The American Tank, Medium M4, or Sherman, of the Second World War has acquired a controversial reputation over the past 80 years. It has been accused of having a number of major flaws.
Is this fair? Or are these ‘flaws’ really myths, drawn from oversimplification or skewed perspectives? This article takes a short look at three well-known accusations. Is there anything to them?
The Sherman was outgunned
There is something to this one.
When the Sherman was first fielded in late 1942, its 75mm gun was as good, if not better than most other tanks. On paper, Shermans, the Panzer IIIs, and Panzer IVs that fought in North Africa in 1942 were capable of destroying each other at normal combat ranges.
Although there was an American program to upgrade the Sherman’s firepower, which led to the longer 76mm gun as seen on ‘Fury’, it didn’t get the priority it perhaps should have. The British had their equivalent tank, the 17pdr armed Firefly, sooner, but this was an improvisation with many drawbacks.
Therefore, in Northwest Europe in 1944-45, most Allied tankers had no more firepower than in 1942. They were short of Fireflies and 76mm Shermans, facing both Panzer IVs and more capable Panthers. At this point, it would be fair to say the 75mm armed Sherman could well be outgunned.
However, it’s worth pointing out that the 75mm High Explosive round was actually more powerful than its 76mm and 17pdr equivalent. Most of the things tanks fired at were not armoured, meaning this was often more useful, so the older gun was fairly popular and continued to be used.
Shermans were just quantity over quality
Definitely not.
The Sherman was very sophisticated. It might be the only WWII tank where quality wasn’t sacrificed for quantity.
Both 75mm and 76mm guns had a stabilizer to allow fairly accurate firing on the move – almost unheard of at the time. The crews didn’t always make full use of it, but the technology was there.
The turret’s power traverse was connected to an Auxiliary Generator, so the tank could be fully combat-capable even with the engine switched off. This was useful in defensive positions, as it saved fuel and helped the tank stay quiet and hidden.
It also had a synchromesh gearbox that made it much easier to drive than other tanks.
Taking a step back from the battlefield, Shermans were reliable, durable and maintainable. Parts were made by hundreds of factories, and, unlike many other WWII tanks, they were fully interchangeable. Fitting them was usually easier too.
It’s easy to overlook this side of things. Many enthusiasts, modellers and gamers focus on the performance of individual tanks. Even museums and private owners who run tanks only have a handful, rather than thousands, but this is a massive plus for the Sherman. It’s the sort of thing that helps you win a war, rather than a battle.
Shermans burned easily
Yes and no.
Early Shermans were estimated to burn between 60% and 80% of the time if their armour was penetrated. This is high, but it’s similar to other tanks of the period. Most of the time the culprit was the tank’s ammunition.
75mm Shermans carried up to 100 rounds. Each one contained over 2kg of propellent – designed to burn quickly and easily. Early Shermans had little protection for their ammunition, so if one round caught fire, the rest would probably follow it, and fast.
However, the Sherman is one of the few tanks that was redesigned to try and fix this. The ‘Quick-fix’ modification included add-on armour being welded to the hull sides and 12 unprotected rounds in the turret moved into an armoured box.
‘Wet stowage’ came later and was only fitted to new tanks. The ammunition was moved into liquid-filled boxes below the turret floor. This reduced the burn rate dramatically, to perhaps 15%. (Wet stowage doesn’t mean the rounds were submerged in the liquid – the rounds rested in hollow cylinders in the boxes.)
We should also bear in mind that gunners tried to keep firing at a tank until they saw it catch fire, as this was the only way to be certain it was out of the fight. This means the number of burned-out Shermans found after a battle might not reflect how vulnerable to fire they actually were.
The Reality
So, we can see that these myths do have some basis in fact, but in each case, things have been simplified, and vital context has been lost or ignored. Recently, historians have done a lot to overturn them, but they persist. The Sherman was not the ‘best’ tank of WWII, whatever that even means, but it, and the men who fought and won a war in it, deserve a more honest assessment than they have all too often received.
