Jump to content


Sherman PR, 1942


  • Please log in to reply
79 replies to this topic

The_Chieftain #1 Posted Sep 19 2014 - 19:51

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 12665 battles
  • 9,880
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

Hidden in the depths of one of the back boxes of Ordnance's archive materials is a small folder entitled "Press Release." Given the contents of that folder, I can only assume that the segments which follow had been extracted from field reports for use in either the media, or Congress, to blow Ordnance's trumpet.

The purpose of the collection, however, and the fact that they are generally all cherry-picked good stuff (the page for 1944 which I may put up later does actually state some negatives), does not, however, mean that the source information was wrong, or that the people making the reports did not honestly mean what they said when they reported them.

So, in order that these words don't languish unseen again by human eyes, I present them below as extract and citation The entiire group below was collated December 11 1942.

Confirmation has been received by reports from the Western Desert, indicating great satisfaction with the M4 Medium Tank (Sherman).

The position of the main gun in the turret has made possible the advantage of maximum cover in “hull down” position in addition to good observation by the tank commander. There is concrete evidence that the enemy tanks, including the special PzKw IV (with the long-barrelled higher velocity 75mm gun) has been destroyed up to ranges of 2,000 yards. All troops are indicating that there should be more Shermans sent out at the earliest opportunity.

At the present moment there is no information regarding the use of the stabilizer, and it is not expected that this will be available early as it is still the policy to fire from stationary ‘hull down’ position whenever the opportunity permits. (Paraphrase of a cable received in Washington Nov 1 1942 from Major General, Middle East, to B.A.S. Washington).

 

Users are giving unstinted praised to all American equipment, particularly M4, which embodies all desired improvements except ideal gun sights.

Would again stress it is vital we receive earliest large numbers M4 regardless of the availability of tools and spares for which we are prepared to wait. (Extracts from Middle East Cable  Q (AE) 63086)

 

The Tanks M4 have made a great impression on everyone, and the troops are thrilled with them. The long gun is magnificent, both in accuracy and in penetration, and the sights are evidently a considerable improvement on the Grant. (Extract from letter to BAS Washington from Major General, AFV, Middle East)

 

The Special Mk IV enemy tanks are being destroyed with M61 ammunition at ranges up to 2,000 yards.

According to first reports from the Western Desert, the Shermans are excellent. There is maximum concealment in the ‘hull down’ position and the commander has good observation.

The 105mm Gun Motor Carriages and ammunition have proven very satisfactory. Although they have not been used in a very mobile role as yet, great results are expected in use against enemy guns. (Paraphrase of the Prime Minister’s message to the President, October 30 1942)

 

In continuance of my last cable relating to the Medium Tank M4 (Sherman) further reports confirm satisfaction. Emphasis is placed on the extremely tough nature of the fighting during the period 24th to 28th October. Mines, anti-tank guns and very heavy concentrations of artillery fire restricted tank movements until such time as a combined infantry and tank attack on the night of November 1st-2nd opened up a clear road. However, the period of close fighting wore out the enemy’s armored and anti-tank gun strength, so that our armor had a decisive superiority in the final action between armor on the 4th November.

Many of our tank casualties were due to mines and shelling which affected the tracks and suspensions only. Enemy APHE which penetrated our tanks caused fuel and cordite fires. All evidence shows that gasoline causes an instantaneous fire whilst diesel fuel ignites more slowly and gives crew a better chance of evacuation.

An investigation is in hand as to whether many tanks might be saved if the ammunition bins are more heavily armoured even at the expense of the number of rounds carried.

It is estimated that 50 medium tanks (M4) and 30 medium tanks (M3) have been written off as damaged beyond repair.

There are 75 Medium Tanks (M4) and 60 Medium Tanks (M3) which have been recovered and repairable. Exact figures will be sent when the battlefield is cleared.

Information to date shows that little use was made of the stabilizer during the static fighting which is described in paragraph 1. No information is on hand at present regarding its use during the more mobile operations which have taken place since that date.(Paraphrase of a cable from the Major General, AFV Middle East, to the Director of Armored Fighting Vehicles, War Office. Received 12 November 1942)

 

General Grant’s armor is most effective against 50mm fire and this tank can outgun and reduce these smaller A/T guns with ease. Considered at least equal to German Mk IV in all respects (Paraphrase of cable from Cairo to Milid, No 1158, June 21 1942

 

Captured German diary reads “Tommy is using an American tank (M4 medium) which has incredible armor and very good armament. (Paraphrase of cable from Cairo to Milid, No 1131, June 15 1942)

 

Crews loud in their praise of American Mediums. I talked with tank commanders who claimed 8 German tanks to their credit, and whose tank had been hit as high as 12 times by 50mm and even 88mm. (Paraphrase of cable from Cairo to Milid no 1090, Part II, June 1 1942.

 

Unofficial – American medium tank is reported as magnificent. Crews have great confidence in them. So far as reported, mediums have not been penetrated from the front. By maneuver of artillery and 75mm of medium tanks 88mm A/T guns have been silenced. (Paraphrase of cable from Cairo to Milid no 1076, Part II, Mey 30 1942)

 

Results of the test show the (US M3 Light) tank to be highly satisfactory mechanically for desert warfare (Extract from Tests and Modifications for the US M3 light tank from the Mechanization Experimental Establishment, Middle East)

 

The all round performance of the US M3 Medium Tank, the light tank, the scout car and the Bantam car has been pleasing to all the officers I have seen and talked to. (Paraphrase of cable from Cairo dated March 31 1942, signed Fellers)

 

The American tank has done wonderfully well mechanically. They (The British in the Middle East) have have very little trouble with it. (Extract from Middle East Letter dated December 14 1941)

 

The battle performance of American M3 light tanks has proven superior to that of the British cruiser tanks in the present Libyan campaign. Official confirmation of this is given in the records of the British 7th Armored Division. This superior performance of the American M3 light tanks over the British cruiser tanks may have been the primary cause of orders being issued for the destruction of the official reports of the 4th Armored Brigade…. Unofficially, I have ascertained from British officers who found in the November-December campaign that they have a preference for the American tanks (Extract from paraphrase of secret message from M.A. Cairo dated February 23 1942 and signed Fellers)

 

Mechanical failures were responsible for a large proportion of 104 tanks lost by this Brigade (2nd Armored) in its retirement from MSUS, but only 1 American M4 was included in the group that failed mechanically. (Extract from paraphrase of secred message from M.A. Cairo dated March 18 1942 and signed Fellers)

 

According to Brigadier Gatehouse (commanding 4th Armored Brigade, which operated 166 American M3 lgiht tanks) his American tanks were engaged 23 times with German armored units between November 19th and December 17th 1941. During this period only 12 American tanks were lost due to mechanical failure, and the tank far exceeded fondest expectations of the British. The American tank is the most reliable tank on the Western Desert. (Notes based on conversation of Brig Gatehouse with Lt Ahee on 21 February 1942)

 

High ranking British tank officer of 4th Armored Brigade reports 32 days of continuous battle operations, during which time for care and maintenance was nil, with only 12 mechanical failures of US M3 light tanks. Said every officer and man in his unit was enthusiastic about the Light Tank M3. He wants American tanks and nothing else…. He is now prepared to accept the tanks as they come from America without further modification. Even though outranged by more powerful weapons, he had nothing but praise for the 37mm gun…. He had 47 disabled tanks repaired and returned to his unit by division maintenance personnel in the first week of the campaign. First time in his career this had happened. British tanks once out are out for the show. (Extract from study written by Maj Joseph Colby, Ord Dept, on observations from Libyan Theatre, December 1941)

 

My British soldier driver, who belongs to the 4th Hussars, confessed to me the British soldiers all loathed the British cruiser and wanted only the American tank. (Also Colby)

 

All of the British Personnel with whom I have talked are enthusiastic about the Grant tank. (Obs of Colonel Purdue, June 11-June 19 1942). Under no consideration should our tanks be modified to reduce the machine gun fire-power which is frequently essential, is extremely effective and with training can become deadly accurate. (Comment in endorsement to Colby’s report by Col Bonner F Feller, GSC, Military Attache)

 

Finally, there was a letter from the Soviets.

Dear General Christmas:

I am very sorry for the delay in replying to your letter of Oct. 20th, 1942 in regard to the performance of American made tanks in our country.

Undoubtedly you will understand that since an article by an American correspondent, Leland Stowe, was published in the newspapers, this question has become very serious, and inasmuch as you asked us to give you our official opinion, it was necessary for me to consider this question in detail.

Except for certain disadvantages which I mentioned in my letter of August 11th, 1942, the American made tanks have advantages which I would like to stress:

1. Good performance of transmission and engine assembly.

2. Considerable firing power.

3. Satisfactory armored protection of turret and front part of bow of medium Tank M3.

4. Sufficient cruising range of Medium tank

5. Satisfactory visibility.

6. Great mobility and good maneuverability of Light Tank M3 which is due to the lightness of the engine.

It is well known that it is inpossible to design a universal vehicle sufficient to meet every condition, and each one of the existing tank models possesses some good features and some disadvantages.

It would not be right to come to a conclusion that American made Tanks are not effective in our country.

I feel confident that the Mediun Tank M4A2 with diesel engine which we are now getting upon arrival in the USSR will prove superior in combat action to the Medium Tank M3 of an old design which we now have in action in our country.

I sincerely trust that the publishing of Leland Stowe’s article will in no way influence your department which is now at work on the designs of combat vehicles.

Thanking you for your co-operation, I am

            Sincerely yours,

            I. Belyaev

            Major General

            Chairman, Soviet Purchasing Commission in the United States.

 

I would be curious to read Mr Stowe's article, if anyone could track it down.

There was another collection of observations, dated at the end of the war, but I'll come back to those.

Track me down on Facebook and sometimes I even stream on Twitch.



Dunfalach #2 Posted Sep 20 2014 - 16:15

    Major

  • Players
  • 18752 battles
  • 4,802
  • [S-F] S-F
  • Member since:
    01-07-2012
It's easy to forget, in the World of Tanks environment where tanks often face vehicles they were never made to go up against, quite how effective some of these tanks were in their own world. As much as the M3 Lee gets hated in an environment where it faces much later tanks, for its time it was a very good design.

dcfan #3 Posted Sep 20 2014 - 16:15

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 9796 battles
  • 30
  • Member since:
    01-02-2014

I'm not able to locate any actual articles by Leland Stowe, however I did manage to locate a group of his papers, dated from 1929-1988. These papers are located at the Newberry, an independent research library in Chicago, IL. I'll include a link to their website. I'm wondering if it is possible to do an inter-library loan on these papers. Included among them are photocopies of articles called "With the Russian Front-Zone Armies", dated Oct-Nov 1942. These articles were originally written for the Chicago Daily News. 

It would appear Mr. Leland was in Oslo during the Nazi invasion of Norway and later gained permission to travel with and cover the Soviet Army, accompanied by  Ilya Ehrenburg, a Russian correspondant. Mr. Leland wrote extensively about both locales.

http://mms.newberry.org/xml/xml_files/Stowe.xml

 

I hope this helps in some small way. 



Dabomb48 #4 Posted Sep 20 2014 - 16:49

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 6839 battles
  • 809
  • Member since:
    10-10-2011

I hope this means the M3 Lee is going to get buffed... 

 

But nice new story/article/find Chieftain! :great:



1SLUGGO1 #5 Posted Sep 20 2014 - 16:54

    Major

  • Players
  • 24723 battles
  • 10,198
  • Member since:
    02-23-2012
Did the russians ever get the diesel engined shermans?  I thought they all went to the marines.

tiger61378 #6 Posted Sep 20 2014 - 17:07

    Captain

  • Players
  • 9369 battles
  • 1,464
  • [CAR] CAR
  • Member since:
    07-30-2013

View Post1SLUGGO1, on Sep 20 2014 - 11:54, said:

Did the russians ever get the diesel engined shermans?  I thought they all went to the marines.

 

There were at least some shipped....in fact, they just yanked one out of the Baltic off a torpedoed freighter a few months ago, and its in remarkably good condition for sitting on the bottom of the ocean for 60+ years.

Walter_Sobchak #7 Posted Sep 20 2014 - 17:10

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 236 battles
  • 5,140
  • Member since:
    11-22-2010

View Post1SLUGGO1, on Sep 20 2014 - 11:54, said:

Did the russians ever get the diesel engined shermans?  I thought they all went to the marines.

 

Most of the Sherman tanks sent to the Soviet Union were the diesel powered M4A2 variant.  The fact that many of these tanks were assigned to Guards units gives an indication that the Red Army thought highly of these tanks, despite official propaganda often denigrating Lend Lease material.  For a good read about Soviet Shermans, I would recommend "Commanding the Red Army's Sherman Tanks" by Dmitriy Loza. 

Dominatus #8 Posted Sep 20 2014 - 17:12

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 10311 battles
  • 13,793
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    12-21-2010
The M4A2 was also considered probably the only good tank they ever got from Lend-Lease.

Walter_Sobchak #9 Posted Sep 20 2014 - 17:14

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 236 battles
  • 5,140
  • Member since:
    11-22-2010

View PostDominatus, on Sep 20 2014 - 12:12, said:

The M4A2 was also considered probably the only good tank they ever got from Lend-Lease.

 

I thought they liked the valentine as well.  From what I understand, they considered it a light tank, so it compared pretty well to their own light tanks.  Or was it more a case of them considering the Valentine the "least worst" of the options they had from the UK?

CarnageINC #10 Posted Sep 20 2014 - 17:27

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 5699 battles
  • 200
  • [-CHH-] -CHH-
  • Member since:
    05-21-2014
Thank you Chieftain, this was a most excellent read :biggrin:

EndlesNights #11 Posted Sep 20 2014 - 17:40

    Captain

  • Players
  • 23498 battles
  • 1,098
  • [SPIDY] SPIDY
  • Member since:
    09-22-2011

View Post1SLUGGO1, on Sep 20 2014 - 16:54, said:

Did the russians ever get the diesel engined shermans?  I thought they all went to the marines.

 

The M4A2 (Sherman III) were primarly produced for export purposes (and the Marines were know to use them as well) It used a diesel engine.

 

 

The M3 get gets much hate even though it probably has one of the best cannons for its tier, it's probably to do more with the game mechanics of the sudden switching from using a fully rotatable turret  in the previous tier to essentially playing a SPG. I know in other more traditional shooter games such as Battle Field 1942 ( even though hit's fairly none realistic/historical at times) he Lee is actually a well received vehicle (much like its ealy service days) , loaded up with the two secondary turrets allowing the crew to basically be a rolling ball of death that can cover multiple angles of attack and making it near impossible to flank.



WhellerNG #12 Posted Sep 20 2014 - 17:48

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 9813 battles
  • 78
  • Member since:
    07-17-2011
I believe I've found the article in question. http://fultonhistory.com/newspaper%2011/New%20York%20Evening%20Post/New%20York%20NY%20Evening%20Post%201942%20Grayscale/New%20York%20NY%20Evening%20Post%201942%20Grayscale%20-%204742.pdf

Dominatus #13 Posted Sep 20 2014 - 17:58

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 10311 battles
  • 13,793
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    12-21-2010

View PostWalter_Sobchak, on Sep 20 2014 - 12:14, said:

I thought they liked the valentine as well.  From what I understand, they considered it a light tank, so it compared pretty well to their own light tanks.  Or was it more a case of them considering the Valentine the "least worst" of the options they had from the UK?

My impression was that it was considered suitable for what it was designed to do (infantry support) and better for that role than the T-50 that it replaced. I don't think they thought more of it than that, but they used them all the way into Berlin, so I guess they must have thought something of them.



GravyDave1 #14 Posted Sep 20 2014 - 18:01

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 25205 battles
  • 375
  • [POW1] POW1
  • Member since:
    04-30-2012

The Sherman was a good tank. It did do what it was design for.` It was upgraded though the war. The early models where design to agaist the PZ III's & IV's. When the Panther and Tiger came out they where outmatch. But they where update To newer models that could hold up agaist the Panther.  That is where models like the Easy 8 and Jumbo come from. Better gun and armour.  Some untits did add more armour to thier Shermans Ranges from 1" to 2" on thier own. Records where very sketchy on this. But do for a fact seeing side cuts of a Sherman in the 80's with 4" inches in the front. It was later model. But did have it. If I remember right I saw it at Ft. Knox's. Was in The US Army at the time. I saw many tanks in my life time. First one was a Pershing at Ft Dix NJ where I did my Basic. Saw a lot at Arbdine proven grounds. From the 20's to some current models. I do Like Cheftain Hatch they bring out a lot facts that people did not know about tanks. I read a lot about tanks have books from the 50's on up. Like them since a kid. BE Cool Have Fun guys GravyDave1 



GravyDave1 #15 Posted Sep 20 2014 - 18:02

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 25205 battles
  • 375
  • [POW1] POW1
  • Member since:
    04-30-2012

View PostDominatus, on Sep 20 2014 - 17:58, said:

My impression was that it was considered suitable for what it was designed to do (infantry support) and better for that role than the T-50 that it replaced. I don't think they thought more of it than that, but they used them all the way into Berlin, so I guess they must have thought something of them.

 

Most tanks are set for that role and Tank vrs Tank as a second role. In the early days of WW II

Bloodsteam #16 Posted Sep 20 2014 - 19:09

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 25032 battles
  • 164
  • [NEWBI] NEWBI
  • Member since:
    03-25-2013
Stronk American steel!:smile:

Jeeps_Guns_Tanks #17 Posted Sep 20 2014 - 21:09

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 16986 battles
  • 5,620
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    07-14-2010

View PostEndlesNights, on Sep 20 2014 - 09:40, said:

 

The M4A2 (Sherman III) were primarly produced for export purposes (and the Marines were know to use them as well) It used a diesel engine.

 

 

The M3 get gets much hate even though it probably has one of the best cannons for its tier, it's probably to do more with the game mechanics of the sudden switching from using a fully rotatable turret  in the previous tier to essentially playing a SPG. I know in other more traditional shooter games such as Battle Field 1942 ( even though hit's fairly none realistic/historical at times) he Lee is actually a well received vehicle (much like its ealy service days) , loaded up with the two secondary turrets allowing the crew to basically be a rolling ball of death that can cover multiple angles of attack and making it near impossible to flank.

 

Not really, it was designed and used because they had a shortage of the prefered engines.  This is also why the M4A4 and M4A3 were produced. 

The_Chieftain #18 Posted Sep 20 2014 - 21:39

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 12665 battles
  • 9,880
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

Good find, but it seems to be an editorial justifying the printing of he article, not the article itself?



VeniVidiLudi #19 Posted Sep 20 2014 - 22:13

    Private

  • Players
  • 4870 battles
  • 3
  • Member since:
    04-21-2012

Found this, from "The Pittsburgh Press" of October 13, 1942 - 

http://news.google.c...pg=2561,4406229

The link will take you to page 6, but it starts on page 1, right side, top.



Walter_Sobchak #20 Posted Sep 20 2014 - 22:33

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 236 battles
  • 5,140
  • Member since:
    11-22-2010

Block Quote

Captured German diary reads “Tommy is using an American tank (M4 medium) which has incredible armor and very good armament. (Paraphrase of cable from Cairo to Milid, No 1131, June 15 1942)

 

I think this is going to have to be my signature for a while. 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users