M4 Sherman
Last Modified:
Category
- M4 Sherman
- medium tank
- Ground Ordnance/World War
- Ground Ordnance/Cold War
- Ground Weapons/Modern Warfare
- US Army/Armored Vehicle
- British Army/Armored Vehicles
- Danish army/armored vehicles
- Canadian Army/Armor Vehicles
- Republic of Korea Armed Forces/Armored Vehicles
- Self-Defense Force/Armored Vehicle
- German Bundeswehr/Armored Vehicles
- Indian Army/Armored Vehicles
- Indonesian military/armored vehicles
- 대만군/기갑차량
- Turkiye Army/Armored Vehicles
- Israeli army/armored vehicles
- Brazilian army/armored vehicles
- Philippine Army/Armored Vehicles
- 1941 public
- Released in 1942
[ Expand/Collapse ]
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||
  |
Medium tank, M4 |
1. outline2. specifications3. glory and frustration
3.1. U.S. Army's first full-fledged medium tank appeared3.2. pros and cons
4. form5. practice6. operating station7. All aspects of reliability and productivity8. overall rating9. media10. model11. look around3.2.1. Productivity and maintainability3.2.2. high altitude3.2.3. target acquisition ability3.2.4. Gloves3.2.5. fire preparedness3.2.6. mobility3.2.7. fire power3.2.8. Scalability and habitability
3.3. Sherman is a medium tank3.4. Advantages buried in unfavorable circumstances3.5. Damage early on the European front3.6. related rumors3.7. after World War II1. outline
Maneuvering video of various M4 Sherman variants |
Medium Tank, M4 (or M4 Sherman ) is a medium -sized tank developed in the United States during World War II , and the name "Sherman" is named after the North Korean War , William Teumchum Sherman . Bondi Military Service Management Bureau was named General Sherman after granting a prefix after granting the name, but only "Sherman" was left as the prefix was eliminated. The US Military Service Management Bureau on November 24, 1944 is also recorded as "General Sherman."[1]
2. specifications
  | |
Change process of M4A1, M4A2, M4A3 | |
Battlefield | 5.89m |
full width | 2.62m |
precedent | 2.74m |
curb weight | 30.3 ~ 38.1t |
front/side armor | Initial 50.8mm (2 inch) 57 degrees Middle and late 63.5mm (2.5 inches)[2] . Sid, rear: 38.1mm (1.5 inches) Engine deck, body top, floor: 25.4mm (1 inch) 101.6mm ~ 114.3mm (4 inches to 4.5 inches) |
turret armor | 75mm gun type: 76.2mm in front of the turret (3 inches) 50.8mm side and rear 88.9mm of barrel guard (3.5 inches) Gun mantlet 50.8-76.2 mm, 105 mm gun mantlet 88.9-127 mm. Mounted 76mm gun: turret mantlet 88.9mm Turret omnidirectional 63.5mm type (initial 76mm) 88.9 mm gun mantlet for late 76 mm guns[3] Turret front 76.2mm, side rear 63.5mm. |
horsepower | 400 to 500 hp[4] |
engine | Continental R-975-C1 9-cylinder air-cooled gasoline engine[5] |
transmission | Spicer 5-speed forward, 1-speed reverse synchromesh manual transmission |
suspension | Vertical and horizontal volute spring suspension (VVSS/HVSS)[9] |
main armament | |
One 76mm M1A1 / A2 / A3 tank gun | |
secondary armament | |
additional armament | |
cruising distance/speed | 193 km / 38-48 km/h (road speed; depending on variant) |
number of passengers | 5 (commander, driver, gunner, loader, co-pilot) |
output | 49,274 units. E8 4,542 Total 53,776 |
3. glory and frustration
Overall history of the M4 Sherman |
3.1. U.S. Army's first full-fledged medium tank appeared
  |
M4 (75) Sherman's internal structure diagram |
As World War II intensified, the tank's performance improved to the point where it was incomparable to that of the interwar period, when tanks equipped with a 37mm main gun or a short-barreled howitzer were only available . The need to develop a new tank equipped with a 75mm main gun was reduced because it was judged that these new tanks of the existing old tanks could not be responded to. Accordingly, after abolishing Article 17 of the National Defense Authorization Act, which had been preventing tank development, he decided to develop a new tank.
Immediately after that , an attempt was made to develop a tank equipped with a 75mm main gun and a pivotable turret, but since the U.S. military had never attempted to mount a 75mm-class main gun on a turret , the M3 Lee was produced with the M2 and M3 75mm tank guns mounted on the hull as a quick stopgap measure .[11] However, since the M3 Lee was equipped with a main gun that was semi-fixed to the hull, it had the drawback of being less responsive than a main gun mounted in a freely rotatable turret. Accordingly, the US military developed the M4 Sherman in 1940 as a proper successor tank with a 75mm main gun mounted on a turret. However, since it was designed using the body inherited from the M2 tank, it was advantageous in production as it was able to utilize production facilities to the maximum, but it had various disadvantages of the old vehicle body.
Because it was compared to the Tiger on the European front, it was often treated as destructive in media covering World War II.[12] It was the first vehicle in the U.S. military to be equipped with a 360-degree swiveling turret and a 75mm-class heavy gun, and at the time of its appearance, it was an excellent tank with all elements of a tank, including armor, firepower, and mobility, being fairly balanced. At the time, cutting-edge technology was applied, and a vertical stabilizer was installed on the main gun so that it could continue to aim at the target while maneuvering. However, since this device only provided limited vertical stability, there are differing evaluations as to how much it increased the accuracy in actual combat. However, it is said that at least it was able to achieve some hits during low-speed maneuvers and was useful in allowing the gunner to continue pursuing the target without losing it outside the scope even during high-speed maneuvers.[13] In the case of Sherman tank commander Lafayette Poole, famous for his record of destroying 258 enemy vehicles, he was said to have particularly preferred firing while maneuvering using the vertical stabilizer to prevent the enemy from predicting it, so it appears that it was not completely useless.[14]
The guns at the time of development were selected as a 75mm gun, which had excellent anti -tank capacity at the time, as well as excellent fast -fire and high -bomb firepower. The prototype of the 75mm gun is developed by France in the end of the 19th century and became a world -class hit cannon, and the US military was also used for the first World War I.It is a 75mm artillery . It is a name that was used as anti -tank guns for a while .[15][16] For reference, the tense name was called the T6 tank .
When the Sherman first appeared in the world, there were no tanks equipped with a 75mm main gun in a rotating turret among the mass-produced tanks except for the 4th Panzer and the T-34 76mm mounted type, so its firepower was sufficient. The development of the Sherman began in 1940 and production began in 1941, but it was not a big problem as it had enough firepower to deal with the main German tanks at the time , the Panzer 3 and Panzer 4 . When evaluated comprehensively, the Sherman was 5 tons heavier and had better attack and defense capabilities than the short-barreled 4th tank of the similar era. Compared to the 4th tank after the new long-armed F2/G type, the main gun penetration power is inferior, but it includes the front of the hull.[17] It was superior in terms of defense.[18] , its attack power was at a level that could easily destroy the frontal armor of the Type 4 Tank G at a standard engagement distance. In the end, even with the No. 4 long gun version, it was possible to fight with the one who saw first and shot first within the standard engagement distance, winning. Even though the driving ability was heavier, except for the ground pressure issue , the horsepower per ton ratio, top speed, and suspension reliability were all superior. Compared to Tank 3, its driving performance was similar except for the ground pressure issue , but its attack and defense capabilities were clearly superior. One of the things that gave Bernard Law Montgomery strength was the 300 Shermans.[19] At the beginning of the Sherman's deployment, Africa lacked the Type 4 F2 tank equipped with a .43 caliber gun, a tank capable of taking on the heavily armored Sherman, so even the 8.8cm FlaK was mobilized.
The problem is that the 75mm gun was continued to be used on the European front after the Normandy landings began in June 1944 . This is most likely due to the US military command, which was optimistic about the performance superiority of the Sherman tank and experienced confusion in anti-tank warfare tactics and weapon development over towed anti-tank guns and anti-tank self-propelled guns.[20] , From a technical perspective, the development/deployment of follow-up main guns was delayed. At the time, the U.S. military paid attention to the 3-inch M5/M7 main gun mounted on the M10 GMC from early 1942, before the appearance of the Tiger, and continued efforts to mount an equivalent gun on the Sherman. However, the existing 3-inch M7 breech was so large that it was literally crammed into the Sherman turret, making it unusable. Even the 76mm M1 anti-tank gun , a lightweight version of the 3-inch gun and mounted on the M18 Hellcat, was so large that it could not be inserted properly even though the breech had already been reduced once, the length of the breech was shortened and the chamber pressure and volume were adjusted to preserve power . The M4A1 Sherman (official name M4A1(76)W), which was already equipped with a 76mm M1 main gun, was deemed unsuitable for use and had to be equipped with a 75mm gun. A usable 76mm gun version of the Sherman was finally developed in 1944, when the T23 medium tank project was canceled and its turret was installed on the Sherman. In addition, the inventory of M4A1(76)W produced was unable to meet D-Day as it had to cross the Atlantic, and it was not until Operation Cobra in July 1944 that the first battle took place.[21] In addition, the M26 Pershing , the successor to replace the Sherman, suffered from a serious heart condition, so they tried to fix it by attaching the T23 turret to the Sherman, but even toward the end of the war, it was not completely resolved and barely participated in a small amount of battle in the form of advance deployment.
Meanwhile, in North Africa and Italy , it was confirmed that the existing 75mm gun could not respond properly when encountering powerful heavy tanks such as the German Army's 6th Tank Tiger, but without proper measures to address this problem, "heavy tanks with such exceptional performance are only a small part of the German army and are not at a level that can have a significant impact on the war situation itself." The casual response increased the sacrifice of Allied tank soldiers. Of course, statistically it wasn't completely wrong, but if we had paid even a little more attention at this time, we could have reduced the sacrifices of the British and American tankers who had the misfortune of encountering and fighting the Tiger. Moreover, at this time, Germany was mass producing the Panther , and this new German tank was just as difficult to deal with as the Tiger. For 75mm guns, you should either give up on the front and aim for the sides or rear, or approach within 500m and aim for vulnerable areas.[22] In theory, it was at a level that could be dealt with, so to defeat it from the front, you had to use a 76mm cannon, if possible, special ammunition such as HVAP, or get as close as possible and aim for the vulnerable part.
Of course, Sherman's 'Tiger Shock' occurred mainly on the European front after 1944, and the production volume of the Tiger itself was very small, and most of the quantity produced in 1943 was deployed to the Eastern Front, a fierce battlefield, so it was difficult for Sherman and Tiger to meet, so there is a view that it is more accurate to call what Sherman experienced 'Panther Shock' rather than 'Tiger Shock'. Long before the Panther appeared, on December 4, 1942, they first encountered each other in Tunisia , North Africa and exchanged fire, and in the meantime, Tiger 131, currently the only mobile vehicle in the world, was captured by the British military. Among them, the Army's 501st Heavy Tank Battalion was deployed to the Eastern Front after withdrawing from North Africa , but the 504th Heavy Tank Battalion remained on the Italian front even after withdrawing from North Africa , fighting defensive battles and engaging British/American Shermans, and the fact that American tankers called German tanks "Tigers".[23] Taking this into account, the Tiger, which appeared before the Panther and showed off its power, caused Allied tankers to recognize the word 'Tiger' as a common noun equivalent to 'German tank' or 'heavy tank', and it would be correct to say that the appearance of the Panther and the resulting shock became 'Tiger Shock' rather than 'Panther Shock'.
Therefore, Sherman's true problem was not the performance of Sherman itself, but the tank system of the US/Young tank that had no tanks to put in . Based on the mid-44 years after the Normandy landing operation , the Soviet Union operated self-propelled artillery and heavy tanks that could deal with Tigger to some extent in addition to its flagship T-34 . Multipurpose heavy self- propelled artillery with Daegu-sided methods such as SU-152 and ISU-152 was able to cause fatal damage to Tigger even with a high bomb. In addition, the anti-aircraft-based dialogue, such as the SU-85 / 100, had a good-up fire-based, and a specialty of the anti-tank warfare . Nevertheless, there were many other self -propelled artillery that could be dealt with to some extent using 122mm guns . In terms of heavy tanks, despite various disadvantages, such as the IS-2,[24] I was able to put a heavy tank that surpassed Tigger in the workshop performance. At this time, the T-34 was already equipped with a 85mm gun that could already be dealt with Tigger, so it was possible to deal with Tigger sufficiently if it was supported or pushed with numbers. In this situation, the Soviet troops , unlike the United States, have a variety of weights of vehicles, and Sherman, who is donated, is just 75mm.[25] I was able to use it without difficulty because it was used for pursuit and infantry support for tanks.
On the other hand, the root of the problem for the U.S. military is that no matter how good its performance was, it had to deal with heavy tanks like the Tiger, which were difficult to compete with in its weight class, with only the Sherman . In terms of fleet warfare, a cruiser without a single battleship had to fight the enemy battleship with a cruiser squadron built on the premise that it would only deal with destroyers or cruisers . No matter how good its performance was, it could not compensate for the difference in combat power resulting from the fundamental difference in weight class, so even if it won, it would have to make a big sacrifice. However, this does not mean that American military technology is so superior in performance that it is decades ahead of its time. The United States also attempted to build something like the M6 tank, but ultimately preferred a lighter medium tank. This was partly due to misjudgment of the performance of enemy tanks, but also because the tanks had to be transported by ship across the ocean and deployed, they were reluctant to use heavy tanks. If you look closely at the photos of the Sherman, you can see that most of the variations had hooks on the front and rear of the car body, which were used to lift the tank and load it onto a ship after tying a rope with a crane. This inconvenient method had to be used due to the structure of cargo ships at the time, and the weight limit for unloading with cranes in the United States at the time was usually 40 tons.[26] Therefore, like Germany, they were not in a position to roll tanks weighing well over 40 tons (Tiger, Panther) like medium tanks.
Another problem was that they did not provide a way to deal with heavy tanks from the beginning, such as introducing a 76mm gun that could catch the Tiger only after the Sherman exploded in a huge explosion. It is true that it is usually used to support infantry, and statistically, the probability of encountering a Tiger was not very high, but once it is encountered, the losses will continue to increase unless the extreme situation is resolved and there is no other way than to die with one's eyes open. No matter how small the numbers are, there is no way if an enemy comes out that you cannot deal with. Of course, the US military also had a dedicated marksman to use when a strong enemy tank appeared. The problem was that the Marksman was an anti-tank self-propelled gun with poor armor , and although it had good firepower,[27] Because its armor was sorely lacking compared to that of a tank , it had to be fought by ambushing and dispatching enemy tanks, so there was no way it could be a proper opponent if it met from the front.
The M36 GMC , introduced at the end of the war, solved the problem of lack of firepower to some extent with its 90mm main gun , but poor armor remained. From the middle of the Great War, Britain 's main battle tanks were also dominated by the Sherman series. Fortunately, this side prepared the Sherman Firefly , but due to various problems with the 17-pounder gun, which was limited only to penetrating power,[28] It had a stronger meaning as an anti-tank self-propelled artillery rather than a tank. If there was a heavy tank like the Soviet Union that could compete with the Tiger, it would be justified in that it would respond by calling in a heavy tank even if the Sherman used a 75mm gun, which has poor penetration for a long time but is better against infantry, but it must be assumed that such a thing should have existed. Therefore, this problem is ultimately an extension of the problem of the lack of heavy tanks. And even the Soviet Union, which had other alternatives, improved its T-34 tank so that it could catch the Tiger.
Immediately after that , an attempt was made to develop a tank equipped with a 75mm main gun and a pivotable turret, but since the U.S. military had never attempted to mount a 75mm-class main gun on a turret , the M3 Lee was produced with the M2 and M3 75mm tank guns mounted on the hull as a quick stopgap measure .[11] However, since the M3 Lee was equipped with a main gun that was semi-fixed to the hull, it had the drawback of being less responsive than a main gun mounted in a freely rotatable turret. Accordingly, the US military developed the M4 Sherman in 1940 as a proper successor tank with a 75mm main gun mounted on a turret. However, since it was designed using the body inherited from the M2 tank, it was advantageous in production as it was able to utilize production facilities to the maximum, but it had various disadvantages of the old vehicle body.
Because it was compared to the Tiger on the European front, it was often treated as destructive in media covering World War II.[12] It was the first vehicle in the U.S. military to be equipped with a 360-degree swiveling turret and a 75mm-class heavy gun, and at the time of its appearance, it was an excellent tank with all elements of a tank, including armor, firepower, and mobility, being fairly balanced. At the time, cutting-edge technology was applied, and a vertical stabilizer was installed on the main gun so that it could continue to aim at the target while maneuvering. However, since this device only provided limited vertical stability, there are differing evaluations as to how much it increased the accuracy in actual combat. However, it is said that at least it was able to achieve some hits during low-speed maneuvers and was useful in allowing the gunner to continue pursuing the target without losing it outside the scope even during high-speed maneuvers.[13] In the case of Sherman tank commander Lafayette Poole, famous for his record of destroying 258 enemy vehicles, he was said to have particularly preferred firing while maneuvering using the vertical stabilizer to prevent the enemy from predicting it, so it appears that it was not completely useless.[14]
The guns at the time of development were selected as a 75mm gun, which had excellent anti -tank capacity at the time, as well as excellent fast -fire and high -bomb firepower. The prototype of the 75mm gun is developed by France in the end of the 19th century and became a world -class hit cannon, and the US military was also used for the first World War I.It is a 75mm artillery . It is a name that was used as anti -tank guns for a while .[15][16] For reference, the tense name was called the T6 tank .
When the Sherman first appeared in the world, there were no tanks equipped with a 75mm main gun in a rotating turret among the mass-produced tanks except for the 4th Panzer and the T-34 76mm mounted type, so its firepower was sufficient. The development of the Sherman began in 1940 and production began in 1941, but it was not a big problem as it had enough firepower to deal with the main German tanks at the time , the Panzer 3 and Panzer 4 . When evaluated comprehensively, the Sherman was 5 tons heavier and had better attack and defense capabilities than the short-barreled 4th tank of the similar era. Compared to the 4th tank after the new long-armed F2/G type, the main gun penetration power is inferior, but it includes the front of the hull.[17] It was superior in terms of defense.[18] , its attack power was at a level that could easily destroy the frontal armor of the Type 4 Tank G at a standard engagement distance. In the end, even with the No. 4 long gun version, it was possible to fight with the one who saw first and shot first within the standard engagement distance, winning. Even though the driving ability was heavier, except for the ground pressure issue , the horsepower per ton ratio, top speed, and suspension reliability were all superior. Compared to Tank 3, its driving performance was similar except for the ground pressure issue , but its attack and defense capabilities were clearly superior. One of the things that gave Bernard Law Montgomery strength was the 300 Shermans.[19] At the beginning of the Sherman's deployment, Africa lacked the Type 4 F2 tank equipped with a .43 caliber gun, a tank capable of taking on the heavily armored Sherman, so even the 8.8cm FlaK was mobilized.
The problem is that the 75mm gun was continued to be used on the European front after the Normandy landings began in June 1944 . This is most likely due to the US military command, which was optimistic about the performance superiority of the Sherman tank and experienced confusion in anti-tank warfare tactics and weapon development over towed anti-tank guns and anti-tank self-propelled guns.[20] , From a technical perspective, the development/deployment of follow-up main guns was delayed. At the time, the U.S. military paid attention to the 3-inch M5/M7 main gun mounted on the M10 GMC from early 1942, before the appearance of the Tiger, and continued efforts to mount an equivalent gun on the Sherman. However, the existing 3-inch M7 breech was so large that it was literally crammed into the Sherman turret, making it unusable. Even the 76mm M1 anti-tank gun , a lightweight version of the 3-inch gun and mounted on the M18 Hellcat, was so large that it could not be inserted properly even though the breech had already been reduced once, the length of the breech was shortened and the chamber pressure and volume were adjusted to preserve power . The M4A1 Sherman (official name M4A1(76)W), which was already equipped with a 76mm M1 main gun, was deemed unsuitable for use and had to be equipped with a 75mm gun. A usable 76mm gun version of the Sherman was finally developed in 1944, when the T23 medium tank project was canceled and its turret was installed on the Sherman. In addition, the inventory of M4A1(76)W produced was unable to meet D-Day as it had to cross the Atlantic, and it was not until Operation Cobra in July 1944 that the first battle took place.[21] In addition, the M26 Pershing , the successor to replace the Sherman, suffered from a serious heart condition, so they tried to fix it by attaching the T23 turret to the Sherman, but even toward the end of the war, it was not completely resolved and barely participated in a small amount of battle in the form of advance deployment.
Meanwhile, in North Africa and Italy , it was confirmed that the existing 75mm gun could not respond properly when encountering powerful heavy tanks such as the German Army's 6th Tank Tiger, but without proper measures to address this problem, "heavy tanks with such exceptional performance are only a small part of the German army and are not at a level that can have a significant impact on the war situation itself." The casual response increased the sacrifice of Allied tank soldiers. Of course, statistically it wasn't completely wrong, but if we had paid even a little more attention at this time, we could have reduced the sacrifices of the British and American tankers who had the misfortune of encountering and fighting the Tiger. Moreover, at this time, Germany was mass producing the Panther , and this new German tank was just as difficult to deal with as the Tiger. For 75mm guns, you should either give up on the front and aim for the sides or rear, or approach within 500m and aim for vulnerable areas.[22] In theory, it was at a level that could be dealt with, so to defeat it from the front, you had to use a 76mm cannon, if possible, special ammunition such as HVAP, or get as close as possible and aim for the vulnerable part.
Of course, Sherman's 'Tiger Shock' occurred mainly on the European front after 1944, and the production volume of the Tiger itself was very small, and most of the quantity produced in 1943 was deployed to the Eastern Front, a fierce battlefield, so it was difficult for Sherman and Tiger to meet, so there is a view that it is more accurate to call what Sherman experienced 'Panther Shock' rather than 'Tiger Shock'. Long before the Panther appeared, on December 4, 1942, they first encountered each other in Tunisia , North Africa and exchanged fire, and in the meantime, Tiger 131, currently the only mobile vehicle in the world, was captured by the British military. Among them, the Army's 501st Heavy Tank Battalion was deployed to the Eastern Front after withdrawing from North Africa , but the 504th Heavy Tank Battalion remained on the Italian front even after withdrawing from North Africa , fighting defensive battles and engaging British/American Shermans, and the fact that American tankers called German tanks "Tigers".[23] Taking this into account, the Tiger, which appeared before the Panther and showed off its power, caused Allied tankers to recognize the word 'Tiger' as a common noun equivalent to 'German tank' or 'heavy tank', and it would be correct to say that the appearance of the Panther and the resulting shock became 'Tiger Shock' rather than 'Panther Shock'.
Therefore, Sherman's true problem was not the performance of Sherman itself, but the tank system of the US/Young tank that had no tanks to put in . Based on the mid-44 years after the Normandy landing operation , the Soviet Union operated self-propelled artillery and heavy tanks that could deal with Tigger to some extent in addition to its flagship T-34 . Multipurpose heavy self- propelled artillery with Daegu-sided methods such as SU-152 and ISU-152 was able to cause fatal damage to Tigger even with a high bomb. In addition, the anti-aircraft-based dialogue, such as the SU-85 / 100, had a good-up fire-based, and a specialty of the anti-tank warfare . Nevertheless, there were many other self -propelled artillery that could be dealt with to some extent using 122mm guns . In terms of heavy tanks, despite various disadvantages, such as the IS-2,[24] I was able to put a heavy tank that surpassed Tigger in the workshop performance. At this time, the T-34 was already equipped with a 85mm gun that could already be dealt with Tigger, so it was possible to deal with Tigger sufficiently if it was supported or pushed with numbers. In this situation, the Soviet troops , unlike the United States, have a variety of weights of vehicles, and Sherman, who is donated, is just 75mm.[25] I was able to use it without difficulty because it was used for pursuit and infantry support for tanks.
On the other hand, the root of the problem for the U.S. military is that no matter how good its performance was, it had to deal with heavy tanks like the Tiger, which were difficult to compete with in its weight class, with only the Sherman . In terms of fleet warfare, a cruiser without a single battleship had to fight the enemy battleship with a cruiser squadron built on the premise that it would only deal with destroyers or cruisers . No matter how good its performance was, it could not compensate for the difference in combat power resulting from the fundamental difference in weight class, so even if it won, it would have to make a big sacrifice. However, this does not mean that American military technology is so superior in performance that it is decades ahead of its time. The United States also attempted to build something like the M6 tank, but ultimately preferred a lighter medium tank. This was partly due to misjudgment of the performance of enemy tanks, but also because the tanks had to be transported by ship across the ocean and deployed, they were reluctant to use heavy tanks. If you look closely at the photos of the Sherman, you can see that most of the variations had hooks on the front and rear of the car body, which were used to lift the tank and load it onto a ship after tying a rope with a crane. This inconvenient method had to be used due to the structure of cargo ships at the time, and the weight limit for unloading with cranes in the United States at the time was usually 40 tons.[26] Therefore, like Germany, they were not in a position to roll tanks weighing well over 40 tons (Tiger, Panther) like medium tanks.
Another problem was that they did not provide a way to deal with heavy tanks from the beginning, such as introducing a 76mm gun that could catch the Tiger only after the Sherman exploded in a huge explosion. It is true that it is usually used to support infantry, and statistically, the probability of encountering a Tiger was not very high, but once it is encountered, the losses will continue to increase unless the extreme situation is resolved and there is no other way than to die with one's eyes open. No matter how small the numbers are, there is no way if an enemy comes out that you cannot deal with. Of course, the US military also had a dedicated marksman to use when a strong enemy tank appeared. The problem was that the Marksman was an anti-tank self-propelled gun with poor armor , and although it had good firepower,[27] Because its armor was sorely lacking compared to that of a tank , it had to be fought by ambushing and dispatching enemy tanks, so there was no way it could be a proper opponent if it met from the front.
The M36 GMC , introduced at the end of the war, solved the problem of lack of firepower to some extent with its 90mm main gun , but poor armor remained. From the middle of the Great War, Britain 's main battle tanks were also dominated by the Sherman series. Fortunately, this side prepared the Sherman Firefly , but due to various problems with the 17-pounder gun, which was limited only to penetrating power,[28] It had a stronger meaning as an anti-tank self-propelled artillery rather than a tank. If there was a heavy tank like the Soviet Union that could compete with the Tiger, it would be justified in that it would respond by calling in a heavy tank even if the Sherman used a 75mm gun, which has poor penetration for a long time but is better against infantry, but it must be assumed that such a thing should have existed. Therefore, this problem is ultimately an extension of the problem of the lack of heavy tanks. And even the Soviet Union, which had other alternatives, improved its T-34 tank so that it could catch the Tiger.
3.2. pros and cons
3.2.1. Productivity and maintainability
Highest rate of tank production (fastest tank production rate) | |||
Target | record | location | date of inscription |
M4 Sherman | Total 48,000 units | USA | |
  |
M4A2 of the 2nd Panzer Division, Free French Army , 6 August 1944 You can guess the amount of production that was able to bestow this amount of Sherman even to allies. |
One of the M4 Sherman's greatest strengths. It is true that tanks such as the German Wehrmacht's Tiger or Panther are more powerful than the Sherman, but the Tiger, which is a symbol of the German army's heavy tanks, took a long time and resources to develop the thickness of the armor and the engine to power the Tiger tank, and because Germany continued to wage war and had limited industrial areas, its quantity was absolutely low. Even the Panther, which was produced in relatively large quantities, was only a handful compared to the volume based on the industrial power of the United States, which had overwhelming land and resources.[29] Even then, the operation rate was not high due to chronic problems with the drivetrain. Compared to the light Panzer 4 , which was the main force of German armored forces, the 75 Sherman was slightly better, and the 76 Sherman was superior in all aspects of performance, reliability, and productivity except for high explosives.[30]
First of all, if you exclude the worst case scenario of encountering and fighting German heavy tanks, the Sherman's basic performance itself is the highest level among tanks in its class, and is suitable for use in the United States / Commonwealth / Soviet Union / Free France / Chinese Nationalist Party.[31] It was used by almost all Allied countries, including the government, and in the case of the United Kingdom , although it was a mass producer of tanks, in the latter stages of the war there were more M4A2 Shermans than domestically produced tanks. They were produced so recklessly that the maximum production number was on par with the Soviet Union's T-34 . In addition, as the U-boats , almost the only force of the German War Navy that could hinder the transport of Shermans produced in the United States to the European front , were gradually reduced to coffins in the sea, there was virtually no chance of the transport ships being sunk, and even if they were destroyed, they could be recovered, repaired, and put back in service, making it possible for the Axis Powers, who were to replenish new ships as they were destroyed, to provide unreasonable supplies. Of course, the suffering of those who retrieve and repair the destroyed Sherman on site is a separate story. It is said that it was indescribably terrible.[32]
First of all, if you exclude the worst case scenario of encountering and fighting German heavy tanks, the Sherman's basic performance itself is the highest level among tanks in its class, and is suitable for use in the United States / Commonwealth / Soviet Union / Free France / Chinese Nationalist Party.[31] It was used by almost all Allied countries, including the government, and in the case of the United Kingdom , although it was a mass producer of tanks, in the latter stages of the war there were more M4A2 Shermans than domestically produced tanks. They were produced so recklessly that the maximum production number was on par with the Soviet Union's T-34 . In addition, as the U-boats , almost the only force of the German War Navy that could hinder the transport of Shermans produced in the United States to the European front , were gradually reduced to coffins in the sea, there was virtually no chance of the transport ships being sunk, and even if they were destroyed, they could be recovered, repaired, and put back in service, making it possible for the Axis Powers, who were to replenish new ships as they were destroyed, to provide unreasonable supplies. Of course, the suffering of those who retrieve and repair the destroyed Sherman on site is a separate story. It is said that it was indescribably terrible.[32]
3.2.2. high altitude
  |
Sherman in rail transport |
Because it was expected that great difficulties would be encountered when operating the Sherman in the British mainland , where railway building specifications were narrow due to its high overall height, the United States even made a set of Warwell-type train trailers and transported them to the UK.[33]
Most American tanks in the early days of World War II, such as the M3 Lee and M6 tanks, were like this, but due to lack of experience in developing tank engines, radial engines for aircraft were adopted. The radial engine had a circular cross-sectional area due to its structure, so there was no choice but to raise the car body.
In addition, there was the problem that the rear engine and front transmission were used, so the power shaft took up space under the car body, raising the car body. This was a problem that also existed in other tanks with similar structures at the same time. However, the Sherman's power shaft was tilted thanks to the radial engine and continued to the transmission. Of course, there were cases like the Hetzer where the power shaft was just exposed, but this was possible because the Hetzer did not have a turret. In addition, the Panther and Tiger also had high bodies, but the body had to be raised to accommodate both the power shaft and torsion bar, which took up space in the lower part. In contrast, the Sherman's suspension was external, so it did not occupy lower volume. If Sherman had adopted a torsion bar, the tank would have been taller than it is now.
When comparing this to the M18 Hellcat GMC , which has the same radial engine as the Sherman and also uses a torsion bar suspension system, more space was needed under the car body when installing the torsion bar , so some gears were added and the power shaft was mounted horizontally on the car body to secure more space.[34]
Thanks to this high height, the disadvantage is that the body's medium -sized tanks are quite high compared to the width, so they are noticeable and easy to be hit.[35] As the defense increased, the weight increased. However, the high height also brought about the advantage of being in a favorable position to secure the watch.
For this reason, the high combat height was perceived as a disadvantage in the European theater of World War II, when it was facing relatively more powerful tanks such as the Panther and Tiger, but the Israeli army in the jungle-filled Pacific theater and later the Middle East war positively evaluated securing visibility through the high combat height. In addition, the internal space was large, so the crew did not get tired easily, making it easier to operate, and it was also advantageous for the crew's survival when attacked, so its combat efficiency was more advantageous than the T-34 tank .[36] Above all, improvements were easy thanks to the large space and spacious design. It was possible to insert the large 17-pounder into the Sherman Firefly or, as in the case of the Israeli army, upgrade gun guns such as the M-50 and M-51 . This space also made it easy to install wet ammunition storage, which had to be installed at the bottom of the car body.
Modern tanks usually have a power pack structure in which the engine and transmission are integrated. However, even by the time Sherman came out, when the transmission was mounted on the rear side with the engine, maintenance was difficult and it was difficult to operate the transmission at the rear of the body from the driver's seat at the front of the body. The reason why it was particularly difficult to operate the transmission of the T-34 mounted on the back of the body was that this part was not handled properly.
On the other hand, the medium tanks with the lowest body during World War II were the Cromwell and the T-34, both of which had engines and transmissions in the rear, so they did not require a power train, and this was possible because they adopted a Christie suspension system that did not occupy the floor space. However, due to a problem with the Christie suspension, the width inside the tank was narrowed. The second-generation tank, the Chieftain Tank , was also able to lower the body as much as possible by using the externally mounted Holstman suspension instead of the torsion bar.
Most American tanks in the early days of World War II, such as the M3 Lee and M6 tanks, were like this, but due to lack of experience in developing tank engines, radial engines for aircraft were adopted. The radial engine had a circular cross-sectional area due to its structure, so there was no choice but to raise the car body.
In addition, there was the problem that the rear engine and front transmission were used, so the power shaft took up space under the car body, raising the car body. This was a problem that also existed in other tanks with similar structures at the same time. However, the Sherman's power shaft was tilted thanks to the radial engine and continued to the transmission. Of course, there were cases like the Hetzer where the power shaft was just exposed, but this was possible because the Hetzer did not have a turret. In addition, the Panther and Tiger also had high bodies, but the body had to be raised to accommodate both the power shaft and torsion bar, which took up space in the lower part. In contrast, the Sherman's suspension was external, so it did not occupy lower volume. If Sherman had adopted a torsion bar, the tank would have been taller than it is now.
When comparing this to the M18 Hellcat GMC , which has the same radial engine as the Sherman and also uses a torsion bar suspension system, more space was needed under the car body when installing the torsion bar , so some gears were added and the power shaft was mounted horizontally on the car body to secure more space.[34]
Thanks to this high height, the disadvantage is that the body's medium -sized tanks are quite high compared to the width, so they are noticeable and easy to be hit.[35] As the defense increased, the weight increased. However, the high height also brought about the advantage of being in a favorable position to secure the watch.
For this reason, the high combat height was perceived as a disadvantage in the European theater of World War II, when it was facing relatively more powerful tanks such as the Panther and Tiger, but the Israeli army in the jungle-filled Pacific theater and later the Middle East war positively evaluated securing visibility through the high combat height. In addition, the internal space was large, so the crew did not get tired easily, making it easier to operate, and it was also advantageous for the crew's survival when attacked, so its combat efficiency was more advantageous than the T-34 tank .[36] Above all, improvements were easy thanks to the large space and spacious design. It was possible to insert the large 17-pounder into the Sherman Firefly or, as in the case of the Israeli army, upgrade gun guns such as the M-50 and M-51 . This space also made it easy to install wet ammunition storage, which had to be installed at the bottom of the car body.
Modern tanks usually have a power pack structure in which the engine and transmission are integrated. However, even by the time Sherman came out, when the transmission was mounted on the rear side with the engine, maintenance was difficult and it was difficult to operate the transmission at the rear of the body from the driver's seat at the front of the body. The reason why it was particularly difficult to operate the transmission of the T-34 mounted on the back of the body was that this part was not handled properly.
On the other hand, the medium tanks with the lowest body during World War II were the Cromwell and the T-34, both of which had engines and transmissions in the rear, so they did not require a power train, and this was possible because they adopted a Christie suspension system that did not occupy the floor space. However, due to a problem with the Christie suspension, the width inside the tank was narrowed. The second-generation tank, the Chieftain Tank , was also able to lower the body as much as possible by using the externally mounted Holstman suspension instead of the torsion bar.
3.2.3. target acquisition ability
Although the high combat height is a disadvantage in that it is easy to be detected by the enemy and is easily hit, it is more advantageous in terms of securing visibility. In addition, it made it easier to secure visibility in many ways, so the later model was equipped with a 1. For example, in Fury , there is a scene where the co-pilot turns the periscope to keep looking at the Tiger while turning to the side of the Tiger during the battle scene with the Tiger.
The Nazi Germans were slightly better than the American counterparts in terms of sight quality.[37] It may have been good for spotting at long range, but the lack of a crew member made it more difficult to find enemies in close quarters. The Tiger's gunner had only a fixed front sight without a periscope, and the Panther had a high-magnification and wide-field sight for the gunner, but unlike the Sherman, there was no non-magnification secondary sight, so it was more disadvantageous in finding targets at close range, so the tank commander gave the gunner It also made it difficult to deliver targets, and the other crew members only had fixed observation windows, which limited visibility. Of course, this is because the high-magnification scope has a narrower viewing angle than the no-magnification to low-magnification scope. In fact, reports from the post-war French military who operated the Panther and Sherman stated that the Panther's aiming time was very slow.
In fact, the early version of the Sherman, like the M3 Lee , only had a periscope on the gunner, so aiming was poor. However, soon after seeing the operational lessons of the M3 and the early model Sherman, a direct sight sight was added starting in 1943, allowing accurate aiming with the direct sight sight and the ability to aim in the turret down state with the periscope sight.
Also Primitive Hunter Killer[38] The presence of the function allowed the commander to move the turret.[39] Because of this, high height + 1 periscope for 1 person + top quality cupola[40] + Vertical Stabilizer + Hunter Killer function combined, the target acquisition ability was the best among WWII tanks . In addition, since the gunner's periscope is linked to the main gun, it is possible to aim with the periscope, aiming at the enemy in a hull-down state, activating the vertical stabilizer, and returning to the turret-down state after firing as soon as the hull-down state is activated, similar to the second-generation main battle tank ( Although it lacked horizontal stability) maneuvering was possible.[41] This is even compared to the early 1st generation main battle tanks of other countries.[42] Only the Centurion tank surpasses the Sherman and falls short of the 2nd generation main battle tank, but considering the age, it is enormous.
Thanks to this, records of Sherman tank crews in World War II often show that they spotted the enemy first and fired first, and there was even testimony from the tank commander that a Tiger encountered at zero range was unable to counterattack until the Sherman had fired dozens of shots. However, because this Sherman was equipped with a 75mm gun, it could not hurt the Tiger, and it is said that the turret was penetrated by the Tiger's counterattack. In tank battles during World War II, the defenders had a superior advantage because it was easier for the defenders to hide and discover the enemy first, and even though Germany was the defenders because it was easier for them to detect the enemy first, the Shermans, which mainly went on the attack, struck first. In the end, based on these advantages, the Easy-Ait, equipped with a 76mm main gun and APCR, had an advantage over the T-34-85 in the Korean War, and in the Middle East War , the M-51 , which was upgraded with a modern main gun , won against the T-54/55 and even has a record of defeating the T-62.
The Nazi Germans were slightly better than the American counterparts in terms of sight quality.[37] It may have been good for spotting at long range, but the lack of a crew member made it more difficult to find enemies in close quarters. The Tiger's gunner had only a fixed front sight without a periscope, and the Panther had a high-magnification and wide-field sight for the gunner, but unlike the Sherman, there was no non-magnification secondary sight, so it was more disadvantageous in finding targets at close range, so the tank commander gave the gunner It also made it difficult to deliver targets, and the other crew members only had fixed observation windows, which limited visibility. Of course, this is because the high-magnification scope has a narrower viewing angle than the no-magnification to low-magnification scope. In fact, reports from the post-war French military who operated the Panther and Sherman stated that the Panther's aiming time was very slow.
In fact, the early version of the Sherman, like the M3 Lee , only had a periscope on the gunner, so aiming was poor. However, soon after seeing the operational lessons of the M3 and the early model Sherman, a direct sight sight was added starting in 1943, allowing accurate aiming with the direct sight sight and the ability to aim in the turret down state with the periscope sight.
Also Primitive Hunter Killer[38] The presence of the function allowed the commander to move the turret.[39] Because of this, high height + 1 periscope for 1 person + top quality cupola[40] + Vertical Stabilizer + Hunter Killer function combined, the target acquisition ability was the best among WWII tanks . In addition, since the gunner's periscope is linked to the main gun, it is possible to aim with the periscope, aiming at the enemy in a hull-down state, activating the vertical stabilizer, and returning to the turret-down state after firing as soon as the hull-down state is activated, similar to the second-generation main battle tank ( Although it lacked horizontal stability) maneuvering was possible.[41] This is even compared to the early 1st generation main battle tanks of other countries.[42] Only the Centurion tank surpasses the Sherman and falls short of the 2nd generation main battle tank, but considering the age, it is enormous.
Thanks to this, records of Sherman tank crews in World War II often show that they spotted the enemy first and fired first, and there was even testimony from the tank commander that a Tiger encountered at zero range was unable to counterattack until the Sherman had fired dozens of shots. However, because this Sherman was equipped with a 75mm gun, it could not hurt the Tiger, and it is said that the turret was penetrated by the Tiger's counterattack. In tank battles during World War II, the defenders had a superior advantage because it was easier for the defenders to hide and discover the enemy first, and even though Germany was the defenders because it was easier for them to detect the enemy first, the Shermans, which mainly went on the attack, struck first. In the end, based on these advantages, the Easy-Ait, equipped with a 76mm main gun and APCR, had an advantage over the T-34-85 in the Korean War, and in the Middle East War , the M-51 , which was upgraded with a modern main gun , won against the T-54/55 and even has a record of defeating the T-62.
3.2.4. Gloves
Contrary to the perception that it was a weakling that could explode with one hit, it had significant defensive power compared to medium tanks of the same class. The image of it exploding like a firecracker is simply because it exploded while dealing with a better weight class opponent such as Tiger or Panther. It is said that the Sherman on the African front in the early days dejected the German army by repelling and counterattacking the German tanks No. 3 and No. 4, which were tanks of the same class . The early version of the Sherman had frontal armor of 50.8 mm and an inclination angle of 57 degrees, giving an actual protection of about 93 mm, while the later version had 63.5 mm of front armor and an inclination angle of 47 degrees, giving an actual protection of about 111 mm. The Soviet T-34 had lower protection than the Sherman with a front hull thickness of 45mm and a 60 degree angle, and although the story is a bit different as it had honest vertical armor, the German Panzer IV only went up to 80mm in the later model, and the Tiger's front hull armor thickness was 100mm. .
However, the reason why the Sherman was easily destroyed was because the Tiger and Panther had superior gun penetration, but it was too late for the Sherman itself to be used in large quantities in the war.[43] , structural problems were also caused. Due to the structural limitations of using a bulky aircraft engine, the front projection area was quite large compared to its size, and because it was elongated from front to back, the side bullet area was also large, and since the shells were carried in that place, it was easy for them to explode. Moreover, the side armor was a problem because it was vertical armor rather than sloped armor and was also quite thin. It's spacious so it's easy to fit, but if you think of that as a weakness, it's perfect. At that time, storing spare ammunition in the chassis was a common feature of all tanks and could easily lead to an explosion.
However, the reason why the Sherman was easily destroyed was because the Tiger and Panther had superior gun penetration, but it was too late for the Sherman itself to be used in large quantities in the war.[43] , structural problems were also caused. Due to the structural limitations of using a bulky aircraft engine, the front projection area was quite large compared to its size, and because it was elongated from front to back, the side bullet area was also large, and since the shells were carried in that place, it was easy for them to explode. Moreover, the side armor was a problem because it was vertical armor rather than sloped armor and was also quite thin. It's spacious so it's easy to fit, but if you think of that as a weakness, it's perfect. At that time, storing spare ammunition in the chassis was a common feature of all tanks and could easily lead to an explosion.
  |
In order to solve the issue of armor that was highlighted against the German defense troops in the real world, front -line tankers used to make a local number of ideas about the issue. It was common to add an infinite orbital piece or welded the armored plates on the front and sides , and even put a piece of iron plate or a concrete and sandbag .[44] However, unlike other countries that squeeze all the capabilities from the beginning, Sherman's scalability was good, so even if the weight increased, the mobility was not great.[45] Jumbo Sherman is an example of defense of the reliability of these platforms, and in this example, the body itself is possible to give more than Tigger's defense.
Additionally, the quality of the rolled steel used as armor material was also quite good. The increased rigidity and hardness were similar to those of the same armor plate, but it also boasted a higher level of quality with better toughness . Welding was also performed in an exemplary manner without affecting the physical properties of the armor material. According to the comments of Soviet Sherman tank crews, the internal armor of the T-34 was often broken and fragments injured the crew even when the tank was not penetrated when hit, but the Sherman received favorable reviews saying that as long as the defense was successful, there would be no damage other than the outside of the armor. There were no problems with armor weld joints breaking, and it boasted excellent quality control that reliably demonstrated the expected level of protection. This is in contrast to the fact that the armor plate for the T-34 produced after 1942 had a decrease in protection of about 10% compared to the armor plate for the U.S. military at the assumed thickness.
Additionally, the quality of the rolled steel used as armor material was also quite good. The increased rigidity and hardness were similar to those of the same armor plate, but it also boasted a higher level of quality with better toughness . Welding was also performed in an exemplary manner without affecting the physical properties of the armor material. According to the comments of Soviet Sherman tank crews, the internal armor of the T-34 was often broken and fragments injured the crew even when the tank was not penetrated when hit, but the Sherman received favorable reviews saying that as long as the defense was successful, there would be no damage other than the outside of the armor. There were no problems with armor weld joints breaking, and it boasted excellent quality control that reliably demonstrated the expected level of protection. This is in contrast to the fact that the armor plate for the T-34 produced after 1942 had a decrease in protection of about 10% compared to the armor plate for the U.S. military at the assumed thickness.
3.2.5. fire preparedness
The talk about 'Ronson Reiter' is nonsense. As you know, German tanks also used the same gasoline engine. And it is a rumor that gasoline causes fire. If you read any analysis of tank fires, whether German or American, the main cause is always ammunition . The biggest cause of tank fires in World War II was ammunition because ammunition fires could not be extinguished. On the other hand, a tank that caught fire because of the gasoline in its engine could be extinguished. Most World War II tanks were equipped with fire extinguishers, so if a fire broke out in the engine compartment, it could be extinguished without any problems as long as it was not too serious. However, once the ammunition fire started, it was over. This was because tank shell propellants also contained oxidizers. And the early Shermans loaded ammunition on the side of the hull, which added to the problem by cramming the ammunition into a small space. However, the problem disappeared in the late summer of 1944, when Shermans equipped with wet ammunition magazines began to be deployed.
The biggest reason why Ronson's comments are wrong is because people don't even pay attention to the German example. The Germans were also experiencing the same problems with tanks such as the Panzer IV and the Panther, and the Panther in particular was notorious for being a fire starter due to its fuel duct leaks and transmission characteristics.[46] However, perhaps because there wasn't much data, people didn't think to look at the German data. Records and memoirs in English are easily accessible, but German materials are not. And there is little German material itself. There are dozens or hundreds of memoirs by American or British tankers complaining about the Sherman, but there are almost no memoirs by German tankers who drove the Panzer IV or Panther on the Western Front. There are only a few on the Eastern Front. If there had been one, you would have read the same complaints as the Sherman tank crew. In fact, if you look at the photographic data, you can easily find examples of German tanks causing ammunition explosions like the Sherman. The level of ammunition protection of the Panzer IV was no better than that of the Sherman.
I think all of this is a matter of perspective. There are many records related to American and British fire, but there is no comparable German military data. There is also a problem with too much attention being paid to Tigger. There are mountains of Tiger crew memoirs, but Tigers were rare even on the Eastern Front. On the other hand, the proportion of the memoirs of the crews of the Panzer IV and Panther, which were much more numerous, is small.
  |
Destroyed Sherman tank |
Sherman's most famous nickname is 'Ronson Reiter'. The advertising slogan for this lighter is 'It lights up right away!'[47] Because it was. This nickname became famous when it was mentioned in the History Channel 's 'World War II History in Color' - The Shadow of Weapons episode.[48] However, in fact, the lighters supplied to American soldiers during the war were mainly Zippo , so if they wanted to give it a nickname because it catches fire fantastically well, they should have just called it Zippo. In fact, in the Pacific theater , the G4M , a highly flammable Japanese bomber, was called Zippo, but among the Sherman series vehicles, only the tank equipped with a flamethrower was nicknamed Zippo .
In fact, the Sherman wasn't a tank that exploded instantly when hit . In Normandy , the Sherman had an 82% chance of catching fire when hit, averaging 1.89 penetrations, but a German Panzer IV on the same front had an 80% chance of catching fire with an average of 1.5 penetrations.[49] In the end, it is a story that Sherman or No. 4 was that guy.
Unless the tank was powered by a diesel engine that used diesel fuel, which does not catch fire easily, the probability of fire in a tank equipped with a gasoline engine that used gasoline was almost constant. That doesn't mean diesel engines don't catch fire, though. To be precise, diesel (diesel oil) has a low probability of causing a fire, but in a diesel engine, the pressure and temperature are already high to explode the diesel engine, so if the engine is hit, a fire occurs. German tanks such as the Tiger and Panther had relatively thick armor, so there were only a few cases where the engine was hit directly by a shell, and there was not much difference in the probability of fire in case of penetration. The reason why the Sherman was nicknamed Ronson Reiter (although, as mentioned above, it is doubtful whether it was a real nickname) was because the Sherman's armor penetrated very well, not because the engine fire rate was abnormally high compared to other tanks. Even for Tank No. 4, the fire probability was similar, and since the T-34 is a tank equipped with a diesel engine, the fire probability was naturally low. It is true that the Sherman's structure made it easy for a shell to explode if the side was hit, but like any tank, if a shell exploded, it would go to the goal. There is also a case where the Tiger 2, which is notorious for its defensive power, was destroyed when it was hit on the side of the turret at close range and the shell exploded. Even in its first debut, as many as three T-34-85s I was torn apart by one vehicle. However, due to the large number of Shermans produced and their relatively thin armor compared to Tigers and Panthers (relatively, in any case), and when engaged with them, without considering tactical proficiency or air defense position during battle, only the result of high exchange of fire losses, such as an average of 5 Shermans exploding for every 1 Sherman, gave rise to the erroneous stereotype that they burn easily.
Moreover , there is a reason why gasoline engines were used instead of diesel engines; the use of diesel engines in Soviet tanks such as the T-34 was unusual during World War II. Of course, there are quite a few tanks that use diesel engines if you look closely. The problem is that the performance of the M11/39 series, the Type 89 tank Chiro , and the Type 97 tank Chiha are all dismal, and one of the reasons for the poor performance of these tanks was the low output of the diesel engine and the enormous noise and vibration during operation . So, during the Pacific War , the Japanese military's plan to launch a nighttime surprise attack on the U.S. military was once discovered due to tank noise. For this reason, it is safe to say that the only successful tank using a diesel engine is the T-34. In short, Germany, France, England, and Italy do not use gasoline for no reason even though they burn well.
High maintainability and reliability are most important in the field, but diesel engines at that time did not meet these conditions. A diesel engine is structurally larger and heavier than a gasoline engine of the same output, and the production cost is also high, and above all, it was difficult to greatly increase the output with the technology at the time. This is a very fatal flaw, so in the past, the US Army and the Republic of Korea Army used gasoline engines in all military vehicles. In that respect, a gasoline engine can never be a disadvantage. Rather, diesel engines were adopted due to the special situation of the Soviet Army at the time. In other words, if you look at the performance of the diesel engine , it would have been easy to overcome the muddy environment of Russia because of the good torque. And the Soviet Union was a country capable of coping with the high consumption of diesel engines, and preferred engines that could be mass-produced cheaply and quickly even if they were less reliable than engines that were reliable but required high prices and time.[50] But the United States was the only country that could supply the world's best engines quickly and cheaply without that compromise. So, simply put, the fact that the Sherman did not employ a diesel engine was rather an appropriate choice for the US Army.
There is also room for doubt as to whether the gasoline engine was the main cause of the fire in the first place. The US Army's research shows that the Sherman, which adopts the Wet Stowage type, which fills the area around the magazine with water to prevent explosions, reduces the probability of fire when hit by a hit from 80% to 15%. As mentioned above, according to a study by Stephen Zalloga, it is a rumor that gasoline is the cause of the fire.
Nicholas Moran "Chieftain", an employee of Wargaming and famous for his tank exploration videos , argues that while the fire rate is important, the survival/death rate of tank crews should also be looked at. The mortality rate of Sherman tank soldiers operated by the U.S. military was about 3% before the war, which was a relatively safe position compared to the infantry, which had a mortality rate of 18.5%, and when a U.S. Army Sherman vehicle was destroyed, the tank soldier mortality rate was 0.3 per vehicle.[51] In the case of the British Army's Sherman, it was 0.6.[52] , the T-34 has about 1.8 people, and it is said that the Sherman was a safer tank from the tanker's perspective than the T-34. This difference in survival rate is related to the number and location of hatches through which tankers can escape in the event of a fire. The Sherman had four hatches through which tankers could escape just above the seats and an emergency exit leading under the vehicle, allowing tankers to escape relatively quickly even in the event of a fire, whereas the T-34 had only a hatch in the turret ceiling and a narrow front driver's hatch, and the small size of the vehicle took too much time to escape.[53] There was a small emergency exit on the floor for the driver and front machine gunner, but they were usually the first to die when hit, so it was difficult for the rest of the crew to use that exit. The mortality rate of tank crews when hit by the British Sherman was no different from that of the Cromwell tank , A30 Challenger , or Comet tanks that were operated at the same time , so it can be said that the Sherman was not particularly prone to fire.
In fact, the Sherman wasn't a tank that exploded instantly when hit . In Normandy , the Sherman had an 82% chance of catching fire when hit, averaging 1.89 penetrations, but a German Panzer IV on the same front had an 80% chance of catching fire with an average of 1.5 penetrations.[49] In the end, it is a story that Sherman or No. 4 was that guy.
Unless the tank was powered by a diesel engine that used diesel fuel, which does not catch fire easily, the probability of fire in a tank equipped with a gasoline engine that used gasoline was almost constant. That doesn't mean diesel engines don't catch fire, though. To be precise, diesel (diesel oil) has a low probability of causing a fire, but in a diesel engine, the pressure and temperature are already high to explode the diesel engine, so if the engine is hit, a fire occurs. German tanks such as the Tiger and Panther had relatively thick armor, so there were only a few cases where the engine was hit directly by a shell, and there was not much difference in the probability of fire in case of penetration. The reason why the Sherman was nicknamed Ronson Reiter (although, as mentioned above, it is doubtful whether it was a real nickname) was because the Sherman's armor penetrated very well, not because the engine fire rate was abnormally high compared to other tanks. Even for Tank No. 4, the fire probability was similar, and since the T-34 is a tank equipped with a diesel engine, the fire probability was naturally low. It is true that the Sherman's structure made it easy for a shell to explode if the side was hit, but like any tank, if a shell exploded, it would go to the goal. There is also a case where the Tiger 2, which is notorious for its defensive power, was destroyed when it was hit on the side of the turret at close range and the shell exploded. Even in its first debut, as many as three T-34-85s I was torn apart by one vehicle. However, due to the large number of Shermans produced and their relatively thin armor compared to Tigers and Panthers (relatively, in any case), and when engaged with them, without considering tactical proficiency or air defense position during battle, only the result of high exchange of fire losses, such as an average of 5 Shermans exploding for every 1 Sherman, gave rise to the erroneous stereotype that they burn easily.
Moreover , there is a reason why gasoline engines were used instead of diesel engines; the use of diesel engines in Soviet tanks such as the T-34 was unusual during World War II. Of course, there are quite a few tanks that use diesel engines if you look closely. The problem is that the performance of the M11/39 series, the Type 89 tank Chiro , and the Type 97 tank Chiha are all dismal, and one of the reasons for the poor performance of these tanks was the low output of the diesel engine and the enormous noise and vibration during operation . So, during the Pacific War , the Japanese military's plan to launch a nighttime surprise attack on the U.S. military was once discovered due to tank noise. For this reason, it is safe to say that the only successful tank using a diesel engine is the T-34. In short, Germany, France, England, and Italy do not use gasoline for no reason even though they burn well.
High maintainability and reliability are most important in the field, but diesel engines at that time did not meet these conditions. A diesel engine is structurally larger and heavier than a gasoline engine of the same output, and the production cost is also high, and above all, it was difficult to greatly increase the output with the technology at the time. This is a very fatal flaw, so in the past, the US Army and the Republic of Korea Army used gasoline engines in all military vehicles. In that respect, a gasoline engine can never be a disadvantage. Rather, diesel engines were adopted due to the special situation of the Soviet Army at the time. In other words, if you look at the performance of the diesel engine , it would have been easy to overcome the muddy environment of Russia because of the good torque. And the Soviet Union was a country capable of coping with the high consumption of diesel engines, and preferred engines that could be mass-produced cheaply and quickly even if they were less reliable than engines that were reliable but required high prices and time.[50] But the United States was the only country that could supply the world's best engines quickly and cheaply without that compromise. So, simply put, the fact that the Sherman did not employ a diesel engine was rather an appropriate choice for the US Army.
There is also room for doubt as to whether the gasoline engine was the main cause of the fire in the first place. The US Army's research shows that the Sherman, which adopts the Wet Stowage type, which fills the area around the magazine with water to prevent explosions, reduces the probability of fire when hit by a hit from 80% to 15%. As mentioned above, according to a study by Stephen Zalloga, it is a rumor that gasoline is the cause of the fire.
Nicholas Moran "Chieftain", an employee of Wargaming and famous for his tank exploration videos , argues that while the fire rate is important, the survival/death rate of tank crews should also be looked at. The mortality rate of Sherman tank soldiers operated by the U.S. military was about 3% before the war, which was a relatively safe position compared to the infantry, which had a mortality rate of 18.5%, and when a U.S. Army Sherman vehicle was destroyed, the tank soldier mortality rate was 0.3 per vehicle.[51] In the case of the British Army's Sherman, it was 0.6.[52] , the T-34 has about 1.8 people, and it is said that the Sherman was a safer tank from the tanker's perspective than the T-34. This difference in survival rate is related to the number and location of hatches through which tankers can escape in the event of a fire. The Sherman had four hatches through which tankers could escape just above the seats and an emergency exit leading under the vehicle, allowing tankers to escape relatively quickly even in the event of a fire, whereas the T-34 had only a hatch in the turret ceiling and a narrow front driver's hatch, and the small size of the vehicle took too much time to escape.[53] There was a small emergency exit on the floor for the driver and front machine gunner, but they were usually the first to die when hit, so it was difficult for the rest of the crew to use that exit. The mortality rate of tank crews when hit by the British Sherman was no different from that of the Cromwell tank , A30 Challenger , or Comet tanks that were operated at the same time , so it can be said that the Sherman was not particularly prone to fire.
Comparison of emergency exit between Sherman and other tanks |
Hatch, located just above Sherman's control, also increased the survival of the crew. During World War II, the other tank was not right above the crew. It depends on the side, front, and upper diagonal directions, and the heavy tank Tigger is also diagonally direction.
As you can see in the video above, the size of the hatch and the space around it were particularly generous. Nicholas Moran (Chieftain), who filmed the video, is 191cm tall, which is much taller than a typical tankman, so when escaping from another tank, he suffered difficulties such as getting caught in the middle, but even with that size, he escaped as easily as Sherman . Although the effect of the hatch size was not specifically captured in the statistics, he was too tall to be able to take on the tanker position he wanted to take at all, and even the chieftain, who had to go through the OCS and become a tank commander by force, had enough room to escape easily, so a normal tanker could get out of a tank that was hit. It must have been quite helpful when escaping in a hurry. Especially considering that if the tank was hit and he had to escape, he might already be injured.
As you can see in the video above, the size of the hatch and the space around it were particularly generous. Nicholas Moran (Chieftain), who filmed the video, is 191cm tall, which is much taller than a typical tankman, so when escaping from another tank, he suffered difficulties such as getting caught in the middle, but even with that size, he escaped as easily as Sherman . Although the effect of the hatch size was not specifically captured in the statistics, he was too tall to be able to take on the tanker position he wanted to take at all, and even the chieftain, who had to go through the OCS and become a tank commander by force, had enough room to escape easily, so a normal tanker could get out of a tank that was hit. It must have been quite helpful when escaping in a hurry. Especially considering that if the tank was hit and he had to escape, he might already be injured.
3.2.6. mobility
In the Sherman vs. Tiger debate, the main argument of the side defending the Sherman is, "The Sherman's mobility is superior to that of the 6th Panzer Tiger, so if you turn around and aim for the side, you can destroy it!" This is half right and half wrong. In fact, the commanders at the time claimed this and operated it like this, but suffered considerable damage in the process.[54] The Sherman's mobility was superior to that of the 4th and 3rd tanks, which were Germany's main battle tanks in the early and mid-war period, but it was inferior to German tanks such as the 6th tank, the Tiger , and the 5th tank, the Panther (though these were speedier in terms of specifications).
According to catalog specifications, Sherman's top speed is 38-48 km/h, average road speed is 33 km/h, and average cross-country speed is 17-32 km/h. The average road speed of tanks of other countries, which can achieve a speed of 40 km/h, was slightly inferior, but the average field speed was up to 32 km/h, which was superior to the Tiger and T-34-85, which only reached a maximum of 25 km/ h . The weight-to-weight ratio is also not bad at 13-16hp/t.[55] Rather, Albert Speer, Minister of Armaments of the Third Reich, highly praised Sherman's mobility in his memoir, Inside the Third Reich.
According to catalog specifications, Sherman's top speed is 38-48 km/h, average road speed is 33 km/h, and average cross-country speed is 17-32 km/h. The average road speed of tanks of other countries, which can achieve a speed of 40 km/h, was slightly inferior, but the average field speed was up to 32 km/h, which was superior to the Tiger and T-34-85, which only reached a maximum of 25 km/ h . The weight-to-weight ratio is also not bad at 13-16hp/t.[55] Rather, Albert Speer, Minister of Armaments of the Third Reich, highly praised Sherman's mobility in his memoir, Inside the Third Reich.
The Sherman captured on the southwestern Italian front showed excellent mobility in the open air. It was capable of driving sufficiently even in mountainous terrain where our tanks could not drive. One great thing is that the Sherman had a powerful engine for its weight. The Sherman's off-road driving ability was far superior to that of tanks of the same class belonging to our 26th Armored Division.Speer, Albert (2009). Inside the Third Reich. Ishi Press. p. 2nd note on chapter 17
However, this is only a story compared to the 3rd and 4th tanks, which are lighter than the Sherman. Although the specs in the catalog were superior, the Sherman's actual fielding capabilities were inferior to German heavy tanks such as the Tiger. Sherman's high ground pressure played a role here. VVSS[56] The orbital width of its older brother Sherman was only 421mm, which caused an incredibly high ground pressure of 0.96kg/cm^2 despite its weight of 30 tons. Although it weighs over 50 tons, it has overlapping bogie wheels that are advantageous for load distribution.[57] When compared to Tiger's ground pressure of 0.735kg/cm^2 using a wide track, it is clearly inferior.[58] As a result, a tragedy occurred in which the Tiger and Panther were unable to drive on drivable terrain.[59]
The German Panther and Tiger have wider tracks, making them more maneuverable on open terrain, in mud and snow than the Sherman tanks, which have extremely narrow tracks. As a temporary measure, I added an additional duck bill to expand the ground contact area, but it did not work as a fundamental solution. In my personal opinion, our Shermans have poor mobility compared to the German Panther and Tiger tanks.—Lieutenant Henry W. Johnson, commander of Fox Company, 66th Armored Regiment. #
The command insists that our tanks have good mobility. Recently we tested a captured German Mark 5 in our tank test conditions. Whether in the open field or on the road, the German tanks were not only faster than ours, but they were also able to turn neatly. It also excelled in hill driving.US 2nd Armored Division, Lieutenant Colonel Wilson M. Hawkins
From my point of view, the Panther and Tiger had superior maneuverability (than our tank) as well as rough terrain capability. I witnessed Panthers and Tigers running wild in places where Sherman spreads. I've even seen at least 10 Königstiger counterattack the Sherman through nearly impossible terrain.US Army 2nd Armored Division, Tank Platoon Platoon Commander Charles A. Calden[60]
The ground pressure of the Sherman tank in the open field is disastrously poor. It maneuvered well on hard ground, but in the open field with soft humus, it sometimes failed to advance while digging in the middle of a turn. Even more serious is the non-combat loss of soldiers. In order to avoid being wiped out by German night mortar attacks, all crew members often slept under the tank, but on soft ground, the tank slowly sank and all were crushed.Pilot of the 5th Canadian Armored Division
VVSS, which is mounted for high -speed driving performance on the road, has caused a significant drop in maneuverability in Yaji. Also, as mentioned above, Sherman's turning radius was also 18.6m. Eventually, the tanker tried to lower the ground pressure in various ways, such as adding an adapter called Duckbills outside the track, and this problem was solved by the HVSS -type Sherman using wide orbit. The problem is that the production of HVSS -type Sherman began in May 1944, but the massive dissemination was made after it broke out to die in Normandy. Still, even though it wasn't good in Yaji, the maneuvering in the city was certainly quiet and fast, thanks to the rubber pad of the track.
An easily overlooked advantage of the Shemian in terms of mobility was its excellent strategic mobility. As a tank made in the automobile kingdom, the Sherman had excellent engine and drivetrain durability, allowing it to perform long-distance strategic maneuvers without any problems. On the other hand, the Panther, Tiger and Tiger 2 were already running their engines too hard and the durability of the drivetrain was not good, so it was difficult to make strategic maneuvers covering hundreds of kilometers under their own power. Therefore, the principle was that these tanks were to be transported by train unconditionally during strategic maneuvers, and their speed when moving around in non-combat situations had to be limited to 25 km/h. The Sherman had no such restrictions regardless of its type, and when the British side was testing the A38 Valiant , they concluded that it would be better to just use the Sherman because the previously purchased Sherman had passed the test of being able to maneuver alone at a distance of 2,500 km. The ability to make strategic maneuvers on one's own without relying on trains in an urgent battlefield was a very useful advantage for the US and British troops, who were in the position of the attackers.
3.2.7. fire power
Before discussing the firepower of the M4 Sherman, it is necessary to understand the differences between the US Army's 75mm tank gun and 76mm tank gun at the time.
People who are not familiar with the military field may wonder what the difference is between the calibers of 75mm and 76mm, when there is only a 1mm difference. However, as you can see from the photo below, the only difference between the US military's 75mm tank shell and 76mm tank shell is the warhead caliber, and the part of the shell into which the charge goes is almost twice that of the 75mm for the 76mm. The kinetic energy of a shell is determined by the speed of the warhead In other words, the 76mm M1 tank shell was made to have a faster muzzle velocity by significantly increasing the charge, making it more powerful compared to the 75mm.[61]
People who are not familiar with the military field may wonder what the difference is between the calibers of 75mm and 76mm, when there is only a 1mm difference. However, as you can see from the photo below, the only difference between the US military's 75mm tank shell and 76mm tank shell is the warhead caliber, and the part of the shell into which the charge goes is almost twice that of the 75mm for the 76mm. The kinetic energy of a shell is determined by the speed of the warhead In other words, the 76mm M1 tank shell was made to have a faster muzzle velocity by significantly increasing the charge, making it more powerful compared to the 75mm.[61]
What can you do when a German tank with a faster muzzle velocity fires at you from outside the range of the Sherman's main gun? I've seen Germans destroy our tanks at 1,000 meters, but I've never seen our Shermans destroy Panthers or Tigers at more than 300 meters. (M4 Sherman at War)
Shall we speak frankly? Our armored units are like idiots, so it's our Air Force and Army Air Corps that actually destroy Panthers and Tigers. Or maybe the Germans blew themselves up. And on the other hand, the dirty German bastards' armored forces are so strong that 85% of our tanks were hit by German tanks, assault guns and anti-tank guns .
To be honest, our 75 and 76mm guns with their slow muzzle velocity cannot compete with the Germans' 75 and 88mm guns.ㅡ Captain Henry W. Johnson, commander of Fox Company, 66th Armored Regiment.
The U.S. Munitions Department began a project to replace the Sherman during World War II . However, while mass production was delayed due to problems arising during development, the date for the Normandy landings was set at the Trident Conference (May 25, 1943). As it was judged that the new tank would not be completed before D-Day, only the new main gun, the 76mm gun M1, was prepared for mass production by mounting the T23 turret on the Sherman in June 1943, before the landing operation, and mass production began in January 1944 (M4A1E6 Sherman). However, even though 200 tanks arrived in the UK due to transatlantic transport, they were excluded from the landing operation for reasons such as lack of training time for model conversion. It was not deployed on D-Day, and German tanks and Shermans faced each other equipped with 75mm guns.[62] Ultimately, the M4A1E6 equipped with the new main gun will participate in Operation Cobra in July .
gun (ammunition) | 500 yards (457 m) | 1000 yards (914 m) | 1500 yards (1371 m) | 2000 yards (1828 m) |
75mm M3 (AP M72) | 76mm | 63mm | 51mm | 43mm |
75mm M3 (APC M61) | 66mm | 60mm | 55mm | 50mm |
76mm M1A1 (AP M79) | 109mm | 92mm | 76mm | 64mm |
76mm M1A1 (APCBC M62) | 93mm | 88mm | 82mm | 75mm |
76mm M1A1 (HVAP M93) | 157mm | 135mm | 116mm | 98mm |
17 Pounder (APCBC MK.VIII T) | 140mm | 130mm | 120mm | 111mm |
17 pounder (SVDS[63] ) | 208mm | 192mm | 176mm | 161mm |
The indicated penetration is the result of shooting at an RHA steel plate tilted at 30 degrees.[64]
But even that 76mm wasn’t as cool as I thought. First of all, the 76mm gun had sufficient firepower when production began in 1942, but it was not actually installed until January 1944 when the T23 turret was released and mounted on the Sherman, and it began to be deployed in mid-1944 after the Allies encountered new German tanks, including the Tiger and Panther. Moreover, the U.S. military leadership decided that if 76mm was used, the Panther and Tiger would be capable of dealing with domestically produced tanks. This is because the decision was made after obtaining information about the thickness of the Panther's armor, shooting at an armor plate of the same thickness, and finding that it could penetrate. But when we actually faced each other, the story was completely different. Some say it is because of the angle of impact, but it is not because the Sherman also used sloped armor, but because there was a difference in the material of the armor. German-made armor plates were harder than American-made ones , so even with the same thickness, they withstood blows better, but were weak against sustained blows or large impacts.
But even that 76mm wasn’t as cool as I thought. First of all, the 76mm gun had sufficient firepower when production began in 1942, but it was not actually installed until January 1944 when the T23 turret was released and mounted on the Sherman, and it began to be deployed in mid-1944 after the Allies encountered new German tanks, including the Tiger and Panther. Moreover, the U.S. military leadership decided that if 76mm was used, the Panther and Tiger would be capable of dealing with domestically produced tanks. This is because the decision was made after obtaining information about the thickness of the Panther's armor, shooting at an armor plate of the same thickness, and finding that it could penetrate. But when we actually faced each other, the story was completely different. Some say it is because of the angle of impact, but it is not because the Sherman also used sloped armor, but because there was a difference in the material of the armor. German-made armor plates were harder than American-made ones , so even with the same thickness, they withstood blows better, but were weak against sustained blows or large impacts.
  |
M62 APCBC VS Tigger , Pantter[65] The part of the FAIL is virtually not penetrated even in the distance that is close to the distance, and the EASY can penetrate even at a distance of more than 3500 yards, which is the maximum distance that can be aimed at the time, and the other number is 1200 and 1200. |
  |
Similar results were obtained in the German Army Ordnance Division 1's own Panther penetration test against the Sherman.[66]
In addition, the timing of the construction was ambiguous, so the M4A1 (76) was produced only in January 1944 and was excluded from landing operations where anti-infantry capabilities were considered important, so D-Day was missed, and it debuted in Operation Cobra in July 1944. do. In the end, with only a month difference in time, the evaluations of Sherman (76) and Sherman Firefly are polarized. Even if you change it to 76 above, "Neither 75 nor 76 will work from the front, right? And anyway, if you have to aim for the side and dig in, 75 is much better because it is lighter, runs faster, and has a good rate of fire." And there was even a case where they refused to receive 76 Shermans. The representative unit was the US 4th Armored Division, which stood at the forefront of the Battle of Arracourt and completely eliminated even the German Panthers. However, it may have been done in a hurry because replacing the gun requires more preparation than expected. First of all, you need artillery shells, you need to retrain existing crews and maintainers, you need to create new doctrine, etc., so you can't just change it on a whim.[67]
They belatedly recognized the situation and took action, but it was too late, and the M93 HVAP bullet, which could penetrate the Panther's front armor, was officially adopted around February 1945, when the Tiger and Panther were slowly drying up. In addition, small-diameter high-speed bullets such as 76mm class HVAP were not a perfect solution as their power rapidly decreased as the distance increased and they were severely affected by the angle of incidence. In a comparative test of the penetration power of the US military's 76mm and 17-pounder anti-tank guns conducted on August 30, 1944, three out of four 76mm HVAP rounds fired at a distance of 200 yards against the front of the Panther, one out of two 17-pound APDS rounds that hit, and two APCBC rounds only caused cracks and failed to penetrate.[68] According to the results of the penetration test on RHA steel plate, all bullets should have penetrated the Panther's front armor at a distance of 200 yards.
However, if the T20 had replaced the Sherman as planned, it was not a misjudgment for the leadership to withhold the hiring of the 76mm (including the 17-pounder). Because 76mm lacks high explosive firepower,[69] When deploying the 76mm Sherman, it became a side grade , and it was necessary to deploy a mix of 105mm Shermans and 75mm Shermans to supplement it. However, to unify with only 76mm anti-tank guns like Germany, anti-infantry warfare was overwhelmingly more important than anti-tank warfare, and 76mm already had anti-tank self-propelled guns. Since it was being used, if the same gun was mounted on the Sherman, it would become a duplicate investment like a German tank destroyer .
In addition, the quantity of 75mm M64 white phosphorus smoke bombs was small, at about 10% of the total load, but in addition to its original purpose, it was used for anti-infantry, anti-position, and anti-vehicle use.[70] It received great praise as an all-purpose shell that could be used for any purpose. Conversely, because the performance of the 76mm M88 smoke grenade was so-so, tank battalions that were replaced with 76mm gun Shermans often continued to operate one or two 75mm gun Shermans for the purpose of firing white phosphorus smoke grenades.
In the end, the misjudgment of the United States was about the installation of 90mm guns along with Sherman's upgun hold, and the Armory Bureau demanded that the Sherman (tank) be equipped with 90mm, but the Ordnance Bureau was satisfied with the 76mm and did not decide whether to mount 90mm on the T25 (tank). After arguing over whether the 90mm was necessary, it was concluded that the 90mm would be produced by mounting it on an anti-tank self-propelled gun . However, production began in April 1944 due to a prolonged controversy, and like the 76mm Sherman, it missed D-Day, and when it was put into practice, even if it was equipped with a 90mm, due to the limitations of anti-tank self-propelled guns, the demand for tanks equipped with 90mm on the frontlines surged . do. In the end, Sherman, which had sufficient capacity to mount 90mm, was considered again after the demand for 90mm tanks arose, but it was judged that Pershing's mass production preparation time and 90mm Sherman's mass production preparation time were similar, and could interfere with Pershing's mass production. I gave up and gave up.
However, for the US military, which focuses on the air force and navy, the army has always been a secondary priority. Realistically speaking, the Western Front in World War II was centered not on tank warfare but on infantry. While US tank crews suffered thousands of casualties, US infantry suffered 150,000 casualties. Even if the German tank was superior in terms of performance, the U.S. military had a much better advantage in most other factors, so from the perspective of a German tanker, meeting the Sherman meant having to worry about other field artillery, air support, and other anti-tank forces, so the Sherman was not at a great disadvantage in reality. In addition, the Sherman, which was upgraded to 76mm, would at least have been able to pierce itself when shooting accurately or using special ammunition such as high-velocity armor-piercing bullets, so the potential threat factor has increased. Of course, it was very late at that time, but it is clear that it would have been difficult to respond to the Sherman or other vehicles equipped with 76mm. A good example is the Battle of Arrakur , where Major Creighton Abrams destroyed a German armored unit equipped with Panthers with a 75mm Sherman without any air support, recording an exchange ratio of 8:3.1. The Panthers at Arrakur suffered significant damage as they were caught in an ambush by the Shermans. Two Shermans destroyed two Panthers that approached from the ambush, and as the Panthers began to retreat, four more Shermans diverted and destroyed an additional eight Panthers. There was no damage to the Sherman here. The individual performance of the tank is important, but in the past, the Panther had an advantage because it was mainly in defensive situations, but this time, it was in a bad situation because it was ambushed, and the big thing was that it was able to easily flank the enemy because it detected the enemy's movements in advance.
Also, what is mostly overlooked is that the Sherman's 75mm and 76mm were excellent weapons, not sufficient, when dealing with anti-infantry, anti-light armor, anti-tank, and similar tanks such as the Panzer IV, which accounted for most of the tank's missions. Of course, there are some difficulties when encountering heavy tanks, which are the high-end of the German army's armored power, but this case was truly rare enough to be counted on one hand. Additionally, as can be seen in the example of the Sherman Firefly, guns optimized for fighting heavy armor are often unsuitable for various other missions. This is because not only does the power of high explosive bombs decrease, but the number of shells that can be fired at the same time decreases and the number of idle projectiles decreases, which lowers combat durability. To give an easy example, no matter how you think about it, using 90mm bullets or 17-pounders to capture a machine gun position is burdensome and a waste. It is not a wise move for the military to lower the efficiency of the remaining 97 or 98 missions by upgrading all the main tanks for the sake of an opponent that may or may not be encountered 2 or 3 times out of 100, and even in such exceptional cases, it was not a big problem in the big picture aspect of the war because it was sufficiently accessible through various means such as TD, artillery, and air force.
In addition, the timing of the construction was ambiguous, so the M4A1 (76) was produced only in January 1944 and was excluded from landing operations where anti-infantry capabilities were considered important, so D-Day was missed, and it debuted in Operation Cobra in July 1944. do. In the end, with only a month difference in time, the evaluations of Sherman (76) and Sherman Firefly are polarized. Even if you change it to 76 above, "Neither 75 nor 76 will work from the front, right? And anyway, if you have to aim for the side and dig in, 75 is much better because it is lighter, runs faster, and has a good rate of fire." And there was even a case where they refused to receive 76 Shermans. The representative unit was the US 4th Armored Division, which stood at the forefront of the Battle of Arracourt and completely eliminated even the German Panthers. However, it may have been done in a hurry because replacing the gun requires more preparation than expected. First of all, you need artillery shells, you need to retrain existing crews and maintainers, you need to create new doctrine, etc., so you can't just change it on a whim.[67]
They belatedly recognized the situation and took action, but it was too late, and the M93 HVAP bullet, which could penetrate the Panther's front armor, was officially adopted around February 1945, when the Tiger and Panther were slowly drying up. In addition, small-diameter high-speed bullets such as 76mm class HVAP were not a perfect solution as their power rapidly decreased as the distance increased and they were severely affected by the angle of incidence. In a comparative test of the penetration power of the US military's 76mm and 17-pounder anti-tank guns conducted on August 30, 1944, three out of four 76mm HVAP rounds fired at a distance of 200 yards against the front of the Panther, one out of two 17-pound APDS rounds that hit, and two APCBC rounds only caused cracks and failed to penetrate.[68] According to the results of the penetration test on RHA steel plate, all bullets should have penetrated the Panther's front armor at a distance of 200 yards.
However, if the T20 had replaced the Sherman as planned, it was not a misjudgment for the leadership to withhold the hiring of the 76mm (including the 17-pounder). Because 76mm lacks high explosive firepower,[69] When deploying the 76mm Sherman, it became a side grade , and it was necessary to deploy a mix of 105mm Shermans and 75mm Shermans to supplement it. However, to unify with only 76mm anti-tank guns like Germany, anti-infantry warfare was overwhelmingly more important than anti-tank warfare, and 76mm already had anti-tank self-propelled guns. Since it was being used, if the same gun was mounted on the Sherman, it would become a duplicate investment like a German tank destroyer .
In addition, the quantity of 75mm M64 white phosphorus smoke bombs was small, at about 10% of the total load, but in addition to its original purpose, it was used for anti-infantry, anti-position, and anti-vehicle use.[70] It received great praise as an all-purpose shell that could be used for any purpose. Conversely, because the performance of the 76mm M88 smoke grenade was so-so, tank battalions that were replaced with 76mm gun Shermans often continued to operate one or two 75mm gun Shermans for the purpose of firing white phosphorus smoke grenades.
In the end, the misjudgment of the United States was about the installation of 90mm guns along with Sherman's upgun hold, and the Armory Bureau demanded that the Sherman (tank) be equipped with 90mm, but the Ordnance Bureau was satisfied with the 76mm and did not decide whether to mount 90mm on the T25 (tank). After arguing over whether the 90mm was necessary, it was concluded that the 90mm would be produced by mounting it on an anti-tank self-propelled gun . However, production began in April 1944 due to a prolonged controversy, and like the 76mm Sherman, it missed D-Day, and when it was put into practice, even if it was equipped with a 90mm, due to the limitations of anti-tank self-propelled guns, the demand for tanks equipped with 90mm on the frontlines surged . do. In the end, Sherman, which had sufficient capacity to mount 90mm, was considered again after the demand for 90mm tanks arose, but it was judged that Pershing's mass production preparation time and 90mm Sherman's mass production preparation time were similar, and could interfere with Pershing's mass production. I gave up and gave up.
However, for the US military, which focuses on the air force and navy, the army has always been a secondary priority. Realistically speaking, the Western Front in World War II was centered not on tank warfare but on infantry. While US tank crews suffered thousands of casualties, US infantry suffered 150,000 casualties. Even if the German tank was superior in terms of performance, the U.S. military had a much better advantage in most other factors, so from the perspective of a German tanker, meeting the Sherman meant having to worry about other field artillery, air support, and other anti-tank forces, so the Sherman was not at a great disadvantage in reality. In addition, the Sherman, which was upgraded to 76mm, would at least have been able to pierce itself when shooting accurately or using special ammunition such as high-velocity armor-piercing bullets, so the potential threat factor has increased. Of course, it was very late at that time, but it is clear that it would have been difficult to respond to the Sherman or other vehicles equipped with 76mm. A good example is the Battle of Arrakur , where Major Creighton Abrams destroyed a German armored unit equipped with Panthers with a 75mm Sherman without any air support, recording an exchange ratio of 8:3.1. The Panthers at Arrakur suffered significant damage as they were caught in an ambush by the Shermans. Two Shermans destroyed two Panthers that approached from the ambush, and as the Panthers began to retreat, four more Shermans diverted and destroyed an additional eight Panthers. There was no damage to the Sherman here. The individual performance of the tank is important, but in the past, the Panther had an advantage because it was mainly in defensive situations, but this time, it was in a bad situation because it was ambushed, and the big thing was that it was able to easily flank the enemy because it detected the enemy's movements in advance.
Also, what is mostly overlooked is that the Sherman's 75mm and 76mm were excellent weapons, not sufficient, when dealing with anti-infantry, anti-light armor, anti-tank, and similar tanks such as the Panzer IV, which accounted for most of the tank's missions. Of course, there are some difficulties when encountering heavy tanks, which are the high-end of the German army's armored power, but this case was truly rare enough to be counted on one hand. Additionally, as can be seen in the example of the Sherman Firefly, guns optimized for fighting heavy armor are often unsuitable for various other missions. This is because not only does the power of high explosive bombs decrease, but the number of shells that can be fired at the same time decreases and the number of idle projectiles decreases, which lowers combat durability. To give an easy example, no matter how you think about it, using 90mm bullets or 17-pounders to capture a machine gun position is burdensome and a waste. It is not a wise move for the military to lower the efficiency of the remaining 97 or 98 missions by upgrading all the main tanks for the sake of an opponent that may or may not be encountered 2 or 3 times out of 100, and even in such exceptional cases, it was not a big problem in the big picture aspect of the war because it was sufficiently accessible through various means such as TD, artillery, and air force.
3.2.8. Scalability and habitability
The Sherman's extensibility was remarkable, thanks to its stiff suspension and ample volume. Tank 4, which weighed 15 tons in its initial model, increased its weight by 10 tons due to increased armor and armament, which put a very serious strain on the drive system. was able to make a Jumbo Sherman with an enlarged . In addition, there was a plan to change the suspension to HVSS and upgrade Jumbo to 90mm by installing Pershing's turret. This was canceled and plans switched to Jumbo Pershing. Unlike German-made Panther and heavy tank Tiger, which frequently break down due to pushing the limits of the body performance to the end, considering that the genuine Sherman did not overdo it and ran smoothly even with this much additional equipment attached. It can be seen that reliability is very good because it is made to roll smoothly. Compared to German tanks always taking stimulants and fighting excessively, the Sherman fights faithfully to the basics without overdoing it with a good meal.
The turret was also designed from the beginning to make it easy to change the main gun and turret. The turret itself was large and the turret ring itself was wide, making it easy to mount additional large guns. However, although the basic design was designed to replace the main gun (105mm Sherman, etc.) according to the situation rather than an industry gun, the margin was quite wide, so it was possible to use industry guns such as the Firefly used in World War II and the Cold War Israeli Super Sherman and i-Sherman. Likewise, the M1 Abrams had good turret expandability, making it easy to upgun from 105mm to 120mm smoothbore guns.
This generous expandability is also related to wide habitability in the first place, and although you cannot tell from the catalog specifications, the Sherman is a tank with excellent habitability. You may think that habitability is simply a matter of comfort for the crew, but a combat vehicle with good habitability is an element that can be directly related to actual combat power because it allows you to operate inside, carry items such as ammunition, and focus on combat without worrying about discomfort for a long time. In addition, the Sherman's good habitability was not simply an accidental design, but was one of the important considerations in the design stage by the U.S. military. As to how important habitability was considered, the Sherman was basically designed with a spacious turret space, but before the U.S. military landed in Normandy in 1944, a model with a 76mm gun in the basic turret was designed and produced in about 200 units. However, in the U.S. military, this tank was not judged suitable for actual combat because the capacity of the turret was narrowed by installing a new gun, which lowered the combat efficiency of the crew . In the end, the E6 model, which officially used 76mm, was put into service only after using a new turret using the T23 turret design. This is in sharp contrast to the British military's use of the Firefly, which had a 17-pounder mounted on the same old turret at the same time, at the expense of habitability to the point where firing a single shot itself was a chore due to its lack of convenience.
In addition, as mentioned in the survival rate section above, it is directly related to the survival rate of the crew because it is comfortable to move around inside the tank due to its ample habitability, making it much easier for the crew to escape in an urgent situation such as being hit. This is also a part that is difficult to understand from the catalog specifications, and when compared to the internal structure of contemporaneous tanks such as the Comet and T-34, the difference is stark.
The turret was also designed from the beginning to make it easy to change the main gun and turret. The turret itself was large and the turret ring itself was wide, making it easy to mount additional large guns. However, although the basic design was designed to replace the main gun (105mm Sherman, etc.) according to the situation rather than an industry gun, the margin was quite wide, so it was possible to use industry guns such as the Firefly used in World War II and the Cold War Israeli Super Sherman and i-Sherman. Likewise, the M1 Abrams had good turret expandability, making it easy to upgun from 105mm to 120mm smoothbore guns.
This generous expandability is also related to wide habitability in the first place, and although you cannot tell from the catalog specifications, the Sherman is a tank with excellent habitability. You may think that habitability is simply a matter of comfort for the crew, but a combat vehicle with good habitability is an element that can be directly related to actual combat power because it allows you to operate inside, carry items such as ammunition, and focus on combat without worrying about discomfort for a long time. In addition, the Sherman's good habitability was not simply an accidental design, but was one of the important considerations in the design stage by the U.S. military. As to how important habitability was considered, the Sherman was basically designed with a spacious turret space, but before the U.S. military landed in Normandy in 1944, a model with a 76mm gun in the basic turret was designed and produced in about 200 units. However, in the U.S. military, this tank was not judged suitable for actual combat because the capacity of the turret was narrowed by installing a new gun, which lowered the combat efficiency of the crew . In the end, the E6 model, which officially used 76mm, was put into service only after using a new turret using the T23 turret design. This is in sharp contrast to the British military's use of the Firefly, which had a 17-pounder mounted on the same old turret at the same time, at the expense of habitability to the point where firing a single shot itself was a chore due to its lack of convenience.
In addition, as mentioned in the survival rate section above, it is directly related to the survival rate of the crew because it is comfortable to move around inside the tank due to its ample habitability, making it much easier for the crew to escape in an urgent situation such as being hit. This is also a part that is difficult to understand from the catalog specifications, and when compared to the internal structure of contemporaneous tanks such as the Comet and T-34, the difference is stark.
3.3. Sherman is a medium tank
The error of comparing the Sherman with the German tanks of the late war on a one-to-one basis should not be overlooked.David Willey, Curator, Bovington Tank Museum . Excerpted from The Tank Book.
When the story of Sherman comes up, Tiger's fight is often mentioned and disparaged.[71] , in reality, the weight of the Sherman is only about half that of the Tiger , which weighs close to 60 tons.[72] The German tank that was often compared to the Sherman was the Tank No. 4 , although it was about 5 tons lighter than the Sherman, and was evaluated as a sufficiently superior tank compared to the No. 4. In fact, unlike the Sherman, which had good scalability enough to create a jumbo Sherman, it was unavoidable to increase the weight of No. 4 due to problems with the drive system.[73] , by this standard, the 4th Panzer, which exploded in front of the KV-1 and KV-2 in the early days of the German War, without any way to do anything, also deserves to be treated as a poor tank. There are strong German-biased descriptions on the Internet , so in the early days of the German War, the German army was struggling against a small number of heavy tanks of the Soviet Army, but overall they were destroying them mercilessly. After Normandy, the American army was also struggling against a small number of German army's heavy tanks, but overall they were ruthlessly destroying them.
Therefore, if you really want to compare US tanks with the Tiger , you should target the T29 or M26 Pershing of the heavy tank series, which are in the same weight class as the Tiger, not medium tanks like the Sherman .[74] If you want the Sherman to deal with the Tiger, there is a way to upgrade the Sherman platform to heavyweight. There is a superpower that equips the HVSS specification Jumbo Sherman with a Pershing turret with a 90mm gun.
Based on the Sherman's extreme attrition rate (up to 580%) that appeared after the Normandy landings, the Sherman is often treated as expendable, but rather the Tiger or Panther.[75] Considering that it was able to deal with tanks of the same weight class and achieve its strategic goals to some extent despite being in an absolutely advantageous position as a defender, it would be appropriate to interpret the Sherman's high attrition rate not because it was inferior in performance, but because it had decent frontal defense and acceptable attack power, so it was used a lot here and there.
In addition, in battlefields that required large-scale long-distance transportation and supply using ships, such as North Africa, Italy, and the Pacific front, the means of transport that could deploy tanks exceeding 40 tons were extremely limited, and vehicles weighing more than 50 tons ( T28 , T29 , etc.), which were a class higher than the Sherman, were so small in quantity that they had to be considered almost special weapons. In addition, it cost a lot of administrative costs to deploy them to the front line, and care had to be taken about the quantity for lease. On the other hand, the Nazis did not pay attention to weight restrictions due to Hitler's support and did most of their transportation using the European railway network.[76] It was easy to deploy the developed heavy tank. Because of this, the tank operation doctrines of the US-British Allies and Nazi Germany were very different, so it is better to compare the Nazis' with the Soviet Union's, and the Soviet Union opposed the Nazis with heavy tanks such as the KV tank and the IS tank .
Therefore, one should not simply compare the Sherman with heavy tanks such as the Tiger or Tiger 2 one-to-one, and in a similar context, comparing the T-34 with the Tiger and Tiger 2 is also an incorrect comparison. The Tiger or Tiger 2 is a heavy tank originally designed to break through the front line or in situations of strong resistance by using a high-performance tank gun and heavy armor, while the Sherman and T-34 are medium tanks intended for standard infantry support, fire support, and tank warfare. Because it is. As a result, there were quite a few cases where these tanks encountered each other in war, but this was because their design background and weight class were on a different level.[77]
Also , considering that it is one of the few Western-made weapons highly regarded by the Soviet Army , which used the Sherman on a leased basis, it is a tank that is as good as the T-34, the same medium tank.[78] The interesting thing is that in Soviet literature during the Cold War, there was virtually no evaluation of the M4's capabilities, and the British Valentine, with which it was on good terms, was mentioned as the best of the donated tanks.[79]
According to data obtained through data released after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the production line was changed to the T-34-85 , and in a situation where the rear was left with an inventory of the old T-34-76, transportation problems arose and there was a shortage of tanks on the front line. The remaining M4s, which were donated in large quantities, were placed first in the Guards Tank Division.[80] Of course, this Sherman was instantly destroyed and immediately replaced by the T-34, and the T-34 was never replaced again by the Sherman, but the T-34 was continued to be used. However, the M4 that was steadily donated continued to be used by some units afterward, and was used consistently to the extent that it was used in the fall of Berlin and participated in the Manchurian Vacancies along with Valentine tanks . Of course, during the Manchurian vacuum, any tank that could deal with Japanese tanks with insufficient performance was welcomed, and even the old T-26 and BT light tanks, which had been completely expelled from the front line and returned to the last line due to insufficient performance, were taken, so it is a little difficult to say that they were overvalued based on this alone, but it can be said that they were evaluated well enough to be deployed to elite units even in 1945. In addition, the same American vehicle, the M3 Lee , had the teasing nickname of “The Coffin of the Seven Comrades,” but the Soviet Army 's love for the American Empire was so great that it was evaluated by the Soviet Army as an APC with decent firepower.
The Soviet military's assessment was that the 76mm Sherman had a hard time in rough terrain due to its narrow track width during the Manchurian operation , but it was still evaluated as being as reliable as or better than the T-34. The original document states that the T-34 series has better performance than the Sherman 75mm M3 tank gun or the 76mm M1 tank gun due to superior caliber, regardless of whether it is a 76mm tank gun or an 85mm tank gun, but this is not true. First, there is a difference in caliber of about 1.2mm between the Sherman's 75mm tank gun and the T-34's 76mm tank gun, but this 1.2mm difference is not a significant difference for the main gun of a medium tank. The T-34/76's high explosive bombs also had excellent performance, and the 75mm Sherman's high explosive bombs also had a reputation for great power during the war. If we compare the penetration power of the armor-piercing rounds used in the two tank guns, the 75mm armor-piercing rounds show a slight advantage over the 76.2mm armor-piercing rounds at all ranges.
When comparing the 76mm Sherman and T-34-85, the 85mm tank gun is superior in terms of high-explosive shell power, and when comparing the M79, which was widely used during the Great War, with the 85mm D-5T L/51.6 and 85mm ZiS-S-53 L/54.6 tank guns, the 76mm tank gun is superior at AP long range and the 85mm tank gun is superior at close range. There is one thing. However, unlike the existing technology that HVAP was not distributed during the war, the 76mm HVAP was distributed to all tanks in small numbers during the war, but an average of more than 3 rounds was supplied, so there is a misconception that it was not spread to the extent that it could not be used in actual combat. If it is meaningless because it is a small number, the T-34 was also always in short supply of APCR, so armor-piercing shells were used much more often. The APCR supplied to each Soviet tank in the late Great War was 4 rounds per tank, with a difference of only 1 round. With this in mind, it is almost nonsense to say that during the war, the Sherman could not use high-speed armor-piercing shells in actual combat, but the T-34/85 did. Moreover, in 6.25, when the two tanks actually met, they were abundantly supplied to all tanks, and when comparing high-speed armor-piercing shells, the 76mm Sherman shows overwhelming performance.
In short, contrary to the claims of Soviet advocates, the M4 Sherman and T-34-85 tank guns have complex aspects that make it difficult to conclude that one is superior in performance, and there are aspects in which the Sherman is ahead in some important factors. Of course, if you look at the history of Soviet tank development, you can see that when something happens, there is a tendency to raise large-caliber guns compared to the West, and the actual doctrine was also the same, so in anti-tank warfare, the T-34, which had a large caliber gun and a high penetrating ability APCR, was used first. However, of course, tank crews riding the M4 Sherman, which could do less difficult work, have good reliability, and had good habitability, had no choice but to like the Sherman more than the T-34.
Therefore, if you really want to compare US tanks with the Tiger , you should target the T29 or M26 Pershing of the heavy tank series, which are in the same weight class as the Tiger, not medium tanks like the Sherman .[74] If you want the Sherman to deal with the Tiger, there is a way to upgrade the Sherman platform to heavyweight. There is a superpower that equips the HVSS specification Jumbo Sherman with a Pershing turret with a 90mm gun.
Based on the Sherman's extreme attrition rate (up to 580%) that appeared after the Normandy landings, the Sherman is often treated as expendable, but rather the Tiger or Panther.[75] Considering that it was able to deal with tanks of the same weight class and achieve its strategic goals to some extent despite being in an absolutely advantageous position as a defender, it would be appropriate to interpret the Sherman's high attrition rate not because it was inferior in performance, but because it had decent frontal defense and acceptable attack power, so it was used a lot here and there.
In addition, in battlefields that required large-scale long-distance transportation and supply using ships, such as North Africa, Italy, and the Pacific front, the means of transport that could deploy tanks exceeding 40 tons were extremely limited, and vehicles weighing more than 50 tons ( T28 , T29 , etc.), which were a class higher than the Sherman, were so small in quantity that they had to be considered almost special weapons. In addition, it cost a lot of administrative costs to deploy them to the front line, and care had to be taken about the quantity for lease. On the other hand, the Nazis did not pay attention to weight restrictions due to Hitler's support and did most of their transportation using the European railway network.[76] It was easy to deploy the developed heavy tank. Because of this, the tank operation doctrines of the US-British Allies and Nazi Germany were very different, so it is better to compare the Nazis' with the Soviet Union's, and the Soviet Union opposed the Nazis with heavy tanks such as the KV tank and the IS tank .
Therefore, one should not simply compare the Sherman with heavy tanks such as the Tiger or Tiger 2 one-to-one, and in a similar context, comparing the T-34 with the Tiger and Tiger 2 is also an incorrect comparison. The Tiger or Tiger 2 is a heavy tank originally designed to break through the front line or in situations of strong resistance by using a high-performance tank gun and heavy armor, while the Sherman and T-34 are medium tanks intended for standard infantry support, fire support, and tank warfare. Because it is. As a result, there were quite a few cases where these tanks encountered each other in war, but this was because their design background and weight class were on a different level.[77]
Also , considering that it is one of the few Western-made weapons highly regarded by the Soviet Army , which used the Sherman on a leased basis, it is a tank that is as good as the T-34, the same medium tank.[78] The interesting thing is that in Soviet literature during the Cold War, there was virtually no evaluation of the M4's capabilities, and the British Valentine, with which it was on good terms, was mentioned as the best of the donated tanks.[79]
According to data obtained through data released after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the production line was changed to the T-34-85 , and in a situation where the rear was left with an inventory of the old T-34-76, transportation problems arose and there was a shortage of tanks on the front line. The remaining M4s, which were donated in large quantities, were placed first in the Guards Tank Division.[80] Of course, this Sherman was instantly destroyed and immediately replaced by the T-34, and the T-34 was never replaced again by the Sherman, but the T-34 was continued to be used. However, the M4 that was steadily donated continued to be used by some units afterward, and was used consistently to the extent that it was used in the fall of Berlin and participated in the Manchurian Vacancies along with Valentine tanks . Of course, during the Manchurian vacuum, any tank that could deal with Japanese tanks with insufficient performance was welcomed, and even the old T-26 and BT light tanks, which had been completely expelled from the front line and returned to the last line due to insufficient performance, were taken, so it is a little difficult to say that they were overvalued based on this alone, but it can be said that they were evaluated well enough to be deployed to elite units even in 1945. In addition, the same American vehicle, the M3 Lee , had the teasing nickname of “The Coffin of the Seven Comrades,” but the Soviet Army 's love for the American Empire was so great that it was evaluated by the Soviet Army as an APC with decent firepower.
The Soviet military's assessment was that the 76mm Sherman had a hard time in rough terrain due to its narrow track width during the Manchurian operation , but it was still evaluated as being as reliable as or better than the T-34. The original document states that the T-34 series has better performance than the Sherman 75mm M3 tank gun or the 76mm M1 tank gun due to superior caliber, regardless of whether it is a 76mm tank gun or an 85mm tank gun, but this is not true. First, there is a difference in caliber of about 1.2mm between the Sherman's 75mm tank gun and the T-34's 76mm tank gun, but this 1.2mm difference is not a significant difference for the main gun of a medium tank. The T-34/76's high explosive bombs also had excellent performance, and the 75mm Sherman's high explosive bombs also had a reputation for great power during the war. If we compare the penetration power of the armor-piercing rounds used in the two tank guns, the 75mm armor-piercing rounds show a slight advantage over the 76.2mm armor-piercing rounds at all ranges.
When comparing the 76mm Sherman and T-34-85, the 85mm tank gun is superior in terms of high-explosive shell power, and when comparing the M79, which was widely used during the Great War, with the 85mm D-5T L/51.6 and 85mm ZiS-S-53 L/54.6 tank guns, the 76mm tank gun is superior at AP long range and the 85mm tank gun is superior at close range. There is one thing. However, unlike the existing technology that HVAP was not distributed during the war, the 76mm HVAP was distributed to all tanks in small numbers during the war, but an average of more than 3 rounds was supplied, so there is a misconception that it was not spread to the extent that it could not be used in actual combat. If it is meaningless because it is a small number, the T-34 was also always in short supply of APCR, so armor-piercing shells were used much more often. The APCR supplied to each Soviet tank in the late Great War was 4 rounds per tank, with a difference of only 1 round. With this in mind, it is almost nonsense to say that during the war, the Sherman could not use high-speed armor-piercing shells in actual combat, but the T-34/85 did. Moreover, in 6.25, when the two tanks actually met, they were abundantly supplied to all tanks, and when comparing high-speed armor-piercing shells, the 76mm Sherman shows overwhelming performance.
In short, contrary to the claims of Soviet advocates, the M4 Sherman and T-34-85 tank guns have complex aspects that make it difficult to conclude that one is superior in performance, and there are aspects in which the Sherman is ahead in some important factors. Of course, if you look at the history of Soviet tank development, you can see that when something happens, there is a tendency to raise large-caliber guns compared to the West, and the actual doctrine was also the same, so in anti-tank warfare, the T-34, which had a large caliber gun and a high penetrating ability APCR, was used first. However, of course, tank crews riding the M4 Sherman, which could do less difficult work, have good reliability, and had good habitability, had no choice but to like the Sherman more than the T-34.
3.4. Advantages buried in unfavorable circumstances
In fact, at the time, there were no tanks with long guns, whether German or Soviet, that were of decent quality. Although German tanks after the long-gun era (Panzer IV F2) were relatively superior in terms of combat mobility, they suffered from chronic overheating and breakdown due to chronic low torque and overuse of gasoline engines, so they were monstrous items that could not guarantee the maximum speed or cruising speed in the catalog. In addition, breakdowns have become more frequent due to poor fuel quality due to resource shortages. The Soviet tank had a diesel engine, so it had a good torque-to-weight ratio, but due to a lack of industrial capacity, the precision and strength of parts processing were low, so the transmission was very stiff and the gears were frequently ground out, which was a headache.
In comparison, the Sherman tank was like heaven to the driver. It was mass-produced and assembled with parts that fit together precisely, was easy to operate, had good cruising and combat maneuvers, and, above all, had the great advantage of being able to secure a stable supply of trained drivers. (German or Soviet troops had to be driven by senior drivers to achieve proper combat power.) At least, if it was as originally expected by the U.S. military leadership, the Sherman should have fought an equal or superior battle against the German army.
However, despite all of its advantages, due to the Sherman's unique high ground pressure, its tracks were frequently stuck in the soft soil of the Western Front, limiting its maneuverability and causing a lot of damage. And if we tried to hastily launch a heavy tank, engine problems would occur frequently like in Germany, so we could not give up on the Sherman. However, in that case, anti-tank self-propelled artillery should have been made and used properly quickly, but if it was a mistake on the part of the US military leadership that it did not work out, it would be a mistake. In any case, Creighton Abrams knew the true value of the Sherman and was able to fight against hundreds of German tanks.
Rather, the fact that Upgun Sherman later became transcendental in the Middle East war cannot be ignored that the battlefield was a rocky desert area where there was no need to worry about earth pressure.
In comparison, the Sherman tank was like heaven to the driver. It was mass-produced and assembled with parts that fit together precisely, was easy to operate, had good cruising and combat maneuvers, and, above all, had the great advantage of being able to secure a stable supply of trained drivers. (German or Soviet troops had to be driven by senior drivers to achieve proper combat power.) At least, if it was as originally expected by the U.S. military leadership, the Sherman should have fought an equal or superior battle against the German army.
However, despite all of its advantages, due to the Sherman's unique high ground pressure, its tracks were frequently stuck in the soft soil of the Western Front, limiting its maneuverability and causing a lot of damage. And if we tried to hastily launch a heavy tank, engine problems would occur frequently like in Germany, so we could not give up on the Sherman. However, in that case, anti-tank self-propelled artillery should have been made and used properly quickly, but if it was a mistake on the part of the US military leadership that it did not work out, it would be a mistake. In any case, Creighton Abrams knew the true value of the Sherman and was able to fight against hundreds of German tanks.
Rather, the fact that Upgun Sherman later became transcendental in the Middle East war cannot be ignored that the battlefield was a rocky desert area where there was no need to worry about earth pressure.
3.5. Damage early on the European front
US 1st Army tank casualties, vehicle loss statistics
In the domestic Mildeok world, it was reported that the US forces on the European front suffered great damage because of the Sherman being pushed back by German heavy tanks, but in reality, the problem was greater in the operation of the Allied Forces than the Sherman itself.
In fact, the only general in the U.S. Army and, by extension, the Allied Forces, who knew how to properly engage in tank warfare was George S. Patton , but he was absent during the Normandy landings due to an assault on a soldier, and the remaining Allied generals, as usual, threw the Sherman into the front of the German defense line. In this situation, you need to use a heavy tank, but it is difficult for a medium tank to function properly using this tactic, even if it is a heavy tank class Panther. In a similar situation, Germany also tried using the Panther instead of the Tiger, and there were complaints about the Panther, which served as an opportunity for the U.S. military to select the T26 as its next tank instead of the lightweight T25.
In the end, as they were unable to break through Germany's defense line for seven weeks and the damage only increased, Patton was eventually reinstated and Operation Cobra, a Patton-style operation, was implemented, and they were able to break through the defense line after seven weeks of hardship. The tank used at this time was, of course, the Sherman.
If the tank did not have such serious defects, tactics would have been more important than the tank's specifications. Rather, the Sherman, unlike the German heavy tanks, could move long distances independently without train transport and could be operated in large numbers, which reduced the damage to the ground forces on the European front.
However, in the early days of the Normandy landing operation, the damage caused by tactics that did not suit Sherman was so imprinted on people that Sherman was perceived as a tank that could not be used.
In the domestic Mildeok world, it was reported that the US forces on the European front suffered great damage because of the Sherman being pushed back by German heavy tanks, but in reality, the problem was greater in the operation of the Allied Forces than the Sherman itself.
In fact, the only general in the U.S. Army and, by extension, the Allied Forces, who knew how to properly engage in tank warfare was George S. Patton , but he was absent during the Normandy landings due to an assault on a soldier, and the remaining Allied generals, as usual, threw the Sherman into the front of the German defense line. In this situation, you need to use a heavy tank, but it is difficult for a medium tank to function properly using this tactic, even if it is a heavy tank class Panther. In a similar situation, Germany also tried using the Panther instead of the Tiger, and there were complaints about the Panther, which served as an opportunity for the U.S. military to select the T26 as its next tank instead of the lightweight T25.
In the end, as they were unable to break through Germany's defense line for seven weeks and the damage only increased, Patton was eventually reinstated and Operation Cobra, a Patton-style operation, was implemented, and they were able to break through the defense line after seven weeks of hardship. The tank used at this time was, of course, the Sherman.
If the tank did not have such serious defects, tactics would have been more important than the tank's specifications. Rather, the Sherman, unlike the German heavy tanks, could move long distances independently without train transport and could be operated in large numbers, which reduced the damage to the ground forces on the European front.
However, in the early days of the Normandy landing operation, the damage caused by tactics that did not suit Sherman was so imprinted on people that Sherman was perceived as a tank that could not be used.
3.6.
  |
Milwaukee Journal 1945 March 27 article 'Expert General Patton Firmly Defends American Tanks'
Take a 2v1 victory against Nazi tanks
General Patton Says M4 Has Better Mobility Than Tiger
Recently, Lieutenant General George S. Patton, the third commander who succeeded in the amazing breakthrough operation, strongly defended the US M4 tanks on Tuesday. The M4 is a tank that has been criticized for being too light. General Patton said that the third -group tank scored about two to one against the German tanks, and many of the German tanks were Tiger and Panther Tanks, which are heavy tanks . General Patton's position is revealed in his letter to Lieutenant General Thomas T. Handy on March 19 . In the letter, General Patton said, “I learned that those who have the wrong knowledge or who are deliberately spreading false facts are returning from the front of the front and flawing the equipment that US soldiers fight with. Since I was in charge of the unit's command, it would be a position to say that there are some knowledge in various military equipment. ”
M4 tanks are more maneuverable
"It is said at home that the M5 (light tank, Stuart) or M4 (medium tank, Sherman) is not comparable to the German Panzer and Tiger tanks. However, this statement is completely wrong for several reasons. A total of 1,136 tanks were lost since the 3rd Army came into service on 1 August 1944, and a total of 2,287 German tanks were destroyed by the 3rd Army during the same period. It was a Tiger or Panther tank, and 851 of our tanks were M4. These numbers alone can refute the claim that our tanks are inferior in performance, but I would like to add one more thing. 70% of tank losses were not due to enemy tanks but to cover-up anti-tank guns, while the majority of enemy tanks were destroyed by friendly tanks. It's clear that the M4 won't be able to hold out if it's put into a crossfire with an M4 tank on the other side, but the M4's good maneuverability allows it to easily bypass most slow and sluggish Tiger tanks, and instead of exchanging fire from the front, the M4 can attack its vulnerable rear. I can aim."
Tiger's mileage is short
“I think the Germans lost their armored warfare capabilities with the introduction of the heavy and dull Tiger. This tank is too heavy and has a short range, so the Germans use it as a manual battery rather than a tank. So the Germans While these tanks are used to stop friendly tanks, friendly tanks are always used to suppress enemy infantry on the offensive, with the correct use of tanks, and are usually successful. Armed with these Tiger tanks, by the time the 3rd Army reached the Moselle River, the loss rate between the marches would have reached 100%, while the losses between the marches of our long-lived tanks were negligible. We must bear in mind that all our tanks were transported on steamboats, and the difference between 40 and 70 tons here is quite obvious: if a 70-ton tank were brought in, it would be like we loaded our medium tanks into landing craft and set them ashore. It couldn't have been transported like that, and it couldn't have driven from the Cotentin to the Rhine like almost all of our tanks did.In terms of mechanical durability and ease of service, our tanks are incomparably better than any other tank in the campaign. .In addition, the mechanical turret drive and muzzle stabilizer, which were not found in German tanks, were of great help to our tanks in destroying enemy tanks."Patton's Thoughts on Sherman (World of Tanks/Warplanes Community) - By KrasnayaZvezda #
'The ratio of engagement between one German tank and five American tanks' is completely baseless, although I don't know who made it up. From my point of view, it seems to have come about because of Sherman, which was operated by the British army, not the US military, and I think it is a misunderstanding. The British lost a number of Shermans in 1944 fighting the Germans in the Caen sector. Almost all of the early tank books of the 60's and 70's, especially on American tanks, were written by British authors. At that time, there were not many books about tanks written in the United States. So, many of the Sherman-related materials were from the British side. And the British actually lost a lot of Shermans in Normandy. This was not a problem with the tank itself, but a tactical miscalculation.
I won't go into detail here because it's too long to explain, but the British Shermans were heavily damaged by the Germans for a number of reasons. And the US Army didn't. What people don't know is that American tank forces rarely encountered German tanks in Normandy. Most of the fighting in the first month after landing was fought on the Cotentin Peninsula as the VII Corps advanced towards Cherbourg, where German armored forces were insignificant with only two battalions of captured French tanks. was The tank battle itself wasn't much either. In July, as the US forces entered the Bocaju area, the 2nd and 3rd Armored Divisions launched Operation Cobra, a large-scale breakthrough operation at the end of the month, which was also not well suited for tank warfare. This time the Germans also had tank forces. It was the Armored Pedestrian Division and the SS 2nd Panzer Division 'Das Reich'. Because of the terrain, 'Darth Reich' was not able to properly engage in tank battles. Meanwhile, the Panzer Division attempted one major offensive operation in mid-July, but was decimated by the Americans. In any case, both divisions had little resistance against the American tanks. Instead, it had to deal with American infantry and tank destroyers, and it suffered serious damage. And in August, the breakthrough operation was carried out, and American tanks flew through Brittany and across France to Paris. Occasional tank-to-tank engagements occurred, but on a very small scale.
It was in September 1944 at Arracourt in Lorraine that US forces engaged in the first large-scale tank battle with German tank forces. The US 4th Armored Division faced off against several German armored brigades, and the Americans overwhelmingly crushed them. Patton's 3rd Army won a complete victory against the German armored brigade in Lorraine. While the 4th Panzer Division was well trained and had ample experience by this time, the German Panzer Brigade had a large number of new Panther tanks, but the unit itself was newly formed, so the level of experience was poor. It was jagged and actually had poor combat performance. And this battle remains one of the fiercest tank battles during World War II, in which the US Army deployed significant numbers of tanks in a relatively small area.
During World War II, American tanks performed poorly and were relatively damaged by overwhelming German tanks.- Preface from the movie Fury . This is a common misconception that is commonly misunderstood.
Patton's confidence comes from the Battle of Arrakur. While 86 German tanks were destroyed and 114 were destroyed or abandoned, the 4th Armored Division's Shermans only destroyed 25 tanks and 7 Hellcats. Exchange ratio of about 6 to 1. And the support of the Army Air Corps was only at the last minute, and the Army Air Corps' anti-tank mission performance during the war was minimal. It is true that the Shermans of Combat Group A, the vanguard of the 4th Armored Division at the time, were all 75mm, so the Sherman's armor and firepower were insufficient compared to the Panther, but even at its inferiority, the 4th Armored Division under Patton took advantage of the foggy environment and the Sherman's mobility to bypass the Panther and defeat it. This is why Patton emphasized Sherman’s mobility.
However, it is difficult to say that Patton's speech above is 100% true. At the time, the number of actual engagements the U.S. Army had with the 6th Panzer throughout the Western Front after Normandy was no more than three. At the time, the U.S. military called all German tanks Tigers, making cross-verification difficult, and in fact, many of the Tigers claimed by the U.S. military were actually Panzer IV, other assault guns, or Panthers. And, except for a few limited battles or engagements, such as the Battle of Arracourt, German tanks were more often than not superior. In the first place, Germany had the advantage because it was on the defensive side, and the Sherman was inferior in combat power to the Tiger or Panther, and although it was superior to the Panzer IV, it did not completely dominate. The tank exchange ratio between the Allies and Germany was 3 to 3.3:1 at the end of the war. It is said that Patton's words were exaggerated. Of course, it is difficult to unconditionally criticize Patton because it was common in any country for commanders to exaggerate military records to improve the morale of their troops. However, the reality is a little different from what Patton said. Moreover, Patton is not looking at the tank from the perspective of a front-line soldier, but from the perspective of a commander.
There is a common saying that ' it takes five Shermans to fight one Tiger ', but this is far from reality. This statement is a misrepresentation of the fact that Belton Cooper, a former member of the U.S. 3rd Armored Division's field maintenance battalion, evaluated the Panther's attack and defense performance based on his personal analysis while repairing a Sherman damaged in battle and the testimony of a tanker, and said that it was about five times better than the Sherman. Belton Cooper also participated in the firepower testing and armor strengthening work of the Super Pershing, and was a person who directly identified the hit area and the extent of damage to destroyed tanks at the front line of the battlefield, repaired and reorganized them, and returned them to the battlefield. Of course, it would be better than someone who knows nothing, but the unit he belonged to had a damage rate close to 600% and a total loss of 200%, so he had no choice but to have a biased view .[81] As shown above, it was a time when even the tank crews who were actually fighting referred to enemy tanks as Tigers, but there are clear limits to evaluating them based on information picked up while in the maintenance unit.
If we look at the correct data, according to the data that analyzed the tank battles between the US and German forces after the British army's Normandy landings until August 12th in the East Sea, when the US army's tank force was more than 2.2 times that of the German side, it always resulted in victory. In the case of the German army, they won when they mobilized 1.5 times as many troops as the American army.
However, it is difficult to say that Patton's speech above is 100% true. At the time, the number of actual engagements the U.S. Army had with the 6th Panzer throughout the Western Front after Normandy was no more than three. At the time, the U.S. military called all German tanks Tigers, making cross-verification difficult, and in fact, many of the Tigers claimed by the U.S. military were actually Panzer IV, other assault guns, or Panthers. And, except for a few limited battles or engagements, such as the Battle of Arracourt, German tanks were more often than not superior. In the first place, Germany had the advantage because it was on the defensive side, and the Sherman was inferior in combat power to the Tiger or Panther, and although it was superior to the Panzer IV, it did not completely dominate. The tank exchange ratio between the Allies and Germany was 3 to 3.3:1 at the end of the war. It is said that Patton's words were exaggerated. Of course, it is difficult to unconditionally criticize Patton because it was common in any country for commanders to exaggerate military records to improve the morale of their troops. However, the reality is a little different from what Patton said. Moreover, Patton is not looking at the tank from the perspective of a front-line soldier, but from the perspective of a commander.
There is a common saying that ' it takes five Shermans to fight one Tiger ', but this is far from reality. This statement is a misrepresentation of the fact that Belton Cooper, a former member of the U.S. 3rd Armored Division's field maintenance battalion, evaluated the Panther's attack and defense performance based on his personal analysis while repairing a Sherman damaged in battle and the testimony of a tanker, and said that it was about five times better than the Sherman. Belton Cooper also participated in the firepower testing and armor strengthening work of the Super Pershing, and was a person who directly identified the hit area and the extent of damage to destroyed tanks at the front line of the battlefield, repaired and reorganized them, and returned them to the battlefield. Of course, it would be better than someone who knows nothing, but the unit he belonged to had a damage rate close to 600% and a total loss of 200%, so he had no choice but to have a biased view .[81] As shown above, it was a time when even the tank crews who were actually fighting referred to enemy tanks as Tigers, but there are clear limits to evaluating them based on information picked up while in the maintenance unit.
If we look at the correct data, according to the data that analyzed the tank battles between the US and German forces after the British army's Normandy landings until August 12th in the East Sea, when the US army's tank force was more than 2.2 times that of the German side, it always resulted in victory. In the case of the German army, they won when they mobilized 1.5 times as many troops as the American army.
There is also a saying that Sherman would not be held accountable if he retreated when he encountered the 6th Tank Tiger . Originally, American tanks during World War II were Tiger, Panther, and even Mouse. In principle, tanks should not fight not only when meeting super-heavy tanks , but also against tanks lighter than the Sherman, such as Panzer 3 or Panzer 4 , because according to the military doctrine of the U.S. military, the opponent of a tank is not an anti-tank self-propelled artillery tank such as the M10 GMC. Because. Therefore, once the anti-tank self-propelled artillery or anti-tank artillery unit completes preparations, the tank can retreat.
But this is also not true. The US Army was fully considering anti-tank combat of the tank itself, and this is evident in its obsession with giving the ability to fight enemy tanks by forcibly attaching a 75mm gun by mounting it on the body of the M3 Lee in the early days of the war. As evidence of that, the US military had already tested a 76mm gun on the M4A1 in 1942. The reason the M4A1(76)W, the first version installed, was not deployed on the battlefield was not because anti-tank warfare was ignored, but because the turret was too cramped as a result of the test, it was judged unfit for combat. This is the same reason the M26 Pershing was not deployed earlier. Even in the US military manual at the time , it was specified that general tanks should also be the first priority to subdue enemy tanks . It is not that anti-tank combat was neglected because infantry support was important, but catching tanks itself was part of infantry support.
And piercing and destroying tanks was not the only way to subdue and deal with tanks. Either by destroying the tank's tracks, blowing out the main gun, stunning the tankman, or destroying the tank's optics, or a combination of methods to suppress the tank.[82]
The assistant of the Tank Destroyers is also stated in the tank, while the large -scale armored battles occur, while the allied tanks are in front of them, antitank self -propelled artillery has excellent firepower, lower vehicle body, and wide view of open tops. It is to be beaten and beaten and fighting with the tank, but the allies did not run away from the anti -tank self -propelled artillery. This doctrine was very good before the Normandy landing operation, that is, until 1943, so in the battle of torch and Sicily, US military Sherman was the No. 3 tank, No. 4 tank or Elefante[83] He beat his back and made a big success. After that, Germany became a defensive, and the damage occurred when the 5th tank panter or Tigger 2 was in full swing.
However, this anti-tank self-propelled artillery operation is evaluated as a failure after World War II because the anti-tank self-propelled gun is better to simply equip a tank with a powerful gun than to catch an enemy tank while the tank is struggling, and the use of the anti-tank self-propelled gun is too limited. Because.
In the end, in the actual battlefield during World War II, if you retreated arbitrarily just because a tank appeared, it was considered a crime of fleeing from the enemy during wartime, and fleeing from enemy combat during wartime was almost always punishable by death .
There is an anecdote that a tanker from the southern United States refused to board this tank. This is because Sherman is a representative figure hated by southerners. But this anecdote is a lie. In fact, in the United States, it was only called the M4, and there was no anecdote anywhere about a southern American refusing to ride it. And the names Sherman and Steward were used in England. This anecdote was an error quoted in Belton Cooper's book Destrep.
In the case of General Abrams, he showed off his spirit by destroying more than 400 German tanks using only the 75mm Sherman, which was considered insignificant for anti-tank use. It was said that it showed an exchange ratio of 8:3.1 against the Panther tank, so I said everything. It was not named after the modern United States main battle tank for nothing . In addition, he occasionally captured Panthers or showed Shermans deployed in the Korean War destroying several T-34-85s .
3.7. after World War II
  |
M4 Sherman at a parade in Minnesota |
  |
Tamiya old version M4A3E8 illustration |
  |
Habiboss M4A3E8 illustration |
This bizarre special stamp is a green tiger stamp painted by the US Army on a Sherman tank that was very active during the Korean War.[84]
  |   |
Asuka (former Tasuka) M4A3E8 illustration | Below is the illustration of M4A3E8 made by D Corporation.[85] |
Another monster special stamp. It is somewhat more monotonous than the tiger seal above. It is said to be the seal of the M4A3E8 Sherman, which was also active in the Korean War.
This bizarre special stamp is a tiger face painted by the US Army to scare the Chinese and North Korean troops . However, contrary to the US military's opinion, the North Korean or Chinese soldiers were not afraid to see this painting, and instead, it was said to have been a great help in boosting the morale of their allies.[86]
  |
Illustration of an M4A3E8 from the Korean War converted to a dozer spear.[87] |
Even in the Korean War , it was deployed to fight against the North Korean T-34-85 , thanks to its excellent vehicle performance and overwhelming crew skills from the war period.[88] Contributed to driving out the T-34-85 . In the mid to late war, when all enemy tanks had completely melted down, it was preferred over the M26 Pershing, which had low driving performance, and the M46 Patton, which had problems with mechanical reliability. It is said that around the time when the T-34-85 was on the verge of extinction on the Nakdong River front, the North Korean army was trying to destroy it in droves, so four tanks formed a group and the rear tank mainly moved with its turret facing backwards. When we got stuck, we had to go while the machine gunners took showers .
The Chinese Army also received the M4A2E8 from the Soviet Union.
After the war, they were no longer produced, but the number of tanks produced was so large (over 50,000 units) that they were spread out all over the world, making it a good medicine for new countries that were operating tanks for the first time or Western countries with limited finances.
The Republic of Korea also operated M4A3E8 Sherman Easy. During the Korean War , the Marine Corps operated it as a company level, and a year after the war, when the US Army withdrew in 1954, 388 of the 679 units deployed during the Korean War were handed over.
Israel is particularly famous for its modifications to the Sherman . In particular, for the Israeli military, which has emerged as a training instructor for modern tank operation through four Middle East wars , the Sherman has been an invaluable combat force and has been used since the First Middle East War . At the time, the Israeli army was at a level that made it embarrassing to call it an army, but fortunately they stole the M4A2 "Mayer" from the British army.[89] It became the Israeli army's first armored equipment. In addition, after hearing about and searching for an Italian junk car, the M4 (105), I purchased it and installed the M1911 7,5cm Krupp howitzer purchased from Switzerland. Still, it was better than nothing, so it served as the only armored force of the Israeli army. It was so harshly treated that after the war, only 14 M4 (105) equipped with the M1911 7,5cm Krupp howitzer survived.[90]
Due to Israel's difficult conditions, any weapon had to be used sparingly until it could no longer be used, so Shermans belonging to the Israeli army were converted into M-50 and M-51 tanks with the main gun changed to that of post-war tanks and put into combat. Among these, the M-51 was equipped with a version of the French CN 105 F1 105mm main gun with the barrel length reduced from 51 caliber to 44 caliber, and was used as a type of anti-tank self-propelled gun , and even succeeded in defeating the T-55, a tank one generation later . Surprisingly, until just a few decades ago, Israel operated its M4 as active equipment while continuously improving its engine, main gun, and armor. These improved versions of the 'Super Sherman' and 'I Sherman' , thanks to the result of modifications and the performance of experienced tankers, showed great performance in the Middle East war and other places, not being defeated by the latest Soviet-made tanks, even the M48 , and became synonymous with the post-war Sherman. There are many different ways to abuse elders.
Thanks to its superior image, it is usually thought of as the last Sherman, but in fact, Chile 's M-60 is the end of Sherman. Chile feels the need to strengthen its national defense power as Peru imports Soviet-made weapons and a border dispute with Argentina arises. However, Chile had no money and planned to upgrade the older generation of tanks, just as Israel's stock of Shermans ran out. A 60MM HVMS (Hyper Velocity Medium Support) gun from NIMDA was installed on the Eisherman brought to Israel, and the fire control system and engine were also improved. It is said that the 60mm APFSDS bullet, which is an improved version of the Merkava MK1's M111 APFSDS bullet, was also made, and its penetration ability was not inferior to Peru's T-62 or T-55 /54 at all. When Chile introduced the Leopard 1 V and the AMX-30B2, it withdrew to the second line, and it is said that it was finally retired in the 2000s.
The T-34-85 , which can be said to be a rival in terms of vitality, is still in active service as a second-class fighter in some countries such as North Korea and Africa, and shows off its veteran skills by appearing once in a while when it is bored. However, as the Sherman Lepotenciado series, which is a modified version of the M4A4 Sherman, is still operated as part of the Presidential Guard Regiment in Paraguay, the lifespan battle with the T-34-85 is expected to continue in the future.
The Chinese Army also received the M4A2E8 from the Soviet Union.
After the war, they were no longer produced, but the number of tanks produced was so large (over 50,000 units) that they were spread out all over the world, making it a good medicine for new countries that were operating tanks for the first time or Western countries with limited finances.
The Republic of Korea also operated M4A3E8 Sherman Easy. During the Korean War , the Marine Corps operated it as a company level, and a year after the war, when the US Army withdrew in 1954, 388 of the 679 units deployed during the Korean War were handed over.
Israel is particularly famous for its modifications to the Sherman . In particular, for the Israeli military, which has emerged as a training instructor for modern tank operation through four Middle East wars , the Sherman has been an invaluable combat force and has been used since the First Middle East War . At the time, the Israeli army was at a level that made it embarrassing to call it an army, but fortunately they stole the M4A2 "Mayer" from the British army.[89] It became the Israeli army's first armored equipment. In addition, after hearing about and searching for an Italian junk car, the M4 (105), I purchased it and installed the M1911 7,5cm Krupp howitzer purchased from Switzerland. Still, it was better than nothing, so it served as the only armored force of the Israeli army. It was so harshly treated that after the war, only 14 M4 (105) equipped with the M1911 7,5cm Krupp howitzer survived.[90]
Due to Israel's difficult conditions, any weapon had to be used sparingly until it could no longer be used, so Shermans belonging to the Israeli army were converted into M-50 and M-51 tanks with the main gun changed to that of post-war tanks and put into combat. Among these, the M-51 was equipped with a version of the French CN 105 F1 105mm main gun with the barrel length reduced from 51 caliber to 44 caliber, and was used as a type of anti-tank self-propelled gun , and even succeeded in defeating the T-55, a tank one generation later . Surprisingly, until just a few decades ago, Israel operated its M4 as active equipment while continuously improving its engine, main gun, and armor. These improved versions of the 'Super Sherman' and 'I Sherman' , thanks to the result of modifications and the performance of experienced tankers, showed great performance in the Middle East war and other places, not being defeated by the latest Soviet-made tanks, even the M48 , and became synonymous with the post-war Sherman. There are many different ways to abuse elders.
Thanks to its superior image, it is usually thought of as the last Sherman, but in fact, Chile 's M-60 is the end of Sherman. Chile feels the need to strengthen its national defense power as Peru imports Soviet-made weapons and a border dispute with Argentina arises. However, Chile had no money and planned to upgrade the older generation of tanks, just as Israel's stock of Shermans ran out. A 60MM HVMS (Hyper Velocity Medium Support) gun from NIMDA was installed on the Eisherman brought to Israel, and the fire control system and engine were also improved. It is said that the 60mm APFSDS bullet, which is an improved version of the Merkava MK1's M111 APFSDS bullet, was also made, and its penetration ability was not inferior to Peru's T-62 or T-55 /54 at all. When Chile introduced the Leopard 1 V and the AMX-30B2, it withdrew to the second line, and it is said that it was finally retired in the 2000s.
The T-34-85 , which can be said to be a rival in terms of vitality, is still in active service as a second-class fighter in some countries such as North Korea and Africa, and shows off its veteran skills by appearing once in a while when it is bored. However, as the Sherman Lepotenciado series, which is a modified version of the M4A4 Sherman, is still operated as part of the Presidential Guard Regiment in Paraguay, the lifespan battle with the T-34-85 is expected to continue in the future.
  |
Sherman Wreckage in Goseong-gun |
There are still Sherman tanks left abandoned during the war in Korea. It is said that the Sherman is left abandoned in front of Geonbongsan OP on the Civilian Control Line in Goseong, Gangwon-do .
It was also discovered in Gimpo City. The article calls it T-46 or T-48, but anyone can tell it's a Sherman. The tank with the name mentioned was never produced in the first place.[91] And in fact, the information about it being 'discovered' is also false; the 2nd Marine Division stationed in the area had been aware of the fact that old tanks were abandoned in the area for a long time.
North Korea is displaying M4A3 (76) W VVSS, M4A3E8, etc. captured during the Korean War at the Victory Fatherland Liberation War Memorial Hall in Pyongyang .
It was also discovered in Gimpo City. The article calls it T-46 or T-48, but anyone can tell it's a Sherman. The tank with the name mentioned was never produced in the first place.[91] And in fact, the information about it being 'discovered' is also false; the 2nd Marine Division stationed in the area had been aware of the fact that old tanks were abandoned in the area for a long time.
North Korea is displaying M4A3 (76) W VVSS, M4A3E8, etc. captured during the Korean War at the Victory Fatherland Liberation War Memorial Hall in Pyongyang .
4. form
more detailsM4 Sherman/Type documentcastPlease note.M4 Sherman has produced numerous derivatives with a phenomenal production of about 50,000 units.
4.1. M4
more detailsM4 medium tank documentcastPlease note.4.2. M4A1
more detailsM4A1 documentcastPlease note.4.3. M4A2
more detailsM4A2 documentcastPlease note.4.4. M4A3
more detailsM4A3 documentcastPlease note.4.5. M4A4
more detailsM4A4 documentcastPlease note.5. practice
  |
Bulldozer Sherman and soldiers of the 39th Infantry Brigade of the 3rd Armored Division breaking through the Siegfried Line, Rötgen, Germany, September 15, 1944 |
It wasn't that Sherman couldn't pay the bills, but in October 1944, in the second half of the war, the U.S. 5th Army had hundreds of 75 Shermans, but they wouldn't accept anything, so give me the 76, right now! So all tanks are replaced with 76 Shermans. In fact, in North Africa, where the Sherman first appeared, there were rare armored vehicles such as the F2 Type 4 long -barreled tank that could deal with the Sherman, so the Sherman was a formidable opponent for the Axis forces at the time. However, the German army, which welcomed the Allied forces back to Europe, brought out all the high-performance tanks at its disposal, such as the 4th Tank, which was on par with the Sherman (in terms of firepower) , the 3rd Assault Gun , various tank destroyers, and assault guns, as well as the Panther and Tiger 2. As a result of this, combined with the British army's honest tank operation, the Sherman's loss rate increased beyond imagination.
However, toward the end of the war, the number of 76 Shermans increased, and due to synergy with various tactics, they achieved a virtual landslide victory over Panthers in places such as Arrakur. In the case of the Panther, the reliability of the drive system was notoriously poor, and although it is said that this was resolved to some extent after Kursk, it was completely defeated in areas such as Arrakur, which was a flat area without much cover, and as a result, the exchange ratio between Panther and Sherman in the Battle of Arrakur was 8:3.1.
An unusual case among the Sherman combat records on the European front is that the Welborn Task Force, consisting of one Sherman company, one infantry company mounted on a half-track armored vehicle, and three M36 GMCs, encountered at close range 10 Tiger 2s of the 3rd Company of the 507th Heavy Tank Battalion, which is believed to have killed the commander of the U.S. 3rd Armored Division , and suffered devastating damage (17 Shermans, half-tracks) 17 vehicles, 3 trucks, 1 M36 GMC, and 2 trucks). Looking at this, you may wonder what is unusual about this, but what is unusual is that 3 Tiger 2s were reported to have been completely lost in this battle. Also, two of them were not 76mm Shermans or infantry bazookas , but Shermans equipped with the 75mm M3, an early model gun. Here's why this was possible.
While being hit unilaterally by a Tiger 2 that jumped out of the hill and in the direction of the forest, one 75mm Sherman charged at three Tiger 2s that appeared from the direction of the forest and opened fire with white phosphorus smoke grenades from close range.[92] Due to the smoke and flames generated, the tanks of Tiger 2 were suffocated by the enormous smoke.[93] It was determined that the battle could not proceed. Eventually, he abandoned the tank and escaped. Even two in a row. This brave Sherman was eventually defeated by another Tiger 2, but with a 75mm instead of a 76mm, it was a significant case in which he made the opponent incapable of combat with only the base of the crew while dealing with a powerful heavy tank that was considered impossible to compete with. Records of the 3rd Company of the 507th Heavy Tank Battalion, to which the Tiger 2 belonged, show the complete loss of 3 Tiger 2s in the battle (one of which was a 76mm gun that hid in a farmhouse while the other Sherman was beaten by the Tiger 2, aiming for the flank and ambushing it). Sherman's criminal record) was reported, and the destruction of the Tiger 2 by white phosphorus was recognized as fact. #
Also, in reality, German armor cannot be considered superior to Allied armor. According to a study conducted at the US Army's Balistics Research Lab in the spring of 1945, there were interesting results. The U.S. 3rd and 4th Armored Divisions were studied as samples, because the U.S. 3rd and 4th Armored Divisions fought the most tank battles in the U.S. military during the war. These two divisions fought a total of 131 tank battles from August to December 1944, most of which were small-scale tank battles. In the case of large-scale tank battles, they were excluded from the investigation because it is difficult to identify the progress of the battle and determine what happened and how. The conclusions of the U.S. Army Ballistics Laboratory are summarized as follows:
However, toward the end of the war, the number of 76 Shermans increased, and due to synergy with various tactics, they achieved a virtual landslide victory over Panthers in places such as Arrakur. In the case of the Panther, the reliability of the drive system was notoriously poor, and although it is said that this was resolved to some extent after Kursk, it was completely defeated in areas such as Arrakur, which was a flat area without much cover, and as a result, the exchange ratio between Panther and Sherman in the Battle of Arrakur was 8:3.1.
An unusual case among the Sherman combat records on the European front is that the Welborn Task Force, consisting of one Sherman company, one infantry company mounted on a half-track armored vehicle, and three M36 GMCs, encountered at close range 10 Tiger 2s of the 3rd Company of the 507th Heavy Tank Battalion, which is believed to have killed the commander of the U.S. 3rd Armored Division , and suffered devastating damage (17 Shermans, half-tracks) 17 vehicles, 3 trucks, 1 M36 GMC, and 2 trucks). Looking at this, you may wonder what is unusual about this, but what is unusual is that 3 Tiger 2s were reported to have been completely lost in this battle. Also, two of them were not 76mm Shermans or infantry bazookas , but Shermans equipped with the 75mm M3, an early model gun. Here's why this was possible.
While being hit unilaterally by a Tiger 2 that jumped out of the hill and in the direction of the forest, one 75mm Sherman charged at three Tiger 2s that appeared from the direction of the forest and opened fire with white phosphorus smoke grenades from close range.[92] Due to the smoke and flames generated, the tanks of Tiger 2 were suffocated by the enormous smoke.[93] It was determined that the battle could not proceed. Eventually, he abandoned the tank and escaped. Even two in a row. This brave Sherman was eventually defeated by another Tiger 2, but with a 75mm instead of a 76mm, it was a significant case in which he made the opponent incapable of combat with only the base of the crew while dealing with a powerful heavy tank that was considered impossible to compete with. Records of the 3rd Company of the 507th Heavy Tank Battalion, to which the Tiger 2 belonged, show the complete loss of 3 Tiger 2s in the battle (one of which was a 76mm gun that hid in a farmhouse while the other Sherman was beaten by the Tiger 2, aiming for the flank and ambushing it). Sherman's criminal record) was reported, and the destruction of the Tiger 2 by white phosphorus was recognized as fact. #
Also, in reality, German armor cannot be considered superior to Allied armor. According to a study conducted at the US Army's Balistics Research Lab in the spring of 1945, there were interesting results. The U.S. 3rd and 4th Armored Divisions were studied as samples, because the U.S. 3rd and 4th Armored Divisions fought the most tank battles in the U.S. military during the war. These two divisions fought a total of 131 tank battles from August to December 1944, most of which were small-scale tank battles. In the case of large-scale tank battles, they were excluded from the investigation because it is difficult to identify the progress of the battle and determine what happened and how. The conclusions of the U.S. Army Ballistics Laboratory are summarized as follows:
- The most important factor in tank warfare is, to put it simply, “win first and then win.” It is very important to spot first and shoot first. Therefore, the defenders have an absolute advantage, because engaging enemy tanks ambushed in familiar terrain is very difficult. In particular, the attacking party is usually on the move, unfamiliar with the terrain, and inevitably discovers the ambushed enemy late. Therefore, the response is much slower than that of the defending side. Considering the total number of engagements as 100%, the number of cases where the defending tank attacked first was 84%. And the attackers suffered an average of 4.3 times more damage than the defenders. It can be seen that one ambushed German tank was exchanged with 4.3 American tanks on the offensive. Conversely, in 16% of cases, the attacker attacked first, inflicting an average of 3.4 times more damage to the defender. There is a low probability that one American tank that went on the offensive was exchanged for 3.4 German tanks. To put it simply, the Sherman that hit first was cut down by 4.3 German tanks, while the Sherman that hit first cut down 3.4 German tanks on average. The reason why the exchange rate for German tanks was set so high was simply because the Allied forces were the attackers who had no choice but to take the first hit. This has little to do with tactics. This is simply evidence that the side that discovers and shoots first has the advantage. In tank battles, the outcome was decided in the early stages of the battle, and it was common for the side to attack first and quickly retreat to avoid annihilation after suffering significant damage.
  |
An illustration of M4A2 fighting the new turret Chi-Ha |
(strategy)
When I looked at the roaring sound slowly approaching in the darkness, it sounded like two or thirty large tanks. The power of the M4 type tank was immeasurable. It was natural that we would be easily crushed like bugs and ants. That eerie caterpillar sound seemed to threaten us, telling us to “run away” or “run away.”
"It can't be helped, ...forward![94] “Company commander Ishihara immediately gave the order to advance. Advancing meant retreating.
(syncopation)
They were literally in a trance, trying hard to escape so as not to be overtaken by the huge group of tanks. The company scattered and jumped into the swamp behind them , like sheep being chased by a fierce tiger .
However, although it was nice to jump into it, it was a difficult place. There were crocodiles and poisonous insects living in that swamp. As I was crossing the swamp, I had no idea where they would attack me. However, it was not as good as being trampled by the huge “land battleship”.- Written by Hiroshi Funasaka . 『The Scream of a Heroic Spirit, The Chronicles of Angaur, the Island of Prisons』 (English version of Agricultural Islands Battle Records) p. 24~25
“A fight against American ground forces is practically a battle against M4 tanks. ”Japanese 32nd Army Order No. 13 during the Battle of Okinawa
Even though it was pushed back a lot on the European front, it did very well against heavy tanks of a higher weight class than itself, and in the Pacific War, where it fought against the Empire of Japan, which also landed on an island and operated tanks, it played a great role due to its higher weight class. When the Japanese army encountered the M4 Sherman, which the U.S. Marine Corps had deployed to push through the jungle rather than engage in anti-tank combat, they panicked, saying they had 'met the devil'. In addition, due to the U.S. military's unique aggressive fighting style of 'shooting as soon as you see anything moving', damage continued to occur in all directions, and during the battle to recapture the Philippines in 1944 , it was literally blown away by Sherman.
As the war continued, the Japanese military also did a lot of research on the M4 Sherman and had a fairly accurate understanding of its strengths and weaknesses. Based on this, they studied their own anti-tank tactics to fight against the Sherman tank, but the results were not good. The most fundamental problem was that the Japanese military opposing the U.S. forces in the Pacific theater lacked tanks and anti-tank weapons that could compete with the Sherman, both in terms of performance and quantity. None of the anti-tank guns possessed by the Japanese army could even fit the Sherman, and it was difficult to defeat the Sherman from the front even with the shells fired by the Type 1 mobile 47mm rapid-fire gun (anti-tank gun), which was firmly believed in, or the Chiha improved version of this gun mounted as a tank gun.[95]
The 47mm rapid-firing gun could penetrate the Sherman's 30-degree sloped 51mm armor plate at a range of 460m, which is a typical engagement range when using armored high explosive shells (APHE). Although it is not as good as the European battlefield where Sherman used to be defeated from almost 1km away, it looks quite hopeful if you look at it this far. The problem is that the front, especially the turret, is the most frequently hit part of tanks in World War II. A 47mm rapid-fire gun cannot penetrate the front of the Sherman's turret, even at close range.
As the war continued, the Japanese military also did a lot of research on the M4 Sherman and had a fairly accurate understanding of its strengths and weaknesses. Based on this, they studied their own anti-tank tactics to fight against the Sherman tank, but the results were not good. The most fundamental problem was that the Japanese military opposing the U.S. forces in the Pacific theater lacked tanks and anti-tank weapons that could compete with the Sherman, both in terms of performance and quantity. None of the anti-tank guns possessed by the Japanese army could even fit the Sherman, and it was difficult to defeat the Sherman from the front even with the shells fired by the Type 1 mobile 47mm rapid-fire gun (anti-tank gun), which was firmly believed in, or the Chiha improved version of this gun mounted as a tank gun.[95]
The 47mm rapid-firing gun could penetrate the Sherman's 30-degree sloped 51mm armor plate at a range of 460m, which is a typical engagement range when using armored high explosive shells (APHE). Although it is not as good as the European battlefield where Sherman used to be defeated from almost 1km away, it looks quite hopeful if you look at it this far. The problem is that the front, especially the turret, is the most frequently hit part of tanks in World War II. A 47mm rapid-fire gun cannot penetrate the front of the Sherman's turret, even at close range.
  |
M4A3 flanked by a 47mm Type 1 rapid-firing gun |
Fortunately for the Japanese army, unlike the front, the side of the Sherman's turret could be destroyed from a distance of 6-700m. However, the problem is that targeting the Sherman's flank with a small number of Chi-Ha tanks or anti-tank guns with inferior mobility is not as easy as it sounds. There were a few improved versions of the Chi-Ha that hid nearby and caught the Sherman by surprise at close range, but they were counterattacked and destroyed right afterward. In any case, although there were many limitations, the 47mm rapid-fire gun and the Chiha improved version were able to defeat the Sherman with the support of cover art, anti-tank mines, field artillery, and cooperation with the accompanying infantry. However, the fundamental problem was that the production quantity was not sufficient, regardless of whether it was a rapid-fire gun or an improved version of the postlarvae. In the Battle of Okinawa , the Japanese army had 52 47mm rapid-fire guns, and the US 10th Army deployed over 800 tanks to Okinawa. Moreover, towards the end of the war, the Japanese army lost control of the sea and was isolated in various parts of the Pacific, making supply and reinforcement difficult, so the numerical gap became more serious day by day.
In the end, the Japanese army brought out the 'captured' M3 Stuart, the most powerful tank "in service" , but is there any way that the M3 Stuart could stop the Sherman, which was of a significantly different weight class and had superior firepower? The only way for the Japanese army to subdue the Sherman was to hope that the artillery barrage was lucky enough to hit the target, or to aim for its orbit and temporarily stop it. The Japanese army also used armor-piercing high-explosive bombs for 75mm, 105mm, and 150mm field guns and fired them at the Sherman. However, it was not easy to hit a small and fast tank with an ordinary field gun, not an anti-tank gun. Moreover, the Japanese military did not have well-developed bomb observation devices or communications like the U.S. military, making it even more difficult to hit such tactical targets. In addition, in most cases, Japanese field artillery forces suffered from anti-artillery fire from American artillery, which was several times superior, or were vulnerable to air raids, so they were not in a position to freely fire on American tanks.
Moreover, the Japanese Empire's industrial power was not outstanding, and the development of new anti-tank guns and tanks was limited. Therefore, it is not surprising that absurd tactics such as anti-tank bayonet techniques were developed. In fact, what gave Sherman the most trouble was the Japanese infantry coming at him from all directions, saying, “Let’s die together . ”[96] So, it is said that sharpened iron plates and iron nails were welded to the car body to make the tank look like a hedgehog. In addition, suicide charges by Japanese infantry were prevented in various ways, such as placing wooden boards on the sides to block self-adsorption Type 99 anti-tank mines. The Japanese army also hurriedly developed a tank to compete with the Sherman, but it was too late, and among those with turrets, they mass-produced the Chihe , Chinu , and Chito . As it was raised, mobility and reliability were a mess. Only two Cheetos could be used, so there were too few of them, and it was too late. Of course, Oi was fully capable of being defeated, but the U.S. military captured the prototype and used it only once before discarding it in 1952, so everyone except Oi was preparing for a decisive battle on the mainland. As an anti-tank self-propelled gun , the Honi , which was built on the Chi-ha chassis and was similar to the one mounted on the Chi-nu , was able to completely defeat the Sherman. However, although they went to the Philippines and prepared for a decisive battle, most of the vehicles ended up on reefs in the sea, and although the few vehicles that landed safely fought back, they were captured. Even if the best turret-equipped tanks, the Chiri and Oi, were released, what was standing behind them were the 1,000 M26 Pershing heavy tanks that the U.S. military had developed as an anti- tank for the 6th Panzer Tiger .[97]
In the end, the Japanese army brought out the 'captured' M3 Stuart, the most powerful tank "in service" , but is there any way that the M3 Stuart could stop the Sherman, which was of a significantly different weight class and had superior firepower? The only way for the Japanese army to subdue the Sherman was to hope that the artillery barrage was lucky enough to hit the target, or to aim for its orbit and temporarily stop it. The Japanese army also used armor-piercing high-explosive bombs for 75mm, 105mm, and 150mm field guns and fired them at the Sherman. However, it was not easy to hit a small and fast tank with an ordinary field gun, not an anti-tank gun. Moreover, the Japanese military did not have well-developed bomb observation devices or communications like the U.S. military, making it even more difficult to hit such tactical targets. In addition, in most cases, Japanese field artillery forces suffered from anti-artillery fire from American artillery, which was several times superior, or were vulnerable to air raids, so they were not in a position to freely fire on American tanks.
Moreover, the Japanese Empire's industrial power was not outstanding, and the development of new anti-tank guns and tanks was limited. Therefore, it is not surprising that absurd tactics such as anti-tank bayonet techniques were developed. In fact, what gave Sherman the most trouble was the Japanese infantry coming at him from all directions, saying, “Let’s die together . ”[96] So, it is said that sharpened iron plates and iron nails were welded to the car body to make the tank look like a hedgehog. In addition, suicide charges by Japanese infantry were prevented in various ways, such as placing wooden boards on the sides to block self-adsorption Type 99 anti-tank mines. The Japanese army also hurriedly developed a tank to compete with the Sherman, but it was too late, and among those with turrets, they mass-produced the Chihe , Chinu , and Chito . As it was raised, mobility and reliability were a mess. Only two Cheetos could be used, so there were too few of them, and it was too late. Of course, Oi was fully capable of being defeated, but the U.S. military captured the prototype and used it only once before discarding it in 1952, so everyone except Oi was preparing for a decisive battle on the mainland. As an anti-tank self-propelled gun , the Honi , which was built on the Chi-ha chassis and was similar to the one mounted on the Chi-nu , was able to completely defeat the Sherman. However, although they went to the Philippines and prepared for a decisive battle, most of the vehicles ended up on reefs in the sea, and although the few vehicles that landed safely fought back, they were captured. Even if the best turret-equipped tanks, the Chiri and Oi, were released, what was standing behind them were the 1,000 M26 Pershing heavy tanks that the U.S. military had developed as an anti- tank for the 6th Panzer Tiger .[97]
  |
  |
The top is the flamethrower M4A3R Zippo. Below is a bulldozer tank |
As the war progressed, locally modified vehicles such as flamethrower tanks and bulldozer tanks appeared to counter the Japanese garrison in the caves . Flamethrower tanks blew fire into caves and trenches, and bulldozer tanks were used to dig into the ground and bury Japanese soldiers who were about to explode themselves with Type 99 depth charges .
Of course, as with everything else in the world, Sherman boasted an invincible and unparalleled might in the Pacific, but that did not mean he always pushed back the Japanese army without suffering any losses. Since the Japanese military also had brains, they began researching ways to counter the Sherman using their old-generation anti-tank guns and new turrets, and eventually built reflective positions and sturdy anti-tank shelters that could withstand preemptive bombardment by the U.S. military, camouflaging them well and ambushing them. In addition, anti-tank mines were laid in the right places and suicide bombers were deployed. In particular, unlike the European Front, there were not many theaters in which tanks could be active in the Pacific Front, and most of the islands were mountainous and had narrow roads, so when pushing through Sherman, there was often traffic jams due to the slope, and the Japanese soldiers sometimes suffered damage from suicide charges aimed at that time.
The Japanese army formed a surprise fire net using these ambushed anti-tank guns and used a tactic of striking the Sherman's weak side and rear, which actually achieved results. In particular, units trained through actual combat experience on the front line were well aware of the Sherman's weaknesses, so they were able to steadily inflict damage during surprise attacks.[98] Therefore, no matter how powerful the Sherman was, it preferred to operate with infantry that protected the tank's blind spot and warned of enemy ambushes or dangerous elements in advance through reconnaissance, just as it did in Europe. If done well, it created an even more powerful synergy.[99]
This is because infantry is a complementary relationship because it does not have strong armor and firepower like a tank, but has the advantage of having a wide field of view and search power and being able to go through rough terrain that tanks cannot access. And the firepower of the US infantry was sufficient for the purpose of blocking the approach of the Japanese infantry, who were casting anti-tank bayonets from the tank's blind spot.
However, the Japanese military knew this very well, so if the US infantrymen and Shermans advanced together in the latter half of the Pacific War, the Japanese army would not be able to inflict great damage on tanks, but would pour deadly mortar fire on infantrymen, removing the US infantrymen or disengaging them from the battle line. When only tanks were left, they liked to use the tactic of launching an anti-tank attack in unison.
Although not by this tactic, there is an example that proves that traveling alone is dangerous even on the Pacific front, and that is the Kakazu tank battle. Throughout Okinawa , 30 Sherman tanks from Company A belonging to the US 139th Tank Battalion broke through the Kakazu Heights alone without contact with infantry units, but were caught in anti-tank fire. hit Because of the terrain restrictions on the tank's movement, it was very deep, so the Sherman tank did not know where the ambushed anti-tank guns were firing. One Sherman crew member said that he was so desperate that he repeatedly sent 'HELP' in plain text to the 27th Division in the rear.
This was recorded as the battle in which the U.S. military lost the most tanks during the Pacific War. Chiha also captured several Shermans in this way, and 153 of the 800 Shermans were completely lost by the Japanese army, which attacked with determination in Okinawa. This became the reason for the U.S. military to bring the M26 Pershing to Okinawa, and when the Japanese army in Okinawa signed the surrender, the U.S. military lined up this new tank at the surrender meeting hall. However, in the meantime, one M4 was neutralized only after being hit by 17 rounds of a 4.7cm Type 1 mobile rapid-fire cannon. This proves that a tank without infantry is dangerous even if it is a Sherman in the Pacific , but this kind of response is almost a risk of death, proving that the Sherman's status was not ordinary. Also, in Okinawa, where many Shermans were lost, the U.S. military immediately sent repairs to the rear maintenance battalion as soon as there was a scratch on a tank, and in the meantime, they always maintained the essence of the tank unit with supplementary tanks. In the end, from the Japanese military's point of view, yesterday they piled up the corpses and barely captured one, but today the same number of Shermans push in again... and repeat below.
In fact, the Shermans began to be destroyed in earnest during the Iwo Jima campaign before the Kakasu tank battle in Okinawa , and as the Japanese army first came to its senses, the pattern of the existing Pacific front, where they had 'come to die on their own', began to change here. After the first landing, there was no resistance unlike before, but then suddenly we were hit by a mine, and even the 30-ton Sherman was flying around like a toy.[100] As he entered the inland, he was attacked by anti-tank artillery units including well-camouflaged field artillery and 4.7cm Type 1 mobile rapid-firing guns, and he lost about 30 vehicles at once in one battle. Sherman's real hardships can be seen as the Battle of Iwo Jima.
However, Okinawa is not the first time, and the U.S. forces in the Pacific created a joint preservation strategy long before that, when they used tanks in jungle battles in New Guinea and amphibious operations in Pacific islands such as Saipan. Japanese positions on the island withstood the fire of 14-inch battleship shells, and the thick forests reduced the effectiveness of field artillery fire. After such a volley, as the tanks and Marines or Army advanced, the Japanese attacked by surprise, scattering the infantry and attacking the isolated tanks. At this time, due to considerable losses, the US Army installed a wired telephone at the rear of the tank so that the infantry could contact the tank commander, and improved the doctrine for more organic cooperative operations.
Documentary about Sherman in the Pacific
Of course, as with everything else in the world, Sherman boasted an invincible and unparalleled might in the Pacific, but that did not mean he always pushed back the Japanese army without suffering any losses. Since the Japanese military also had brains, they began researching ways to counter the Sherman using their old-generation anti-tank guns and new turrets, and eventually built reflective positions and sturdy anti-tank shelters that could withstand preemptive bombardment by the U.S. military, camouflaging them well and ambushing them. In addition, anti-tank mines were laid in the right places and suicide bombers were deployed. In particular, unlike the European Front, there were not many theaters in which tanks could be active in the Pacific Front, and most of the islands were mountainous and had narrow roads, so when pushing through Sherman, there was often traffic jams due to the slope, and the Japanese soldiers sometimes suffered damage from suicide charges aimed at that time.
The Japanese army formed a surprise fire net using these ambushed anti-tank guns and used a tactic of striking the Sherman's weak side and rear, which actually achieved results. In particular, units trained through actual combat experience on the front line were well aware of the Sherman's weaknesses, so they were able to steadily inflict damage during surprise attacks.[98] Therefore, no matter how powerful the Sherman was, it preferred to operate with infantry that protected the tank's blind spot and warned of enemy ambushes or dangerous elements in advance through reconnaissance, just as it did in Europe. If done well, it created an even more powerful synergy.[99]
This is because infantry is a complementary relationship because it does not have strong armor and firepower like a tank, but has the advantage of having a wide field of view and search power and being able to go through rough terrain that tanks cannot access. And the firepower of the US infantry was sufficient for the purpose of blocking the approach of the Japanese infantry, who were casting anti-tank bayonets from the tank's blind spot.
However, the Japanese military knew this very well, so if the US infantrymen and Shermans advanced together in the latter half of the Pacific War, the Japanese army would not be able to inflict great damage on tanks, but would pour deadly mortar fire on infantrymen, removing the US infantrymen or disengaging them from the battle line. When only tanks were left, they liked to use the tactic of launching an anti-tank attack in unison.
Although not by this tactic, there is an example that proves that traveling alone is dangerous even on the Pacific front, and that is the Kakazu tank battle. Throughout Okinawa , 30 Sherman tanks from Company A belonging to the US 139th Tank Battalion broke through the Kakazu Heights alone without contact with infantry units, but were caught in anti-tank fire. hit Because of the terrain restrictions on the tank's movement, it was very deep, so the Sherman tank did not know where the ambushed anti-tank guns were firing. One Sherman crew member said that he was so desperate that he repeatedly sent 'HELP' in plain text to the 27th Division in the rear.
This was recorded as the battle in which the U.S. military lost the most tanks during the Pacific War. Chiha also captured several Shermans in this way, and 153 of the 800 Shermans were completely lost by the Japanese army, which attacked with determination in Okinawa. This became the reason for the U.S. military to bring the M26 Pershing to Okinawa, and when the Japanese army in Okinawa signed the surrender, the U.S. military lined up this new tank at the surrender meeting hall. However, in the meantime, one M4 was neutralized only after being hit by 17 rounds of a 4.7cm Type 1 mobile rapid-fire cannon. This proves that a tank without infantry is dangerous even if it is a Sherman in the Pacific , but this kind of response is almost a risk of death, proving that the Sherman's status was not ordinary. Also, in Okinawa, where many Shermans were lost, the U.S. military immediately sent repairs to the rear maintenance battalion as soon as there was a scratch on a tank, and in the meantime, they always maintained the essence of the tank unit with supplementary tanks. In the end, from the Japanese military's point of view, yesterday they piled up the corpses and barely captured one, but today the same number of Shermans push in again... and repeat below.
In fact, the Shermans began to be destroyed in earnest during the Iwo Jima campaign before the Kakasu tank battle in Okinawa , and as the Japanese army first came to its senses, the pattern of the existing Pacific front, where they had 'come to die on their own', began to change here. After the first landing, there was no resistance unlike before, but then suddenly we were hit by a mine, and even the 30-ton Sherman was flying around like a toy.[100] As he entered the inland, he was attacked by anti-tank artillery units including well-camouflaged field artillery and 4.7cm Type 1 mobile rapid-firing guns, and he lost about 30 vehicles at once in one battle. Sherman's real hardships can be seen as the Battle of Iwo Jima.
However, Okinawa is not the first time, and the U.S. forces in the Pacific created a joint preservation strategy long before that, when they used tanks in jungle battles in New Guinea and amphibious operations in Pacific islands such as Saipan. Japanese positions on the island withstood the fire of 14-inch battleship shells, and the thick forests reduced the effectiveness of field artillery fire. After such a volley, as the tanks and Marines or Army advanced, the Japanese attacked by surprise, scattering the infantry and attacking the isolated tanks. At this time, due to considerable losses, the US Army installed a wired telephone at the rear of the tank so that the infantry could contact the tank commander, and improved the doctrine for more organic cooperative operations.
Documentary about Sherman in the Pacific
6. operating station
more detailsM4 Sherman/Operating Station documentcastPlease note.7. All aspects of reliability and productivity
Overall, the Sherman's productivity and reliability have been evaluated as excellent. The U.S. military, which had to transport tanks across the Pacific and Atlantic , designed the Sherman to be reliable so that it did not have to return to its home country for repairs, and the Soviet military, who received and operated it, praised it for being a sturdy tank that was not prone to breakdowns. Because there was room for weight, local repairs and remodeling were easy, and US military engineers were also active in remodeling.
As an automobile powerhouse, including the so-called 'Big Three' of Ford Motor Company , General Motors , and Chrysler, the United States had developed metallurgy and mechanical engineering at the world's highest level, and was also able to procure large amounts of capital, allowing each factory to effectively design machine tools specialized for the production of individual parts and then produce and input them in large quantities. While the Henschel factory, which produced the 6th Tank Tiger, had about 1,000 multi-purpose machine tools, including lathes, the Chrysler factory in Detroit had about 8,000 machine tools specialized for manufacturing specific parts. Compared to the German tank production line of similar mechanical complexity, the German line took time and lowered productivity because it had to change machine tool settings in the process of manufacturing two or more parts with a single multi-purpose tool, but the American line only had to divide labor into specialized machine tools, so there was no loss of productivity during the conversion process. Productivity loss due to mechanical complexity could be sufficiently overcome by investing capital.[101]
Both the US and the Soviet Union pursued standardization of production processes and standardization of parts in the production process of Sherman and T-34. This pattern of standardization was different in the two countries. The Soviet Union pursued extreme vertical integration in the process of rebuilding its production plants. After the western region was taken away, the factory had no choice but to build a factory in a relatively underdeveloped railroad facility, so instead of procuring parts from outside the factory to reduce the railroad traffic needed for operation, the T-34 was produced from start to finish in one factory complex. did. Since the majority of T-34s were destined to be destroyed before receiving replacement parts anyway, tolerances that were inversely proportional to the lifespan of the parts were deliberately raised to reduce the nominal defect rate, and it didn't matter if some parts were incompatible from factory to factory. A communist- style planned economy , sacrificing small details for production targets, worked well in wartime.
In contrast, the United States pursued horizontal integration. Private companies produced parts at industrial complexes in the Michigan - Illinois region centered on Detroit , transported them to Detroit, and assembled the tanks. Since many private companies participated in production, no significant bottlenecks occurred in the parts procurement process as long as capital was steadily invested. Because there was good standardization and low-quality parts were filtered out during the bidding process, parts produced by private companies could be assembled without any problems even if they came from different factories. Since the level of metallurgy and mechanical engineering was at the world's highest level, the tolerance of parts was also small compared to other countries, and the mechanical properties of the alloy materials used were excellent, so the reliability of parts was also at the world's highest level. Because a large amount of capital was invested in the process of building a production base, the production cost per vehicle itself was more expensive than that of tanks from other countries, but since parts could be supplied from many private companies, the labor time required to complete each vehicle was extremely short, at 10,000 man hours per Sherman and 1/30 of the Tiger. This time, the capitalist economic system, which was benchmarked to the operating method of the modern automobile industry, appeared to be functioning properly (source: Ibid). At the time, Germany's American-style mass production system was minimal and even hated it .
In Operation Goodwood, which took place immediately after the Normandy landings, British Commonwealth forces lost more than 500 tanks in three days. Although the tanks of the Canadian armored unit , which was at the forefront of the attack, were all Shermans , the Churchill tanks, which were said to have better defense than the Shermans deployed in the infantry unit that followed, also suffered enormous damage to the point where they exploded. Since then, in 1944, the Allied forces on the Western Front had to experience several disasters in which all of the armored division's equipment was completely replaced with new ones, but even then, there were still cars left over. In the end, the United States was a country with such a monstrous industrial production capacity that it was able to cover up even such damage.
As a more concrete example, the US 3rd Armored Division suffered total tank losses of 580% from July 9, 1944 (the day it was deployed to Normandy) to April 30, 1945 (the actual end of the war). Of course, you shouldn't think that all tank losses are complete, and the damage is too severe to put into battle, so the vehicle evacuated to the rear is also treated as a loss, so it's about 200%, which is much lower than 600%. At that time, the American loss standard was not just completely destroyed and very unusable, but all tanks that took more than two days to repair were treated as losses, so in fact many of the losses were repaired and returned to the front. On the other hand, the German army only completely destroyed tanks without this, and even tanks abandoned due to damage on the battlefield were often not treated as destroyed under the arbitrary judgment that they could be towed and repaired later. It should be noted that it came out higher than it actually is.
Still, in June 1944, all the division's tanks were 75mm, but in November, they were all replaced by 76mm. Of course, it wasn't that the equipment was left over and replaced, it was the result of filling it up as much as it died. And even after the Shermans were consumed, tens of thousands of Shermans still remained in new condition in the United States and Britain. The British Army alone had thousands of Shermans in stock when the war ended, about a third of the American stock.
The problem is that while doing that, the U.S. military launched 24 Essex-class aircraft carriers and over 100 escort aircraft carriers for four years, launched over 200 destroyers , and launched one Liberty ship a day. The area where the Sherman was produced was limited to Detroit and the surrounding states of Michigan and Illinois, and weapons needed for different branches were produced in the remaining regions. While army, navy, and air force weapons were pouring in from all over the United States, the Axis powers had no way to attack even the eastern United States, let alone Detroit. At least there was a Japanese army , but after hitting Hawaii , which was not a factory area, the front lines were pushed back, and the American factories literally came to a halt. In other words, no matter how much war there is, if the munitions factory is safe, there is no way to stop the flow of supplies.[102]
Although Sherman had a complex structure, the quality of the overall parts was high and well standardized thanks to the power of American industry. Although the majority of Sherman's colorful derivatives were created due to differences in manufacturing plants, it can be seen from the fact that it did not cause any difficulties in distribution. Instead of committing the mistake of changing the design on the fly to apply minor changes during production like Germany, it was possible because the improvement requested by the tank crew was applied in a modern block format while introducing a derivative type .
In addition, thanks to the terrible consumption rate and even more terrible productivity, there was a high rate of being destroyed and scrapped or going to be overhauled before it was rolled enough to break. After all, it was faster to load and deploy inventory than to repair even a minor breakdown, so it can be said that reliability problems cannot arise. In addition, the opponents were Germany, which wasted its efforts with a tank development plan and whose industrial power itself was waning amid endless defeats, and Japan, which never dreamed of standardizing parts even before and during the war.
However, the Soviet Army's T-34 also set the durability of parts to exactly match the average lifespan of destruction and simplified design and quality control, so the operation method of replacing a destroyed tank with a new tank was almost identical to the Sherman. As can be seen from the praise given to the Sherman by the Soviet military, it can be said for certain that the reliability of the Sherman was generally superior to that of Soviet-made tanks. In the case of the transmission, the Sherman is said to have been able to withstand rough maneuvers on the battlefield better by using double-helix gear wheels in parts that receive a lot of force. It is said that the German Panther could not produce enough double-helix gear wheels, so it had to use regular gear wheels, which forced the driver to exercise great care. The Soviet T-34's operating time was set at 14 hours, but the Sherman's operating time was set at a whopping 40 hours, nearly three times higher. It is said that the durability of the parts was excellent and the maintainability in case of breakdown was better than that of other countries' tanks.
It is also necessary to reconsider the claim that reliability is overvalued as a productive force. The high defect rate of the T-34 in the initial production process at Uralzavod is rapidly improving as production increases. The increase in production per design unit not only increases productivity through improvement of the production process, but also increases productivity through reduction of defect rate in the production process. Rather than overestimating reliability because of productivity, it is more accurate to say that reliability increases as production increases.
And the biggest proof of the Sherman's reliability is that "During World War II, the tank that was deployed in as diverse an environment as the Sherman and operated without problems was the T-26.[103] It is true that , with the exception of the Valentine Tank , all of these tanks have proven to be reliable." It roamed without problems not only in the plains of Europe, but also in the wide desert environments of Africa and Manchuria, where it was first deployed, and was sent to the Soviet Union through Lend-Lease . The donated ones operated without problems in the cold climate of Siberia , traveled to various tropical islands throughout the Pacific, and were operated without problems in Southeast Asia by Chinese warlords . Another tank that was used in such a wide area was the British Matilda II . However, the Matilda II had significant reliability issues when used in deserts and cold regions. Of course, this does not mean that other tanks would have been damaged or had problems if they had been used in similar ways, but the reliability of the tank was verified by being actually used in this way. The Sherman is unique. It was also used by Chinese warlords in Manchuria , where supplies were poor in many ways. Unlike Europe, it was used without any problems in the Pacific theater, where supplies were more problematic in various islands in the Pacific, and when testing the A38 Valiant . When used as a control group, the conclusion was drawn to just dump the Valiant and continue using the Sherman, which had already shown results that it would not break down even after driving for 2,500 km. It becomes a disconfirmation of the claim.
Lastly, it is also important to consider that reliability is not limited to simple mechanical reliability. Most Shermans put a great deal of emphasis on maintainability, so like existing US military tanks, parts of the engine could be accessed by opening the door at the rear of the car, and the front transmission could be opened and replaced in about two hours by fastening the armor at the bottom of the car with bolts.[104] This was only 1/3 the time compared to the Panther, which had to use a crane to lift the transmission from the top of the car body. Well-standardized, mass-produced parts with good maintainability are factors that inevitably increase reliability during operations.
As an automobile powerhouse, including the so-called 'Big Three' of Ford Motor Company , General Motors , and Chrysler, the United States had developed metallurgy and mechanical engineering at the world's highest level, and was also able to procure large amounts of capital, allowing each factory to effectively design machine tools specialized for the production of individual parts and then produce and input them in large quantities. While the Henschel factory, which produced the 6th Tank Tiger, had about 1,000 multi-purpose machine tools, including lathes, the Chrysler factory in Detroit had about 8,000 machine tools specialized for manufacturing specific parts. Compared to the German tank production line of similar mechanical complexity, the German line took time and lowered productivity because it had to change machine tool settings in the process of manufacturing two or more parts with a single multi-purpose tool, but the American line only had to divide labor into specialized machine tools, so there was no loss of productivity during the conversion process. Productivity loss due to mechanical complexity could be sufficiently overcome by investing capital.[101]
Both the US and the Soviet Union pursued standardization of production processes and standardization of parts in the production process of Sherman and T-34. This pattern of standardization was different in the two countries. The Soviet Union pursued extreme vertical integration in the process of rebuilding its production plants. After the western region was taken away, the factory had no choice but to build a factory in a relatively underdeveloped railroad facility, so instead of procuring parts from outside the factory to reduce the railroad traffic needed for operation, the T-34 was produced from start to finish in one factory complex. did. Since the majority of T-34s were destined to be destroyed before receiving replacement parts anyway, tolerances that were inversely proportional to the lifespan of the parts were deliberately raised to reduce the nominal defect rate, and it didn't matter if some parts were incompatible from factory to factory. A communist- style planned economy , sacrificing small details for production targets, worked well in wartime.
In contrast, the United States pursued horizontal integration. Private companies produced parts at industrial complexes in the Michigan - Illinois region centered on Detroit , transported them to Detroit, and assembled the tanks. Since many private companies participated in production, no significant bottlenecks occurred in the parts procurement process as long as capital was steadily invested. Because there was good standardization and low-quality parts were filtered out during the bidding process, parts produced by private companies could be assembled without any problems even if they came from different factories. Since the level of metallurgy and mechanical engineering was at the world's highest level, the tolerance of parts was also small compared to other countries, and the mechanical properties of the alloy materials used were excellent, so the reliability of parts was also at the world's highest level. Because a large amount of capital was invested in the process of building a production base, the production cost per vehicle itself was more expensive than that of tanks from other countries, but since parts could be supplied from many private companies, the labor time required to complete each vehicle was extremely short, at 10,000 man hours per Sherman and 1/30 of the Tiger. This time, the capitalist economic system, which was benchmarked to the operating method of the modern automobile industry, appeared to be functioning properly (source: Ibid). At the time, Germany's American-style mass production system was minimal and even hated it .
In Operation Goodwood, which took place immediately after the Normandy landings, British Commonwealth forces lost more than 500 tanks in three days. Although the tanks of the Canadian armored unit , which was at the forefront of the attack, were all Shermans , the Churchill tanks, which were said to have better defense than the Shermans deployed in the infantry unit that followed, also suffered enormous damage to the point where they exploded. Since then, in 1944, the Allied forces on the Western Front had to experience several disasters in which all of the armored division's equipment was completely replaced with new ones, but even then, there were still cars left over. In the end, the United States was a country with such a monstrous industrial production capacity that it was able to cover up even such damage.
As a more concrete example, the US 3rd Armored Division suffered total tank losses of 580% from July 9, 1944 (the day it was deployed to Normandy) to April 30, 1945 (the actual end of the war). Of course, you shouldn't think that all tank losses are complete, and the damage is too severe to put into battle, so the vehicle evacuated to the rear is also treated as a loss, so it's about 200%, which is much lower than 600%. At that time, the American loss standard was not just completely destroyed and very unusable, but all tanks that took more than two days to repair were treated as losses, so in fact many of the losses were repaired and returned to the front. On the other hand, the German army only completely destroyed tanks without this, and even tanks abandoned due to damage on the battlefield were often not treated as destroyed under the arbitrary judgment that they could be towed and repaired later. It should be noted that it came out higher than it actually is.
Still, in June 1944, all the division's tanks were 75mm, but in November, they were all replaced by 76mm. Of course, it wasn't that the equipment was left over and replaced, it was the result of filling it up as much as it died. And even after the Shermans were consumed, tens of thousands of Shermans still remained in new condition in the United States and Britain. The British Army alone had thousands of Shermans in stock when the war ended, about a third of the American stock.
The problem is that while doing that, the U.S. military launched 24 Essex-class aircraft carriers and over 100 escort aircraft carriers for four years, launched over 200 destroyers , and launched one Liberty ship a day. The area where the Sherman was produced was limited to Detroit and the surrounding states of Michigan and Illinois, and weapons needed for different branches were produced in the remaining regions. While army, navy, and air force weapons were pouring in from all over the United States, the Axis powers had no way to attack even the eastern United States, let alone Detroit. At least there was a Japanese army , but after hitting Hawaii , which was not a factory area, the front lines were pushed back, and the American factories literally came to a halt. In other words, no matter how much war there is, if the munitions factory is safe, there is no way to stop the flow of supplies.[102]
Although Sherman had a complex structure, the quality of the overall parts was high and well standardized thanks to the power of American industry. Although the majority of Sherman's colorful derivatives were created due to differences in manufacturing plants, it can be seen from the fact that it did not cause any difficulties in distribution. Instead of committing the mistake of changing the design on the fly to apply minor changes during production like Germany, it was possible because the improvement requested by the tank crew was applied in a modern block format while introducing a derivative type .
In addition, thanks to the terrible consumption rate and even more terrible productivity, there was a high rate of being destroyed and scrapped or going to be overhauled before it was rolled enough to break. After all, it was faster to load and deploy inventory than to repair even a minor breakdown, so it can be said that reliability problems cannot arise. In addition, the opponents were Germany, which wasted its efforts with a tank development plan and whose industrial power itself was waning amid endless defeats, and Japan, which never dreamed of standardizing parts even before and during the war.
However, the Soviet Army's T-34 also set the durability of parts to exactly match the average lifespan of destruction and simplified design and quality control, so the operation method of replacing a destroyed tank with a new tank was almost identical to the Sherman. As can be seen from the praise given to the Sherman by the Soviet military, it can be said for certain that the reliability of the Sherman was generally superior to that of Soviet-made tanks. In the case of the transmission, the Sherman is said to have been able to withstand rough maneuvers on the battlefield better by using double-helix gear wheels in parts that receive a lot of force. It is said that the German Panther could not produce enough double-helix gear wheels, so it had to use regular gear wheels, which forced the driver to exercise great care. The Soviet T-34's operating time was set at 14 hours, but the Sherman's operating time was set at a whopping 40 hours, nearly three times higher. It is said that the durability of the parts was excellent and the maintainability in case of breakdown was better than that of other countries' tanks.
It is also necessary to reconsider the claim that reliability is overvalued as a productive force. The high defect rate of the T-34 in the initial production process at Uralzavod is rapidly improving as production increases. The increase in production per design unit not only increases productivity through improvement of the production process, but also increases productivity through reduction of defect rate in the production process. Rather than overestimating reliability because of productivity, it is more accurate to say that reliability increases as production increases.
And the biggest proof of the Sherman's reliability is that "During World War II, the tank that was deployed in as diverse an environment as the Sherman and operated without problems was the T-26.[103] It is true that , with the exception of the Valentine Tank , all of these tanks have proven to be reliable." It roamed without problems not only in the plains of Europe, but also in the wide desert environments of Africa and Manchuria, where it was first deployed, and was sent to the Soviet Union through Lend-Lease . The donated ones operated without problems in the cold climate of Siberia , traveled to various tropical islands throughout the Pacific, and were operated without problems in Southeast Asia by Chinese warlords . Another tank that was used in such a wide area was the British Matilda II . However, the Matilda II had significant reliability issues when used in deserts and cold regions. Of course, this does not mean that other tanks would have been damaged or had problems if they had been used in similar ways, but the reliability of the tank was verified by being actually used in this way. The Sherman is unique. It was also used by Chinese warlords in Manchuria , where supplies were poor in many ways. Unlike Europe, it was used without any problems in the Pacific theater, where supplies were more problematic in various islands in the Pacific, and when testing the A38 Valiant . When used as a control group, the conclusion was drawn to just dump the Valiant and continue using the Sherman, which had already shown results that it would not break down even after driving for 2,500 km. It becomes a disconfirmation of the claim.
Lastly, it is also important to consider that reliability is not limited to simple mechanical reliability. Most Shermans put a great deal of emphasis on maintainability, so like existing US military tanks, parts of the engine could be accessed by opening the door at the rear of the car, and the front transmission could be opened and replaced in about two hours by fastening the armor at the bottom of the car with bolts.[104] This was only 1/3 the time compared to the Panther, which had to use a crane to lift the transmission from the top of the car body. Well-standardized, mass-produced parts with good maintainability are factors that inevitably increase reliability during operations.
8. overall rating
In general, the evaluation of the Sherman is quite harsh compared to tanks such as the T-34 , because it was seen that the Sherman was unilaterally destroyed by looking at the history of a small number of German tanks or crews after the war.
However, contrary to this evaluation, the Sherman's software specifications were the most progressive for a World War II tank. Only the software specifications conformed to the 1st generation tanks after World War II beyond German, Soviet and Young. Representatively, Command's Override , vertical stabilizer, APU , many observation equipment, large volume, electric/hydraulic turret rotation, excellent radio, etc. And even this is only mentioned among the many soft specifications that Sherman has. Except for the Sherman, WWII tanks have only one or two of these. Excluding the exchange rate and wartime situation, if you look only at the tank, there was talk of a tank that is more expensive than the Tiger.
Of course, the Sherman had a weight limit, so its armor and firepower were weak compared to heavy tanks such as the Panther, Tiger, and Tiger 2 of the German army at the time. And since the US military had to transport Sherman in large quantities to the Allied Forces across the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, it was inevitable that a large amount of administrative costs would be incurred if the transport weight limit was recklessly increased. And there is a large reason why the doctrine of tank warfare, which came out to save such administrative costs, worked complexly. Although the risky landing operation was successful, it had to be underestimated in the eyes of the public who are accustomed to other US military equipment that overpowered other countries by more than one generation because it gave a 580% attrition rate to the operation after the initial landing.
However, the Sherman is a tank that cannot be evaluated based on its one-sided firepower and armor specifications alone. The 75mm gun was sufficient for its weight class, so it had an advantage over tanks 3 and 4 throughout the war, and the war was not just a pure tank battle. Of course, the center of war is the infantry.[105] In order to carry out joint conservation operations, a large number of tanks were needed to operate with the infantry, and the Sherman was able to quickly prepare for mass production by utilizing old tanks as much as possible, and thanks to the United States' standardization ability, parts compatibility was excellent. Based on this, it was possible to create numerous improved versions of the Sherman during the Great War and after the war. In particular, the Jumbo Sherman, which utilized the weight limit to its limit, was used like a heavy tank of the Soviet Army and demonstrated excellent performance in breaking through the front line. In addition, the Sherman's reliability was not a nice-to-have advantage, but an essential feature needed to function as a weapon, making the Sherman a tank that was not only highly productive but also excellent in maintenance convenience and reliability. Because it had to cross the Pacific and Atlantic, it was difficult to send it back to its home country for repairs or large-scale overhauls, but thanks to Sherman's reliability, this was not a major obstacle.
It was an excellent tank in terms of mechanical reliability, and, unlike the T-34, the internal use was very wide, so it was unmatched in the crew residence, and it was a large volume that was not too much for the number.[106] In this respect, Sherman has never had a falling performance compared to the lighter 3 and 4, as well as a medium-sized tank of almost the same weight, such as the T-34-85, and the undervaluation of Lonson or can is very unfair. In fact, Easy Eight, who fought with the T-34-85 during the Korean War, smashed the T-34-85 without a problem, and the M-51 tank, which was converted into the French CN 105 F1 gun , was overwhelmed by the T-55 and T-62 , which was overwhelmed by Tigger 2, and became the last winner of the second World War tank.
However, contrary to this evaluation, the Sherman's software specifications were the most progressive for a World War II tank. Only the software specifications conformed to the 1st generation tanks after World War II beyond German, Soviet and Young. Representatively, Command's Override , vertical stabilizer, APU , many observation equipment, large volume, electric/hydraulic turret rotation, excellent radio, etc. And even this is only mentioned among the many soft specifications that Sherman has. Except for the Sherman, WWII tanks have only one or two of these. Excluding the exchange rate and wartime situation, if you look only at the tank, there was talk of a tank that is more expensive than the Tiger.
Of course, the Sherman had a weight limit, so its armor and firepower were weak compared to heavy tanks such as the Panther, Tiger, and Tiger 2 of the German army at the time. And since the US military had to transport Sherman in large quantities to the Allied Forces across the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, it was inevitable that a large amount of administrative costs would be incurred if the transport weight limit was recklessly increased. And there is a large reason why the doctrine of tank warfare, which came out to save such administrative costs, worked complexly. Although the risky landing operation was successful, it had to be underestimated in the eyes of the public who are accustomed to other US military equipment that overpowered other countries by more than one generation because it gave a 580% attrition rate to the operation after the initial landing.
However, the Sherman is a tank that cannot be evaluated based on its one-sided firepower and armor specifications alone. The 75mm gun was sufficient for its weight class, so it had an advantage over tanks 3 and 4 throughout the war, and the war was not just a pure tank battle. Of course, the center of war is the infantry.[105] In order to carry out joint conservation operations, a large number of tanks were needed to operate with the infantry, and the Sherman was able to quickly prepare for mass production by utilizing old tanks as much as possible, and thanks to the United States' standardization ability, parts compatibility was excellent. Based on this, it was possible to create numerous improved versions of the Sherman during the Great War and after the war. In particular, the Jumbo Sherman, which utilized the weight limit to its limit, was used like a heavy tank of the Soviet Army and demonstrated excellent performance in breaking through the front line. In addition, the Sherman's reliability was not a nice-to-have advantage, but an essential feature needed to function as a weapon, making the Sherman a tank that was not only highly productive but also excellent in maintenance convenience and reliability. Because it had to cross the Pacific and Atlantic, it was difficult to send it back to its home country for repairs or large-scale overhauls, but thanks to Sherman's reliability, this was not a major obstacle.
It was an excellent tank in terms of mechanical reliability, and, unlike the T-34, the internal use was very wide, so it was unmatched in the crew residence, and it was a large volume that was not too much for the number.[106] In this respect, Sherman has never had a falling performance compared to the lighter 3 and 4, as well as a medium-sized tank of almost the same weight, such as the T-34-85, and the undervaluation of Lonson or can is very unfair. In fact, Easy Eight, who fought with the T-34-85 during the Korean War, smashed the T-34-85 without a problem, and the M-51 tank, which was converted into the French CN 105 F1 gun , was overwhelmed by the T-55 and T-62 , which was overwhelmed by Tigger 2, and became the last winner of the second World War tank.
Rating of the Russian M4 Sherman[107] |
It is treated more highly in Russia than in the West. Although not up to the T-34, the Sherman is treated in Russia as one of the tanks that defended the country , and tankers who have experienced both the T-34 and the Sherman have the livability, mechanical reliability, and maintenance capabilities provided by the US Army that are not revealed in catalog specifications. I gave it a very good rating.
9. media
more detailsM4 Sherman/Media documentcastPlease note.10. model
As it was a tank mainly operated by the US and Allied Forces, it was released at least once by tolerable model makers.
10.1. plastic model
10.1.1. academy science
Models equipped with a 105mm dozer blade, Battle of the Bulge M4A3 (76), Calliope multiple rocket launcher, US Marine Corps Sherman, Israeli Super Sherman, and Cobra King were released. Some kits are currently discontinued, so you'll have to find them in stock or wait for them to be reprinted. It's been a while since it was released, so it seems a bit lacking compared to newer products, but it's a good value for the price, so it's popular.
10.1.2. dragon model
Several types of Sherman have been released, and like a dragon, it has a large number of parts and is expensive, so it is a model recommended for experts.
10.1.3. Tamiya
  |
Also, various types of Sherman are being released, but the recently released Easy G Korean War specification is treated as a definitive edition comparable to Asuka with its excellent quality. It is also on sale in 1/48 scale.
10.1.4. ASUKA
|
As a company that changed its name from Tasca, it devoted its efforts to reproducing Sherman to the extent that it was said to have staked its fortune on Sherman.
10.1.5. ellere
In 2013, the 1/72 scale Sherman was released, and unlike the hellish Ellaire, it is treated as the definitive edition within the 72 scale.
10.1.6. etc
Italeri , AFV Club, etc. are also selling various Sherman derivatives. In particular, Italeri is releasing the FURY version Easy Eat.
10.2. brick
10.2.1. Brick Mania
- M4
282B M4282 M4
2339 George S. Patton Riding Vehicle2184 M4
2205 M1 Bulldozer (add-on pack for 2184 M4)2206 T34 Calliope (add-on pack for 2184 M4)
2255 Oddball vehicle (add-on pack for 2184 M4)221 M4A3(76)W VVSS
2306 M4A3249 M4A3E8
2220 M4A3E82051 M4A3E82272 M4A3E2
10.2.2. coby block
  |   |
2570 M4A3 | 2550 M4A3E2 Jumbo Sherman |
 |   |
2533 M4A3E8 Easy Eight (Discontinued) | 3126 M4A1 |
  |  |
3118 M4A2E8 Movie Fury Version Easy Eight | 2569 T34 Calliope (Discontinued) |
11. look around
  | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[ Classification by age ]
[ Classification by class ]
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
  ·   ・Concept car | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[ Expand/Collapse ]
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[ Expand/Collapse ]
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[ Expand/Collapse ]
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[ Expand/Collapse ]
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[ Expand/Collapse ]
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[ Expand/Collapse ]
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
[ Expand/Collapse ]
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
[ Expand/Collapse ]
| ||||||||||||||||
[ Expand/Collapse ]
| |||||||||||||||||||
[ Expand/Collapse ]
| ||||||||||||||||||||
[ Expand/Collapse ]
| |||||||||||
[ Expand/Collapse ]
| ||||||||||||||
[ Expand/Collapse ]
| ||||||||||||||
[ Expand/Collapse ]
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
[ Expand/Collapse ]
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[ Expand/Collapse ]
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[ Expand/Collapse ]
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[ Expand/Collapse ]
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[ Expand/Collapse ]
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[ Expand/Collapse ]
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[ Expand/Collapse ]
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[ Expand/Collapse ]
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[ Expand/Collapse ]
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[ Expand/Collapse ]
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[ Expand/Collapse ]
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[ Expand/Collapse ]
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[ Expand/Collapse ]
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[ Expand/Collapse ]
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[ Expand/Collapse ]
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[ Expand/Collapse ]
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[ Expand/Collapse ]
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[ Expand/Collapse ]
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[ Expand/Collapse ]
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[ Expand/Collapse ]
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[ Expand/Collapse ]
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[ Expand/Collapse ]
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[ Expand/Collapse ]
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Explore Armored Vehicles | ||
[1] Since Sherman, the US military's name on its own tanks is M26 Persing (Commander of the US Expeditionary Army during World War I), M46 , M47 , M48 Patton , M41 Walker "Bulldog" (Legion of the Patton Wuh, the Eighth Army Commander of the Korean War), the M551 Sheridden ( General Inter -Korean War Army Cavalry General) M2/3 Bradley is an armored car.)[2] Some prototype vehicles were even added an inch. The angle of inclination is 47 degrees.[3] A few tested gun mantlets augmented to 101.6 mm.[4] The M4A2 type model uses a 420 horsepower diesel engine, and the later Sherman models, including the M4A3 series such as the M4A3E8/E2, use models that increase up to 500 horsepower.[5] Used in M4/M4A1 format. It is an improved version of the radial engine for aircraft .[6] Used in M4A2 format.[7] Mainly used in M4A3 format.[8] Used in M4A4 format. Because it combines two engines, the volume is increased, so the body of the M4A4 type Sherman is further extended.[9] Initially, a single-wheel bogie wheel, narrow track and VVSS suspension were used, but in order to solve the ground pressure problem and respond to the increase in load, the later production units shipped from mid-1944 introduced a double-wheel bogie wheel and a wide track and used an HVSS suspension. This was also reflected in the model name of the HVSS-equipped type, and unofficially it was often called the 'Easy Eight' type, a modified nickname for the E8 code added to the HVSS type prototype.[10] In the early days, two machine guns that could be operated by the driver were mounted on the front of the body, but later it was judged unnecessary and removed, and the remaining muzzle was closed with a stopper or welded and sealed. The M3 Stuart tank and M3 Lee also took the same action. In the final version, only the coaxial machine gun and the machine gun operated by the co-pilot remained.[11] This 75mm gun had many problems in the early stages of operation, which shows how little the United States had in developing tanks. First of all, the sight was not attached to the gun, but the periscope was linked to the gun, but the problem was that it was not linked properly. In addition, due to lack of experience in developing tank shells, there were many cases where the shell did not explode because the fuse did not work when it fell on the ground, especially in the soft desert. This was a problem with the shape of the fuze, and the British military solved this by removing the fuse from a French 75mm artillery shell and attaching it. (In the case of the US Army during World War I, it often received equipment support from France or, conversely, produced French equipment on its behalf, so even though it was an inch country, its guns used mm, and the shells and gun barrels were interchangeable.) All of these problems were later resolved, and the experience of improving the M3 was also applied to the Sherman tank, making it possible to fix the same problem.[12] Surprisingly, one of the names that gamers and amateurs who have encountered Sherman through games, etc., call it Sherman . In fact, if you know this, it is the result of a forced fight ignoring weight classes for reasons such as historical research/matchmaking. The 6th Tank Tiger is a heavy tank of a different class from the 5th Tank Panther . (Heavy Tank) In addition, the M4 Sherman is lighter than the 5th Tank Panther. As a bonus, the M26 Pershing, a heavy tank and successor to the M4 Sherman , is also lighter than the Panther in terms of simple weight. Therefore, if you really want to compare the performance of the M4 Sherman with a German tank , you should compare it with the 4th Tank, which is about 5 tons lighter than the Sherman . In fact, even when the Tiger was released, Germany's main force was the Panzer 4, and the Sherman competed against the Panzer 4 depending on the upgrade status, but overall, it had superior performance as the Sherman was about 5 tons heavier at 30 tons vs. 25 tons. However, most people in the world compared only one-to-one performance rather than large-scale operation, and the current image was established. Of course, on the battlefield, I was told that I was a medium tank and that I would only deal with lower-level enemies . What is the enemy's position when fighting medium tanks with infantry or light tanks? There is that aspect to it because it was a play on words that didn't take away the spirit of fair play(?).[13] Based on the M4A3, when maneuvering at 10 miles (16 km/h), it produced an error of 1.64 mills vertically and 2.45 mills horizontally at a distance of 1000-1200 yards. At a distance of about 1000 meters, the error is about 1.6 meters up and down and 2.5 meters left and right.[14] The Dong -gu tank was concerned about the main window of the Cold War. In the United States, the country, it was subtle, but it was expensive and broken.[15] The time is when the German army rolls 37mm PAK 36 as its flagship anti -tank gun, and even 50mm PAK, which is not superior in penetration compared to the French 75mm sturge coal without an armed bullet, is sufficiently placed. For reference, the 75mm of Germany's capture was used as a sturge bomb and HEAT bullet, and Heat's penetration was honestly followed by a similar technical level, which was also effective compared to other small pavilion guns.[16] In addition, the HEAT bullet at this time has a problem that the front of the warhead is crushed by the front of the warhead before the mechanical primer is too fast. If the front of the warhead is severely crushed and the proper stand off distance and shape collapse, or the liner is damaged, the metal jet is not properly formed, and the high bombs with a small amount of peony compared to the same high bomber can only damage the external explosion. On this side, the moderately slow bullet speed of French 75mm appeared in the middle of the war . It was more advantageous than Jangposin German guns .[17] No. 4 H -type 80mm 78 degrees (LOS Simple Conversion) VS VS Sherman Early 51mm 56 degrees (93mm), M4A3E2 Sherman Jumbo is 101.6mm on 47 degrees slope[18] Sherman's side is 38mm vertical gloves, but Type 4 is thinner because it is 30mm vertical gloves. Anyway, the side of each other is the main guns of each other or even in the second class 37mm anti -tank guns.[19] Considering that the T-34's slopes, which shocked the Germans, were 60 degrees/45mm thick, the sherman initial type was 50mm and the middle and late malformation was 62mm thicker, so it was harder to catch in front of the T-34. Of course, if you have a good angle of 75mm in the 43/48 caliber, you can protect it, but it was impossible from the 88mm class.[20] In the British army, which relatively predicted the German tank's weight advantage, the 17th Founder was deployed in Sherman or Wolverine, even with all kinds of technical groups and assets . Even before that, 17 pounders were somehow on their own cars that were more cramped than Sherman. There were several bodies to beat them .[21] Zaloga, S., Laurier, J., M4(76mm) Sherman Medium Tank 1943-65, 2013, p.3-7[22] The vulnerable parts of games, such as War Thunder, are due to the lack of wires/infantry, which helps the enemy to observe the design and relatively safe positions for game fun and relatively safe positions . Even now, however, the direction of the enemy tanks (front, side, etc., etc.) on the standard engagement distance of 1km at the time (front, side, etc., etc., the direction of the target should be roughly identified in order to shoot a mobile target anyway). It was quite difficult. In particular, considering the inaccuracy of these aiming, such as the distribution of guns and ammunition itself, the vibration of the body, the body/distance measurement error, the weaknesses of the weaknesses are never happened unless the shell is lucky to some extent. After all, the weakness aiming is possible at close range, but at the short distance, it is open to each other if it is not overwhelming. In practice, not a physical game game, it will end with it unless it is really lucky. Weakness shooting is a technology that is usually used in an ideal ambush situation where it is not much different from the shooting of a fixed target before the death of the body and the technical gap, which is usually difficult to penetrate the target by internal guns. It is even realistic to shoot with automatic guns such as fast -and -speaking cannons and 76mm automelara. Once you shoot a lot, even if you miss a little, you will get a one -time weakness. In other words, the Sherman must have a weakness of the weakness without the armor. So, any other problem, anyway, the evaluation of the Sherman Firefly or the M36 Jackson, which can penetrate the front of Tigger/Panther with a normal iron armor, was high on both the Allied and German troops. Of course, it is dangerous for the Germans, so it was highly overvalued to remove it first.[23] In fact, there are countless records of US armored units reporting 'engagement with Tigers' after the Normandy landings, but after cross-verification with the German records, only three cases were actually confirmed of engagements between Tigers and US Army Shermans . In most cases, it is said that the No. 4, which had a flat silhouette due to the Surchen turret, was mistaken for a Tiger, or even a Panther that looked very different was reported to be a Tiger.[24] There were some problems with internal space efficiency due to the heavy armor applied to the sides at a weight class of Panther and the introduction of sloped armor with a complex shape. In addition, unlike the German concept of a heavy tank, it was not created with a large emphasis on anti-tank warfare, so its main gun had insufficient penetration compared to its caliber, and in particular, its rate of fire was significantly inferior. Still, in the 44 model year, the main gun was further upgraded, and almost all weaknesses except internal space, which was a limitation due to its weight class, were resolved.[25] The 76mm Sherman, which was introduced at the end of the war, had similar penetration power for normal bullets to the 85mm T-34-85 widely used in the Soviet Army , but had low firepower due to its small caliber. In addition, the Soviet Union mass-produced a sufficient number of 85mm APCR bullets, which had a higher penetrating power than ordinary bullets, even if they rotted, and supplied about four rounds per vehicle. On the other hand, since the high-speed armor-piercing bullets for the Sherman tank were not supplied as standard ammunition even to the US Army Sherman during most of the war, when comparing 85mm (APCR can be used) vs. US-made 76mm (can only use regular AP bullets) on the Eastern Front, the T-34's 85mm far exceeded the Sherman's 76mm in terms of firepower and penetration. Therefore, the 'weak' Sherman had simpler missions than the 'strong' T-34-85 .[26] Source: Into the Tank: M4A1 Sherman Volume 1[27] At the same time, the 76mm gun -mounted self -propelled artillery eventually had an important penetration of 76mm Sherman and Doschin, so it was still difficult to fight against German heavy tanks to be called a dedicated markman .[28] The amount of high -bomb peony is surprisingly slightly more than the 76mm of older high bombs of 17 founders. The new high bombs with more peony were still less than the 75mm guns of allied forces, but definitely more than the 76mm US. Instead of sacrificing penetration by using the warhead of the shell, the capacity of the cape tank , which uses 77mm HV guns, which has gained reliability in use of universal and APDS, has been well received.[29] This is also the reason why the German army put their lives on the line for a high-performance new tank. If you simply look at the exchange rate, the Panther had the upper hand, but the Sherman and the T-34 could not be stopped with that much exchange rate.[30] Tank No. 4 was continuously improved, but only firepower and defense were paid attention to during the improvement, and the drive and power units were almost the same, so the body, which was developed for 20 tons, was increased from the heaviest H type to 25 tons. As a result, mobility deteriorated due to weight and breakdowns occurred frequently.[31] The specification used by the British Commonwealth, Free French and Nationalist forces was the M4A4 .[32] In addition to repairing the wreckage of a damaged tank at the level of depot maintenance, other tasks included removing the remains of fallen crew members. Considering that the remains of the tank crew members who were hit were not very intact, it must have been quite an ordeal.[33] On the contrary, Britain did not lower the overall height of railway wagons, but lowered the height of trams to the limit . Therefore, the UK was superior in terms of detectability due to the overall height, but the habitability due to the lowered height was as bad as that of the Soviet Union. Rather, Soviet tanks were designed to be efficient even though their interiors were narrow, while British tanks followed the design philosophy of making the body low and allocating space to armor and armament first, so there were many parts protruding inside, raising doubts as to whether it was really safe for people to ride. The visibility was also low compared to American tanks with high overall height.[34] However, it was unavoidable that additional space was required due to the torsion bar, and the M4A2 body, which was not a torsion bar and the power shaft was not oblique, was an improved version of the M10GMC, M4A3 body-based M36 90mm turret. As a result, the lower part of the turret basket had to be cut off.[35] This was also pointed out by Soviet M4 Sherman ace Dmitri Fedorovich Rosa. Ironically, while this man was recovering his Sherman fell while making a sharp turn in rough terrain, the tanks of the same company were ambushed and wiped out, leaving only the fallen Sherman crewman unharmed. #[36] The T-34 is synonymous with narrow and uncomfortable World War II tanks, but in fact, British tanks were more notorious for their habitability.[37] The only German sight that was equivalent to the Tiger's sight was the 76mm Sherman's sight. The Tiger came out in mid-1942 and the 76mm Sherman came out in early 1944, so it took a year and a half to catch up. Of course, the Tiger is a heavy tank that was made with great effort, but considering that the Sherman was a factory-made tank, it would have been an issue of cost-effectiveness from the beginning, not a problem of technology.[38] The official name is Commander's override.[39] In the movie Fury, when War Daddy played by Brad Pitt knocked out all the anti-tank guns and was left in the tank with only the newcomer Norman, he turned the turret while sitting down, and that's the function.[40] Only from Sherman after December 1943. Prior to November 1943, there was no hatch for the gunner, making it difficult for the turret crew to escape.[41] In fact, there is testimony that Sherman actively used the hull down shooting method during the Normandy landings. It is said that as soon as the Shermans went backwards into the turret down state after firing at Hull Down, an earthen pillar rose up in that spot.[42] Of course, compared to the 46-47 T-54 early type, it is not comparable to the first generation tanks of the mid-to-late 50's equipped with a two-axis stabilizer. In other words, Sherman can be said to be advanced enough to be compared to foreign tanks 10 years later.[43] When the T-34, which is said to have driven the German army into panic, appeared on the battlefield, the German army's main anti-tank gun was 37mm, and the 50mm class anti-tank gun was just being supplied. Therefore, the German army's anti-tank firepower was strengthened as soon as the T-34, which had sloped armor and had excellent defensive efficiency compared to the thickness of the armor, and the heavily armored KV of the 40-ton weight class were installed, and the infantry was equipped with 7.5cm and 8.8cm anti-tank guns, and the infantry also had anti-tank weapons such as the Panzerschreck and Panzerfaust. The Sherman, which landed in Europe, was some of the same as Patton. Except for the pioneers, the Allied upper echelons lacked a general understanding of armored warfare, and suffered from the backward operation methods of the upper echelon of the Allied Forces and the enemy's powerful anti-tank firepower, which inevitably resulted in heavy damage. As a result, his defense power was undervalued compared to his actual size, and he suffered from the stigma of being Ronson Lighter.[44] Any miscellaneous steel plate or concrete has poor strength and hardness compared to proper armor steel, so the protection compared to thickness/weight is very low, but it would still be better than not attaching it at all.[45] However, the US military officially insisted that it is not recommended because it is not recommended because the crew will be more safer without significant increase in defense, and it is not recommended because it causes a decrease in maneuverability due to increased weight. In the end of Daejeon , when Germany's armored power was almost extinguished, and instead, the Pancheu Faust or Panzer Shrek was made, it was used as a kind of slat armor with sandbags, woodblocks, and even bed mattresses.[46] If the driver made a mistake while handling the transmission inexperienced, the power system including the engine caught fire right away.[47] Ronson Writer Wikipedia says that this advertisement is from 1927, and a photo file of the advertisement from 1931 in which this advertisement was written is also posted.[48] However, the documentary said that the Sherman was also defeated by the 4th Panzer, and only included testimony that the Sherman unit was not active in anti-tank battles. In fact, when Sherman is called on the History Channel, Ronson Writer's drip is used.[49] See page 90 of Hayward's Firefly book.[50] That is why, in the story about the T-34, there are more rumors that the tank was 'supplied' as a whole than that it was 'repaired' because it was damaged.[51] The death rate seems strangely low when compared to the fact that the Allied armored units on the Western Front could not cope with the extreme loss of human resources and deployed soldiers trained in other branches as co-pilots and mounted machine gunners that did not require much skill, or that there were even cases where only four people rode in a five-seater Sherman. However, when you think about it, it is a simple problem. In addition to the extreme attrition rate of Allied armored units in the early stages of the European Front, 'cases of being evacuated with only injuries rather than being killed' also resulted in 'human casualties'. This is because it is included in ‘resource loss’. Above all, when it comes to manpower on the front line, whether the attrition rate is low or high, the most important factor is whether it can be supplemented. The U.S. military's manpower training and deployment system was, of course, advanced and had the advantage of being able to sustain the combat power of front-line combat units for a long time without shifts, but the accuracy of predicting loss rates and the resulting manpower training/supply plan was relatively important, and the actual loss rate in the early stages of the Western Front was higher than the predicted loss rate.[52] There is a saying that the death rate was higher than that of U.S. tank soldiers wearing helmets because they wore berets and often died instantly when shrapnel hit their heads when shot, but there is no basis for this. In fact, the U.S. tanker's helmet was just an anti-impact helmet with lots of holes (for body heat dissipation), so it was difficult to block debris. Moreover, British army tankers often used not only berets but also helmets. Rather, the helmets of British army tankers were made of steel and were basically similar to airborne corps helmets.[53] As shown in the video below, even the chieftain swears, saying, "Make it on top of the tank!" As such, it can be seen that the location of the tank hatch is directly related to the survival rate.[54] In the 6th Tank Tiger document, the exchange ratio between the Tiger and Allied tanks is listed as 1:5.74, but this figure includes the Soviet Union's history in Eastern Europe where it used the tank roughly .[55] Source: Tiger Tank Owners' Workshop Manual: Panzerkampfwagen VI Tiger 1 Ausf.E (Zenith Press 2011) 137-139p[56] Vertical volute spring suspension = vertical suspension[57] However, the overlapping bogie wheels have poor accessibility to the inner wheels and are vulnerable to foreign substances, which is a factor in distributing the load well and worsening maintainability.[58] Source: Tiger Tank Owners' Workshop Manual: Panzerkampfwagen VI Tiger 1 Ausf.E (Zenith Press 2011) 137-139p[59] Of course, as in the case of Panzer 3 and Panzer 4 mentioned above, it is not something that the German army had been particularly responding to before the war, and the German army also did not feel it on the Polish/French/North African fronts, but it is closer to seeing the light of day when it tried to somehow lower the ground pressure of its tanks after tasting Russia's garbage roads and terrain on the Eastern Front.[60] Source: "M4 Sherman At War" by Michael Green & James D. Brown Page 53[61] However, as you can see from the description in the paragraph below, even the 76mm was inferior to the firepower of German tanks during World War II.[62] In a test of the penetration power of the 75mm gun against the Soviet Tiger, it was possible to penetrate at 650 meters when fired at the side of the Tiger's hull . However, the photo linked in the material was taken after it had been used several times for firepower testing in addition to the penetration test above.[63] Super Velocity Discarding Sabot. The British Army's official name for the APDS.[64] R.P.Hunnicutt - Sherman: A History of the American Medium Tank. PRESIDIO[65] It was fired from the M10 GMC 's M7 3-inch anti-tank gun, but the bullet itself is the same as the Sherman's 76mm M1 tank gun . The 76mm M1 is a lighter gun, but with the addition of a muzzle brake, its ejection performance is improved and it can be fired a little faster. Additionally, it is said that it was easier to sharpen the steel wire.[66] http://panzerkatz.egloos.com/340401, sourced from Thomas L. Jentz, Germanys Panther Tank: The Quest for Combat Supremacy (Schiffer Publishing 1995) 127p[67] At the time, Patton's troops were sprinting toward mainland Germany until Operation Market Garden halted the entire Allied advance. There is no way to afford to switch models while running behind supply.[68] The test subjects were three captured Panther tanks, which were classified into best plate and average plate depending on whether or not the armor cracked. In this case, these results were obtained even though the experiment was conducted on the 3rd Panther, which was classified as average plate. In this experiment, it was concluded that the efficiencies of the 17-pounder APDS, 17-pounder APCBC, and 76mm HVAP bullets were similar, citing the seriously low accuracy rate as opposed to the strong penetration of the 17-pounder, and the insufficient penetration power compared to the satisfactory accuracy of the 17-pounder APCBC and 76mm HVAP bullets. Regarding the 76mm HVAP bullet, 'At this point, we have concluded that it is the most efficient weapon that can be used against heavily armored targets in the 76mm class gun. This means that it is the most useful in the 76mm class. This does not mean that the 76mm HVAP is so good that nothing else is needed. US Army Firing Test No.3 / US Army Firing Tests conducted August 1944 by 12th US Army Group at Isigny, France. Board of Officers. APO 655[69] At the time of World War II, the technology to manufacture artillery shells was still lacking, so in order to increase the muzzle velocity, the pressure in the chamber/cavity of tank shells had to be strengthened, and the thickness of the outer shell of high-explosive warheads had to be increased enough to withstand the higher pressure. Naturally, the amount of peonies shipped as compensation decreases. If the diameter had been proportionally larger, there would have been no problem, but there was almost no difference in volume between 75mm and 76mm. As a result, the high explosive charge of the 76mm M1 gun was about 0.9 pounds, while the high explosive charge of the 75mm M2 to M6 guns was 1.5 pounds, making the 75mm gun more than 1.5 times more powerful. (Ordnance Department, United States (1944). TM 9-1901 Artillery Ammunition June 1944. War Department., p.356, 359)[70] At times, it achieved greater results than armor-piercing rounds, such as firing at a Tiger 2 from below and causing the crew to disengage.[71] Representatively, there is a World War II tank gag . aka Air Force![72] To compare it to martial arts, it is like comparing a middleweight fighter to a heavyweight fighter. While a middleweight might be able to beat a heavyweight with great skill, it's usually a meaningless comparison as if they were falling behind in their weight class.[73] The limitations of this modification led to the emergence of the Panzer V.[74] The difference in weight class of tanks has an absolute effect on performance. Bigger weight means thicker armor, more powerful engines, and more powerful tank guns.[75] In terms of classification, this is a medium tank identical to the Sherman, but in terms of weight class, it is actually slightly heavier than the Pershing, which was developed as a heavy tank at the time.[76] The reason why something difficult to maintain, such as a multi-intersection road wheel, was adopted in the first place was because it was difficult to increase protection while paying attention to weight like the IS-2 or Jumbo Sherman.[77] Separately from this, the active use of heavy tanks itself was not a doctrine unique to Germany (at the moment, the Soviet Union's KV series, IS series, and the British Churchill tank are all heavy tanks in terms of weight, and the United States was also unable to use them due to various problems, but was fully considering producing or putting into operation heavy tanks such as the M6 and T29), and it was Germany's fault that tanks in the latter half of the war, such as Germany's Panther series and Tiger series, became more anti-tank specialized and small elites. There are many cases where this is discussed, but conversely, since Germany did not have the resources, manpower, or production capacity to compare with the Allies at any time during the early or mid-war, a production strategy that placed more emphasis on quantity may be considered impossible and meaningless.[78] In his memoirs, Georgy Zhukov wrote that although Allied supplies received through Lend-Lease were of great help to the Soviet Union, tanks (including the Sherman and Valentine) were of little help. It may have been for the sake of face, or it may have been from the perspective of a commander rather than a front-line soldier. There are several records showing that tankers who fight directly prefer Anglo-American tanks or powerful captured German tanks because they are convenient and less likely to break down, but as a commander, the T-34 will always be better because it can be deployed easily and quickly.[79] The reason for the Valentine is that the British classified the Valentine as an infantry tank, but for the Soviet Army, the Valentine was the best light tank. The British classified the Ballantine as an infantry tank and cruiser tank, but the Valentine was a slow and relatively well-armored infantry tank, while the Soviets considered it a light and poorly armored light tank. And in any case, it was superior in many ways to Soviet light tanks of its own.[80] To boost morale, the Soviet Army revived the royal guard title of the Russian era and awarded it to units that achieved great feats. It is translated as guard or guard, but usually in World War II, the SS is often referred to as the German Armed Forces. separated[81] The testimony of the tankman who rode the destroyed tank was , of course, negative, and it is true that it turned Cooper's view of the Sherman into a negative one. He was able to testify because his life was saved thanks to Sherman's leisurely design. Conversely, the soldier who was trapped in the hit T-34 and died from the bombing could not testify .[82] When the guns, tracks, and internal engines of the tank are smashed, the tank is completely lost in maneuverability or damage, making it a fixed target. There are a lot of games that omit the loss of combat power due to damage to simplification, so the repair is simplified and the components are not damaged from the first shot, and the magical guns, engines and orbits are neatly repaired without a tank in the field . For games such as impossible or difficult War Thunder , World of Tanks or Men of War, you can feel this.[83] In February 1944, an M10 Wolverine went back to the flank alone and defeated an Elephant.[84] In addition , he painted the same painting on the M46 Patton, which was widely used during the Korean War .[85] The M4A3E8 made by D Corporation was released with etchings and decals added to the Sherman made by Asuka (formerly Tasca) above.[86] However, there are testimonies from tank unit members that they became a target because of their conspicuousness and that firepower was concentrated on them.[87] original link .[88] The regular soldiers of the US Army had a hard time because most of the experienced soldiers were discharged after World War II and a large number of new soldiers were drafted, but most of the tank crews were non-commissioned officers and were able to be deployed to the Korean War with their skills intact.[89] The method of this theft is amazing. It is said that Jewish women (some say they were militia members disguised as women) lured the British guards who were on guard duty into the beauty world , and then the Jewish militiamen who had ambushed them and ran away with them...[90] Since most of the crew members had served as part of the Jewish Brigade of the British Army in Palestine during World War II, they had real combat experience, so they were able to deal with the Arab armored forces, which had poor skills.[91] In other news, an expert mentioned that it was M46 or M48 , so it seems that the reporter miswrote M as T when transcribing the expert's words. At this time, the M48 broke away from the prototype called T48 and began mass production in 1952.[92] Smoke bombs were generally not fired directly at tanks, and because they were used to support infantry, their bullet speed was less than half that of armor-piercing bullets (approximately 270 m/s), so they could not be expected to hit a moving tank, and had to be quite close to hit a tank directly.[93] Tanks at this time lacked the concept of chemical warfare protection, so vehicles without ventilation often left the hatch open, and even if there was a ventilation fan like the Tiger 2, it was a structure that mainly drew in outside air. Therefore, when a smoke grenade was hit directly, white phosphorus smoke flowed in through the ventilation fan.[94] It is not forward (前進) that means to go forward, but forward (転進) that means to move to another destination.[95] The Type 1 tank gun of the improved Chi-Ha could penetrate the front of the M4A2 at close range, but not at long range.[96] One of them is the army-style kamikaze . Digging in the ground, holding a bomb, and waiting. Then, the U.S. Marines buried him alive with a 'Bulldozer Sherman' made by attaching a shovel to the front of the tank .[97] The Pershing is a medium tank, but at the time it was classified as a heavy tank. In addition, the tank that will follow Pershing is the T29 series , which is a real heavy tank .[98] The guidelines for dealing with the Japanese Army's Sherman during the Battle of Okinawa say to attack the side or rear as much as possible, but if it is necessary to attack from the front, aim between the turret and the hull. Among the Japanese troops deployed during the Battle of Okinawa, there were quite a few soldiers who had experience fighting with American troops, so they often met the surprisingly difficult conditions.[99] In fact, the US military has already experienced since the Battle of Guadalcanal that it suffers considerable damage if it attacks alone. In the early part of the Battle of Guadalcanal, during the Battle of Tenaru, the M3 Stuarts were single-handedly sent to the Ichigi Zone, which had suffered heavy damage from a reckless charge and was locked in a village, and suffered significant damage by being involved in the Japanese tactics of throwing anti-tank mines under the tank. am. Of course, this was possible because Ichigi was an elite soldier by the standards of the time.[100] This is a result of the Japanese military's active use of landmines due to the fact that Iwo Jima itself is a volcanic island, and because the sand of Iwo Jima, a volcanic island, contains iron sand, metal detectors could not be used properly. Going one step further, it is said that landmines were often buried along with US military unexploded ordnance to maximize destructive power. The Sherman mentioned earlier, who 'flew around like a toy', was most likely to fall victim to this. Thanks to this, it is said that many of the US Shermans who participated in the battle tried to prevent landmines by doing everything possible, such as trying to avoid at least magnetic sensing landmines by performing local modifications such as joining wooden plywood to the sides . Even now, in battlefields in the Middle East, IEDs are made from similarly unexploded aviation bombs, and these formidable IEDs are dangerous even for modern main battle tanks if they are accidentally caught. Moreover, as there are EODs that are hit by IEDs planted on the way to the station while trying to deal with IEDs to friendly forces , IEDs have uncertainties and risks that make ordinary land mines look funny, so in order to prevent this, current US military vehicles also improvise in the field, and one of them is the mineflow ( # ) number, which is used quite often. If the IED does not explode or is moved to the side along with other dirt before it explodes, even if it explodes, it usually only destroys the iron plow placed in front of the vehicle, and damage to the vehicle is minimal. In addition, since it moves forward by digging deeply into the ground, it naturally creates a simple cover for allies that follow in desert-like fields, so it is a useful solution in many ways.[101] Source: John Parshall, 2013 International Conference on WWII - Kursk The Epic Armored Engagement[102] However, casualties are dangerous no matter how good industrial production is. The U.S. military also considered a national fighter made of wood.[103] This has been used in a really diverse environment for five years before the start of World War II.[104] The transmission cover of the M3 Lee/Grant had a flat bolt fastening area, but it was discovered that if the bolt head was damaged, it would be difficult to disassemble the transmission cover, so Sherman created a dam to protect the bolt.[105] A total of 49,516 tankers on the European front were put into battle and 1,581 were killed. Mortality rate 3.19%, 757,712 infantrymen committed, 142,962 killed or missing. The mortality rate was 18.87%.[106] Large capacity is a strong advantage of most U.S. tanks. Even though it has been 50 years since the M1 Abrams tank was released, it has been improved and used well thanks to its spacious design, and thanks to this, it is still considered the world's strongest MBT. Meanwhile, the K-1 tank , which has a similar appearance, did not have a spacious design, so there were limits to its improvement and this became the background for the subsequent K-2 Black Mark .[107] A vehicle restored to the M4A2E8 by recovering the M4A2(76)W VVSS specification that sank off the coast of Murmansk appears.
This document is available under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 KR. (except for some documents and illustrations where licenses are specified)
The copyright of the contributed document belongs to each contributor, and each contributor owns the copyright of the part they contribute.