As far as I've read, there have been no major issues of the Sherman Tank, it is just simply the best tank of the War and likely the best tank ever built.
It really is just perfect.
As far as I've read, there have been no major issues of the Sherman Tank, it is just simply the best tank of the War and likely the best tank ever built.
A Russia terror attack thread died for this rhetorical pferdscheisse
Well, the thread was most likely started by some vatBlack person, considering the ridiculous premise of the post, and how it's guaranteed to start fights and make the Americans look insane.
Except it's much more likely a vatBlack person takes the bait and immediately starts screeching about mu-
Ah there we go, that was quick.
VatBlack folk cant go five minutes without shitting up a thread. Ukraine is winning the war. Russians have not been able to take anymore ground and western support will keep rolling in. With the French coming in now, it’s only a matter of time before Ziggers get pushed to Moscow.
frick off back to your monke led snow covered shithole
>Instantly derails WW2 tank thread
>Does so by complaining about someone else derailing it, which they didn't do
Holy fricking shit, Batman.
>With the French coming in now, it’s only a matter of time before Ziggers get pushed to Moscow.
You are the same kind of moron who were saying leopards and abrams are wunderwaffen, do all of NATO a favor and have a nice day because you are either a subhuman vatBlack person falseflagging or a fricking hipster, no, you aren't helping.
OP here, it isn't bait, I just genuinely yet to find some known issues with the Sherman, other than the one bit where ammunition was likely to catch on fire, but even such was solved with the introduction of wet ammunition.
Just to be clear here, i like the M4 and i don't wanna shit on it, but seeing it as some godsend isn't really right. Firstly, it's a very tall tank. Taller tanks will be spotted quicker, shot at quicker and taken out quicker. On the flip side, this gives you lot of interior space which the crew likes and room for different kinds of engines (including a damn radial). So This is a compromise.
Then, US doctrine was largely reasonable, saying any equipment should have a battle need before fielded. This hindered it from having the 76mm ones in any significant numbers for normandy, and as good as the 75mm was for lobbing HE, it was not much of an AT gun. And yes, the firefly was available then, but not in big numbers.
It had kinda high ground pressure at first, though fixed in some regard with the HVSS suspension and track
I also think its important to separate the tank design and what the US industry could make out of the tank design
If nothing else, it's better than the T-34. Picture unrelated
>I also think its important to separate the tank design and what the US industry could make out of the tank design
>If nothing else, it's better than the T-34. Picture unrelated
To be fair you have to judge the T-34 the same way. It's kind of genius considering it had to be designed in the pure, lethal organizational chaos of the Red Army and assembled in crude foundries by toothless Siberian peasants.
It is as tall as a panter.
>Tankers in full kit and CBRN with pistols charging forwards
Holy kino, too bad this situation is essentially unfeasible unless the tank crew ran out of all ammo and fuel and the enemy were incompent idiots who could be taken out by a group of 5 guys with 1 tommygun and 4 pistols.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara_(1943_American_film)
I was not aware they had done a remake.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara_(1995_film)
Holy shit, this is SO bad I couldn't make it half way thru.
>other than the one bit where ammunition was likely to catch on fire,
As any WWII tank, and unlike other countries the ammo usually didn't detonated.
Improving something doesn't implies that it was worse than comparable vehicles.
why that would be? The soviets liked the sherman.
It had issues, they were simply fixed and America had plenty of time to look at other designs to get one ready that didn't have the disadvantages of the designs of the 30s before Germany showed the world how to wage mobile warfare.
Pferdescheiße is written with an E, roleplayer.
>russians are still pushing "a ukraine thread died for this" after two years
Not a perfect, not even the best... just good enough to win war.
No it was the best medium tank of the war. Flat-out.
That's a fact. It was so good they were using them to snipe T-62s more than two decades after the war.
Its ugly though. Never liked how it looked. The Pershing tho unf
I'm you, but better.
I thought that was a British tank for a sec. Looks like an evolution of Valentine or an alternative to Cromwell or something.
actually that would be the T-34
ramshackle commie death traps
T-34 had shitty optics and a tiny-ass turret ring that kept it from using any gun bigger than the 85. Its saving grace was that it was the best tank when it rolled off the assembly line for 1940, but not even the Soviets themselves would say it's better than the M4.
>actually that would be the T-34
The T-34-85 is widely regarded as the best tank of WW2. In one incident, an entire company of Tiger 2's attempted to destroy a lone advancing T-34-85 only to have all their rounds bounced by the T-34's superior angled armor. Said T-34 dispatched all the Tiger 2's with a single shot to their frontal armor that was constructed of pig iron. Wartime records indicate that the T-34-85 had a K/D ratio of 50,000,000:1. The single lost vehicle due to the crew drinking too much in celebrating their 1000th Tiger kill, and then driving their tank into a 20-feet deep river of Aryan blood. Fear of the T-34 was so great, that Germans would immediately surrender upon sight of them. The prisoners were then forced to lie down, and promptly run over by T-34's to avenge the 6 million israelites. Many historians contend that the Allies only won WW2 because of the T-34-85, and by extension, the T-34 series as a whole
>actually that would be the T-ACK!!!!
i dont respect it for anti tank
the m4 is great for supporting infantry but id rather have quite literally anything else if enemy tanks are expected in the area
no, sacrificing the anti infantry capabilities just to defeat armor is not a net gain, thats the whole reason tank destroyers were produced
you cannot have a perfect solution, either you have the 105mm howitzer on the tann to clear out fortifications or you dont
I would argue that the modular nature of it made it the perfect (or best possible) solution because that way they could still be light enough to ship overseas in the numbers needed.
>the m4 is great for supporting infantry but id rather have quite literally anything else if enemy tanks are expected in the area
Even if the enemy tanks turn out to be just Stugs or Pz 4s?
Brother, a 75 will still frick up any basic b***h sherman.
And if there are any Stugs you will probably want to steer clear of roads and large clearings.
It was ok
It broke down far more than people talk about but the logistical network for them made it a non issue.
It was just a basic workout
Like a leopard or basic Abrams
I agree with OP (a known gay, but still)
i disagree
They lost
New Zealand won, guess that makes the bob semple tank good
Correct
>leaf springs
Unironically good if you don't have enough alloy elements.
Leaf springs have their place, they aren't always bad. A leaf spring can add leverage to it's design, where as a coil spring can only push. In some situations this can result in a lighter spring weight being needed. A good example of this is S&W revolvers, older revolvers use leaf springs for the hammer, new ones use coil spring. Guess which version results in a significantly lighter and smoother trigger pull when tuned up?
Objectively worse than Sherman in every way.
Nah, aesthetically the IV is pure war kino.
2tall. It's a berry big boi, which has its benefits, but is also an obvious detriment. Best doesn't always mean the best in every individual category, but it was the best in being good enough in the ways that mattered, and very easy to make a shitload of them, as well as the modularity of the chassis to fit upgraded turrets with better guns due to the wide turret ring. It wasn't the best 1v1 tank duel brawler, but only morons whose infrastructure got bombed would ever take a 1v1, whereas Shermans were spammed because the US could into wartime logistics and production. Nice King Tiger, idiot, here's 50 Shermans to overwhelm your depleted ass.
I heard that the U.S. Ordnance Department was aware of the Sherman being a 'Tommy Cooker', and attempted to implement various measures to address this issue. The design team was led by Sheldon Rosenstein, a convicted child-beater, arsonist, and avid necrophiliac. Sheldon was reportedly pen-pals with Shiro Ishii, and Oskar Dirlewanger. When questioned about these letters outgoing to hostile countries, Sheldon replied that he was merely exchanging 'tips and tricks'. Sheldon's team designed a mechanism that would lock the crew hatches shut, thus trapping the crew, when smoke was detected inside the sherman after being penetrated and set alight. Not only that, but apparently there was also a following feature that was a re-take on the Brazen Bull. When the crew was burning to death, their screams would be amplified by speakers that projected outside the tank. The U.S. Ordnance Department justified these features by proclaiming that the Germans would be frightened by the hellish screams of the sherman crews being incinerated, and allied soldiers would be more motivated to fight hard, lest the same fate befall them. Sheldon also later devised a system that had a 1 in 59 chance of setting off an explosive charge in the ammunition storage every time the Sherman's engine was turned on. Supposedly, this was to 'test the crew's luck before battle'. This innovation was well-received by the U.S. Army, but was rejected for budgetary reasons. Upon receiving news of the Army's rejection, Sheldon bludgeoned his manservant to death with a fire iron in a fit of unstoppable rage. Years after the war, Sheldon tragically died in a fire, which he had started in a New York orphanage.
i needed a good laugh today
If only the current Onion newspaper was this good. I assume it's not owing to diversity hiring to keep whiteness levels down.
A non-meme answer is that the Onion's budget massively declined after losing out on a ton of FB revenue. Not sure who they're hiring these days, but whatever they're getting paid, it's too much
What Sherman post WW2 variant was the most modernized one?
Probably M-51 Isherman, shuffling across the sands of Syria to slap Panzers one last time. Also Wikipedia has a Post–World War II Sherman tank page with a lot of the stuff on it, shout out to the Egyptian mod with the AMX turret slapped on, and the Israeli 155 SPG
Pic related
The suspension system is outdated and the gun was too by the end.
You're a moron. ALL engineering is the art of compromise. Nothing is perfect. You're trolling of course.
wrong you homo, Its the 1911 of tanks, Perfect.
>there have been no major issues of the Sherman Tank
You mean the Ronson? I mean, yeah, they eventually worked the kinks out, but that is an absolutely moronic statement.
>le ronson
Dmitry Loza specifically praised the M4 for being far less prone to brewing up than the T-34
Dug up the quote for you
>For a long time after the war I sought an answer to one question. If a T-34 started burning, we tried to get as far away from it as possible, even though this was forbidden. The on-board ammunition exploded. For a brief period of time, perhaps six weeks, I fought on a T-34 around Smolensk. The commander of one of our companies was hit in his tank. The crew jumped out of the tank but were unable to run away from it because the Germans were pinning them down with machine gun fire. They lay there in the wheat field as the tank burned and blew up. By evening, when the battle had waned, we went to them. I found the company commander lying on the ground with a large piece of armor sticking out of his head. When a Sherman burned, the main gun ammunition did not explode. Why was this?
>Such a case occurred once in Ukraine. Our tank was hit. We jumped out of it but the Germans were dropping mortar rounds around us. We lay under the tank as it burned. We laid there a long time with nowhere to go. The Germans were covering the empty field around the tank with machine gun and mortar fires. We lay there. The uniform on my back was beginning heating up from the burning tank. We thought we were finished! We would hear a big bang and it would all be over! A brother's grave! We heard many loud thumps coming from the turret. This was the armor-piercing rounds being blown out of their cases. Next the fire would reach the high explosive rounds and all hell would break loose! But nothing happened. Why not? Because our high explosive rounds detonated and the American rounds did not? In the end it was because the American ammunition had more refined explosives. Ours was some kind of component that increased the force of the explosion one and one-half times, at the same time increasing the risk of detonation of the ammunition.
It wasn't perfect, but it was reliable and surprisingly adaptable.
>Frick it, build welded and casted versions.
>Frick it, new suspension
>Frick it, give it a 105mm howitzer
>Frick it, slap five V-sixes together and call it an engine
>Frick it, turn it into a heavy tank.
>Frick it, stick an M36 turret on top.
>V-sixes
Akshually it was five inline sixes
Not like that matters much, but the coolest thing about the Multibank is that it actually worked well, despite the madness
I guess you could argue this is more so a case of frugality, but give it another decade and I'd say instead that M60 could be a contender for "best tank" award.
Setting aside the premature Starship testbed, the M60 has seen numerous useful variants and may well end up with a service life MULTIPLE TIMES longer than the M4 Shire-Man.
I wouldn't be surprised if M60's end up being operated globally/internationally longer than T-series, depending on how bad of a state Russia ends up in, after the war.
>M60 was the best tank of its era
>When T-64 is running around
Mental illness. In fact, the M60 is the one time in human history where the Bong MBT (Chieftain) was better than it's American counterpart. (Starship may however still be the coolest design of its era.)
>frick it, self-propelled 155
pretty much every report has the troops asking for more 105 shermans. I think crews were broadly agnostic.
I think it was the perfect tool for the job at the time. Any shortfall in combat prowess was made up for by it's logistical upsides
Achtung picrel. What are those two small vertical plates either side of the gun (where it emerges from turret)? Don't think I've seen those before.
Not sure, but those are French M4A2s, maybe someone else in the thread knows
don't bother responding, just post stuff relevant to the thread otherwise it continues on forever
>French M4A2s
Of course ... I didn't spot Lorraine cross and froggish crews.
On some models of the Sherman, they ground out the interior of the turret on the right hand side to make more room for the traversing mechanism,, and then added an exterior plate to make up for the difference in protection.
Sorry, I misunderstood your question. Those plates were there to protect the gun and mount against bullet splash. They also added a cast armor shield around the coaxial machine gun for the same purpose.
ty, anons
What kind of prowess did it lack in combat?
Realistically? High profile is about it but even that is just nit picking if you consider that it was also a positive for trailing infantry (tank phones are bad ass)
Short stumpy gun can't kill tigers. And it did something to piss off enough people that a whole generation called them deathtraps
Reminder: Wittman was put down by a 75mm round through the side of his turret.
The 75mm certainly could kill Tigers. Shermans and other similarly gunned British tanks were knocking them out in North Africa years before Normandy.
The whole "death trap" meme just stemmed from some mechanic's shitty memoir where he was essentially just b***hing about his job counting up Shermans that needed fixing and knew nothing about the actual tank or how it was used.
>the best tank ever built
That would be T-34
>80% crew death rate
Even back then Russians didn't give a shit about their lives
...Said nobody but contrarians. The tankers themselves found it uncomfortable and in some cases had to be locked into the bloody thing to keep them from bailing, and the designers preferred the KV series because it could be upscaled to house bigger guns.
The T-34 was better than the M3 Lee and Valentine, but most of the tanks that came after it during the war developed on its strengths and nixed the weaknesses. Sherman and Panther alike were direct improvements, as was the Cromwell. I guess it was still better than the Type 3 Chi-Nu or P26/40.
On paper and the post war variants were supposed to be good but the wartime production models suffer from soviet wartime production. Even if only half the stuff I've heard is true it doesn't sound like a very good tank
the fact they ditched the yellow aesthetic is one of the greatest defeats of ww2.
Imagine being assigned to a Lee instead of a Sherman
Imagine being gifted the cutest tank of the war
That's not the Stuart
More machine guns, more crew. Though it's always baffled me why the Lee has a thinner front plate than the Sherman when it and the Sherman prototype were developed concurrently.
Probably because they knew it was a stopgap tank so they didn't want to invest TOO much resources into it. Plus it was probably to offset all the extra weight from having 2 cannons.
I do wonder how effective they were when used for indirect fire
>the best tank of the War
Yes.
>and likely the best tank ever built
Are you high?
Sherman's only merit was that it was produced by the country with the largest industry.
The best tank of WW2 was the Tiger.
The most useful tank of WW2 was the Sherman.
That this thing (cobbled together in an in-famous American garage) destroyed German Panzer Divisions says a lot.
About German Panzer Divisions.
Reading books on Germany Tank Tactics in WW2 has taught me one thing about the Russian T-34 - It was nearly always operated by people who had never before seen a motor vehicle before in their lives, much less been in one, they had no idea how to command a tank or conduct a tank based operation, and were easily confused and deafeated if they didn't have 200 Russian soldiers spread around them
> Jumbo Sherman
> better armor protection then a Tiger I
> using the standard medium tank chassis
I've always found it annoying that the U.S. didn't adopt sloped armor for the Sherman despite its obvious advantages and minor production interference.
>Sherman
>No sloped armor
Do you not see the fricking 30 degree sloped front plate?
> what are sides
Cone tanks are a failure. Show me a single MBT with angled sides...
>Cone tanks are a failure.
?
> Show me a single MBT with angled sides...
Modern tanks are much lower, there isn't any side hull above the tracks.
> If you're getting shot in the side, you're already in a fricked situation as a tank.
Because the enemy is always going to conveniently stand right in front of you...
From Zaloga;
Hits on U.S. Army M4 medium tanks in WWII
Turret front = 9%
Hull front = 21%
Turret side = 18%
Hull side = 32%
Suspension = 19%
Hull rear = 1%
> Not to mention sloping on all four sides was a meme.
The T-34's 40mm of side armor angled at 40 degrees gave it an effective line of sight thickness of 62mm, that's not a "meme" it's an advantage. There's no reason the Sherman's side amour (at 38mm) couldn't have also been angled, as was with the M10 tank destroyer. And no, it would not have required "retooling" entire factories to do so.
> One of the T-34's biggest failings was that its excessive sloping on all four sides meant there was practically zero internal space
The T-34 carried it's fuel in the upper side hull, while the 76mm armed Sherman carried 58 rounds of the larger ammo compared to 90 rounds of 75mm but this was more then offset by the clear advantage of sloped armor, as we can see from above.
> and limited their turret ring size so it could only use a shitty 2 man turret.
This is irrelevant, as the turret ring can't be much larger then the width between the tracks anyways.
>clear advantage of sloped armor, as we can see from above.
What would it be stopping in 1944?
If you're getting shot in the side, you're already in a fricked situation as a tank.
Not to mention sloping on all four sides was a meme. One of the T-34's biggest failings was that its excessive sloping on all four sides meant there was practically zero internal space and limited their turret ring size so it could only use a shitty 2 man turret.
>U.S. didn't adopt sloped armor for the Sherman
homie what?
Someone who genuinely has a understanding, could explain how much the M4 Sherman fared against Panzer 3/4s and Stugs through the war? Did they have the ability to take them out from the front or was it the same way as the Tiger with firing on the side-back of the tank?
I ask this because the most-related topic to this is always how the Sherman performed against Panthers or Tigers or T-34s, though I'm sure a majority of their combat was also against Pzs and Stugs, would appreciate any answer.
Depending on the Sherman and some other variables the later Panzer 4 and Stug had a good chance to not be penetrated from the front at useful distances.
What was the "best" variant of the old sherman? Both in the war and after it.
Would a "Sherman-Like" be a viable tank on a modern battlefield?
By that I mean, a tank that's designed from the ground up to be extremely cheap (by tank standards), easy to manufacture, extremely reliable mechanically, but not "the best" uber-fancy tech crammed future tank possible- instead making up for it by sending 5 new-Shermans where usually you could only afford one fancy newest tech supertank.
I suspect that in modern times the tech available for coordination between tank teams would mean that 5 tanks working as a group could be even more effective than one big mega tank, especially given that it seems even the biggest and best tanks possible to build still can't survive artillery or man portable modern launchers. Obviously having crewmen die would suck and having a tank deliberately designed to be cheap wouldn't probably fly with the modern US military, so perhaps a good compromise would be to make the new-Sherman a remote operated tank and attach 4 Drone Tanks to one "real" tank commander to make a tank squad?
Really this type of vehicle comes to mind.
I'm not actually sure how good this kind of design is in combat, but something about turret + wheels vehicles is really appealing to me
I like the idea of the stryker MGS, they just never really seem live up to the expectations. The army didnt seem to really know what it wanted to do with them at any rate.
That's what the Bradley is in most respects. Though its armor is somewhat thinner practically speaking they have a comparable protection to against same common weapons on the battlefield, a similar profile, similar mobility, similar weight, and while it's at a disadvantage against the most modern tanks in the opposing arsenal it still has a fighting chance and four Bradleys will mog anything short of a tank ace.
I'm not trying to stir shit, isn't that the T-72?
The Pentagon doesn't want you to know this but the Booker is a mobilization model medium tank
Booker to me feels like the US's take on the Leopard 1 like 60 years after the concept's prime. I guess having a tank that isn't so fat it collapses most of the bridges in Europe has its merits after all.
yes, best tank in ww2 for sure, comfy, reliable and upgradeable, especially the firefly ass-rapes any of the wheraboo or vatBlack person tanks
but it is most definitely not the best tank ever built, that title currently belongs to the abrams or merkava until something better comes out
I just want to kiss the sherman on the lips. Specifically the 75mm variant.
>A Shermans side armor can be penned by a 37 mm at 800 meters
Did they think they were never going to get flanked?
akshually OP the Stugg is far superior for reasons
>As far as I've read, there have been no major issues of the Sherman Tank, it is just simply the best tank of the War and likely the best tank ever built.
lol pretty sure he was being sarcastic, everyone knows German tanks are superior in every way