Guest Mike Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 One of hte supposed problems with the Sherman that is oft repeated is that it was too high, hence was an easy target. However let's look at some facts: Tank heights from Wiki - so if they're wrong then hopefully they're all wrong! I've jsut taken them from teh side-bars on the wiki articles for each tank which lists them for a particular mark. Panzer 1 - 1.72m Panzer 2 - 2 m 38(t) - 2.31 - 2.4m Panzer 3 - 2.5 m Panzer 4 - 2.68m Panzer 5 - 2.99m Panzer 6 - 3m (Tiger 1) Panzer 6 - 3.09m (Tiger 2) T34/76 - 2.45m T34/85 - 2.6m Churchill - 2.8m Cromwell - 2.83m Crusader - 2.24m Sherman - 2.74m So the Sherman is 12cm taller than a P-4 - about 4 1/2 inches, and it is 26cm shorter than het Panther and Tiger 1 - about 10", which is the same margine that it is taller than the P-3. It is also 6" taller than the T34/85, 12" taller than the t34/76, and a smidgen smaller than the most common Brit tanks of the later war. In other words it is pretty much middle range for height (although probably not on a weighted average!) however where it DOES stand out dimension-wise is in its width - it is significnatly narrower than all it's contemporaries, so it looks way too tall when placed next to them. This could be said to show that it is actually a more efficient design, putting it all together in a smaller volume. Tank widths: Pz 1 - 2.06m Pz 2 - 2.2m 38(t) - 2.14m Pz 3 - 2.9m Pz 4 - 2.88m Panther - 3.42m Tiger 1 - 3.7m Tiger 2 - 3.755m T34 - 3m (both types) Churchill - 3m Comwell - 2.91m Crusader - 2.77m Sherman - 2.62m 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 Your maths is pants. 2.74 - 2.68 = 6cm (not 12) 2.99 - 2.74 = 25cm (not 26, although it is 26 for the T-1) Also, you need to be a bit careful about how height is measred - loaded or unloaded, and in particular to which point on the tank - eg top of the highest cupola, or to the 'flat' of the turret roof. [aside] The Sherman is the only one of the late-war tanks that was taller than it was wide. ISTM that - tactically - having a low, wide rectangluar front section would be more useful than a tall narrow front section. [/aside] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 Math grog! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 Originally posted by Stalin's Organist: however where it DOES stand out dimension-wise is in its width - it is significnatly narrower than all it's contemporaries, so it looks way too tall when placed next to them. A consequence of having to transport tens of thousands of them across whole oceans. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 Originally posted by Kingfish:A consequence of having to transport tens of thousands of them across whole oceans. [/QB]I thought it was more a consequence of not having a low-profile engine with sufficient power output available? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 Also had to fit tanks onto flatcars (and through railroad tunnels)... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 Yeah, quite. Everyone had that limitation, and it does affect width. But height ... ? Nah. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 Originally posted by JonS: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Kingfish:A consequence of having to transport tens of thousands of them across whole oceans. I thought it was more a consequence of not having a low-profile engine with sufficient power output available? [/QB]</font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 Dunno (but probably not), but this thread is called "Tank heights", not "Tank widths" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bitchen frizzy Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 So the argument on this thread is that the Sherman should have been wider even though it didn't need to be? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 No, it is that the Sherman was abnormally high for its width. There was a sidebar into why it was as wide as it is, but no arguments there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bitchen frizzy Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 Actually, when you consider that a Sherman is much heavier than a PzIV, and has a much more powerful engine, it's actually quite remarkable that the Sherman's height and width are only very slightly more than that of a PzIV. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 Er...the width is not more than the Pz-4 - it is appreciably LESS The point of the thread is to show that the Sherman was NOT abnormally high as it is often criticused as being. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bitchen frizzy Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 Originally posted by JonS: No, it is that the Sherman was abnormally high for its width. There was a sidebar into why it was as wide as it is, but no arguments there. The thread starts off with the assertion that the Sherman is "too high". If the data above can be trusted, though, it seems the Sherman is about the same height as any other contemporary tank. The Sherman isn't abnormally high for its width, it's abnormally narrow for its height. And I'm not quibbling or playing semantics. The Sherman looks "tall" but in fact isn't. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bitchen frizzy Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 Originally posted by Stalin's Organist: Er...the width is not more than the Pz-4 - it is appreciably LESS The point of the thread is to show that the Sherman was NOT abnormally high as it is often criticused as being. You are right, I misread the width data . I also missed the point of the opening post . I do agree, though. And I think I might have a valid point about the compactness of the Sherman given its horsepower and weight, though now I've confused myself... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 Originally posted by bitchen frizzy: The Sherman isn't abnormally high for its width, it's abnormally narrow for its height. And I'm not quibbling or playing semantics. The Sherman looks "tall" but in fact isn't. Perhaps, but given that the width was constrained, shouldn't it have been shorter? In other words, which is the fixed, and which is the free variable. A short squat tank has propotionally more of it's armour weight in thicker plates. Or sumfink. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bitchen frizzy Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 What you are saying doesn't follow logically. There's no reason the height should be less just because the width is less. If anything, the narrower the tank, the taller or longer it needs to be to make room for everything inside the hull. It could be argued that the Sherman's designers did a remarkable job keeping the height down as much as they did. A short, squat tank has less interior room, and sufficient room for the innards and stowage is as much a design constraint as required armor thickness. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
undead reindeer cavalry Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 Originally posted by Stalin's Organist: Sherman - 2.74m EDIT: oops, had a brain fart and misread the post and quoted wrong number.. anyway, Sherman heights goes up to 2.97 meters. http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/m4sherman.html Panzer 6 - 3m (Tiger 1) 2.93 meters is the number usually given. [ January 31, 2007, 10:58 AM: Message edited by: undead reindeer cavalry ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 I find it amazing the thread gets this far without someone suggesting that it is the hull height that makes it a good target. The hull of Sherman is approximately a foot higher than the Churchill at the highest point of the front plate so that gives roughly 9square feet more target. If it helps think of it as a 5'6" man standing against a 6'6" man. The Churchill had a comparatively narrow turret for its hull and given the percentage shot is to go for the midriff the Sherman gives plenty to aim at. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
undead reindeer cavalry Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 other thing worth noticing is that for German tanks those cupolas add a lot of height while don't really make the target any bigger. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 Sherman's height problem is relative. It definitely was taller than it needed to be. They had eventually ditched the big round radial engine for a standard V which brought the central drive shaft FAR down to the hull floor. If they had had the luxury of time they could've redesigned & dropped the turret (and hull top) at least a foot. As a matter of fact that was an advantage of bolt-on volute suspension. No pesky tortion bars lining the hull floor. Imagine, a redesigned 76mm gun Sherman could've had the frontal profile of Cromwell! Such a hull had actually been designed, but unfortunately they paired it with a wonky electrical drive which managed to doom the whole project. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Bull Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 Great thread. Good to see actual graphical comaprisons to actually clear up this seeimingly widespread misconception that the Sherman tank was abnormally tall/too high. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry: [QB] other thing worth noticing is that for German tanks those cupolas add a lot of height while don't really make the target any bigger. Great shilouettes thanks! I disagree with your conclusion tho - if the height above teh turret of the German/Churchill makes the Sherman a bigger target then the cupola makes the them bigger targets too. Not by as much for sure, but it't a very imoportant location - the commander's head is probably in it!! I don't know how many hits were recorded on cupolas or the top 6"/15cm of tanks, but I'm willing to bet a doughnut it's not many. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael kenny Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 The Sherman should be compared to the tanks in use when it entered service. Then you can plainly see how 'tall' it was. The Tiger and Panther both were considerably heavier and later tanks. The PzIV was slightly bigger than the Pz III 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tero Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 Comparing the sizes IRL http://www.pbase.com/melissakos/image/59789843 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.