M4A1 sherman vs StuG III ausf. G - what were the odds in favor of the Sherman?

M4A1 sherman vs StuG III ausf. G - what were the odds in favor of the Sherman?


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

We've all heard stories after stories of how a lone Tiger or Panther made a practical scrapyard of Shermans by ambushing all day.

But I can't find enough information on what happened when a Sherman would come across a StuG III G (or any other variant of it).

I have many questions regarding this, such as:

  1. What was the survival rate of Shermans against StuGs?
  2. What was standard practice against the StuG as it was hard to kill?
  3. Would every shot from a StuG G penetrate a Sherman if hitting at a decent angle?

The low silhouette of the StuG III (7 feet high vs 9 feet) made it ideal for ambush tactics. Against the Americans it's likely going to be on the defense and well hidden. It will probably get one or two aimed shots off at an advancing Sherman before the M4 can return fire. The StuG III's 75 mm KwK 40 L/48 gun could penetrate the M4A1's front armor at 1000 meters or more (except the gun mantlet).

Unlike other, heavier Wehrmacht armored vehicles, the StuG III was built in large numbers, over 10,000 though the best information I have says only 1,600 were deployed on the Western Front. And it was mechanically reliable. Unlike heavier German tanks which look fearsome on paper but few were built and many broke down, Shermans faced a large number of Stug IIIs.

The most important variable is the M4A1's gun. Is it using the low velocity M3 75mm/L40 gun or the M1 76mm high velocity cannon? Despite its poor anti-armor performance, the 75mm was retained because of it's superior high explosive shell. US tanks spent most of their time fighting infantry.

If our M4A1 has the 75mm gun, it's in trouble. It will struggle to penetrate the StuG III's 80mm of frontal armor at 500 meters. It is seriously outgunned. Its best bet is to fire a white phosphorous round to blind the StuG III while the M4 maneuvers for a side shot, or withdraws and calls in artillery, or calls in a buddy to flank the StuG III. WP could even cause a German crew to panic and bail out believing their vehicle is on fire.

An M4A1 with the 76mm high velocity gun is in a much better position. With a normal AP shell they can reliably penetrate a StuG III at 1000 meters. With an HVAP (High Velocity Armor Piercing) shell they could do it at 2500 meters. Unlike the Germans, the US was well supplied with specialty ammunition. If they can see the StuG III, they can destroy it.

In a close range fight, the M4 has some clear advantages. Not only does the M4 have a turret, but it has a powered turret allowing it to put the gun on target fast. The StuG III lacked a turret and could only traverse their gun about 25 degrees, and had to do it manually, before they had to turn the entire hull, a clumsy operation after which the gunner would have to reacquire the target.

Armored vehicles, if they're smart, don't operate alone. They operate with infantry. Here, the M4A1 has the advantage. The M4A1 was well suited to fighting infantry with three machine guns (a 30 cal in the bow, another mounted co-axially, and a commander's 50 cal), two of which could be fired while buttoned up. The StuG III G usually had only one machine gun. It was mounted behind a gun shield on top of the vehicle meaning a crewman had to expose themselves to operate it. Some StuG IIIs were modified with a co-axial machine gun as well.

Unfortunately I don't have specific M4 vs StuG III statistics. For further reading you might look into Steven Zaloga's books particularly M10 Tank Destroyer vs StuG III Assault Gun. The M10 was built on the M4 chassis, and carried a 3-inch gun similar to the M4's 76mm. On the other hand, it lacked armor and had an abysmally slow turret.


It really depends on a number of factors.

Who has control of the engagement? Distance to target? Is the armor angled thereby improving the effective cross section? The list could go on. What variant of the M4(M4A1, A2, etc.)? What about the skill and experience of the crew? All these directly impact the outcome, but take these and other factors out of the equation and set up a straight "head to head" engagement in 1944 at 500 meters, with an M4A1 using the M1 76mm firing APCBC and the StuG III Ausf. G using the 7.5cm KwK 40 L/48 firing APCBC, the M4 might survive the first salvo. Again this is totally dependent on on all other factors being equal save those of the vehicles, guns and ammunition as they were at that time.

Hope I helped.


As nerdy teenagers, me and my high school buddies wargamed this type of confrontation out with miniatures on a living room floor using simultaneous movement rules, a pair of dice for combat resolution, and what data we had on the performance of both vehicles. In head-to-head matchups, both vehicles were approximately equal in terms of speed, firepower, and armor. The Sturmgeschutz with the short 75 mm howitzer wasn't as effective against armor as the Shermans or the Sturmgeshutz with the long-barreled anti-tank canon. We didn't have any models of the 76mm equipped Shermans.


The Stug series, including the Stug III, were self-propelled infantry support guns. The other primarily infantry support weapons used in anti-tank roles included towed anti-tank guns, the infamous 88, and personal weapons such as the panzerfaust and panzerschreck.

The US lost a lot more tanks to infantry support weapons than it lost to tank on tank combat simply because the US was attacking most of the time. Of those losses the Stug III probably killed the most tanks, more than the 88. It's just that US soldiers blamed 'the 88' for any kills where they could not identify the source of fire, and even some that they could.

Tank on tank losses are greatly overstated. There are some notable instances, particularly with the most ubiquitous models (M4, M4A1 and M4A3). The later Shermans had better performance. For example the M4E8 of Brad Pitt fame had a reasonably powerful gun and in ETO it had additional appliqué armor to to 6 inches in the front. Despite the Brad Pitt movie, the ETO version of the M4E8 could actually penetrate the Tiger I's armor at a greater range then the Tiger I could penetrate the M4E8's armor. However, movie producers play to misconceptions rather than realities.


Republic of Finland (WW2)

The Finns have been fighting since at least the Bronze age (1500-500BC) with evidences of hill forts, swords and battle axes being found at numerous sites across the country. Finland and its people have been mentioned in Nordic Sagas, Germanic/Russian Chronicles and local Swedish Legends.

When the area now known as Finland was absorbed into the Swedish Empire in 1352, its people were also absorbed into its military apparatus. Until the end of the Swedish era of Finland in 1808, Finnish soldiers had fought in at least 38 wars of note for Sweden, whether they be during the power struggles of the Swedish Royals or in wars between Sweden and other nations.

After the 1808-1809 Finnish War, Finland was given up by Sweden to Russia. Russia formed Finland as ‘The Grand Duchy of Finland’, which allowed it a degree of autonomy. In this period, Finland’s first first indigenous military units were formed, first in 1812, before culminating in a fully separate territorial style military between 1881-1901. During this time, one rifle battalion was given Guards status and fought during the Polish and Hungarian uprisings (1831 and 1849 respectively), as well as in the Russo-Turkish war of 1877-78. Finns garnered a reputation for military professionalism and stubbornness.

By the turn of the 20th century, troubles within the Russian Empire, coupled with a rise in Finnish national revival, sowed the seeds for an independent Finland. Between 1904 and 1917, paramilitaries started to form within Finland, with the goal of Finnish independence. After gaining its independence in 1917, Finland was plunged into a civil war between the ‘Red Guards’, consisting mainly of Communist and Social Democrats, and the ‘White Guards’, consisting of Republicans, Conservatives, Monarchists, Centralists and Agarians. After over 3 months of bitter fighting, the Whites won, with many Reds escaping across the border into Russia.

After the Civil War, the Finnish Army (Suomen Armeija) was formed. This force was based on conscription and, despite a growing economy, was poorly equipped. What it lacked in equipment it made up for with professionalism and ‘Sisu’ (a word roughly translated to stubborness and guts). Between its birth in 1918 to present day it saw itself involved in 3 major conflicts, the Winter War (1939-40), the Continuation War (1941-1944) and the Lapland War (1944-45).


Sherman Tank Site Post 73: Articles from Army Motors Episode one, Give Your Tank a Brake!

This is the first in a series of posts I’m going to do highlighting the Sherman or M4 series-related vehicle, articles I’ve found. With some commentary, though some of these articles are so good they speak for themselves.

Give Your Tank a Brake!

This article surprised me, because in the world of 4 wheel drive, compression braking is commonly used to control a vehicle on steep hill descents, and some vehicles have very low gears in their transfer case for this purpose, among others. I bought a Jeep Rubicon because it came with a Transfercase to do this.

A tank is not a Jeep though, so I clearly get the point of the article. Also, as for using the engine to brake, I’ve never been big on downshifting for that reason, even in cars and Jeeps. I once had a conversation with my wife, who was big on downshifting, about the cost and labor of a new set of brake pads, versus a new clutch. She agreed once we talked about the labor involved.


After this

Generalleutnant Diepold George Heinrich Freiherr von Lüttwitz was commanding officer of the 2nd Panzer Division from 27 May 1944 to 31 August 1944. He was born on 6 December 1896 and died on 9 October 1969. His family were members of the landed nobility of Prussia. He served in both World Wars. He competed as part of the German Olympic equestrian team in the 1936 Summer games but failed to obtain an Olympic medal which did not go down too well with the Nazi regime. He later went on to command the XLVII Panzer Corps (47th Panzer Corps) during the Battle of the Bulge which included 2 Panzer Division during December 1944 – January 1945. He is perhaps best known for requesting the surrender of the 101St Airborne Regiment in Bastogne, and received the reply back, “Nuts”.

The 2nd Panzer Division was sent to Verrieres ridge area southwest of Caen after it had been relieved by the 326th Infantry Division. Some of its units took part in Operation Spring but the Division was later moved west to try and halt the American Operation Cobra breakout in Normandy. This failed and they withdrew towards Falaise after taking part in Operation Luttich, a unsuccessful German counter-attack near Mortain. Although encircled in the Falaise Pocket they managed to fight their way through, but with heavy losses of manpower and vehicles.

The Division was refitted in Germany and then took part in the German offensive in the Luxembourg and Belgium Ardennes in December 1944. They were forced to retreat in late December by the US 2nd Armoured Division and the British 3rd Royal Tank Regiment. In the Spring of 1945, they were tasked with stopping the Allied crossing of the River Rhine. Their last combat engagement was in April 1945 near the city of Fulda. On 7 May 1945, the 2nd Panzer Division surrendered to US Forces in north-west Czechoslovakia and Saxony.

The 3rd Panzer Regiment of the 2nd Panzer Division was equipped with Panther tanks which could not utilize their full potential in the bocage. The Panzer Grenadier regiments of the 2nd Panzer Division were equipped with Sd.Kfz.251 half-tracks. The armored opposition to the 2nd Panzer Division consisted of Allied Sherman tanks. All illustration by David Bocquelet.


Geschützwagen Tiger für 17cm Kanone 72(Sf)

This was a heavy self-propelled gun. Tank destroyers without moving turrets such as the Stug were all the rage as the war dragged on, because turrets were complicated and expensive, and you could get 80% of the value of a tank at a fraction of the cost. Turrets also were a supply bottleneck, requiring all sorts of precise moving parts such as numerous ball bearings.

Krupp developed the running gear to use in other projects. A preliminary plan of the GW Tiger, which received the official designation Geschutzwagen Tiger, was ready in early 1943. It was planned to use the self-propelled undercarriage of the Tiger II with an engine capacity of 650 hp - the same used in the Tiger, though that was upgraded to 700 hp later. It was to use a Maybach engine and an Olvar transmission. The main armament was planned as a massive 170-mm gun 17 cm Kanone 72, which could send the 68-kg projectile at a distance of 25,500 meters, or perhaps even a 210-mm howitzer (21cm Morser) with a range of 111-kg projectile about 17,300 meters. The maximum angle for pointing both types of guns in the vertical plane was from +65 ° to -5 °, with a horizontal angle for pointing of 360 °. In view of the large size of these weapons, the tank would only be able to carry 5 rounds as a full load.

For comparison, the Tiger II had an 8.8 cm (88 mm) KwK 43 L/71 gun. So the GW Tiger would have been a massive step up in firepower, along with everything else. It was another manifestation of the "gigantism" which appear in many late-war German designs.

The crew of the GW Tiger would have consisted of eight people: a driver, gunner, commander, gunner and four ammunition handlers (the shells being so huge).

Krupp scrimped on the armor in order to save weight and precious nickel: maximum armor thickness was 60 mm in the front of the chassis, compared to the Tiger II's 185 mm. That would have been justified because this was a weapon to stand back and blast away, not get in the thick of the battle. Fighting weight of this self-propelled guns was estimated at 60 tons, roughly the same as the Tiger II.

The layout and construction of the prototype body on the Tiger II chassis was completed, as the pictures show, but that was it. In February 1945, on the orders of the Minister of Armaments Speer, all work was stopped. The Allies came into possession of the unfinished hull and scrapped it.

There were other, larger projects, but they existed only on paper and were canceled much earlier.


#41 Gallery I, Mixed High Res Sherman Photos, With Comments.

A nice color photo of an M4 stuck in Italy. It’s hard to tell if it is knocked out or just stuck, for the purposes of the fight it was in there is no difference though. The tank still has the M34 gun mount, but is a non-DV hull and has the cast differential cover. A burned out M4A3 76w in Neumarkt, Germany April of 1945. This photo is a testament as to why Armor needs a heavy infantry presence in urban warfare. A knocked out M4A3 75W with concrete armor, in front of an M4A3 76w with similar armor, in the back also knocked out. This is Arnoldsweiler Germany, tank unit unknown, the Doughs(wartime slang for Infantry) are from the 415th regiment of 104 Infantry Division. M4A3 75 from the 761st Tank Battalion supporting the 103rd ID near Nieffer France, this could be a small hatch M4A3 from the first batch Ford made, but its hard to tell from this angle. It looks like the tank has all the qucik fix upgrades. A pair of up-armored, with layers of steel track and sandbags, M4A3 76w Shermans, with the 747th Tank Battalion, Schleiden, 1945. All the added stuff would be removed just about as soon as the war ended. 14th AD M4A3 76w column Hochfeld France 45 A huge pile of rocks, with an M4A3 76W HVSS tank with add-on Armor, parked off to the side. The Easy 8 looks like it’s from the 4th AD, 37th Battalion. it looks like the rocks may be from fortifications German troops made. If you look close, this tank has the up armored front armor and it looks like it has the cheek armor added to the turret as well. M4A3 with the 12th AD in Schneeberg Germany 1945, this tank has a threaded and capped M1A1C and a split loaders hatch. M4A3 75w Shermans with the 9th Armored Division, Westhousen, Germany, 10 April 1945, this picture is interesting, there’s a lot of garbage around the tanks, I wonder how many days they were there? This image shows what was almost the ultimate 75mm Sherman, it has the improved large hatch hull, with Ford GAA motor and wet ammo storage, improved stabilizer, improved periscope sight, all around vision cupola, and oval loaders hatch. All it needs is HVSS suspension, and a large number got that too, though most of the 75mm HVSS tanks had 76mm turrets swapped onto them post-war by the US Army. A pair of 3rd AD M4A1 76w tanks in Schevenhutte 1944, parked in front of St Josef church on September 22, 1944, the wires hanging down are probably communication wires. The tracks on the M4A1 to the right look almost worn out, and it has an unthreaded M1A1 gun. This is very much like the ones issued for Cobra. M4 tank 3rd Armored Division, Stolberg, 14 October 1944. The men on the tank are from the 36th infantry. This is when sandbagging started, as more and more encounters with German infantry with panzerfausts and panzerschreck began happening. Note the interesting beams welded to the differential cover, probably from some form of hedge cutting device. A pair of burnt out Canadian M4A2 Shermans of the 10th Armored Regiment (The Fort Garry Horse) at the foot of the church at Rots – June 1944 (Huge Image) 3rd AD M4 in Stolberg 1945, if you look close there is an M3 Lee based M31 in the background. A nice photo of an Easy 8s, or M4A3 76w HVSS tank, and what looks like an M4A1 76w in the background. The M4A1 had the split loaders hatch, with the hatch doors that only opened to 90 degrees. A nice photo of a 2nd Armored Division M4 coming off an LST on Utah Beach Normandy June 8th. I love this photo, and always, wonder if the Sailor sitting up above the tank to the right, has an official job, or if he was just enjoying the show. The LST was a really amazing ship for the time, a technological wonder, that does not get much credit for being one. A Badly damaged M4A3 76w tank that looks like it had a dozer blade. It’s from the 1st Armored Division in Italy 1944. You can tell it’s a 1st AD tank because of the two bands on the barrel near the gun mantlet. An M4A1 in Italy on the Gothic line, town of Ponsacco, 1944, I wonder what this street looks like today. Note, this tank is an early M4A1, still in use in 1944 and it has none of the quick fix updates and still has the M34 gun mount. An M4 in Milan Italy in front of the Piazza Del Duomo. There seems to be a gas gun, cut in half, handing from the rear hull overhang. Maybe they used it as a funnel? An M4 showing its off-road prowess. An M4 doing M4 things, in some ruined town in Europe. I think the tank is with B Company 37th Tank Battalion, 4th AD. A well camouflaged M4 is the subject of this beautiful high res photo. A nice high res photo of an M4 Composite driving down a street in Avranches, on August 4th, 1944, during Operation Cobra. The town is in ruins and was important because it was the gateway into Brittany from Normandy, this tank is most likely with the 6th AD, (thanks to Russ Amott for more info on the photo) A small hatch M4 somewhere in Europe. A nice high res photo of an M4A4 probably about to be shipped to England, or just arrived there. Notice the ‘Comb’ device on the front differential cover, it has a wire going from it to through the bow gun mount to the tanks brake levers, so the brakes could be released without opening the extensive weatherproof packing they have done. Look at all that duct tape!! A nice high res photo of an M4A1 with a strange rocket launcher setup. Could these be aircraft rocket tubes adapted for ground use? A nice color shot of an M4A1, note the M34 gun mount. A nice high res photo of an M4A2 76 wet, a pretty late production one, much like the one fished out of the ocean in the sunken Shermans post. Most of these tanks went to the Soviet Union. I high res pic of what looks like a couple of platoons of small hatch M4 and M4A1s parked on a street somewhere in Europe. A very nice high res pic of an M4 being used as an artillery piece, near Vicht Germany 17 November 1944. Unit unknown. The M4 was named ‘Ink spot’. All M4 Sherman tanks had the equipment to fire their main gun as an indirect fire weapon, and it was not uncommon to have a unit at rest tied into the artillery radio net answering calls for fire. Marine M4A2 on Peleliu, I think. Shermans at rest in a pretty flower field in Italy.

Post 62: DRIVETANKS.COM, The most Magical Place on Earth, if you like Sherman tanks!

Drivetanks.com is an operation out of Uvalde Texas. Uvalde is about 120 miles west of San Antonio. The Drivetanks.com facility is on the famous Ox Hunting Ranch , an 18,000-acre hunting ranch, with its guest cabins, a huge lodge, and its own 5800-foot runway. If you could see warbirds at this ranch it would literally be heaven on earth!

Drivetanks.com doesn’t have just a Sherman tank, but from our perspective, their Sherman is the coolest tank of the lot!

M4A2E8 Sherman: Just like Fury

The Sherman is the star of the show for us! It is fully functional, with working power traverse and a working main gun. All the machine guns work, and you get to shoot them as part of one of their packages. You also get to drive the tank around and fire it’s main gun if you go with the big package.

The M4A2E8 saw action with the Russians at the end of the war, and its M4A3E8 counterpart saw all kinds of action in Northern Europe and Italy. These tanks had the improved HVSS suspension with a wider track, giving them very good off-road mobility and the improved turret and gun gave the tank the edge over earlier German tanks like the Panzer III and IV while giving it a better chance against the rarer tiger and Panther tanks.

I have to say, Drivetanks.com is an amazing place for letting people drive and operate the armament of this working piece of history. Nothing beats seeing an actual historic vehicle drive or fly by, a static display in a museum where you can’t touch, or in some cases even take photos is just not the same.

Drivetank.coms awesome M4A2 Another shot of Drivetank.com’s M4A2E8 Sherman, this time just after it fired its main gun! Texas Rocks!

So, even by my standards, this place wouldn’t be the most magical place on earth just because it had a working Sherman. This place has several other working tanks, SPG, and APCS, along with towed guns, mortars and a very large variety of firearms to shoot. Let’s list the other tanks:

T-34-85: This Soviet tank was the Late War Shermans Russian counterpart!

Drivetanks.com has a fully functional T-34-85 tank and it was produced just in time to see action on the eastern front. It has a working main gun and there are similar, slightly to the Sherman but slightly cheaper packages for this tank.

That’s the last of the WWII tanks but they have two more modern ones.

Leopard 1A4 MBT: An updated version of Germany’s first Post War Tank!

This tank is bigger and faster than either the T-34 or Sherman, and its gun doesn’t work, and the prices on its packages reflect this. This tank is probably easier, and more fun to drive than either WWII tank, but just not as cool. This tank is still in use by armies around the world.

Chieftain Mk. 6, MBT: Big and British, and their Car Crusher.

Another tank with no working gun, this bad boy is big and tough, and therefore they use it when someone wants to crush something. This tank went into action in the mid-60s and was still going strong into the early 80s when the Challenger replaced it.

They have a few other tracked vehicles you can drive and get to know:

German SD. KFZ. 251 Armored Half-track: The Angular German Halftrack you see in Movies!

If you want to drive something with tracks on a budget, this is a good place to start.

Kettenkrad SDFZ Tracked Motorcycle: Yeah that wonky motorcycle half-track you see towing planes in WWII Pics.

Just look at this pic! Who wouldn’t want to try out this crazy German contraption!

They also have some other tank-like tracked vehicles that are not tanks.

Abbot FV433: This SPG is made up to look like the US M109 155mm SPG still in service.

This is a self-propelled artillery piece, a British one, and has a propane gun that makes lots of noise but doesn’t shoot a projectile. Another option if you don’t want to go with one of the deluxe packages. The M109 the Abbot was modified to look like started its life in the 60s and saw use in Vietnam, and modern versions are still in use by the US Army.

BMP 1: The first IFV

This APC with attitude was meant to do more than just deliver troops like a regular boring APC like the M113. No, the BMP delivered fewer, in less comfort, but it brought some heavy firepower normal infantry didn’t have.

With this bad boy, you can pack a bunch of friends into the back for a very hot uncomfortable ride while you drive! I wonder if Drivetanks.com has an award if you can make all the passengers puke!

But that’s not all! They have Towed Guns, Mortars, and Machine guns!
Germann 75mm PAK 40 AT Gun: This puppy works too!

This fully functional German AT gun is available to shoot. not cheap, but less than shooting a tank’s gun. This gun accounted for an awful lot of Sherman tanks during the war, but the Sherman, in turn, killed a bunch of them. I’m pretty sure this gun has been on several TV shows, but I’m not 100% sure.

German 25mm PAK 113: Small bang, small bucks, but it’s still a BIG gun!

A little AT gun for a cheaper alternative to the bigger stuff. not much to be said, if your coming to Drivetanks.com your coming for the big boom boom, right?!

U.S. M2A1 105mm light Howitzer: The 105 towed gun of the US Army for most of the WWII

This gun saw lots of action and was a great gun for its size. For a modest price, you can pop a round off from this gun too! If you want to know what it was like to serve in a light artillery battery, or just want to pop a few rounds off for nostalgia, you can do it here, and that’s damn cool! The Hippies in California would freak out if we tried shooting off something this cool here!!

US M1 81mm Mortar: The main WWII US Mortar!

I do not know of another place you can fire off a mortar, and that makes this option awesome all on its own. The 81mm M1 Mortar was used everywhere the US fought during the war and who would pass up the change to log a hunk of history from it?

U.S. M2 60mm Mortar: In US Infantries Mortar during WWII

This is like it’s bigger brother, just with less explosive charge, less range, and less weight. Oh, and it’s cheaper to shoot off.

The British ML 2inch 50mm Mortar: A small Brit Mortar

The cheapest mortar option. Small, but still a mortar!

Now let’s talk about Machine Guns and other firearms.Machine guns are pretty damn cool. Having been around a long time, there are lots of different kinds of Machine guns, and Drivetanks.com has a plethra of them!

The prize of the Machine collection has to be the M134 GE Minigun. I do not recall ever reading why they called this beast a minigun because it’s a monster of a weapon, bigger and heavier than an M2 Machine gun. These guns are technological Marvels, and contrary to Hollywood use, not man portable in any way. These guns have a selectable rate of fire of 3000 or 6000 rounds a minute. Your average GPMG has a 650 RPM rate of fire. These guns use an electric motor to spin the barrels and drive the feed mechanism, in theory making them more reliable at higher RPM they run, the six barrels allowed the barrels a chance to cool, but sustained fire would melt them down. These weapons have seen a lot of combat over the years, usually mounted on a helicopter of some type, but also on other vehicles that can haul the required ammo and have a compatible electrical system.

Next up on the Bad boys of the Machine list they have would be the M2HB Browning .50 caliber Machine gun. This heavy machine gun has been in service with the US Military since 1933 and is covered in more detail in this post. You get to shoot this gun as a part of the Sherman tank packages.

They have a lot of other more mundane machine guns but come on, a machine gun is damn cool no matter the size or type. So let’s list them!

  • The GE M134
  • The Browning M2 HB .50 Browning.
  • The M1919 .30 Caliber Machine gun (WWII light/Medium/heavy mg of US Army)
  • The M60E4 7.62 Nato Machine gun (updated Vietnam Era MG still in use)
  • M249 SAW 5.56 NATO light machine gun
  • M3 Grease Gun .45 ACP SMG (used by US Army from 43 into the 90s)
  • MG-42 German WWII machine gun 1200 to 1500 rounds per minute of fun!
  • MG-34 German WWII Machine gun (this one is a semi-auto version)
  • H&K MP7 (modern 9mm SMG)
  • MP-40 German WWII 9mm SMG
  • PPsh-41 Russian WWII SMG
  • PKM Soviet Medium Machine gun
  • DT Machine gun (Early war soviet light MG

They also have a selection of Rifles, sniper rifles and assault rifles and a flamethrower.

  • US M1 Carbine.30 caliber WWII Carbine
  • US M1 Garand 30 caliber (30-06), rifle (WWII standard infantry rifle)
  • M4 Carbine (Modern 5.56 Nato, US Infantry weapon)
  • K98 German WWII bolt action rifle
  • Mosin Nagant Russian Bolt action rifle
  • AK-47 Russian assault rifle.
  • Barrett M82 .50 caliber sniper rifle
  • US M9 Flamethrower, (Vietnam era, and last flamethrower used by US troops)

Yeah, a flamethrower! How cool is that?!

So tanks, APCs, SPG, Artillery pieces, AT guns, Mortars, and Machine Guns! If you’re not some kind of wimp, this place really is the most wonderful place on earth. I would rather go here, at any cost versus a trip to any Disney park, Cruise, or show. This place offers a chance to touch, use, and shoot history, hard real history. Honestly though, if this place had no historic value at all, it would still be damn good time, and something really you can only get in good old US of A, specifically in the great state of Texas!

This is all run an own by private US Citizens, and some people might think civilians running around owning tanks with working guns and tons of machine guns, and letting anyone willing to pay a chance to use them is a bad idea, well, you’re wrong, and this is exactly the type of thing that makes the United States so great!

There is a process you have to go through to be allowed to own these items, but it’s not all that hard as long as you’re not a criminal and are willing to fork over the cash to the US Government, and your state and county are ok with it. All shooting and vehicle use is only done after people are thoroughly instructed on everything use, (the class time is all part of the fun!), and while the guest is using the tank or Machine gun, an instructor is standing right there making sure everything is safe.

I can think of no place I would rather go for a vacation, if I could dig up the cash, and get the wife’s approval, than Drivetanks.com and the amazing Ox Ranch!

If you are interested in booking a trip to drive their tanks, shoot their machine guns, or hunt big game on the greater ranch, you can contact them with the information below.

Drivetanks.com 1946 Road 2485 Uvalde, Texas, 78801
Email: [email protected] Phone: (830) 351-8265 (tank) Fax: (281) 476-7802

Volkssturm

Cost 240 mp
Squad size 6
Pop Cap 6

Founded in the final months before an Axis defeat in WW2 by that charming chucklemonger, Goebbels, the Volkssturm or “People’s storm”, is a desperation move that fielded every able bodied man and threw him into the oncoming Soviet/American offensive. This is your other horde unit and these guys look like they have even worse gear than the Osttruppen without even matching uniforms or a clear idea on how to use the guns in their hands. How expendable they are is your prerogative, Kommandant, but do remember that these citizens really don’t have much of a choice about being here.

Fire Panzerfaust: Costs 25 muns. Fires a one-time AT weapon at the targeted vehicle.

Rifle Grenade Shot: Costs 30 muns. This launches a 30mm grenade from the launcher attached to their rifle. Better range than if they just chucked it, but doesn’t do that much damage.

Anti-Tank Rifle Grenade: Costs 30 muns. This is a short range grenade that damages vehicles. Better than nothing when a half-track starts suppressing your guys.

4x MP40 SMG: Costs 50 muns. As mentioned prior, horde units do well with short range, high ROF weapons.

RpzB 54 Panzershrek: Costs 60 muns. Translated to mean “tank terror”, this is no mere one-time use AT weapon shoplifted off some shelf in Walmart. This fires 88mm rockets, as compared to the American bazooka that fired 60mm ones. Damage is an inevitable result from any angle.

Builds Bunker, dragged line sandbags, Trenches, and razor wire.


Talk:M4 Sherman/Archive 3

A note that might be useful: as I recall from a mis-spent model-building childhood Sherman tanks in the African campaign (at least) got nicknamed 'Ronsons' by the British because they were prone to burn furiously when hit. This suggests but need not automatically imply a weakness that doesn't seem to have been mentioned here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.198.114 (talk) 04:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

They had the same chance of burning as most German tanks, in fact iirc Tiger tanks had a greater chance of catching fire once hit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.192.142 (talk) 08:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC) The Ronson nickname, the reason for fires, and the use of wet racks is already included in the article at the bottom of the Armor section. ( Hohum @ ) 13:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC) German tanks were powered by diesel, which has a much higher ignition temperature, whereas Shermans were powered by gasoline. This, combined with the very light armor on the Shermans, meant that if hit by German tank fire (even the lighter guns, say on the Panzer, as in the armored car with treads they invaded Poland with, rather than even the French Invasion tanks) they’d catch fire. The use of the word Ronson is a reference to the cigarette lighter “Lights the first time, every time.” A. J. REDDSON Rather than peddle myths, look at the stats contained in the article that come from an operational research paper. Panzer IV and VI had the same and better chance to catch fire as the Sherman once penetrated. Iirc there is also a myth surrounding the difference between diesel and gas engines, but both had the same chance of going boom. It should also be pointed out that German tanks generally used gasoline engines and not diesel engines. Please sign your posts. Also, you're wrong. The problem wasn't "once penetrated", although that's a clever diversion. The problem was that if you hit a Sherman centrally at any range with the KwK 40, by far the most commonly used German towed AT and tank gun at the time of the Normandy invasion, it literally "Lit the first time, every time". As in it took exactly one round from a Pak-40, Panzer IV or StuG-III to penetrate anywhere on the tank, and once penetrating it had a 2.5-3 in 4 chance of brewing up promptly. Compare this to the Panther which the 75mm couldn't penetrate at anything other than "miracle range" and the 76mm which required a steady, practiced hand to direct the shot through the mantlet rather than the glacis, which remained impenetrable frontally. Make more sense now why they treated it with such contempt? Just because you can build five times as many tanks and overwhelm them with mass-production doesn't make the criticisms invalid. 67.246.15.91 (talk) 07:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC) Shermans could penetrate the side armour on panthers at standard combat ranges. It is why the mainly panther force at Arracourt was kicked around by the Sherman equipped 4th Armor Division in late September. The Germans certainly didn't have contempt for Allied tanks, it was consistently remarked by German crews after the war, as well as men like Guderian, that the most feared opponents the Germans faced were Tank Destroyers, then Tanks, Planes, then AT guns. Allied tanks may not have been as good as German tanks but when used smartly they were quite lethal, as the Germans found on multiple occasions from Le Deseret to the Battle of the Bulge. Wokelly (talk) 20:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


German tanks were not running on diesel, but gasoline. Reference e.g. Maybach HL230. -- DevSolar (talk) 11:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I though only Americans were that stupid. (Yes, I said it.) Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 07:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC) That was not stupidity on behalf of the Germans, but necessity. Germany has virtually no indigenous oil reserves, and had to rely on Coal liquefaction for most of its fuel production - which yielded gasoline, not diesel. -- DevSolar (talk) 08:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I hesitate to reignite this debate. but just learned that the Germans also called Shermans 'Tommy Boilers'. There does seem to be a chauvinistic determination here to carol the praises of the Sherman. Does the article mention the claim that the Firefly's muzzle flash was so bright that it gave away the tank's location to an inordinate degree and could even temporary blind whoever was sighting the gun? The Sherman was clearly a superior tank - but I don't think it's generous or helpful to discount the opinion of wartime tank crews by accusing them merely of 'peddling myths'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.197.102 (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The Shermans used in North Africa by the British were facing the 88mm Flak gun that would easily penetrate a Sherman at a mile. If so, then the Sherman burned. That's why they called them 'Ronsons'. There's no cover in the desert area of much of the fighting so with the Shermans advancing over flat terrain the 88s had a field day. Against the opposing German tanks such as the 50mm-armed Panzer III and the short-barrelled Panzer IV the Sherman gave a good account of itself. It only started to be out-gunned by the introduction of the long-barrelled 75mm Panzer IV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Gentlemen, in a german WIKI-article I found a picture of an armored vehicle. Any idea what type it is? Thanks, Hans Maag, Switzerland

The ones in the distance are. The one in the foreground looks like an M3 Stuart, due to the flat looking front among other reasons so not the latter M5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.192.142 (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC) Thanks, the one in the foreground seems to have an open gun in place of the turret, a T18 75mm Howitzer Motor Carrier? --hmaag (talk) 10:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC) Since the one in foreground doesn't appear to have the 75, I'd guess the further one doesn't, either. In context, it seems more likely they're the same outfit. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 21:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC) Dunno about the tanks, but units would have more than one type. The tank battalion would, iirc, have support tanks, command tanks, and a light tank recon unit. So there could be a mixture in the photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.0.3 (talk) 10:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC) A hi-rez version of the photo is available here: link. One notes that the website labels the lot as Stuarts. I don’t know if it is just the angle the tanks in the middle and background of the photo are moving at, but their turrets look huge compared to what I believe an M3/M5 should look like. I have tracked down two photos, one of the M3 and one of the M5: link and link. I would inclined to say they are Shermans, unless some M3/M5s had larger turrets I am unaware of? The one in the foreground is deffo a stuart due to the wheel layout. On the hi rez version it looks like the chap has a turret hatch behind him so not a SP gun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.0.3 (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC) The vehicles are both M5A1 Stuarts (Stuart VI). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 17:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

A hatnote to Post–World War II Sherman tanks should be added to the Post–World War II section of this article. -- lTopGunl (talk) 14:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

there's a link under "Foreign use" further down the article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone give the book's full name?(talk) 19:08, 17 june 2012 (UTC)

Maybe not all, but at least some M-4's had phones installed in the rear (presumably so that infantry could talk to the tank crew). Example: sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/408456_4722001761555_1146891136_n.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.5.199.107 (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I notice that in the introduction the Sherman is compared to the Soviet T-34. The article on the T-34 describes it as a truly revolutionary design. This article on the Sherman is at best mixed praise. Is it really accurate to compare the two?Tgiesler (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The T-34 may be revolutionary, but in combat engagements the M4 and the T34 would likely perform similarly. --99.107.241.102 (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:M4A4 cutaway.svg will be appearing as picture of the day on November 19, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-11-19. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

In the Pacific theatre of the war, Sherman tanks proved superior to their Japanese counterparts, but in Europe they became outclassed by Germany's Tiger I and Tiger II tanks. Click on the image for an explanation of the labels.Diagram: Malyszkz

The doctrine section reads in a very confusing manner. It looks like someone tried to throw in British tank doctrine jargon where the U.S. Army never used it. There is zero evidence that the U.S. Army ever called the M4 a cruiser tank. This should be edited out of the article. Also, at the start of the doctrine section it talks about how the the role the U.S. Army saw the M4 playing. At the start of the paragraph it states it was not primarily used in a infantry support role, and not in the anti tank role primarily. It was to be used primarily as a rear eschelon raider. Later in the section it states it was used primarily as an infantry support vehicle. Reading the cited FM 100-5 it appears the M4 was a jack of all trades and was envisioned as a rear eschelon raider. However it was used in every role possible during the war. TL:DR Edit out the non U.S. Standard doctrinal jargon, and clean up the way the sections reads.132.3.65.81 (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I've tried implementing the changes you suggested. I would also add that it would be useful to expand the section with how US doctrine changed during the war (which I assume it did). --Sus scrofa (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article be known as M4 medium tank? M4 medium tank is the formal name for the vehicle. Wasn't it the British who gave the m4 the name sherman? just curious.

Wikipedia is like scrabble: common usage. Most articles about countries are known by their commonly used (usually shorter) names, like United Kingdom instead of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. 75.141.228.239 (talk) 21:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC) You're both right. WP uses the Brit name because it's better known by more people, tho (strictly) wrong. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 03:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC) British official service names for US-built tanks were those of US Civil War generals Stuart, Lee/Grant, and Sherman, with the notable exception of Chaffee who was a later US WW I general. The US later carried on this naming scheme, starting with the Pershing and later Patton, and so-on to the current Abrams. . similarly, British names for US-built armoured cars were those of breeds of hound Staghound, Boarhound, Deerhound, and Greyhound, as they were used for scouting. British tanks since the Covenanter have mostly had names beginning with 'C' Crusader, Churchill, Centaur, Cromwell, Challenger, Comet, Centurion, Conqueror, Chieftain and the two later Challenger 1 and Challenger 2. British self-propelled guns have all had names of ecclesiastical titles, Bishop, Deacon, Priest, Sexton, and Abbot. . so there was actually a reason for the M4 being named 'Sherman' by the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 14:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Just noticed that the M103 is in the American armored fighting vehicles of WWII list. Why is this so? The tank wasn't developed until 1955 iirc, and fielded by 1957. That's a long way away from WWII, and I don't think it has any relation to any vehicle of the war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Žiga Auer (talk • contribs) 16:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Fixed--L1A1 FAL (talk) 23:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The listing in the table says 76mm maximum, but the early war M4 had 51mm [email protected] degrees, which is 91.2mm of effective armor from straight on, slightly inferior to the late war M4's 93.8mm of effective armor. I ask because the table's armor listing isn't cited.

The issue isn't "effective armor", it's the actual thicknes. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Well it is 76mm at it's thickest, the mantlet is 76mm thick iirc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.182.79.21 (talk) 16:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure where the 76mm figure comes from, nor which part of the tank it applies to. The mantlet of the Sherman was 89mm, to the best of my knowledge. 99.107.241.102 (talk) 01:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The Sherman had maximum effective armor rate of 84mm, not 76mm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.135.164.254 (talk) 17:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The Panzer IV "Special" or "Mark IV Special" nicknamed by the British, was first employed in a major offensive during Operation Venezia in May 1942. Althought only available in small numbers, the early Ausf G was quickly recognised as especially dangerous [1] and superior to the American or British opponent. [2]

"From the first time it was used, the 7,5 cm KwK 40 (mounted on the Mark IV Special) tank gun with its higher armour-penetration power and accuracy that it was superior to all weapons that had previously been mounted on a Panzer. At ranges up to 1500 meters the armour-piercing shell penetrates the front of all the American and British tank types (including the "Pilot") that have been used in the African theatre war"

With a reasonable reading comprehension, the "superiority" leads to the long-barrelled gun as Andy Dingley recognized correctly against the arbitrarily edit warrings of LeuCeaMia.

Sincere regards, Benjamin (talk) 15:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Currently I would say the lead looks about 1-2 paragraphs too large. I think the fourth paragraph could be taken out/moved (well, it's not exactly doing any harm but it's less essential info for the lead to have I think) perhaps. Any thoughts? --Somchai Sun (talk) 23:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

user:FelixRosch has trimmed it to four sizeable paragraphs. There was a lot of material and though WP:Lede is a guideline not absolute policy exceptions are supposed to be few. There is a lot to be said on the Sherman, and it comes down to what can be left to the detail in the article, and what needs to stay in lede. Any thoughts by editors as to if the balance has been struck. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Is it just me or are the third and fourth paragraphs in the section on Armament really poorly written and confusing? If I get some agreement I'd like to take a stab at cleaning them up. Plsuh (talk) 00:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

President Franklin D. Roosevelt had announced a production program calling for 120,000 tanks for the Allied war effort, which would have created 61 armored divisions.[citation needed] Although the American industrial complex was not affected by enemy aerial bombing nor submarine warfare as was Japan, Germany and, to a lesser degree, Great Britain, an enormous amount of steel for tank production had been diverted to the construction of warships and other naval vessels.[20] Steel used in naval construction amounted to the equivalent of approximately 67,000 tanks and consequently only about 53,500 tanks were produced during 1942 and 1943.[21]

On a Russian site dedicated to the history of Lend Lease I came across a statistic which stated that the US exported enough steel plate from Seattle and San Francisco to Vladivostok to build all T-34s produced from the beginning of 1942. Should this be included with US tank production? I ask this because the US was also exporting to the Soviet Union machine tools and locomotives at the same time. I.e. the US was exporting tank factories to Russia and supplying the materials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.31.181.245 (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, what is the original source cited on the website? Reliable sources are a must.--Sus scrofa (talk) 17:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry it's PDF. And then there's this which describes some of the 'non military economic assistance' that could get past the Japanese: http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/paperno/index.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.31.181.245 (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

You can add a note about that, the source looks ok. Just cite it as State Department Publication 2759 so that is verifiable.--Sus scrofa (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

There's a misquote given in the section of the Gun Development. The given ref. #60 does not in the slightest support the statement in the article or that of the estimated British trials, which indicates it would penetrate the Panther's mantlet at 2,500 yards.

However, reviewing the book I couldn't find anything at pp. 132-135 (Chapter 4, The Future Sherman) which only issued the 76mm gun controversy. On the other hand, pp. 210-211 mentioned:

A number of Panthers were captured more or less intact, so American and British ordnance experts tried to discover its secrets. A captured Panther was set up in a field near Balleroy on July 10 and subjected to fire from a variety of American and British tank guns. A month later, on August 19, a more comprehensive test was conducted using several captured Panthers at an ordnance tank park near Isigny. The Panthers were put in a field and fired on by the whole gamut of Allied antitank weapons, including bazookas, 57mm antitank guns, Sherman 75mm guns, the U.S. 3-inch gun, and the British 17-pounder. The results were extremely discouraging in most cases, the rounds simply bounced off the front armor of the Panther. It was quite clear that the British 17-pounder was by far the best tank killer in Allied service, but it could penetrate the Panther mantlet and lower bow plate only at close ranges and the glacis plate not at all, even from point-blank range at 200 yards. These results were obtained with standard 17-pounder rounds the new discarding sabot round had somewhat better penetration but very erratic accuracy. The performance of the U.S. 76mm gun was disheartening, and it had poor all-around performance, unable to penetrate the Panther frontally except for the occasional lucky hit. The Isigny test included a special batch of the new T4 HVAP ammunition for the 76mm gun, which compared in performance to the standard British 17-pounder ammunition. The problem with HVAP was that it would never be available in large quantities, while the British 17-pounder ammunition was made of conventional alloys and therefore was more widely available.

There's a big leap of faith here. Any other thoughs? SunsetShimmers (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The section on doctrine is especially shabby. Many claims are either inadequately sourced or purely speculative (i.e. made-up). For example, I corrected the incorrect interpretation of 1941 Field manual, so that it no longer states that US doctrine relied upon tank destroyers for its anti-tank operations, which is a popular myth. The doctrine states that it relies on anti-tank guns, some of which, but not all, were mobile. The language is still misleading. The article currently suggests that tank destroyers were not only the primary but the exclusive means of combating enemy tanks. The 1941 field manual envisions the use of anti-tank guns, mobile or stowed, mines, obstacles, aviation, and tanks for anti-tank measures. I believe the doctrine section should be deleted entirely, since it does not really expound on the M4 Sherman. I will delete the section in a week unless I hear back from the community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pensiveneko (talk • contribs) 19:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Hold your horses please! Deleting a section requires wide consensus. In this case, I believe the doctrine section is important to the article. If we could fix the lack of sources and speculation it would be better than deleting it. Just for clarification, are you speaking of section 1.1 or 4.1? Green547 (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC) I would point out that the paragraph quoted cites only the armored divisions, and not the independent tank battalions which were attached to the various infantry divisions. To that extent, the role is infantry support. However, the FMs for Armored Force such as 17-10 and 17-33, which apply to all tankers regardless of organisation, indicate that tanks which encountered enemy tanks in the course of their job (exploitation or infantry support) were expected to shoot at them.2601:644:8200:2035:E067:77E:F1D0:173D (talk) 03:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Citations number of References 52.53.56 Link now has to be that, or change expired — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webstylejapan (talk • contribs) 06:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I just took a look at the Ronson Lighter page, and it says that Shermans were not called Ronsons during the war, and that it was a post-war myth. The 'Lights Every Time' Slogan did not enter use until the fifties. We should probably consider fixing that.

A whole bunch of reliable sources disagree, while the assertion on the Ronson wikipedia page is unsourced. ( Hohum @ ) 14:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC) A bunch of crappy post facto coffee table books is no evidence for anything. Can you show a contemporary source for the nickname? Personally I rather doubt it. There was a "Ronson" as a semi-official nickname, it was one of the (non-Sherman) Crocodile flamethrowers. The idea of a such a name being granted officially in a "positive" connotation at the same time as a nickname having appeared in such a negative way elsewhere is really stretching credibility. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:33, 26 April 2014 (UTC) Steve Zaloga isn't a reliable source for tanks? Since when? So far, we have an unsourced assertion that it wasn't sometimes nicknamed the "Ronson", countered with actual sources which say it was. Wikipedia reflects what reliable sources say. Contemporary sources would likely be WP:PRIMARY and be our own WP:OR. We tend to leave it to WP:SECONDARY sources to interpret them. ( Hohum @ ) 17:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC) I don't find it implausible that soldiers came up with this nickname, and I think the source is good enough.--Sus scrofa (talk) 18:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC) A flamethrower vehicle being called 'Ronson' as a semi-official positive nickname, while a tank is also negatively nicknamed 'Ronson' because it is prone to catch afire. I don't see how this is stretching credibility at all. Centrepull (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC) The only reason the Sherman (at least the early variants) were prone to catch fire, was down to the ammunition stowage. In the early models of the vehicles, they lacked the safety system of wet stowage, and had ammunition kept in ready racks in the turret basket and the turret itself. After the British began installing wet stowage systems in the tanks (a move the US copied), the number of Sherman tanks brewing up due to a penetrating hit dropped considerably. Whatever the case, tying the name 'Ronson' to the Sherman is largely untrue. There is some suggestion that the name 'Tommy Cooker' may have been used in the early days, but again there's no direct data to support this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.231.46 (talk) 18:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

You can actually find examples of the Ronson advertisement from 1927. best link I can find so far, http://tanksandafv.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/the-m4-sherman-ronson-lights-first.html, either way the Ronson Myth section should realistically be removed or heavily edited seeing it's incredibly hard to actually know what the truth is. Sources either state it is, or is not true.92.26.138.34 (talk) 00:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC) About the nickname Tommy Cooker http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1945/mar/13/demobilisation-and-re-employment#S5CV0409P0_19450313_HOC_434 a transcription from the british parliament "That is simply contrary to what every fighting soldier knows. It has been in all the newspapers that the German name for "the admirable Shermans," is the "Tommy Cooker." I will read part of an American sergeant's letter:" It is a primary source and it is very clear. 13 March 1945.

About the nickname Ronson the Chieftan had only suspicious and there are a good number of testimonies from veterans using the nickname, in the same video the chieftan make another mistakes about nomenclature so. the pre fix "general for example". https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/apparently-the-sherman-tank-was-a-good-tank.859948/page-14 post 261. Also in wikipedia forums, blogs and youtube videos are not valid sources. right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chepicoro (talk • contribs) 22:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Whether the tank was named Ronson is still up for debate. What's not up for debate is the fact that the name was unwarranted. In any case, we should at least remove the unreliable newspaper source. I already have, and before anyone undoes the change again, discuss it here first. This should degenerate into an edit war. --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 10:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay. There's a contention over this source.http://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/wwii/m4-sherman-vs-german-panther/ The current page just says that the Panther and Tiger were outright better than the Sherman. I said that it was incorrect to post a subjective analysis of a weapon system, and instead just posted the facts of the tanks: the Panther and Tiger had thicker armor and bigger guns. The Shermans, on the other hand: "The Sherman also enjoyed a greater reliability than the Panther which was more prone to breakdowns and mechanical difficulties", "But the Sherman did have some advantages. Its thinner armor made it lighter and more maneuverable on solid ground", "Also, the Sherman’s turret had a much quicker rotation rate than the Panther’s, usually allowing American crews to get off the first shot in combat". These are all very important factors worth listing, and are actually irrefutable facts. This got reverted because "no original research". Would someone care to explain to me why actually posting the facts from the source gets an edit reverted in favor of excluding the facts and just saying "German tanks are the best"? Do I need to post actual combat records of Sherman vs Panther combat to show that this opinion is just that, an opinion, and not a fact that should be listed as one in an encyclopedia? --Nihlus1 (talk) 03:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

You are trying to insert details from an article about the Panther and Sherman within a general statement, which 1) does not cover a specific tank, but 2) which could mislead casual readers, as it leads to false impressions. However, the lede should be about the M4 Sherman, not in charge of the two alone. That's clearly not in the sense of an encyclopedia. Currently as it stand: "In spite of being outclassed by German medium and heavy tanks late in the war, the M4 Sherman was cheaper to produce and available in greater numbers", the statement would even include later medium tanks like Panzer IV G-J, Stug III G etc. which surpassed the bulk of M4 Shermans fielded in firepower and punch. To limit the statement solely on those "Cats" is absurd, as they did not form the backbone of the German forces. However, your lack of reading comprehension is very worrisome at the moment as even other edits reveal: 1 Giving the impression that the inferior evaluated Panzer III and short-barreled 75mm Panzer IV were the most produced tanks which is honest, a fringe point and ridiculous to say the least. Xenon47 (talk) 11:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC) The text already there is what creates a false impression. First of all, the line cannot be excused as a general statement when its cited with one specific source. Secondly, nothing you've said refutes the point about why the page should state one tank is "superior" to another rather than listing what specifically is superior or inferior between the tanks according to the source, the Sherman is inferior in gun and armor thickness, while being superior in reliability, performance on rough terrain, turret rotation, and speed. Those are the facts, and those are what should be listed. If anything, your attempt to justify this by saying "but the later Panzer IVs also had bigger guns" just proves by point. Third, calling the Panzer IV or even Panther superior to the Sherman is wrong (also, the Stug III isn't even a tank). Even ignoring the poor form of just trying to label a tank as "superior" rather than simply stating its attributes. The book "Data on World War II Tank Engagements: Involving the U.S. Third and Fourth Armored Divisions" by David C. Hardison (which is less a real history book written by the author, more of a collection of declassified documents from various other sources), contains many bits of hard data that contradict this urban legend. Among other things, it documents all engagements between Shermans and Panthers from those two divisions, and includes testing by Ballistic Research Laboratories which concludes that the absolute most important aspect of a tank v tank combat is who fires first. which the Sherman obviously excelled at. Extensive testing by the Ballistic Research Laboratories found that the Sherman was x3.6 more effective as a tank overall, not including such factors as reliability and cost--Nihlus1 (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC) Whether I claimed the Panzer IV or Panther as superior, nor did I tried to deemphasize the Shermans advantages in combat at any rate. That's all up in your head. What you don't seem to understand, is that the lede should not be in charge of two tanks in comparison, but rather from an impartial view against the variety of German tanks it faced. However, the linked webpage also contradict with the Section to the Shermans mobility, which does apparently not support the claims either. It's better to remove it anyway. I'm well aware of the collected data from the BRL and their assessment. Contrary to your opinon which is btw. exaggerated and out of context - I would not take it at face value. While I'll agree that who saw and hit first, usually had a distinctive advantage over its adversary, it doesn't lead back necessarily to a better gun platform. In Sherman vs Panther p.68-69, Zaloga states to the BRL data: Of the incidents studied, defenders fired first 84 percent of the time. When defenders fired first, the attackers suffered 4.3 times more casualties than the defender. When attackers fired first, the defenders suffered 3.6 times more casualties than the attackers. This see-first/hit-first advantages is a statistical correlation, not the cause of tactical success. [. ] The study concluded that the evidence was not adequate to assess whether the technical advantage of specific tank types had any effect in the outcome of tank engagements. This was largely a factor of the small size of the sample and the inadequate data base. [. ] During 29 engagements involving Shermans and Panthers, the Shermans had an average numerical advantage of 1.2:1. The data suggests that the Panther was 1.1 times more effective than the Sherman when fighting from the defense, while the Sherman had an 8.4 advantage against the Panther when fighting from defense. The overall record suggests that the Sherman was 3.6 times more effective than the Panther. This ratio was probably not typical of all Sherman-versus-Panther exchanges during the war and may also be due to inadequate data collection. As you can see, the collected data is quite inadequate to draw any final conclusion as in these small samples of engagement against the Panther, the Sherman was rated 3.6 times effectively. That was because the Panther was in defense probably even trying to escape encirclement and suffered thus 3,6 times more casualties than the attackers. The Stug III is not a tank?! Don't be silly, it was used as tactical tank destroyer. You better leave you full "fanboy" mode, and try to talk civilised. Thanks, Xenon47 (talk) 21:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC) Actually, yes you did. You're the one who said that the remark should stay because the Stug III and some other AFVs packed a bigger punch than (some models of the) Sherman. You specifically said that the remark should be included BECAUSE it includes Panzer IVs. Yes, an impartial view. An impartial view on the tanks would not just label the German tanks as superior solely based on armor thickness and guns. An impartial view would simply note the different advantages. Unfortunately, the paragraph you're proposing is not impartial. You're leaving vital information out of the book. Like the part where Zaloga specifically says that the Panther's superiority was a myth. That's pretty interesting actually, since it's starts literally right where you ended the quote. "Nevertheless, the popular myths that Panthers enjoyed a 5-to-1 kill ratio against Shermans or that it took five Shermans to knock out a Panther have no basis at all in the historical records. The outcome of tank-versus-tank fighting was more often determined by tactical situation than technical situation." Nope. The study found that tanks on the defense actually had the advantage. You're just trying to make up scenarios to justify that your assumptions aren't supported by the data. Regardless of Zaloga's opinion, a sample size of 98 is actually fairly relevant. Especially when you keep trying to push the idea that inferior tanks (compared to the Tiger) were objectively better than the Sherman, to the point that this objective encyclopedia must say that the Sherman was flat-out outclassed rather than just noting the differences between the tanks. No, the Stug III is not a tank. It's an assault gun, which is specifically a different vehicle.--Nihlus1 (talk) 21:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC) Most of the Panthers, Tigers, and Tiger IIs in the West were not facing the U.S. Third and Fourth Armored Divisions. They were facing the British and Canadians with their Shermans, initially around Caen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.11.216 (talk) 19:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC) The whole German Mediums surpassed is so foolish it's painful to read. The source is unreliable. Plus surpassed is a too general word. In what way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxRavenclaw (talk • contribs) 10:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC) By God, looking through the article again reminded me why it's unreliable. The amount of myths presented is astonishing. The article is obviously written by someone who is completely ignorant to the subject. The M4 was prefered over the Pershing in Korea. The M4's tendency to catch fire was disproven recently. Mediocre, mass produced? That was the T-34, with's its terrible quality control until late '43. This is not a reliable source, people. It's one of the worst sources I've seen on WW2 tank articles. --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 10:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC) The M4 was preferred in Korea over the M26 in a very specific situation in which the terrain was difficult and the enemy had no armor. Korea is extremely mountainous the M26 was considered underpowered since it had the same Ford engine as the M4A3 yet weighed a lot more. The M4 became the preference after the NKPA's T-34-85s and SU-76s had dissappeared from the battlefield and the tank role was almost completely infantry support. Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

In the last few days I've removed a few bits of text that suggested the 47 degree hull originated with or is associated somehow with the M4A3E2 'jumbo' or with 76mm-armed tanks. It is not. The 47 degree hull entered manufacturing well before the 76mm gun turret (for example, http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/manufacturer/m4a375w/m4a3_75w.html) on M4A2 and M4A3 75mm armed tanks. The purpose was to improve protection while allowing large hatches for the hull crew. The M4A3 75mm with the new hull was actually one of the most common US Army variants in service in the last year of the war. The M4A1 was the first to get the 76mm gun so only a very, very small number of large-hatch M4A1 75mm gun tanks were built. The late M4 75mm was built with the 47 degree composite hull and the M4 105mm was built with the all-welded 47 degree hull. The M4A4 had ceased production by the time the new hull was developed, so all M4A4 had the old 56 degree hull and small hatches. The M4A3 and M4A1 had 'wet' ammunition stowage, but the M4A2 75mm did not.

The 76mm gun turret came a bit later, and the M4A3E2 simply inherited this hull design.


The Telescopic sights.

The Shermans fire control system was improved further by the incorporation of a direct telescope mount to the M38A1 gun mount. This prompted the creation of the full-length gun mantlet to protect the scope. When these were retrofitted into older tanks, sometimes they would weld on armor over the scope, leaving a half armored mantlet.

The later 76mm armed tanks had the M62 mount, and it had a telescopic sight mount from the start.

The direct scopes went through their own evolution, and this information is put together from the various TMs on the tanks and Hunnicutt’s Sherman and is not complete. I will update this section as I get more info on the topic.


Talk:M4 Sherman/Archive 2

And what companies built the M4 Sherman? GM? Ford? Studebaker? I assume several companies that normally compete all built the same approximate design. GBC (talk) 07:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC) In answer to both of these (which I don't see in the article, admittedly at a glance): 57,000 built in all 1941-5 (8389 M4, 9707 M4A1, 10968 M4A2, 12342 M4A3, 7499 M4A4, 75 M4A6, 3490 M7 Priest, 826 M7B2 Priest, & 1599 M32 tank retireval vehicles) built by Baldwin Locomotive Works, American Locomotive Company, Detroit Tank Arsenal, Pressed Steel Company, Pullman Standard Car Company, Lima Locomotive Works, Pacific Car and Foundry, Fisher Tank Division (GM), Federal Machine and Welding, & Ford. From Thomas Berndt, Standard Catalog of U.S. Military Vehicles (Krause Publications, 1993), pp.193 & 195.

Actually, the ammunition burns - at a very very high rate - when fired, rather than "exploding" . Tank ammunition, especially in the Sherman, usually burned rather than exploded when the tank was hit, at a much slower rate than when fired . The fire was intensely hot, & would often burn for many hours. When the crew compartment was penetrated the ammunition would often be broken up, spraying the crew with pieces of burning ammunition . When a tank exploded, it was usually due to an enemy round penetrating, then exploding inside the tank . All this was well known by tank crew who saw action. It did not require research to discover it. It is however a revelation to many of the general public .

[ Modern FSDS uses a different destructive mechanism .]

I am surprised that the research was carried out "early in the war" as the USA did not enter WW2 until Dec 1941 , more than 2 years after the invasion of Poland .

The statement in the text that petrol would not ignite when hit by anti-tank rounds is ludicrous. Petrol is much more volatile than diesel fuel, & much more likely to ignite [ more volatile, greater energy content ]. However, the Sherman's petrol tank was covered by a fire extinguisher [ often ineffective ] & more importantly was not in the crew compartment. The ammunition was in the crew compartment, & was badly located & poorly protected. The Sherman was notorious for ammunition fires destroying tanks & causing terrible crew casualties. This weakness was reduced a little by extra armor & waterjackets.

Lights up, first time, almost every time . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.101.231.171 (talk) 16:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

An enormous amount of nonsense has been written about this. Panthers, Tigers and Pzkw-IVs had similar ammunition stowage. The Panther and Pzkw-IV side armor was easily penetrated by opposing tanks. The "terrible" M4 crew casualties averaged one crew member KIA per knocked-out tank. The Sherman, like almost all tanks, had several fuel tanks. Research was indeed required to find out exactly why tanks were burning and what design changes were needed to reduce the risk. "early in the war" depends, I guess, on when you believe WW2 started. There are many schools of thought on that ) Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 16:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Might be intresting to contrast Sherman burn rates with those of the Germans. ORS Section 2, report no. 17 claimed that of the German tanks knocked out 80% of Tigers burnt, 63% of Panthers burnt, and 80% of PzIV burnt. Additional details show that the Panzer IV was more flamable and easier to knock out than the Sherman. I dont have the report to hand to double check those facts but they may be in the book by Terry Copp on the subject, ill enquire.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC) My uncle, Frederick Wardle, commanded a Sherman in Europe (British). They were infamously nicknamed Ronsons by the crews and with good reason, certainly Fred often referred to them by that name. Why no mention of this infamous nickname and their supposed vulnerability to fires?--Phil Wardle (talk) 04:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC) Phil, this is already in the article in the Armor section. Hohum (talk) 16:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC) My apologies. I seem to have been the victim of either a brain-fart or some browser issue (probably the former) because I simply did not see that section when comparing articles on WWII tanks yesterday. BTW, for what it's worth, my uncle Fred survived his time in a "Ronson" unharmed (and indeed a Matilda and other tanks) and lived to be nearly ninety. :-)--Phil Wardle (talk) 09:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

If anyone knows of a (legally friendly) picture of what it looks like inside the tank, I think including it in the article would be very informative. Mbarbier (talk) 01:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be many military vehicle lead image photographs that show modern day static museum or outdoor displays versus having a historical photograph which depict the context of when the vehicle was used. Perhaps try to switch the lead image with a colorized photograph showing the M4 Sherman during World War II or the Korean War. -Signaleer (talk) 20:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, but I rolled back a lot of edits today to the last good version by Darthrad due to a number of issues with recent edits: POV, grammar, accuracy, and possible copyright violation. I left a message on the editor's talk page. I urge all editors to use the talk page to propose such major edits. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 14:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

However, the typical Sherman was significantly inferior in both armor and armament to the later German Panzer IV

I find this unsourced statement somewhat intresting considering the below:

Historian John Buckley states that while the 75mm/L48 outpreformed the 75mm M3 L/40 by 30% "such differences mattered little for both tanks' main armamant could defeat the other's armour at up to 1,200 yards". He also notes that the Sherman was "moderately superior to the that of the Panzer IV".(British Armour in Normandy, p. 117) He goes on to state "The vast majority of German tanks encountered in Normandy were either inferior, or at least, merely equal to the Shermans, Cromwells and Churchills employed by the Allies." noting that the majority of German tanks used in Normandy was the MK IV(p. 120) He also makes minor armour comparison information available: M4 Sherman had 45mm side armour (p. 110) compared to the 30mm side armoured of the MK IV (p.117)

Historian Brian Reid notes that the Ausf. H was "At least the equal of the Sherman". (No Holding Back, p. 215) Hopefully i wont balls up the below numbers:

Area . Sherman . MK IV
Front turret . 76mm/30 . 50mm curved
side turret . 50/5 . 50/10
upper hull . 50/56 . 80/9
lower hull . 50/curved . 80/12
side hull . 38 . 80

The information presented shows that they are pretty similar however the thickness does not show the true picture until the angle is also considered i.e. a 5mm piece of armour is inferior etc to a 5mm piece of armour on an angle. The historians and the data shows that armour wise they pretty similar and as Buckley pointed out the gun outpreforming the other doesnt really show the true picture either--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The main problem is that the original comment is unsourced, so we should concentrate on fixing that. As for the tech data supplied by yourself, there are some glaring omissions from the comparison list the M4's silhouette was considerably higher than the Mk.IV, and the engine of the M4 ran on high octane petrol which meant that even glancing shots sometimes ignited the fuel. Re the gun vs. armour argument, the PaK cannon was penetrating thicker (angled) armour at the same range the 75mm was defeating thinner? That would point to considerable performance advantage of of the German gun, meaning that leading the shot was simpler and thus a higher potential for a first hit. It should also be noted that the British M4's, and the Cromwell and Churchill tanks, mounted the 6pdr gun (aka 77mm) which was a higher velocity cannon than the 75mm used by American crews. It should be investigated whether the comparisons were between US or UK gun and the PaK, per the sources provided. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC) How exactlly is it a glaring omission? Armour and weaponry have nothing to do with the tanks engine or their size. As for the height, few inches is not considerably higher: M4A2 (Sherman III) is 9ft tall (Reid, p. 192), compared to the MK IV Auf.H of 8ft9 inches.(Reid, p. 215). The 6 pounder was a 57mm gun, it was not mounted on the majority of Shermans, Cromwells or Churchills. These tanks used American or British 75mm cannons. The Firefly was equipped with the 17 pounder (76.2mm) gun (which had a higher velocity than the American 76mm armed Shermans) and only the Comet tank (arriving in late 1944) was equipped with the 77mm gun (in reality new version of the 17 pounder using new ammo iirc).--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Enigma - I tweaked your data presentation so I could read it, are those numbers correct? They do look a bit "balls'd up" ) Mine say:

Area . Sherman . MK IV H/J
Gun shield. 89 mm . 80 mm
Front turret . 76 mm . 80 mm
Side turret . 51 mm. 50 mm
Front hull . 51 mm..(63 late). 80 mm
Side hull . 38 mm. 30 mm

Guns Sherman M3 75 mm gun - 68 mm at 500 m, 60 mm at 1000 m Sherman 76 mm - 98 mm at 500 m, 90 mm at 1000 m Sherman 76 mm HVAP - 150 mm at 500 m, 132 mm at 1000 m Pz IV H 75 mm Penetrates front of Sherman at 2000 m, side at 4500 m (Sherman - Zaloga) (Pz IV - Perrett) According to this, early 75 mm Shermans would have a very bad day against the front of Pz IV H/J. Although the first numbers always given about tank performance is armor thickness and gun penetration, accuracy does tend to get left out, German guns were notoriously accurate, with good sights. As to the Sherman - gasoline argument, all German tanks also used gasoline. The Sherman tendency to burn was probably really due to ammunition vulnerability (as was the Panther), later versions introduced wet stowage. Also, a 6 pdr is about 57 mm. The Cromwell didn't use it. It mounted a 75 mm gun which fired the same ammunition as the US M3 75 mm. Hohum (talk) 04:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC) I guess it depends on the sources Reid doesnt state what Sherman he was talking about. However as for ranges Ried places the Sherman M4A4 or M4A2frontal vunerability to the 75mm L48 at 1500 yards. (p. 374) Buckley palces it at between 1500-2000 meters (Buckley, p. 126) while placing the range the 75mm guns could nail a MK IV at, as just under 1500 meters (p.132) Again the point stressed by most historians is while these machines could achieve kills at these ranges, that matters little as combat didnt usually take place at these ranges ontop of the fact of the accurecy issue. As for the brewing up of Shermans, it may deserve the repuation somewhat - it wasnt unusual, the MK IV was just as vunverable. I will hunt down the scientist report and get back to you. The overall point is that the two tanks were very similar by 1944 - at least, and that this position is supported.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Was I thinking of the 17 pounder? Yup, quick check says it had a bore of 76.2mm - it was the standard Brit anti-tank of the later years of WW2, and was mounted on the Firefly version of the M4 and the Churchill variant (I forget the name). Also the discussion re the Pak40 vs. the standard 75mm gun, a higher velocity would mean lower trajectory and greater speed thus less flight-time giving a gun with a good sights far greater first hit/first kill potential. Re petrols the M4 used a aeroplane derived engine requiring a more volatile fuel than even the Panzers which combusted readily, hence the nicknames of Ronson lighter ('lights on the first strike') and Tommy cooker. The Brit tanks had more of a problem with the fact the armour used riveting so heavy hits did not need to penetrate to cause bits of metal to fly around the crew compartments. I have to say that most of my comments is based on memory (likely faulty) and amateur interest in the subject. Like I said, reference to good sources is paramount. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Churchill tanks did were not equipped with 17 pounders. You may be thinking of the Challenger tank, a modified turret.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

In fact the ORS2 report has already been mentioned further up top - the MK IV lit up 80% of the time compared to the Sherman at 82% of the time. Average no of hits received for each tank to brew: IV-1.5, Sherman-1.97. Average no of penetrations received for brew up IV-1.5, Sherman-1.89(Copp, Montgomery's scientists: operational research in northwest Europe, p. 399-406) Buckley, using a case study of 166 Shermans knocked out in 8th and 29th Armoured brigades 94 were burnt out (p.127) 56.6%. He notes that an American survey 65% of tanks burning after being penetrated.(p.127) and states Percey Hobart claimed there was little difference in the likelihood of a Sherman or Churchill brewing up. Buckley goes on to state its the ammo cooking off not the fuel brewing and infact the fuel had been found intact in somecases. (ibid)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Does Reid say what Pz IV he's saying can be penetrated at 1500 m? The numbers I just gave suggest that an M3 75 mm isn't going to penetrate the front of a Pz IV H/J even at 500 m. Hohum (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Model H. I would have to state if the figures are showing the 75mm couldnt even penetrate the H or J models at 500 metres, there are problems with the figures. ) --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Additional Sherman armour specs for the Sherman Vc: Front Hull: 51mm @ 45-90 degree hull sides 38mm @ 90 degress hull rear 38mm @70-90 degress hull roof 25mm turret front 38-76mm @ 85-90 degress turret rear: 64mm @ 90 degress turret rood: 25mm Source: Sherman Firefly vs Tiger: Normandy 1944 Stephen A Hart, p. 27

Could the 75mm L/48 pen the M4 @2000m? If Chamberlain & Doyle (p245) have it right: the Pzgr40 pen 77mm @1500m, the Pzgr 39 64mm @2000/74 @1500. Both assume angled @30deg. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 16:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


The Mark IV H-J figures are wrong, the frontal turret armor was never increased past 50mm thickness. Shermans 75mm would hole that from 1000 yards easily. As for the 8cm hull armor, it should be remembered the hull armor in reality would not offer up the protection of a test plate. The Mark IVs hull had holes for a gun port and vision port cut into it, and a MG port and vision block welded onto it. Holes and welds themselves are weak spots and hits around those areas would encounter armor performing under its statistical strength.

All in all the Mark IVs frontal armor was not gonna stop a 75mm round easily unless it was in the hull at standard ranges at a bad angle. As already stated British Operational Research reports show the Mark IV actually could survive less hits than the Sherman, and given the type of weapons both tanks faces (Sherman more high velocity guns vs Mark IV facing more medium velocity guns) that says a lot about the supposed statistical strength of the armor and the reality of it. Wokelly (talk) 08:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The figures for the Pz.IV are from :( Perrett, Bryan (1999). Panzerkampfwagen IV Medium Tank 1936-1945. Osprey Publishing (UK). ISBN 9781855328433 . ). This is a reliable source. Hohum 19:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC) Not that reliable apparently, the turret armor and gun shield remained 50mm thick throughout its lifetime. http://panzerivuniverse.phelpscomputerservices.com/Specs-02.htm is a good source for the Mark IV, so is http://www.freeweb.hu/gva/weapons/german_turret6.html, so is http://www.tarrif.net/, so does http://www.achtungpanzer.com/panzerkampfwagen-iv.htm, and frankly so does everything I have read. Wokelly (talk) 02:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC) The 6 pounder was a 57mm gun, it was not mounted on the majority of Shermans, Cromwells or Churchills. These tanks used American or British 75mm cannons. - actually the majority of the Cromwells and Churchills mounted the 6 pdr. The exceptions were the so-called 'Close Support' versions of these tanks that were intended for giving support to infantry, etc. These used the 75mm because this gun had an explosive shell available, which was of more use against non-armoured targets, the 6 pdr having only an AP round, being intended for use against tanks. The British had two categories of tank, what was known as a 'Gun Tank' for use against other tanks and featuring a gun with an armour-piercing round, and the aforementioned 'Close Support Tank' (abbreviated as 'CS') mounting a gun with an HE shell. Although of only 57mm calibre, the 6 pdr was given a new lease of life with the availability of APDS shot in 1944, which greatly increased its effectiveness compared to other guns of the same calibre, so that by then it was probably on-a-par with the Sherman's 75mm for anti-tank use, although this was still considered inadequate, hence the need to get a 17 pdr-equipped tank into service as soon as possible, resulting in the Firefly. This ammunition was also made available for the 17 pdr, which is what helped make that gun so impressively effective, despite its (relatively) small calibre of 76.2mm. APDS effectively doubled the performance of a gun of a given calibre compared to conventional AP, APC, APCB, or APCBC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.58.60 (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC) To correct some of the above information the vast majority of the Cromwells and Churchills were equipped with the 75mm as the 6pounder was phased out so that one main weapon was in use. In the case of the Churchill squadrons, they were not equipped with Fireflys thus they wanted to retain some 6 pounder equipped tanks in an anti-tank role but i dont believe that happened. In regards to the "gun tanks" and "CS Tanks" this is incorrect early war CS tanks were mainly equipped with smoke shells to provide the supporting forces and tanks to deal with OPFOR AT capabilities while later in the war they were mainly HE equipped. There was no such thing as a "gun tank" in the British Second World War TO&E, you are referring to the cruisers/medium tanks and they used both types of ammo although the 6 pounder HE shell was, iirc, not very effective and the early war 2 pounder HE rounds were not issued. RegardsEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Shermans were often kept out of tank to tank combat. TD teams were called in, and even they often called air support and artillery, rather than to dual with German tanks. Sherman's front armor was adequate for a medium tank. But it had an inferior gun that lacked punch. Comparable Panzer IV would punch a hole in Sherman from a mile away, when Sherman could knock out Panzer IV from less than half a mile away. British Firefly was a good medium tank that could knock out Tiger in respectable distance. The only difference was the gun. America was more than capable of producing something better than Pak 40. Just didn't think to do it. P-51 Mustang was designed and produced in 3 months. Look at 76mm gun. Sherman's inferiority was the result of America not having been exposed to the bitter armor fighting of the east. It was a superb tank, but we have to admit that it had a weak gun that should have been up-gunned before Normandy.

the attacker dont suffer more tank casualties than the defender. attacking tanks were destroyed bei PAKs etc. the complete statement is nonsense. the defender will use his tanks in counterattacks which are attacking situations too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 (talk) 02:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear. It's been a while since I last read this article. Some seriously bad information has been added to this article and discussion. Most of it is unreferenced. Lots of statements about how inferior and how bad the M4 Sherman was. More Belton Cooper (R.I.P.) style B.S.

Let's get this straight. The M4 Sherman shot up a LOT of Panther tanks. At Mortain, at Arracourt, in the Battle of the Bulge. This is well documented. Loss ratios were no where near the 5 to 1 of myth, but entirely dependant on the tactical situation, and the M4 Shermans generally held their own in tank to tank combat as long as they were not getting ambushed.

75mm Shermans of Patton's 4th Armored Division were able to knock a bunch of Panther tanks at Arracourt.

Steve Zaloga wrote the book Armored Thunderbolt to answer a lot of the Belton Cooper frothing about how bad the M4 Sherman. A lot of this stuff is from this book. A major reason for the high losses for the M4 Sherman was that tanks on the offensive tended to get ambushed a lot. And the M4 Shermans were generally on the offensive. Zaloga talks about all of this in his book.

The truth is, if you look at the hard data, the M4 Sherman, the T-34-85, and the Pz IV were all relatively comparable tanks. Each one of these tanks could knock the other one out.

All this unreferenced crap needs to be debrided.

DarthRad (talk) 08:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced material should certainly be improved. However: "Analysis of 75 mm Sherman Tank Casualties Suffered Between 6th June and 10th July 1944" continued pre-invasion studies of the performance of Allied armour, confirming the most pessimistic views about the inferiority of the Sherman tank. This report documented what every crew member knew: the Sherman was dangerously vulnerable to all calibres of German anti-tank guns. The statistics were stunning. Sixty per cent of Allied tank losses were the result of a single shot from a 75 mm or 88 mm gun and two-thirds of all tanks "brewed up" when hit. German armour-piercing shells almost always penetrated and disabled a tank the armour offered so little protection that the only way to survive was to avoid being targeted." Canadian Military History Volume 7 (1998): Issue 1 I'm not saying that the Sherman was awful. The 75 mm M4s were undergunned, the 76 mm ones were probably on a par with the later Pz.IV, but outmatched by Panthers and Tigers. While it's true that the allies were usually attacking, the Germans were often counter-attacking at a tactical level and performed well. Also, Allied offensive armor tactics against German armor was often cautious: report location and wait for air/artillery support, rather than rush into ambushes - with some notable and often repeated exceptions. What I am saying, is that there is plenty of justified criticism of the Sherman. (But there is plenty of justified criticism of the T-34, Panther, Tiger too). I'm not sure you'll find many Normandy era Sherman tankers who say that Shermans "held their own" against German Panzers - they knew they were anywhere between slightly, to significantly outmatched in experience and equipment, although they will say they did their best with what they had. Hohum 19:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC) Those tankers will also tell you that the Germans deployed large number of Tiger tanks and every gun encounted was an 88. The stats conducted by the research groups gave the Sherman tank better surival odds than the MK IV.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC) But a two-out-of-three chance of your tank catching fire if hit is still not good, even if the odds are similar for your enemy. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC) Enigma. Interesting re. Pz.IV. Source? Hohum 19:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC) Montgomery Scientists, editor thingy me bob Copp - the Canadian historian cant think of his first name at the mo. It was a report conducted by the Operational research group attached to 2nd Army.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC) Seems DarthRad hit it: not that the M4 is awful, but that German AT was really good, & German doctrine was better might say the M4 wasn't well-designed for the environment it found itself in, i.e. needing to withstand hits from AT able to outrange its own gun. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 20:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC) The Sherman was a good tank in 1942 when it was first used at El Alamein, however by the time of the Invasion of Normandy in 1944 it was out-gunned and under-armoured when going up against the likely German opposition. Generally it was inferior to the long-gunned KwK 40 L/43 Panzer IV and outclassed completely by the Panther and Tiger I. The only Sherman that could take-on any of these at anything approaching equal terms was the Firefly, mainly because the Firefly's 17 pdr could knock-out any of these German tanks at much greater ranges than the standard 75mm-gunned ones. The main drawback of the US and UK 'standard' 75mm-armed Shermans was that the 75mm gun was incapable of knocking out these German vehicles unless the range was so short as to be in effect, suicidal. Hence the large losses suffered by the US and UK standard Shermans when out in open countryside, because the greater ranges of the German tank guns meant that the Sherman could be knocked out if it was seen, long before it could get close enough to return fire effectively. This meant that if a column of Shermans was sighted travelling along a road by German tanks positioned off to one side, then the Shermans could be 'picked off' at leisure, the Shermans being unable to reply. This became a serious problem during the advance from the Normandy bridgehead and the subsequent advances through Normandy and then into Germany, where in the case of ambush the advancing column might reckon on losing the first five tanks in the column before the following vehicles could get off the road and advance towards the ambushers and get into a position to destroy them. Generally you can get away with inferior armour protection as long as you have a gun capable of defeating the opposition at ranges at least equal to their own guns, but preferably better. This is the reason for the British development of the post-war ROF L7 and ROF L11 tank guns. The Sherman wasn't a bad tank, it was reliable (which some earlier, British tanks, were not) and reasonably fast, but it should have been up-gunned some time before 1944. To be fair the UK vehicles such as the Cromwell were also undergunned, even with the 6 pdr (although the availability of APDS shot for this gun in 1944 helped), and the UK didn't get a decent tank other than the Firefly until the Comet with the 77mm HV (a cut-down 17 pdr) in 1945. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.58.170 (talk) 23:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

OK hohum, here is a list of statements in the current article that cry out for revision/deletion, as they do not reflect historical truth:

But later, the Shermans were often pitted against Tiger I and Panther tanks with heavier armor and more powerful guns, and the U.S. tank forces had to rely on numbers and mobility, often suffering heavy casualties.

Inaccurate statement, as the tactical situation determined who suffered the high casualties. In a number of tank engagements such as Arracourt and Mortain and in some parts of the Battle of the Bulge, the Germans were matched with fairly even numbers by the individual M4 tank units that they encountered, and yet suffered heavy losses, because the German tanks were the ones in the poor tactical situation. i.e., getting ambushed.

  • The first part (later, Shermans fought superior Panthers and Tigers) is supported by cited passages in the main body, but there doesn't seem to be anything currently in the article to support the idea that they relied on numbers and mobility. The lead should reflect the article - so either that part of the lead needs to be altered, or supporting evidence added to the body. ( Hohum@ ) 16:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The U.S. Army failed to anticipate that the Germans would make the Panther the standard tank of their panzer divisions in 1944, supported by substantial numbers of Tigers.[12]

I put this statement in originally, and somebody else changed this to add in the part about the Tigers. The original Zaloga reference (which appears on p. 97 of "Armored Thunderbolts") refers only to the Panthers becoming the standard tank of their panzer divisions. Tigers were never encountered in "substantial numbers" anywhere in WWII. There were never "substantial numbers" of Tigers ever built. Period. The part about the Tigers should be deleted.

The size and weight restrictions limited the Sherman's armor protection and gun power. Thus U.S. commanders in Europe repeatedly asked for the M26 Pershing heavy tank.[citation needed] Some were finally delivered in 1945. The size and weight of the new tank created no serious problems in transportation to the theater or tactical employment.[citation needed] Thus, the theoretical advantages of the M4 Sherman in this respect proved to be illusory.[citation needed] However, the M26 could not be landed across a beach and required a fully equipped port with cranes.

This section is so awful that it is beyond revision and should just be deleted. Every sentence is patently false. The Sherman Firefly with the 17 pounder gun had terrific firepower, and was neither heavier nor bigger than the standard M4, apart from the longer gun barrel. The whole story of the M26 is so much more complicated. I re-wrote the entire M26 Pershing article to reflect this complexity. Size and weight considerations were why the T20 prototype weighed exactly the same as the 75mm M4 Sherman and yet had the better 76mm gun and slightly more armor. So size and weight restrictions simply did not preclude making a better tank than the 75mm M4 Sherman. The T20 (precursor to the M26) chopped down the ridiculously high side sponsons of the M4 and added more frontal armor. A good couple of paragraphs or so of the M26 Pershing article explains why the M4 sponsons were as high as they were and how the T20 hull was able to get rid of them. The M26 article also describes the problems the tank had in getting across the Bridge at Remagen. While other tanks were able to cross the damaged bridge, the M26 tanks at Remagen had to wait for five days until barges were able to float them across. The original U.S. Army size and weight restrictions for tanks were based on knowledge of the fact that European bridges had weight limitations, so there was good reason for these restrictions - Zaloga says that somewhere in "Armored Thunderbolts". And just look at the numbers of photographs of Tiger tanks that broke through bridges in Schneider's Tiger I and Tiger II books. Finally, M26 Pershings were indeed offloaded on the beach at Okinawa, so that part is wrong also.

So, this entire section is contradicted by the details in the new and revised M26 Pershing article. Better to just put in a brief blurb to reference the M26 Pershing article.

According to Belton Cooper's memoir of his 3rd Armored Division service, the Shermans were "death traps" the overall combat losses of the division were extremely high. The division was nominally assigned 232 Sherman medium tanks 648 Sherman tanks were totally destroyed in combat, and a further 1,100 needed repair, of which nearly 700 were as a result of combat. According to Cooper, the 3rd Armored therefore lost 1,348 medium tanks in combat, a loss rate of over 580%, in the space of about ten months. Cooper was the junior officer placed in charge of retrieving damaged and destroyed tanks. As such, he had an intimate knowledge of the actual numbers of tanks damaged and destroyed, the types of damage they sustained, and the kinds of repairs that were made. His figures are comparable to those given in the Operational History of 12th U.S. Army Group: Ordnance Section Annex. Some World War II Army officers made similar arguments during the war. Other officers disagreed with the negative assessment and Gen. George S. Patton argued that the Sherman tank was overall a superior tool of war.

Oh geez, another misleading opinion piece based on Belton Cooper's very misleading book. Everything from Cooper's book should be debrided or marked with a major rebuttal. How about replacing it with something like this:

By 1944, German anti-tank weapons systems had advanced to the point where it was difficult for any tank to have enough armor to withstand penetration (e.g., the infantry Panzerfausts and Panzerschreck rockets could both penetrate 200mm of armor). M4 Sherman tank losses were high during World War II, but these high losses occurred in the context of the fact that U.S. and British armored units were primarily engaged in offensive operations, which meant that the tactical situation that these tanks encountered were often highly unfavorable. Frequently, M4 Sherman tank units were forced to enter unscouted terrain where the enemy defenses were unknown and the tanks were thus vulnerable to ambush. Some of the largest M4 Sherman tanks losses occured in such unfavorable tactical situations as in the month-long Battle of Caen culminating in the heavy losses sustained by British M4 Shermans in Operation Goodwood. These high M4 Sherman losses should be compared with the even higher cumulative losses of the Soviet T-34 on the Eastern Front (e.g., compare with Soviet losses of the T-34 at the Battle of Prokhorovka). German tanks, it should be noted also sustained high loss ratios when they were forced to engage in similar unfavorable tactical situations. Tank losses were high on all sides during World War II as this was simply a reflection of the advanced state of anti-tank weaponry by the major combatants. DarthRad (talk) 07:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

  • I'm not convinced that Cooper is unreliable. Wikipedia needs more than your personal assurance for us to ignore his apparently expert opinion. Also, your proposed replacement doesn't rebut him, it completely removes anything attributed to him. You also appear to doing a lot of synthesis, unless the sources your draw it all from also draw the same conclusions. ( Hohum@ ) 16:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    • It would take an entire Wikipedia article all by itself, possibly even a small book, to solidly refute, with references, all of the outright falsehoods, distortions of fact, and unsupported claims in Belton Cooper's Death Traps. Steven Zaloga's Armored Thunderbolt and Panther versus Sherman books provide a lot of the synthesis for the information that I just wrote above which do refute Cooper. I can go back and dig up the specific references. Healy's book Zitadelle provides some solid statistics about Soviet losses at Kursk and Prokhorovka. He doesn't compare them with M4 losses on the Western Front, but all you have to do is to quote the losses for M4 Shermans in the Battle of Caen from British Armour in the Normandy Campaign 1944 by John Buckley and compare them. These were both set piece battles. The Soviets lost huge numbers of T-34s in their tank battles. So why aren't T-34s called "Death Traps" ? This was a good part of my complaints in the T-34 discussion section about the fundamental unfairness of how the Wikipedia articles for the T-34 and the M4 Sherman are currently slanted. Far more T-34s were destroyed by the Germans than M4s. T-34s not only burned vigorously when hit, they completely and utterly shattered into little pieces. I posted a photo of a shattered T-34 in the Wiki article to prove this. So why are T-34s still characterized as "the best tank in the world" in its Wikipedia article, while M4 Shermans are characterized as "Death Traps?". Reason - Cooper's book has heavily slanted current thinking about the M4, whereas Soviet-era propaganda and the muddied memoirs of German generals have continued to slant the available (and outdated) English language literature about the T-34. If the Wikipedia article allows the M4 to be called a "Death Trap", then the T-34 should, as I proposed, be labeled more accurately in its Wikipedia article as "the most destroyed tank in the world". DarthRad (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    • In the preface of Armored Thunderbolts, Zaloga never mentions Cooper by name, but he mentions enough details to indicate that a lot of what he wrote in this book was specifically to refute misinformation that Cooper had spread with his book Death Traps. The closest that Zaloga comes to identifying Cooper is his mention of the Suicide Missions History Channel show in 2000 in which Cooper was featured as a tank expert testifying to the suicidal characteristics of the M4 Sherman. Armored Thunderbolts is just chock full of details that refute Cooper's claims about U.S. tanks and tank warfare. DarthRad (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I devoted a good chunk of the re-write of the M26 Pershing article to specifically refute Cooper's claim that Patton was the main person responsible for stopping the M26 from being developed. People questioned why I spent so much time refuting Cooper on the M26 Pershing article. I explained that unfortunately, so much of Cooper's stuff has disseminated out into what people thought they knew about tanks that they had become urban legends. DarthRad (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
      • This article still isn't about the T-34, so please stop bringing it up.
      • Armored Thunderbolts, Zaloga never mentions Cooper by name, but he mentions enough details to indicate that a lot of what he wrote in this book was specifically to refute misinformation that Cooper had spread with his book Death Traps.>> - This is a complete non sequitur. If he doesn't name him, you cannot attribute it to be specifically countering him.
      • What you just described for the Pershing article sounds a lot like you pushing POV. If a source is reviewed by peers as being better than another, great, we'll use it preferentially, but 'your word' on which authors are right and wrong, simply isn't good enough.
      • Instead of writing rambling diatribes, please try and be concise, and to the point. You have done nothing further to show Cooper as unreliable. That will require his peers criticising his work, not you. ( Hohum@ ) 18:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
        • Also, instead of dropping another couple of paragraphs of argument here, why not make the changes I agreed on above? ( Hohum@ ) 18:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
        • Have gotten really busy again with my day job. Will get around to really fixing this article one of these days. My main point is that if you or anybody else insists on keeping ANY QUOTES from Belton Cooper's awful book Death Traps, then there are MORE THAN ENOUGH other references that refute or significantly explain much better than he does the real truth of tank warfare in Europe. It just takes a lot of time to properly gather all the evidence/references and make it bulletproof. I just spent a week of my free time doing that for the "Patton stopped the M26" falsehood that permeated both the M4 Sherman and the M26 Pershing articles. I see that NOBODY has since tried to put that bit back into these two articles. So, a bit of work, but believe me, Hohum, Belton Cooper's other falsehoods are going to come crashing down also, when I get some more time.DarthRad (talk) 04:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
        • Belton Cooper was an eyewitness to only one thing - he saw a lot of M4 Sherman tanks get shot up. That part is absolutely true. However, he did not have a clue what shot them up (holes from towed anti-tank guns and SPG guns look just like tank rounds) and since his job did not include actually driving or fighting in these tanks, nor examining German tanks or Soviet tanks that were similarly shot up in large quantities, Cooper had absolutely no perspective for understanding what tank warfare was all about in WWII (i.e., the "See First, Fire First" rule prevailed). Nevertheless, that did not stop him from confabulating a great story.DarthRad (talk) 04:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
        • I found a DVD copy of the History Channel "Suicide Missions" episode with Belton Cooper in it. It's selling at fire sale prices on Amazon right now. Oh boy, is this episode a stinker. Filled with inaccuracies. When I get time, I think I will post it on YouTube, with a full rebuttal. This is the specific episode that Zaloga mentions as being one of the inspirations for him to write Armored Thunderbolts.DarthRad (talk) 04:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

        DarthRad (talk) 07:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

        Tank losses for Operation Goodwood have actually been revisied down considerably recent research notes of only 140 complete right offs. The high numbers come from tanks disabled/abandoned that were later repaired and put back into service. (See goodwood article for evidence) Primary sources that i have seen show Goodwood in a even different light the 3 armoured divisions, especially 11AD, being practically back up to full strength a week later.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Surely, being back up to full strength a week later can just as easily be attributed to the vast amount of replacement tanks the US enjoyed? ( Hohum @ ) 16:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Thats one implication the other is that the losses were essentially not a big deal regardless of the ammount of "OMG LOL @ teh Limies. 1!!" :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC) I would just point out that at the same time, new post-Soviet era details have emerged that have SHARPLY raised the numbers of tank losses suffered by the Soviets at Kursk and Prokhorovka. So, after all, things were not as bad as thought for the M4 Sherman, and no where near as great as thought for the T-34. DarthRad (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Is Cooper unreliable? On Patton, FWI read, he is the M26 was opposed by the Army (General Board?) as unneeded, as was the 76 in the M4. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

        "If the Wikipedia article allows the M4 to be called a "Death Trap", then the T-34 should, as I proposed, be labeled more accurately in its Wikipedia article as "the most destroyed tank in the world"." this was funny Blablaaa (talk) 00:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

        Tank losses for Operation Goodwood have actually been revisied down considerably recent research notes of only 140 complete right offs. The high numbers come from tanks disabled/abandoned that were later repaired and put back into service - often when hit a glancing-blow by a German AP round, the tank engine would stall due to the concussion of the shot's impact, and the crew not realising this would then 'bale-out' believing the hit was more serious than it actually was - the crew weren't going to hang around inside waiting to see if the vehicle was going to 'brew-up' or not. Usually the tank could then be recovered after the battle and was perfectly usable, the engine starting first time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.84.249 (talk) 20:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

        I propose that the entire "Summary" section be deleted. The lead is supposed to be the summary of the article. The current "Summary" is almost entirely unreferenced, lacks focus, and the tiny bits that are referenced are either mostly irrelevant (Pershings), can be moved elsewhere, or duplicate what's already said elsewhere.

        If the article does need a "conclusions" section, then I still think we're better off deleting this one and starting from scratch. ( Hohum @ ) 18:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

        • I vote for complete deletion. The Summary keeps repeating the same things over and over again, and makes no sense, and has a lot of the usual Belton Cooper-inspired inaccuracies. Yes, the Summary keeps repeating itself over and over again. And again and again. DarthRad (talk) 04:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
        • Done. --Izno (talk) 04:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

        I am deleting the paragraph that says "most Shermans remained 75mm models until the end of the war (citation needed)". This is false. At 1945 in the US Army over fifty per cent of Sherman tanks were 76mm gun armed variants, according to the appendix to Roger Ford's THE SHERMAN TANK. Unless the author is refering to the number of British, French and USMC variants in the Pacific, but then we will have to count the numerous Russian Sherman 76s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.136.181.98 (talk) 06:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

        Except it isn't false, it is accurate. The number of 76 mm-armed Shermans in US hands just barely exceeded the number of 75 mm - armed models in the last months of the war in the ETO. Meanwhile, the very large British stocks of Shermans were almost all 75 -mm armed at the factory and far less than half were ever converted to 17 lbrs. Almost exactly half the Soviet Shermans had 76 mm guns (just over 2,000 out of the slightly more than 4,000 they got). Most of the French Shermans were 75 mm armed also. All the Chinese and all the USMC ones had 75 mm guns too. Finally, all the US Army tank battalions in the Pacific were equipped with 75 mm armed tanks. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 17:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

        The Japanese tanks were so ineffective and poor 76mm guns were not necessary at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.68.169 (talk) 02:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

        'The Shermans, unlike the German tanks, used Petrol fuel instead of Diesel, causing them to burst into flames when hit.

        "The Sherman, mechanically reliable as it was, had one very nasty habit that was the tendency to burst into flames the moment it was hit. It very readily ignited. It became something of a joke to the German army, who christened them 'Tommy Cookers'".'

        from the Documentary "Weapons of World War II". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.106.3 (talk • contribs)

        Just for the sake of accuracy, there were diesel engined Shermans (M4A2, M4A6). They were primarily used by US Marines or by foreign (most prominently Soviet) forces. And German tanks had gasoline engines, just like most of the Shermans. As for the main point, I'm not an expert here, but as far as I know. 1) While diesel fuel is less flammable than gasoline, it is not obvious that it translated to any significant difference between diesel engined tanks and gasoline engined ones in real battlefield conditions. E.g. I remember seeing some Soviet report concerning advantages and disadvantages of each engine type, and that report explicitly claimed that the difference is not critical. 2) It is not obvious that the gasoline fuel was the main cause for tanks exploding or burning out. There were other culprits, e.g. ammunition and hydraulic fluid. Note that those two were located right beside Sherman crew, while engine and fuel resided in a separate compartment, which made engine relatively less dangerous for the crew. Of course for a given Sherman crew even "non critical" difference in flammability could mean difference between life and death, but statistically, I think gasoline engine gets much more blame than it deserves. Bukvoed (talk) 08:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC) The US Army did a study of this early in the war (no surprise there) and found that most tank fires were attributable to ammunition explosions, not fuel tank ignition. That's why the ammo stowage was redesigned in later 75 mm and 76 mm models. As an interim step, applique armor was added outside the ammo bins. Regards DMorpheus (talk) 17:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

        For the record, As I stated above, Those are exact quotes from the documentary, about 10-20 minutes in. Patrick Hennessey did NOT attribute the "very nasty habit" of exploding to the use of Petrol. He only mentioned its nasty habit. The mentioning of the use of petrol at all was said by the narrator, not Patrick Hennesey.

        Nevertheless it is incorrect. All German tanks ran on petrol engines, not diesel. The only major combatant to field mostly diesel tanks was the USSR. Shermans burned because they had thin armor and vulnerable ammo stowage, not because they used gas engines. Regards,DMorpheus (talk) 17:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

        -- Gasoline vs Diesel: each had its advantages: gasoline engines were easier and cheaper to build and had a better distribution infrastructure in the the 1940s. Properly built diesel engines were more reliable, heavier and less sensitive to fuel quality. I would rather have a diesel tank to drive, but the Army's choice for manufacturing ease and fuel supply of the gasoline engine is the way I would have gone. Saltysailor (talk) 08:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

        According to Mihulec and Zientarzewski "T-34 Mythical Weapon" (p.251), the reason the Soviets chose to use diesel engines in their tanks was simply that their oil industry was very primitive in terms of producing good quality gasoline. Gasoline engines in Soviet ground vehicles had to make do with 50 octane gasoline - the good 75 octane stuff was reserved for aircraft. With such poor quality gasoline, diesel engines had much better fuel economy and thus further range. So for all of these reasons, the Soviets chose diesel engines. It had nothing to do with less flammability or safety.

        And the reason that everybody thinks that T-34's did not burn as easily as M4 Shermans is simply that the Soviets heavily censored all the bad stuff about their tanks. T-34s absolutely were knocked out in massive quantities by the Germans - M & Z estimate some 45,000 T-34s were destroyed during WWII (p. 220). If you want to see pictures of burnt-to-a-crisp, totally blown up, armor-shattered-in-all-directions T-34s, get this book. Practically every other page has a photo of a knocked out T-34.

        And so, the reason that more T-34s were produced in WWII than any other tank was simply that MORE T-34s WERE KNOCKED OUT THAN ANY OTHER TANK. The Soviets had to keep cranking them out because they were getting knocked out in record numbers. M & Z document extensively the incredible pressure and total disregard for quality control that took over in the Soviet haste to produce more of the T-34s during WWII. Armor quality dropped severely.

        So, insult the M4 Sherman all you want - Ronson, Tommy Cooker, whatever. But the truth is, the Soviet T-34 wins the World Championship Title for "MOST KNOCKED OUT TANK OF ALL TIME".

        The book you are using is such a biased and one sided view of the T 34 as to be worthless. It is clear the authors are fighting old Polish-Soviet battles and this ruins the book for any serious study —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjkenny (talk • contribs) 00:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

        I agree 100% with MJKenny DMorpheus (talk) 15:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

        I am deleting the paragraph that says "most Shermans remained 75mm models until the end of the war (citation needed)". This is false. At 1945 in the US Army over fifty per cent of Sherman tanks were 76mm gun armed variants, according to the appendix to Roger Ford's THE SHERMAN TANK. Unless the author is refering to the number of British, French and USMC variants in the Pacific, but then we will have to count the numerous Russian Sherman 76s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.136.181.98 (talk) 06:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

        Except it isn't false, it is accurate. The number of 76 mm-armed Shermans in US hands just barely exceeded the number of 75 mm - armed models in the last months of the war in the ETO. Meanwhile, the very large British stocks of Shermans were almost all 75 -mm armed at the factory and far less than half were ever converted to 17 lbrs. Almost exactly half the Soviet Shermans had 76 mm guns (just over 2,000 out of the slightly more than 4,000 they got). Most of the French Shermans were 75 mm armed also. All the Chinese and all the USMC ones had 75 mm guns too. Finally, all the US Army tank battalions in the Pacific were equipped with 75 mm armed tanks. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 17:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

        The Japanese tanks were so ineffective and poor 76mm guns were not necessary at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.68.169 (talk) 02:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

        'The Shermans, unlike the German tanks, used Petrol fuel instead of Diesel, causing them to burst into flames when hit.

        "The Sherman, mechanically reliable as it was, had one very nasty habit that was the tendency to burst into flames the moment it was hit. It very readily ignited. It became something of a joke to the German army, who christened them 'Tommy Cookers'".'

        from the Documentary "Weapons of World War II". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.106.3 (talk • contribs)

        Just for the sake of accuracy, there were diesel engined Shermans (M4A2, M4A6). They were primarily used by US Marines or by foreign (most prominently Soviet) forces. And German tanks had gasoline engines, just like most of the Shermans. As for the main point, I'm not an expert here, but as far as I know. 1) While diesel fuel is less flammable than gasoline, it is not obvious that it translated to any significant difference between diesel engined tanks and gasoline engined ones in real battlefield conditions. E.g. I remember seeing some Soviet report concerning advantages and disadvantages of each engine type, and that report explicitly claimed that the difference is not critical. 2) It is not obvious that the gasoline fuel was the main cause for tanks exploding or burning out. There were other culprits, e.g. ammunition and hydraulic fluid. Note that those two were located right beside Sherman crew, while engine and fuel resided in a separate compartment, which made engine relatively less dangerous for the crew. Of course for a given Sherman crew even "non critical" difference in flammability could mean difference between life and death, but statistically, I think gasoline engine gets much more blame than it deserves. Bukvoed (talk) 08:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC) The US Army did a study of this early in the war (no surprise there) and found that most tank fires were attributable to ammunition explosions, not fuel tank ignition. That's why the ammo stowage was redesigned in later 75 mm and 76 mm models. As an interim step, applique armor was added outside the ammo bins. Regards DMorpheus (talk) 17:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

        For the record, As I stated above, Those are exact quotes from the documentary, about 10-20 minutes in. Patrick Hennessey did NOT attribute the "very nasty habit" of exploding to the use of Petrol. He only mentioned its nasty habit. The mentioning of the use of petrol at all was said by the narrator, not Patrick Hennesey.

        Nevertheless it is incorrect. All German tanks ran on petrol engines, not diesel. The only major combatant to field mostly diesel tanks was the USSR. Shermans burned because they had thin armor and vulnerable ammo stowage, not because they used gas engines. Regards,DMorpheus (talk) 17:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

        -- Gasoline vs Diesel: each had its advantages: gasoline engines were easier and cheaper to build and had a better distribution infrastructure in the the 1940s. Properly built diesel engines were more reliable, heavier and less sensitive to fuel quality. I would rather have a diesel tank to drive, but the Army's choice for manufacturing ease and fuel supply of the gasoline engine is the way I would have gone. Saltysailor (talk) 08:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

        According to Mihulec and Zientarzewski "T-34 Mythical Weapon" (p.251), the reason the Soviets chose to use diesel engines in their tanks was simply that their oil industry was very primitive in terms of producing good quality gasoline. Gasoline engines in Soviet ground vehicles had to make do with 50 octane gasoline - the good 75 octane stuff was reserved for aircraft. With such poor quality gasoline, diesel engines had much better fuel economy and thus further range. So for all of these reasons, the Soviets chose diesel engines. It had nothing to do with less flammability or safety.

        And the reason that everybody thinks that T-34's did not burn as easily as M4 Shermans is simply that the Soviets heavily censored all the bad stuff about their tanks. T-34s absolutely were knocked out in massive quantities by the Germans - M & Z estimate some 45,000 T-34s were destroyed during WWII (p. 220). If you want to see pictures of burnt-to-a-crisp, totally blown up, armor-shattered-in-all-directions T-34s, get this book. Practically every other page has a photo of a knocked out T-34.

        And so, the reason that more T-34s were produced in WWII than any other tank was simply that MORE T-34s WERE KNOCKED OUT THAN ANY OTHER TANK. The Soviets had to keep cranking them out because they were getting knocked out in record numbers. M & Z document extensively the incredible pressure and total disregard for quality control that took over in the Soviet haste to produce more of the T-34s during WWII. Armor quality dropped severely.

        So, insult the M4 Sherman all you want - Ronson, Tommy Cooker, whatever. But the truth is, the Soviet T-34 wins the World Championship Title for "MOST KNOCKED OUT TANK OF ALL TIME".

        The book you are using is such a biased and one sided view of the T 34 as to be worthless. It is clear the authors are fighting old Polish-Soviet battles and this ruins the book for any serious study —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjkenny (talk • contribs) 00:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

        I agree 100% with MJKenny DMorpheus (talk) 15:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

        I tracked down Richard P. Hunnicutt (originally to clarify copyright questions about some photos from his "Pershing" book). What a treat it was to talk on the phone with this gentleman! He wrote the definitive work on the M4 Sherman (and a bunch of other tanks), and unfortunately, as far as he knows, there are no plans for any more reprints. So looks like it will have to be beaucoup bucks for the overpriced aftermarket resale copies. He also mentioned that the current "Pershing" book that is being sold at fairly low prices (<$50) is a Made-in-China ripoff, unauthorized, for which he is getting no royalties.

        I took the opportunity to ask him what he thought of Belton Cooper - he agreed that Cooper was inaccurate, that the Army's tank destroyer philosophy created most of the problems.

        We should just ask Richard Hunnicutt to review or re-write this M4 Sherman article. Would anybody dare disagree with him? Well, actually the way Wikipedia is structured, a bunch of hacks would probably plow right in and screw it up pretty quickly. Seriously doubt he would be interested. He's 84, and currently lives in Granite Bay, California. DarthRad (talk) 01:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

        A review would be nice, if he could spare the time. --Izno (talk) 01:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC) DarthRad i think you may need a chill pill, with no ill respect intended =] It would be nice to see what a historian on the subject has to say about the article and his opinion of areas that need to be improved etc Although with that said we would still have to bare in mind the wiki guidelines - verfiable seconadry sources etc--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

        In 2001-2003 I was assigned to the US Army Tank-armaments and Automotive Command (USA TACOM) at Detroit Arsenal in Warren Michigan. In 2002, TACOM was in the process of the final turn-over of the former tank plant facility to the City of Warren. At the final ceremony, there was a Sherman Easy 8 and a M1A1 Abrams parked at slight angles to each other behind the dais. While it was really great to see the 'first' and 'last' tanks produced at the Arsenal, what struck me was how large the Sherman appeared to be compared to the Abrams. While both are certainly imposing machines, I think the conventional wisdom is probably that modern tanks are so much larger than their WWII brothers. I think that is certainly true when thinking of the Chaffee, but looking at the Easy 8 next to the Abrams, I'd give the Sherman a big thumbs-up for an imposing fear factor. It looked tough, angry, and mean, whereas the Abrams looked sort of sleek and sexy, but not all that scary. Of course, I've never had either come at me business end first! MAJ Kev —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.185.70 (talk) 01:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

        Isn't it worth noting the T-34's role as the main Soviet tank, produced in greater numbers, and generally seen as the best tank design of the war, vs. the Sherman's being the most "important" to the US. The T-34 was also the basis for post-war Soviet tanks, while the Sherman was the end of its line, with the Pershing being the basis for the Patton series. There should be a place for comparison with British designs and the Japanese competition as well. Bakcell (talk) 17:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

        May I suggest the book "T34- Mythical Weapon" by Robert Michulec. Michulec points out that the Soviets heavily censored all bad comments about the T34, which is the major reason that most of the flaws of the T34 even today are not well known in the West. The eventual Soviet decision to upgrade the T34 to an 85mm cannon was every bit as confused and delayed and plagued by bureaucracy as the various efforts to upgrade the M4 Sherman. Probably worse, considering that unlike the US, the Soviets had firsthand exposure to every new German tank that came out well before any of the other Allies. Soviet tank design was always multi-pronged, with many competing factories and design bureaus working on new tanks. Somewhere in that process, the lessons learned from the mistakes made with the T34 (and there were many) undoubtedly were incorporated into the postwar Soviet tanks, but to say that the T34 was the basis for postwar Soviet tanks is a bit of a stretch. A good case could be made for the IS-2 and IS-3 having a more immediate connection to postwar Soviet tanks Post-war, as anti-tank firepower increased, the 30-35 ton weight class represented by the T34 and the Sherman tanks basically became obsolete, which is probably why neither tank had much of a direct influence on later tank design. DarthArd (talk) 04:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

        The book "T34- Mythical Weapon" is spoiled by the authors constant and unrelenting crusade to portray the T-34 as the worst performing tank of WW2. Keep in mind the centuries of Polish-Russian conflict when you read it. The books is hopelessly biased and of no use to those seeking a balanced opinion on the T34. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenny (talk • contribs) 23:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

        The T34 was not the basis for post-war Soviet tanks that line began with the A32 and ended with the T34. The T54/55, and their successors were based on the T44 medium tank

        —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loates Jr (talk • contribs) 15:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

        There is no such thing as "best tank" as the entire issue is hyper relevant to the issue being discussed. The M4 had more armor, and it's primary armament at the end of the war could penetrate more armor than the T-34/85 at greater ranges. However the T-34 had a great power:weight ratio and better cross country and road performances. There are an infinite number of aspects involved in armored warfare, and as such it's impossible to say "xxx tank was better" unless you narrow it down and say the M4 had superior gun depression.


        The M4 had better armor, a more powerful gun, significantly better gun depression, and better target acquisition devices than the T-34, so i fail to see how it's superior in anyway apart from mobility. This article is already filled to the brink with popular history and unfair comments about the M4 and is in desperate need of neutral and factual articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.114.227 (talk) 06:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

        The article seems to believe that as the Sherman was not designed primarily to take on enemy armor, then the tank could only have been designed as an infantry support tank (a conclusion not supported by footnotes). This is not so.

        As the article correctly states, the design characteristics of the M4 were submitted in Aug 40. That was just one month after creation of the Armored Force. It strains belief that the first act of the Armored Force was to design an infantry support tank!

        The Armored Force was responsible for two general types of units armored divisions and GHQ tank groups. Per the May 41 edition of FM 100-5 Operations, the armored division consisted of 5 echelons: command, reconnaissance, striking, support and service. The striking echelon consists of the armored regiments. The support echelon consists of armored infantry with fire support. Clearly the M4 was NOT being designed as an infantry support tank for the armored divisions.

        Similarly, the FM's discussion of the GHQ armored groups and battalions focuses on employment of these units in mass, a force around which supporting arms are organized.

        Further, the key design factor behind the Sherman is found in this paragraph from the manual:

        "The armored division is organized primarily to perform missions that require great mobility and firepower. It is given decisive missions. It is capable of engaging in all forms of combat, but its primary role is in offensive operations against hostile rear areas."

        Primary role . . . againt hostile rear areas. Sound familiar? That's the classic role of the cruiser tank. It isn't infantry support and it isn't tank-on-tank. Now the US did not use the cruiser concept in its doctrinal lingo (nor did it use the concept of 'infantry support tank' at that point, either), but its pretty clear that's the role the M-4 was designed to fill. The fact that the M4 did not incorporate the typical European cruiser tank characteristics does not alter the fact that this was its envisioned employment.

        The facts that Shermans seldon were able to operate in the enemy's rear, and that in practice it often did fullfill the infantry support role does not change the fact that it was not designed for that role. And the fact that Shermans often subsequently encountered enemy armor does not change the doctrinal guidance: "Attack to destroy enemy armored units when forced to do so as a matter of self-preservation or when hostile tanks threaten seriously to disrupt operations of other troops." These were later battlefield realities.

        The original design criteria focused on operations in the enemy rear.

        Suggest that the description of the M4's design intent be revised to reflect the reality of the 1940-41 doctrine that governed its development.

        I find personally the sentence "Many German generals and many historians considered the T-34 the best tank of the war,[5] but even so the Russians recognized the Sherman's particular advantages when they used them in certain niche situations.[6]" gravely misleading. The source cited here for support of this thesis, is an interview with Soviet tanker Dmitriy Loza, who had personal experiences on both tanks, no problem here. Still, in this whole text there is neither support, nor even trace of these alleged advantages. He points out certain features that made Sherman more comfortable, more reliable, but still - this thesis suggests, that there were particular tactical variants, that would encourage the use of Shermans. Loza recalls:
        - longer service life of rubber-coated M4 tracks
        - much more comfortable way for recharging vehicle's batteries
        - use of more sophisticated explosive in American HE rounds, that made them less prone for explosion in burning tank
        - incomparably greater degree of comfort and aesthetics of Sherman's inside
        - lesser (minimal) chance for spalling, when hit with medium calibre AT rounds (with larger, i.e. 88mm, rounds, obviously destroying the tank)
        All of these values, obviously advantages, served rather the comfort and safety of the crew and had no tactical values. Features, like no spalling and HE warheads impervious to flames, are obviously of life and death significancy, but have they any meaning in tactical scale?
        In whole article I've found just one advantage, that could have been potentially significant to tactics:
        - steel tracks of Russian tanks being much louder, a silent approach on hard surface was practically impossible.
        To avoid putting into Loza's mouth words he never spoke, I suggest changing the quoted sentence to "Many German generals and many historians considered the T-34 the best tank of the war,[5] but even so the Russians recognized the Sherman's particular minor advantages. [6]" I will change them in few weeks if no discussion follows this rant :), so, anyone disagrees? Or supports?
        Vonzgred (talk) 01:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

        I would disagree with your characterization "minor". Prima facie they're trivial. However, crew comfort, frex, has a strong bearing on effectiveness. (As witness the difference between Sugar boats & fleet boats.) So, too, does confidence: knowing they're less likely to face spalling, the crews will put their attention elsewhere & be willing (perhaps marginally, but noticeably, from a statistical standpoint) to take more chances. (Same argument can be made for issuing parachutes to aircrew in WW1.) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 04:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC) Well, maybe "minor" is a bit too much of change. And not entirely objective, as now, having some time to get a new perspective, I admit it is just my personal opinion of their importancy. Agreed, trusting their armour, crews could be more effective - but statistics belongs to strategy. My major point was their irrelevancy from tactical standpoint. 212.122.217.200 (talk) 03:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

        How is it possible to make such a general, vague, and sweeping assessments by calling 'x' tank "the best tank of world war 2"? The sheer number of factors are overwhelming and extremely situational. Many times during this and the T-34 article have such references been made, taking a non-neutral point of view and citing less than fair sources with seemingly no external reasoning other than invoking nationalistic pride. Instead of saying "x" tank is "better" than "b" tank, we should present the specifications in a non-POV way and let the reader come to his/her own conclusion.

        I move to remove all mentioning of such cases, and replace them with side by side statistical breakdowns, or perhaps a new comparison article instead. This way the reader can draw their own conclusions based of the specifications of the tanks.

        76.181.103.83 (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Jade rat

        Raw specifications don't tell the whole story. (They never do, or, on the specs, France would have won in May '40.) In the case of the T-34, my impression has always been, it didn't have excellence in all areas, but its features combined produced an excellence. In short, the Sov designers got the combination right better than anybody else: gun power, armor, weight, hp, reliability, & production. Others had an edge in some areas none had a better combined package. Nor AFAIK is that in doubt among even German or American historiographers, who may have reason to lie about it. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 22:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


        You're mistaken, the T-34 was infamous for it's vulnerability to breaking down in the middle of combat and did nothing the M4 did not do better except for having a 4km faster top speed, ground pressure, and 3 degree shallower sloped armor on the front. The belief that the T-34 was in anyway exceptional came from the lack of negative comments due to the censorship during the war. The allies had no such establishment for negative comments about it's armor so people often heard immensely negative things. Further the lack of quality controls meant it was very difficult to manufacture from 1941-1942 when it was 300,000 rubles per unit (three times the cost of a single M4 and 5 times the cost of a Panzer4) Further it's gun and armor had both been inferior to the M4's gun and the 7.5cm on the Panzer 4. Overall the M4 Sherman defeated the T-34 in every arena (reliability, gun depression, armor thickness, gun penetration, VS, optics, radio, gunbarrel life, tree lifespan, and price from 1941-1943) While the T-34 had better ground pressure (until the installment of the E8) fuel effeminacy, a 4km faster top speed, and a 4 degree better upper frontal slope. Such advantages simply do not make up for it's serous short comings in the other categories against the M4, yet alone Panzer4 who does most of that even better.

        France lost due to it's doctrine and Guderian played right into it. France did not operate tanks at a independent divisional level, rather they formed infantry support brigades and spread them out over the entire front. Further, the French docertine demanded "perfect intelligence" before allowing an attack to be committed, Guderian accurately measured that he would have three days before the French army could react to any move he made and thus was able to over run French positions and engage any French armor at highly favorable numerical odds. Further Germany had control of the skies, and concentrated their forces to a single small point as France raced the bulk of their army to meet the two army groups who acted as a diversion by attacking the Netherlands and Belgium as the third with 2/3rds of all German military equipment attacked the unfinished and nearly deserted Northern Maginot line that was being extended since 1939.

        I agree. Besides being obvious opinion, the T-34 could be argued as a contender for that title during the early war years, but you don't get the absurd kill ratios that were gotten on the /76 and the /85 even and be able to call it the "best tank." Yes, many German generals are quoted as saying what is mentioned but they are talking about the start of the war. With its horrible view-ports and subsequent situational awareness, built to break down engine, inadequate armor and commander/gunner (for the 76), the t-34 was not in any sense "the best" tank of ww2. For such a generalization to appear on wikipedia as not an opinion it would have to be far superior to every other tank and be therefore be the obvious choice. Maybe in a strategic sense, like the Sherman, it can be considered to be due to the numbers put out, but as a machine, it doesn't stand above everything else high enough to be considered that. Also "niche" situations needs to be explained for this to stay up there. 173.79.66.188 (talk) 02:32, 28 Sept 2011

        This isn't a forum for general discussion. However, I have removed the poorly sourced, synthesis from the lead which suggested that the T-34 was the "best tank", which also didn't reflect the main body of the article. ( Hohum @ ) 18:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

        "Tank, Medium, M-4" is the official Army lingo and please note the dash! Leaving it out is modern and confusing usage. Most of all, it is historically incorrect.

        Indeed, the Brits named it the 'Sherman,' the name under which it got famous. They did not use the 'M-4xxx' system of designation, but named the types Sherman I through V (roman numerals) with a letter for sub-types, e.g. "Sherman VC Firefly" — the extra name denoting a very important type that isn't even mentioned here.

        The article is altogether too much slanted towards the U.S.A. and does not consider the widespread use of this vehicle, including its later derivatives like the IDF's M-50 and M-51.

        VNCCC (talk) 17:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

        Under the infobox on the right hand side is a navigation box Template:M4_Sherman_navigation which links to several subarticles (such as post WWII use and development). There are also links to these sub articles in the article eg Lend-Lease_Sherman_tanks under "Service history" and M4 Sherman variants under US variants. You will find the British Shermans covered there including a link to the Sherman Firefly article (actually Firefly is mentioned in the third paragraph of the lead, under "Gun development" and the "See also" sections). GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

        From Rhino Tank: The Rhino tank (or "Rhinoceros") was the American nickname for Allied tanks fitted with hedgerow-breaching "tusks" during the Second World War Battle of Normandy, which took place during the Liberation of France in the summer of 1944. The British nicknamed the devices prongs.
        So, ¿why isn’t it listed here? (Maybe it is and I just missed it, but I also used my page search function, so I doubt it.)Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

        Rhino tank refers to any tank fitted with the Cullin prong device, whether Sherman, M3 Stuart or Cromwell. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC) Okaaaay… At very least, a mention of the variant and link to the effective article should be included.Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 15:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC) It's already linked from a photo in the Armor section, and described in some detail (though not linked) under Miscellaneous. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC) So it is… But it’s SO brief that if you didn’t know it was there, you’d miss it. There’s got to be a way to give it more attention ¿A subsection perhaps? (To give you a perspective, even knowing it was here, I had to use the page search function on my computer.)Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 21:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC) Seems a reasonable amount of content to me, a full paragraph covers its tactical use. It was only needed for that area of France and not in the rest of the north western Europe campaign, nor for the North Africa, Italy, Burma or Pacific campaigns. To put more emphasis on the subject in this article would be WP:UNDUE.GraemeLeggett (talk) 02:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

        I did a little experiment I tried finding it NOW purely by scanning (no use of a search function). I didn’t find it, and to be honest, I can’t be sure it’s here now (I assume it is, but without using the search function it’s not going to happen). Try the experiment for yourself using someone NOT familiar with the page (or its contents). Then tell me it’s “a reasonable amount of content.” EDIT: This time I did use the Search Function “Rhino” came up “No Matches” and under “Hedge” (as in the mis-named “hedgerows”) there was a blurb, but hardly a proper commentary Additionally, the section was more interested in the use of three tanks in shotgun manner (if I even read that right, it was rather cumbersome) than the Cullins Hedgerow Cutters. The only link was a caption under a photograph in which the Cutters weren’t even noticeable, unless you happen to be looking for that. This was listed under Armor. Really. A. J. REDDSON


        Watch the video: Panzer IV vs. Sherman


Comments:

  1. Averey

    Bravo, the excellent answer.

  2. Samuka

    I congratulate, what necessary words ..., remarkable thought

  3. Akiiki

    There are other lacks

  4. Stockwell

    no words! just wow! ..

  5. Fitzwater

    In my opinion you are wrong. Write to me in PM, we will handle it.

  6. Ewing

    I think, that you are mistaken. Write to me in PM, we will communicate.

  7. Kigajar

    I am sorry, that I interrupt you, but, in my opinion, there is other way of the decision of a question.



Write a message