#20 How The Sherman Compared To Its Contemporaries:  Well, it did very well!

Did American Tank Design Stand Up?   It Did Just Fine.

The Sherman compared well to the other tanks in its weight class. It even fared well against vehicles much larger when you take in the whole picture. The US spent a lot of money lavishly equipping these tanks, even the lend-lease tanks shipped with submachine guns for the crew and vinyl-covered, sprung, padded seats, a full toolset, basically, all the same, things a Sherman issued to the US Army would come with, without the US radios.  lend-lease Shermans got the British No. 19 set. Though sometimes the tanks lost things while in the shipping network, for the most part, they arrived and were delivered to the combat arms, ready to use.

The Sherman was not designed to be comfortable for its crew; ergonomics wasn’t a thing back then, but due to the way it was designed and built, it was fairly comfortable as tanks of the time go. Ease of use was taken into account as the design was improved. They improved the suspension several times, the steering and braking system was improved, the controls, in general, were improved, the fuel system was improved, and the fire control system was also improved. Many of these changes were to make the tank easier for the crew to fight or maintain.

The Sherman in this photo is an M4A1 75 supporting the 30th Infantry Division near St. Lo, July 1944, during Cobra. The knocked-out tanks are German Mark IV tanks. These tanks were roughly equal; the German MkIV had a better gun, the Sherman had better everything else, and its gun could kill the MKIV from any practical combat range.

The Sherman tanks were not cheaply built and had finely fitted hulls, beveled armor, and a lot of attention to detail that was not dropped in favor of production speed in many cases until very late in the production run, but function was never compromised.

The Sherman tanks also had multiple generators, including one that had its own motor, so the tank’s electrical system and turret could be run and not drain the batteries. They had a stabilizer system for the main gun, and all tanks had high-quality, high-tech FM radios. The radios were some of the best in the world at the time, if not the best. The Sherman tank was equipped with an extra set of gun-firing instruments that allowed the Sherman tank to be used as an artillery piece if needed. This was something no one but the US military did.

Quality control at all Sherman factories and sub-contractors was tightly monitored and superb. Parts were not modified to fit if they did not match the specifications, they were discarded, if too many parts had to be discarded, the contractor was dropped. Sub-assemblies as big as turrets and hulls or whole tanks needing overhaul were shipped between factories, and no parts had problems interchanging between factory models. One factory could rebuild another factory’s tank using its own parts with no problems at all. These were all very advanced features in a tank designed in the early 40s and the Germans the most advanced of the Axis nations, really couldn’t come close, instead, they produced over armored, over gunned, unreliable tanks that could not be used in fast-paced offensive actions.  The Nazi Germans could really only dream of having a tank arsenal like CDA or FTA.

Having all the parts produced from all the different Sherman factories being interchangeable really helped keep Sherman tanks working. As tanks were knocked out of action, the severely damaged ones, in many cases, could be repaired and taken back to the 4th and 5th echelon repair yards and overhauled and issued as replacements. Basically, the division and army-level repair shops could “factory refurbish” tanks and other vehicles.  Because hundreds of Shermans were exactly alike, no matter who produced them, and even updated models or parts would bolt to the older models, you could easily swap major and minor parts and assemblies. Tank A has a dead, beyond-repair turret, but the hull is good. Tank B has a good turret but a destroyed hull, so making one tank from two was very easy.  With a robust echelon repair system like the one detailed in the image below, you can keep the flow of replacement vehicles up by providing refurbished hulls from knocked-out tanks in the Combat Zone.

It is also easy to discount the Sherman tank’s combat value if you look at the production numbers versus the tanks it fought, but the numbers do not give a good idea about combat numbers because all those Shermans went all over the place. Sure, the United States produced a huge number of Sherman tanks, but they supplied them to an awful lot of countries through lend-lease. The British, Canadians, French, Russians, Chinese, Poland, and I’m sure I’m forgetting a few nations all used it. You also have to keep in mind that there were thousands of Shermans used in the United States for training, and some never saw combat or left the US. The ones that did were remanufactured later in the war and then sent to Europe for the final campaigns in NWE. The Sherman was built in great numbers, but not in such numbers that the Germans would see anything like 10 to 1 odds in most battles. In a few key battles, the Germans managed to muster more tanks than the Allies.  The Sherman was also used in large numbers against Japan.

 I do not see a better choice of a tank for the Allies, given their choices and the wide-ranging requirements the Sherman faced. Considering it was a rushed design, a stopgap, to hold the line while the M7 and T20 series were developed, it proved to be a very capable tank. It was also capable of taking a series of upgrades that kept it relevant far after the war, something no other Western tank can claim. German tank design was so bad that only the French even toyed with them and quickly found the Panther to be terrible and unfixable.  Just about all of the design features that set the German tanks apart proved to be failures, only referenced as bad ideas that actually made it into production (I’m looking at you German cat suspension).

One aspect of Tank combat that is not well understood is the importance of being able to spot, shoot at, and hit an enemy tank. The tank that gets the first hit in, even if it does not knock the tank out, statistically wins the fight. The Sherman tank, even the very early models with only the periscope sight, had a big advantage over German tanks in this area.

Sherman Fire Control Advantages:
  • The Sherman commander had a rotating periscope and a vane sight for the main gun.
  • The Commander had a power traverse override. Meaning he could control the turret from his seat.
  • The power traverse was very fast and precise, allowing the gunner to fine-aim the gun. No German tank’s power traverse system was good enough to do this.
  • The Gun was stabilized, and when used, it allowed, at the least, a very fast shot once the vehicle was stopped.  No German tank of the war had a stabilizer. The technology was well past what Germany could produce during the war. 
  • The gunner had a periscope sight with a 1.x wide-angle view and a telescope built into the same sight. He could switch from one to the other with ease. This made finding an enemy target the commander had just put the turret on much easier since the gunner was not forced to use only a telescopic sight alone to find the target. These combined periscope/telescope sights were improved throughout the war.
  • The gunner had a second telescope on the mid-war on, to go with the Periscope sight. These telescopic sights improved throughout the war.
  • The power traverse system was completely independent of the automotive system. As long as the Aux Gen and the batteries were intact, the power traverse system for the turret could be used. The system was very easy to use and relatively comfortable for an average-sized man of the time.
German Tank Fire Control System Advantages: The list is small.
  • The German 75mm and 88mm guns were better than American guns at killing other tanks. (At least until the 90mm M3)
  • German optics, in their telescopic sights, were better. This is not as big of an advantage as it’s made out to be. It simply means they had come up with a method to coat the lenses in their optics, make them slightly clearer, and make them brighter. This really did not make any difference at the combat ranges in Western Europe. It may have made a marginal difference on the eastern front. It did nothing to negate the difficulty of actually finding a target to shoot at long-range when your only view of the world was that scope.

Now, I know this list seems short, and to be fair, if I’ve missed something, let me know, and I’ll add it if it’s not some wehraboo fantasy.  You add on top of this that these complicated and hard-to-use tanks were crewed by very poorly trained crews by 1944. The Germans rarely had the fuel to train crews when they had the time. On top of that, German tanks were automotive unreliable, making training with them harder because it worsened their out, and spare parts production for tanks was extremely limited.

The US and British Tank crews were extremely well trained by June 6th, and they got better as the war went on, just like the Sherman did. The Germans went in the other direction.

German Tank Three or PIII: The Best Tank The Nazis Ever Produced.

PIIIF, a mid-production model of the tank with a short 50mm gun. This was the main tank in use during the North African campaign, and had a lot of trouble with the Sherman’s armor.

This tank fought from the first days of the war and really was a great little tank. It’s too bad that the Sherman, all models, outclassed it in just about every important way. The Sherman had better armor, firepower, and similar mobility. Even with its most potent gun, a long 50mm, the PIII had trouble with the Grant and Lee, let alone an M4. In the mythical but often argued about on the internet, one on one tank battle, the Sherman stomps the Panzer III every time. This chassis was at the end of its life as a tank with the 50mm.  Larger guns or more armor could not be fitted to it.

It was a good tank, but nowhere near as good as a Sherman, but to be fair, it was at the end of its development life and the M4 was just beginning its long, long life with many countries around the globe, that would span decades, with a few nations still keeping some Sherman based vehicles in inventory. The PIII was designed before anyone really knew how to build a good tank, and with that in mind, it was a good vehicle.

knocked out III at El Alamein, the side hatches in the hull and turret side were weak points…

The biggest problems with the PIII design were the small turret ring, the suspension weight limit, the automotive system’s power and ability to be upgraded and take more weight, and the complicated assembly and maintenance design. Look at all the plates on this tank welded and riveted together and how many angles it has on the hull and turret—all that takes extra time to produce.

As we know, the Shermans automotive components were able to take on a lot more weight with no real issues, its turret ring was HUGE, allowing it to be up-gunned much more readily, and all its motor choices could handle extra weights without causing much drama or concern.  German tank designers and the industry that made their tanks were just too primitive to produce vehicles with that much growth potential. Hell, they were struggling to get engines and automotive systems to meet the base specs of their designs and be even remotely reliable, and largely failing at it, to worry about streamlining the design for ease of manufacture. Sadly, instead of learning much from this design, and building a larger slightly simpler design, they went with even worse vehicles.  The few good vehicles like the PIII are overshadowed by the really bad ones that had great post-war PR  campaigns (Tiger, Panther, Tiger II I’m looking at you!), but were largely failures if you look at their combat records with an objective eye.

J morel of the Tank III, with a more powerful 50mm gun, this was the peak of this tank’s usefulness. As good as this tank was, it was still overly complicated and required more hours to build than better designs. 

In many ways, this was the best tank Germany produced during the war. This was one of the tanks used the short time the Germans really did things offensively during the war; this is the tank that took them to the outskirts of Moscow. And it was a great little tank; its turret ring was just too small to fit a real gun. They solved this with the StuG, but I’ll cover that later. They produced 5774 of them. It did have teething troubles because it was a tad complicated, but unlike many later Nazi designs, the bugs were worked out and the design became one of their most reliable armored fighting vehicles. Not Sherman reliable, but about as close as a German vehicle would get.

This tank continued to be used throughout the war and was up-gunned to a short 75mm howitzer for infantry support once its use as a tank became limited. The ones not converted to use the short 75 were probably used for parts, and or converted to Stug IIIs. You have to give it credit for being a good looking little tank too, that kind of thing is important to model making companies!


German Tank Four or PIV: Boxy and primitive, but it got the job done.

Tank 4 G, this version of the P4 had a better gun, but still had many problems, granted most of these couldn’t be solved without a major overhaul of the design.

The PIV was a closer match to the Sherman in size and capability, but still inferior in most important ways, and it was a complicated design that wasted a lot of man-hours on welding together the overly complicated hull and turret designs. It had weaker, un-sloped armor, in a complicated hard to produce configuration. Its suspension used leaf springs and was inferior to the Shermans VVSS suspension. It had weak enough side armor, without the use of skirts, the tank could be penetrated by Russian anti-tank rifles, and the Russians had a lot of AT rifles. It started off with a low power 75mm gun that had no chance of hurting a Lee or Sherman, and was later up-gunned with a 75mm similar to the one mounted on the Sherman, but slightly better.

At this point, the PIV became a serious threat to the Sherman, the main Nazi tank threat for the whole war. The Sherman still held all the cards with better overall armor, mobility, reliability, spotting,  gun handling(getting that first shot off), and crew comfort. The Sherman design had room to grow and would take a whole new turret and a whole slew of larger guns. The PIV was at the limits of what the hull could handle, and its turret ring was too small to accept more powerful guns, though the gun it received in the improved models was a good gun. The final version of this tank, the J was a simplified version that lacked a power turret drive or skirts, it was not to improve the combat ability, and it was done to speed up production because the Germans were desperate for more armor. Nazi Germany produced 8569 of these tanks, from 1937 to 1945.

One of the weaknesses the PIV suffered from was the suspension. It was fragile and prone to breaking in rough terrain. The leaf spring setup also offered limited travel and really was the most limiting feature of the tank.  The Sherman was reputed to be much better in rough and mountainous terrain. If you just look at a good picture of the PIV, and count the welds, and look at how complicated the thing looks, and then consider all the man-hours needed to build the thing, you see just how much time would have to be wasted making the complicated hull, in particular for a nation like Germany that had to depend on welders, and not welding machines to put the hulls together, this was a bad idea.

A knocked out and burning PIV, this is the typical condition the tank was found in after it ran into Shermans. 

This tank allowed the Germans to use maneuver warfare, and it wasn’t tied to the rail system because it was much more reliable than the Panther or Tiger. One argument to make is, Nazi Germany couldn’t really have produced more Panzer IVs and StuGs because they didn’t have the manpower to crew them.

The counter to point to that argument is if the Germans had not produced the two ridiculous heavy tanks. Tiger 1&2, the huge maintenance tail these vehicles required could be broken up; a tiger company had the same number of mechanics and maintenance personnel and their transport, as a full Battalion of PIV or III tanks.  You could take all these men, and put them into units that didn’t bleed resources when Nazi Germany had few to spare.

They also could have manned these new units with all the men they put in the many captured tanks they used. They used large numbers of T-34 and M4A2 Shermans captured from the USSR. They should have stuck with the tanks they considered producing that was closer to these, the VK3001 (d) was almost a direct copy, Germanized to make it much harder to build and work on of course, of the T-34.  This tank looked a lot like the T-34 that inspired it, but apparently, fears of friendly fire losses because it looked too much like a T-34 and a lack of aluminum to make the copy of the diesel the T-34 used were probably the real reasons this tank didn’t get produced and not corruption in the Nazi Armor development pipeline…

It turns out; the Daimler Benz proposal died for several reasons, the main being that several Nazi industrialists under Spear convinced Hitler getting a tank into production fast was more important than the tank being the best tank able to be put into production. This, coupled with a propaganda campaign run by those same Nazi lackeys against the Daimler Benz proposal, spelled its doom.  Hitler, convinced by their arbitrary date of production argument, decided on the MAN proposal with its frontal armor increased. It would be the “Panther” tanks we all know and love. I guess it’s really a good thing the Nazi industrialists were a bunch of clowns, greedy opportunists, and straight-up lackeys to even worse men or the Germans might have had a decent tank.

At any rate, they didn’t produce the right tank; they produced a pair of heavy tanks and a medium as heavy as a heavy that wasted far more resources than ever could be justified by these tanks’ propaganda-inflated war records. They probably best served in a propaganda role since they had truly fearsome reputations, but once they were met in combat a few times, that wore off, and the American and British tankers found ways to beat them, like just making them drive around a bit until they broke down or ran out of fuel.

German Tank VI Tiger: The Premier Fascist Box Tank, Great For Plastic Model Companies, But Not So Great As A Tank.

This tank had a big weight ‘advantage’ over the Sherman, it is a heavy tank and all, but for the most part, was so rare it had almost no impact on the war. In fact, most of the SS units that used this tank lied so much about its prowess there are some doubts it got even 1/3 of its actual kills its Nazi crews claimed. It also had to be moved by train giving it limited useable tactical mobility, and these tanks sucked up the maintenance, supply, and rail resources of a much larger unit. They also required a lot of resources to build, and it’s hard to make a credible argument they were worth the trouble since they had such a limited impact on the war.

The US Army faced very few of these tanks. When they did face them, they didn’t prove to be much of a problem. From North Africa to Italy and Normandy and beyond, the Tiger was a non-factor when facing US Shermans. Of the 31 sent to North Africa, one was captured after it was knocked out, or the crew got scared, and the British still have it!  The claims of it being a big factor in the Sid Bau Zid battles were false,  and they didn’t achieve much of note in Sicily and Italy. In Normandy, they only saw action against the British, and Commonwealth forces, where the true value of the Tiger is clouded by German propaganda and the German military’s tendency to overclaim across the board, but especially bad in SS units.

A  Tiger knocked out; sadly, these Nazi propaganda machines are so popular today, and the prowess is so overblown. 

The Sherman had a fire control advantage allowing it to spot the huge Tiger first in most cases, it could outmaneuver the bigger tank, and its guns could take it out from the sides and back, or if it got lucky, even the front. The Sherman did face this tank in British hands, but we will cover that later. It’s safe to say the way the Brits used the Sherman was different and riskier and resulted in much higher tank losses. They were far less concerned about tank losses than men in general, and the Sherman was a fairly safe tank to be in when it got hit.

The Tiger ultimately did the Allies a favor by making it into production. It just wasted men and resources that could have been turned into more PIVs and STUGs. It was more of a propaganda tool, used to prop up the home front by lying about the prowess of the tank and their Aryan crews, like Michael Whitman, who was not nearly as good as the Nazi histories would have you believe.  In fact, he got himself and his crew killed by trundling off all alone, probably looking for more imaginary Nazi glory.

Living, well, recently living, tank aces like Otto Carius have admitted many of their “kills” were added for pure propaganda reasons. SS unit kill claims were often discounted by half by the regular German Army, and even that was probably being generous since there was no effort to confirm the kills. Most authors who write books about German tanks take these kill claims at face value. When someone bothers to compare the kill claims to the units they faced with the Soviet, American, or UK records, more often than not, they were not even facing the claimed unit, and often, it was not even in the same area. When they did get the unit right, the losses rarely came close to matching up. Even a nation trying to be honest often gets kill claims wrong. Still, Nazi Germany liked to use inflated numbers to help soothe a restless population that was starting to see the error of supporting Hitler’s foolish war.

If you’re feeling the urge to angrily post a comment about how I’m a Sherman fanboy and unfair to your favorite Nazi box tank, take a breath, and keep reading, cause you’re only going to get angrier. (Boy, has this part proven true, and I’ve gotten much flak for my evaluation of the Tiger) As always, the Wehraboo makes claims, but never backs them up with any sources or actual facts, just check the comments here.

Now, let’s cover some of its many flaws. It was really big and heavy, limiting what bridges it could use. This size and weight problem affected a lot of things: automotive reliability, how easy it was to spot, how it was shipped, and the amount of fuel it needed.  The gun was decent, but for a tank of its size, the 88mm seems pretty weak, and it wasn’t even the good one, the 88mm L71.  Can we say ‘bad at designing cooling systems’? Just look at the rear deck and then a cutaway of a tiger and marvel at how much space the radiators and cooling ducts take. Now, let’s talk about its suspension. There is nothing wrong with torsion bar suspension; it’s still popular today on tanks and other AFVs. Where the Germans went wrong is the road wheels. The interleaved and overlapped road wheels were incredibly stupid, making maintenance or damage repair on the suspension a nightmare. Another huge problem for a vehicle that depended on rail transport to be transported on German train cars was that the normal tracks had to be removed and a narrower set installed. Then, the combat tracks were put back on at the destination. This was a huge hassle and time waster for the crew, at the very least.

The turret drive was a laughable contrivance using PTO from the engine and transfer case, meaning the tank had to be running and at high RPM to rotate the turret at full speed. The system was not very refined, and only got the gun into the general area of the target, then it had to be finely aimed with the manual traverse wheels.  The maximum turret rotation speed meant the tank had to be stopped, and the motor was running at maximum RPM. The Tiger’s motor did not like running at max RPM, and for the most part, the crews just used the nonpower controls.

Another thing to note is these tanks were essentially hand-built.  Some people assume that means painstakingly handcrafted, and it’s true. The Germans wasted a lot of time on finishing items to make the tanks look nicer. I’m not sure if this was some need for the Germans to have nearly ‘perfect’ weapons, at least appearance-wise, or if it was a way for the German tank industry to charge more for the tanks and make more money off the Nazi regime. Still, it didn’t matter; the result was the same: a lot of wasted man-hours on stuff that didn’t improve the tank’s combat effectiveness.

Just like your car, when a Sherman tank needed a spare part, it placed an order, and the quartermaster corps sent one to them through the supply system. If one wasn’t in stock at the local spares depot, it would be ordered from the next level up. When the part came, it would fit in most cases, and only if damage caused a problem would hand fitting be needed.

This was not the case for the Tiger or any other German tank for several reasons, the main being the Germans liked to fiddle with the tanks on the line, making it rare for any to be truly the same. For the Germans, most parts would need to adapt to the individual tank, making field repairs a difficult job. Part of this was because they had so many different sub-variants between major variants, and parts for early variants may not work on a later one or would need adapting to work. On the Tiger, there are so many things they changed, big and small, through the short production run that parts for earlier tanks would practically have to be custom fit.  The testing period was not long enough, and as they fixed problems found in the field they incorporated it in the ‘line’ instead of holding off until all the changes could be lumped in at once not slowing production, or improving the parts in a way that didn’t require a line change or were backward compatible.  On top of that, the Germans just didn’t produce many spare parts. And what they did produce was cut way back later in the war as they ‘optimized’ production by cutting spare parts production.  The lack of spare parts meant many parts came from cannibalization, but even then the parts would have to be adapted since the tanks changed so much.

Only 1347 of these tanks were even built. Numbers were not needed to kill these wasteful and stupid tanks, but they were nice to have anyway when one did actually make it to a fight.  This tank had zero positive effect on the war for the Germans, they helped win no battles, and it just wasted resources, both material and industrial, and helped the Nazi’s lose the war that much faster. It would be nice if that’s why so many people admired these tanks, for their monumental stupidity and thus indirectly helping the good guys win, but no, it’s because it was “cool looking, or had the best armor ever, or was a technological marvel only defeated by hordes of subhuman scum”, or other completely untrue, Nazi propaganda myths about these terrible tanks.

For another view on the Tiger, check out: Germany’s White Elephant.

Another link here about the Tiger, and another, and another view about how the Sherman compares

German Tank V Panther: Bigger, Less Boxy and Less Reliable, Nazi Germany’s Fail Tank.

This was the first version of the Panther, the version so bad it would light on fire if the hull got tilted too much, no joke because the fuel system leaked into the rubber lined engine compartment and when the hull tilted, fuel would hit the exhaust manifolds. That was just ONE of the problems with this junk heap.

Much has been said about this tank, and most of the positive stuff is just, well, there’s no way to say it other than this, it’s straight-up bullshit. The panther was a ‘medium’ tank as big and heavy as any heavy tank of the time. What kept it from being heavy was its pathetic lack of armor for a tank of its size. The side armor was so weak Russian anti-tank rifles could and did score kills on these tanks through it. This is why later models had side skirts covering the thin side armor above the road wheels, left uncovered it was vulnerable to these AT rifles, and the area wasn’t small either. Seems like a pretty bad design right there, it was not a new weapon, the Soviet Anti Tank Rifle.

Tank V knocked out or broken down, hard to tell, also not the poorly secured side skirts to protect against Russian AT rifles. 
Here is a list, off the top of my head, of the Panthers problems:
  • It liked to catch fire due to a fuel system that leaked in more than one way.
  • The hull didn’t let the fuel drain, making the fire problem worse. Tilting the hull to much could cause a fire because the gas that had leaked out of the leaky fuel system was in pools in the bottom of the sealed hull, and would hit exhaust pipes. This was because the early tanks waterproof liner in the engine compartment, to give them a “deep fording” ability, caused the drainage problem. The feature was a sham, just to line Nazi industrialists pockets, all later removed from production tanks, but the other problems with the fuel system always made it prone to fire.
  • The motor had a tendency to backfire or fail catastrophically and cause fires as well. The fuel system was leaky, so there was always fuel vapor in the engine compartment.
  • The cooling system was very complicated, a damaged fan or clogged duct could cause a fire.  It was found the radiators were vulnerable to damage, so plates were added above the armored grates on the engine deck. All these add-ons just piled more weight on an already overstressed, and unreliable, automotive system.
A Panther G, the best version of the Panther, that still had 150-kilometer final drives. It also still had a blind gunner. This version suffered from the worst build and armor quality. This version still had a very weak and slow turret drive. This version had a derated engine to keep it from breaking down so fast. I could go on.
Let’s move away from the fire problems and move onto the turret problems.
  • To rotate the turret, you had to rev the engine up. The engines were fragile. You want full traverse speed; you needed to be redlining the engine. This is because they used a Power Take Off system and tied the turret drive to the engine. This was a really bad way to design a turret drive. If you want a good laugh, go find a diagram of the Tiger or Panthers turret drive system and marvel that it worked at all. It didn’t work if the tank was on even a mild slope. The drive was so weak in these cases it couldn’t even hold the gun in place on the said slope.  I’m sure if you took an electric driven hydraulic or just straight electric system it would weigh a lot less than all the parts they had to use to make the PTO system work, and not even well. This system only ‘worked’ when the Panther was running. The Sherman had a backup generator that could operate the tanks electrical system, including the turret traverse system. German tankers could only dream of such luxuries, well the ones that didn’t get to crew captured Shermans.
  • let’s talk about the gun, gunner, and commander. One of the commander’s jobs is to find targets for the gunner and get him onto them. The commander has pretty good all-around views from the turret with his nice cupola. The gunner is stuck with just his telescopic sight. He would need up to several minutes in some cases to find the target the commander was trying to get him on due to him not having a wider view scope and the commander having no turret override.
  • The gun was a good AT gun, but not a great HE thrower, since the HE charge was smaller to accommodate thicker shell walls to keep the shell from breaking up at the higher velocities. It’s HE was far from useless though. The turret was very cramped for these men as well. And the turret sides and rear had very thin armor. The Shermans 75 would punch right through it at very long ranges with AP and even HE rounds could knock the panther out by cracking the plates and spalling the crew to death.
Some more tidbits on the Panther, its automotive systems were terrible.
  • The automotive systems were designed for a 30-ton tank, and even for that, they were not that robust.
  • The true Achilles heel of the automotive parts was the final drives and their housings. The housings were weak and flexed under load, allowing the already weak gear train to bind and then destroy itself. The best they ever got these final drives to last, on the G models of the tank, was 150 kilometers on average! Replacing them was a major chore that would keep the tank down at least a day. This was confirmed in a report on post-war use by the French, using captured and new production tanks. You can find it here.  Even if you tripled this life, it wouldn’t be very good, the life of these parts on the Sherman is essentially unlimited, if maintained and undamaged. Even if you tripled this life, it wouldn’t be very good, the life of these parts on the Sherman is essentially unlimited if maintained properly and they are undamaged.
  • The motor and tranny would get at best, 1500 kilometers before needing to be replaced.
  • The tracks would get around 1000 kilometers. This isn’t that bad, but they were not easy to swap either and spares were not all the common.
  • The suspension would start to break down around 800 or less with lots of off-road use. The front dual torsion bars breaking first, and then the extra stress from the extra frontal armor kept killing them.

We haven’t even talked about the ridiculous road wheel system that only insane people would put on a combat vehicle.  A late war British report on a captured early model Panther said at higher speeds the suspension was terrible and essentially became solid, making for an awful off-road ride. You can find the report here. The report is very interesting, if not very flattering to the Panther. Another report by the Brits on the Panther can be found here, and this one is equally damning.

It is a total myth that you needed five or more Shermans to take out one Panther or Tiger. If a Panther makes it to the fight, it’s a formidable tank, and in particular when set up as a long-range anti-tank pillbox they could be deadly if they had pre-ranged the area they expected the attack from even more so. When called upon to be part of a mobile tank force, they failed, and they failed hard. In many cases, they would lose three or more Panthers to one Sherman.

By the time the Sherman crews of the US Army started to see Panthers in bigger numbers, they were the elite tankers and the Germans the amateurs, with the vast majority of the German crews only receiving basic training on the Panther. It showed in just about every battle. The Sherman handled these supposedly better tanks just fine. While the poorly trained, green, Nazi crews struggled with their tanks, a bad driver could cause a mechanical failure almost instantly, thanks, MAN. It makes you wonder how many Panther crews did just that to avoid fighting.

In all the ways you need a tank to be good, the Sherman tank was better than the Panther. When the US needed tanks, the Sherman could be counted on to be available. When they needed tanks that could drive across North Africa or Europe, the Sherman was there and got the job done. When they needed a tank to help crush the Nazi, the Sherman was always there.

For another view on why the Panther was just not a good tank for anything other than looking at, this post. Some of this is based on my readings of Germany’s Panther Tank by Jentz. If you get past looking at all the pretty pictures, it has a pretty damning combat recorded in that book as well.

The Germans managed to build around 6000 of these mechanical nightmares. The final production version of this tank, the G version only solved the final drive housing issues, the weak gears were never solved, and this is why the post-war French report was so damning. They were not even operating them under combat conditions.  The United States produced more M4A4 tanks at CDA, and that was just the M4A4, that single factory also produced composite hull Shermans, M4 105s,(all of them) M4A3 105(all of them), M4A3 76 tanks and M4A3 76 HVSS tanks in large numbers as well. The Nazis could only dream of having a tank as reliable as the M4A4, or a single factory that could crank out so many great tanks like CDA or FTA

StuG III:  Short, Stubby and Underrated

This armored fighting vehicle more than just about any other was a real threat to the Sherman. The Germans built a lot of these vehicles. Since it was just about the most common AFV, the Sherman ran into it much more often than tanks like the Tiger and Panther.


The StuG was not as good of a vehicle as the PIV from a combat perspective since it lacked a turret, but it was very good for what it was used for and a much cheaper vehicle to make. It was very popular, and when it was time to cease production, German generals threw a fit and kept it in production. They didn’t say a word when the Tiger I production was stopped.  Speilberger has a good book on this tank, it covers the PIII tank and its variants including the StuG. The book is titled, Panzer III and its variants.

The StuG was up-gunned with the same gun as the Panzer IV and was good at AT work and infantry support. Its low profile helped it stay hidden and it was mobile enough to be able re-locate and get to trouble spots. It had ok armor and was well-liked by its crews. Cheaper, easier to build, and very effective for the price, it’s no wonder it doesn’t get the attention it deserves, and German industry tried to kill it! When the PIII chassis stopped production, they made a version on the PIV chassis, but it was a little bigger and not as good.

Tiger II: Boxy, Fat, Stupid, Unreliable, Overly Complicated and Overrated

The Tiger II was not a very good tank. Only 492 were built, and its impact on the war was less than marginal. Everything said about the Tiger I applies to this tank, just more so. It weighed more at 68 tons but used the same engine. So it was a huge, underpowered, waste of resources. The US Air Force bombing campaign actually had an effect on this tanks production. The factory was heavily damaged and about half the total production was lost in the bombing raid.

This tank was a non-factor in the war, and the first ones lost on the eastern front were knocked out by a handful of T-34-85s, they never even spotted. The US Army ran into a few as well and dispatched them without much trouble. They were so slow, ungainly and problem prone, during the battle of the bulge, they were left at the rear of all the column’s, and barely made it into any of the fights.

Tiger II knocked out.

The early turrets had a big shot trap and were filled with ready racks, easy to ignite. The production turret got rid of the shot trap but did nothing for how cramped it was, but they did forbid the use of the turret ammo racks. The gun was extremely hard to load when not level.   It was an accurate and deadly gun though. The trouble, like with all the cats, was getting it to the fight.

German armor fans like to talk about how influential the Panther and Tiger designs were, but as far as I can tell, they really had zero real impact on future tank design. In fact, the Panther and Tiger series were technological dead ends that no one copied and only the French spent any time playing with the engine tech and guns. The thing that stands out for me about German tank design is they never figured, out like all the other tank making countries, that putting the motor and final drives in the back of the tank, was better than putting the tranny and final drives in the front, and having the motor in the back, and a driveshaft running through the fighting compartment was a bad design feature. This was a drawback the Sherman shared, but all future medium tank designs dropped this and went to the whole power pack in the rear setup. From the T20 series on, though the T20 tanks never went into production because they were a small improvement over the Sherman, they all had rear motor/tranny/final drives. This tank layout still dominates current tank design. The Nazi design teams seemed unable to come up with a design using this layout, other than their aborted copy of the T-34, the VK3001/3002DB tanks.

This is the tank they should have built

Let’s Talk About A Few Russian Tanks: The Soviet Union Knew A Thing Or Two About Building Tanks.

The Sherman may have face the T-34 in limited numbers during WWII since the German captured a lot of them on the eastern front, so it’s possible it faced the T-34, and maybe even the T-34-85. This wouldn’t be the best matchup because the Germans using second-hand equipment would be at a disadvantage. A few years later in Korea, the Sherman would face the much-improved T-34-85 and it would be a closer match.

T-34: The Soviets Tank Of Choice For the Early to Mid Part Part of WWII

Let’s take a look at the T-34, the early model with a four-man crew and 76mm gun. This tank was designed before the M4 and has some advantages and disadvantages over the M4. The T-34 had better soft ground mobility and a better motor once the bugs were worked out. But it lacked a dedicated gunner, and that really increases the workload on the tank. The guns were about equal. Any version of the Sherman would have a reliability edge from the start, but the T-34 would catch up.

T-34-76 1943

The Soviet Union received a fair number first gen Shermans, all M4A2 models and liked them. They considered it a fine substitute for the T-34, and the crews felt it was more comfortable than their T-34. I would give the M4 the overall edge in tank quality looking at the first gen tanks.

A rather beat up T-34-85
A rather beat up T-34-85
T-34-85: The Improved T-34 That Would See Use For Decades

This later version of the T-34 had an enlarged three-man turret with an 85mm gun. This model of the T-34 was a better tank than the 75mm first gen Shermans, but about equal the later models with the 76mm gun. The M4A3 76 HVSS tanks would prove to be more than a match for the T-34-85s they met in Korea, and would really come down to crew quality.

. . .

The T-34 chassis would be used in many varied armored vehicles, a lot like the Sherman, but not as extensively. The Christie suspension would be a limiting factor. The internal springs of the design would take up to much space for the advantages they offered and torsion bar, or bolt on suspension like used on the centurion would outlive the Christie suspension.
The T-34 tank and the many vehicles that sprang from its basic chassis is a fascinating subject, far too complicated to cover in a few paragraphs on another tanks web page. It really deserves its own page like this dedicated to its design. I don’t know enough about the T-34 to do it, but I hope someone gives it a try.

Sources: Armored Thunderbolt by Zaloga, Yeide’s TD and two separate tank battalion books, Sherman by Hunnicutt, Combat Lessons, The Rank and file, what they do and how they are doing it 1-7, and 9. Archive Awareness, Oscar Gilbert’s, Marine Tank Battles in the Pacific, WWII Armor, Ballistics and Gunnery by Bird and Livingston, Tigers in the Mud, by Carius, D.W. to Tiger I, and Tiger I & II combat tactics by Jentz, Panther Tank by Jentz, Panther and its Variants by Speilberger, Panzer III and its Variants and Panzer IV and its variants by Speilberger, The Sherman Minutia Site, Son of a Sherman by Stansell and Laughlin, M4 Sherman tank at war by Green, Tanks are a Might Fine Thing by Stout, the Lone Sentry, TM9-731B M4A2, TM9-731G M10A1, TM9-745 GMC M36B2, TM9-748 GMC M36B1, TM9-750M3, TM9-752 M4A3, TM9-754 M4A4, TM9-759 M4A3, Land mines, TME9-369A German 88MM AA Gun, TME30-451 Handbook on German Armed Forces 1945, TM9-374 90mm Gun M3, FM5-20 Camouflage, FM5-20B Camouflage of Vehicles, DOA Army Battle Casualties and Non Battle Deaths in WWII, FKSM 17-3-2 Armor in Battle, FM17-12 Tank Gunnery, FM17-15 Combat Practice firing, FM17-30 The Tank Platoon 42, FM17-32 The Tank Company medium and light, FM17-33 The Armored Battalion, FM17-67 Crew Drill and Service of the Piece M4 Series, Another River, another town by Irwin, Tanks on the Beaches by Estes and Neiman, Cutthroats by Dick, The Myth of the Eastern Front by Smelser and Davies, Tank Tactics by Jarymowycz, Panzer Aces by Kurowski, Commanding the Red Army’s Shermans by Loza, The Radionerds website, The French Panther user report, Wargaming’s Operation Think Tank Videos, all the info in the data and links sections.  Historical Study, German Tank Maintenance in WWII 

98 thoughts on “#20 How The Sherman Compared To Its Contemporaries:  Well, it did very well!

  1. The Russians absolutely did know a thing or two about making tanks! They made the best tanks of the war, hands down! They made some decent planes as well, and turned out to be quite the capable fighting force.

    Alas, as much as they knew about building military equipment, this knowledge was eclipsed by how absolutely skilled they were at mass rape. Hell, according to the average Russian solder, the best thing about the IS2 tank was “the staggering number of females you could rape in it”. From ages 6 months to 100 years (and apparently being HUMAN females was optional), those Allied soldiers never saw a vajai they didn’t try to stick their swizzle sticks into, and if it didn’t fit, they never gave up … they’d make it fit! They even put the smackdown mackdown on the fly hoo-haa of thousands upon thousands of Jewish women they “liberated”, with some women remarking that the only thing worse than the prospect of gas chambers was the reality of Allied occupation. When they complained to Allied authorities, they were told to “loosen up and learn to enjoy it!”

    Holy buttplug, Batman, the Allies actually found a way to be WORSE than the Nazis? Kinda like the tens of thousands of innocent civilians in Caen and La Havre that they liberated from their lives? Hey, it had to be done. There was no other way. The Germans would never have … oh, the Germans tried to get the Allies to let them evacu …PROPAGANDA! It’s all Nazi propaganda! Yeah, ngo cry to your Tiger models you stupid wehraboos, those stupid krauts have never enjoyed a bias-free media like ours. Stupid krauts!

    Anyway, where were we? Oh yeah, mass rape, turns out, the Allies had a rare determination to rape, one made all the more hilarious by Neurenburg where they demanded, and received, complete indemity from the other Allies. Because they, you know, cared and were moral and stuff. No, really, if you’ve hear anything different, that’s the DAMN NAZI PROPAGANDA AGAIN!

    Look, I think we all know that the Allies were totally better in every way. We know this because most of us were there. Hell, most US soldiers didn’t even carry guns, they walked over to the German lines and started handing out ass-whippings to all comers. Upon running out of ammo, the 101st Airbourne famously walked out of the woods around Foy, armed nothing with but a hand wrapped around their massive throbbing meat bats. They struck mighty blows with their massive penii they did, and when it was all over, every German within 100 kilometers had a gigantic cockslap imprint on his face, and every women was pregnantwith quadruplets! Supposedly, American soldiers required condoms so massive, that the entire Belgium nation’s latex supply was only enough to fashion a condom for one US soldier, while the exact same quanity had been enough to furnish 847 condoms for each and ever soldier in the German Army.

    Frankly, I’m glad someone has finally had the courage to extol the virtues of the Allies. I’m sick and tired of seeing movie after movie showing German heroes and superiority. It makes me want to puke! The Shermans were great tanks! Awesome tanks! The best! The only reason France even fell for four years was because they had no Shermans. One Sherman, one stinking Sherman, and the Krauts would have been stopped dead at the Rine. It would have taken a single shell fired from a single Sherman to make the Germans think twice about their evil plans. In fact, it’s often noted by hour honest, professional media that had France an entire platoon of Shermans, Hitler would have made the entire Third Reich kosher, just t avoid having tangle with the metal beasts.

    Yes, it takes uncommon bravery to put down the loser sof a war while extolling the virtues of the winner. Everyone always takes risks to praise the loser, but they’re cowards if you ask me. Real heros praise the winning team! Bravery like this is the cloth from which all Americans are cut, and it goes to show why we’reso gosh darn good at everything!

    The Sherman didn’t just do well, it saved humanity, and brought ethics and peace to a once-troubled word. It gave us running water, cable TV, and the loving smille of a mother. I don’t want to say that every Sherman company was staffed by well-endowed, handsome heroes of indestrucitble moral fiber, but …. screw it …. every Sherman company WAS stagged by well-endowed, handsome heroes of indestructible moral fiber.

    Now. Finally. The world knows.

    The word “hero” has become over-used, but every now and then, it’s approprite.

    This is one of those times.

    1. This is amusing, this post is something very rare and special. The poster is a rare breed. Note, there are no sources for his screed, or even substance really, but it is a little unhinged, and sarcastic, making it funny.

      That makes andrea a sarcastic and funny wehraboo. They normally don’t have a sense of humor or the ability to even understand sarcasm. One able to produce it, well, that’s just special.

      Imagine wasting that talent defending something as pathetic as Nazi Germany.

  2. Tank technological features, both bad and good, don’t necessarily correlate to failure or success on the battlefield. Leadership, training, doctrine, logistics, and the ability to work with other fighting arms (“combined arms”, which is as old as warfare itself) tend to be what decides the outcome of a particular battle and/or war.

    Case in point: The vaunted T-34/85, as good as it was, and, like the Sherman, the result of adapting the much-improved turret of the intended successor vehicle to the current chassis, in order to keep up need production, performed poorly in the hands of the DPRK in the Korean War, especially in the August and September 1950 battles along the Naktong river near Pusan, where they were utterly pasted by M4A3E8 “Easy Eight” Shermans. But would the outcome of those battles have been so lopsided, if, say, the “tankists” were Soviet veterans of the “Great Patriotic War”, or at least their officers and senior non-coms? Moreover, by that point the UN forces under MacArthur had absolute air supremacy, which they used not only against the Soviet-supplied armor itself, but also destroyed their logistics train. So it’s not conclusive that the T-34/85 was inferior to the Sherman at all; merely that it was probably poorly utilized in the only meaningful post-WWII engagement where it faced USA/NATO armor.

    1. Douglas
      Great post. I think I was basing my opinion on the M4A3 76W tanks versus the T-34-85 was based more on the Sherman being a more refined vehicle and easier to actually fight in. The T-34-85 had the better gun for sure. They are close enough there is a reason to debate it for sure.

  3. Hello, great site. I just wanted to point out what I think are a few errors, but I may be mistaken:

    1) The Soviet T-34 was not a good tank either. In many ways, it was worse than the German tanks. Due to its 360 degree sloping armor, it was extremely cramped, it had s terrible transmission, it was extremely unreliable, and the diesel engine tended to put out black exhaust that made it an easy target for the Germans. Also unlike the Sherman, it had no spring-loaded escape hatches, and the ammunition apparently was quite explosive when hit (as opposed to the Sherman’s which was slow to catch), so it would ignite instantly. And the design facilitated storing the ammo between two fuel tanks, basically making the tank a fire-prone death trap.

    2) I don’t have a hard source, as I read it in an Internet discussion, but that the Germans did not use a turret traverse tied to the engine RPM in the Tiger and Panther due to bad design but rather due to raw material shortages. The raw materials needed to use the type of electrical traverse a Sherman used required materials needed elsewhere.

    3) I forget the details, but that earlier tanks such as the Sherman and German tanks had the drive sprockets up front as they thought it was better for the tracks.

  4. Thank you for giving the much (and over-) maligned Sherman its due and providing so many references to source material to back up your arguments.

    I recall reading a statistic, I believe by the U.S. Army, that it took, on average, TWO 75mm Shermans to knock out a Panther or Tiger (not five) and a little over one to knock out a PzIV. If one was a 76mm Sherman the numbers dropped noticeably.

    To this day I cannot understand why this tank has endured the bad reputation it has received, other than “on paper” propaganda. “On paper” the Maus and Elefant were the best tanks of the war yet had a negative net effect on the German war effort because of the wasted time, effort and insane resources it took to produce them vs. their non-existent combat operation. Good think Der Fuhrer never figured out that the best tank was never the “superweapon” he was constantly looking for.

  5. forgetting the worst aspect of the sherman, I can’t believe you never mentioned it since it is well known.
    The engine ran on gasoline, not diesel like all german tanks did.
    So the shermans would burn like hell with almost any hit at all that impacted the engine or fuel systems.
    That is why their own tanker’s called them “ronsons” (after the popular cigarette lighter).
    This was a truly horrible weakness of the design, and caused uncountable suffering and deaths (horrible ones at that) for American tankers.
    The fact that you did not mention this can only be considered a coverup.

    1. Ken,
      I’m not sure if your joking or trolling or what, but it would be easier to point out the things you got right than the things you got wrong.
      So the thing you got right, the Sherman was powered by a gasoline powered motor, well, all but the M4A2 that was, in fact, a diesel.

      No German tank ran on a diesel during the war, the Panther, Tiger, PIV, and III all gas powered, all prone to fires. only the Panther was prone to burn because of the gas motor though, and that was more the poorly designed fuel system than the gas itself.

      The reason the Sherman generally burned, was because the Ammo, not the gas getting hit. This was documented during the war and was improved in later Shermans. The late war wet storage Shermans commonly used in Europe was the least likely to burn tanks of the war! Being an American Tanker was far safer than being in the infantry, and their losses have been greatly exaggerated by sensationalists authors.

      Your ignorance of simple and easy to find facts on this site is not a conspiracy to cover something up, try reading a book, other than Death Traps. Get Armored Thunderbolt by Zaloga, it will make you ashamed you posted this tired old garbage.

    2. well it would appear that you know very little about AFV’s from the period.
      Germany didn’t possess an AFV that reached production with a diesel engine.
      US Army documents from the period show that poor ammunition storage caused catastrophic fires (sponson mounted ammunition racks quickly went away in US m4’s) and not the engine. Germany AFV’s also used gasoline engines and somehow avoid this reputation (even though 80% of PZ IV’s caught fire when hit).
      The total number of US Tankers killed in the ETO was 1500, thats pretty good for armor of the period.

    3. Actually most Tanks Burned and Brewed up as the English would say. Caused frequently by the Crews habits of stuffing as much Ammunition into the Turret and Crew compartment as possible. Having 75mm shells, 76mm Shells didnt really matter what nationality. A penetration, resulting flash, thermal jet or slag slinging around inside your AFV and landing on Brass Ammo lying around on the Floor, seem pretty self explanatory to me. By the way we did Manufacture Diesel Powered Sherman’s, we tended to issue a Specific Model to a Country, and tried to Maintain Commonality even in our Units. The M4E8 was selected to soldier on after the War. Some Parts were simply not inter changeable. The Sherman was an infantry support weapon and by Doctrine at that time was a Tank Hunter. that was left to the Anti-Tank boys in Wolverines who were issued a much Faster Anti Tank Round. Sought and prized by Sherman crews if the Weapon was compatible. they were just generally handing those out. Soldiers due to tend to be entrepreneurial. Tanks the didnt burn if we held the Battlefield we recovered. Have you ever noticed the Practice of over shot up M4, multiple holes near the Hull or Turret Marking. Can you say STAR, makes a nice aiming point also.

    4. Oh horse hockey! The only reasons Shermans burned is because goodness is flammable! And while they looked like regular fires, they were actually fires of love, wrapping the tankers in welcome warmth like a mother’s blanket!

      Gosh, learn your history and science facts!

  6. After reading your post, you have a great website with interesting content. But I think you can improve your current google ranks by using SEO website traffic net. My friend uses it and it works great. Just google it, it’s very nice tool to bring you a lot of new readers on a daily basis. Keep up the quality work!

  7. After reading your blog post I browsed your website a bit and noticed you are not ranking nearly as well in the search engine as you could be. I possess a handful of blogs myself and I think you should take a look at speed rank SEO. You will find it a very good tool that can help you rank on the top of search engine, just search speed rank SEO on google. Keep up the quality posts

  8. Anyone with German cars knows that while excellent in many important ways, they have flaws in how they make things. Often the simple things are what lets them down, they are overly complex at times, and while excellent while working, they can let you down.

    1. I know, right? Anyone who cares about RELIABILITY buys American cars! Hell, everyone knows that Ford stands for:


      Heck, they put Sherman quality into every car they produce!

  9. I think you oversell the Sherman a little and disparage the German designs to a similarly exaggerated degree. They had serious flaws, but when you need to stop an offensive and have time to get them in position, nothing beats a big gun and heavy armor.

  10. I believe that by the time Shermans (and even Grants) were in service in the desert, the Panzer IIIH model predominated. It had bolted-on 30mm armor panels.

    With some J “specials” scattered in that have even more armor and a long 50mm gun.

  11. I loved the article and its different perspective. I don’t agree with all your points but I do fully agree that the newer German tanks were woefully unreliable. On paper they may have been better but that doesn’t matter if it can’t make it to the battle. I wish the U.S. had pushed the development of the Pershing harder and put it into service earlier.
    If this had been done, it would have received far more accolades. I loved reading all the comments. Very entertaining.

  12. The M4 was a more reliable tank in most cases but you are straight up wrong about how much more superior the M4 was then German tanks.

  13. As a Wehraboo, the only way German armor compares to American armor is on a listed parameters performance sheet.

    But, as an American soldier, I can tell you that often the parameter performance sheets lie. And that in actual practice, the Nazi Big Cats were a resource waste. And why they really just needed to buckle down and make more StuGs.

    As for why the Germans sucked at making things compared to the US was the way their economy base was built, being that it was largely a cottage industry. Being a cottage industry had the advantage of being highly decentralized, which is why it was fairly difficult to knock out with strategic bombing. It’s disadvantage was that standards were often uneven between shops.

    I’ve a book on Nazi Germany’s economy pre war and why they recovered so quickly from the Great Depression, I don’t recall the name of it off the top of my head so I hope I can find where I put it before I deploy.

  14. Greetings from Russia. I was pleased to read such a good and solid article. The author did a really good job in his research and stuff. It also should be mentioned that USAF also had M36 a.k.a Slugger which gun afak was able to deal with German tanks just fine in the most cases. One can’t but say that those Shermans that were sent into the USSR were monitored by the official represnters(not sure if the correct term used) that collected feedback and monitored the usage of them thus later supplies were patched according to it.

  15. I must admit I greatly enjoyed your “kick in the groin” of any Panzerwaffe fan club boy. However, to be taken seriously try to hide your anger towards anybody that do not show a bit of potion for Allied armory. You see I come from Eastern Europe and for long time I had envy the West for having access to many WW2 publications. However, once the communism had fallen many books had been made available and when I laid my hands on them starving for new facts, pictures, and so on and on it startled me: I felt like these books were written by some Nazi lovers. Best tank, best gun, best this and that (and in between Stalingrad happened). I always wonder on such comments why allied tank crews didn’t abandon their tanks just on plain sight of kubelwagen.
    Don’t put the blame on young minds feeding their knowledge while playing WoT and the books written by German officers about the years spent in Meat Grinder. The blame is on Allies back then as well as Western historians today eating mindless from the hand on German memoires. Let’s face it. To show the struggle back then, to find necessary funds and commitment of all resources to fight Nazis, German military potential had to be portrayed in a way we know it today –best this, best that.
    I always say one thing which is simple as that: every tank (weapon) is as good as long as no adequate measures exist to counter it. So, was Sherman good tank – no. Was T-34 a good tank – no. Was any tank good tank – the answer is no. But each of them had their 5 minutes and that 5 minutes build that excitement and carves in the head the image of the best tank.
    I for one enjoy reading about Wehrmacht, weapons used, tactics employed not because I’m pro-Nazi. I read it because it fascinates me that Wehrmacht was capable to reach that far with what they had on hand (yes, not so good equipment) till it blanket became too short to cover all conquered area. And you know what, I think no army back then was able to pull that.

  16. The true story behind the Sherman?

    Its was the sadest tank ever!
    It called by the Germans “Tommykocher” what means that it burns with all members like hell.
    You´re kind of fantasy stories are really really funny stuff but it´s far away from reality. You know the facts? How many Panthers were built? How many Shermans?
    What you think who would win if the Situation could be 1-1 when the two tanks engaged another? Sherman? Of course ….

    Dream you´re dream but the reality was sad for American tankers and often American Tankers dindt want to go back in the fight with they´re crap tanks! That is fact!

    1. “American Tankers” is cited. Are you aware how few German tanks were in service against Americans in 1944/1945? Most American Shermans rarely saw anything bigger than a StuG III and if they did it was a few dozen.

    2. US tank troops in M4s had the lowest mortality rates of any land assault force in WW2. 3% FYI.

  17. Greetings from Chile!

    And congratulations on your fine research work.

    My native language is Spanish, so please forgive my occasionally unrefined English.

    You are making a great point regarding German armour. In many history books, it’s very difficult to distinguish what is history and what is just mythology. I think the Allies of the first hour were not very categorical refuting the myths about a supposed “avalanche of invincible giants of steel” rolling over the French, Belgian and Dutch countryside. The “Wehmacht” undoubtedly gave an unmitigated beating on “l’Armée” and on the “Royal Army” in 1940. Wherever you find a balanced analysis you have to admit that the terrible defeat of the Western Campaign was due to the politicians’ ineptitude in London and Paris, who were unable of prearing or implementing anything resembling a plan between September 1939 and May 1940. For posterity, was easier to accept (and less embarrassing) that the Germans had better and more weapons. But the facts are that Germany came lately and badly to the arms race leading to Second World War. In all, the French and British had more and better tanks stored in their arsenals and deployed in the fields. Not everything depends on how good your weapons are or how many you have of them. A lot comes from how you use them. And in this, the Germans surpassed largely the Allies in 1940.

    Later, in June 1941, with “Barbarossa” going on, the scheme was very similar, though in the soviet’s case, the lies were even greater, because the Red Army tank force was even more formidable than the 1940 French and British ones. There is a very interesting study written by a Russian historian, Mark Solonin. He finally concludes that the peoples of the Soviet Union were forcibly conscripted in a huge and very well armed Army, conceived for the invasion of Europe. But in the decisive moment, they just hated their own government too much to shed their blood to save it, even from a barbarian blood thirsty maniac, like Hitler. Later, the soviets realize that their destiny under Nazi Germany could be even worse than their present under Stalinist Communism (an incredible but sadly true fact). When that psychological change was verified (about the second part of 1942), the Red Army became an unstoppable conquering machine, that would bring Hitlerism to its knees, in the very gates of the “Reich’s” Chancellery in Berlin. Why the myth was so widely accepted? Because the very influential socialist parties of post-war Western Europe and the Americas, looking for an alternative to the United States’ world domination after 1945, were not willing to accept anything that could shed a doubt about the rightness of the ruling regime of the “victorious nation of the proletariat”. So, historians, strongly influenced by Marxism, accepted this gigantic lie about the Germans having more and better tanks than the Soviet (and also than the British, French and Americans). It was heresy to say anything wrong about leftist parties and was certainly heresy to suggest that the Soviet soldiers (and even officers and commissars) had plenty of weapons but preferred to drop them or desert their units, before fighting the invading Germans.

    I agree with you about the German Army having generally bad tanks, compared to their counterparts. With some improvements, later they reached maybe an average status (I’m thinking in the improved version of the “Pz IV”, for example, that faced the Shermans in El Alamein, exactly 75 years ago). But they were very far from being invincible colossus. Does this mean to underestimate the German Army? Certainly not. Even more, it speaks highly about their capacity of fighting and wining, even using inappropriate equipment. In 1939-1942, they proved to be better trained and better motivated than most of their adversaries. They were among the best military professionals in the world by that time, and to defeat the Nazy tyranny demanded a lot of generous blood from two dozens of free (and not so free, i.e., USSR) nations.

    I also agree that it speaks badly about German industrials and production planners, maybe moved by greed and by the fear that can only be felt when you are working for a cruel and mad tyrant, like that Hitler monster.

    Again, greetings and congratulations. Your work is admirable.
    Germán Burgos F.

    1. Barkmann’s corner = fictional Nazi propaganda battle.
      Villers-Bocage = Nazi propaganda hero dies due to his own foolishness.
      Operation Goodwood = Poorly planned campaign by Monty.

      Not sure what your point was, but hey, thanks for commenting!

      1. “Barkmann’s corner = fictional Nazi propaganda battle.
        Villers-Bocage = Nazi propaganda hero dies due to his own foolishness.”


        Not just these things, that whole “Occupied France” thing was Nazi propaganda too! Do to pro-German media propaganda since WW2, most people don’t know that it was France that actually occupied Germany!

        I bet you heard “The Germans were ahead of Americans in rocket research”, didn’t you?

        Turns out, Werner Von Braun was actually a Sunday School teacher from Dayton, Ohio, who actually worked as a spy in German, and to provide cover we
        “re-captured” him.

        Like the Nazi Krauts could do anything right? Not without American ingenuity they can’t!

        You better recognize!

    2. Here’s a good factual discussion of the Barkmann’s corner legend. Lot’s of foundation, and pretty much puts the lie to the propaganda. The US unit engaged was merely a flanking recon unit (cavalry) equipped with M-8 armored cars (37mm guns), 5 light tanks (37mm guns) and jeeps. No Shermans even involved in the fight. The main US attack (Combat Command B, 3d Armored Div) passed by a mile to the south, heading west, virtually uncontested. So . . . Barkmann wasn’t even fighting where he could do any good.


      It’s always a good idea to take stories of such magnificent feats with a grain of salt and look into them a bit before blindly accepting them as fact. It’s like Carlos “White Feather” Hathcock. Supposedly had over 80 confirmed kills and at least that number of probable kills in his first tour in Vietnam. Everyone ‘knows’ this and accepts it as fact. But . . . his end of tour Navy Commendation medal cited only 7 confirmed kills and about the same number of probables.

      Cool stories tend to get exaggerated and then blown out of all proportion.

  18. G-J-T,
    While there is no doubt that the Sherman was a reliable vehicle,
    & a good enough fighting tank by 1942 standards, by 1944 it was
    outmatched, & its long-delayed replacement was too little, too late..

    The British, like-wise liked the Sherman for its utility as a vehicle,
    yet knew it was inadequate in battle, but were too slow in getting
    their superior Comet tank properly sorted & available in numbers..

    Soviet tanks were in fact more like what you claim the German tanks
    to be, ‘good on paper’ – but actually awful for the crews to fight in..

    German tanks had their faults to be sure, yet nowhere near as badly
    as your very biased slant purports, & as too many subjective ‘revisionist’
    writers such as Zaloga nowadays ride for sales to “Team ‘merica F-yeah!”
    mob-mentality types..

    I’d suggest ‘Tank Men’ by Robert Kershaw, as a well-researched, far more
    balanced & objective overview of the ‘Human Story of Tanks at War’, he
    gives a realistic impression of the situation in WW II tank warfare, with
    a fair appraisal of the tanks themselves, including the Sherman ( & Panther)..

    1. James,
      Maybe the words of a man who was there will help show you the light.

      A scanned version of this is in my downloads section

      “Tank versus Tank”

      Lieutenant Colonel Albin F. Irzyk

      Headquarters, 8th Tank Battalion

      “The American tank is not nearly as good as the German tank.”

      “Next to the German and Russian tanks, the American tanks are the best in the world.”

      Quotations, opinions, and comments similar to the two above, which have been widely publicized and caused widespread discussion, have been made by various individuals.

      Because they have, to a certain degree, jumped to hasty conclusions, and because they have helped fashion many erroneous conceptions, I shall attempt in this article to present considerations which they have apparently overlooked and which may change the outlook of many on American tanks.

      In making those statements, what standards did the persons involved use?

      What were the items and factors that they utilized in making their comparisons?

      If they used simply the gun, the weight of the tank, and the width of the track and thereby the floatation of the tank as criterion, as I am sure they did, then I heartily concur with them that the German Tiger tank is unquestionably superior to the American Sherman tank.

      The German Tiger tank (above) had a more powerful main gun, heavier armor, and wider tracks than the American Sherman tank (below).

      The German 88 is more powerful than any American tank gun used during the course of most of the war.

      The German tank is much heavier and therefore its armor is much thicker than that of any American tank.

      The tracks of the former are much wider, with perhaps a less vulnerable suspension system than that of the latter.

      If I stop here, as I am convinced so many have, there is no question but that the German tank is a much better one than our own. In this paragraph there is material, indeed, for some sensational headlines in newspapers in the States.

      Today, however, let us not stop here. Let us go on!

      What is the fuel capacity of the German Tiger tank? How long and how far is it able to run on a tank full of gasoline? Does it burn much oil?

      What is the composition and life of its tracks? How many rounds of ammunition is it able to stow? What is the life (discounting its being hit in action) of a Tiger tank?

      Is its engine comparatively free of maintenance problems? If maintenance problems occur, are they easy to remedy? How long and how much skill is required to change an engine?

      Is the German tank able to move for long distances and continuous periods at a steady rate of speed? How is its endurance?

      Could 53 Tiger tanks, for instance, move from the vicinity of Fenetrange, France, in the Saar, to an area near Bastogne, Belgium, a distance of 151 miles, in less than twenty-four hours to answer a fire call, as did tanks of the Fourth Armored Division?

      Could a German Tiger tank be used for weeks of training in England, land in France and fight across the widest part of that country to the German frontier, race back to Belgium, retrace its steps again to the German border, and fight its way well into that country before being replaced?

      Could a German tank roll for several hours at a speed of twenty-five miles per hour in exploiting a breakthrough?

      Did it occur to the critics of the American tank that perhaps questions like those listed above, the answer to which will all heavily favor the American tank, and many others like them should be considered before a decision is reached? Obviously not.

      I say most emphatically that such factors must be included before a thorough, honest, and fair comparison can be made and a sound and intelligent conclusion reached.

      In addition to those just cited, items to be remembered, as well, are tactics employed and required respectively by the Germans and Americans, missions involved, and number of tanks on hand for the operations.

      To create a true picture of the weaknesses and strengths of the tanks being compared, those things take their places in the line of factors necessary to be examined.

      On 6 June 1944 and for many days afterward, while the Germans had the Mark V Panther with a 75mm gun and a Mark VI Tiger with an 88mm gun, the American Army was equipped with the M-4A1 tank, or the Sherman, as it is popularly known.

      It will be unnecessary in this article to list all the specifications of that tank except to say that it weighed approximately thirty tons and had a 75mm gun.

      Its tracks were narrow and consisted of three different types: steel, flat rubber and rubber chevron.

      During the initial period in Normandy just after the invasion, when engagements were toe-to-toe slugfests, battles with tanks fighting tanks were common.

      Soon, however, the deadlock broke and American tanks streaked to and through Avranches and hustled across Brittany.

      Without stopping for breath, the tanks continued on their way across most of France.

      In order to keep rolling over hot roads for long, dusty miles for days on end, a light, mobile tank was needed which the terribly extended supply line could adequately furnish with precious gasoline.

      To withstand the terrific beating the tank was taking hour after hour, it was necessary for it to have a simple yet tough and efficient engine and mechanical system.

      The fact that the American tanks rolled with but few maintenance problems, and those rapidly attended to by the tank crew alone or by company, battalion, or division maintenance, all of which were close enough behind to repair the vehicle rapidly and send it immediately back into action, testifies to the excellence of the tank.

      Thus, tank units were still at full tank strength and functioning efficiently when they reached as far east as the Meuse River early in September after moving and fighting consistently day after day from the Normandy peninsula.

      They stopped then only because they had moved too fast and too far and were forced to wait a few days until their supplies could reach them in large enough quantities to send them ahead again.

      During that phase of operations, a group of tanks had made a forced march of 258 miles in 38 hours and arrived in good enough shape to have continued on had the situation warranted it.

      In discussing tanks, many forget that the tank is not a vehicle built primarily to fight other tanks.

      Rather, its mission above all others is to get into the enemy’s rear areas, to disorganize him, to destroy supply and communications, and generally to wreck havoc there.

      This is done mainly with its 30-caliber machine guns, especially the one mounted co-axially, and with high explosive fire from the tank cannon.

      The tank cannon’s chief function, however, is to protect the tank while it is disrupting, exploiting, and destroying the enemy.

      Of course, very, very often a few well-placed shots from the tank cannon will be much more effective than the 30-caliber machine guns, and therefore the cannon is used very frequently in offensive action.

      The tank served its primary mission gloriously in that dash through France.

      Its opponent was dazed, disorganized, and on the run.

      Most of his equipment was “thin skinned,” and was “duck soup” for our tanks.

      The 30-caliber fire and 75mm high-explosive fire, for good measure, was plenty good enough to leave much of the German Army equipment and personnel strewn by the wayside.

      A factor rarely considered, yet on occasion vitally important, is the type of bridge that a Sherman can use to cross a stream or river.

      Many bridges that are adequate for the American tank pose a knotty problem for the German tank.

      The bridge would have to be much wider and much stronger, and would require a great deal of time and more facilities to construct.

      Many bridges intact and able to accommodate the lighter American tank would deny passage to the heavy, lumbering Tiger.

      Hardly a critical word was heard concerning the American tank in those days.

      The reason obviously was that it was plenty good for the task at hand.

      The tank was accomplishing an ideal tank mission in a superior fashion, and it seemed to have been built for just that kind of job.

      During the summer and fall of 1944, the Sherman performed to perfection and brought the Allied armies within scent of the German frontier.

      It was late in 1944 that the American tank became the target for taunts and criticism.

      Forgotten quickly were the results it had gained just a month or two before.

      In October, November, and December the ground became a sticky morass; the war was stabilized and no great advances were being made.

      The war was bloody and difficult, slow and discouraging.

      For every yard wrested from the enemy, tremendous effort had to be exerted.

      During this stage of the war, the tanks could not perform as they had earlier.

      Rather, they were forced to fight tank versus tank.

      Here the German had a tremendous advantage.

      He was fighting a defensive warfare. The terrain was admirably suited for him.

      It was rough, and this enabled him to pick the key terrain features on which to post his men and vehicles.

      The ground was so muddy that advancing, attacking elements could not maneuver, could not outflank.

      They had to slug it out toe-to-toe, face-to-face.

      Without a doubt the tank of the Germans was ideally suited for such a fortunate turn in the war for them.

      The tank could pick dominating ground, and with its huge gun and thick armor proved to be a roving pillbox par excellence.

      On many occasions it picked off American tanks as they floundered in the mud in an effort to gain valuable ground and dislodge their adversary.

      It was during those trying days that many an American tanker and those that observed him began to lose faith in the Sherman.

      The tanker was forced to move very slowly because of the muck, and very, very often spotted a German tank, fired first, and scored a hit only to see his 75mm shot glance off the enemy tank causing absolutely no damage to it.

      The 75mm gun proved to be comparatively ineffective during this chapter of the war.

      At 1,000 yards to 1,500 yards it could be effective, and a single tank has knocked out five Panther tanks with six shots.

      An American soldier inspects a German Panther tank, c. 1944.
      Yet to get that close to a German tank made the Sherman vulnerable indeed.

      Many tanks were lost in endeavoring to get close in, which was necessary in order for them to strike a telling blow.

      The absence of an effective armor-piercing shell proved to be a terrific handicap, as well.

      Thus, during that siege, the American tank was impotent when running into the German tank head-on.

      As a result, many a Sherman was lost even after it had shot first and scored the first hit.

      That was when the seeds of dissatisfaction in the American tank were sown and when much faith was lost.

      It must be remembered that the German tank had everything its way.

      It was fighting a defensive game, the terrain was in its favor, and the wet ground played into its hands.

      Still, it must not be forgotten that though the cards were stacked against the American tank, it defeated the enemy and gained the desired ground.

      Though the Shermans were easily bested tank for tank, they could always bank on a numerical superiority, which fact was considered in tactics and strategy employed.

      By banding together and maneuvering, they were able to dislodge and knock out the heavier German tank.

      Even during those days, one German tank knocked out for one American tank was a poor score.

      It was in most cases three-to-one, four-to-one, and five-to-one in favor of our side.

      One must not forget that the German requirements and our own were totally different.

      They were fighting a slow war, a defensive war where they picked their spots.

      They had fewer tanks than we, so their tactics, of necessity, had to be different.

      We were fighting an offensive war, we were hurrying to get it over with, we wanted to shake loose, and we had many tanks with which to do it.

      Virtually never did a scrap take place with fifty German tanks against fifty American or twenty against twenty.

      The proportion was usually five American to one German, even ten to one, rarely if ever less than two to one.

      So it must be made clear to anyone comparing the tanks of the two nations that, as I said before, throughout the campaigns the requirements and needs were different.

      We could not use nor did we want a lumbering, heavy, mobile pillbox type of tank, and we could not have done what we did if we were so equipped.

      Then again we had numbers upon which to fall back, and we considered that in our tactics.

      Mechanically we had a tank that performed superbly, and after groaning and grunting through heavy, sticky mud for weeks on end, it was still running at the end of this phase.

      There is no denying that in those hectic days a tank such as our newest Sherman with a wider track and a more potent gun would have saved many American lives and would have knocked out more enemy tanks, and more quickly, too.

      During that period, and that period alone, was the American tank discredited, criticized, and found lacking. The situation was hastily remedied, but for many it was a little late.

      ‘It must not be forgotten that though the cards were stacked against the American tank, it defeated the enemy and gained the desired ground,’ Irzyk wrote.
      The closing days of 1944 and the early part of 1945 found a new type Sherman joining the ranks of American tanks and replacing its tired brothers.

      Although it has no additional armor and weighs but a ton or two more, it arrived on the scene with a potent, long tubed 76mm gun with a muzzle break and high muzzle velocity that makes it effective at much longer ranges than the 75mm. As a result, it is not necessary for the new tank to get as close in as the old tank before becoming effective.

      A new type, high-velocity, armor-piercing shell was added for the gun and gives it far greater penetrating qualities.

      The new tank has an engine with higher horsepower which, in addition to an increase in power, makes it capable of higher speeds.

      Its track is much wider and has a new type track suspension system which gives it more stability and cross-country mobility with which to combat adverse ground conditions.

      The tank has the traditional endurance of American tanks and rolls consistently for endless miles.

      It goes ninety miles and often more on a tankful of gasoline.

      The tank is characteristically simple, as such equipment goes, and the tank crew alone is able to maintain its vehicle for long periods.

      New men in tank crews catch on to their jobs quickly, which is one important factor in making our tank crews superior to those of the Germans and explains why our armor operated most of the time at top-notch efficiency.

      One last advantage, though minor in discussion, was extremely valuable to the tank crew – the turret with two hatches.

      Also, the new Sherman, like the old, had the potent 50-caliber anti-aircraft gun which proved so effective against enemy planes and which played havoc with dug-in Germans.

      All in all, the new type Sherman is a marvelous tank.

      It answered the prayers of the tankers and was on hand to drop a curtain on one of the dirtiest and hardest phases of the European war.

      It was the new tank with the all the advantages of the old one and many new qualities that did the racing in Germany, Austria, and Czechoslovakia, and finished the war in a blaze of glory.

      Mounted in that tank, no American tanker, was afraid to take on any tank that faced him. If only the new type tank could have been produced and brought to the front lines sooner!

      German tanks, on the other hand, are not what they are cracked up to be.

      Their heavy armor was a hindrance rather than an asset. The tanks could not carry on the same kind of offensive warfare that our tanks did.

      With their heavy armor and complicated mechanism, they were tank destroyers and not tanks.

      Even though the German tanks were much heavier and thicker than ours, their armor was centralized.

      Most of it was on the front slope plate and turret. Sides and rear were often vulnerable, and how we capitalized on that!

      The armor on German tanks was generally poor. It often cracked on impact, leaving ragged, gaping holes, whereas the holes in our tanks were clean, circular, and easily repairable.

      The Germans developed a gun with a high muzzle velocity and an effective armor-piercing projectile. To do this they sacrificed space in the tank, for they had to increase the size of the shell and thus could not stow many rounds.

      It must be mentioned that once again the Germans lost sight of the purpose and function of a tank and thought primarily of destroying other tanks.

      Still, though our muzzle velocity was less than theirs, our high-explosive fire was just as effective.

      Of the two, the high-explosive fire was for us the more important consideration.

      The mechanical advantages of the German tank over our own were few.

      The interiors of their tanks were not nearly as well equipped as ours, and it looked altogether too much maintenance to keep a German tank rolling.

      Still another item often overlooked is that it was necessary for us to carry an adequate basic load of ammunition and gasoline in our tanks, for to replace what we used we had to call upon trucks that had to travel over a long, dangerous supply route.

      The Germans, on the other hand, sat close in many of their defensive positions to their ammunition and other supply.

      It might astonish some to know that prisoners of war claimed that some of their large tanks had a running time of a mere two and a half hours on a full vehicular load of gasoline.

      Thus, the tanks did not have the endurance nor the cruising ranges of our tanks.

      Therefore, in many instances they had to be transported by rail virtually to the front lines, unloaded, and put into the battle. How far could we have gone with our tanks if we had to follow a procedure like that?

      Not yet mentioned is the power traverse with which American tanks are equipped.

      It is one of the very important reasons why so many of our tanks bested the German tanks. Of course, it may have been that our gunners and car commanders were superior to the Germans, and that the excellence of our tankers provided us with the upper hand.

      We agree to that, yet it is felt that of inestimable advantage to our tankers was the distinct handicap under which the German tankers labored because of a lack of a 360 degree power traverse comparable to ours.

      Because of that important disadvantage, they were slow firing and in many cases got off one round to our three or four. Instances have occurred where a Tiger tank lay hidden, waited in ambush, and fired the first shot at advancing American tanks and missed!

      The mistake was fatal, for American tanks maneuvered about it and with their rapid fire destroyed the German tank.

      A captured Tiger tank stands alongside a Sherman tank with the 4th Armored Brigade. The size and weight of the Tiger proved as much a hindrance as a help.
      By means of the 360 degree power turret traverse with which all our tanks are equipped, a tank gunner is able to swing his gun in any direction in a second or a fraction thereof.

      The average American tank gunner can lay on a German tank, is able to get the first round off, and can usually score the first hit. The power traverse enabled American tanks to move down roads at high speeds shooting from one side of the road to the other.

      In this manner enemy infantrymen and bazooka teams were killed or pinned down as the tanks rolled by.

      The power traverse has been such an advantage and of so much importance that it is immeasurable.

      At the moment, virtually every tank battalion is nearly equipped with the new type Sherman tank technically called the M4A3-E8.

      Of all the tanks operating today, that one, in my estimation, is the best there is. I would chose it above all the others.

      Many, many experienced combat tankers feel exactly as I do.

      The tank will go faster and will live longer than the German Tiger.

      The Sherman burns less gas and oil and as a result is able to go much farther on a tank full of gasoline.

      Its maintenance problems are few and far between and are easily remedied.

      It is an easy matter to change an engine, which takes little more than four hours and which beats all hollow the best time for the Germans.

      It has a good gun, and good ammunition for it. It does not take much to tow one of our tanks that is disabled, but a huge vehicle is required for the German Tiger, and often German tanks had to be abandoned because huge vehicles were not available.

      Yes, considering all factors, I believe that even the most prejudiced or the one most difficult to convince will nod toward the Sherman.

      The Sherman must give ground to the Tiger when the size of the gun and the thickness of the armor is considered.

      The tanker knows and takes for granted that if his tank is hit by an 88 it will be penetrated.

      He also knows that the addition of a few tons of armor will not stop an 88.

      He respects, and always will, the German gun and the thick armor, but he will never swap his tank for those advantages.

      To build a tank that would stop an 88 shell would be to lose a tank and gain a lumbering steel pillbox with no mobility left. It has been said, practically speaking, that the only thing that will stop an 88 is “Cease fire.”

      Similarly, to stop our 76 with high-velocity armor-piercing ammunition, the enemy will need a mighty heavy tank, indeed.

      Once again, let us not forget that the Americans fought an offensive, fast, deceptive, and winning war.

      We crushed our adversary; therefore the tanks which spearheaded the victories must have been good. Tank-for-tank, toe-to-toe, we were outclassed.

      But that was not our way of fighting.

      For the person still not convinced I suggest that he tabulate the count of American tanks knocked out by German tanks and vice versa, and I am sure that he will discover, perhaps to his amazement, that the scale will swing heavily in our favor.

      Not long before the curtain dropped on hostilities in Europe, the American General Pershing tank made its bow.

      It has a 90mm gun, weighs forty-six tons, has a different suspension system, and has a low silhouette. It is said that here is a tank that incorporates all the advantages of the Sherman tank and with its new additions makes it superior to the German Tiger in every respect.

      As far as my personal knowledge goes, I must reserve my opinion until later, for that tank is comparatively untried.

      I will say to the persons that have so glibly sold our tank down the river that there is more to it than meets the eye.


      January 1946

      Volume XXV, Number 10

      1. J-G-T,
        That reads awfully like an ex post facto
        political bleat..
        ..akin to a man being asked why he married
        such a plain frumpy woman, saying,
        ‘Well, she can cook, & she’s unlikely
        to get a better offer than me,
        – so at least she won’t stray”..

        US generals were usually fairly free with
        spending the lives of their men, & were
        fortunate that they were rarely let down
        by them, even if the tanks weren’t up to it..

        From ‘Tank Men’ by Kershaw, P. 243,
        Panzer Armee Afrika tank commander
        Hans von Luck describes the elan of the
        Sherman mounted US tankers VS Tigers..

        “They fought with great doggedness…
        I will never forget the sight of a few Tiger
        panzers with their superior 88mm guns
        knocking out one Sherman after the
        other, as they tried to advance through a
        pass to the east, & couldn’t understand
        that they were hopelessly inferior to the

        Patton also rejected the M26, & SHAEF
        wanted it “de-emphasized” for introduction
        into the ETO, due to the ‘economy’ of the
        Sherman, regardless of vulnerability..

        Kershaw goes on to relate that shortages
        of trained crews due to combat casualty rates
        meant that ‘coloured’ tankers were finally
        called up for frontline service, over the
        expressed qualms of certain generals..

        Post war, specialist troops such as tankers
        were not so freely wasted, & the US Army
        put a fair effort into ensuring that their tanks
        were more than a match qualitatively, than
        Soviet machines, & even if a hot war in Europe
        never eventuated, Israel gratefully accepted
        US tanks, until they could do their own..

        1. James,
          You seem to have some weird kink going on with tanks and it’s a little odd.

          What you see as excuse making for the Sherman by Colonel Irzyk, I, and I’d say most informed people on the subject see a man who used the Sherman very successfully in combat against the Panther, and is explaining why it was in fact a better tank than what the Germans had. You act as if the Sherman couldn’t kill a Panther, when it could and did, often, and if you were willing to look into it, you would actually see it’s statistical fact, that even the 75 Sherman handled the Panther fine, and more often than not achieved a positive kill ratio against the Panther. If you had read any of Zaloga’s well researched books you’d be more aware of these things.
          You keep mentioning that ‘Tank Men’ book by Kershaw, if it led you to believe the Germans were fielding experienced crews in their new tank brigades used to in the west, it’s wrong, by late 44 they had no experienced crews for the new units. The fact is, U.S. armor losses were low compared to the infantry, and the shortage of crews was limited to 3rd AD and or Coopers and his ghost writers vivid imagination as far as I can tell.

          Your line about US Generals not being concerned about casualties is more sensationalist BS, did Kershaw plant that, or did you read it in some other ‘history’ book like Death traps? It’s also amusing you passive aggressively insult US Generals, while praising a Nazi General in a rather sick if fictional passage on a fight in North Africa, since the Tigers there didn’t accomplish anything but getting destroyed by their own crews or captured. Here check this link out.


          I shouldn’t have to point out, it’s been widely proven the Nazi German Generals lied a lot, for a lot of reasons, and their accounts should be taken with a bigger grain of salt, than a decorated U.S. Army Colonel who actually fought in the tank.

          You really must have read Death Traps, or that Kershaw fellow did, because Patton, other than offering an opinion on the tank, had nothing to do with the T20 program or the M26 tank that came from it. That myth has been debunked in so many places at this point, you almost have to be willfully ignorant to still buy into it. It’s also amusing you call the M26 unreliable, and laughably, try and compare it to the Panther in that regards, but now you’re acting as if it would have saved American lives!! You do know in WWII the Sherman was far safer than just about any other tank, and US tankers suffered far few casualties than their infantry comrades, right?

          At this point, if you’re getting most of your info from Kershaw, I can move his book way down on this list of books to get, because it sounds like the tripe from an Ambrose book, or who he stole it from or Cooper, and at this point, no one really takes them seriously. Wehraboos love to whine about revisionist histories ruining their Nazi Tank waifus, but they never seem concerned about the half propaganda, twenty five percent strait up fiction, mixed with that tiny 25 percent bit of truth all the stories about German tanks being special are based on.

          You know where Nazi Germany had truly cutting edge tech? The technology of mass murder, it took them years of trial and error, but in the end, they came up with a ruthlessly efficient means of robbing, murdering and disposing of human beings. Their tanks, ships and planes were garbage, their officers scum, and many of their soldiers were rapist, murderers and committed war crimes on a massive scale. I feel sorry for anyone that can find anything admirable about Nazi Germany.

          1. J-G-T,
            its kinda rich, you freely using emotively loaded
            terms – but pot/kettle/black-wise attempting
            to claim a “weird kink” applies to my post..

            US Shermans were clobbered in Africa, & hard..
            losing tanks & other armour at Kasserine Pass
            in the hundreds, & men in thousands.

            Some Shermans were abandoned intact,
            & this provided the Germans with the latest
            type to ship back to the Reich for evaluation..

            That the outnumbered panzer forces, along with the
            Luftwaffe, were ground down to defeat, is a matter of
            fact, but unlike the P-51 Mustang in the air, the poor ol’
            Sherman was no ‘game-changer/touch down artiste’..

            Those tanker boys did it hard, just as the bomber boys
            had – before the P-51 showed up.. a point well made in
            that Fury movie..

            They still did it, & even the most ardent panzer fans,
            must( including the surviving panzer crews did)
            respect them more for their considered ways to
            reduce the effects of the Sherman’s shortcomings,
            & succeed in victorious combat outcomes.

            For sure, & certainly it was accepted – by the
            panzer boys – that it was much tougher going
            in the west – than versus the ostensibly superior
            Soviet tanks back east, in combat, if not in
            the primitive conditions of living.

            I put nothing negative on the achievements
            of the Sherman equipped tankers, but be real,
            they did suffer more than they deserved, due
            to Sherman shortcomings – this is true J-G-T,
            & as partly acknowledged in the general’s
            testimony, you must accept that truth..

            Actual post-war war academy research sought
            to find answers to why it took 6 months in 1944
            to do what the German had done in 6 weeks in
            1940, & how to improve the situation for the
            future.. many lessons were indeed learned from
            how difficult the Nazis were to defeat, & the real
            need for a 2nd-to-none tank – was one of ’em..

            ( By the way, please don’t get the idea that I do
            not appreciate the effort you have put into the
            display of so many & such excellent resources
            you have on show – here, ’cause – I surely do, ta.)

          2. James
            My stuff is only emotionally loaded to people who have an unrealistic view of the quality of Nazi equipment and troops, it rarely bothers normal people. Your stuff is just weird, since you keep comparing things you don’t like to bad traits of women, in I don’t want to say creepy way, but it’s close.

            It’s interesting you chose the first major battle the US Army faced the Germans in to criticize the Sherman. As if a single battle, at the start of the war for the US Army, somehow proves the Sherman was no good for the whole war, at least that seems to be what you’re saying. The battle of Kasserine Pass was a disaster for the US Army in material and esteem, but that failure rests with the leadership, coupled with green troops, and untried and in many cases bad tactics. The leadership failure started with the II Corps went down to the regimental and battalion level in a lot of cases. They lost almost 200 tanks, but many of these were lights not Shermans and these losses didn’t reflect on the Sherman, no tank is going to fair well if you wander into an anti-tank trap. As the link above shows for the Sidi Bau Zid most of the work was done by 57mm guns, not by 88s or Tigers. Major losses like this would be few and most can’t be blamed on the Sherman.

            In contrast, Monty and the British had just used the Sherman to crush Rommel at El Alamein, and chased them, using the Sherman and Grant/Lee tanks wonderful automotive qualities to chase the Germans into Tunis.

            You mention the Germans sending back captured versions of the Sherman, I think they got the first one from the British, but it doesn’t really matter. They were generally positive in their review of the tank, and used any they could get their hands on without modification. Hell, they also got an early DV model, with none of the upgrades the basic 75 tanks would see, with improvement sin armor, fire-control and safety. Not to mention the gun stabilizer that must have seemed like starwars tech to the primitive bone heads. You do know how lame PTO is for turret rotation right? You’re not really going to defend that crap as cutting edge are you?

            You talk about the Sherman not being up to the job, but seem to be completely ignorant of all the factual problems with Nazi German tanks. Do you even Jentz Bro? If you don’t you shouldn’t even bother talking German tanks. Go find a copy of Panther Tank by Thomas Jentz, and read through the operational history section of that book and note how bad it is, then try some of the hatch links in my links section, and figure out why you have a need to believe Nazi lies and bad sensationalist authors. Your posts are essentially sensationalist crap and Nazi propaganda, mixed with an arrogance only the truly ignorant can have while being hit over the head with facts.

            You can’t claim I’m calling the kettle black while being a pot, because unlike you, I have a realistic opinion of the tanks, and clearly know far more about them than you do. I was like you once, I thought Nazi crap was the bee’s knees, the I actually started reading the books and not just looking at the pretty pictures and it became clear the panther was a pile of garbage, and the people who called it the best tank of the war had no clue just how hard it was to keep running and employ as a useful weapon.
            The list of Sherman flaws and how they were fixed has been covered, here, multiple times. See the flaws section on the site, or I’ll go over it one more time, just because I like you. Did you know the first King Tigers lost, were lost to a small group of T-34-85s, and they never even figured out where the fire was coming from. One of the Kings was in perfect shape! Germans were bad at disabling their vehicles and only got worse when their crews got greener and greener as the war progressed. It also always amusing, all the amazing things the Germans did, they did with the PIII and IV, but those tanks always get forgotten by the boos.

            When it hit the war, The Shermans armor was damn good, by mid war, it wasn’t great, but worked well enough against the PIII and PIV, and the Tiger was a propaganda tool, and rarely seen, could kill it, but this was no rear factor, most Tiger sightings were PIII and PIV tanks mistaken for the Tiger. The US Army felt it was rare it didn’t bare much consideration since the M10 could handle it at most combat ranges they actually would fight at. This was improved in later version with add on armor over weak spots and the Gen II Shermans had a similar, but improved armor scheme appropriate for a medium tank. You do know the antitank stick, AKA the Panzerfaust was just as effective on German tanks right? I will freely admit the Brits were a little smarter about the Panther and Tiger, but they were just so bad, the Sherman still did ok, the Pershing was only slightly less vulnerable to AT sticks, they just would not have save that many lives even if you could have magically sped up their production, in the rear world, the M26 got to combat as fast as it realistically could have, given the way US Army Tank procurement worked, this is all covered in Hunnicutt’s Sherman and Pershing books or Zaloga Armored Thunderbolt.

            The ammo storage, though just like German tanks, tended to cause ammo fires, this was fixed with armored ammo racks, and internal layout changes. Later, in the second gen Shermans, it was solved with ammo stored in the floor of the hull in water jackets, making it a much safer tank than any German tank.

            The gun was fine until late in the war, but the 75mm tanks got the job done against supposedly superior Panthers on even terms in several battles, do you even Battle of Arracourt man? Though the 76mm M1 gun program was far from perfect, it worked well enough to see use through the Korea war with no further penetration complaints. You are aware though the Panthers armor quality was so bad, they found cases were 75mm HE cracked turrets? The Russians loved the 76mm M4A2 tanks. The problem is, even this is not clean cut, because late war, when German Armor was extinct, the 75mm M3 guns better at killing soft stuff like people and AT guns it’s just not a cut and dry choice if you’re honest and know what these guys were facing.

            Flotation was a problem but helped with duck bills and HVSS fixed it and you have to give the Sherman far more credit than any German tank, they stayed in use, for decades after the war, and the design allowed for some serious improvements in firepower. Far more HVSS Shermans ended up in use than were ever factory made since Israel loved to swap it onto older models when they were doing their upgrades, this is how an M4A4 hull could end up with HVSS, and an R975 motor.

            The maxed out automotively PIII, IV, and Panther were not capable of being modified post war, in the PIII and IVs cases they were at the end of their useful lives, the hulls just couldn’t take more weight than they already had. The Panther and Tigers would need total redesigns to be useful to a nation that needed tanks, and not slightly mobile, poor quality, pill boxes. Don’t try and use the French to defend the Panther, they found it horrid, almost unusable, and it needed major driver train overhauls on average every 150 kilometers. These are not exaggerations; you can read all about this stuff in the Jentz book and the links I posted.

            Post a link or give some actual sources for this post war study on why the USA couldn’t do what the Nazi supermen you admire so much could do in six weeks. The post war US Army was fighting for survival in the new atomic ( and don’t believe the BS about the Nazi’s being close, there were not) landscape, and money for conventional forces were very tight, development on heavy bombers and on atomic weapons IE the Air Force, got the lion’s share of the defense budget until Korea woke everyone up. But whatever, post a source, other than that sensationalist BS, sold to people who only take a shallow look at the war, and need drama to keep them interested, IE Death Traps, or from the way you make it sound, Tank Men. The idea the US Army had a second to none tank before the M1 Abrams is pretty damn debatable, and you were calling US tanks like the M26/46/47 no good!

            I’m glad you appreciate the technical side, I do have a large collection of Field Manuals, and Technical Manuals along with a hell of a lot of other documentation on WWII up for download, and all for free. Not to mention all the info I have up on the Ford GAA including fairly rare technical drawings no one else has. I also have a large selection of aviation documentation up, and you know what? I’ve read a hell of a lot of it. I’m pretty sure I could do a brake job on a Sherman if I had the proper tools and parts! You would think someone who’s read all that stuff about the tank, and shown you things most people find very convincing, that it might make you think for a second.

            Then again, some people never learn and are happy they can go on smugly knowing they are right, and damn evidence or facts, or public opinion.

      2. Written by a man with no understanding of the mechanical, transportation, and logistical challenges the Tiger created in WW2.

        Yes, one on one, head to head, with the Tiger or Panther already emplaced, fighting on the defensive, they were obviously superior.

        But war is more than specs on a page of armor and penetration. You first have to reach the battlefield. More Tigers were lost to mechanical and fuel issues in WW2 than in combat.

        Fewer than 100 Tiger types were ever operational at any one time on the entire Western Front, and likely not many more on the Eastern Front. That’s far less than 1 per mile of frontage.

        Every tanker wants to be in an impervious tank, preferably one that can kill anything it sees. That tank was not ready in time, nor could it have been manufactured and transported in sufficient numbers even had different decisions been made re the Pershing.

        Note that the German tanks that conducted the Blitzkriegs through 1942 were usually “inferior” also. In France 1940 they did fine with only a relative few tanks that could even combat other tanks!

        German tanks racked up kills on defense against poorly led Soviet tank units charging head on, and in wide open terrain well suited to their long range weapons.

        Other than the pre-breakout at Normandy, German tanks had only a few successes after that in the West. Overrunning surprised green infantry in the Bulge, notwithstanding. And even then, their fuel, mobility, and mechanical issues did them in.

  19. I think there needs to be some sanity introduced here.

    One perspective is add up all the Armor the allies made (TDs included) and then add up what the Germans did. There are huge kill ratio on the German side of that equation.

    Take a look at Russian T-34. It was diesel. Does anyone have a clue how hard it is to get a modern diesel to run in the winter? Now go back to the 40s.

    I recently found out how they managed to start those beasts. Air start, big air cylinder in the tank. No start, you have to have a compressor truck come alongside and do it for you. Logistics.

    Now take another aspect, a diesel injection pump that is mfg even in those days down to the .0001 tolerances to work. Now try to make it work in war time mfg conditions and combat where the fuel has to be squeaky clean (or look at the pictures of huge clouds of smoke bellowing out of T-34s used today in the Middle east and the lurching. Then see if it would run in winter (hint, diesel start and run much better in HOT weather.)

    So, we have a T-34 that on paper was outstanding but in real combat had huge losses. Explain that.

    Well for starters (pun) they were not that reliable. So a lot were broke.

    Then you had a crappy turret turning system that was a piece of junk.

    Add in inferior AP shells.

    Then add in poor crews and coordination, high casualties that never went down and never having well trained crews which is a key.

    Despite a technically good looking tank on paper, the T-34 because of its Russian mfg as well as context of how it was equipped, manned and deployed never was an equal to the German armor thin as it was on the ground.

    Very much in vein of invasions of France where the best gun they had (tank) was the Pzke IV with a low velocity infantry support gun.

    They still completely demolished the better armed and armored French and British tanks

    Taking an arm out of context is silly, its part of a system and it works or fails as part of a system.

    There was a comment about most kill shots were from the side. If that is true then why would an armor designed put the heavy armor on the front?

    Again, its in context, while you had tanks working around the flank for that shot, it was because they cold not take one out head on. And how many tanks did you loose making that flank shot?

    Well, it helps if you have a lot of Artillery, air support and air superiority then you can get away with it. It also helps you are advancing, you loose more but you recover them as well. then you repair them of use them for parts (and the Germans were very very good at repairing damaged tanks which is another reason their paltry numbers stood up, often knocked out tanks got put right back into action.,

    1. I’m going to add a big old “citation needed” to every point of this wall of lunacy, but let me concentrate on this one part.

      “Despite a technically good looking tank on paper, the T-34 because of its Russian mfg as well as context of how it was equipped, manned and deployed never was an equal to the German armor thin as it was on the ground.”

      If we actually ask a real life German soldier, we get this opinion:

      “At the moment, neither the PzIV with the long gun or the T-34 demonstrates an advantage over the other.”
      – Übersetzte Beutedokumente zu Panzertruppen, Sturmgeschützen und zur Panzerabwehr, Verhöre deutscher Kriegsgefangener, Ausbildungsmaterial, Merkblätter, Erfahrungen zum Einsatz der Artillerie bei Angriffs- und Verteidigungsoperation südlich von Orla TsAMO F.500 op.12480 d.137 l.150

      That’s during the battle for Teploye, in the middle of 1943, when German armour was at its peak compared to Soviet armour. The PzIV received all the upgrades it was going to get during the war, the T-34 had yet to receive any (barring the commander’s cupola). Then of course there are the gushing opinions of Carius about the T-34. But of course, the opinion of some guy on the internet is much more important than that of actual soldiers.

    2. The vast majority of allied tanks were put out of action by ATG, self-propelled guns often built on the Panzer III or other smaller chassis (StuG, Marder, “Hetzer”) mines, and hand held ATWs)

      Very few tank/tank battles in the war by 1944.

  20. First i would like to thank you for making such an amazing site with so much information. Secondly I was wondering if you or anyone you know has sites based around the T-34 or Panzer IV since im currently writting a paper comparing the sherman to its counter parts at the time. Also a huge sherman fan so im going to have to be as unbiased as possible.

    1. Hitler was in the frame, due to him taking
      a personal interest in details of tank design
      & construction.

      By happenstance, it was Hitler’s birthday..
      Its simply a 1-in-365 chance thing, not “weird”.

      If this was a site discussing Roman law & justice,
      & the case of Christ came up, & by chance it was
      December 25th, I’d add ‘happy birthday Jesus’ too..
      So what?

      IMO, Walter, its your comment that’s “weird”..

        1. Mindblowing*, Malcolm…
          Mmmm.. delicious refreshing Kool-Aid : yes, have some..

          Got anything on what Sherman crews thought/said
          when they watched the 1st M26 units roll-up?

          Did they say ‘Jeeze Uncle Sam, that’s swell, a keen Panther
          analog, looks good, but rushed into service & full of bugs, too!’?

          * If only he’d had a .44 Magnum, as Dirty Harry reckoned,
          “…which can blow your head clean off” – instead of that
          girl’s purse Walther, the FBI wouldn’t have been so worried
          about him living post-war, in Argentina – with Dr Mengele..
          See: ‘Stranger in Paradise’.. its a hoot!

          1. James,
            I’m not sure what your getting at with the Kool-aid comment regarding Hitler, I hope you’re not trying to say something like the common view of hitler being a horrible example of humanity, and or taking the wild claims of Hitler surviving the war seriously. Hell, that’s all right up there with the clean Wehrmacht myths, and the Waffen SS was separate from the camp running SS myths.

            I don’t recall Irwin being anything but happy to be getting into a cutting edge new tank, from Another River, Another Town but it’s been a few years since I read the book. He was gunner on the super Pershing. Since Irwin and his comrades were not blind, when they saw their Pershing for the first time, they didn’t comment on how it was a panzer analog. It’s a little odd you see German influence in just about everything, what’s next, the M1 Garand was based on some German idea?

            Anyway, back to the Pershing, it is as far from a Panther analog as the M1 Abrams is. In fact, you can trace its design heritage all the way back to the T20 series, you know the tank designed to replace the Sherman, by improving its to main drawbacks, its firepower, and the hull layout. See, the Sherman and Panther shared a big design flaw, and that was the placement of the motor in the rear of the hull, while the rest of the powertrain was at the front, requiring a drive shaft that runs under the fighting compartment. THis layout tends make the tank taller than tanks with the engine and powertrain in the rear. Pretty much everyone but nazi Germany had figured this out.

            Really, the only things the Pershing and Panther have in common, is they are both tanks.

            The Pershing used cast Armor of a high quality, the Panther used welded rolled plate, and their armor quality was very bad, and their welds were also bad, forcing them to cut notches so they had more area of weld, and even with these steps HE hits as smalls the M3 75mm could crack the welds and even the thinner plates like the turret sides. The Pershing also had much better side armor.

            The Pershing had a very roomy turret, designed to fit the gun, it had a hydroelectric turret drive system with a stabilized gun. The Turret drive ran off the electrical system and didn’t require the motor to be running to work. The Panther had a PTO based system, that required high engine RPM for full speed traverse, meaning the driver had to be in on operating the turret. The Pershing had a well balanced turret, and could traverse the gun at any angle the tank found itself. The panther’s turret was gun heavy, and the power traverse would fail to rotate the turret and the manual traverse wouldn’t work either, that’s a rather serious flaw.

            I’ve already covered the powerpacks, and how the Pershings everything in the rear system was better, and still the most common setup in modern tanks. The Panther suspension was a nightmare, they couldn’t just go with a simple single bar torsion bar system, no they had to go to a double bar setup, were the first three sets were too weak and failed a lot. The Pershing use a simple single torsion bar system with paired double wheels, simple, as easy as torsion bars get to repair, and reliable. I hope I don’t have to go into the overlapping road wheels and how stupid that was.

            The Pershings fire control system was much better, the gunner had a periscope based system with a direct telescope backup, and the Commander had an override, so he could place the gunner on the target. The panthers gunner had his magnified telescope, and the commander had no override, experienced crews were slow with this setup, green crews the gunner could have a lot of trouble finding a target to shoot. The people who claim the Panthers suspension was so good, it could shoot on the move, are wrong and the Panther had to contend with hull and gun movement when it stopped before it could fire, The Pershing Stabilizer allowed a very fast and accurate first shot as soon as the vehicle stopped.

            A final note on reliability, to compare the Panther and Pershing in this area, and conclude the problems the Pershing had were anything like the never fixed problems the panther had, shows a level of ignorance that is beyond wehraboo level. I bet you are not aware of the bugs the Pershing had, the worst bug on the production tanks was a tendency for the bolts holding the final drives to stretch. Over thousands of miles it would eventually cause extra gear train wear or failure. None of the Zebra Mission tanks had enough miles on them to have this issue while the war was going. No panther could drive thousands of miles without multiple automotive overhauls. The fix was to an extra bracket/brace. For most of the Panthers automotive issues, there was no fix. The ones the french used post war had ridiculously bad reliability. Another major M26 bug was the fenders tended to sag down onto the tracks, this fix for this was bracing with turnbuckles.
            The two major problems that couldn’t really be fixed on the M26, but were addressed in the M46 was the underpowered GAA and the coolings system tendency to throw fan belts if the driver wasn’t smooth. The US Army would never have put the Panther into production it had so many issues, that’S how the Army’s testing system worked, if it didn’t meet certain requirements, it wasn’t produced. Since the Pershing was put into production, it was reliable enough to meet approval, the T20 program had been going for some time claiming it was rushed is wrong.

            Unreliable to the US Army would seemed like automotive perfection to the Germans the standards were so different.

          2. G-J-T, thanks for the reply,
            I was replying idiomatically
            to the Hitler frenzy guys, jokingly..

            As for the M26, I expect the Sherman crews
            were like Elvis getting his 1st fully loaded Cadillac,
            after riding round in a plain-Jane beater Chevy..

            The M26 was a Panther analog, certainly in terms of
            being a ‘futuristic’ tank rushed into service due to
            the belated concerns re: the inadequacy of the M4.

            Some of this was no doubt due to ‘public opinion’
            pressures back in USA, with ‘moms’ worried about
            ‘their boys’ having to be sacrificed in inferior tanks,
            but it did have the same effect as Hitler – Panther,
            & being impatient to put something better into action,

            The M26 was never really fully de-bugged, & put
            into store postwar, with those sent to Korea still
            showing the same failings, & the tired, ah, tried
            & tested Sherman had to take up the slack..

            ( The Brit Centurion did show what a modern tank
            was capable of in Korea though, something even
            the US Army noted, & at high command level)

            So the M26 was in effect, a dud, needing serious redesign
            to emerge as the M47 Patton ( which still wasn’t as good
            as the Centurion, the British Panther analog)..

          3. James,
            Man, you have Panther on the brain, what, was it the first model kit you built as a tot? That was the M3 Lee, for me, but I have a realistic picture of my first tank!

            Anyway, you’re wrong about the Pershing again, a good book to clear all your misconceptions about the tank would be Pershing, the history of the Medium tank T20 series by Hunnicutt, is a great read and back in print. The M26 remained in service with units in Europe, the Marines stored some, and the Army had some sitting around in the States, but it was in service with the Army in Germany. When Korea kicked off, the Marines issued theirs, to crews with no training on the type, and they had very little trouble using them and keeping them running. The Army stopped using it in Korea because it was underpowered, and they were replacing it with M46s basically and M26 with a better motor. The Marines continued to use the M26 for the whole Korean War. The only influence I can see at all on the Pershings design the panther had was maybe speeding up the M3 90mm being introduced. It’s also funny most people think the Pershing was purposely delayed, by Patton no less, than rushed into service, but they are not right either. If you can’t find Pershing Armored Thunderbolt, by Zaloga is almost as good.

            You can make the argument that the Centurion is more of an improved British Sherman, and it will be more credible then calling it a Panther analog, or you know, maybe the Brits finally just figured out how to make a good tank. If anything was influenced on the Cent, it would be the gun choice, but the Brits were always looking for better guns, so even that doesn’t stand up. You act as if the Nazi Germans were the only people who had influence or ideas on tank design, and that’s sadly wrong.

            Wehraboos love to paint Nazi tanks as something special, and don’t even know they’ve been duped into buying into a bunch of bad history, produced by the defeated German to justify their loss and make rearming them seem less vile. There is a great book on this, the Myth of the Eastern Front, The Nazi-Soviet war in American popular culture, by Smelser and Davies. Throw Soldaten, on fighting, killing and dying by Neitzel and Welzer, and you get a very good picture what Nazi Germany was all about. Oh and throw in Wages of Destruction by Tooze and you wonderfully clear picture of the disaster that Nazi Germany was, I mean as if the 12 million killed in the Holocaust wasn’t enough, am I right?

            Back to the Panther, what exactly do you think it influenced in future tank design? Complicated and stupid suspension= dead end, hull layout=dead end, motor and drive train=dead end, even the gun ended up being a dead end, since it only had some influence on French guns, but 75mm HV guns just were not a thing when main gun sizes jumped so much post war. The interior was cramped, and there was nothing special about the layout, and even the Germans planned on putting a different turret the first one was so bad. It had thin enough side armor it needed skirts to not be knocked out by Anti-Tank rifles. It was terrible mechanically. The French, when they used them post war, only got 150 kilometers average on the final drives. There is nothing on the M26 including the oil and spark plugs, that wear out in 150 kilometers. Even if you decide post war French tank drivers were worse than green German drivers who had almost no driving time on their new panthers due to fuel shortages, I know it doesn’t make sense, but let’s just give it to the German crews, that they could make the final drives last 500 kilometers, that’s still a horribly low figure for a repair job that required many hours of down time. There was no economical way to solve the final drive problems during the war, the French probably could have, but why bother when they could make something good from scratch or just take the boatloads of surplus American tanks and TDs, like they did.

            Most people who actually know something acknowledge for much of the cold war, the USSR was the innovator in tank design, and the west was just trying to keep up, until the M1 was designed. The T-44 and IS-3 sent shockwaves through the west, and everyone but the French forgot about the German failcats. That is until the Germans started to write fiction about them and call it history in the 50, 60s and 70s. Sadly some people still look at these books as the truth, instead of the propaganda they actually are. That and German tanks are pretty I suppose, and are great if you like form over function!

  21. See here; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmXEly5_u38
    ..a post war Swedish ( neutral) tank trial mobility comparison which clearly
    demonstrates the ( inferiority of the out-dated & primitive*) Sherman design
    particularly versus the Panther..

    * apologies for the emotive ( but accurate, none-the-less) descriptors used..
    .. this done – to be in keeping – with the somewhat lurid ‘fanboy’ tone of this site..

    1. Some things to note about this interesting video.

      The Sherman used is an M4A4 based Firefly tank, or an Firefly VC, this version was the heaviest, and most complicated version of the Sherman pre Firefly modifications, after, the A57 multibank motor while better than the R975 radial, was still a tad under powered. Further, while, during the war Chrysler went to great lengths get train mechanics how to work on the A57 including sending tech reps to England, once the war was over, support for the A57 stopped. Meaning the Swedes may or may not have know how to keep the beast in tune.

      While the video has a point about ground pressure, it fails to take into account the two fixes applied to the Sherman during the war. Passing through a bog is just the kind of thing extended end connectors helped with and Shermans with HVSS suspension had very good ground pressure, and coupled with the Ford GAA V8, a more powerful motor that weighed less, and these improvedments pretty much solved the mobility complaints about the Sherman.

      A word on the Panther, I would love to know how much longer they were able to keep it running, the platform even the late G models were so unreliable, and they Panther int he Video looked like an A model, and these lacked even the improved final drive housings to counter flexing and binding problems. Even the Panthers built post war, in French use, had terrible final drive lives, coming in at an average of 150 kilometers!

      1. The Swedes operated Brit Centurions for decades,
        so they must’ve had some real skilled crews & back
        up workshops!

        I have worked for ‘the government’ so I know that
        unpopular items issued for compulsory use are too
        often ‘broken’ – by ‘careless’ mishandling, so as to
        prompt their replacement…

  22. What a hilariously ironic Sherman tank fanboy site!
    Overtly doing the reverse ‘wehraboo’ slanted opinionated rant.

    Case in point, the photos showing panzers – are mostly of KO’d tanks…

    No attempt to provide an accurate technical basis for comparison,
    nor use the official documentation which did do so, as opposed
    to your blatant propaganda-style minimisation routines..

    Fact is, ( & unlike in the air arms) the Allied armies were at a disadvantage
    in direct contact fighting with Germans due to inferior weaponry, ( such
    as the Sherman tank) & had to make up for this with numbers & firepower
    applied via artillery & air support.

    “Tiger angst” experienced by Allied soldiers was a very real matter of concern,
    & it is notable that in the M1 Abrams, the Tiger tank model of power projection
    was taken up, not that of the ‘expendable’ Sherman..

    Earlier, the British were so suitably impressed by the Panther ( see “Cuckoo”,a
    Panther in British service) that they built an analog type, the Centurion, which
    was the best tank in the post-war /cold war era…

    Shameful hypocrisy spoils what could be a 1/2 decent site, not to mention
    the ad hominem abuse directed at those who do take issue with such issues..

    1. I’d comment on your post, but it really doesn’t need anything to make it seems less credible. Ok ok, one comment, saying the Abrams was based on the Tiger concept is well, just wrong, and that right there tells us all we need to know about you!

      Thanks for the feedback! 🙂

      1. Ok, then that one point – M1 Abrams as obvious Tiger analog..

        Big, powerful, expensive beast designed to dominate by qualitative means…

        Able to destroy most any enemy that enters its gunsights,
        while being reasonably proof against that same enemy’s response/attack…

        Just what the Tiger was built to do, & did – in 1942.. & the Sherman wasn’t…
        No Sherman equivalent in the US forces arsenal today either, is there..

        So much for what “we need to know” then, huh..

        1. James,
          I remain unconvinced.
          You are right about the Abrams, when it first came out, it was a truly groundbreaking tank, the gas turbine gave it amazing mobility. The special armor gave it great protection from HEAT and Long rods, but that wasn’t all, it included a cutting edge sight, and a fire control system that gave it amazing accuracy while using its mobility IE it could shoot on the move. It remained world class, being upgraded over the years with improved armor and a better main gun, and then all the upgrades for it to be able to deal with infantry etc. it is also so common, we were able to sell them to all kinds of countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, making it a very common tank.

          The Sherman tank was cutting edge when it came out in many ways, and is the closest US tank of WWII to the Main battle tank role the M1 Abrams fills. The cast hull on the M4A1 was so cutting edge, not all Sherman factories could do it. The turret drive, being hydro electric, and independent of the tanks motor was very advanced. The Sherman had well sloped armor, rotating periscopes for every crew member, and every sherman had a little joe auxiliary motor to charge the tanks batteries, so the turret drive or anything else could be run on the tanks batteries, and they could be charged without starting the main motor. The Sherman had four motors to chose from, and all were more reliable than the Maybach in the tiger could ever dream of achieving. The Sherman had a stabilized gun, and though it didn’t mean the Sherman could fire on the move reliably, it did increase the speed of the tanks first shot after a stop. No German tank had anything like this. I’d say that’s a pretty strong case for the Sherman being a pretty cutting edge tank when it came out, not as much as the Abrams, but close.

          Now lets take a realistic look at the Tiger I.
          It was extremely rare, so rare in fact, you can argue it’s value as a Nazi propaganda weapon was really the only value it had. There is really not much cutting edge about the Tiger, because complicated and unreliable is not the same as cutting edge. Otto C a Nazi propaganda tool, and Tank “ace” admitted before his death, the Nazi’s regulary inflated the kills he and his fellow tankers got. Not just while in the Tiger, across the board, tank “Aces” played well on the home front, the poor German civilians needed hope you see, and the bombs rained down, no one believed in the luftwaffe, and their mass propaganda claims.

          The fire control system:
          Nothing advanced here, a telescope or binocular sight for the gunner, no override for the commander, couple with a rube goldberg affair for turret traverse that was tied into tanks motor, requiring maximum RPM for full speed turret traverse. This does not scream cutting edge, it screams poorly designed, and overly complicated. The traverse system ranks right up there in the comical region it’s so bad, but it at least could rotate the turret when the hull wasn’t level, unlike the panther. Triangle aiming aids on the telescopic sight does not make it cutting edge, pretty much everyone did a version of it there is nothing special about German optics.

          The gun was derived from a mediocre AA gun, that worked great on early and mid war armor, though the combo AT/AA mounts were huge, clumsy and required a special half track to move around, the Germans found ways to work around these issues and for some time it was there only defense against superior Soviet and American tanks. The gun is pretty old tech, there is nothing really special about it. They had been working on some advanced tank guns, but decided to not use any in the Tiger I, and even if it’s true the 88L71 would have fit, that guns wasn’t all that advanced either. It wasn’t a bad gun, and was a good gun for the tank, but clearly not cutting edge. So they do not compare in this area.

          Lets do the Armor next:
          Let’s see, there is way to much flat armor for the tiger to be cutting edge. The DV port in the front hull was a primitive and foolish feature. There isn’t anything cutting edge about a well armored box, with sponsons increasing the area that needed to be armored, sponsons were dropped from just about all post war and even many wartime tank designs. The Tiger is the AARP of tanks for how old and stodgy the armor layout is.

          Now lets talk about its automotive systems.

          Lets look at the laughable overlapped and interleaved road wheels. There is no defense for how stupid it was of the Germans to use tanks with this road wheel setup. Not only is it wasteful of resources, it only offers a minor advantage if anything over regular sized road wheels. It also adds weight, and is a nightmare to fix when damaged by something as common as a mine! The only way this suspension can be vied as cutting edge, is if your tank designers were nut house escapes or were just trying to get as much money out of the Nazi government so they could flee ahead of the inevitable Nazi defeat. Many Tigers had to be abandoned with what should have been simple mine damage, because the Tiger so heavy, the Germans had no recovery vehicle that could move it, and other tigers were forbidden from towing because it cut the life of the automotive bits by a lot.

          There was nothing special about the HL210/230, and was so poorly designed and, frankly, you can’t expect death camp slaves to put motors together, but you can’t blame all the unreliability on that, some of it was just mediocre engine design, and it was cutting edge for the Germans, but was junk the Big Three in Detroit would have died laughing at. The Ford GAA was a truly cutting edge engine when it was designed in the 40s, and is still pretty damn advanced by modern standards. The Maybachs in the Panther and Tiger were lucky to get 1000 miles before it failed, any Sherman motor would be good for three to five times that.

          I’ll throw you a bone on the Tiger transmission, differential, and final drives were cutting edge. These were fairly advanced, and the ones in the Tiger were useable, though they only had lives a little longer than the motors. I’ll concede, in this area, the tiger had some cutting edge stuff going for it! It could use the design features of the tranny and steering system without risking immediate failure unlike the Panther!

          Tracks, you had to swap tracks every time you put the tanks on the train. The tanks ride the train a lot, because unlike the Sherman, replacing the Transmission and final drive require turret removal, so you want to make that 1000 miles last as long as you can. So LOL on this one.

          I think that’s enough for now, I mean I could go on with more reasons why the Tiger was a bad tank, but I really shouldn’t have to. I mean yeah, it’s good for Tamiya, Dragon, and Schiffer Books, they made so much money on the tiger, and all the minute differences between tanks because the Germans changed something like every four tanks or so, a boon for model companies and a curse to anyone who had to keep these mechanical abortions running.

          So in conclusion, the Tiger was shit, it’s reputation and kill claims are inflated for Nazi propaganda purposes, and the tank itself only had one feature that counts as cutting edge. It is clear to anyone with any objectivity the Tiger I is nothing like the M1 Abrams, a tank that truly was cutting edge.

          And if you can be honest about it, you should see the Sherman had several features so advanced the Germans couldn’t reproduce a Sherman tank, even with the blue prints. Oh, and that the Sherman was as close to an M1 Abrams the US army was capable of getting in 1942.

          Woo, that was fun! I’ll get to your other comments when I have a few minutes to burn.

          1. ‘Damned by faint praise’ – but SS tankers who were Ist provided
            with the Tiger on the steppes of Russia late in `42/early `43 –
            knew what it was to dominate… & have a machine that both
            gave themthe confidence to push, but also the crew-comfort/survivability factor to stay focussed on their line-of-sight domination role..

            That 88mm gun could effectively smash all L-o-S battlefield targets,
            & put dread into their enemies beyond mere technical prowess..

            The British, ( honestly, but perhaps unwisely) put a captured
            trophy Tiger on public display in London, pre D-day,
            & its forbidding fortress-like presence caused the public
            as much angst as the Allied tankers, even those who’d done the
            formal technical inspection, ( if for different reasons), with a similar concern for the battlefield outcomes to happen..

            When the Australian forces sent their Centurion tanks to Viet Nam,
            they were seen ( at 1st) – as ‘White Elephants’ – by their infantry,
            but quickly instead became regarded as ‘indispensable’ – due to
            their Tiger-like battlefield dominance – even if, like the Tiger before
            them, they were typically heavy on logistics/maintenance, as well
            as being of the British standard ‘nuts & bolts’ construction – which
            required finesse & understanding from its operators..

            In 1943 the US predicted that up to 400 Tigers a month would be
            built by Nazi industry, yet doctrine demanded that the – by then
            obsolescent – Sherman would cope, using cruel ‘Gettysburg’ tactics…
            They were very lucky indeed that they actually had to face very
            few Tigers of any kind..

            Another feature of the Tiger/Abrams analogue is the ‘luxury’ aspect..
            that vastly inefficient gas-turbine was an industry ‘crock’ foisted
            on the military, akin to Hitler’s good buddy Dr Porsche & his Tiger variant shenanigans, ‘cept that all reasonable approaches to refit
            the Abrams with a sensible diesel mill have been stymied, whereas Hitler actually accepted advice to stop Porsche in his tracks…

            The armour aspect is another matter, with the Tiger SOP being to
            stop on an oblique angle, thus offering defacto ‘sloped’ armour
            facets, & the steel itself was both tough & ductile, enabling the
            proof against AP – shattering those shots, if not careening them off..
            ..unlike the cast hulls of so many Sherman tanks, ( & the turrets of
            T-34s), which, even if not directly penetrated, would spall off
            brutal scabs of steel shard at high speed in & around the inside of
            the tank, causing horrific injuries to the crew…

            A few things to chew over there..

        2. M1s are successfully deployed en masse. Desert Storm and 2003 you could see M1s moving in large armored columns with many other supporting vehicles and air support much like how the US Army liked to operate in NW Europe when M4s did essentially the same thing and tore into Panthers like M1s tore into knockoff T-72s.

          You can look at resent Saudi and Iraqi uses of Abrams against the Houthis or ISIS and see that the superiority of the M1 is rather useless. It’s rather funny to see Houthi rebels actually refer to the M1 Abrams as a cigarette lighter too.

          So no, the M1 has no real developmental history associated with the Tiger and has been used successfully when used like an M4.

          I don’t know why the KwK 36 has been elevated to mythical status. It’s a fine gun and was capable of killing most targets, well maybe not an IS-2, Churchill, M4A3E2, etc, but most targets. Yet if you just look at what guns the Germans actually deployed, they weren’t 88 mm gun but rather 75 mm guns with similar characteristics to the 75 mm guns of the US, UK, and USSR. The credit given to the 88’s killing power should really be given to the humble 75 mm guns used by all nations. As the M4’s 75 mm gun was capable of knocking out Tigers at a rather decent range when given the sides which is actually the most common part of a tank to be hit.

          Even looking at the 88 mm gun it really doesn’t standout compared to the American 90 mm or the Soviet 100 & 122 mm guns which all laid waste to any fascist machine they came across.

          1. No, the ‘legend’ of the ’88’ was earned,
            even if largely by the Luftwaffe Flak units
            who were readily seconded by Rommel,
            as ultimate line-of-sight quick-firing
            tank-stoppers, & infantry attack killers..

            The Brits fielded heavily armoured Matilda
            tanks which simply shrugged off lesser hits,
            ( they were used effectively against the forces
            of Nippon through to wars end, as a result)
            but the 88mm just shredded them..

            The ‘Tiger Angst’ which was a meaningful
            part of Allied soldiery concerns was justly
            accorded weight on the basis of the ’88’,
            along with its brutal heavily armoured bulk..

            The big gun equivalents fielded by the Allies
            were late in the game, & only there due to the
            effect s shown by the Tiger* ..

            Have you seen the 1944 Nazi propaganda film
            of massed Tiger II units on field parade march?

            Not too different from the ‘Desert Storm’ shots of
            M1’s which upset the ‘jihaddis’ by churning over
            ‘Islamic’ soil with similar brutish vigour..

            * Tiger was ol’ Adolf’s ‘baby’ ( & happy birthday, Hitler!)
            so he could push something that more conservative
            commands would not accept, ’til they saw its effects..

          2. Nope. 75 mm did the dirty work

            Yeah, the Allied 90 mm & 122 mm guns were totally not developed in the early 1930s and totally weren’t planned to be placed on AFVs before the Tiger’s combat debut. *

            Can’t say that I watch Nazi propaganda and relate it to modern warfare. Seems rather idiotic.

            Why do these ‘boos always end up being neo-nazis?


          3. Those big Allied guns were developed from
            their original uses in AAA/navy mounts into
            weapons for armoured warfare – as a direct
            result of the ’88’ proving so effective…

            Ironically, the Brits had a very powerful 3.7in
            AA gun in mass production which would’ve
            been an excellent equivalent, but being the
            classic Brit ‘stick-in-the-mud’ types, never used it
            as per the German 88mm..

            The big Soviet guns had their own practicality issues,
            which tended to reduce their actual fighting capability,
            mainly due to the very large shell/casing sizes making
            in-tank carrying/handling/rapid reloading problematic..

            Those guns were really too big for the Soviet tank turrets,
            & the tanks themselves were vulnerable to even the lowly
            Panther’s pathetically small* 75mm gun..

            This was a reason why even post-war, Soviet tanks were
            usually bested in real combat with Western machines…

            * Ok, a bit of sarcasm there, that long L/70 75mm was an
            exception to the usual ‘lousy 75mm’ tank gun performance..

    2. Nothing about the M1 is either drawn or comparable to any of the German Cats EXCEPT that they are all tracked and have turreted guns. I can’t think of a single feature of any German Cat that was copied into a post war tank. The M1 is far more mobile than the Cats and is probably the most balanced tank ever produced. A tank is a trade-off between mobility, gun and armor. The Challenger/Chieftan is gun and armor heavy at the expense of mobility, the Leopard is mobility and gun heavy at the expense of armor. The various Soviet-era tanks trade off mobility and armor for guns.

  23. a sherman fan i see, first, russians know a lot more than just 1 or 2 things about tank designs, second the soviet union anti-tank rifle PTRD was not effective against tanks, the projectile shattered most of the time, and you used some pics of abandoned tanks for knocked out tanks. and you have to applaud the german tank designs because even with inexperienced crew they kept on fighting for 2 more years (since 1943).

    and third soviet union produced thousands of tanks 65549 t34 and t34-85 tanks to be precise, and america produced 49231 of all models of shermans, and i didnt count all the anti tank artillery and heavy and light tanks the allies produced while the germans produced less than 60000 of all their medium, heavy tanks and anti tank artillery and assault guns combined.

    there you have the reason why the allies defeated germany and the tank design is influenced by the terrain, visibility its going to fight in and the nations war doctrine.

    and tiger 1 was designed to be a breakthrough tank but was used as a defensive rlle because it was brought out in 1943 and germny was fighting defensive then.

    and you said a sherman would take out a tiger, really? why would you even compare them? shermn is medium tank and tiger1 is a heavy tank, both made for diffeerent roles, and the tiger which you said had a weak gun knocked out the first americn heavy (m26 pershing) tank that landed in germany but it was abandoned because it got stuck in a rubble.

    fourth heavy tanks are not supposed to move and do stunts like a dune buggy, they are support to lead from the front and spot and destroy enemies and breakthrough then fall back. sadly tiger was not used for an offensive battle. albert speer said that sherman was better than old model panzers, but yes panzer V and tiger 1 were better BETTER THAN SHERMANS, panzer V being more maneuvrable and a better hill climber than sherman, L.Colonel Wilson M Hawkings, T.Seargent Willard D May, tank platoon seargent Charles A Carden all said that panzer V and tiger 1 were superior to modernized shermans.

    everything i said you could find in the books and reports written by ww2 veterans help yourselves with that. you can hate nazis but you cant say their engineering and machines sucked beacuse you hate them.

    and remember germans were the first to build such heavy tanks, jet engine, made plans for an orbiting vehicle(aka satellites), guided missiles, jet powered flying bombs, used laryngophones radio communications in tank crews, stealth submarines, rocket powered aircraft, stealth aircraft( horten ho 229 when tested in usa found to have stealth properties)and inspired b2 and vulcan bombers, layed doundations for icbm, and were about to make a nuclear bomb if scientists disnt defect to usa, i can go on with this. i am NOT AND NEVER SAYING I LOVE NAZIS but i dont hate the work of german scientists and engineers work beacuse of them. dont be biased while judging technology, remember that.

    Editor Comment: I cleaned this up just a bit, it was so hard to read before since it was one massive block of text. Also G.K. covered just about everything wrong with this post

    Thank you.

    1. Let’s see, where to start off with your bullshit. the first part of your ranting is just “But German tanks were better BECAUSE I SAID SO!, Germany only lost because X” shit that closet wehraboos love to cling to, (Though, terlling him to read reports when he runs a site based on combat reports and book accounts is incredibly ironic, maybe you should’ve done the same.) this is pointless, let’s move on to your more ridiculous claims.

      1. First to build heavy tanks? So tanks like the KV-1 and Char B1 (which was far heavier then any German tank of the time period) and the Churchill never existed? Ok.

      2. The Germans didn’t invent the Jet engine, the British did. Try again.

      3. Making plans for something doesn’t count for shit if you can’t act on them, other countries had similar plans, putting them into action is another, which they failed to do. I have a plan for an invisible, invincible forcefield powered by my mind, anyone who does it first must pay me credit for thinking of it!

      4. They used glide bombs, not the same thing as missiles, and even then US made guided munitions were much more ambitious as, rather then sticking to radio control only, the US also tried Radar, Infrared, and TV guidance with success.

      5. Which was a weapon developed at a time they were never going to win the war anyway. (The chances of them ever winning was non existent, but making what amounts to an incredibly inaccurate psychological weapon when you’re getting mauled isn’t exactly a good thing.)

      6. Wiley Post invented the laryngophone, copying someone else’s idea isn’t exactly massive innovation. nor does it have anything to do with supposed superior German engineering or design.

      7. As opposed to open assault submarines? Though I guess it did help the Kriegsmarine to only focus on submarines at the cost of their surface designs being horribly outdated, poorly designed crap despite not even following treaty regulations…..wait a minute.

      8. Yeah, I mean those rocket powered aircraft that were basically suicide mobiles for their pilots, you this THIS as an amazing innovation? Germany’s rocket aircraft program is easily one of the biggest targets for mockery because of how badly designed and poorly thought out they were. there’s a reason no one tried to copy this.

      9. This one is by far the most idiotic (well, 2nd) and anyone who’s ever actually read about the topic wouldn’t ever post such bullshit, The Ho229’s mystical “stealth” properties are bullshit, it’s radar signature reduction, aside from being an unintended part of the design, was so small compared to other aircraft of the era that it made no real difference even against contemporary radar, designing an aircraft based on it vs todays radar tech would be idiotic. Also, you probably failed to check your basic history on the subject and note that Northrop, the designer of the B-2 had fully working flying wing designs while German aircraft designers were still dicking around with scale models. Inspiration for the B-2 and Vulcan? get the fuck out of here.

      10. The V-2, one of the very actual few German “wunder” project to have significant post war contributions, which is rather unfortunate to say for them considering the weapon could only hit targets the size of cities, had a rather small warhead for it’s size, and actually killed more of it’s own soldiers and laborers than enemies.

      11. Remember when I said the Ho229 being a stealth aircraft and B-2/Vulcan inspiration was your second dumbest claim? This is the first. the German nuclear program was so behind and ass backwards they never had any hope of making a working nuclear weapon ever, for Christ’s sake even at the end of the project they thought hanging uranium cubes on cables would somehow work in an enrichment process, the German nuclear program was one the most laughably pathetic projects of the entire war, and even if it went on several more years (which it never would have), they wouldn’t have gotten jack shit out of it and the US program would beat it by years 10 times out of 10. But hey, at least persecuting everyone ethnically or religiously a Jew, who happened to be their best scientists on the matter proved to be a great idea! I guess this is what you get from a society that thinks drugging it’s supreme leader and soldiers with Methamphetamine is a brilliant idea.

      Get out.

      1. 6000 Shermans were knocked out in Normandy while that Germans lost 1400 tanks of all types – 1/3 of them were destroyed by airpower. T-34’s??? The Germans knocked out over 40,000 of them.

        1. No matter what you think of German tanks (I dont particularly agree with Jeeps that the Panther/Tiger were entirely terrible, as i think they were very good in defensive positions and Germany’s late war situation) allied CAS didn’t kill anywhere near as many tanks as you claim. Compared to other methods CAS was quite ineffective against tanks.

  24. After getting back my breath and climbing back into my chair which I fell out from laughter I continued reading this marvellous article. It is true, people are impressed by the what the press told them about the German “beasts” Tiger and Panther tanks.
    I is just goo somebody tell what is more historically right. Just back from a short trip though the Ardennes I saw the Tiger II and Panthers that were left behind and wondered how they just got a few kilometers over their exit points and then knocked out. Most good efforts were made by the stug and Pz II and IV units. Facing Shermans brought them to a halt. I concurrer with what you say about experience. Even an undergunned tank can be dangerous when in the hands of trained and well experienced crew. I was myself in the Armoured corps with the leopard tank in which they fixed all the bugs the Tigers and panthers had. Good they build it in 1965 and not 1945. I have to confess taht during practice shooting I severed with a shot the turret from the hull of an old sherman that was used as a target, as I lve Shermans as well as you do..

  25. You tell us that Tigers “helped win no battles”.
    Literally none, over the course of 3 years?
    Were they no help in the battle of Sidi Bou Zid? If not, how do you know?

    But you said that version changes were only “part” of the problem.
    You painted a picture of holes being drilled to fit parts and parts not fitting any tank except the one they were put into.
    Where did you get this information?

    Comments combined by admin

    1. Only two Shermans at Sidi-Bau-Zid had any evidence of being struck by 88mms, out of the 47 that I think were disabled.

  26. “One reason there is 11,000 US tanks and tank destroyers In Germany in April 1945 is because the US decided to concentrate on a tank that was extremely reliable and relatively economical to build. And I don’t think anyone would claim that the Sherman was the best tank from the perspective of the tank crew, it didn’t have the best armor, it didn’t have the best gun, but from commanders perspective it was an excellent weapon. There were just lots and lots of them, so they gave the commander a lot of battlefield power”. Steven Zaloga.

    — Hi all.

    I’ve always liked everything related to the WWII … and also I love the Sherman tank ! (all my friends say I’m crazy by that).

    Jeeps_Guns_Tanks :

    I would like to congratulate you for this amazing site… but I think that a great history lover (as you are) should not forget Mr. Zaloga’s words.

    This simple thing will give meaning and a true value to the M4 Sherman, and the required respect to their crews.

    Thank you, greetings from Spain and – please – keep up the good work !


    * And excuse my poor English.

    1. Pep,
      Thanks for you’re kind words, and I am glad you like the site. Your English is just fine too! I always try and keep Mr Zaloga’s words in mind. I got so tired of telling people to read his books like Armored Thunderbolt, it largely inspired the site!

  27. Well this article was pretty interesting to read, but well it really lack some good points:

    First it is pretty easy to understand tha you just made this article because some kind of hate against wehraboos. I mean i am with you about these guys are pretty annoying, but come on! the level of bias you used is pretty close to them. But well that is pretty common these days with internet in wargames forums and online games, most of the times people tend to care mostly about their point of view.

    Second you never talked about the difference between the allied and german doctrines and point of view in the theirs industries, like how germans made their tanks like trains with a lack of standardization while allies like car, etc. So you can make people understand why the allies won the war.

    And there is a good number of reasons why most of the german tanks had the problems you talked about, like the use of prisoners as slaves to make tanks, all your industry being bombed, all the desings were rushed since they were fighting a 3 front war, etc.

    Third, some of links you added have their problems but the rest even though they show some personals bias they are true, like the one talking about the Panther in the wargaming forum that said the panther was a shit because it wasn’t designed to support infantry, something that could be true if we see it from the point of view of the western allied doctrine, but the germans designed it to face tank more often than support infantry, that is why Stugs were a thing.

    Fourth you talked very little about the Eastern Front and Russian designs and you even said “Ruskies the guys who know 1 or 2 things about tanks desings”.

    Last, never talked about combat capability (how good they were fighting in a battle not as a whole in the war), the real reason the wehraboos are confused is that it is true those german tank were good at fighting and sometimes even better than allies tanks in SERVICE but just when they could move and those battle never were 1vs1 , most of them were impractical because all the supply and reliabiality problems.

    And at the end the Tiger I was a pretty decent tank by 1943 standards and the Eastern Front, yes the wheels were a nighmare but the reliabiality was better than the last big cats, not something that one should be proud, but at least was something.

    In the case of the Panther well it was the best that germans could made with their industry, and was the best modern desing they had by 1944, since Panzers III and IV were pretty old desing that couldn’t be upgraded.

    1. To add, german desing really affected the desings of the next generation of tanks, not mechanically, but mostly in doctrines and philosophy in regard of armors and guns, like the T34.

      Why? not because german were masters of technology or some stupid shit like that, but because they started a domino in tank desing when they first faced the T-34 making bigger, faster and more armored tanks, at least to the Russian who would later affect the Western desings in the middle of Cold War. It was obvious at the end of the war that tanks with powerful guns and heavy like front armor and mobility of a medium tank like the Panthers, T44/54s and Centurions were the future and the beginning of the MBT.

      It is funny how at the end the western countries went for heavy armor super powerful tanks to face the horde of Russians tanks.

  28. Hard to find more stupid article… German’s Pantera it’s a best tank in WW2. Sherman… if 10 will attack one Tiger maybe win, but only maybe.

      1. It’s a wunderwaffe so named because Adolf was a big fan of the Metal band that hadn’t been invented yet. Read a book!

        -BTW Sherman Is underrated

      2. a magical flying space tank shooting lasers made out of a Wheraboos wildest dreams (as you could guess, pretty deadly against anyone with brain power)

  29. This statement is very interesting:
    ” For the Germans, most parts would need adapting to the individual tank, making field repairs a more difficult job.”

    Is that “most” counted by type of part, or by amount? e.g. do you count wheels as 1 part or as 16 parts?
    Anyway, could you point me to the source of this information, please? I’ll figure it out from there.

    1. I would hope the road wheels would be pretty close, and not require modification, think more like getting a replacement bracket in the cooling system to fit because the bolt holes in the particular tank were custom drilled to fit the part they had. Another example would be getting a replacement fuel tank to fit when the hull was slightly out of spec. I’ll have to poke through the Jentz and Spielberger books to see if I can find specifics. I may have to change ‘most’ to ‘many’ or ‘a lot of’

      1. Those examples that you posted (bracket and fuel tank); did they actually happen? Have you a report, or a real tank where you can see them?

        1. Check out the sources, there is a paper that talks about spare parts that need adapting in many cases because the Germans had way to many changes within a model run.

          1. I think you are conflating two different things:

            a) Version changes: You are absolutely, 100% correct that the Germans made fairly trivial changes to their tank designs on a regular basis. (And as an aside, that’s probably one of the reasons folks who are into tanks are fascinated by them….there are a gazillion different variations of the PzKw-III for example). So I can see how a replacement component intended for, say, a PzKw-III G might not fit a PzKw-III J.

            b) However, the idea that anyone was producing hull plates or wheels in nonstandard sizes or with different bolt holes for key components (again, we are NOT talking about different ausfrungs here) seems awfully farfetched to me. Wouldn’t it be *harder* to do it wrong than to do it right?

  30. What’s interesting is that in addition to the inherently less reliable designs the Germans had, they were compounded by the fact that the USAAF and RAF effectively disrupted the German rail infrastructure, which meant that these tanks had to drive a long way on their own power.

    Ideally, you rail the tanks to the front to minimize the amount of time they have to drive, so there’s a big difference in reliability between a German tank that got railed into Normandy and one that had to drive the whole way from the German border.

    1. I doubt any German tank EVER drove from the factory to the front line, even in 1945. Any German unit that was moving more than a few dozen miles did it by rail.

  31. Great article. I always roll my eyes when some of my friends go on about how great the German big cats were compared to the Sherman or T-34.

    Funny comment on plastic model companies and the Tiger – I’ve always said that if the Germans were able to produce tanks in the numbers that model companies do in real life (especially compared to the Sherman), they would have won the war.

  32. It’s sad such an important tank like the Sherman is overshadowed by Machines used by Nazi scum. I don’t even know why people think the Panther looks cool, it looks like a big dumb box!

Leave a Reply to Jeeps_Guns_Tanks Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *