M3 Grant and M4 Sherman Family of Vehicles

[nev]

Well you learn something new everyday.  Certainly makes for an interesting looking Shermie  

http://www.missing-lynx.com/gallery/48/m4a...eflysz48_1.html

[Martin H]

now that looked more like an easy 8 hull to me, hmmm that could have a few posibilitys

[Aircav]

There's also a Wif 76mm assualt gun modelled on a Sherman chassis on Missing Lynx
http://www.network54.com/Forum/110741/mess...+%28+whatif+%29

[Son of Damian]

Its sad that a more power full gun like the 17 pounder wasn't fitted to the sherman earlier as it would have saved a lot of Allied lives.

IIRC, A Sherman Firefly could knockout a Tiger at 1150 M, a Tiger could knockout a Sherman at 1200 M. Yet a T-34/76 could only knockout a Tiger at 600 M, a Tiger could knockout a T-34 at around 1000 M.

[Jeffry Fontaine]

Its sad that a more power full gun like the 17 pounder wasn't fitted to the sherman earlier as it would have saved a lot of Allied lives.

Another option that would have helped in saving lives would have been the switch to diesel engines instead of relying on gasoline/spark ignition engines for the majority of the Shermans and other armor vehicles being manufactured for the war effort at that time.  The few diesel powered versions of the Sherman that were made were issued to the Marines or exported under lend-lease for use by the allies.  If I remember correctly, the Russians received a lot of these vehicles.  This option alone would have kept a lot of allied tank crews alive instead of being burned to death in the catastrophic explosions and fires that were fueled by the gasoline.  

[Martin H]

True
The germans didnt call em Tommy cookers for nothing.

British troops called the Sherman the Ronson (a brand of lighter at the time)

[BillSlim]

I believe there was a lot of resistance to equiping an American tank with a foreign gun. Whatif we could have had a one (edit: hit) one kill weapon for every tiger met from Dday onwards.

I do not beleive that it was resistance to incorporating a foreign weapon with the Sherman, more like the inability of British industry to produce large numbers of weapons to use on the Shermans that would have been needed to equip all of those tank battalions and regiments in the U.S. Army.  

There were other weapons that were developed and produced  by other countries that were used without argument by the United States, this would be a more realistic reason for contining production of the Sherman using the 75mm and later 76mm gun by the US on the Sherman in leiu of using the 17 pounder.  

The 155mm and 240mm cannons both have their origins in a French design and both were used by the United States.  Don't forget the original French 75mm howitzer design that was used during WW1 by the U.S. Army.  

And the US 57mm anti-tank gun was basically the British 6-pounder built to American specifications.
The US could have built a version of the 17-pounder, but IIRC they had their own weapons, such as the 3inch AT gun and the 76mm tank gun.
I always think that it is perhaps a pity that the Americans did not adopt the 17-pounder as it was superior to both of those weapons, and probably as good as the US 90mm.

[Son of Damian]

Another option that would have helped in saving lives would have been the switch to diesel engines instead of relying on gasoline/spark ignition engines for the majority of the Shermans and other armor vehicles being manufactured for the war effort at that time. The few diesel powered versions of the Sherman that were made were issued to the Marines or exported under lend-lease for use by the allies. If I remember correctly, the Russians received a lot of these vehicles. This option alone would have kept a lot of allied tank crews alive instead of being burned to death in the catastrophic explosions and fires that were fueled by the gasoline.

More armor wouldn't have been a bad idea either. If they had had a bigger gun capable of knocking out the Tiger we wouldn't have lost so many trying to get around behind the german tanks for a shot at the engine.

The germans didnt call em Tommy cookers for nothing.

British troops called the Sherman the Ronson (a brand of lighter at the time)

The Sherman go the name Ronson from the popular Canadian cigarette lighter that had the sales pitch of "Always lights the first time", and by all accounts this name was used by the Allies as well as the Germans.  

[BillSlim]

Another option that would have helped in saving lives would have been the switch to diesel engines instead of relying on gasoline/spark ignition engines

The trouble with Diesel then was that it froze in the winter.

IIRC the Allies assigned different priorities to various fuels. I think diesel was assigned to something other than the army, I think to the navy, for submarines and some escorts.

We could have shifted to diesel engines in tanks, but I don't think that there was enough diesel available to fulfill both the needs of the army and navy, hence the retention of petrol.

[jcf]

British troops called the Sherman the Ronson (a brand of lighter at the time)

The Sherman go the name Ronson from the popular Canadian cigarette lighter that had the sales pitch of "Always lights the first time", and by all accounts this name was used by the Allies as well as the Germans.

Ronson was, and is, an American company. The English subsidiary company was opened in the '30s.

They still produce some of their classic designs.

Cheers, Jon

[Geoff]

Another option that would have helped in saving lives would have been the switch to diesel engines instead of relying on gasoline/spark ignition engines

The trouble with Diesel then was that it froze in the winter.

Didn't seem to worry the Russians    

[BillSlim]

I think that the Soviets used a special additive that was not available to us in the West.
IIRC they never used lead in petrol either.

[Madoc]

Folks,

As you might imagine, this is a subject that has seen a _LOT_ of discussion.  Some things to bear in mind here.

When first introduced to combat, at El Alamein in October of '42, the Sherman was one of the best tanks in the world.  It was heavily armored, packed a very powerful canon, was fast, and easy to maintain.  It was an excellent balance for a modern armored fighting vehicle.  It was also much better than what the Army had in its inventory just a year prior.  And the Sherman was destined to be available in overwhelming numbers.  As such, it was a world beater.  In 1942.  And it remained so well into 1943.

After that the Germans introduced their next generation of tanks and those were quite a bit better than what the Sherman could muster.

By that time however, we had committed our production efforts to the Sherman and eventually we made over 49,000 of the things.  This was also one of the major reasons the type was kept on the frontline - the Allied planners knew there would always be a lot of such tanks at hand so we could sustain high loss rates and still prevail.

The Sherman was available in plentiful numbers, was easy to maintain, was fast, for a tank, and it also fit with US tank doctrine.  Here to is one more explanation for the Sherman's shortcomings.  US armored warfare doctrine envisioned few tank on tank engagements.  Instead, tanks like the Sherman were designed specifically for infantry support.  The destruction of enemy tanks was a task supposed to be taken care of by specialized vehicles known as tank destroyers.  These being the US M-10, M-18 and M-36 designs.  Thus, it didn't matter that our main battle tank, the Sherman, couldn't handle a one on one engagement with German Tigers or Panthers as such things would not occur on the battlefield.  This, at least as specified in American tank doctrine.  Realty, however, must not have read the US Army tank warfare manual.

With little else in the way of choice, our war planners forged ahead with what we had.  Crucial to this, I think, was the awareness that the only way our forces could defeat German armor was through superior numbers.  Thus, any effort which might draw away resources - and thus reduce the number of Shermans on hand - was not seen favorably.  

So, changing out the lightweight and highly reliable gasoline fueled radial aircraft engine which powered the Shermans for a "safer" diesel was seen as too great a risk.  Making such a change could easily mean disaster for the production lines if the new diesel engine proved problematic.  The radial engine was tried and true and readily available.  The main gun on the Sherman was about all the could be fit into its turret.  Mounting a larger caliber gun would mean a larger turret and that would mean a larger turret ring.  Manufacturing that was a bottleneck in the industrial process.  The Shermans had cast hulls by that point and a wider diameter turret ring would have meant more changes there too.

The British were only able to shoehorn in that 17pdr gun by turning the thing upside down from its normal mounting.  It was no small feat of engineering to get that much bigger a gun inside the Sherman's rather cramped turret.

In the end, we went with what we had.  The planners and generals knew that doing so would mean higher losses in the armor units.  They also felt that these could be mitigated through the use of proper combined arms fighting.  And that is the final piece as to explaining why the Sherman stayed on the field for so long.  Even though it was clearly outclassed by its German opponents, the Allies felt that with the other advantages we had that it was worth the risk to keep using.  In cases where our units could be expected to encounter German armor - the overwhelming air superiority of the Allies would take care of the problem.  That plus the overwhelming number of Sherman tanks would surround and overrun the relatively few and relatively immobile German tanks.  Combine this with the Allied superiority in being able to call in quick and accurate artillery fire, and it was felt that despite the individual superiority of Germany's latest tanks, the Sherman could still win the day in the end.

All that being said, there's no way I would have wanted to be a Sherman tanker in 1944 onwards.

Madoc

[nev]

You do make a good point that the Sherman matched up well against the Pz.III & Pz.IV, and its arrival in the desert was a real boon to the British who at last had a tank that could do all the things their German opponents could, such as fire HE and AP!  (gasp!).  Or fire its main gun from a hull down position....

The US could have got the Pershing in service earlier, but the generals didn't want to interrupt the training & equiping of divisions with a new piece of kit  :dum:

Whereas the British introduction of the Comet was delayed by the Battle of teh Bulge, at least one AD had been withdrawn to re-equip, but then had to be thrown back into the front line with their Shermies to plug gaps.

There's some interesting articles on Russian use of the Sherman on Battlefield.ru, lots of positive things said about it from a tankers POV, even when compared to the T-34.

[jcf]

So, changing out the lightweight and highly reliable gasoline fueled radial aircraft engine which powered the Shermans for a "safer" diesel was seen as too great a risk.  Making such a change could easily mean disaster for the production lines if the new diesel engine proved problematic.  The radial engine was tried and true and readily available. 

Well now, in reality the  Sherman used a variety of engines in its various sub-types:
Continental R974 C4; 9 cylinder, 4 cycle, radial gasoline
General Motors 6046; 12 cylinder (6/engine), 2 cycle, twin in-line diesel
Ford GAA; 8 cylinder, 4 cycle, 60° vee gasoline
Continental R975 C1; 9 cylinder, 4 cycle, radial gasoline
Chrysler A57; 30 cylinder, 4 cycle, multibank gasoline
Ordnance Engine RD-1820; 9 cylinder, 4 cycle, radial diesel
Continental R975 C4; 9 cylinder, 4 cycle, radial gasoline

The Ford V-8 and the GM Twin 6 Diesel were both very common.
The M4A2 (8053 accepted by the government) and the M4A2(76)W (2,915 accepted) were powered by the GM diesel. Total 10,968. Roughly 22% of Sherman production.

The M4A3 (1690 accepted), M4A3(75mm)W (3071 accepted), M4A3(76)W (1400 accepted), M4A3(105) (500 accepted), M4A3E2 (254 accepted), M4A3(76)W HVSS (3142 accepted), M4A3(105) HVSS (2539 accepted) were all powered by the Ford GAA V-8. Total 12,596. Roughly 25% of Sherman production.

So a little better than 1 in 5 were diesel powered and 1 in 4 were powered by the Ford V-8.

So much for not interfering with production by changing engine type.

Cheers, Jon