Jump to content


M4 Sherman Tank - Historically, A Total Death Trap - VIDEO


  • Please log in to reply
407 replies to this topic

dmckay #381 Posted Jun 15 2016 - 02:55

    Major

  • Players
  • 12984 battles
  • 5,223
  • Member since:
    07-23-2013

View Postfsjd, on Jun 14 2016 - 19:54, said:

I would consider the M4 (particularly later variants that worked out some of the early flaws, most notably the ammo storage) to be the best overall tank produced during the war, with the T-34 very close behind. 
 

adequate firepower and armor, but the M4's excellent reliability, relative ease of maintenance and mobility placed it well above anything Germany fielded, and that's before we introduce the logistics behind those tanks and the men serving in them. 
 


 

Very simple assessment but totally valid. M4 and M4 Easy Eight....better mediums than any other county produced.  T-34...ok but no match for the Sherman by 1944.  No medium tank was. How could they be? DATA....just look at the data. Many just do not want to do that but a TON of it is in this thread.



CaspianF #382 Posted Jun 15 2016 - 03:50

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 19259 battles
  • 274
  • [KGS] KGS
  • Member since:
    08-03-2013

View Postdmckay, on Jun 14 2016 - 17:55, said:

Very simple assessment but totally valid. M4 and M4 Easy Eight....better mediums than any other county produced.  T-34...ok but no match for the Sherman by 1944.  No medium tank was. How could they be? DATA....just look at the data. Many just do not want to do that but a TON of it is in this thread.

 

The M4 was also very easy to upgrade. What was the most powerful gun fitted to the M4 - a 105 mm gun that was also used on the AMX-30?

 

Upgradability is pretty useful - you don't necessarily have to build a whole new tank to fit a new gun onto it.



WulfeHound #383 Posted Jun 15 2016 - 05:21

    Major

  • Players
  • 12916 battles
  • 26,179
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    04-03-2011

View PostCaspianF, on Jun 14 2016 - 21:50, said:

 

The M4 was also very easy to upgrade. What was the most powerful gun fitted to the M4 - a 105 mm gun that was also used on the AMX-30?

 

Upgradability is pretty useful - you don't necessarily have to build a whole new tank to fit a new gun onto it.

 

122mm A-19, actually.

CaspianF #384 Posted Jun 15 2016 - 06:11

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 19259 battles
  • 274
  • [KGS] KGS
  • Member since:
    08-03-2013

View PostWulfeHound, on Jun 14 2016 - 20:21, said:

 

122mm A-19, actually.

 

The Soviets fit that into an M4? Did it see battlefield service?

WulfeHound #385 Posted Jun 15 2016 - 06:26

    Major

  • Players
  • 12916 battles
  • 26,179
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    04-03-2011

View PostCaspianF, on Jun 15 2016 - 00:11, said:

 

The Soviets fit that into an M4? Did it see battlefield service?

 

Yugoslavians, actually. It did not see service.



fsjd #386 Posted Jun 15 2016 - 08:42

    Major

  • Players
  • 10353 battles
  • 5,248
  • [TT] TT
  • Member since:
    02-26-2011

View Postdmckay, on Jun 14 2016 - 19:55, said:

Very simple assessment but totally valid. M4 and M4 Easy Eight....better mediums than any other county produced.  T-34...ok but no match for the Sherman by 1944.  No medium tank was. How could they be? DATA....just look at the data. Many just do not want to do that but a TON of it is in this thread.

 

I put the T-34 and its variants just behind the Sherman because it hits many of the same points. good enough for what was asked of it and easy to mass produce.


I tend to rank mobility, reliability, and ease of manufacture above other areas. after all, the biggest gun or strongest armor wont help if you cant get the tank where it needs to go (both tactically and strategically) without it breaking down/getting stuck, cant build enough of them fast enough, or easily fix it in the field.

 


Edited by fsjd, Jun 15 2016 - 08:51.


dmckay #387 Posted Jun 15 2016 - 17:01

    Major

  • Players
  • 12984 battles
  • 5,223
  • Member since:
    07-23-2013

View Postfsjd, on Jun 15 2016 - 02:42, said:

 

I put the T-34 and its variants just behind the Sherman because it hits many of the same points. good enough for what was asked of it and easy to mass produce.


I tend to rank mobility, reliability, and ease of manufacture above other areas. after all, the biggest gun or strongest armor wont help if you cant get the tank where it needs to go (both tactically and strategically) without it breaking down/getting stuck, cant build enough of them fast enough, or easily fix it in the field.

 

 

I agree.  T-34 was a very good tank but it had numerous issues.  I think you are being fair and I agree and I would put it just behind the Sherman but overall the Shermans were the best mediums produced in WWII. Overall is the key word. Just an aside.....I fail to understand why some fanatically insist on comparisons between the Sherman and the Tiger.  Bluntly that is stupid.  Apples to oranges and as I have said several times in this thread the M4's did what they were designed to do much better that what the Tiger and also the Panthers did. May sound overly dramatic but that is the truth. 

blackfalconjc #388 Posted Jun 16 2016 - 21:21

    Captain

  • Players
  • 7480 battles
  • 1,996
  • [WW2AR] WW2AR
  • Member since:
    06-14-2014

Wow, are we still on this subject? M4 was a "good-enough" tank, end of debate. Sure it wasn't an heavily armored monster, but it performed pretty much every task requested of a medium tank with great panache, it served as a sturdy platform for almost 30 years, and was very versatile and reliable.

 

Why are we flogging a dead-horse about it being a "death-trap"? *sigh* This is why we can't have nice things!



WulfeHound #389 Posted Jun 16 2016 - 22:02

    Major

  • Players
  • 12916 battles
  • 26,179
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    04-03-2011

View Postblackfalconjc, on Jun 16 2016 - 15:21, said:

Wow, are we still on this subject? M4 was a "good-enough" tank, end of debate. Sure it wasn't an heavily armored monster, but it performed pretty much every task requested of a medium tank with great panache, it served as a sturdy platform for almost 30 years, and was very versatile and reliable.

 

Why are we flogging a dead-horse about it being a "death-trap"? *sigh* This is why we can't have nice things!

 

Because there will always be people like the OP and others who sincerely believe the myths put forth by the "History" Channel and Belton Cooper. It's up to those who are willing to put in the effort and research to debunk those myths and explain to those who believe them why they are incorrect.

madogthefirst #390 Posted Jun 16 2016 - 22:26

    Major

  • Players
  • 24158 battles
  • 8,919
  • Member since:
    12-28-2011

View PostWulfeHound, on Jun 16 2016 - 13:02, said:

 

Because there will always be people like the OP and others who sincerely believe the myths put forth by the "History" Channel and Belton Cooper. It's up to those who are willing to put in the effort and research to debunk those myths and explain to those who believe them why they are incorrect.

Logic alone will tell you how wrong it is.



dmckay #391 Posted Jun 17 2016 - 04:26

    Major

  • Players
  • 12984 battles
  • 5,223
  • Member since:
    07-23-2013
If the History Channel had any balls it would put out a documentary of the horrific "carnage" suffered by German armor in Normandy/France and Russia.  Hardly any German armor got out of France after the allied break-out.  Check out the Faliase Pocket. It was a stampede with the Shermans, TD's, artillery allied air, etc. hot on their azz. A defeat of immense proportions.  I give the Germans credit for holding as long as they did that summer in Normandy but they had great defensive ground in the hedgerow country, The data is in this thread.  Some just chose to ignore it.  ALL tanks in WWII were targets and ALL of them got shot to sh#t. All of them.  The ones that got shot to sh#t the most were the Tigers and Panthers. They were simply an inferior/ineffective design.  COOL looking and I bought into that as a kid. Sucked overall however. That is just the truth.  Very one dimensional tanks. 

Edited by dmckay, Jun 17 2016 - 04:31.


Znath #392 Posted Jun 17 2016 - 08:31

    Major

  • Players
  • 31399 battles
  • 2,528
  • Member since:
    03-08-2011

Different models of the m4 performed differently.

 

Initial models used rotary aircraft engines and high high octane fuel that would catch fire very easily.

 

Later models used conventional engines with lower octane fuel, some were even diesel.  They also incorporated things like wet racks to prevent shells from exploding from a hit which further increased the survival rate of crews.  

 

A lot of documentaries just wanted money so they added to the sensationalized story that "all shermans were death traps"  The reality is they were easily comparable to other tanks of the period like the pz4 which also caught fire plenty  or t-34 the most widely produced coffin in the 20th century...



HazardDrake #393 Posted Jun 17 2016 - 14:43

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 9291 battles
  • 2,083
  • Member since:
    09-18-2014

View PostZnath, on Jun 17 2016 - 08:31, said:

Initial models used rotary aircraft engines and high high octane fuel that would catch fire very easily.

1. High octane gasoline is MORE stable and burns slower than low octane gasoline.

 

2. Tank fires were rarely caused by the engine or fuel. It was the amunition that was catching fire.



shapeshifter #394 Posted Jun 17 2016 - 16:06

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 17863 battles
  • 2,899
  • Member since:
    09-11-2010
They built an M4A3E8 with a T26 turret and the 90mm gun. It was used in testing for at least 2000 miles.

Caderius #395 Posted Jun 17 2016 - 16:56

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 10301 battles
  • 230
  • Member since:
    02-14-2014

View Postmadogthefirst, on Jun 16 2016 - 16:26, said:

Logic alone will tell you how wrong it is.

 

The problem is that logic is as rare as common sense in the world in this day and age. 

Pipinghot #396 Posted Jun 17 2016 - 19:45

    Major

  • Players
  • 25960 battles
  • 9,764
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View PostCaderius, on Jun 17 2016 - 10:56, said:

The problem is that logic is as rare as common sense in the world in this day and age. 

Speaking of which, that's nonsense.

 

Logic is much more common than at any time in the past, thanks to 200 years of global advancement in math and science. Logic was a lot less common when people believed in the four humors, phlogiston, and leaching people to make them healthier than in the present day.

 

And common sense has always been honored more in the breach than in the use, that's nothing new. You can't live in a world in which humanity is constantly advancing and yet somehow has less sense, intelligence and wisdom than in the past. It takes a special kind of nonsense to think that way.



aswitz87 #397 Posted Jun 17 2016 - 20:42

    Major

  • Players
  • 5921 battles
  • 6,974
  • Member since:
    06-10-2012

View PostPipinghot, on Jun 17 2016 - 13:45, said:

You can't live in a world in which humanity is constantly advancing and yet somehow has less sense, intelligence and wisdom than in the past. 

Sure you could.  A minority continues to advance and the majority who lack the sense, intelligence, and wisdom simply hang on for the ride.

This is even easier when a large portion of that minority enjoys keeping the majority in such a state.



WulfeHound #398 Posted Jun 17 2016 - 21:05

    Major

  • Players
  • 12916 battles
  • 26,179
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    04-03-2011

View Postshapeshifter, on Jun 17 2016 - 10:06, said:

They built an M4A3E8 with a T26 turret and the 90mm gun. It was used in testing for at least 2000 miles.

 

It was actually an M4 (105) that they dropped a T26 turret onto.

Pipinghot #399 Posted Jun 17 2016 - 21:16

    Major

  • Players
  • 25960 battles
  • 9,764
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View Postaswitz87, on Jun 17 2016 - 14:42, said:

Sure you could.  A minority continues to advance and the majority who lack the sense, intelligence, and wisdom simply hang on for the ride.

This is even easier when a large portion of that minority enjoys keeping the majority in such a state.

That narrative may feel appealing, but it's depends on a pretty severe failure of logic (and evolution), it just doesn't add up. Advancements require that the majority catch up to the minority over time. Over the course of human biological and society evolution humans have become less violent and more intelligent, those large term trends exist regardless of any short term differences or anecdotal evidence that seem to disagree.

 

A scenario in which "A minority continues to advance" require populations that are isolated from each other to the point that species differentiation eventually occurs (e.g. neandertals). The idea of a small, more advanced sub-set of a species somehow being mixed in with the majority and yet advancing faster than the majority just doesn't happen. Any advancement that gives the minority and advantage over others ends up getting spread into the general population.

 

If a minority develops "more common sense" that becomes a survival and mating advantage, which means that the advanced common sense then gets distributed to the general population over time. The same is true of any advances in intelligence. Any "advances" that don't result in an advantage (and therefore get spread into the general population) are not truly advances in the first place.



Arkai #400 Posted Jun 17 2016 - 21:36

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 37439 battles
  • 190
  • Member since:
    12-24-2011

View PostWulfeHound, on Jun 16 2016 - 16:02, said:

 

Because there will always be people like the OP and others who sincerely believe the myths put forth by the "History" Channel and Belton Cooper. It's up to those who are willing to put in the effort and research to debunk those myths and explain to those who believe them why they are incorrect.

 

Ahhh.....but you see the pendulum has swung way too far to the other side now. There are those that give the Sherman way more credit than it deserves; including many of those here that are 'correcting' the OP.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users