Mike Dorosh's Sherman question

[pamak1970]

nice tool dieseltaylor

As You see i edit the post

Thanks

[The_Enigma]

Regarding looking at other tanks etc. and their armour and guns. Here am I talking about planning for an invasion two years hence and you suggest we look at tanks of 1942

lol but you brought up the Churchill tank

Iirc which was designed during 1940, the Cromwell which is more "comparable" to the M4 Sherman also started on the drawing board in 1940.

The Comet it would seem started life off in '43 and the Challenger it would seem they just slapped on a new turret and gun on the Cromwell.

[von Lucke]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh (in that other thread):

Their "primary mission" as you put it was based on faulty doctrine which was revealed to be faulty in 1942 or so. What excuse, then, was there in 1944 for fielding a tank in a role for which it was not suited? Why the scramble to upgun and ap-armour Shermans both at the factory (Firefly, Jumbo) and in the field (spare track, sandbags, applique armour)?

Originally posted by JasonC:

First as to the initial bit. The supposedly faulty doctrine apparently means that tanks are breakthrough weapons rather than fighters against other tanks, and the supposed correct one is that tanks are primary tank killers in duels etc. First, nobody thought so in 1942, in any army including the German. I'd say that piece of conventional wisdom actually belongs roughly in the mid 1960s.

I seem to recall Tukhachevsky coming up with the Deep Operation doctrine (tanks as breakthrough weapons) of armor deployment back in the 1930's --- which the Sovs essentially put into effect as early as Nov 42 with the Uranus / Mars / Saturn series of offensives.

If you want to go with the Western Allies, wasn't Cobra essentially the same thing?

I'd say the Sherman is an excellent breakthrough tank: Relatively fast, reliable, carries a large ammo load, and there are a lot of them.

[ November 10, 2006, 04:14 PM: Message edited by: von Lucke ]

[JasonC]

The US planned to invade France in the summer of 1943. They were not remotely planning on having until mid 1944 to engage. They were maximizing output numerically at least as much as the Russians and vastly more than the Germans, who did not even fully mobilize for war production until after Stalingrad.

And are you maintaining that the 3 inch was the solution to all Allied tank problems, or that is was itself inadequate? Because they fielded tons of them. They were maybe six months behind Russia in the upgunning process.

Meanwhile the Germans continued to rely on StuGs and Panzer IVs for the most elementary reasons - those were the core of their production capacity throughout the entire war. If (or when) the US had Pershing production, they still would have also used Shermans, though upgunned ones after a while. They did in Korea, 5 years later. Nobody throws away production capacity in a major war.

That means it will never be the case that everyone has top of the line equipment - it is always tiered. Throw in generations and it is more tiered. If loss rates are high they keep the live fleet relatively current - thus the Russian fleet was typically only 6-12 months old as to fleet mix, and the German was typically 12-18 months old. The US on the other hand had no tank losses to speak of, and only stopped using the M3s (coverted to SPA) and relegated light Stuarts to recon roles etc.

If the allies hadn't fielded any improved types the criticism might have merit despite the causes already explained. But they did, at least as many as the Germans fielded uparmored critters. It is simply a silly double standard, that doesn't get any less silly through constant repetition.

[dieseltaylor]

If the allies hadn't fielded any improved types the criticism might have merit despite the causes already explained. But they did, at least as many as the Germans fielded uparmored critters. It is simply a silly double standard, that doesn't get any less silly through constant repetition.

I agree wholeheartedly about repetition JC. Lets cut to the chase. I criticised the cancellation of the 3" gun trials for the Sherman as being a poor decision given the reasons I outlined. The resumption of the fitting of the 3" gun to Shermans subsequently would appear to be vindication of the view it was a bad decision.

Do you agree or disagree with this view.

[dieseltaylor]

the_enigma

Please see above.My contention has been that the Sherman should have been up-gunned in view of the likely trend in armour. I cannot see any reason to look at other tanks and pointing out how pathetic they are advance that as a counter argument to my point.

The reason to mention Churchill's was that at an early stage irregardless of their gun the armour would defeat a Shermans gun to 100metres. If the British forsaw the need for the 17pdr in 1941 you have to wonder what they intended to use it on as at the time it would have been more than a match for any known tank.

Please see if you can agree with me that all development in tanks has tended to make them tougher and more powerful. If you cannot accept this then there is no point in discussing any further.

[Corvidae]

[The_Enigma]

Please see if you can agree with me that all development in tanks has tended to make them tougher and more powerful. If you cannot accept this then there is no point in discussing any further.

I can agree with that, i dont believe i have denied that.

All i have stated is, prehaps it is better to suggest why didnt they build a tank with xy and z which is more remotly like it?

Prehaps they did not see the need to build a tank which wieghs nearly 40 tons just to have the same armour as it. When it was designed as far as i can tell for a different job.

Look at the Brit tanks, the Infantry and Crusiers ... why did they not make all there crusier tanks as heavly armed as the Infantry tanks?

I also dont doubt why what they wanted to use the 17 pounder for, but one must ask then, if they wanted it on a tank as early as '41 ... why was the cromwell built with a 75mm gun?

[dieseltaylor]

I cannot see any reason to look at other tanks and pointing out how pathetic they are advance that as a counter argument to my point.

[imported_Wildman]

If anything the most expediant thing to do would have been to product just the upgunned 76mm turret and ship them seperately to the ETO.

Let the Maintenance guys swap turrets and you in essense made the upgrade even easier.

That said...we won, is large part to the armored force which carried its weight in a combined arms war.

How can we call the Sherman inadequate when it was good enough to get the job done. Sure there may have been better out there, but you don't need the best you just need the right amount at the right time, just look at the German mentality of continuously "searching" for that magic tank to fix all of their problems.

I will quote..no I will sum up. "Any tank/solution at the critical time is better than none."

You can't argue with a win, folks.

[MikeyD]

.50 cal had its utility as a supressive weapon. It could far outrange small arms (decreasing danger to the firer) and travel through most shelter. A .50 cal incendiary tracer round was something you'd really really not want to be hit by. You can imagine enemy infantry moving forward to the accompanying sound of distant rifle fire, but hesitating in fear when the distinctive deep-throated rattle of a .50 cal opens up. The U.S. has boasted for 60 years about the psychological effect of the .50 cal round on infantry, which they're still taking advantage of to this day with the .50 cal sniper rifle.

The .50 cal rear pintle mount on tanks was extremely awkward to use in combat, but the Sherman split commander's hatch could also mount the weapon in a much more convenient position for protected fire.

[The_Enigma]

Originally posted by dieseltaylor:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I cannot see any reason to look at other tanks and pointing out how pathetic they are advance that as a counter argument to my point.

</font>

[J Ruddy]

Hi, I thought I'd jump in. I'm wearing asbestos socks, so flame away folks.

To paraphrase,

"It was the best of tanks, it was the worst of tanks..."

My understanding is that the biggest reason the Sherman was such a success is that the Americans (and Canuckians) used their mature N.A. automobile industry's knowledge to mass produce them in huge quantities. Early on we passed our knowledge to the Russians, who's tractor plants' production numbers greatly improved once they implemented western manufacturing techniques.

The result of relying so heavily on the auto industry is similar to why GM produced trucks on the same C/K platform from 1962 to 1998. The auto industry hates to make *major* re-tooling changes. So you end up being stuck with the same basic design platform, with proponents finding reasons not to make major changes. (Sloped armour, larger turret etc..) Many of the updates were simply 'bolt on' changes where you could continue to use the same assembly line with source product changes where major components were changed then welded or bolted together for assembly using the same line procedures. The problem is the Sherman wasn't a *great* tank design from the get-go.

In contrast, the Germans used heavy equipment manufacturers to hand build their tanks. They also over-engineered them to the point that the main engine bearing in the Panther/Tiger took more man & machine-hours to build than an entire engine from a T-34. (It must be true, I saw it on TV.) This resulted in some solid designs and fairly rapid changes to new models, but low production numbers and poor reliability for new models.

IMO the main raison d'etre for tanks is to have a well protected and mobile firing platform whether the target is infantry, other armoured vehicles or hard points etc... The Sherman was not well protected. It was not a battlefield superiority weapon in my universe. It didn't have to be quite so crappy though.

Look at what the Russians did with the T-34 chassis. There were Tanks, Tank Killers and Infantry Support all on the same basic chassis and for the most part they were all fairly successful. Imagine a strong and flexible chassis like the T-34, but with US engineering and solid Detroit engines? I guess the closest thing would be the M46 Patton which remarkably replaced the Sherman (& Pershing) in 1949 and very easily took on t-34/85's in Korea.

[Edit - the Sherman Easy 8's were gradually phased out over the 1950's by the Patton. It takes a few years to build 12,000 tanks when a world war isn't on... ]

Anyone who is in love with the Sherman probably cheers for the Buffalo Bills too. It feels good to support the under-dog.

[ November 13, 2006, 10:51 AM: Message edited by: J Ruddy ]

[J Ruddy]

Originally posted by Wildman:

I will quote..no I will sum up. "Any tank/solution at the critical time is better than none."

You can't argue with a win, folks.

Yup, that's exactly the mentality the Russians used when they sent their men to the meat grinder on the Eastern Front. They won the front didn't they? So it cost the lives of a few million men? So what? There can't be anything wrong with the military doctrine so long as you win? Sure, maybe someone could have come up with a doctrine that didn't results in so many losses, but any doctrine is better than no doctrine after all.

So maybe a few thousand Allied lives could have been saved by a handful of key design changes to the medium tank of the day. We won, didn't we? And the tanks were nice and cheap too.

Go Bills Go!

[Michael Dorosh]

To expand on the Space Pony's point, Canada retired its last Shermans in 1970 (from the Reserve Force). Israel used SuperShermans for many years as well.

[von Lucke]

Originally posted by J Ruddy:

Imagine a strong and flexible chassis like the T-34, but with US engineering and solid Detroit engines? I guess the closest thing would be the M46 Patton which remarkably replaced the Sherman (& Pershing) in 1949 and very easily took on t-34/85's in Korea.

The M46 (particularly the ones sent to Korea) were nothing more than M26's with better engines. It wasn't until the M48 that the Patton came into it's own.

You seem to think the T34 was something of a world beater. Maybe it was in 1941 (much like the Sherman design) --- but by 1943 it was showing it's age --- much like the Sherman design. The argument could be made, that in may ways, the T34 is the Soviet version of the Sherman tank.

[J Ruddy]

My point regarding T-34's is that the initial design lent itself to up armouring and up gunning without too much trouble.

[Edit]

T34/85 - Sloped Armour alla round, 6" lower profile, 55km/h, 360km range - I fail to see how this isn't an improvement over any war time Sherman?

Originally posted by von Lucke:

The M46 (particularly the ones sent to Korea) were nothing more than M26's with better engines. It wasn't until the M48 that the Patton came into it's own.

They were all (M46, M47, M48 and M60) influenced heavily by T-34. The M48 was the first American tank who's design reminds me of the T-34/85, it's fast and has a big gun. Plus there is no real reason why the US couln't have built it in 1944.

Originally posted by von Lucke:

You seem to think the T34 was something of a world beater.

What message are you reading? I just think it is a smarter/better design than the Sherman. Do the tank designs of 1945-1999 look more like the Sherman or T-34? Why?

[ November 13, 2006, 01:56 PM: Message edited by: J Ruddy ]

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by J Ruddy:

My understanding is that the biggest reason the Sherman was such a success is that the Americans (and Canuckians) used their mature N.A. automobile industry's knowledge to mass produce them in huge quantities.

I doubt that experience building cars is much help in dealing with large armour castings. Nor am I aware of there being particularly large amounts of car industry experience in places like Lima Locomotive Works, Pacific Car & Foundry, or the Pressed Steel Car Co. (the "car" in these cases meaning rolling stock). Ford and Chrysler, maybe, but I think the railway experience would have been more helpful for heavy engineering.

Originally posted by J Ruddy:

Early on we passed our knowledge to the Russians, who's tractor plants' production numbers greatly improved once they implemented western manufacturing techniques.

Do you have a source for this? It's the first time I've heard it suggested.

Originally posted by J Ruddy:

The result of relying so heavily on the auto industry is similar to why GM produced trucks on the same C/K platform from 1962 to 1998. The auto industry hates to make *major* re-tooling changes. So you end up being stuck with the same basic design platform, with proponents finding reasons not to make major changes. (Sloped armour, larger turret etc..) Many of the updates were simply 'bolt on' changes where you could continue to use the same assembly line with source product changes where major components were changed then welded or bolted together for assembly using the same line procedures.

Look at a picture of an early production M4. Look at a picture of a late production M4A3. How many parts can you see that are the same, apart from the 0.3 Brownings?

Originally posted by J Ruddy:

The problem is the Sherman wasn't a *great* tank design from the get-go.

I'd love to know what a tank has to do to qualify for "great" in your eyes.

Originally posted by J Ruddy:

Look at what the Russians did with the T-34 chassis. There were Tanks, Tank Killers and Infantry Support all on the same basic chassis and for the most part they were all fairly successful.

Imagine a strong and flexible chassis like the T-34, but with US engineering and solid Detroit engines?

You're suggesting that the Sherman was not flexible? I can only assume that you are crazy on acid. The Sherman chassis was used not only for gun tanks, but for tank destroyers, howitzer tanks, assault tanks, self-propelled artillery, mine-rollers, mine-ploughs and flails, APCs, gun tractors, ARVs, BARVs, dozer tanks, flame tanks, rocket tanks, OP tanks, fascine carriers, ARKs, AVLBs, and the most successful amphibious tank ever built. It could do everything the T-34 could do and lots more besides, including walk on water. I defy you to name any other armoured vehicle that has been put to a greater variety of uses.

Originally posted by J Ruddy:

I guess the closest thing would be the M46 Patton which remarkably replaced the Sherman (& Pershing) in 1949 and very easily took on t-34/85's in Korea.

The M46 only scored about 20% better per tank deployed than the M4, and there were a lot more M4s, so they got the majority of the kills. One of the inconvenient facts for people who claim the T-34 is a much better tank than the M4 is that every time the two have met in combat, the M4s have beaten the T-34s like a gong.

Originally posted by J Ruddy:

My point regarding T-34's is that the initial design lent itself to up armouring and up gunning without too much trouble.

And how much was the T-34 up-armoured, pray tell? My copy of "Bronezaschita srednikh tankov T-34" (Postnikov, Eksprint, Moscow 2005) shows exactly the same glacis thickness on the latest T-34-85 as on the earliest T-34. The Sherman, on the other hand, was up-armoured over its service life, and in the case of "Jumbo" up-armoured to a degree no T-34 ever came near.

As for up-gunning "without too much trouble", for the T-34 this involved either a complete rebuild of the upper superstructure, or a new turret (modified from one originally intended for the T-43). Not much different from the Sherman, then, which took the 76mm turret from the T-23, could have taken the 90mm turret from the Pershing, and did take the 90mm turret from the M-36.

Originally posted by J Ruddy:

T34/85 - Sloped Armour alla round, 6" lower profile, 55km/h, 360km range - I fail to see how this isn't an improvement over any war time Sherman?

Habitability, fightability, availability, ride quality, all those things that don't show up as simple-minded easily-measured numbers, but which AFV designers worry themselves about morning, noon and night.

If the Sherman was so much worse than the T-34, why did the Soviets issue Shermans to Guards units?

The fact is, in a weight budget of about 30 tons, the Sherman pretty much represented the state of the art in WW2 tank design. No tank in that weight class was very much better. The T-34, Panzer IV and Cromwell all have much the same level of theoretical operational effectiveness as the Sherman, as each nation's engineers came to the best compromise they could. Yes, the Panther and Tiger are better, but if you can't beat a 30-ton design with a 45-ton or a 60-ton design, you aren't much of a designer, are you? And for most of the war the US preferred, rightly, to ship two medium tanks overseas instead of the one heavy tank that would have taken the same shipping space.

All the best,

John.

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

One of the inconvenient facts for people who claim the T-34 is a much better tank than the M4 is that every time the two have met in combat, the M4s have beaten the T-34s like a gong.

Could this be due to the huge difference in experience between the two combatants? Assuming you are referring to the Korean conflict, weren't the majority of US tankers considered veterans, while their counterparts green at best?

As for up-gunning "without too much trouble", for the T-34 this involved either a complete rebuild of the upper superstructure, or a new turret (modified from one originally intended for the T-43). Not much different from the Sherman, then, which took the 76mm turret from the T-23, could have taken the 90mm turret from the Pershing, and did take the 90mm turret from the M-36.

Don't forget the 105mm as well, both in howitzer and gun mode.

[JasonC]

Wasn't just Korea. Also Israel, also India-Pakistan. Shermans were in regular use in 2nd tier militaries into the 1970s - upgunned of course. They did fine against T-55s, let alone T-34s.

[von Lucke]

Originally posted by J Ruddy:

What message are you reading? I just think it is a smarter/better design than the Sherman.

Since John D Salt answered you so much more concisely then I ever could, I will simply refer you to his post.

Though, it's interesting to note that Pakistani M48's were spanked by Indian M4's (in 1965), and again by Israeli M4's (in 1967) vs the Jordanians.

Do the tank designs of 1945-1999 look more like the Sherman or T-34? Why?

Personally, I think modern tank designs resemble the M18 Hellcat on steroids, more than either the Sherman or T34.

[Wicky]

Apparently the British ordered 8,500 Excelsior Heavy tanks in 1941 but it didn't go into production and was abandoned in 1944. 2-3 years seemingly wasted with nothing to show D-Day+ as the established Churchill and Sherman variants were stuck with.

T-14 Excelsior

Odd as the A33 and T-14 Excelsior prototype tanks seem quite a different hodge podge of bits. T-14 a bitsa from Sherman / M6 components and the A-33 looks a a Cromwell / Churchill mongrel.

A-33 Excelsior

[ November 14, 2006, 06:33 AM: Message edited by: Wicky ]

[imported_Wildman]

Originally posted by J Ruddy:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Wildman:

I will quote..no I will sum up. "Any tank/solution at the critical time is better than none."

You can't argue with a win, folks.

Yup, that's exactly the mentality the Russians used when they sent their men to the meat grinder on the Eastern Front. They won the front didn't they? So it cost the lives of a few million men? So what? There can't be anything wrong with the military doctrine so long as you win? Sure, maybe someone could have come up with a doctrine that didn't results in so many losses, but any doctrine is better than no doctrine after all.

So maybe a few thousand Allied lives could have been saved by a handful of key design changes to the medium tank of the day. We won, didn't we? And the tanks were nice and cheap too.

Go Bills Go! </font>

[J Ruddy]

Go Bills Go!

(Look, the emperor has no clothes!)

Originally posted by John D Salt:

I doubt that experience building cars is much help in dealing with large armour castings. Nor am I aware of there being particularly large amounts of car industry experience in places like Lima Locomotive Works, Pacific Car & Foundry, or the Pressed Steel Car Co. (the "car" in these cases meaning rolling stock). Ford and Chrysler, maybe, but I think the railway experience would have been more helpful for heavy engineering.

Just a quick question, are you a moron? All joking aside, it was the methodology of the assembly line which was borrowed from the Auto Industry which helped the west to mass produce vehicles of all kinds, including Sherman tanks. This isn't a new revelation, it's been known for 60+ years.

Do you have a source for this? It's the first time I've heard it suggested.

I saw it on TV, it must be true. Actually I was not very clear. Ford actually introduced mass production production line methods to communist Russia in 1929-1930. By implementing this methodology in the tractor plants, Russia was able to ramp up production of T-34's and other vechicles.

Look at a picture of an early production M4. Look at a picture of a late production M4A3. How many parts can you see that are the same, apart from the 0.3 Brownings?

My point is that while the source parts changed, the final assembly procedures did not change much. Look at a picture of the 1968 Chev 1/2 ton and the 1995 Chev 1/2 ton. There aren't many parts that are the same but they are the same basic design and were produced on the same basic line using similar methods. To change to a truck that is 12" wider or with a relocated engine would be a costly change over. The idea of fenders, a hood, a ladder frame, SBC engine, RWD & 4WD etc... are all the same. The assembly staff did not need to learn new whole new skills to develop the next-gen M4.

I'd love to know what a tank has to do to qualify for "great" in your eyes.

Well I did say: IMO the main raison d'etre for tanks is to have a well protected and mobile firing platform whether the target is infantry, other armoured vehicles or hard points etc...

The Leopard II, Challenger II & M1 Abrams are great tanks. The M551 was *not* a great tank. The Panther was a fantastic design, if not a *little* too costly to build.

Any time you compromise, you run the risk of creating something that is sub-par. Don't get me wrong, I do love the Firefly. I personally think the Comet was a better design though. Unfortunately superior production capability beat out a superior design in this case. Could you see some guy in bible-belt USA building a British tank design? Not likely.

No WWII tank is without its faults. I just think that the Sherman line of vehicles reminds more more of VW Bugs. Cheap, easy to produce, does the job. Does this make it great? Some people say the Bug was a great car. I prefer a car with a decent heater and more that 56 HP.

If I had to choose a single *great* tank of the 20th century it would have to be the Centurian. If you have to ask why, read a book. :mad:

You're suggesting that the Sherman was not flexible? I can only assume that you are crazy on acid. The Sherman chassis was used not only for gun tanks, but for tank destroyers, howitzer tanks, assault tanks, self-propelled artillery, mine-rollers, mine-ploughs and flails, APCs, gun tractors, ARVs, BARVs, dozer tanks, flame tanks, rocket tanks, OP tanks, fascine carriers, ARKs, AVLBs, and the most successful amphibious tank ever built. It could do everything the T-34 could do and lots more besides, including walk on water. I defy you to name any other armoured vehicle that has been put to a greater variety of uses.

lol - a Sherman fanatic calling me crazy. Bolting on a bunch of stuff to make the Sherman more useful is more of a kudo for the engineers, not the original design. The DD tank's 'most successful amphibian' status is a bit suspect. They were purpose built for D-Day and didn't do too badly in that role (ignoring Omaha Beach, that is). The whole concept of a swimming tank is for the most part silly and if you can name 5 combat tested swimming tanks I will buy you a beer. If Sea Lion had gone ahead it is possible the Tauchpanzer III would have been the 'most successful amphibious tank' ever built. I do concede the point that the chassis was also used for a huge variety of tasks. IMO, not to the same level of performance as the SU85/SU100 TD's& SU122 AG. Again I think this speaks to the manufacturing power of the west, not the soundness of the design.

The M46 only scored about 20% better per tank deployed than the M4, and there were a lot more M4s, so they got the majority of the kills. One of the inconvenient facts for people who claim the T-34 is a much better tank than the M4 is that every time the two have met in combat, the M4s have beaten the T-34s like a gong. [Etc... and so on T-34 vs Sherman blah blah blah]

(Like a gong - tres drole.)

M46 Scored 20% better. So are you saying it isnt' a better design?

Armour Up? SU-100 tank hunter - 110mm Frontal Armour for example.

How many engineers & military leaders looked at the Sherman tank and said "Golly! That is a great design! We should make our own version!"

The thought of Heinz Guderian demanding that Germany look into building a tank based on the Sherman design is a total farce.

Beta tape was better than VHS, but VHS won out. The Sherman is the VHS tape of the American WWII war machine. It was at best on par with the Pz IV as far as greatness goes. That's just one man's opion though, I'm sure it won't keep you from sleeping at night.

Jim

[J Ruddy]

Originally posted by Wildman:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by J Ruddy:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Wildman:

I will quote..no I will sum up. "Any tank/solution at the critical time is better than none."

You can't argue with a win, folks.

Yup, that's exactly the mentality the Russians used when they sent their men to the meat grinder on the Eastern Front. They won the front didn't they? So it cost the lives of a few million men? So what? There can't be anything wrong with the military doctrine so long as you win? Sure, maybe someone could have come up with a doctrine that didn't results in so many losses, but any doctrine is better than no doctrine after all.

So maybe a few thousand Allied lives could have been saved by a handful of key design changes to the medium tank of the day. We won, didn't we? And the tanks were nice and cheap too.

Go Bills Go! </font>