|
|
Forums - Research / WW2 |
This WW2 forum is intended for asking and discussing reference or historical related issues pertaining to WW2 (1939-1945) subjects. |
| Topics | 3260 |
| Messages | 14502 |
|
|
| Subject: | Re: Whats so good about the Sherman? |  |
| Date: | Mar 21, 2008 |
| From: | Dan | |
Well, it all depends on your point of view. From a technical and tactical viewpoint, the Sherman is a mediocre, general all-purpose tank. Even the later upgrades in firepower and armour weren't enough to catch up to the advances in german tanks. In these respects, the German panthers and tigers were vastly superior. Keep in mind, one is comparing apples and oranges. The panther is a 45 ton "medium" tank, and the tiger(s) is a 56 ton or 70 ton tank; which is a weight ratio of 1.5 to 2 times that of a Sherman. Compared to the 25 ton Panzer IV, the workhorse of panzerwaffe, the 75mm gunned Sherman's performance is adequate. The later 76mm gunned Sherman was a match for the Panzer IV.
In strategic terms, the Sherman is a superb tank. Both the soviets and the western allies made a conscious effort to fight a war of attrition against the axis, by taking advantage of their superiority in both manpower and combined industrial capacity. This meant producing overwhelming numbers of tanks that the german factories could never equal. Eventually these tanks would need to be transported or travel vast distances into Germany. These tanks had to be reliable, and repairable in the field, far away from their factories or main repair centres. For example, in the case of the Sherman, the bolted design of transmission housing allowed for quick access to, or replacement of, the drive train components by field maintenance personnel. As for the panthers and tigers, repairs to the transmission unit required many internal fittings to be removed. In some repairs, even the turret needed to be removed. Consequently, the Sherman could be repaired faster and with less effort. In the Second World War, the side that could field massed armies with large quantities of tanks (i.e. material) had a powerful advantage. If the western allies had tried to field a tank equivalent to the panther, it would likely have suffered similar technical and reliablility problems inherent of any new design. Also, at 45 tons, it would mean a 33% reduction in the number of tanks available, as compared to the 30 ton Sherman because of the need to transport by sea to Europe.
The Sherman also proved to be a very adaptable vehicle. It served a multitude of combat and support roles. The design was robust enough to accomodate several major upgrades and modifications (e.g. HVSS suspension and 17 pdr gun). IMHO, the Sherman is a fine tank overall.
Cheers,
Dan |
| |
|
|
 | Whats so good about the Sherman? - Paul Ramsden - Mar 21, 2008 |
| . . . Re: Whats so good about the Sherman? - Gazza Hollett - Mar 21, 2008 |
| . . . Re: Whats so good about the Sherman? - Otto Huuskonen - Mar 21, 2008 |
| . . . Re: Whats so good about the Sherman? - Georg Eyerman - Mar 21, 2008 |
| . . . . . . Re: Whats so good about the Sherman? - Fred Schwarz - Mar 21, 2008 |
| . . . "Pssst! Paul,...come closer.... - mike foncannon - Mar 21, 2008 |
| . . . Re: Whats so good about the Sherman? - Dan - Mar 21, 2008 |
| . . . It all depends on how you look at it. - Hans Haase - Mar 21, 2008 |
| . . . Re: Whats so good about the Sherman? - tom deimling - Mar 21, 2008 |
| . . . Re: Whats so good about the Sherman? - Gary Cooper - Mar 21, 2008 |
| . . . "fairly rubbish" - Roy Chow - Mar 21, 2008 |
| . . . I read an article several years back where a Panzer General was interviewed - Steve Kubik - Mar 21, 2008 |
| . . . Sheer Numbers. n/t - Jim Johnson - Mar 21, 2008 |
| . . . "Death Traps" - J.Giglio - Mar 21, 2008 |
| . . . . . . Re: "Death Traps" - Fred Schwarz - Mar 22, 2008 |
| . . . Re: Whats so good about the Sherman? - Rob Feehan - Mar 21, 2008 |
| . . . . . . Re: Whats so good about the Sherman? - Johannes Allert - Mar 22, 2008 |
| . . . . . . . . . Re: Whats so good about the Sherman? - Roy Chow - Mar 22, 2008 |
| . . . . . . . . . Re: Whats so good about the Sherman? - Fred Schwarz - Mar 22, 2008 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Whats so good about the Sherman? - Brian Hanley - Mar 22, 2008 |
| . . . Relatively silly topic of discussion - Glenn Gerson - Mar 22, 2008 |
| . . . . . . Re: Relatively silly topic of discussion - Brian Hanley - Mar 23, 2008 |
| . . . Re: Whats so good about the Sherman? - Mike Spivey - Mar 23, 2008 |
| . . . Discussed before - Martin Dogger - Mar 23, 2008 |
| . . . . . . Re: Discussed before - Rob Feehan - Mar 23, 2008 |
| . . . . . . . . . Re: Discussed before - Dan - Mar 23, 2008 |
| . . . . . . . . . Re: Discussed before - Mike Spivey - Mar 23, 2008 |
| . . . Re: Whats so good about the Sherman? - rob galassi - Mar 24, 2008 |
| . . . Shermanaholic - Historical Perspective - James Wechsler - Mar 24, 2008 |
| . . . Shermanaholic - Modeler's Perspective - James Wechsler - Mar 24, 2008 |
| . . . . . . Re: Shermanaholic - Modeler's Perspective - Edward Hall - Mar 24, 2008 |
| . . . . . . . . . Soooooo....... was it any good then? - Dave Williams - Mar 24, 2008 |
| . . . . . . Centurion - Paul A. Owen - Mar 24, 2008 |
| . . . . . . . . . Re: Centurion - James Wechsler - Mar 24, 2008 |
| . . . As you said... - Paul A. Owen - Mar 24, 2008 |
|
|
