The Sherman: A Winner by the Numbers?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

The Sherman: A Winner by the Numbers?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> The Sherman: A Winner by the Numbers?

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

The Sherman: A Winner by the Numbers? - 1/5/2006 4:12:40 AM

KG Erwin

Posts: 8981
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline

For the sake of argument, I quote this web article (author unknown):

"M4 Sherman Tank
The main American tank in World War 2 won by numbers

The M4 Sherman tank was a winner by numbers, not by quality. When the US entered World War 2 it did not have a modern tank, even the latest existing designs were obsolete compared to the modern German tanks.

So a new medium tank design was quickly developed, and since it was technically simple and very reliable, a decision was made to immediately start mass producing it in enormous numbers and not wait for the slow development process of an advanced heavy tank. The M26 Pershing heavy tank was slowly developed and reached the war front just before the end of the war.

As a vehicle, the M4 Sherman was very reliable, and as such it was superior to the German tanks, but as a tank the M4 Sherman had several problems, especially when compared to its enemies, the German tanks. It was simply inferior to them is most aspects. It had a relatively thin armor, an inferior 75mm or 76mm gun which simply could not penetrate the front armor of the German Tiger tanks even from short range, while they could easily destroy the Sherman from long ranges, and it was very tall, 3.43m, which is taller than the German Tigers, and one meter taller than the superb Russian T-34. It means the Sherman could not hide as well as other tanks, which is likely what its crews wanted to do when German Tigers were nearby. With such inferiority in firepower, armor, and shape, no wonder the Sherman crews saw the German Tiger tanks as a formidable monster.

In fact, to destroy a German Tiger, the Shermans had to hit it from the side or from behind, and obviously if the Tiger crew saw them approaching, it could destroy some Shermans before the others could eventually destroy it.

A winner by numbers
But as I wrote, the M4 Sherman was a winner by numbers, so let's check those numbers. The total number of German Tiger and King Tiger tanks produced was 1835, that's all. They were extremely powerful and armored, but also technically unreliable and complex to produce. There were also 4800 German Panther tanks. A majority of these tanks fought against the Russian T-34s in the eastern front. The others were to fight the great majority of the more than 40,000 Sherman tanks produced (a minority fought in the Pacific), and one should remember that the sky above the battlefields were then dominated by swarms of allied fighter-bombers such as the American Thunderbolt and the British Typhoon which excelled in hunting German tanks and kept doing it whenever the sky were clear enough to fly.
I don't have the exact division of tanks to the various war fronts, but if we conservatively assume that 3/4 of the Shermans faced 1/3 of the German tanks (the other tanks went to the Pacific front and to the Russian front respectively), these are the numbers we get, which are not exact, but very clear: 30,000 M4 Shermans versus 600 Tigers and King Tigers and 1500 Panthers.

This is a 14:1 ratio versus the modern German tanks, and a 50:1 ratio versus the formidable Tigers. There were earlier German tanks and powerful tank destroyers, but the Sherman could engage them more easily. It gives a perspective to the immense superiority of the American war industry over its rivals.

If we also consider the strong air support provided by fighter-bombers, [ for example, at the end of the battle of the bulge, British Typhoon fighter-bombers destroyed 175 German tanks in one day, and the larger US Air Force was not on vacation either ], then we must come to the conclusion that although the Sherman tank was inferior to the German tanks, especially the Tigers, it massively outnumbered them, so although combat engagements between Sherman tanks and a German Tiger tank were an unforgettable and terrible experience for the Sherman crews because they usually meant death to one or more Sherman crews, it also meant the death of the greatly outnumbered Tiger's crew. It also meant that such encounters were statistically rare. Most of the time Sherman crews met threats they could more easily deal with and fight them very well.

The M4 Sherman weighed 32 tons, had a crew of five, it had a speed of 29mph and it had fuel for 100 miles. In addition to its 75mm or 76mm main gun it had a typical setting of three machine guns, one in front, one parallel to the main gun, and an anti-aircraft heavy machine gun on top. There were also many variants of the Sherman for every possible role, such as various engineering vehicles. After World War 2 Shermans served in various armies worldwide and even fought in tank battles as late as 1973."

I concur with this writer. Now, for a PBEM player, it may be hard to swallow, but it is just the ugly truth. For a solo player, it is generally much easier to rewrite history.

< Message edited by KG Erwin -- 1/5/2006 4:15:49 AM >

_____________________________

Post #: 1

RE: The Sherman: A Winner by the Numbers? - 1/5/2006 10:16:15 AM

minefield

Posts: 289
Joined: 3/25/2004
From: North Carolina, USA
Status: offline

What bothers me about the article is that it implies that the Sherman tank is superior due to numbers. I have to disagree. This is a fine point but follow with me.

No one is going to dispute that the US won by production and sheer power of workforce and materials. No one is going to dispute that the US was able to overcome superior armor (at least by looking at the technical specifications) through combined warfare (air power being a key) and greater resources (more tanks).

However, this doesn't say anything about the Sherman. The only points I pulled from the article that relate to the Sherman being advantageous (in the aspect of numbers) is that it was already designed, it was reliable, and it could be manufactured rather easily.

Even taking these aspects into account I think the Sherman comes up short. Looking at man/woman hours and materials to manufacture each tank I doubt you would see any extraordinary ratios like those quoted in this article. Although I am not qualified to guess I would say rivets to rivets you could maybe make 10 Shermans for a King Tiger and 6 for a Tiger. If someone has information as to manpower and tonnage of materials for manufacture I'd be interested.

What I am trying to say is that the Sherman won because of its numbers despite that it was a Sherman and not because it has some intrinsic design feature that allows for 50 Shermans to one King Tiger. If the US had mass produced T-34s the T-34 would have won the war by numbers. Making statements about the production ability and combined warfare aspects of an army doesn't say much about the actual tank.

Before I get counter arguments, I do want to say that I think the Sherman was right. In line with many points made in the above article, the US needed to be able to get in the war and it needed to right away. If the US had its Spanish Civil War to initiate its modern warfare armor program than I imagine American tanks would be the names of games. However the US had to leverage its assets the way it best could and the rest is history.

_____________________________

never cross a minefield

(in reply to KG Erwin)

Post #: 2

RE: The Sherman: A Winner by the Numbers? - 1/5/2006 1:20:56 PM

Puukkoo

Posts: 472
Joined: 7/19/2005
From: Sein�joki, Finland
Status: offline

The winner by the numbers would rather be T-34 and even so, not without support from other arms. M4 Sherman was rarely used without combination of infantry, artillery and airplanes and it's therefore a bit of overstatement to say it was a winner just by the numbers. Never did one weapon win any war. Never.

_____________________________

Don't be shocked, I AM funny.

(in reply to minefield)

Post #: 3

RE: The Sherman: A Winner by the Numbers? - 1/5/2006 3:06:14 PM

m10bob

Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline

A few years ago, a German panzer officer was interviewed on TV.
He said "I was always able to kill 4 or 5 of your Shermans, but you always had 6 !!!!!!!!!!!!!"
(He himself was clearly making the case for attrition (not the weapon itself) as being his major problem on the battlefield after 1944.
This in no way detracts from the statements made by the author of Glenn's posting.
I like this thread.

_____________________________

(in reply to Puukkoo)

Post #: 4

RE: The Sherman: A Winner by the Numbers? - 1/5/2006 4:58:53 PM

brador

Posts: 47
Joined: 12/31/2005
From: Saskatchewan,Canada
Status: offline

I noticed the Germans also had a Td called Maus. Was this used in the war? or were they produced too late?

_____________________________

You have to Out think, Out flank, Out fight, and if neccessary, Outrun your enemies........Author Unknown

(in reply to KG Erwin)

Post #: 5

RE: The Sherman: A Winner by the Numbers? - 1/5/2006 5:23:40 PM

Goblin

Posts: 5547
Joined: 3/29/2002
From: Erie,Pa. USA
Status: offline

brador,

Try scenario 144 in the game (The Maus That Roared). One of my favorites. Two were sent into combat (one only had a mock turret on it), but one broke down, and the other ran out of fuel. In this scenario, you get to use them, along with some other German oddity/experimental vehicles. Cool stuff.

Goblin

_____________________________

http://www.spwaw.com/phpBB2/index.php

(in reply to brador)

Post #: 6

RE: The Sherman: A Winner by the Numbers? - 1/5/2006 5:39:07 PM

junk2drive

Posts: 12907
Joined: 6/27/2002
From: Arizona West Coast
Status: offline

What is wrong with the title is that armour was not deployed in small numbers. It suggests that recon found one Tiger and the the US sent 50 Shermans to kill it.
The Euro war was won and lost in the East front. The West was a battle of attrition. JMHO

(in reply to brador)

Post #: 7

RE: The Sherman: A Winner by the Numbers? - 1/5/2006 7:15:02 PM

Dragoon 45

Posts: 435
Joined: 8/10/2004
Status: offline

I have read the previous posts with interest; some of them make some good points. But before every body starts singing the praises of the Tigers a couple of things need to be pointed out.

I have three recent books (Sledgehammers, The Strengths and Weaknesses of Tiger Tank Battalions in WW II; and Tigers in Combat I and II) that have some bearing on the subject at hand. Very, very rarely was the operational rate of either type of Tiger above 30%. Unit war diaries support this. The Battalion may have 35-40 tanks on hand and only have 3-5 operational at any given time. Mechanical difficulties with the Final Drives and Engines were very common throughout the war and on a number of occasions a Tiger I or II would self ignite and completely burn out. It was almost a given that on any roadmarch at least 50% and more often 75% of the Tigers in the column would fall out with maintenance problems. Another major weakness of the Tiger units was the lack of an effective recovery vehicle. Many Tigers had to be destroyed by their crews to prevent capture because an effective recovery vehicle could not evacuate the damaged tank before capture. Some units had almost 70% of their vehicles destroyed by the crew to prevent capture. In actual fact the Tiger was extremely rare on the battlefield because of the mechanical issues it suffered from. I suspect that most times Allied tank crews reported engaging Tigers they actually engaged MK IV's and mis-identified them especially if the MK IV's had side skirts on the turret. Although the Panther was not as bad it still had a number of reliability issues throughout the war.

For the Sherman it too had some significant issues. Weak Armor, weak main gun initially, and a tendency to burn when hit were the main ones. But a brief history of the Sherman would show a couple of over looked factors. The Sherman was designed in 1940 and the prototype was built by Sept 41. Production had started by Jan 42. At the time of its design it was superior to any tank the Germans had. The Pzkfw MK IV at this time mounted a low velocity 7.5 cm L24 gun. The Tiger was not on the drawing board nor was the Panther. Also most of the main problems with the Sherman could have been fixed rather easily but authorities back in the United States were convinced the Shermans were the best in the world and didn't pay much attention to combat reports on its problems. Weak armor could have been easily corrected i.e. M4A3E2. The Sherman could have been easily upgunned with a 90mm, but US Armor doctrine had it that tanks did not fight tanks, the TD's job was to destroy tanks, which they were pretty good at. Its tendency to burn could have been easily fixed by using the M4A2 diesel engined version and stronger armor. On the issue of height, yes the Sherman was tall, a little bit over 9 feet, but both the Panther and Tiger II were over 10 feet tall and the Tiger I was 9.5 feet tall. Yes the outstanding features of the Sherman was its reliability, ease of maintenance, and ease of production, but some other features have been over looked. It could have been easily upgraded to match the Panther, but wasn't. The US had some much better medium tanks in the development pipeline, but made the decision not to deploy them, i.e. T-23. But the overall chief weakness of the Sherman was the muddled armor doctrine that prevented the Sherman from receiving the upgrades that could have made it far more effective. The Sherman was designed to support infantry and to exploit breakthroughs, it was not designed to fight other tanks. TD's were designed to fight tanks.

While I admire the technical achievements the Germans made in the Tigers and Panther, I also realize that a serious mistake was made in devoting all the resources they did to their production. I can not find the source right now but I remember reading that each Tiger required some like 170,000 man-hours to produce. For the same amount of resources 10 MK IV's could have been produced. For each Panther, 5 MK IV's could have been produced. Much has been said about the US ability to out produce the Germans and this is correct is most ways. But the Germans made a conscious decision to devote precious resources to produce tanks that in a lot of ways were enormous drains on their fighting forces. Both versions of the Tiger were not really ready for production or combat. Their very poor reliability shows this. Yes when they worked they were killing machines, but having three tanks able to fight out of 45 on hand is a very poor investment in fighting power and resources. For those 45 Tigers you have sitting around with only 3-5 able to fight you could have 450 MK IV's and at least 200 of them able to fight.

_____________________________

Artillery always has the Right of Way

(in reply to junk2drive)

Post #: 8

RE: The Sherman: A Winner by the Numbers? - 1/5/2006 7:15:18 PM

brador

Posts: 47
Joined: 12/31/2005
From: Saskatchewan,Canada
Status: offline

Thanks Goblin I'll check it out. Last night Tyrson and I decided to do a large armor only battle. He had 2 maus and it took 6 Jackson TD's about 4 shots each just to suppress that beast.

_____________________________

You have to Out think, Out flank, Out fight, and if neccessary, Outrun your enemies........Author Unknown

(in reply to Goblin)

Post #: 9

RE: The Sherman: A Winner by the Numbers? - 1/5/2006 9:24:41 PM

Korpraali V

Posts: 659
Joined: 7/11/2005
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dragoon 45

But the overall chief weakness of the Sherman was the muddled armor doctrine that prevented the Sherman from receiving the upgrades that could have made it far more effective. The Sherman was designed to support infantry and to exploit breakthroughs, it was not designed to fight other tanks. TD's were designed to fight tanks.

That is to say their doctrines were mainly from the-end-of-WWI -era? Like the British and French armor doctrines had been in France 40: Tanks support infantry, no tank concentrations --> more tanks overall but in many fights less than the enemy had.

_____________________________

(in reply to Dragoon 45)

Post #: 10

RE: The Sherman: A Winner by the Numbers? - 1/6/2006 12:46:25 AM

Dragoon 45

Posts: 435
Joined: 8/10/2004
Status: offline

I am not sure that is correct or not. The US Army doctrine was related to the French and British Doctrine of WW I, but had evolved into something quite different from the other combatants. The Tank Destroyer Force was established in 1940 and became its own branch equal to the infantry, armor, artillery, etc. in 1941. The US Army took the writings of people like Guderian, Fuller, Hart, and others and then developed something different.

The Tank Destroyers were supposed to stop enemy tank attacks. They were trained to maneuver for flank shots and to attrite the enemy armor force through hit and run tactics. The tank crews on the other hand were trained to exploit breaches, support infantry, indirect fire support with their main guns, and only in passing to fight other tanks. This concept of TD's fighting tanks and tanks either supporting infantry or exploiting breakthroughs is what led to the design rationale of the Sherman. The tank force wanted a reliable, maneuverable, and fast tank for the jobs assigned them by the current doctrine and that is what they got. They did not ask the designers to design a tank capable of taking on all comers.

In example I would bring up the M-6 Heavy Tank. With out going into the specifics of the design, it was much more capable of fighting tanks than the Sherman, i.e. thicker armor, long main 3" gun, just as fast, and probably just as reliable. Why was it not used? In 1942 the Production Rationalization Board made the recommendation that only a few standard types of tanks be built. This recommendation was followed by the Army and only 40 M-6 type tanks were built so concentration on production of the Sherman could be ensured. The Army also built over 400 T-23 Tanks during the war, but because of its then untried electrical drive system, the Army did not want to chance using them in combat.

In late 1942, a 76mm version of the Sherman was developed but the project was dropped because the powers that be did not want to give the Sherman crews a weapon that would encourage them to fight other tanks. Again the TD's were supposed to do that. The 76mm version of the Sherman was revived in early 44 because of reports from theater stating the need for upgunned tanks. Then also there was a concern over barrel wear of the 76mm vs the 75mm in 42 and 43. Only after the 75mm was proven through combat experience to be inadequate in tank vs tank combat was the 76mm considered. Also it should be pointed out the 75mm HE round was more effective than the 76mm round.

On the subject of upgunning the Sherman to a 90mm, that was very easy to do. The M-36 Jackson was an improved version of the M-10. The M-10 was a modified Sherman chassis with a different turret mounted on it to take the high velocity gun. The M-10A1 was an unmodified Sherman (M-4A3) chassis with the M-10 turret. The design and production of a turret mounting a 90mm gun on the Sherman would have been a relatively easy project. But once again it was not done because it was not the Official Doctrine for tanks to fight other tanks. The 90mm was only introduced into tanks when it became appearent that tanks would have to fight other tanks, and even then it was not considered until the T-25 and T-26 models which led to the M-26 Pershing.

Other nations used tank destroyers during the war, but they were an afterthought. They were developed either as a way of getting an adequate gun into the hands of the troops quickly on the cheap. Or as a way of getting a bigger gun into combat that could not be mounted in existing tanks. These nations tank destroyers were produced as a stop gap measure in most cases or as an answer to a recently produced enemy tank. Only the US Army had a pre-war doctrine for the use of Tank Destroyers and designed tank destroys from the ground up, i.e. M-18, prior to the war.

On the subject of concentration, the Armor Divisions were designed to fight in mass. Their doctrinal purpose was to exploit breakthroughs such as the pursuit across France in 44. They were not designed to support infantry. The Separate Tank Battalions (STB) were the Infantry Support Tanks. These STB's were assigned as needed to the Infantry Divisions for infantry support. Also each Infantry Division normally had an assigned TD Battalion, either of SP or towed guns. A common misconception about the American Infantry Divisions is that they were comparable to a German Infantry Division. In actuality, they were equivalent to a Panzer Grenadier Division in firepower and maneuver capabilities. Each infantry division with its attached STB and TD Bn had an armor force equal to that of a Panzer Grenadier Div. Under normal circumstances they did not need armor support from the Armor Divisions.

The biggest problem with the Sherman was it was the result of a flawed doctrine. If it had been used as intended, it would be probably one of the greatest tank designs in world. Instead the Sherman was asked to do things it was not designed to do. Because of this it developed a reputation as under-armored, under-gunned, and very flamable. The US Armor doctrine was what was flawed not the Sherman. Under the criteria that led to its design it was probably the most successful tank of the war. Its problems were that it was used in a way the designers had not taken into account.

Even the T-34 was initially designed as an infantry support tank. It was designed to take the place of both the T-26 series and the BT series tanks. It initially had a low velocity gun just as the Sherman had. In production numbers the Sherman and the T-34 are about equal. Someplace around 45,000 of each type was produced during the war.

Manpower considerations aside, I would go back to the quote about the Tiger commander killing 5 Shermans and then the 6th Sherman getting him. If instead there were 10 long barreled MK-IV tanks in that position taking on 6 Shermans who do you think would have won the battle? Technical excellence on the battlefield sometimes is not necessarily a good thing, especially if that technical excellence is not reliable or very heavily outnumbered.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Korpraali V

That is to say their doctrines were mainly from the-end-of-WWI -era? Like the British and French armor doctrines had been in France 40: Tanks support infantry, no tank concentrations --> more tanks overall but in many fights less than the enemy had.

_____________________________

Artillery always has the Right of Way

(in reply to Korpraali V)

Post #: 11

RE: The Sherman: A Winner by the Numbers? - 1/6/2006 1:35:04 AM

Riun T

Posts: 1848
Joined: 7/31/2004
Status: offline

And here I was thinkin that it was cause the troops actually got better at their work, one thing thats also come into the foreground in my notice is that all this theory and talk of actual opperating doctrine goes to spit when trying to give fellow members/players any real words of advice on playing SPWAW of any version. Instead of bringing up this old post for what seems to be argument or compliment answers and constant quoteing of productions #'s and preformances, NONE OF THIS helps JOE beginner, try explaining why that nomatter where u deploy what forces,TD's or armor with infantry sprincled in concentration or spaced and efilated to advance... THAT if the visablity is 3 and the enemy has a better plan and setup IT don't matter what kind of stuff u got everybody has to trudge threw the same crap and sometimes your gonna lose!! RT

(in reply to Dragoon 45)

Post #: 12

RE: The Sherman: A Winner by the Numbers? - 1/6/2006 4:36:00 AM

hank

Posts: 623
Joined: 8/24/2003
From: west tn
Status: offline

Another interesting aspect of US armored doctrine in WWII was the advent of their tank destroyer program. I recently got the book "The Tank Killers", (Harry Yeide) about the TD forces in WWII. It never dawned on me that the US only had TD units until late 1946. There's not many books on the TD Battalions that served and few references in history books. He refers to these books but there's just not much written about their exploits. Its a very intesting book on a forgot group of warriors. A group that played a big roll in dealing with the German armor.

my $0.02

(in reply to Riun T)

Post #: 13

RE: The Sherman: A Winner by the Numbers? - 1/6/2006 7:49:50 AM

Dragoon 45

Posts: 435
Joined: 8/10/2004
Status: offline

Hank,

That is an excellent book. I have it too. While it does not go into a great deal of detail it provides a very good overview of the subject. Mr Yeide also wrote a history of the Separate Tank Battalions that I would also recommend.

quote:

ORIGINAL: hank

Another interesting aspect of US armored doctrine in WWII was the advent of their tank destroyer program. I recently got the book "The Tank Killers", (Harry Yeide) about the TD forces in WWII. It never dawned on me that the US only had TD units until late 1946. There's not many books on the TD Battalions that served and few references in history books. He refers to these books but there's just not much written about their exploits. Its a very intesting book on a forgot group of warriors. A group that played a big roll in dealing with the German armor.

my $0.02

_____________________________

Artillery always has the Right of Way

(in reply to hank)

Post #: 14

RE: The Sherman: A Winner by the Numbers? - 1/6/2006 2:10:26 PM

Puukkoo

Posts: 472
Joined: 7/19/2005
From: Sein�joki, Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: junk2drive

What is wrong with the title is that armour was not deployed in small numbers. It suggests that recon found one Tiger and the the US sent 50 Shermans to kill it.

No. You forget the other weapons that were at hand. You just need a camouflage and the bazooka.

quote:

The Euro war was won and lost in the East front. The West was a battle of attrition. JMHO

Quite on the contrary.

_____________________________

Don't be shocked, I AM funny.

(in reply to junk2drive)

Post #: 15

RE: The Sherman: A Winner by the Numbers? - 1/6/2006 10:33:33 PM

Poopyhead

Posts: 612
Joined: 3/17/2004
Status: offline

The "quality" of the Sherman was limited by reality. At the time, 90% of the harbor cranes in the U.S. couldn't hoist anything heavier than a Sherman onto a Liberty ship (no roll on roll off). I'm sure that we could have simply copied the Tiger after we encountered them in North Africa, but we still could not have gotten them to Normandy in numbers. If the Sherman can destroy everything except the two thousand Panthers and Tigers, fine! That's why God made fighter bombers!

_____________________________

Astrologers believe that your future is determined on the day that you are born.
Warriors know that your future is determined on the day that your enemy dies.

(in reply to Puukkoo)

Post #: 16

RE: The Sherman: A Winner by the Numbers? - 1/6/2006 11:22:20 PM

JediMessiah

Posts: 157
Joined: 3/1/2001
From: Elmhurst, Il, USA
Status: offline

i recall reading/watching something about how the us kept making shermans because anything larger couldnt be shipped by rail...too big for rail bridges or something.

-jedi

_____________________________

"Karate means never having to say you're sorry"
-E. Andrew Kovich

(in reply to Poopyhead)

Post #: 17

RE: The Sherman: A Winner by the Numbers? - 1/6/2006 11:55:31 PM

hank

Posts: 623
Joined: 8/24/2003
From: west tn
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dragoon 45

Hank,

That is an excellent book. I have it too. While it does not go into a great deal of detail it provides a very good overview of the subject. Mr Yeide also wrote a history of the Separate Tank Battalions that I would also recommend.

I've read but don't own several books on the independent Armored Battalions like the Black Panther Battalion, the 70th, etc. I love reading these books along with the critical ones like "Death Traps" by Belton Cooper. I've been trying to get some input on US and British tank aces. Its hard to find a list of Sherman or TD aces. I have an extensive list of German and even a list of Russian tank aces. If you want I could post it here but its kind of long.

One thing I wondered was why they didn't weld a lid on those M18 Hellcats and M36 TD's. Seems like a logical conclusion since many TD crews were killed with air burst rounds, HE, elevated enemy fire locations, etc ... not to mention snipers. Many think the M18 was one of the best "tanks" of the war considering its mobility and durabiliy ... of course it would have been better with the 90mm like the M36 Jackson's had; and better if it had a top on it. :)

another 0.02
hank

(in reply to Dragoon 45)

Post #: 18

RE: The Sherman: A Winner by the Numbers? - 1/7/2006 3:46:29 AM

Dragoon 45

Posts: 435
Joined: 8/10/2004
Status: offline

Hank, the M-36B2 version of the Jackson did have a steel canopy over the turret to protect the crew from air bursts. Some of the pictures I have seen showed field modifications, where the crew mounted a canopy on top the turret on other TD's.

In regards to tank aces on the American and British sides I am not sure if official records were kept. Creighton Abramson was unofficially credited with I believe over 40 kills, but he didn't believe if was worth keeping track of. There was one Canadian Gunner on a Firefly that killed five Tigers in one engagement in Normandy but I don't remember his name.

quote:

ORIGINAL: hank

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dragoon 45

Hank,

That is an excellent book. I have it too. While it does not go into a great deal of detail it provides a very good overview of the subject. Mr Yeide also wrote a history of the Separate Tank Battalions that I would also recommend.

I've read but don't own several books on the independent Armored Battalions like the Black Panther Battalion, the 70th, etc. I love reading these books along with the critical ones like "Death Traps" by Belton Cooper. I've been trying to get some input on US and British tank aces. Its hard to find a list of Sherman or TD aces. I have an extensive list of German and even a list of Russian tank aces. If you want I could post it here but its kind of long.

One thing I wondered was why they didn't weld a lid on those M18 Hellcats and M36 TD's. Seems like a logical conclusion since many TD crews were killed with air burst rounds, HE, elevated enemy fire locations, etc ... not to mention snipers. Many think the M18 was one of the best "tanks" of the war considering its mobility and durabiliy ... of course it would have been better with the 90mm like the M36 Jackson's had; and better if it had a top on it. :)

another 0.02
hank

_____________________________

Artillery always has the Right of Way

(in reply to hank)

Post #: 19

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> The Sherman: A Winner by the Numbers?

Page: [1]