized that the armor will not turn the German fire or the 37-mm gun damage the German tanks or self-propelled guns.

The matter of tank gun sights has caused us much concern. I have looked through and worked with sights in German Mk V and VI tanks as well as our own. I find that the German sight has more magnifying power and clearness than our own, which is a big advantage to a gunner.

I have no experience with which to compare the mechanical qualities of motors of our tanks and German tanks. Our present Ford motor for medium tanks is an improvement over the air-cooled aircraft engines. The additional power is needed in mud and on steep grades.

It has been claimed that our tank is the more maneuverable. In recent tests we put a captured German Mk V against all models of our own. The German tank was the faster, both across country and on the highway and would make sharper turns. It was also the better hill climber.

Some of my tank crews claim penetrations on the front plate of Mk V tanks, using the 76-mm gun and HVAP ammunition (3400 feet per second). They have more confidence in this combination than any other we have. So far, however, we have never been able to supply a tank with more than two or three rounds of this ammunition. We have been unable to obtain it. So far, we have been unable to obtain more than seven tanks out of seventeen mounting a 76-mm gun. So far, in this battalion, I have three tanks with the wide E8 suspension and track out of a total of fifty-four tanks.

Tank crews in this battalion are adding sand bags to their tanks, about 170 bags for each tank, in an effort to make up for the tank's lack of armor and the penetrating ability of German guns.

It has been stated that our tanks are supposed to attack infantry and should not be used tank versus tank. It has been my experience that we have never found this ideal situation for in all our attacks we must of necessity fight German tanks. Therefore, it is necessary for a tank to be designed to meet adequately this situation. Elimination of German tanks in these attacks has proven to be a time-consuming and expensive task. At Samree, Belgium, during the attack to secure Houffalize, a precision adjustment with eight-inch howitzers failed to dislodge a German Mk VI tank which could not be eliminated by direct fire of any available weapon, including the 90-mm tank destroyer. This tank could not be outflanked. It had destroyed three of our M4 tanks at the same range. The tank withdrew during the night.

Close support aircraft has helped in our advances by bombing enemy armor. I saw them work during the breakthrough at St. Lo and the advance across France. I saw them break up a German tank counterattack after we had secured Barmen, which is on the west bank of the Roer, north of Julich.

Following the Tunisian Campaign and in England and in France, I have been interviewed by War Department representatives who were gathering facts concerning our equipment. Many of the enlisted men who had considerable experience were interviewed at the same time. The same points, considered most vital to tank personnel and those needing urgent improvement at this time and which are stated above, were told to representatives of the War Department and Ordnance representatives almost two years ago.



Harold A. Shields, First Lieutenant
Company "A," 66th Armored Regiment

On 2 March 1945, the 2nd Battalion, 66th Armored Regiment, was making a drive to the Rhine River. Upon taking the battalion objective at Fichlen, Germany, three of our medium tanks were knocked out by a German self-propelled gun (a long-barreled 75 on a Mark IV chassis). I took this self-propelled gun under fire with my platoon of M24 light tanks at 800 yards. The platoon fired a total of twenty-five rounds, the majority of which were AP. None of the AP pierced the front slope plate of the self-propelled gun, but ricocheted off. Some medium tanks from "I" Company, 66th Armored Regiment, with 76-mm guns, also fired on this self-propelled gun, and their rounds also ricocheted off. The range these tanks took the self-propelled gun under fire was approximately six hundred yards. It was impossible to fire at the side of the self-propelled gun as it was in position between two buildings, so it had to be taken under fire from the front. The next day, 3 March, I went to look at this self-propelled gun. None of the AP rounds had penetrated the front. The rounds had made a few dents in the armor plate and then ricocheted off. I also examined the three tanks that had been knocked out by the German self-propelled gun. In all cases the German rounds had penetrated all three tanks and in one case had penetrated the turret of one tank on one side and had gone out the other.

On 17 November 1944, 2nd Battalion, 66th Armored Regiment, jumped off on an attack from Puffendorf with the mission of securing Ederen, Germany. Upon moving into Ederen, I had the opportunity to compare the flotation of our M5A1, M4, with the German Mark V tank. Upon entering the town, my tank paralleled the tracks left by the German Mark V tank. I was very much interested in the capabilities of the two tanks cross-country. I dismounted to compare the tracks of the German tank with those of my own. I noticed that the German tank had sunk into the soft ground approximately two inches, and those of my own tank, the M5A1, had sunk about three and a half to four inches. I also noticed the impressions left by an M4 medium tank and noted that it had sunk about five or six inches. This was very interesting to me, as the German Mark V tank, weighing approximately forty-five tons, was three times heavier than my own tank, weighing fifteen tons. Our own M4 medium tank weighs thirty tons.



Source: Ray Merriam of Merriam Press, Bennington VT USA