Lend Lease, and giving the Sherman its due

[Grisha]

I don't know how many know this but here's how many Shermans made it to the Soviet Union:

</font>

• 2,007 M4A2 w/75mm gun</font>
• 2,095 M4A2 w/76mm gun
  </font>

According to Charles Sharp here's what the Soviets had to said about it compared to a T-34/85:

</font>

1. Faster turret traverse and better sights.</font>
2. Could carry far more ammunition for main gun.</font>
3. Better protected ammunition storage.</font>
4. More mechanically reliable (T-34/85's engine life, measured in running hours, was shorter than a Sherman's track shoes).</font>
5. 76mm gun had better armor penetration than the 85mm gun.
   </font>

The mechanized corps was considered the premier operational-tactical armor formation of the Red Army, and in 1945 there were 9 with Guards designations (out of a total of 14 mech corps). Guards units usually had first consideration for equipment, a Guards mech corps especially. Out of the 9 Guards mech corps, three were completely equipped with M4A2 Shermans, and one even turned in all their T-34/85s for Sherman tanks. Now, I have a great interest in Soviet military forces, as well as admiration for their military art, so when 3 Guards Mech Corps are completely equipped with Shermans, that tells me something.

</font>

• </font>

Another interesting lend lease fact is the number of halftracks the Red Army received. From the USA it was:
</font>

• 100 M15A1s (1 37mm, 2 .50cal - AAA)</font>
• 1,000 M17s (4 .50cal - AAA)</font>
• 650 T48s (SU-57, in Russian. Had 57mm gun)</font>
• 342 M2 halftracks</font>
• 421 M5 halftracks</font>
• 413 M9 halftracks</font>
• 3,340 M3A1 halftrack Scout Cars
  </font>

From the UK:

</font>

• 2,560 Universal Carriers
  </font>

[Battlefront.com]

Also interesting to note is that the British Valentines (mostly produced by beer swilling hokey players, eh! ) were used by the Soviets well into 1944 as light tanks. This was about a year or a bit less since they withdrew their own domestically built light tanks from service.

Steve

[gunnergoz]

For an underdog, the old Sherman sure had some positive points, didn't it?

I always wonder how many of the darn things still rest at the bottom of the Artic Sea, still in the bellies of the freighters that didn't make the Murmansk run.

It still says "tank" to me, when I see one.

Nostalgia aside, I'm going to love to see them work out in CMBB, in Russian hands. And too bad the Sherman's pappy, the old M-3 couldn't make the cut, I've always wanted to field that monstrosity since I saw the film "Sahara" as a kid.

[Gpig]

Yeah, I was all set to do a scenario based on that Bogart classic. Heh heh.

Oh well.

Oh, and Steve. That's HOCKEY players, eh?

(I didn't know that us Canucks built the valentines. Cool.)

Gpig

[Grisha]

Yeah, Steve, I don't want to think about that. Matildas, too. I believe the 5th Mech Corps was hastily formed up, only receiving their commander a month before, to go fight along the Don during the encirclement battles at Stalingrad. They were entirely equipped with nothing by Valentines and Matildas. By 1943, almost all of their tanks were Valentines, and it wasn't until Sept 1943 that 5th Mech Corps finally replaced them with T-34s. Now, that's what I call 40mm Blues.

gunnergoz,

Sharp says 417 Shermans 'were lost in transit.'

[gunnergoz]

Grisha-

Almost 10 per cent lost before they got to the battlefield...says something, doesn't it? I hear the losses in Matildas and Valentines were as high or higher as to loss in transit.

[Grisha]

gunnergoz,

Sure does.

Regarding Matildas & Valentines, 1,084 and 3,782 were sent to the Soviet Union, respectively. Of these, 252 Matildas and 320 Valentines were lost in transit.

[Andreas]

Grisha, later Valentines would not suffer from 40mm Blues, because they came equipped with the excellent 57mm 6-pdr gun.

[Shosties]

From me, in C & C and Buttoned Up Tanks:

I can see it now: QBing with Guards units (veterans+ say) with lend lease M4s prior to the 34/85 becoming available will be seen as gamey when the ground conditions are dry.

The spotting ability and responsiveness of radio-equipped tanks with a non-distracted and unbuttoned tank commander counts big time.

Based upon how those M40s handle in Yelnia Stare, would you want to take them in an attack or ME against Mk. IIIs and IVs?

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Shosties4th:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />From me, in C & C and Buttoned Up Tanks:

I can see it now: QBing with Guards units (veterans+ say) with lend lease M4s prior to the 34/85 becoming available will be seen as gamey when the ground conditions are dry.

The spotting ability and responsiveness of radio-equipped tanks with a non-distracted and unbuttoned tank commander counts big time.

Based upon how those M40s handle in Yelnia Stare, would you want to take them in an attack or ME against Mk. IIIs and IVs?</font>

[Shosties]

Just when did the 76mm armed Lend Lease M4A2s starting making it to the front?

[Tero]

Originally posted by Bastables:

Slapdragon has pointed out before that when T34-85s met Sherman HVSS 7,62cm in Korea the T34-85 came off second best.

IIRC the NKA T-34/85's had a crew of 3 men in most (all ?) encounters.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by tero:

Originally posted by Bastables:

Slapdragon has pointed out before that when T34-85s met Sherman HVSS 7,62cm in Korea the T34-85 came off second best.

IIRC the NKA T-34/85's had a crew of 3 men in most (all ?) encounters.

I find this hard to credit unless you're referring only about engagements with dug in T 34-85s post Nov 1950.

[ September 11, 2002, 09:19 AM: Message edited by: Bastables ]

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Grisha:

Faster turret traverse and better sights.

Better protected ammunition storage.

These two puzzled me.

I can understand the faster turret, but better sights? US tank sights were very poor, making shots over 800 yards extremely difficult at best (if I remember correctly this had alot to do with the difficulty of estimating range to target through a US sight). Were the soviet optics really that crappy?

Better protected ammunition storage? Better protected than the T-34/85? Either the Russians were talking about wet stowage Shermans or they were talking about T-34/85 who must have carried their ammo on the outside of the tank. I simply dont understand that comment. The Sherman was notorious for its poor survivability if hit. The T-34/85 on the other hand have very good armor protection.

What am I missing here?

[Tiger]

More mechanically reliable (T-34/85's engine life, measured in running hours, was shorter than a Sherman's track shoes).

Didn't I read somewhere that the T-34 had a transmission that was an exact copy of an American-made transmission considered obsolete 12 years earlier?

Also, weren't there churchhill tanks in service with the Soviets via lend-lease?

-john

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Tiger:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />More mechanically reliable (T-34/85's engine life, measured in running hours, was shorter than a Sherman's track shoes).

Didn't I read somewhere that the T-34 had a transmission that was an exact copy of an American-made transmission considered obsolete 12 years earlier?

Also, weren't there churchhill tanks in service with the Soviets via lend-lease?

-john</font>

[Michael Dorosh]

Just because a tank is provided with a hammer from the factory in order for the driver to change the gears, does not mean the transmission is poor!

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:

Ignoring that the armour of both the T-34 and Sherman fairly similar in thickness and both were vulnerable to the PaK40/KwK40 and StuK40 7,5cm family. The M4A2 7,62cm had its ammo protected by armoured storage bins like the Germans. The T-34 family on the other hand had the ammo affixed to the inner hull and turret walls. Consequently the T-34 was not only infamous in its ability to "burn out" but also have the turret flying off the chassis due to secondary explosions from exploding cartridges.

[Marlow]

Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:

US tank sights were very poor, making shots over 800 yards extremely difficult at best (if I remember correctly this had alot to do with the difficulty of estimating range to target through a US sight). Were the soviet optics really that crappy?

US sights may not have been as good in the target ranging department as the German ones, but (especially in the later years) there was nothing wrong with the quality of the optics.

Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:

The Sherman was notorious for its poor survivability if hit. The T-34/85 on the other hand have very good armor protection.

The M4 and other basic versions of the Sherman were as well protected as the T34/85. Later versions had better protection.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:

[snips]

US tank sights were very poor, making shots over 800 yards extremely difficult at best (if I remember correctly this had alot to do with the difficulty of estimating range to target through a US sight). Were the soviet optics really that crappy?

Apart from an article on gunnery in "Panzer Elite", can you point us to a source that says US tank sights were "very poor"?

All the best,

John.

[Hortlund]

Looking at the raw numbers the T-34/85 had more armor at "better" angles from side and rear. (Comparing to M4a2). Same goes for turret front. The only place the Sherman has better armor is hull front really, but there the T-34 has better slope (depending on exactly where you look though).

But I still dont get it. The M4a2 was notorious for its tendancy to brew up. This was improved when the americans started with the wet stowage system. Are you guys saying that the T-34/85 had similar brew up-problems but those never changed?

As for the optics. I have no doubt that the quality of the US optics were good, I was just surprised that the Russians thought they were better than theirs. To my knowledge, US sights were...well...bad.

[Michael Emrys]

If my information is correct, Soviet sights were distinctly inferior, lasting into the 1980s or at least late '70s.

Michael

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:

[snips]

US tank sights were very poor, making shots over 800 yards extremely difficult at best (if I remember correctly this had alot to do with the difficulty of estimating range to target through a US sight). Were the soviet optics really that crappy?

Apart from an article on gunnery in "Panzer Elite", can you point us to a source that says US tank sights were "very poor"?

All the best,

John.</font>

[Michael Emrys]

I thought we were comparing US to Soviet sights.

Michael

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

I thought we were comparing US to Soviet sights.

Michael

Yeah, I know.

All I'm saying is that knowing how crappy the US sights were, I was real surprised to see that the Soviets thought the US sights were better than theirs.

It kinda gives the impression that the Russians were firing over open iron sights or something