Is the Sherman a tank?

[jshandorf]

Hey all,

Just thought I would get everyone's thoughts on this point.

Someone before has mentioned that it isn't fair to compare the Sherman and Panther since they are too different in design and employment, but I countered that tanks are tanks. They can be compared just like apples and apples regardless of how different they are in design or operational use.

For instance, it was claimed that the Sherman was only a break out and exploitation tank and that comparing it to the Panther was not fair. I disagreed.

The Sherman was design in 1940 and deployed in the early months of 1941 in N. Africa. At that time its design and ability matched it to any German tank on the battlefield. For all intensive purposes the Sherman was a main line tank that was meant to go head to head with other tanks. It could be referred to as the "Panther" of it's time, regardless of how brief that time was.

Now we all know what happened in 1944 when the Allied invaded Western Europe, the Sherman was by then an inferior tank and lacked any real chance going head to head with the German Panther. But because of this, does this mean that the Sherman isn't a tank anymore?

Does the inability of the Sherman to carry out it's main design goal change what it is? And does the Sherman's new intended use of an exploitation unit, as some would claim, change what it is, that being a tank?

I would argue it doesn't. Because of all the above the Sherman may be a crappy and inferior tank but it is a tank none the less.

Tanks are designed with a number of purposes and intentions for their use such as: 1) A mobile heavy weapons platform 2) Infantry support, and 3) Anti-Tank platform.

Regardless of how each and any tank performs these roles or doesn't will not change the fact that it was designed to perform all these roles. Some tanks may do one thing better then another, but at no point does it stop being a tank because it lacks ability in any one area or in many, as in the case of the Sherman.

Jeff

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

First of all, David, you stupid sot, if names were meant to be descriptive, everyone would have the, culturally appropriate, name of, "Ugly little purple person that cries and wets itself." -Meeks.

[Guest Mikey D]

The US Army just announced they were going to purchase the new wheeled LAV 'Mobile Gun System' with an overhead 105mm rifled gun.

...inadequate armor, outdated gun, stressing infantry support over tankfighting. Ohmygod, they've reinvented the Sherman!

[CavScout]

Originally posted by jshandorf:

Someone before has mentioned that it isn't fair to compare the Sherman and Panther since they are too different in design and employment, but I countered that tanks are tanks. They can be compared just like apples and apples regardless of how different they are in design or operational use.

For instance, it was claimed that the Sherman was only a break out and exploitation tank and that comparing it to the Panther was not fair. I disagreed.

(SNIP)

As usual you are wrong.

That "someone" wasn't saying the Sherman wasn't a tank but that it was a tank with a different purpose than a Panther tank, for example. Being a tank doesn't make it equal to other tanks.

The whole point was in reponse to "Deutsche Superspieler" who claim a "fair" QB is the Axis having a Panther to every one of the Allied Shermans.

You will find no one who claimed that a Sherman wasn't a tank.

As your buddy Jeff H. would say, "That is a strawman."

Cav

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

"The BTS forum is still a valuable tool for finding PBEM opponents, keeping up on the latest developments in the game, and the occasional distraction of arguing with the ankle-biters. But it has long since lost any utility it once had for having substantative discussions about the game itself. That has become sacrosant. The game is damn near perfection, and to suggest otherwise earns nothing but derision. And Steve actively encourages his flock to loudly shout down anyone who suggests otherwise.

And god forbid you suggest that any German anything was better than portrayed by the game." --Jeff Heidman comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical]

[This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 01-24-2001).]

[Jeff Heidman]

Originally posted by Mikey D:

The US Army just announced they were going to purchase the new wheeled LAV 'Mobile Gun System' with an overhead 105mm rifled gun.

...inadequate armor, outdated gun, stressing infantry support over tankfighting. Ohmygod, they've reinvented the Sherman!

The differnece being that they still have the Abrams to back this new, lighter system up.

The Sherman would not have been such a disaster if it had Pershings around in 1944 to back it up when necessary. It was a disaster because when a heavy tank was needed, the Sherman was the only thing around.

I think the idea of mixed weapon systmes today is a very good one. The Abrams is extremely expensive in terms of purchasing and maintenance. A lighter, cheaper alternative for those situations where you may not need to survivability and AT capabilities of the Abrams is a good idea.

Jeff Heidman

[jshandorf]

Originally posted by Mikey D:

The US Army just announced they were going to purchase the new wheeled LAV 'Mobile Gun System' with an overhead 105mm rifled gun.

...inadequate armor, outdated gun, stressing infantry support over tankfighting. Ohmygod, they've reinvented the Sherman!

I have a friend who works for the weapons contractor that is involved in that project.

He claims that the military wants a heavy weapons platform for that is more air mobile then the Abrams MBT. Currently it takes a single C-3 to transport ONE of these monsters. For today's warfare by the time you get one of these things to the battle field the battle will be over.

If used properly this new LAV will work okay I believe.

Jeff

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

First of all, David, you stupid sot, if names were meant to be descriptive, everyone would have the, culturally appropriate, name of, "Ugly little purple person that cries and wets itself." -Meeks.

[Jeff Heidman]

Originally posted by CavScout:

As usual you are wrong.

The whole point was in reponse to "Deutsche Superspieler" who claim a "fair" QB is the Axis having a Panther to every one of the Allied Shermans.

Cav

And this is why these flame matchs start up. A perfectly reasoned post, and this is the response that CavScout provides. Another personal attack.

So Cav, could you quote the message where someone claimed that a fair QB would have one Panther for every Sherman?

I am sure me and Jeff will be blamed for this thread also.

Jeff Heidman

[jshandorf]

Originally posted by CavScout:

As usual you are wrong.

That "someone" wasn't saying the Sherman wasn't a tank but that it was a tank with a different purpose than a Panther tank, for example. Being a tank doesn't make it equal to other tanks.

The whole point was in reponse to "Deutsche Superspieler" who claim a "fair" QB is the Axis having a Panther to every one of the Allied Shermans.

You will find no one who claimed that a Sherman wasn't a tank.

As your buddy Jeff H. would say, "That is a strawman."

Cav

Okay, Then you are saying I am right. That they are tanks and that they can be compared. Just because they aren't equal doesn't mean you can't compare them. It just means that they, well... aren't equal.

Jeff

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

First of all, David, you stupid sot, if names were meant to be descriptive, everyone would have the, culturally appropriate, name of, "Ugly little purple person that cries and wets itself." -Meeks.

[This message has been edited by jshandorf (edited 01-24-2001).]

[CavScout]

Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

And this is why these flame matchs start up. A perfectly reasoned post, and this is the response that CavScout provides. Another personal attack.

Jeff's (the other one) comment was aimed directly at me. The "someone" he alludes to IS me.

Taking a discussion out of context and then changing the meaning of it is hardly "reasonable" by any stretch.

So Cav, could you quote the message where someone claimed that a fair QB would have one Panther for every Sherman?

Using your "BTS prove me wrong logic", I want you to prove it wasn't said.

Cav

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

"Maneuverists have a bad case of what may be called, to borrow from a sister social science, "'Wehrmact penis envy.'"--D. Bolger

Co-Chairman of the CM Jihad Brigade

"When it comes to debating, Steve and his are pure as the driven snow. They have *never* flamed anyone, and all of their arguments arecompletely reasoned, air-tight, and logically flawless. Everyone who disagrees with them is an ignorant peasant, prone to flaming, personal attacks, and a basic inability to put more than three words together cohesively."--Jeff Heidman [comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical]

[This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 01-24-2001).]

[jshandorf]

The reason I didn't use your name was becuase I didn't want to single you out. I was only being considerate to the fact that if you didn't want to participate in this thread then you wouldn't have to. If I would have used your name then you would be forced to responsed. Sheesh.

Jeff

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

First of all, David, you stupid sot, if names were meant to be descriptive, everyone would have the, culturally appropriate, name of, "Ugly little purple person that cries and wets itself." -Meeks.

[CavScout]

Originally posted by jshandorf:

Okay, Then you are saying I am right. That they are tanks and that they can be compared. Just because they aren't equal doesn't mean you can't compare them. It just means that they, well... aren't equal.

You can compare ANYTHING. You can compare the M5 Stuart tank to the Panther if you want. You can compare a Sherman to an M1 Abrams if you want. You just have to ignore the intended purpose of the machines.

Cav

[Speedbump]

In an attempt to deflect some of the vitriol, may I ask the experts to comment on the design mentality behind the Sherman and the Panther? Ie. Was the Sherman designed with offensive, read exploitation, in mind and the Panther as more of a defensive tank vis-a-vis the new Russian units?

Speedbump

[RMC]

Wow. Is that the locksmith I see coming down the street?

Mikey D,

I wouldn't rule out the rifled 105mm gun as being outdated just yet. The Israelis were killing T-72s at ranges over 3000 meters in Lebanon with them.

But I do sense these medium brigades are going to be mediocre medium infantry "too light to fight, too heavy to run."

[CavScout]

Originally posted by Mikey D:

The US Army just announced they were going to purchase the new wheeled LAV 'Mobile Gun System' with an overhead 105mm rifled gun.

...inadequate armor, outdated gun, stressing infantry support over tankfighting. Ohmygod, they've reinvented the Sherman!

Article on the weapon system in Feb's issue of Popular Mechanics.

[jshandorf]

Originally posted by CavScout:

You can compare ANYTHING. You can compare the M5 Stuart tank to the Panther if you want. You can compare a Sherman to an M1 Abrams if you want. You just have to ignore the intended purpose of the machines.

Cav

The purpose for the Sherman and Panther are one in the same. They were intended to perform many roles which I have mentioned above. Granted the Sherman may suck at most of them and the only thing the Panther is questionable on is infantry support but in essence they are both tanks and can be compared 1 on 1.

The purpose for the Sherman when it was first designed and produced is the same purpose that the Panther, M1, it really doesn't matter which tank you choose, was produced for.

Why else was the Sherman eventually upgraded and modified with heavy armor, bigger gun, etc..? Because it was suppose to fill the same role and purpose as the say.. the Panther, but couldn't. So it was improved.

Jeff

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

First of all, David, you stupid sot, if names were meant to be descriptive, everyone would have the, culturally appropriate, name of, "Ugly little purple person that cries and wets itself." -Meeks.

[CavScout]

Originally posted by Speedbump:

In an attempt to deflect some of the vitriol, may I ask the experts to comment on the design mentality behind the Sherman and the Panther? Ie. Was the Sherman designed with offensive, read exploitation, in mind and the Panther as more of a defensive tank vis-a-vis the new Russian units?

Speedbump

I don't know if the Panther was designed for "defensive" use per se but it was designed with an eye to kill other tanks. The Germans saw a need to have tanks fight other tanks. The Americans were trying to get TDs to fight tanks and have their tanks exploit breakthroughs.

[Slapdragon]

jshandorf

The Sherman was a tank in that it had a main gun (not howitzer), treads, and a rotating turret, but it was designed to fufill a completely different tactical doctrine. That doctrine split anti-armour and anti-tank work into two different vehicles, and in fact were built for two different and distinct commands within the army.

The designers, and the high commanders (Patton included) felt that the Sherman would be used to blow holes in an infantry line, then exploit those holes by their speed and shoot up the back lines. Other US vehicles, called Tank Destroyers, would kill tanks that came to counter attack by either defending the infantry / tanks they were following around (the M10 and M36) or by counterattacking the armored counter attack hit and run style (the M18). Light tanks and armored cars would screen the exploitation making it hard for the enemy to figure out were the main thrust was, and stop counter attacks long enough to allow it to be met. This is all laid out both in Army documents of the time, and in Patton's famous book.

The Germans had a similar idea with the MkIII and MkIV, one dealt with tanks, the other infantry. That is how the US got their idea.

Then, with the introduction of the Panther and Tiger, the Germans changed the game. While never as numerous as the Sherman, the Panther and Tiger were the first all purpose vehicles that could fight both tanks and infantry. These vehicles were counters to the soviet's all purpose tank, the T34.

The US was stuck with a tank designed to avoid fighting other tanks, while the Germans were blessed with a tank that was designed to do it all. The facts of the battlefield proved the later to be correct, since a tank unit could not stop the battle to call up antitank assets, and antitank units could not always count on having tanks around to help support infantry. Now the Sherman was better at fighting infantry than the Panther, but not enough to matter, and it took some time to develop it into a general purpose tank (they never in fact fully did, although the E8 was a very good attempt).

The Pershing in fact was the first US tank that actually matched the Panther as a general purpose tank instead of a specialized one.

[Lacky]

Originally posted by CavScout:

Article on the weapon system in Feb's issue of Popular Mechanics.

Did Popular Mechanics explain why they're using a 105mm? I imagine the US army has several warehouses brimming with ex-M60A1/A3 and early M1A1 barrels plus the shells to go with them. It's not a bad weapon, very accurate at long range.

Sort of reminds me of the M113 armed with 6 recoiless 105's during Vietnam.

Maybe I should just buy the Magazine

[Slapdragon]

Originally posted by jshandorf:

The purpose for the Sherman and Panther are one in the same. They were intended to perform many roles which I have mentioned above. Granted the Sherman may suck at most of them and the only thing the Panther is questionable on is infantry support but in essence they are both tanks and can be compared 1 on 1.

Jeff

This is wrong. That is why Patton was against crews of Shermans carrying tungsten, against the 90mm gun in tanks, and against the 76mm gun, in two of the three cases having to be overruled by AGFC. The Sherman was a weapon of exploitation, not to fight tanks. Only its latests (the E8) marks did that capability become recognized as its primary purpose.

[RMC]

Speedbump,

Good question but I don't think you can save this thread.

Anyway, I think you can summarize the different design philosphies of the Sherman and Panther fairly well and draw some parallels. The Sherman was designed to fit US Doctrine which called for the tank to be the exploitation/pursuit weapon. The Panther it seems was designed as a direct response to the T-34 and needed to combine speed, firepower and sloped armor. One of the competing prototypes was almost an exact clone of the T-34. I think you can say that doctine was not a concern at that time - they were reacting to the reality of combat on the eastern front. The German doctrine had been tested and superceded. The Pz III/IV combo went away in 43. The US Doctrine failed as so many of them do when the battlefield doesn't match the vision in the doctrine. It is funny how the Sherman is reviled but it, like the Pz IV, ended up doing a job it wasn't meant to do when it was originally designed.

And it is always important to note that wargames never, in my experience, account for the true advantage of the Sherman: it's reliability. Imagine the howls from the German players/fetishists if the Panther they bought for a QB didn't appear on the map because of a mechanical breakdown model that allowed for some tanks not to make it to the battlefield.

[CavScout]

Originally posted by Lacky:

Did Popular Mechanics explain why they're using a 105mm? I imagine the US army has several warehouses brimming with ex-M60A1/A3 and early M1A1 barrels plus the shells to go with them. It's not a bad weapon, very accurate at long range.

Sort of reminds me of the M113 armed with 6 recoiless 105's during Vietnam.

Maybe I should just buy the Magazine

Nope. Not super detailed, the article is only about 4 pages (2 full, 2 half).

[jshandorf]

Originally posted by Slapdragon:

jshandorf

The Sherman was a tank in that it had a main gun (not howitzer), treads, and a rotating turret, but it was designed to fufill a completely different tactical doctrine. That doctrine split anti-armour and anti-tank work into two different vehicles, and in fact were built for two different and distinct commands within the army.

The designers, and the high commanders (Patton included) felt that the Sherman would be used to blow holes in an infantry line, then exploit those holes by their speed and shoot up the back lines. Other US vehicles, called Tank Destroyers, would kill tanks that came to counter attack by either defending the infantry / tanks they were following around (the M10 and M36) or by counterattacking the armored counter attack hit and run style (the M18). Light tanks and armored cars would screen the exploitation making it hard for the enemy to figure out were the main thrust was, and stop counter attacks long enough to allow it to be met. This is all laid out both in Army documents of the time, and in Patton's famous book.

The Germans had a similar idea with the MkIII and MkIV, one dealt with tanks, the other infantry. That is how the US got their idea.

Then, with the introduction of the Panther and Tiger, the Germans changed the game. While never as numerous as the Sherman, the Panther and Tiger were the first all purpose vehicles that could fight both tanks and infantry. These vehicles were counters to the soviet's all purpose tank, the T34.

The US was stuck with a tank designed to avoid fighting other tanks, while the Germans were blessed with a tank that was designed to do it all. The facts of the battlefield proved the later to be correct, since a tank unit could not stop the battle to call up antitank assets, and antitank units could not always count on having tanks around to help support infantry. Now the Sherman was better at fighting infantry than the Panther, but not enough to matter, and it took some time to develop it into a general purpose tank (they never in fact fully did, although the E8 was a very good attempt).

The Pershing in fact was the first US tank that actually matched the Panther as a general purpose tank instead of a specialized one.

By 1944 that may have been the doctrine and use of the Sherman but when it was designed and built in 1941 that was not the case. The Sherman was an equal match for the MkIVE, it wasn't unitl the MkIVF2 deployed to the battle field 2 months later that the Sherman was outgunned.

I believe that the Sherman was cast into the role you describe, not because it was designed for it, but because that was all it really could do by the time 1944 rolled around.

Jeff

[jshandorf]

Originally posted by Slapdragon:

This is wrong. That is why Patton was against crews of Shermans carrying tungsten, against the 90mm gun in tanks, and against the 76mm gun, in two of the three cases having to be overruled by AGFC. The Sherman was a weapon of exploitation, not to fight tanks. Only its latests (the E8) marks did that capability become recognized as its primary purpose.

The M4, M4A1, M4A3 were all designed and produced from 1941 on.

I argue that the Sherman intended design and purpose upon it's conception in 1941 was one and the same as the Panther in 1943.

Regardless of how Patton used the Sherman in 1944 it was obvious that it could not fill the roles it was designed for thus it was relegated to the task that you describe.

Jeff

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

First of all, David, you stupid sot, if names were meant to be descriptive, everyone would have the, culturally appropriate, name of, "Ugly little purple person that cries and wets itself." -Meeks.

[This message has been edited by jshandorf (edited 01-24-2001).]

[Slapdragon]

Originally posted by jshandorf:

I believe that the Sherman was cast into the role you describe, not because it was designed for it, but because that was all it really could do by the time 1944 rolled around.

Jeff

No, it was the doctrine that was set up by Patton and other armored commanders in 1938 and led to the M2A4 and M2 Medium with all their machineguns. They never did release the doctrine.

Now I am not one to believe that the Pershing could have been ready in numbers in 1944, but Patton and others certainly delayed the 76mm gun because "The Sherman has no business fighting tanks." This comment from late 1943 when there was no clue it was going to take the towelling it took in 1944.

The way you know this idea was around so early was the 1940 reorganization which took the Infantry's Combat Cars and the Calvary's tanks and formed them into an "Armored" Branch equal to the other branches and tasked with exploitation, and then formed the "Tank Destroyer Command" tasked with killing other tanks. This was 1940, before the M4 was even a twinkle in anyone's eye.

[This message has been edited by Slapdragon (edited 01-24-2001).]

[CavScout]

Originally posted by jshandorf:

The M4, M4A1, M4A3 were all designed and produced from 1941 on.

I argue that the Sherman intended design and purpose upon it's conception in 1941 was one and the same as the Panther in 1943.

You are simply wrong.

Regardless of how Patton used the Sherman in 1944 it was obvious that it could not fill the roles it was designed for thus it was relegated to the task that you describe.

You just don't get it. The Sherman wasn't "relegated" to exploitation roles or infantry support. That was the design. The Sherman was "relegated" to tank fighting because US Army doctrine was not sound.

I guess your next thread is going to be how US TDs are the same as German TDs.. philosophy behind each be dammed.

[This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 01-24-2001).]

[jshandorf]

Originally posted by Slapdragon:

No, it was the doctrine that was set up by Patton and other armored commanders in 1938 and led to the M2A4 and M2 Medium with all their machineguns. They never did release the doctrine.

Now I am not one to believe that the Pershing could have been ready in numbers in 1944, but Patton and others certainly delayed the 76mm gun because "The Sherman has no business fighting tanks." This comment from late 1943 when there was no clue it was going to take the towelling it took in 1944.

The way you know this idea was around so early was the 1940 reorganization which took the Infantry's Combat Cars and the Calvary's tanks and formed them into an "Armored" Branch equal to the other branches and tasked with exploitation, and then formed the "Tank Destroyer Command" tasked with killing other tanks. This was 1940, before the M4 was even a twinkle in anyone's eye.

[This message has been edited by Slapdragon (edited 01-24-2001).]

Hmmm, interesting. So then basically America designed and built a tank specifically deficent in the one task that any tank should be good at, killing tanks.

But remember, upon the Sherman's design, production, and eventual deployment it COULD take on any tank that the Germans had. So in essence I think they were atleast "trying" to make an all purpose tank. They just failed.

Jeff

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

First of all, David, you stupid sot, if names were meant to be descriptive, everyone would have the, culturally appropriate, name of, "Ugly little purple person that cries and wets itself." -Meeks.