testtest

Discussion: Late War Assessment of the Sherman Tank

Sorry, more myth and legend. If it was an infantry support tank, why was it the mainstay of armored divisions? "casualties frighteningly high?" Infantry KIA in the ETO from D-Day to V-E day: 120,000; armor crewmen: about 6,000. As one military historian put it: if you want a deathtrap, carry an M1 into battle.

I'm not sure if this attachment will get through, but an interesting article by then Lt.Col. Albin Irzyk (retired as a BG) who commanded the 8th Tank Battalion of the 4th Armored Division. He puts all of this in context.
 

Attachments

Wasn't this artickle posted here before?

The Sherman evolved/improved a lot in the relatively short period of time it was used in WW2, in Europe. It encounter far more Panzer IV's, which was a more primitive tank, than Panthers & Tiger's.

Talyn

Post in thread 'Discussion: Panzer IV Tank: Workhorse of the Wehrmacht'

daviddoylebooks.com

Panzer IV in Combat Tankograd 4006 — David Doyle Books

The Panzer IV in its variants A to J was the backbone of the German Panzertruppe in World War 2. This publication is entirely based on contemporary private photographs rather than on official and propaganda pictures. By using photos taken in combat by the soldiers it is now possible to tell the true
daviddoylebooks.com daviddoylebooks.com

Search Results

www.aberdeenbookstore.com www.aberdeenbookstore.com


Cedric's attachment correctly puts things into perspective.

And the last time I checked the US Army continued to use the Sherman in Korea, and finally retired it in 1957.

en.wikipedia.org

M4 Sherman - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Israel fielded modified versions into the early 80's with the Sherman being promenently used though the various wars, including the 1973 Yom Kipper War where it defeated more modern Soviet tanks in the Golan and Sinai.

Sherman Tanks of the Israeli Army

After yeoman’s service in World War II, the venerable Sherman tank saw several more decades of service in the Israeli Army.
warfarehistorynetwork.com warfarehistorynetwork.com
 
Last edited:
What made the Sherman great was QUANTITY, followed by mechanical reliability.

The Sherman evolved from lessons learned from every tank that preceeded it. And was then improved by combat experience.

But, QUANTITY, was its greatest advantage, in less than 4 years, we cranked out nearly fifty thousand of them.
 
Cedric said:
Sorry, more myth and legend. If it was an infantry support tank, why was it the mainstay of armored divisions? "casualties frighteningly high?" Infantry KIA in the ETO from D-Day to V-E day: 120,000; armor crewmen: about 6,000. As one military historian put it: if you want a deathtrap, carry an M1 into battle.

I'm not sure if this attachment will get through, but an interesting article by then Lt.Col. Albin Irzyk (retired as a BG) who commanded the 8th Tank Battalion of the 4th Armored Division. He puts all of this in context.
Click to expand...
MG Irzyk Was the Post CG of Fort Knox when I first reported there in '71. (I would serve under three, Irzyk, Desobry and Starry.). Would love to have gotten Irzyk and Desobry in a room and just listened.
 
Ascout said:
MG Irzyk Was the Post CG of Fort Knox when I first reported there in '71. (I would serve under three, Irzyk, Desobry and Starry.). Would love to have gotten Irzyk and Desobry in a room and just listened.
Click to expand...
I didn't know Irzyk was an MG, I thought he retired as a BG. Anyway, Starry was the CG when I got to Ft. Knox as a youngun. Here is how we met: I was at the PX at the magazine rack and then I sensed a large presence next to me, and there was Starry looking at a magazine in his fatigues, B3 bomber jacket ala Patton, black beret, and full color patches. Morning, he said, uh..morning, sir, and off he went. Years later, served with his son in the Gulf War, who was the XO of 1st Cav Divarty.
 
Couple of things. First, the Sherman was limited by the fact that it was produced in N. America and had to be shipped across the Atlantic and off loaded, by crane, at the destination. While the US had port cranes capable of lifting greater weights, such cranes were either non-existent or scarce in Europe. What's the point in building a heavier and better tank if you can't get it where it's needed? Whereas, tanks in Britain could drive onto LST's for transport (in relatively small numbers) but German and Soviet tanks were transported by rail, truck, or just driven. And for the Germans, their supply lines kept getting shorter rather than longer.

US Tankers suffered fewer casualties than US infantry and the Sherman crews had a lower casualty rate than German crews. Sherman crews had a 63% survival rate vs. 38% for the PzKwIV and 35% for the Tiger crews.

Be careful when you research things. I actually saw a "source" that said the rear engine location on the Sherman contributed to the crew survival rate. Seriously???? Panzer II, III, IV, V and VI all had rear engines. Same for Soviet T-34, KV, JS, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CCJ
At the onset of WWII the US was significantly behind in military weapons development. It was a game of catch-up. At the time, the Sherman was the tank we had. Can't escape that fact. Given that, it is a testament to the grit and determination of those who fought. The Sherman evolved and always gave a "fighting chance" which is all the "the greatest generation" needed. One must remember that Gen. Patton fought is way across France with these (and some M3 Lees') and did so at a rate that left his contemporaries in the dust. I am sure a lot of men perished because of the short-comings of the Sherman, but no weapon is perfect and those in the thick of battle will find the limitations of whatever weapons they are using. Most of the time it boils down to the skill and will of those in the fight.
 
The weight of the Sherman, and shipping them to Europe was a non-issue in WW2.

The M-26 Pershing, which arrived late in the ETO, weighed more.

Considering only the Brits and USA made tanks during WW2, and until the late-arrival of the British Comet in January 1945, it missed the vast majority of the war and only participated in the final Allied push into Germany, the Sherman (in it's various models) was the most numerous and capable Allied medium tank, thus the most used and exposed to fire.
 
Of the Western Allies yes, because the OP article was focused on the Western Alies with no mention of the Soviets.

The previous poster went about the Sherman having to to be shipped across the Atlantic., and my follow-up was focused on that, and the rest of the paragraph specifically mentioned the western Allied side although I didn't mention the Soviets so my bad, but consistent with the non-mention of the Russians.

While Russians fought on the Westren Front for the Germans, on the Eastern Front the Russkies crews favored the Sherman over the T-34 due to reliability, comfort & quality of the Sherman.

BTW, there was one Canadian manufacturer of the Sherman, vs. 10 US factories.

If you have some indigestion take a Tums.
 
Last edited:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top