Author Topic: The Basic M4 (Sherman)  (Read 27248 times)

Offline E25280

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3475
      • http://125thspartanforums.com
Re: The Basic M4 (Sherman)
« Reply #105 on: March 17, 2009, 07:07:13 PM »
LOL --

So it sounds like we are back to the arguement that the Sherman was "bad" because it was a medium tank instead of a heavy.  Got it.
Brauno in a past life, followed by LTARget
SWtarget in current incarnation
Captain and Communications Officer~125th Spartans

"Proudly drawing fire so that my brothers may pass unharmed."

Offline Crash Orange

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 911
Re: The Basic M4 (Sherman)
« Reply #106 on: March 17, 2009, 07:08:31 PM »
What exactly would this "widget" on the Tiger be? It was made from steel, it used basically the same gun as the FlaK 88 having been produced in its thousands, it used the same optics as other German tanks, it used an enlarged Maybach engine that was mechanically similar to the Maybachs powering the PzKpfw III and IV. There was nothing special about the Tiger I, it was just very big and heavy. Technologically and design wise it wasn't very advanced at all and was actually a pre-war design. It cost about four times as much as a PzKpfw IV and took about twice as long to build.

Offhand, I can think of three: the much thicker armor required considerably more skill and time to be welded, the hull required extensive machining (and thus more skill, time, and scarce machine tools) in comparison to the T-34, and the transmission was extremely complex with low tolerances which, again, required more skill, time, and scarce tools to make than other tanks, especially the Sherman. The Panther had the same problems to a lesser extent.

None of those factors is going to appear in the dollar (RM) expense because normal market conditions didn't apply. A master welder might make 2 or 3 times what a novice does, but if you can easily train a million novices but have no way to train many more masters within the necessary time frame, the labor of the master has a value and scarcity far out of proportion to his pay. That applies to time as well - it's not how much time it takes, it's how much of the time of the most scarce laborers it takes.

And the question isn't how many Mark IVs could have been built for the same monetary price, it's how many of the equivalent of a T-34 or Sherman Germany could have produced under wartime conditions.

Technologically and design wise it wasn't very advanced at all and was actually a pre-war design.

Technology and difficulty of manufacture don't always coincide, in fact they often vary inversely. The MG-42, MP-44, MP-40, and P-38 (the pistol) were all easier and cheaper to build and also more up-to-date and effective weapons than the previous generation of small arms.

Offline Die Hard

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
Re: The Basic M4 (Sherman)
« Reply #107 on: March 17, 2009, 07:09:34 PM »
LOL --

So it sounds like we are back to the arguement that the Sherman was "bad" because it was a medium tank instead of a heavy.  Got it.

Were do you get that impression? I certainly haven't made that argument.
It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence.

-Gandhi

Offline E25280

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3475
      • http://125thspartanforums.com
Re: The Basic M4 (Sherman)
« Reply #108 on: March 17, 2009, 07:30:15 PM »
Were do you get that impression? I certainly haven't made that argument.

Wasn't necessarily directed at you, but then you did say . . .

Yes, a Tiger would be able to survive a direct hit from another Tiger with some luck. And the other Tigers would be much better able to retaliate against a defending Tiger than the M4.

There is also the continuing hogwash about the 75mm not being able to kill tanks.  We covered this earlier in the thread.  The 75mm was certainly not the most powerful AT gun on the battlefield, but make no mistake, it was considered a dual-purpose gun and was fully capable of killing other medium tanks.


Put another way, every time a "shortcoming" of the Sherman comes up, the comparison seems to default to the German Panther or Tiger, which were both heavy tanks.  The same "shortcomings" of the Sherman are equally true of the T-34/76 in most cases, but that particular tank always gets a pass.  I guess it was OK that the 76.2mm was incapable of killing a Tiger, because no one expected much of the Russians to begin with.   :rolleyes:  But the 75mm on the Sherman is considered practically criminal.

It is the inconsistent comparisons and double-standards that drive me crazy.
Brauno in a past life, followed by LTARget
SWtarget in current incarnation
Captain and Communications Officer~125th Spartans

"Proudly drawing fire so that my brothers may pass unharmed."

Offline Die Hard

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
Re: The Basic M4 (Sherman)
« Reply #109 on: March 17, 2009, 07:31:03 PM »
Offhand, I can think of three: the much thicker armor required considerably more skill and time to be welded, the hull required extensive machining (and thus more skill, time, and scarce machine tools) in comparison to the T-34, and the transmission was extremely complex with low tolerances which, again, required more skill, time, and scarce tools to make than other tanks, especially the Sherman. The Panther had the same problems to a lesser extent.

None of those factors is going to appear in the dollar (RM) expense because normal market conditions didn't apply.

That is your main argument, and it is based on the completely wrong assertion that normal market conditions didn't apply. They did. Unlike Soviet factories the German production companies like Porsche and Henschel weren't commandeered by the state, but actually worked for a profit. Germany wasn't completely on a war-production footing until 1944, and was producing luxury items as late as 1943. Even in 1944 companies like Junkers (I have detailed financial documents on Junkers) were making a profit on the aircraft and engines they were producing. The workers were paid (except for slave laborers of course) standard prewar wages and the production companies had to pay for the resources they needed. If anything German monetary production costs more reflect the actual cost than the allied counterpart's.



And the question isn't how many Mark IVs could have been built for the same monetary price, it's how many of the equivalent of a T-34 or Sherman Germany could have produced under wartime conditions.

The PzKpfw IV cost approximately the same as an M4 Sherman, had equal or better armor and a better gun, so your argument is pointless. America out-produced Germany, but it had nothing to do with German tank designs and everything to do with Americas superior production capacity, and Germany's ineffective use of theirs.
It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence.

-Gandhi

Offline Die Hard

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
Re: The Basic M4 (Sherman)
« Reply #110 on: March 17, 2009, 07:59:55 PM »
Wasn't necessarily directed at you, but then you did say . . .

... in direct response to a question.


There is also the continuing hogwash about the 75mm not being able to kill tanks.  We covered this earlier in the thread.  The 75mm was certainly not the most powerful AT gun on the battlefield, but make no mistake, it was considered a dual-purpose gun and was fully capable of killing other medium tanks.

I've never said the 75mm wasn't able to kill tanks, however it sucked at it compared to what the opposition fielded. The Sherman should have been up-gunned in 1943 at the latest, but due to political/production reasons it wasn't. And no, the 75mm was not a capable weapon against German medium tanks in 1943-1944. The PzKpfw IV Ausf. G and H, even when being 4-7 tons lighter than the M4, had the same frontal armor thickness as the Panther at 80mm. The US 75mm could not penetrate that at any but the shortest of ranges.



Put another way, every time a "shortcoming" of the Sherman comes up, the comparison seems to default to the German Panther or Tiger, which were both heavy tanks.  The same "shortcomings" of the Sherman are equally true of the T-34/76 in most cases, but that particular tank always gets a pass.  I guess it was OK that the 76.2mm was incapable of killing a Tiger, because no one expected much of the Russians to begin with.   :rolleyes:  But the 75mm on the Sherman is considered practically criminal.

We have been over this already. The T-34/76 entered the war more than a year earlier than the M4 at a time where it was vastly superior to the German tanks. By the time the Sherman entered the war the Germans had up-armored and up-gunned their tanks and the Sherman was at best equal with the opposition. However, the M4's early ammo storage problem gave it a bad reputation on both sides of the front line, and nothing sticks to a war machine like a bad rep however unjust. As the war dragged on the Germans continued to improve their tanks, but the M4 basically stayed the same in terms of combat power until mid-1944. Whether this was criminal is not for me to decide, but in my opinion it was a great disservice to the men who were forced to fight in them. The technology and weapons were available, but for some reason the allied tankers had to fight a 1944 enemy in a 1942 tank. I wonder how the war would have ended if the RAF and USAAF had been forced to fight in Spit V's and P-40's in 1944. Not well I suspect.



It is the inconsistent comparisons and double-standards that drive me crazy.

I'm afraid those are only a figment of your imagination, or bias, or both.
It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence.

-Gandhi

Offline Die Hard

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
Re: The Basic M4 (Sherman)
« Reply #111 on: March 17, 2009, 08:04:55 PM »
Oh and while the Panther is 10 tons heavier than the Sherman it is still commonly classified as a medium tank.
It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence.

-Gandhi

Offline E25280

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3475
      • http://125thspartanforums.com
Re: The Basic M4 (Sherman)
« Reply #112 on: March 17, 2009, 08:32:16 PM »
The Sherman should have been up-gunned in 1943 at the latest, but due to political/production reasons it wasn't.
Funny -- neither was the T-34. (e.g. double-standard)

The PzKpfw IV Ausf. G and H, even when being 4-7 tons lighter than the M4, had the same frontal armor thickness as the Panther at 80mm.
At nearly zero slope.  Saying the IV and the V were equally armored seems a silly statement.

The T-34/76 entered the war more than a year earlier than the M4 at a time where it was vastly superior to the German tanks. By the time the Sherman entered the war the Germans had up-armored and up-gunned their tanks and the Sherman was at best equal with the opposition. However, the M4's early ammo storage problem gave it a bad reputation on both sides of the front line, and nothing sticks to a war machine like a bad rep however unjust.
Agree on reputations.  But if the reputation is unjust, why simply accept the reputation?

As the war dragged on the Germans continued to improve their tanks, but the M4 basically stayed the same in terms of combat power until mid-1944. Whether this was criminal is not for me to decide, but in my opinion it was a great disservice to the men who were forced to fight in them. The technology and weapons were available, but for some reason the allied tankers had to fight a 1944 enemy in a 1942 tank.
Same with the T-34.  Introduced a year earlier, yet was upgunned only months earlier.  Hmm . . . Seems the kind of double-standard I was talking about yet again.

Oh and while the Panther is 10 tons heavier than the Sherman it is still commonly classified as a medium tank.
Commonly classified as a Medium tank, yet at 45 tons it even outweighed the 42 ton Pershing that is always called a heavy tank, and was nearly as heavy as the 46 ton IS-2 and KV-series heavy tanks of the Soviet Union.  The Panther certainly is more comparable to these heavy tanks than to a 32 ton Sherman, 30 ton T-34 or 28 ton PzIV, wouldn't you agree?  If you don't, then please, by all means, name another WWII 45 ton "medium" tank.

It is the inconsistent comparisons and double-standards that drive me crazy.
So, no, I wouldn't consider this a figment of my imagination.
Brauno in a past life, followed by LTARget
SWtarget in current incarnation
Captain and Communications Officer~125th Spartans

"Proudly drawing fire so that my brothers may pass unharmed."

Offline Die Hard

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
Re: The Basic M4 (Sherman)
« Reply #113 on: March 17, 2009, 09:06:25 PM »
Funny -- neither was the T-34. (e.g. double-standard)

I've never claimed the T-34 was a good tank in 1943. I've actually not mentioned the T-34 very often at all except when I compare it as equal to the M4. The double standard is only in your head.



At nearly zero slope.  Saying the IV and the V were equally armored seems a silly statement.

You really need to stop putting words in my mouth. I've never claimed the IV and V were equally armored. I've claimed their frontal armor was of equal thickness. As for slope, the PzKpfw IV had spaced frontal armor (50mm+30mm) which is almost as effective as sloped armor.



Agree on reputations.  But if the reputation is unjust, why simply accept the reputation?

Are you saying I simply accept the reputation? How many times do I have to say that the M4 wasn't a bad tank (when it was introduced) before it sinks in?



Same with the T-34.  Introduced a year earlier, yet was upgunned only months earlier.  Hmm . . . Seems the kind of double-standard I was talking about yet again.

You seem to be banging on about the T-34 for some reason. How many times do I have to state that I consider the T-34 and M4 equal in terms of combat effectiveness? You know, it is the very first thing I said in this thread ... The first sentence even. Again the double standard is only in your head.



Commonly classified as a Medium tank, yet at 45 tons it even outweighed the 42 ton Pershing that is always called a heavy tank, and was nearly as heavy as the 46 ton IS-2 and KV-series heavy tanks of the Soviet Union.  The Panther certainly is more comparable to these heavy tanks than to a 32 ton Sherman, 30 ton T-34 or 28 ton PzIV, wouldn't you agree?

Yeah I agree with you on that. However I think the reason behind the different classification is because the Germans were a generation ahead of the allies in not only tank technology, but also tank classification. Today 45-50 ton tanks like the T-72 and T-80 are considered "medium". In 1944 the Germans were producing "heavy" tanks that weighed the same as the M1 Abrams at almost 70 tons.
It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence.

-Gandhi

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Re: The Basic M4 (Sherman)
« Reply #114 on: March 18, 2009, 06:40:45 AM »
Well, the generation gap was closed when the Brits built the Challenger. Ready in 1945 but not engaging in the war. Probably the finest one built in that year...
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Die Hard

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
Re: The Basic M4 (Sherman)
« Reply #115 on: March 18, 2009, 07:49:40 AM »
I hope you are kidding, the Challenger was a POS. I'd say the gap was closed when the Centurion Mark II entered service in November 1945.
It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence.

-Gandhi

Offline Crash Orange

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 911
Re: The Basic M4 (Sherman)
« Reply #116 on: March 18, 2009, 10:56:50 AM »
That is your main argument, and it is based on the completely wrong assertion that normal market conditions didn't apply. They did. Unlike Soviet factories the German production companies like Porsche and Henschel weren't commandeered by the state, but actually worked for a profit.

That isn't necessarily incompatible with what I said - see below.

The workers were paid (except for slave laborers of course) standard prewar wages and the production companies had to pay for the resources they needed.

Exactly - they paid prewar wages, or something like them. Those wages didn't reflect the very different economic environment of 1943. Highly trained experts were much more scarce, and therefore valuable, because you could bring in slaves to do the scut work but not, in sufficient numbers anyway, expert craftsmanship, and people to do the latter couldn't just be trained en masse the way you could train people to sit in front of a machine and put a piece of sheet metal in and press a lever over and over.

Wages for highly skilled laborers went up, but not ten- or twentyfold as a free market would have dictated.

Likewise with resources and machine tools. The Nazis - specifically the Ministry for Armaments and War Production - didn't take over ownership or operational management of manufacturers, but it did tell them specifically what to build and allocate scarce resources. I don't have a figure for the price of tungsten in the Germany of 1944, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't 1,000 times its prewar price, which is what a free market would have dictated.

I don't have specific figures for this discussion, so I'm willing to concede that the actual cost may have been closer to what you say than to what I'm suggesting - but the general point that for most of the war the German leadership didn't properly take into account critical bottlenecks in their economy still holds. The V-2 is probably the most egregious example of this.

Offline Die Hard

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
Re: The Basic M4 (Sherman)
« Reply #117 on: March 18, 2009, 03:04:20 PM »
Exactly - they paid prewar wages, or something like them. Those wages didn't reflect the very different economic environment of 1943. Highly trained experts were much more scarce, and therefore valuable, because you could bring in slaves to do the scut work but not, in sufficient numbers anyway, expert craftsmanship, and people to do the latter couldn't just be trained en masse the way you could train people to sit in front of a machine and put a piece of sheet metal in and press a lever over and over.

Wages for highly skilled laborers went up, but not ten- or twentyfold as a free market would have dictated.

Likewise with resources and machine tools. The Nazis - specifically the Ministry for Armaments and War Production - didn't take over ownership or operational management of manufacturers, but it did tell them specifically what to build and allocate scarce resources. I don't have a figure for the price of tungsten in the Germany of 1944, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't 1,000 times its prewar price, which is what a free market would have dictated.

Good point, I hadn't thought of that.


I don't have specific figures for this discussion, so I'm willing to concede that the actual cost may have been closer to what you say than to what I'm suggesting - but the general point that for most of the war the German leadership didn't properly take into account critical bottlenecks in their economy still holds. The V-2 is probably the most egregious example of this.

Absolutely. Like I said earlier about German production inefficiencies. Partly because of unrealistic, sometimes downright stupid, leadership decisions by the Nazis and partly because of general inefficiencies in the industry itself. Even as late as 1943 most German factories worked one shift. Evening and night the factories were shut down... Imagine that. That's also part of why German industry could take so much damage from the RAF/USAAF bombing campaign and still increase its production output from 1943 to 1944. There was so much slack that the damage could be compensated for by simply streamlining the remaining production capacity.
It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence.

-Gandhi

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Re: The Basic M4 (Sherman)
« Reply #118 on: March 20, 2009, 04:14:27 AM »
I hope you are kidding, the Challenger was a POS. I'd say the gap was closed when the Centurion Mark II entered service in November 1945.

Arfff, me bad, I mixed up the names. Centurion of course.
Not the fasted, but well armed, lethal and highly reliable. Has some of the longest use and finest record of any tank basically (since it was frequently facing something close to equal).
And...full production started in nov 1945, - it was a wee delayed, for this one was built to withstand the 88mm!
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline splitatom

  • Parolee
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 765
Re: The Basic M4 (Sherman)
« Reply #119 on: March 20, 2009, 08:41:58 AM »
the panther was a cross i think of a heavy tank and a medium tank it had the same caliber gun as a medium but the armor of a heavy tank
snowey flying since tour 78