Myths about WW2 US tanks.

Manic Moran

Greetings.

I'm going to plug myself a little bit, here, this is a talk I gave a couple weeks ago about US tanks in WWII. Hopefully it should challenge one or two misconceptions you may have.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNjp_4jY8pY

Horse84

Manic Moran wrote: »

Greetings.

I'm going to plug myself a little bit, here, this is a talk I gave a couple weeks ago about US tanks in WWII. Hopefully it should challenge one or two misconceptions you may have.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNjp_4jY8pY

Good vid thanks for sharing.
One thing that crossed my mind, while watching was what was have u had any feedback on your take on the Sherman being more than adequate for its role. The impression I always take from listening to veteran tankers, be they American or British, is that they always felt and still do that they didn't have a whole lot of faith in its ability of survivability. The stats you have there obviously don't lie, I'm just curious as to see how they react to it.

tac foley

My father - and many like him - spent the second world war from 6th June 1944 to the end attempting to get Sherman tanks back into working order after they were recovered from Normany and the Low Countries, and eventually, the German homeland.

The figures are compelling - the losses of Sherman tanks were out of all proportion to the numbers of German tanks destroyed in turn by them. I still have, as a door stop, a 75mm solid shot that was recovered from Shoeburyness gunnery ranges after having been used on the gunnery trials of a captured PaK43. There is little evidence to show for its journey through TWO Shermans side by side. The 88mm shot, also in my possession, went through a Sherman hull at the RH transmission bulge and exited the rear of the vehicle with enough ooomph to require a fifteen foot long probe to find it in the backstop.

Both were fired at 1000m.

I suggest that you read any of Ken Tout's books about the tanks in Normandy or the subsequent battles into Germany before making a final judgement on just how good the Sherman really was by comparision with even the MkIV with the long 75mm gun and its amazing optics.

It was a death trap, of that there can be no doubt - even the much-vaunted Firefly variant with its undoubted Panzer killing gun was still only a Sherman in the end. Ask the Sherbrookes who took part in Op Goodwood, who lost almost a hundred of them one fine morning in Normandy.

tac

Del2005

Horse84 wrote: »

Good vid thanks for sharing.
One thing that crossed my mind, while watching was what was have u had any feedback on your take on the Sherman being more than adequate for its role. The impression I always take from listening to veteran tankers, be they American or British, is that they always felt and still do that they didn't have a whole lot of faith in its ability of survivability. The stats you have there obviously don't lie, I'm just curious as to see how they react to it.

IIRC they knew that it wasn't up to spec but changing the production lines over to a more capable one would have cost more time to win. Which is the opposite of the what Germans' did who kept producing amazing tanks but not in the volumes needed to win.

Manic Moran

tac foley wrote: »

My father - and many like him - spent the second world war from 6th June 1944 to the end attempting to get Sherman tanks back into working order after they were recovered from Normany and the Low Countries, and eventually, the German homeland.

The figures are compelling - the losses of Sherman tanks were out of all proportion to the numbers of German tanks destroyed in turn by them. I still have, as a door stop, a 75mm solid shot that was recovered from Shoeburyness gunnery ranges after having been used on the gunnery trials of a captured PaK43. There is little evidence to show for its journey through TWO Shermans side by side. The 88mm shot, also in my possession, went through a Sherman hull at the RH transmission bulge and exited the rear of the vehicle with enough ooomph to require a fifteen foot long probe to find it in the backstop.

Both were fired at 1000m.

I suggest that you read any of Ken Tout's books about the tanks in Normandy or the subsequent battles into Germany before making a final judgement on just how good the Sherman really was by comparision with even the MkIV with the long 75mm gun and its amazing optics.

It was a death trap, of that there can be no doubt - even the much-vaunted Firefly variant with its undoubted Panzer killing gun was still only a Sherman in the end. Ask the Sherbrookes who took part in Op Goodwood, who lost almost a hundred of them one fine morning in Normandy.

tac

Tac, have you actually watched the video, or looked up the numbers of what killed what? There absolutely can be a doubt about it being a death trap. An American rifleman was six times more likely to be killed than an American tanker. British Sherman crews took casualties at the same rate as Cromwell and Comet.

The standard M4 was not an assault tank, true, though being used as one (M4a3E2 variant notwithstanding), but it was what the Western allies brought. Good wood was something of an exception. For every Goodwood, there's an Arracourt.

Manic Moran

Horse84 wrote: »

Good vid thanks for sharing.
One thing that crossed my mind, while watching was what was have u had any feedback on your take on the Sherman being more than adequate for its role. The impression I always take from listening to veteran tankers, be they American or British, is that they always felt and still do that they didn't have a whole lot of faith in its ability of survivability. The stats you have there obviously don't lie, I'm just curious as to see how they react to it.

Unfortunately, it's all about perception. A huge portion of the Death Traps mythos today, for example, comes from the Cooper book of the name. Cooper came to his conclusion after seeing scores of friendly knocked out tanks come to his workshop for repair. He would not have seen the not-knocked out friendly tanks, as they wouldn't be in need of repair. Nor would he have seen the knocked out enemy tanks, as nobody would have tried to repair it, If he didn't look into the stats, and only saw the knocked out friendly tanks, his perception is inherently going to be skewed from reality.

I suspect something similar will happen to the crews themselves. They are inherently going to remember their losses more than their kills: Their friends and colleagues mean something to them. Plus they are far less interested in the big picture than they are about their personal survival. A tanker will never have enough armour to suit him.

Horse84

Manic Moran wrote: »

Unfortunately, it's all about perception. A huge portion of the Death Traps mythos today, for example, comes from the Cooper book of the name. Cooper came to his conclusion after seeing scores of friendly knocked out tanks come to his workshop for repair. He would not have seen the not-knocked out friendly tanks, as they wouldn't be in need of repair. Nor would he have seen the knocked out enemy tanks, as nobody would have tried to repair it, If he didn't look into the stats, and only saw the knocked out friendly tanks, his perception is inherently going to be skewed from reality.

I suspect something similar will happen to the crews themselves. They are inherently going to remember their losses more than their kills: Their friends and colleagues mean something to them. Plus they are far less interested in the big picture than they are about their personal survival. A tanker will never have enough armour to suit him.

Cheers for addressing that. It's an interesting topic. I'd still like to be there if u were giving that talk to a bunch of veteran Sherman tankers however:)

Jawgap

Iirc, the Sherman was conceived as a "swarmer" in line, at the time, with American ideas of using mass and concentration when it came to force.

It was intended to be used in large numbers and to break in to defences by overwhelming them, and still have the necessary speed etc to rapidly move to exploit the breakthrough.

When used as conceived it was pretty successful, when used in fewer numbers - such as the way the British liked to use tanks - it was less successful.

tac foley

Manic Moran wrote: »

Tac, have you actually watched the video, or looked up the numbers of what killed what? There absolutely can be a doubt about it being a death trap. An American rifleman was six times more likely to be killed than an American tanker. British Sherman crews took casualties at the same rate as Cromwell and Comet.

The standard M4 was not an assault tank, true, though being used as one (M4a3E2 variant notwithstanding), but it was what the Western allies brought. Good wood was something of an exception. For every Goodwood, there's an Arracourt.

Yes, I watched and enjoyed your somewhat light-hearted presentation. It served to put US tank development and production into perspective, especially where the 'Pershing' was concerned.

However, the general impression that I got from both my father and from the veteran Sherman tanker Ken Tout, whose books you may have heard of, were a lot less light-hearted, as are the regimental histories of the Lord Strathcona's Horse and Sherbrooke's

My late Uncle Micky, who was on the 'other side' from 1938 until February 1945, was quite scathing about the M4 and its variants. He was in Normandy from early May 1944, and therefore in action during the invasion, in whose aftermath he a gained his second close-quarter combat award [as a signaller, that was quite rare]. He was also upgraded to a First Class EK. He once told me that he had never actually seen a Sherman in motion. Ken Tout's dramatic and first-person reviews in his books make no bones about the inherent frailties of the Sherman, in particular its towering height.

I commend them to anybody who cares to learn what it was really like to fight from a Sherman against an enemy who had overwhelmingly superior optics, for a start.

So I guess that we are never going to agree - you, a tanker, think that the sun shone out of the Sherman's mufflers. My dad, who worked 18 hours a day trying to fix them, Ken Tout, who had a a few of them shot out from around him, and saw his pals slaughtered around him, and my Uncle, who never saw one moving under its own power, have a very different POV.

tac

Manic Moran

I'm not going to say it shone out the mufflers, but it was a lot better than it is given credit for.

Wibbs

OK just a tad late to the party here… but very interesting presentation MM and I'd agree it was a lot better than it was given credit. All military designs are compromises to one degree or other, but the Sherman wasn't a bad balance of same. As you say a lot of this is about perception. Goes for other "icons" of WW2 to boot. Propaganda, both at the time and since, operators personal affections even aesthetics have influence.

The classic example of this is the Supermarine Spitfire. Gorgeous looking aircraft, extremely scalable as the many improved marks showed and a very nice balance of compromises, but compromises there were. Low range an obvious one, not really addressed until the P-51 came along. Unbalanced controls another issue. Extremely light elevators, but stiff ailerons that got stiffer with speed and she was under ruddered in the early versions. The lack of fuel injection/neg G carbs again in the early versions meant any sort of negative G maneuverer had the engine farting and spluttering. Not great in a dog fight. It was also a thundering bugger to build in the first place, the wings especially causing headaches and delays. The Hawker Hurricane though slower was easier and cheaper to build, a more stable gun platform, more balanced controls and easier to fly(and handle on the ground) and could take more damage and be repaired more quickly, yet remains the lesser in both the public eye and even many historians and enthusiasts. Even though in the Battle of Britain it was the aircraft with the most kills, every German fighter pilot shot down would claim he was hit by a Spitfire. On the other side and in keeping with the misconceptions of ineffectiveness of some weapons the JU 87 Stuka wasn't nearly so hopeless as later opinion holds*. Quite the opposite, it was one of the most effective and successful weapon platforms of the war on any side.



*and that includes in the Battle of Britain BTW. EG the precision Stuka raid on Tangmere aerodrome involved 100 aircraft and did a lot of damage(one Stuka even taking out a pursuing Hurricane), yet the losses amounted to 9 total and a further 7 damaged. They were withdrawn and vulnerability was a part of that, but other considerations were in play and they were only withdrawn from overland raids, they continued channel raids, dropping bombs into anything larger than a rowboat and shutting down the English channel to daytime shipping and kept that up into 1941.

Stallingrad

Fascinating reading, keep going please!

Wibbs

Only this morning I thought of a great example of how myths can grow out of all proportion. The Luftwaffe "superfighter" the Heinkel HE 113. T'is a long and interesting story, but the thumbnail sketch is that the various allies were hearing tell of a BF 109 replacement that was superior across the board to any allied fighter of the time. A supposed quote from Goering went; "the Spitfires are all but scrap metal now". A French diplomat and expert in aviation was buzzed by one "by mistake" on a visit to a German air field before the war and caught a glimpse of another one on the ground. It broke the world speed record for a single engined plane. It was regularly reported in Battle of Britain RAF reports where British pilots had been jumped and chased off by these high altitude extremely fast fighters with heavy armament. Recognition templates were drawn up and tactics to deal with the aircraft in combat(run like hell basically) A few were shot down, or claimed damaged. Captured German air crew mentioned it, one even saying that it was a superlative aircraft but too complex to fly and he was glad to go back to his ME 109. It proved itself in combat in the Norwegian and Danish campaigns and photos of the aircraft were heavily featured in German and British publications.

Yet today we hear nada about it. Why? It never existed. Yep. Pure prewar scare potential enemies of the Reich propaganda* and pictures of a couple of experimental HE 100's were jazzed up in different squadron colours and roles to make it stick and it got outa hand. The mention of it quietly went away after the war when it became clear how so many had been convinced and fooled by it's existence in combat operations and it had been a major fear of Dowding and others.





*Another trick was when visiting types arrived in Germany they'd be shown one airfield full of bombers one day and the next brought to another airfield equally chock a block, only they were the same bombers. That really put the wind up the French among others.

my3cents

A quote from Belton Cooper.

“The 3rd Armored Division entered combat in Normandy with 232 M4 Sherman tanks. During the European Campaign, the Division had some 648 Sherman tanks completely destroyed in combat and we had another 700 knocked out, repaired and put back into operation. This was a loss rate of 580 percent."

So as an average every tank in the division was replaced more than 5 times during combat. That didn't leave many undamage tanks for Cooper to see.

Sorry internet connection far to poor to watch the video.

my3cents

A quote from Belton Cooper.

“The 3rd Armored Division entered combat in Normandy with 232 M4 Sherman tanks. During the European Campaign, the Division had some 648 Sherman tanks completely destroyed in combat and we had another 700 knocked out, repaired and put back into operation. This was a loss rate of 580 percent."

So as an average every tank in the division was replaced more than 5 times during combat. That didn't leave many undamage tanks for Cooper to see.

Sorry internet connection far to poor to watch the video.

tac foley

This - to reinforce my3cents' post - 'Tabulating the results of this mismatch, Cooper highlights the staggering cost of the Army's flawed choice for its main battle tank. Over the next 11 months, the Third Armored Division, which began the Normandy campaign with 232 M4 tanks, would see 648 of its Shermans destroyed in combat, with another 700 knocked out of commission before being repaired and returned to service - a cumulative loss rate of 580 percent. Casualties among tank crews also skyrocketed, producing an acute shortage of qualified personnel. By late 1944, Cooper recalls, the Army was sending newly arrived infantrymen into combat as replacement tank crews. Some of these recruits received only one day of armor training before being dispatched to the front in their M4s.'

My dad was doing the same thing as Mr Cooper, but for the British and Canadians. 'Casualties among tank crews skyrocketed' is hardly a comment based on myth and legend.

AFAICS, the only positive view to take is that the Allies could quickly replace their shot-to-sh*t tanks and crews, and the opposition could not.

tac

BrownTrout

The sherman was an infantry support vehicle, it was never designed as a tank killer until the British came up with the firefly.

American tank doctrine also dictated that tank killing be left to tank destroyers such as the M18 Hellcat.

Also it's hard enough to compare the rate of German Tigers knocked out to the sherman as there was so few of them

Azza

As a medium tank during the second world war I'd opt for the Sherman over a PIV or any version of the overated T-34. It was well out classed by the Panther.

I've a bit of interest in WW2 but just thinking about it, I know almost nothing about British tanks or how they where regarded.

silverharp

At the end of the day German Tigers had to fight US and British ground attack fighters as well as tanks. Was it factored into the US strategy at all that they would be fighting with air superiority?

Aenaes

The Sherman was a good enough counter for any German tank, apart from the Panther, Tiger and Tiger II. The three "cats" were still a minority in German armoured forces.

The biggest threat was from anti-tank guns and Panzerfäuste and having a "better" tank than the M4 wouldn't have stopped them from being knocked out by those weapons.

Then there's the reliability and fuel consumption factor. The Allies had to mount an offensive from the English Channel into Germany itself. A Panther wouldn't have had a hope of completing the distances the Shermans did.
Fuel consumption might be scoffed at considering the amount of resources the United States had but the problem was trying to get those resources (particularly fuel for tanks) to the front-line. I've read accounts of men in Third Army under General Patton, removing signage and pretending to be other units to scrounge more fuel for their tanks.
A bigger, heavier tank would have consumed more fuel and would have to be replenished more often, which may not have been possible and probably have led to less offensives or more offensives bogging down.

Although, getting petrol to a Panther might have been easier if it was only 25 KMs away from Normandy having broken down.

TerrorFirmer

It's easy to compare the Sherman negatively to the Tiger and Panther, but realistically, they were a minority of German armored forces. And the Tiger was pretty reliable but the Panther was not, at all. The later variant models of the Sherman were pretty on-par or better than the Panzer IV and it's later variants, which were a pretty common foe. The Tiger and Panther were also much weaker without infantry support than the Sherman was. I forget the name of the battle but there's a well known case in France where numerically inferior US forces armed with the M4 75mm overwhelming destroyed a German armour attack which was mostly compromised of Panthers.

Victor

my3cents wrote: »

“The 3rd Armored Division entered combat in Normandy with 232 M4 Sherman tanks. During the European Campaign, the Division had some 648 Sherman tanks completely destroyed in combat and we had another 700 knocked out, repaired and put back into operation. This was a loss rate of 580 percent."

Is 234 tanks under-strength for a tank division?

my3cents

Victor wrote: »

Is 234 tanks under-strength for a tank division?

The 3rd Armoured Division wasn't just a tank division, it included artillery, infantry, signals and engineers. Also as the 3rd was a Heavy Division they had more tanks than a Light Division. 232 was afaik the official tank strength of the division during WWII.

Manic Moran

My3, the problem with Cooper's quotes is that it provides figures with no context whatsoever.

Yes, untrained personnel were being thrown into tanks and being declared tankers. The situation within Armored Command, however, was nowhere near as bad as it was within the rifle ranks, where the substantially higher rates of casualties resulted in no small amount of untrained personnel personnel being thrown into a rifle squad and being declared infantrymen. Given that the figures indicate that a tanker was six times more likely to survive the war than a rifleman, the infantry branch's problem (even if they prioritized infantry replacements) is not surprising. The problem was not unique to tankers, and it is a fallacy to presume that it was the cause of deficient tanks. After all, nobody blames the infantryman' equipment for their loss rates. It is worth pointing out that the Germans were similarly using untrained crewmen by the end of the war.

Similarly the loss rate of tanks themselves are absent context. How many tanks did the division have operable at any time? That's far more important than how many times they visited the repair shop. It's also absent a comparison to other types of tank.

Brown trout, the first two parts of your post are incorrect.

Silver harp. It was assumed that there would be air support, but not necessarily superiority.

Jawgap

Reading an account recently of the Ardennes - Alsace Campaign ("the Battle of the Bulge") there was an interesting couple of anecdotes.

First there was the story of the Sherman that covered over 560 miles without any maintenance, then there was an account of the Germans trying to figure out if you could get a Panther to cover 80 problem-free kilometres at night. Peiper answered that question by taking one out.

Lots of firsthand stories of Sherman's being destroyed or damaged beyond repair, but plenty of other stories of Panthers and Tigers being similarly destroyed by Shermans, bazooka teams, guys with cans of gasoline and - in at least one instance - by a Greyhound armoured car with it's 37mm cannon.

Victor

I think those disagreeing with Manic are somewhat close to 'being precious'. The tanks weren't death traps, the war was.

my3cents wrote: »

The 3rd Armoured Division wasn't just a tank division, it included artillery, infantry, signals and engineers. Also as the 3rd was a Heavy Division they had more tanks than a Light Division. 232 was afaik the official tank strength of the division during WWII.

Still, 234 is less than 4 battalions of tanks, which seems light for an armoured division.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Given that the figures indicate that a tanker was six times more likely to survive the war than a rifleman,

Do you mean that a rifleman was six times more likely to be killed?

Jawgap wrote: »

First there was the story of the Sherman that covered over 560 miles without any maintenance,

Easy if it was being carried on a train. However, is that (a) no maintenance (b) no heavy maintenance (c) no recorded maintenance.

However, there will always be exceptions and exceptions, by definition aren't representative of the whole. Many soldiers would have survived the war without visiting a hospital. That doesn't mean they weren't injured.

Jawgap

Victor wrote: »

..........

Easy if it was being carried on a train. However, is that (a) no maintenance (b) no heavy maintenance (c) no recorded maintenance.

.........

Zero maintenance if I recall. The mileage was accumulated by being driven too.

There's also a story of how an M4 got into a fight with a Tiger and 'defeated' it by driving around it and around it, using the M4 turret's higher traverse rate to get shots off as it circled - the Tiger was eventually finished off when the guy's wingman arrived without the Tiger's distracted, and probably dizzy, crew noticing.

The book is Beevor's 'Ardennes 1944.'

Manic Moran

Victor wrote: »

Do you mean that a rifleman was six times more likely to be killed?

In the U.S. Army, at least, yes. I don't have figures for other nations or branches. The full figures are in the video somewhere.

my3cents

Victor wrote: »

I think those disagreeing with Manic are somewhat close to 'being precious'. The tanks weren't death traps, the war was.

Still, 234 is less than 4 battalions of tanks, which seems light for an armoured division.

....

Having made a point of reading as many Belton bashing posts online as I could find I couldn't find anything to disagree with the number of tanks in a Division so I went to an author Steven J Zaloga that I found quoted by a guy debunking "Death Traps".

The figures he gives for a US tank battalion (Osprey-Battle Orders US Armoured Divisions. The European Theater of War 1943-45) are just 53 Sherman M4 tanks. Then there's another 3 Shermans for each Artillery Battalion making the total 56 so 224 in a Heavy Armoured Division. So that authority would indicate the number quoted of 232 to by high rather than low. There would have also been a small number (24?) 105 mm M4's in a Heavy Division which were artillery and also 100 light tanks M5A1 used for recon.

The same authority gives the 3rd Armoured Division as loosing 632 Medium tanks (Sherman was a medium tank) Cooper says 648.

BlaasForRafa

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

It's easy to compare the Sherman negatively to the Tiger and Panther, but realistically, they were a minority of German armored forces. And the Tiger was pretty reliable but the Panther was not, at all. The later variant models of the Sherman were pretty on-par or better than the Panzer IV and it's later variants, which were a pretty common foe. The Tiger and Panther were also much weaker without infantry support than the Sherman was. I forget the name of the battle but there's a well known case in France where numerically inferior US forces armed with the M4 75mm overwhelming destroyed a German armour attack which was mostly compromised of Panthers.

Arracourt. I've scanned pages from the relevant section of Osprey's Campaign book "Lorraine".

http://imgur.com/qOvbt7c
http://imgur.com/JV8fYXD

When comparing the Sherman with the German tanks of the time you have to take into account the people inside the tanks and those leading them. The German army of 1944-45 was a shadow of the 1939-43 army, with major deficiencies in pretty much every area not the least of which is the training of it's panzer crews. Also it must be remembered that the vast majority of the Heer and Waffen SS were on the eastern front facing the soviets.

Arracourt demonstrates superior leadership and training of the US tank crews and also the lack of reconnaissance by the german tank columns, blundering about in the fog like that, what on earth were they thinking.

Regarding the Sherman, perhaps it's the reputation it got as a "tommy-cooker" or "Ronson" that made it seem much worse than it was. Maybe troops seeing a Sherman brewing-up or burnt out brought out the instinctive fear of being burned alive and made them think "good god I wouldn't want to be stuck in one of those"?

silverharp

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

When comparing the Sherman with the German tanks of the time you have to take into account the people inside the tanks and those leading them. The German army of 1944-45 was a shadow of the 1939-43 army, with major deficiencies in pretty much every area not the least of which is the training of it's panzer crews. Also it must be remembered that the vast majority of the Heer and Waffen SS were on the eastern front facing the soviets.

I'd come down on the side that it didnt matter , there were no grand tank battles in the West in 44 and Tigers I assume were designed to gain an advantage on the Russian Steppes, not to be dug into farm buildings and rattling around French villages.

TerrorFirmer

silverharp wrote: »

I'd come down on the side that it didnt matter , there were no grand tank battles in the West in 44 and Tigers I assume were designed to gain an advantage on the Russian Steppes, not to be dug into farm buildings and rattling around French villages.

It did matter, there are quite a few accounts of superior armored German forces loosing to Allied armored forces in local engagements due to crew ineptitude.

Although you are right, the Panther in particular performed pretty badly in France. It wasn't suitable for the terrain and the way it was designed made it extremely difficult to protect against infantry attack, which made it incredibly vulnerable compared to say the PzIV.