Jump to content


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


  • Please log in to reply
407 replies to this topic

WulfeHound #41 Posted Jun 08 2016 - 23:30

    Major

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

View Postcharley2222, on Jun 08 2016 - 17:20, said:

have a nice day and enjoy to think m4 are a great tank  :)   for sure in ww2 in the battle field  i will feel more save sit inside the tiger compare the m4 because usa have any real heavy and the m4 have no choice to fulfilled every role possible that mean too meet the tiger lolol and remenber  the m4 motor are plane motor so you will blow up quick lol have a nice day peace i`m out :)

 

I will enjoy the Sherman, because at least the tank I'm in will be able to reach the battlefield and support, rather than be sitting in a repair depot or on the side of a road waiting for the tank to be repaired or for some more fuel.

 

US forces encountered the Tiger a whopping 3-5 times in the entire war. The British had a couple more encounters. Wow, such a common occurrence.

 

Only the M4 and M4A1 had a radial. The M4A2 had twin diesels, the M4A3 had a petrol V8, and the M4A4/A6 had a Multibank (interestingly enough despite it being the least reliable of the engine options, it was still more reliable than most engines that Germany had used)



1Sherman #42 Posted Jun 08 2016 - 23:32

    Major

  • Players
  • 5303 battles
  • 3,338
  • Member since:
    07-10-2013

View PostHurk, on Jun 08 2016 - 22:25, said:

 

Rounne, congratulations, you have made it onto my ignore list. your inability to show basic logic or even simian level intelligence is to be applauded. 

 

There's someone in the U.S. that the OP and charley2222's intelligence (or lack thereof) is comparable to, but I don't want to say his name for fear of getting banned for political stuff. 

charley2222 #43 Posted Jun 08 2016 - 23:51

    Captain

  • Players
  • 29538 battles
  • 1,136
  • Member since:
    09-27-2013
come-on you really believe the m4 is a great tank ? i hope you are  joking  t34 is a great tank , always i see the m4 in wot i`m  laugh so much and really enjoy it all my heart  shooting  this tank and blow him up :arta: . so funny looking  american pride tanker going in :harp:moke  . just love it . guess what going to make some tier 5 battle and blow up some m4 noob :bush: peace later :)  

 


Edited by charley2222, Jun 09 2016 - 00:06.


Sink_Stuff #44 Posted Jun 08 2016 - 23:54

    Captain

  • Players
  • 14278 battles
  • 1,303
  • Member since:
    04-10-2011

View PostHurk, on Jun 08 2016 - 22:25, said:

 

Rounne, congratulations, you have made it onto my ignore list. your inability to show basic logic or even simian level intelligence is to be applauded. 

 

Your such a troll. There are many accounts of how crap the M4 Sherman was. Here is another one:

 

 

"These disparities are shown in an account of the famous Lt. Colonel William B. Lovelady, commander of the 3rd Armored Division’s 2ndBattalion, retold by Lt. Colonel Haynes Dugan.

“One of his Shermans turned the corner of a house and got off three shots at the front of a Panther, all bounced off. The Sherman then backed behind the corner and was disabled by a shot penetrating two sides of the house plus the tank.”[iii]

Because of their insufficient armor, the insides of Sherman tanks were prone to catching fire during combat. This problem was compounded when fires ignited shells and other munitions inside a tank. Sherman M4’s were jokingly referred to by British soldiers as “Ronsons”, a brand of lighter whose slogan was “Lights up the first time, every time!”[iv] Polish soldiers referred to them simply as “The Burning Grave”

 

Link: http://archives.libr...rman-tanks-ww2/



WulfeHound #45 Posted Jun 08 2016 - 23:58

    Major

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

View Postcharley2222, on Jun 08 2016 - 17:51, said:

come-on you really believe the m4 is a great tank ? i hope you are  joking  t34 is a great tank , always i see the m4 in wot i`m  laugh so much and really enjoy it all my heart  shooting  this tank and blow him up :arta: . so funny looking  american pride tanker going in :harp:moke  . just love it . guess what going to make some tier 5 battle and blow up some m4 noob :bush: peace later :)  

 

Because the M4 was?

View PostRounne, on Jun 08 2016 - 17:54, said:

 

Your such a troll. There are many accounts of how crap the M4 Sherman was. Here is another one:

 

 

"These disparities are shown in an account of the famous Lt. Colonel William B. Lovelady, commander of the 3rd Armored Division’s 2ndBattalion, retold by Lt. Colonel Haynes Dugan.

“One of his Shermans turned the corner of a house and got off three shots at the front of a Panther, all bounced off. The Sherman then backed behind the corner and was disabled by a shot penetrating two sides of the house plus the tank.”[iii]

Because of their insufficient armor, the insides of Sherman tanks were prone to catching fire during combat. This problem was compounded when fires ignited shells and other munitions inside a tank. Sherman M4’s were jokingly referred to by British soldiers as “Ronsons”, a brand of lighter whose slogan was “Lights up the first time, every time!”[iv] Polish soldiers referred to them simply as “The Burning Grave”

 

Link: http://archives.libr...rman-tanks-ww2/

 

Oh lord, where do we start.

 

First off, the Sherman was not called a "Ronson".

Second off, that slogan didn't appear until the 1950's

Third off, 3rd Armored had some of the highest casualty rates of all the US armored divisions as they were a consistent front-line force. Those are not representative of the other divisions

Fourth off, that account uses Death Traps as a source not once, but twice.

 

Utter rubbish

 



DV_Currie_VC #46 Posted Jun 09 2016 - 00:02

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 58631 battles
  • 2,245
  • [RS] RS
  • Member since:
    08-04-2010

View PostRounne, on Jun 08 2016 - 15:06, said:

Chieftain is wrong. Death Traps is a reliable source because it is an eyewitness account. He was there, he lived through it, he wrote about it. Chieftain did not. The very idea that he promotes that you disregard an eyewitness account should be suspect to you.

I beg to disagree with you, and provide my evidence:

 

The Canadian Army and the Normandy Campaign (English, John A.: Stackpole Books, 1991) - and I quote:

 

"It has been further asserted that the writer who lacks personal experience of combat cannot know what happens on the battlefield...

 

Col. C.P. Stacey, the Canadian official historian, rightly suggested that the matter of weighing evidence, 'the vital element is that of time,' the validity of a written account or interview being directly related to the elapsed passage of time between the even and its recording. 'The best historical evidence,' Stacey declared, 'is evidence recorded at the time.'  (author's italics) 

 

Concerning 'reminiscences...thirty or forty years on,' Stacey was much kinder than the British historian (the bloody blunt Brits <-- my comment) A.J.P. Taylor who savagely warned such could "degenerate into 'old men drooling their youth'...forget[ting] truth and manufactur[ing] myth."

 

Stacey pointedly referred, however, to a study by historians of the European Theatre of the U.S. Army on 'how long it took a soldier's memory of a battle...to fail.'  Their conclusion was that this occured in 6 days.  More recently, military historian Dominick Graham sounded the alarm that memory 'is particularly unreliable after a subject has talked to other peple, compared notes, and repeated his story many times.  By then, he may no longer tell trugh from fiction." (pp. xvi xvii of the introduction to this book)

 

 

Sorry for the wall of text.



WulfeHound #47 Posted Jun 09 2016 - 00:09

    Major

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

https://tankandafvnews.com/2015/01/29/debunking-deathtraps-part-1/

No part two as of yet

 

There's also this review by the renowned armor historian Robert A. Forczyk:

Block Quote

 

Death Traps, a poorly written memoir by Belton Y. Cooper promises much, but delivers little. Cooper served as an ordnance lieutenant in the 3rd Armor Division (3AD), acting as a liaison officer between the Combat Commands and the Division Maintenance Battalion. One of the first rules of memoir writing is to focus on events of which the author has direct experience; instead, Cooper is constantly discussing high-level or distant events of which he was not a witness. Consequently, the book is riddled with mistakes and falsehoods. Furthermore, the author puts his main effort into an over-simplified indictment of the American Sherman tank as a "death trap" that delayed eventual victory in the Second World War.

Cooper's indictment of the Sherman tank's inferiority compared to the heavier German Panther and Tiger tanks ignores many important facts. First, the Sherman was designed for mass production and this allowed the Allies to enjoy a 4-1 superiority in numbers. Second, fewer than 50% of the German armor in France in 1944 were Tigers or Panthers. Third, if the German tanks were as deadly as Cooper claims, why did the Germans lose 1,500 tanks in Normandy against about 1,700 Allied tanks? Indeed, Cooper claims that the 3AD lost 648 Shermans in the war, but the division claimed to have destroyed 1,023 German tanks. Clearly, there was no great kill-ratio in the German favor, and the Allies could afford to trade tank-for-tank. Finally, if the Sherman was such a "death trap," why did the US Army use it later in Korea or the Israelis use it in the 1967 War?

There are a great number of mistakes in this book, beginning with Cooper's ridiculous claim that General Patton was responsible for delaying the M-26 heavy tank program. Cooper claims that Patton was at a tank demonstration at Tidworth Downs in January 1944 and that, "Patton...insisted that we should downgrade the M26 heavy tank and concentrate on the M4....This turned out to be one of the most disastrous decisions of World War II, and its effect upon the upcoming battle for Western Europe was catastrophic." Actually, Patton was in Algiers and Italy for most of January 1944, only arriving back in Scotland on 26 January. In fact, it was General McNair of Ground Forces Command, back in the US, who delayed the M-26 program. Cooper sees the M-26 as the panacea for all the US Army's shortcomings and even claims that the American offensive in November 1944, "would have succeeded if we had had the Pershing" and the resulting American breakthrough could have forestalled the Ardennes offensive and "the war could have ended five months earlier." This is just sheer nonsense and ignores the logistical and weather problems that doomed that offensive.

Cooper continually discusses events he did not witness and in fact, only about one-third of the book covers his own experiences. Instead of discussing maintenance operations in detail, Cooper opines about everything from U-Boats, to V-2 rockets, to strategic bombing, to the July 20th Plot. He falsely states that, "the British had secured a model of the German enigma decoding machine and were using it to decode German messages." Cooper writes, "not until July 25, the night before the Saint-Lo breakthrough, was Rommel able to secure the release of the panzer divisions in reserve in the Pas de Clais area." Actually, Rommel was wounded on 17 July and in a hospital on July 25th. In another chapter, Cooper writes that, "the British had bombed the city [Darmstadt] during a night raid in February," and "more than 40,000 died in this inferno." Actually, the RAF bombed Darmstadt on 11 September 1944, killing about 12,000. Dresden was bombed on 13 February 1945, killing about 40,000. Obviously, the author has confused cities and raids.
Even where Cooper is dealing with issues closer to his own experience, he tends to exaggerate or deliver incorrect information. He describes the VII Corps as an "armor corps," but it was not. Cooper's description of a counterattack by the German Panzer Lehr division is totally inaccurate; he states that, "July 11 became one of the most critical in the battle of Normandy. The Germans launched a massive counterattack along the Saint-Lo- Saint Jean de Daye highway..." In fact, one under strength German division attacked three US divisions. The Americans lost only 100 casualties, while the Germans suffered 25% armor losses. The Official history calls this attack "a dismal and costly failure." Cooper wrote that, "Combat Command A...put up a terrific defense in the vicinity of Saint Jean de Daye..." but actually it was CCB, since CCA in reserve. On another occasion, Cooper claims that his unit received the 60,000th Sherman produced, but official records indicate that only 49,234 of all models were built. Cooper claims that the 3rd Armored Division had 17,000 soldiers, but the authorized strength was about 14,500. Can't this guy remember anything correctly?

Cooper's description of the death of MGN Rose is virtually plagiarized from the official history and a number of articles in ARMOR magazine in the past decade reveal that Rose was an extreme risk-taker. Reading "Death Traps," the uninitiated may actually believe that the US Army was badly defeated in Europe. Cooper even claims that, as the 3rd Armored Division approached the Elbe River in the last days of the war that, "with our division spread out and opposed by three new divisions, our situation was critical." If anybody's situation was critical in April 1945, it was Germany's. Actually, the 3rd Armored Division had one key weakness not noted by Cooper, namely the shortage of infantry. The division had a poor ratio of 2:1 between tanks and infantry, and this deficiency often required the 3AD to borrow an infantry RCT from other units. While the much-maligned Sherman tank was far from perfect, it did the job it was designed for, a fact that is missed by this author

 

 



Deathstar_Commander #48 Posted Jun 09 2016 - 00:33

    Major

  • Players
  • 51537 battles
  • 2,531
  • [YODA] YODA
  • Member since:
    05-16-2011

View PostRedBaronK, on Jun 08 2016 - 22:19, said:

Creighton Abrams had unicum stats in his M4 during the war right? 

 

He was a chai sniper i hear.

Deathstar_Commander #49 Posted Jun 09 2016 - 00:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 51537 battles
  • 2,531
  • [YODA] YODA
  • Member since:
    05-16-2011

View PostRounne, on Jun 08 2016 - 23:54, said:

 

Your such a troll. There are many accounts of how crap the M4 Sherman was. Here is another one:

 

 

"These disparities are shown in an account of the famous Lt. Colonel William B. Lovelady, commander of the 3rd Armored Division’s 2ndBattalion, retold by Lt. Colonel Haynes Dugan.

“One of his Shermans turned the corner of a house and got off three shots at the front of a Panther, all bounced off. The Sherman then backed behind the corner and was disabled by a shot penetrating two sides of the house plus the tank.”[iii]

Because of their insufficient armor, the insides of Sherman tanks were prone to catching fire during combat. This problem was compounded when fires ignited shells and other munitions inside a tank. Sherman M4’s were jokingly referred to by British soldiers as “Ronsons”, a brand of lighter whose slogan was “Lights up the first time, every time!”[iv] Polish soldiers referred to them simply as “The Burning Grave”

 

Link: http://archives.libr...rman-tanks-ww2/

 

Sounds like a noob who shoots gun mantlets :P and not lower plates.

RedBaronK #50 Posted Jun 09 2016 - 00:48

    Major

  • Players
  • 41344 battles
  • 2,997
  • [MAIDS] MAIDS
  • Member since:
    11-26-2012

View PostDeathstar_Commander, on Jun 08 2016 - 23:33, said:

 

He was a chai sniper i hear.

 

Don't u dishonor him by calling him that! :izmena:

Deathstar_Commander #51 Posted Jun 09 2016 - 01:05

    Major

  • Players
  • 51537 battles
  • 2,531
  • [YODA] YODA
  • Member since:
    05-16-2011

View PostRedBaronK, on Jun 09 2016 - 00:48, said:

 

Don't u dishonor him by calling him that! :izmena:

 

I just mentioned it because from one tank episode i watched some tanker was talking about how Abrams was always on the battlefield, just never leading the charge. 



Furysghost #52 Posted Jun 09 2016 - 01:42

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 19311 battles
  • 374
  • Member since:
    04-26-2014

View PostWulfeHound, on Jun 08 2016 - 14:30, said:

 

I will enjoy the Sherman, because at least the tank I'm in will be able to reach the battlefield and support, rather than be sitting in a repair depot or on the side of a road waiting for the tank to be repaired or for some more fuel.

 

US forces encountered the Tiger a whopping 3-5 times in the entire war. The British had a couple more encounters. Wow, such a common occurrence.

 

Only the M4 and M4A1 had a radial. The M4A2 had twin diesels, the M4A3 had a petrol V8, and the M4A4/A6 had a Multibank (interestingly enough despite it being the least reliable of the engine options, it was still more reliable than most engines that Germany had used)

 M4A4/A6 had a Multibank (interestingly enough despite it being the least reliable of the engine options, it was still more reliable than most engines that Germany had used.

 

Iirc it was 5 six cyl Chrysler flat head motors in a fan config setup to a common output shaft. Quite ingenious!

 

pic link ..  https://ca.images.se...pg&action=click



Diabeeetus #53 Posted Jun 09 2016 - 02:01

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 572 battles
  • 41
  • Member since:
    07-07-2013
The history channel is a terrible source of information.  They don't have a documentary on how Wittmann (worlds first unicum) had a 100% win rate in a pre buff Tiger 1 while playing against OP Soviet tanks.  Rumors are going around that he uses illegal mods.  

Edited by Diabeeetus, Jun 09 2016 - 02:03.


Furysghost #54 Posted Jun 09 2016 - 02:04

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 19311 battles
  • 374
  • Member since:
    04-26-2014

Most of the M4 Shermans carried outdated AP rounds if they even had them thanks to Gen. McNair.

He also was the one that torpedoed the 76mm gun Shermans initially and created a severe delay in their operational use. Then he ensured they had little if any HVAP ammo to use.

Cause he was anal about supply issues and desired that Shermans only carry HE or anti infantry ammo.

He also believed that towed anti tank guns was the "only" proper way of dealing with enemy tanks! 

The man was a total menace to the US army!



WulfeHound #55 Posted Jun 09 2016 - 02:15

    Major

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

View PostFurysghost, on Jun 08 2016 - 20:04, said:

Most of the M4 Shermans carried outdated AP rounds if they even had them thanks to Gen. McNair.

He also was the one that torpedoed the 76mm gun Shermans initially and created a severe delay in their operational use. Then he ensured they had little if any HVAP ammo to use.

Cause he was anal about supply issues and desired that Shermans only carry HE or anti infantry ammo.

He also believed that towed anti tank guns was the "only" proper way of dealing with enemy tanks! 

The man was a total menace to the US army!

 

The M61 and M72 AP shells were not "obsolete", nor did Shermans carry few AP rounds.

The initial 76mm Shermans had that gun in the 75mm turret. It was cramped and not an effective vehicle.

General McNair did not let his personal opinion overrule the advice of his subordinates, this includes supply, towed AT guns and tank destroyers, etc.

Shermans carried a decent amount of AP as they were expected to fight anything they came across, whether it was enemy armor or infantry or AT guns or whatever.

 

Watch this (already linked earlier in the thread):


Edited by WulfeHound, Jun 09 2016 - 02:17.


Flarvin #56 Posted Jun 09 2016 - 02:45

    Major

  • Players
  • 54273 battles
  • 16,136
  • Member since:
    03-29-2013

View PostDV_Currie_VC, on Jun 08 2016 - 16:44, said:

Basing claims on veterans' reports can also be ill advised. If you believe every vet's story verbatim, then Germany must have won the Normandy campaign, because they must have had 1000's of 88mm guns. Every shell the Germans fired was from an 88.

 

I never claimed to base your opinion on only vets reports. So I don't why you quoted my comment. 

 

 

 



Furysghost #57 Posted Jun 09 2016 - 02:56

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 19311 battles
  • 374
  • Member since:
    04-26-2014

Odd but l read of several tankers memoirs (M4 75mm gun) where they often complained that there was no or very few AP rounds available for them. But all the HE or WP they could carry was always in high supply.

 

The towed AT units as well as TD units got the bulk of any AP rounds issued. Funny tho the 57 mm AT guns often needed HE ammo but could get very little of it.

 

The M72 ammo was the "old" round l referred to the M61 was the actual std for the campaign in France. Diff was about 5mm more pen and more reliable performance/design.

 

Stateside testing had the "experts" believing that the 75mm M-61 AP ammo could not pen well or at all against 1943 German armor. It seems that testing was flawed.

Tankers interviewed in France wondered what all the fuss was about cuz they were knocking out anything up to latest PZ-IV just fine frontally. Panther and Tigers side or rear could be penned keep in mind there were very few of them around in France.

 



Furysghost #58 Posted Jun 09 2016 - 02:58

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 19311 battles
  • 374
  • Member since:
    04-26-2014

While many authors like to lay the blame for armored losses on Patton and his refusal to develop bigger gunned tanks, that blame lies with McNair  and his shortsighted policies (he was more concerned with the logistics of an additional vehicle and caliber to support) that did not reflect the current state of combat.

This is an excerpt from a letter by General McNair to General Devers who strongly pushed for M26 production and deployment: (Pershing)

The M4 tank, particularly the M4A3, has been widely hailed as the best tank on the battlefield today. There are indications that the enemy concurs in this view. Apparently, the M4 is an ideal combination of mobility, dependability, speed, protection, and firepower. Other than this particular request—which represents the British view—there has been no call from any theater for a 90 mm tank gun. There appears to be no fear on the part of our forces of the German Mark VI (Tiger) tank... There can be no basis for the T26 tank other than the conception of a tank versus tank duel—which is believed unsound and unnecessary. Both British and American battle experience has demonstrated that the antitank gun in suitable number and disposed properly is the master of the tank. Any attempt to armor and gun tanks so as to outmatch antitank guns is foredoomed to failure... There is no indication that the 76 mm antitank gun is inadequate against the German Mark VI (Tiger) tank"

It is clear that McNair did not understand the realities of armored combat as in the Bolded section he both shows ignorance of the reality of M4s facing the Tiger and that he was strongly wedded to the tank destroyer doctrine in that a tank to tank duel is "unsound and unnecessary".  The tone of the letter is also insulting in that it insinuates that Devers is promoting the "British view" versus Devers's deeply held views.

While many people mourned his death via friendly fire in 1944 during a bombing raid, I truly believe for the reasons stated above he was the worst US general in WWII as he had an influence in training, selection of leadership, and equipment selection that worked to the detriment of US forces.


Edited by Furysghost, Jun 09 2016 - 03:00.


Pipinghot #59 Posted Jun 09 2016 - 03:43

    Major

  • Players
  • 25960 battles
  • 10,178
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View PostRounne, on Jun 08 2016 - 17:06, said:

Chieftain is wrong. Death Traps is a reliable source because it is an eyewitness account.

...

What you're describing is called "anecdotal evidence", it is based on perceptions, folklore and confirmation bias of the participants, it is not based on a valid study of the facts.

 

The simple truth is that the Sherman acquired a reputation as a deathtrap because so many Sherman crew lived to complain about it, whereas crew in other tanks had a lower survival rate. When lots of people are wrong, they are still wrong, many people repeating the same falsehood does not make it true.

 

 


Edited by Pipinghot, Jun 09 2016 - 18:39.


Ravnican #60 Posted Jun 09 2016 - 04:02

    Captain

  • Players
  • 17472 battles
  • 1,192
  • Member since:
    03-20-2014
Usually I am a proponent of keeping the forum rep system the way it is. However, when threads like these pop up I am reminded of the argument for bringing downvotes back.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users