M4 Sherman : Engineering Disasters

[jeffsmith]

Modern Marvels 10pm EST History Channel

They interviewed Belton Cooper

Repeats at 2am

[ November 09, 2004, 07:43 PM: Message edited by: jeffsmith ]

[SpitfireXI]

Man I missed it! Any idea if they will repeat it?

[MikeyD]

It was in his book 'Death Traps" that I read that those radial engine Shermans would go through spark plugs so fast it threatened to limit armor availability at the front. He didn't make the Sherman sound half so reliable as we often hear.

[YankeeDog]

I'm sure they will repeat it; the History Channel always does, but you didn't miss much.

As usual, the History Channel grossly oversimplified the facts and issues surrounding the design and deployment of the Sherman. For example, they didn't go into Tank Destroyer doctrine at all, and how in hindsight this doctrine stunted US armored development during WWII.

They rolled out some of the Belton Cooper (author of Death Traps) interview footage they always use. There's better programs on the Sherman; IIRC the History Channel itself actually did do a full hour-long program on the Sherman (or maybe it was US WWII tanks in general) as part of their "Heavy Metal" series.

The fact of the matter is, the Sherman was never really designed to fight enemy tanks; that was supposed to be the job of the tank destroyers. While this turned out to be a rather unworkable idea, US WWII armor design makes much more sense once you understand that the doctrinal philosophy behind it.

In addition, in an effort to make its point, the program oversimplifies and overstates disadvantages of the Shermans vs. German tanks. For example, while it's certainly true that the Sherman(75)s needed flank or rear shots to have any chance against Panthers and Tigers, the fact of the matter is that even late war Panthers and Tigers were only around in pretty limited numbers, and a high proportion of the German armored fleet was still PzIVs, StugIIIs, etc., which could be knocked out frontally by 75mm AP, albiet at rather short ranges. The program also completely fails to mention the upgunning of the Sherman to the 76mm in 1944, which gave it the ability to KO the more common PzIVs and Stugs at range, and some ability to KO Panthers and Tigers frontally, at least at close range.

On the other side of the coin, the program also completely fails to mention one of the other major shortcomings of the Sherman; namely that it actually had pretty poor floatation compared to other tanks in its weight class due to the narrow track design, and therefore was prone to bogging in soft ground; a problem not remedied until the late war "Easy Eights" came about.

The program also ignored the fact that some of the "engineering disasters" of the Sherman design actually had some very important benefits to the Allied War effort. Unlike tanks of German manufacture, Shermans had to be shipped across the Atlantic, a fact that is even more important to remember given that the US was producing tanks not only for its own Army, but also providing significant numbers to Britain and the USSR through Lend-Lease. In truth, it was a remarkable engineering success that the US was able to produce a servicable (though admittedly far from perfect) tank in the numbers that they did, as quickly as they did, and get them all across the Atlantic.

Especially late war quite often it was US infantry w/ Shermans vs. German infantry with *no* armored support, and quite frequently with only limited infantry AT capability. I bet those German infantry facing Allied attacks with no tank support of their own did not consider the Sherman an "Engineering Disaster". . .

Finally, a good 1/3 of the footage they showed wasn't of Shermans at all, but rather of M3 Grant/Lees, M10s, and even a couple of M3 Stuarts. While I undestand that in a 15-min. TV segment they may not be able to go into great detail about the Sherman's design and combat history, there's plenty of archival footage of Shermans out there; there's no reason why they should need to resort to pulling footage of other tank designs to fill airtime.

Actually, the History Channel's own "Mail Call" did a quick 5-min. segment on the Sherman's status as "Death Traps" that did a much better job of dealing with the issue in a truthful and informative manner.

Cheers,

YD

[MikeyD]

That's what's good about these CM games. You're given vehicles with specs as close as possible to the real thing, you're given a series of tactical situations, and you can see for yourself how effective a fighting platform it possibly was. In CM Sherman's faults are readily apparent, but Sherman looks awfully good after enduring some hard battles fighting in Crusaders or T34-76 M42s.

[von Lucke]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

...the fact of the matter is that even late war Panthers and Tigers were only around in pretty limited numbers, and a high proportion of the German armored fleet was still PzIVs, StugIIIs, etc.

I see this misconception stated fairly often around here. I believe numbers where posted back on the old CMBO forum years ago, that showed the number of Panthers deployed in Western Europe to be about even with the Pz MkIV.

Granted, not a lot when compared to the number of Allied tanks deployed in the same area, but still more common than not.

[Leopard_2]

Re: Numbers. Quoting Panzer-Archiv.de:

Panzer IV / Sdkfz 161

A - 35

B1 - 45

C - 140

D - 202

E - 223

F1 - 462

F2 - 190

G - 1687

H - 2322

J - 2392

Total: 7698

Panzer V "Panther" / Sdkfz 171

D - 600

A - 1768

G - 3126

Total: 5494

Panzer VI "Tiger" / Sdkfz 181

E - 1354

Panzer VII "Königstiger" / Sdkfz 182

Total: 489

So the numbers of the "zoo" are about equal to the Pz IV.

[Stalin's Organ]

Yes - now add in hundreds of Marders and thousands of Stugs, and put most of all of it on the Eastern Front.......

As YD said - typically ("on average") the Germans had infantry with limited AT support vs Anglo-allies well equipped with Shermans and a few Brit tanks also armed with the 75 (Cromwells, Chruchills)

[KG_Jag]

The cheats

</p>

[Croda]

Geez, and I thought I was the only one to stumble on Belton Cooper's book...I had not idea he was a part of the canon.

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by von Lucke:

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

...the fact of the matter is that even late war Panthers and Tigers were only around in pretty limited numbers, and a high proportion of the German armored fleet was still PzIVs, StugIIIs, etc.

I see this misconception stated fairly often around here. I believe numbers where posted back on the old CMBO forum years ago, that showed the number of Panthers deployed in Western Europe to be about even with the Pz MkIV.

Granted, not a lot when compared to the number of Allied tanks deployed in the same area, but still more common than not. </font>

[MikeyD]

Another factor.

It's a generalization, but conventional wisdom gives the Panther about a 40% availability rate. Plus the Germans suffered from a gas crunch, and had nagging ammo supply worries. The result is the actual number of operational Panthers would be significantly smaller than the gross number of Panthers listed as being in the theater of operation.

This topic is has become a slippery slope in the past. I expect the PzIV availability rate to be waved in my face as a counter-argument.

[Mr. Tittles]

Panther production in 1944 was greater than long barreled Panzer IV (also in 1945). Of the tanks (turreted) built in 44, 47% were Panther. Only about 40% were Panzer IV.

Jagdpanzer IV and Hetzers should be factored in. They represent a portion of the AFV force. StuGs (III and IV) still outnumber them but they represent 'tough' afv like the Panther.

Marders and Hornet are actually a very small production. 42 and 43 being the big years.

[poppy]

The numbers of Shermans that were destroyed werent so much a function of their design and construction but the fact that they were used almost exclusivly in the offensive role. Even if the Pershing had been available in mid 1944 it would have sufferd a similar fate, just like the Panthers and Tigers that were used in the offensive role against the Americans and Commonwealth forces in Normandy,the Bulge,and the Lorraine campaings. poppys

[Ron]

The Germans deployed 10 Panzers Divisions to Normandy, the bulk in the British sector, and they all fought continously there to the battle of Falaise.

Zetterling has a good site:German OOB Normandy

The Panzer Regiment was an integral part of the Division and usually contained a Battalion of Panthers and a Battalion of Pz IVs.

There were 3 independent Heavy Tank Bns, consisting of Tigers and TigerIIs, deployed as well.

While the total number of German Tanks paled in comparison to what the Allies could field, they obviously made their presence felt.

Ron

[ November 16, 2004, 08:21 PM: Message edited by: Ron ]

[von Lucke]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by von Lucke:

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

...the fact of the matter is that even late war Panthers and Tigers were only around in pretty limited numbers, and a high proportion of the German armored fleet was still PzIVs, StugIIIs, etc.

I see this misconception stated fairly often around here. I believe numbers where posted back on the old CMBO forum years ago, that showed the number of Panthers deployed in Western Europe to be about even with the Pz MkIV.

Granted, not a lot when compared to the number of Allied tanks deployed in the same area, but still more common than not. </font>

[YankeeDog]

Ummm. . . I should probably let this drop, but you're the one who quoted me, bud.

You quoted two assertions of mine, (1) "...that even late war Panthers and Tigers were only around in pretty limited numbers," and (2) "...[again, late war] a high proportion of the German armored fleet was still PzIVs, StugIIIs, etc."

You characterized these assertions as a "misperception," and supported this with a statement that, "...the number of Panthers deployed in Western Europe [were] about even with the Pz MkIV."

Now, I certainly agree that statement is, in fact, only tangentially related to my original point, and as such neither supports or refutes it. So why the ^&%!$ did you quote me, then?

For the record, I don't disagree with your statement, and if you want to talk about the proportion of PzIVs to Panthers in the ETO, that's fine with me. If you are going to accuse me of perpetuating a "misperception" though, I would appreciate it if you support your accusation with something more than a strawman argument.

Regards,

YD