did any relitives serve in a Sherman Tank ww2 ? numbers were not good.

[Combat Wombat]

Just a short video about the sherman tank and what the crews faced ( was an eye opener regarding numbers killed and wounded

https://youtu.be/Ns6l7sCoWX4

[Cybermat47]

Sherman < Panzer IV/StuG III < T-34/Panther/Jagdpanzer < Tiger/Jagdpanther < Konigstiger/IS-2/Pershing < Jadgtiger.

The Sherman just wasn't good enough. Not in the slightest.

The only decent thing it had going for it was how easy it was to make and repair, as different models were almost completely interchangeable, as this rather unconventional documentary explains:
http://kissanime.com/Anime/Girls-und-Panzer-Fushou/Episode-003?id=80018

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

German heavy tanks are vastly overrated in the popular mind.

In fact, the Konigtigers broke down regularly and didn't contribute much unless they were used in a purely defensive role. They were basically useless in the attack. Most of the Konigstigers in the Ardennes offensive had to be abandoned for breaking down or for lack of fuel.

Same goes for the Tiger I's to a slightly lesser extent.

The Mk IV's were not any better than a Sherman 76mm, and were considerably inferior to a Sherman V Firefly.

It was only the Panthers which were really superior weapons, and there were comparatively few of them. Even the SS Panzer divisions only had one battalion of them, the other battalion was Mk IV's. Many regular Panzer divisions only had Mk IV's.

Shermans were there in numbers, and having a tank instead of none is more important than than only having a few and not being able to provide the support when necessary. Every single US Infantry division had a supporting tank battalion, effectively they had better equipment than a Panzer Grenadier division, which had a battalion of SP guns.

The Sherman V Firefly was able to take out any German tank it encountered... the 17lber gun was the best gun of its class in the war... better than the 88mm in the Tiger I.

The improved US 76mm gun was an excellent weapon, and was able to take out most German tanks at combat ranges. The US had these early on in the person of the M10 Tank Destroyer. The British also had Tank Destroyers with the 17 lber.

A Stg-IV was not better than a Sherman... no self propelled gun was as effective as a tank... simple fact of the tank being able to move and fire much better.

It was primarily that the Germans were continually on the defensive, were able to pick their positions, and fight hull down that they had their kill ratio advantage. When the Germans went on the attack, as at Mortain, when they attempted to close the breakout of the 3rd Army, they were severely handled. Same applies during the Battle of the Ardennes when they suffered heavy losses in the tank versus tank battles. The US 2nd Armoured division totally manhandled the Panzer divisions which were leading the charge at the tip of the advance.

Most of the heavy losses in the Shermans were simply a function of being on the attack in an era when AT guns and man portable AT weapons like the Panzer Faust were common.

The myth perpetuated in 'FURY' is a myth... by that stage in the war US tankers, (and Commonweath) did not use such stupid tactics as shown in that film.

[Catseye]

Not a relative but a friend named Jack.

He was a tank commander in a Sherman (Canada) (I believe he said Sherman). He told me that no self-respecting crew would advance unless their commander sat up in the turret with the hatch up and looking around. On one occasion while doing so, he recalled seeing the rubber seal around the hatch tearing off and flying into the air. He realized that he was being shot at and quickly dropped down closing the hatch. (Too noisy to hear the shooting or the bullets ricocheting.)

Another time he was traveling up a lane and about 2 km distant ahead saw some enemy observers standing on top of a roof of a low outbuilding on a farm looking at the tank coming up the lane. He told his crew to put a round into the shed and they complied. The shed was hit and Jack moved his tank forward to that position but couldn't find any of the enemy. So he told the crew to exit the tank and do a search. Walking forward a little further down the road past the remains of the shed, revolver drawn he stopped to listen and heard heavy breathing coming from the ditch to his left. Creeping up slowly to the ditch he saw a German soldier face down hiding in the ditch with his hands over the back of his head. Jack entered the ditch and kicked the boot soles of his enemy yelling - Raus (sp).

Jack was later wounded and returned to Canada before the conclusion of hostilities.

[7./JG26_SMOKEJUMPER]

My old reserve regiment fought in Shermans.

British Columbia Regiment (Duke of Connaughts Own Rifles). There was a battle where we where really cut up. We lost 47 tanks and nearly half the regiment was a casualty in a day.


In August 1943, command of the Regiment passed to Lieutenant-Colonel Don Worthington, who had already had significant combat experience in North Africa where he was attached to the 2nd Lothian and Borders Yeomanry, a British tank regiment. By early October, the Canadian built Ram tanks the Regiment had trained on were being replaced by the new Sherman Tanks. These tanks were used by the western allied armies throughout the rest of the war.


http://www.bcregiment.com/regimental-family-3/society/history-of-the-regiment/the-second-world-war


Following the famous D-Day landings on the 6th June, 1944, the Regiment moved to France in late July 1944, and engaged in their first combat operations south of Caen, France in Operation Totalize, an operation initiated to break out of the Caen perimeter and force the German Army into retreat.

In Phase II of that operation, the 28th Canadian Armoured Regiment (BCR), as the lead unit of Worthington Force, set out to capture Hill 195 in the early morning hours of 9 August 1944. They carried out a fighting advance approximately ten kilometres south of Caen in Normandy, driving through the dark and smoke of the battlefield. When the eastern sky began to lighten early that fateful morning, the leading elements of the Regiment were disoriented passing through low ground with limited visibility; they were looking for high ground to occupy and defend. They did initially, and erroneously, report that they were on their assigned objective; however, they soon were able to orient themselves. When they could not use the radio to report their location they dispatched two different parties to provide their position and request support. Neither party was successful in getting word in time to any authority able to change the situation.

Fatefully, Worthington Force chose to defend high ground that was also assigned to a battle group of the 12 SS Panzer Division, consisting of a Panther tank battalion and a Panzer Grenadier infantry battalion. That German battle group was about to move onto the position when they got word that an Allied armoured force, Worthington Force, had beat them to it! That German battle group, reinforced by Tiger tanks from the famous 101st SS Heavy Tank Battalion, were the forces that the Dukes and Algonquians fought that day, along with troops from the 85th Infantry Division moving up from the south.

Given the strength, experience and fire power of the German forces that day, the soldiers of Worthington Force acquitted themselves well. They inflicted heavy casualties, maintained good discipline and carried out their basic battle skills with courage and conviction. The leadership was superb – Lieutenant-Colonel Worthington was cool, brave and set a superb example of courage and leadership throughout the day. His subordinate commanders, led by Majors Sideneous, Carson and Baron, were no less courageous and skilful.
As the day drew to an end without reinforcement or support, the defending soldiers conducted a fighting withdrawal, and most of the unwounded soldiers were able to return to friendly lines. They had lost half of their fighting echelon strength dead or wounded, as well 47 tanks.

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

Yes, the BC Regiment was one of the examples where a badly led formation of Shermans was nearly wiped out.

The Regimental commander went completely off the compass course he was supposed to take during Operation Totalize, and ended up far away from his objective and isolated from the rest of the attacking force, in a position which had very little cover, and surrounded by Panthers. None of the artillery support or air support the commander would normally have been able to call on was available because he insisted he was on his objective and not where he actually was.

The actual members of the Regt. fought very bravely, but didn't stand a chance in this situation.

This was primarily a Command error, not really a function of the effectiveness of the Sherman.


My old reserve regiment fought in Shermans.

British Columbia Regiment (Duke of Connaughts Own Rifles). There was a battle where we where just short of wiped out.


In August 1943, command of the Regiment passed to Lieutenant-Colonel Don Worthington, who had already had significant combat experience in North Africa where he was attached to the 2nd Lothian and Borders Yeomanry, a British tank regiment. By early October, the Canadian built Ram tanks the Regiment had trained on were being replaced by the new Sherman Tanks. These tanks were used by the western allied armies throughout the rest of the war.


http://www.bcregiment.com/regimental-family-3/society/history-of-the-regiment/the-second-world-war


Following the famous D-Day landings on the 6th June, 1944, the Regiment moved to France in late July 1944, and engaged in their first combat operations south of Caen, France in Operation Totalize, an operation initiated to break out of the Caen perimeter and force the German Army into retreat.

In Phase II of that operation, the 28th Canadian Armoured Regiment (BCR), as the lead unit of Worthington Force, set out to capture Hill 195 in the early morning hours of 9 August 1944. They carried out a fighting advance approximately ten kilometres south of Caen in Normandy, driving through the dark and smoke of the battlefield. When the eastern sky began to lighten early that fateful morning, the leading elements of the Regiment were disoriented passing through low ground with limited visibility; they were looking for high ground to occupy and defend. They did initially, and erroneously, report that they were on their assigned objective; however, they soon were able to orient themselves. When they could not use the radio to report their location they dispatched two different parties to provide their position and request support. Neither party was successful in getting word in time to any authority able to change the situation.

Fatefully, Worthington Force chose to defend high ground that was also assigned to a battle group of the 12 SS Panzer Division, consisting of a Panther tank battalion and a Panzer Grenadier infantry battalion. That German battle group was about to move onto the position when they got word that an Allied armoured force, Worthington Force, had beat them to it! That German battle group, reinforced by Tiger tanks from the famous 101st SS Heavy Tank Battalion, were the forces that the Dukes and Algonquians fought that day, along with troops from the 85th Infantry Division moving up from the south.

Given the strength, experience and fire power of the German forces that day, the soldiers of Worthington Force acquitted themselves well. They inflicted heavy casualties, maintained good discipline and carried out their basic battle skills with courage and conviction. The leadership was superb – Lieutenant-Colonel Worthington was cool, brave and set a superb example of courage and leadership throughout the day. His subordinate commanders, led by Majors Sideneous, Carson and Baron, were no less courageous and skilful.
As the day drew to an end without reinforcement or support, the defending soldiers conducted a fighting withdrawal, and most of the unwounded soldiers were able to return to friendly lines. They had lost half of their fighting echelon strength dead or wounded, as well 47 tanks.

[7./JG26_SMOKEJUMPER]

Lets be honest Buzz. Had the Germans equal numbers in tanks it was no contest versus the Sherman. The Pershing was a much better tank but few in numbers.

As a German tank commander said 1 vs 1 no contest but it was usually 10 to 1.

Other than the Firefly version the Sherman was under-gunned and I'm sure we can all agree it's armour was lacking. It also ran on petrol and earnt its name as the Ronson Ignitor, "lights first strike every time." She would burn and burn fast.

It was quick and numerous and that's what made the Sherman effective.

I love the Sherman though. So cool lookin.

Oh and I forgot the most critical armour feature, low profile. The Sherman is a prime silhouette.


I'm back in BC now out in Mission. What part of "Gods Country" are you?

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

And I'll say it depended on the tactical circumstance.

Attackers ALWAYS have the disadvantage... when you can wait in hiding for your opponent, knowing you have the first shot, it is always going to give a bonus.

When the Germans attacked, even in Tigers... they didn't do nearly as well.

For example, we all know about Michael Wittmann's famous charge against the British 7th Armour at Villiers Bocage... he surprised a column of mostly halftracks and shot it up after killing the tanks... but he was lucky. A Firefly misfired, and saved him, and there were a number of other British tanks which could have made his day not as pleasant but who missed either by bad luck or circumstance. He was also unseen prior to his attack, the ground was broken, lots of cover. But give it to him, he survived that one.

The day he died, he tried another tank charge... not so good a result.

He was in a Tiger I, and had another 3 Tigers with him... but their advance was across open ground, no sunken lanes or hedges to screen, and into the guns of Sherman Fireflys which were in defilade or hull down. And he didn't stand a chance.

Documentary on the subject:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCNz7OC8YIs

In any case, as mentioned, most of the time Shermans were up against Infantry, with perhaps AT guns in support. And for that kind of work, the standard 75mm Sherman was ideal. It could get off 3 shots in the same time as a Tiger fired one, which was very important when engaging multiple infantry and gun targets. A 75mm HE shell would destroy an Infantry gun and its crew just as quickly as an 88mm. The standard Shermans had gyroscopic controls on the guns, which for those who knew how to use them, made firing on the move practical.

Even when they were up against tanks, the standard lowly Sherman 75mm had some options. The Turrets on the Tigers and Panthers were notoriously slow, so the Shermans would almost always get off the first shot. Crews learned to have at least one tank loaded with smoke as their first shell, and it would be fired into the German tank, to obscure its view. They also learned to use White Phosporus shells, didn't matter if they didn't penetrate, the shell would burst on the tank, and the phosporus would ignite... if the German tank crew realized the outside of the tank was on fire, they'd often bail out.

Tank platoons would learn to be cautious... they would operate in bounding maneuvers... one tank would be sent ahead at a high rate of speed, moving quickly from one piece of cover to the next... to draw fire... meanwhile the platoon Firefly would be in overwatch position, waiting for a German tank to fire and give away its position.

No question, lots of Allied tankers died... but that's what happens in war.

I'm in Vancouver BC.

[farley]

The only person I am aware of meeting, who spent time in a tank, was a gentleman by the name of Percy Major (sp?) ( I’m terrible with names but have never forgotten his).

I was in my later teens and out for an evening of fun in Toronto.
As I came out of a pub, there in front of me, sitting on the sidewalk on Young Street, cap in hand, looking old, ragged, worn out, was a man looking for a handout.

I’m sure that I just saw an old bum sitting there, but because I’d had a few, I started talking to him. Turns out he was part of a tank crew during WWII, and had suffered severe injuries and burns when his tank was hit.

He endured many surgeries, lived with debilitating chronic pain, and was unable to work. He obviously self medicated with alcohol.

We did not talk at length about his military past, and I don’t remember every detail. But since that time I have never looked at another homeless person, young or old, in the same way.

In 10 minutes I learned several life lessons from a man whose life was forever changed because he was involved in war. Amongst other things, I like to think that I became a slightly better person for having met him, that he helped me to become more empathic and less judgemental. It also helped me understand the horrors of war.

Although he will never know it, I owe him a debt of gratitude, and would like to take this opportunity to salute and thank him.

Thank you Mr Major.

[7./JG26_SMOKEJUMPER]

Shermans where great anti infantry, it's what tank are actually meant for.

As an ex armoured soldier. I know what seat I would prefer to have been in. The Pershing. :P

Not many Tigers left in working order for a reason.

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

The Panther was undoubtably the best overall tank of the war, but there were just too few of them.

It was very expensive to make, (cost twice as much as a Sherman) very difficult to maintain, and broke down too often, although not as much as the Tigers.

Initially, when the Germans encountered the T-34 in early 1941, after the shock of realizing their own tanks were outclassed, their tank evaluators recommended German industry produce a copy of the hull, with a German gun and optics in a two man re-designed turret. It would have been much cheaper and quicker to build than starting the Panther design from scratch. But they elected for a completely new tank, which proved to be excellent, but which wasn't cheap, and more importantly was so complex and had so many bugs it wasn't available in quantity till 1944, and even then, not in large enough numbers to make up for the huge numbers of Allied and Soviet tanks it had to face. I think they would have been better off with the T-34 copy. ;)

[VO101_Kurfurst]

German heavy tanks are vastly overrated in the popular mind.

In fact, the Konigtigers broke down regularly and didn't contribute much unless they were used in a purely defensive role. They were basically useless in the attack. Most of the Konigstigers in the Ardennes offensive had to be abandoned for breaking down or for lack of fuel.

Tiger-Bs had their own drawbacks (most importantly that not all bridges could bear their weight - but poor logistics (lack of spares and fuel) is unfair to blame on them. They were excellent heavy tanks and tough opponents in the task they were designed for: breakthrough.


It was only the Panthers which were really superior weapons, and there were comparatively few of them. Even the SS Panzer divisions only had one battalion of them, the other battalion was Mk IV's. Many regular Panzer divisions only had Mk IV's.

Panthers, by 1944, were not rare at all and this was the problem for the Allies, not the relatively rare Tigers. US forces for example barely met any Tiger in the West until the Ardennes, they were in the British sector in Normandy. As opposed to them, Panthers were omnipresent, not a special toy mostly the W-SS got. Your bread and butter, standard 1944 Panzer Division got exactly the same - one battalion Panthers, the armored battalion being equipped with Pz IVs.

http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg105/fingolfen/PazerIVandPantherInventory.gif (http://s246.photobucket.com/user/fingolfen/media/PazerIVandPantherInventory.gif.html)

In 1944 they even tried to create a new formation, "Panther Brigades", an all-Panther smaller, mechanized armor formation as a sort of fast, independent "firefighter" unit, smaller than the divsision. The idea may of or may not have been sound, but the execution was poor, as all the units were newly formed with fresh, inexperienced officers and crews, and performed poorly as a result.

Anyway, the best thing about the German tanks were their guns, even the Pz IV, which was seriously overdeveloped by that time could easily fight any target with its excellent gun. Fireflies, 76mm Shermans remained relatively rare until the end of the war, which made tank vs tank engagement difficult.

[Gromit]

Before you get too derogatory toward the M4 you have to take a step back and look at the reality of armoured warfare, the first thing you need in a tank is reliability, the best armoured and gunned tank is useless if it cant even get to the battle, a quick appraisal of the Panther at Kursk or the Tiger 1 in Italy or the Crusader in the desert will show you just how critical this issue is.

Secondly tanks get damaged and crew killed, but if you can repair them quickly enough you can maintain your force strength, in both these cases the M4 was the best tank of the war, super reliable and very easy to repair.

Then you can look at armour, the Panther had a very good glacis but it had less armour on the side than an M4, it also suffered shot traps under the mantlet which was semi rectified but not resolved with the chin extension on the G model, the M4 had superior armour the MkIV , but the reality is even the 150mm of armour on the front of a Churchll was not always sufficient to prevent penetration by the higher velocity 75 and 88mm guns, so you have to ask just how much armour do you carry, enough to protect against most threats, which the M4 had , or enough to protect against all, they tried that with the Sherman Jumbo, and the result was a tank with very poor mobility, a critical matter when your on the offensive!

If your tank is penetrated just how likely was the crew to survive?, the Ronson moniker is a bit of a myth in reality, early M4's did suffer ammunition fires when penetrated, several methods were tried to resolve this culminating in the wet stowage system, but guess what, all this work was for nought in reality because crews went into battle with ammunition overstocked and stuffed anywhere they could fit it, and this was the real cause of most fires, and you know what, so did the Germans and they suffered exactly the same consequences!

It's a little known fact that Panthers burned as readily as the early M4 when penetrated, just take a look at a panther or Tiger and you will see storage racks inside both sponsons, the big 88mm and 75L70mm shells being especially vulnerable to penetration, the tiger had 82mm of armour protecting it's flanks the Panther however had 45mm, easily overmatched by even the 75mmL41 of the M4!

The myth of the German big cats came about as Buzz explained, because they were on the defensive, engaging from prepared positions, integrated with huge numbers of anti tank guns, which were the real killer of most tanks, in those circumstances the standoff ranges and good front armour gave them a considerable advantage, however when on the attack they suffered as badly as the M4, Wittman was killed by a Sherman 75mm L41 gun, fired by Canadian tankers who caught him in the flank, his armour was penetrated and his ammunition blew up sending the turret flying, and on the other side of the road the rest of his troop suffered the same from Sherman Fireflies firing from 800yds away in concealed positions!

During the totalise battles Kurt Meyer had his lead Panther companies decimated by 75mm M4 Shermans who again used mobility and surprise to outflank his advancing Panthers which began going up in flames in quick succession forcing a retreat!

There's a lot of myths built up, but in reality the real decider was the tactical situation, the M4 Sherman was light and mobile enough to use just about any of the roads and bridges in Europe, the heavier tanks could not, just read up about the farcical detours forced upon the first Pershing Company deployed for evaluation!

In ww2 you were better off with 50 Shermans than 5 Panthers, the US armour board realised this and made that crucial decision, it wasn't popular but with hindsight it was very probably correct, in the close country of the bocage and through the muddy fields and narrow lanes of Europe the M4 actually did rather well, replace them with Pershings and you lose the mobility granted by lighter weight and narrower hulls, and in reality the Pershing would have fared no better on the attack, just as the Panthers and Tigers didn't.

[7./JG26_SMOKEJUMPER]

[QUOTE=Gromit;195008

If your tank is penetrated just how likely was the crew to survive?, the Ronson moniker is a bit of a myth in reality, early M4's did suffer ammunition fires when penetrated, several methods were tried to resolve this culminating in the wet stowage system, but guess what, all this work was for nought in reality because crews went into battle with ammunition overstocked and stuffed anywhere they could fit it, and this was the real cause of most fires, and you know what, so did the Germans and they suffered exactly the same consequences!

[/QUOTE]




The Ronson moniker wasn't a myth. Thin armour and an 88mm shell through a fuel tank will light it up.

It also has a VERY high profile. Not ideal in a tank.

Still, the Sherman is my favorite. So cool looking.

I still stand by my tank choice. I'd rather ride in a Pershing if someone was going to shoot at me. The hedge rows are not tank country anyway.

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

Hello Kurfurst

I will agree wholeheartedly with one of your points: The best thing about the German tanks were their guns... even the PZ-IV 75mm, although not nearly as good as the 17lber on the Firefly, was a good weapon.

However, must make some comments:

Your chart showing the Panther being basically equivalent in numbers to the Mk IV in the Wehrmacht inventory passes over one critical point:

While the numbers delivered to the fighting units were similar, the Panther was far less reliable than the Mk IV and a much greater percentage of the tanks listed as in the inventory of the fighting divisions were in workshops undergoing repairs, the actual numbers on the front lines were less than Mk IV's until 1945. The final drive system for the Panther was extremely poorly designed, and was notorious for breakdowns... the Panther was actually less reliable than the Tiger I, although much better than the Tiger II. German tank design never got close to the level of reliability of the Soviet or American tanks, this was their Achilles heel. As mentioned in my post earlier in the thread, the Germans would probably have been better off to just copy the T-34 chassis design, replacing the Soviet engine with a German one and adding a modified turret with a German gun. There were only 6000 Panthers built 1942-45, production was divided between the Eastern and Western Front, with the majority generally going to the East, so at most, perhaps 3000 Panthers faced the Western Allies.

The up-gunned US Sherman 76mm was produced in much larger numbers than the Panthers... close to 20,000 of these built, and although not all of these made it to the front, the numbers were always very much in the US favour when compared to the number of Panthers. The 76mm gun was equivalent to the 75mm in the German Mk IV, and although inferior to the Panther's 75mm, it was an excellent weapon. This gun was also mounted in the M10 Tank Destroyer, which was available throughout the Normandy campaign, some 6700 of these were built. The M-10's had a very high rate of fire, and were excellent TD's. Later an upgraded model, the M-36, with the 90mm Pershing weapon came into service, some 1400 of these were built during WWII. These later M-36's saw service from September of 1944, and were capable of destroying any German tank at range.

You are incorrect in suggesting the Firefly's were in short supply, some 2200 of them were built, they were always assigned at one per Tank Troop or 1 for every 3 regular Sherman 75mm tanks, or one for every 3 Cromwell 75mm. (British troops were 4 tanks instead of the 5 in the US formations) This was sufficient to deal with German tanks or SP guns which were encountered. For normal purposes, ie. combat versus Infantry or AT guns, the regular Sherman 75mm was the better weapon, with its faster firing main gun, larger number of MG's and larger supply of HE ammo. The 17lber was the best weapon in WWII other than the Tiger II's long 88mm, or the Pershing/M-36's 90mm. The British also had the Achilles Tank Destroyer as part of their Armoured divisions, which mounted the 17lber, and also had the M10 in large numbers.

All in all, the numbers of Allied tanks simply overwhelmed the German defenses, even considering the large numbers of AT Guns and 88's deployed in the Anti-Armour role.


Tiger-Bs had their own drawbacks (most importantly that not all bridges could bear their weight - but poor logistics (lack of spares and fuel) is unfair to blame on them. They were excellent heavy tanks and tough opponents in the task they were designed for: breakthrough.



Panthers, by 1944, were not rare at all and this was the problem for the Allies, not the relatively rare Tigers. US forces for example barely met any Tiger in the West until the Ardennes, they were in the British sector in Normandy. As opposed to them, Panthers were omnipresent, not a special toy mostly the W-SS got. Your bread and butter, standard 1944 Panzer Division got exactly the same - one battalion Panthers, the armored battalion being equipped with Pz IVs.

http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg105/fingolfen/PazerIVandPantherInventory.gif (http://s246.photobucket.com/user/fingolfen/media/PazerIVandPantherInventory.gif.html)

In 1944 they even tried to create a new formation, "Panther Brigades", an all-Panther smaller, mechanized armor formation as a sort of fast, independent "firefighter" unit, smaller than the divsision. The idea may of or may not have been sound, but the execution was poor, as all the units were newly formed with fresh, inexperienced officers and crews, and performed poorly as a result.

Anyway, the best thing about the German tanks were their guns, even the Pz IV, which was seriously overdeveloped by that time could easily fight any target with its excellent gun. Fireflies, 76mm Shermans remained relatively rare until the end of the war, which made tank vs tank engagement difficult.

[Gromit]

The Ronson moniker wasn't a myth. Thin armour and an 88mm shell through a fuel tank will light it up.

It also has a VERY high profile. Not ideal in a tank.

Still, the Sherman is my favorite. So cool looking.

I still stand by my tank choice. I'd rather ride in a Pershing if someone was going to shoot at me. The hedge rows are not tank country anyway.

No the reason they burnt was the myth, It wasn't the fuel tanks, most ww2 tanks were petrol fuelled, it was found the extra ammunition being stowed in the tank which caused the "lights first time" issue, if the ammunition was stored in it's boxes correctly the tank was no more prone to ammo fires than any other tank and the wet storage introduced in 44 actually reduced the chances considerably, problem is crew wanted as much ammo as they could carry, the Germans did the same and suffered the same, panthers and mkiv's burnt quickly too, mostly due to the fact they had lesser protection on their flanks (where a penetration is likely to impact on ammo storage) than the likes of the Tiger, which incidentally was very prone to ammo fires due to the location and size of the cases!

That's where the myth lies, not in the fact the tank burnt, but in the fact all the tanks who hoarded extra ammo also caught fire easily!

The armour wasn't thin either, it was greater than that of the Mkiv and on later models equal to the late Stugs and panther turret, it was simply gun power had exceeded the reasonable capacity of tanks to carry enough armour, the Churchill Vii had six inches of armour on the front yet was still penetrated at times.

There were simply more Shermans to shoot at!

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

The facts were:

- In the later stages of WWII, the capacity of high velocity AT guns to penetrate at ranges of 1000 meters or less was greater than the armour built into tanks. This meant Shermans, Mk IV's, Panther's even Tigers were vulnerable when they attacked in daylight over open terrain against dug in opponents.

- This meant that the side on the defense had a large advantage. Assuming they were concealed in wooded terrain or in buildings, they always had the first shot, in fact, by the time the attacking side reacted, the defending tank often had 3-4 shots. This meant the chances of the attacker suffering a loss were high.

What could be done?

In the case of the Western Allies, hard experience taught them the use of smoke, or attacking at night was the best option... so when a daylight attack was planned, lots of preparatory smoke was fired by the supporting artillery or mortars at positions likely to have hidden German AT guns or Tanks. In the case of night attacks, such as OPERATION TOTALIZE, the combination of smoke and the reduced visibility of night for the German side meant the ranges were much less when enemy tanks were encountered, and the less effective Sherman guns were more likely to penetrate. There was also a lot more confusion for the defenders, and the Shermans got to closer ranges.

Inevitably, losses were high for the attackers, the good news is a knocked out tank did not automatically mean the loss of its entire crew. Often crews were survive multiple knockouts. And for the Allies, replacing a knocked out tank was easier than replacing the crew. The 'FURY' movie was clearly nonsense in suggesting the US crew had been in this same tank throughout the war... through N Africa, Italy etc... there were no 76mm Shermans in N Africa and Italy in 1943, they didn't come into service till after the breakout from Normandy. And most tanks had to be replaced for more reasons than just being knocked out... engines wore out, transmissions, guns, etc. If this was a real tank crew, who had been fighting since N Africa, they'd be on their 4th or 5th tank.

[=FI=Murph]

I have a copy of one of Ernie Pyle's books, "Brave Men", a chapter of which deals with the job of the repair crews who would go out to a battlefield the night after a fight and recover damaged and destroyed Shermans for repair and reuse. Not only were there a lot more of them- the Germans often had to face a tank that they had already knocked out once, twice, or even three times before! The Wermacht did not have dedicated recovery and repair teams, and broken down or knocked out armor often stayed that way. Their armored vehicles, like their aircraft, were not really meant to be serviced in the field, the idea was to return them to the factory for things like engine overhauls. When you can't use what's left of your railroad during daylight for transporting equipment back and forth (or when you remaining rolling stock is being commandeered to transport humans for extermination) this kind of system doesn't work very well.

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

I have a copy of one of Ernie Pyle's books, "Brave Men", a chapter of which deals with the job of the repair crews who would go out to a battlefield the night after a fight and recover damaged and destroyed Shermans for repair and reuse. Not only were there a lot more of them- the Germans often had to face a tank that they had already knocked out once, twice, or even three times before! The Wermacht did not have dedicated recovery and repair teams, and broken down or knocked out armor often stayed that way. Their armored vehicles, like their aircraft, were not really meant to be serviced in the field, the idea was to return them to the factory for things like engine overhauls. When you can't use what's left of your railroad during daylight for transporting equipment back and forth (or when you remaining rolling stock is being commandeered to transport humans for extermination) this kind of system doesn't work very well.

As far as I know, the Wehrmacht did have repair and recovery teams, and they operated the same way as the Allied teams.

No nationality could afford to abandon a vehicle as costly as a tank, there was too much investment wrapped up in them.

[=FI=Murph]

I stand corrected on that point- I thought I had read that somewhere, but since I cannot remember where I will take your word for it. I do know that the German manufacturing system was never as fast and efficient as the American one, just because is was geared toward turning out a handcrafted, high quality weapon. Their production standards were high, at least until they started employing a lot of slave labor, but it was not a system which could turn out high numbers. Add to that the fact that the American factories never had to worry about being bombed.

[7./JG26_SMOKEJUMPER]

Worst job of the war, tank recovery and refurbishment from battle damage.

The things I read about those guys having to clean up is gruesome.

[Gromit]

As far as I know, the Wehrmacht did have repair and recovery teams, and they operated the same way as the Allied teams.

No nationality could afford to abandon a vehicle as costly as a tank, there was too much investment wrapped up in them.

They certainly did, the issue for them was they were defensive and as they were pushed back they necessarily had to leave otherwise recoverable vehicles behind, whereas the allies could recover and repair their vehicles as the front line moved on.

A good example of this is the loss of 12 of 16 Tiger I tanks of PzAbt 506 to mechanical failure in Italy during the Anzio breakout, these tanks were discovered and catalogued with a myriad of reliability problems which left them abandoned or demolished as they were unrecoverable!

It's also a prime example of how reliability plays an critical role in armoured warfare, The M4 may have been a less impressive vehicle on paper, but it was reliable and as such was of far more value tactically than heavy tanks that were falling by the wayside !

[pitt]

the germans at that time called the sherman tommy grill or ronson
( after a popular advertising from that time:burns at the first attemt)

[Combat Wombat]

just downloading WOT (world of tanks ) What can I expect ? Anyone ?

[ATAG_Septic]

just downloading WOT (world of tanks ) What can I expect ? Anyone ?

Hi CW old bean.

It recreates precisely nothing of operating an armoured vehicle. The community is awfully toxic but it can be a fun game when played with friends. I don't play it very often nowadays but have accounts on the US server and EU. EU handle is ATAG_Septic and US it's Fredkarno. Bliss and Doc both play on the US server. Lewis has an EU account.

I much prefer World of Warships.

Septic.