The M4 Sherman Tank Epic Information Thread.. (work in progress)

[Meplat]

I posted this over in WoT. But I feel every M4 Sherman thread should have a photo of a collectible antique alcohol decanter in the shape of a tank.

 

A M4, filled with Bourbon!?

 

THERE IS A GOD!

 

(Joking aside, that is neat)

[Tied]

How are you supposed to drink out of it?

 

Clearly a T-34 is a superior alcohol container, and the T-44 is the equivalent of a IV fluid line filled with rum and coke 

[Meplat]

How are you supposed to drink out of it?

 

Clearly a T-34 is a superior alcohol container, and the T-44 is the equivalent of a IV fluid line filled with rum and coke 

The barrel is a straw...

 

Actually, I'm betting the turret is the stopper, or the decorative top for it.

And while a T34 is pretty, it lacks the required volume compared to the M4. Besides, Bourbon in a T34?  Maybe a Vodka..

[Jeeps_Guns_Tanks]

New section.  

 

Anyone got a good source on mines?

 

Let’s talk about the other things that Killed Shermans, Mines and AT guns, the true hidden menace.

The Riegel mine 43/44.

This mine was steel cased, anti-tank mine that looked like a long rectangular box. It had 8 pounds of TNT explosive in it. That’s enough BOOM to really mess up a tanks suspension. A really unlucky Sherman might have this go off right under the tanks rear belly, where the armor was thinnest, and blow into the engine compartment and really knock the tank out. In most cases this mine would do enough damage the tank would need battalion level repair, if that tank wasn’t written off for total rebuild.

Production on these things started in 43, and by the end of the war they had produced over 3 million of them. Apparently there is no safe way to disable this mine, and the recommended way of removing it is to just blow it up. There is no telling how many of these took out Shermans, but it was probably a large percentage of the Mine losses.

The Topfmine A, B and C.

These mines went into service in 1944. They were made from wood pulp and cardboard, with tar for waterproofing. They had a bigger charge but the metal cased mines till probably worked better. These mines went into  production for two reasons, they were harder for harder for mine detectors to detect, and the case was cheap and easy to produce and used no steel.  The 13 pound charge would do a lot of suspension damage.

The Tellermine 29:

This mine was developed in the early 30s and was mostly used in training but saw limited use in Normandy. 13 pound charge meant it would be effective, but its age made it primitive.

The Tellermine 35:

This mine was used for the whole war and could even be used underwater. Steel cased like the older model, this one went into production in 35.  This mine had a slight smaller 12 pound charge. Most of the time this mine would just blow a track off, and damage the suspension, but it could get lucky and do more damage.

The Tellermine 42:

 This mine was an improvement on the 35 and used the same charge. It had improved anti handling devices. This would be a very common mine through the end of the war. It went into production in 42 and was quickly superseded by the 43 model.

The Tellermine 43:

A further improvement on the 42 model, cheaper to produce, with the same charge, this mine went into production, you guessed it, in 1943.

H-S mine 4672

This shaped charge mine went into production in late 44 and was used to the end of the war. It basically was a panzerfaust head used as a mine. The mine shot the head out of the ground hoping for a belly hit. This mine would be bad news for wet ammo rack Shermans.  Only 59,000 were made, making it rare. This mine was very effective even with its small 3 pound charge. The Germans felt the heads were better use don Panzerfausts, explaining the limited production.

Panzer Stab 43:

This mine was very much like the 4672 mine, but didn’t launch the projectile. This mine was even rarer and was discontinued, probably because it worked, by the Germans the same year it went into production. Around 25k got made before they killed it.

. . .

That’s a lot of mines and that’s just the mines the Germans made, I’m sure they used any stocks of captured mines they got their thieving paws on. So I’ll add Russian, British and US AT mines here soon too.  Mines always accounted for 10 to 30% of tank losses depending on the year, month and theater you look at the loss. There are a few pictures of Sherman tank catastrophically blown up, with the whole upper hull ripped away. They are labeled as mine damaged, and in a few cases, the labeling mentions two mines being put into the same hole, I think the ones labeled ‘mine damage’ probably lost the part about two mines in the hole to time. I suspect those photos of blown up Shermans are cases of two or more mines in one hole or an even bigger explosive like a dud Arty shell, or aircraft bomb could be put in the hole too.  

Tankers probably really hated mines, in many cases mine fields would be covered by well-hidden AT gun positions, or even tanks, and in this role, the Panther was a pretty good tank, since it didn’t need to move much. Hitting a mine in an ambush like that could be very deadly for the crew when they bailed out to look at the damage or retreat to the rear. The random left over mine, or stumbling into a minefield not covered by AT guns would be a big inconvenience, but rarely resulted in a fully destroyed tank or lost crew members.

 

Next up, AT guns, cheap and easy to produce, these guns were a big threat to tanks.     

[Tied]

The barrel is a straw...

 

Actually, I'm betting the turret is the stopper, or the decorative top for it.

And while a T34 is pretty, it lacks the required volume compared to the M4. Besides, Bourbon in a T34?  Maybe a Vodka..

 

which is why i said alcohol

 

and besides, drinking out of that would seem really awkward, dont get me wrong- its a great thing to have

 

But your gonna look like a jackass when you actually try to drink out of it infront of even friends

[Donward]

The barrel is a straw...

 

Actually, I'm betting the turret is the stopper, or the decorative top for it.

And while a T34 is pretty, it lacks the required volume compared to the M4. Besides, Bourbon in a T34?  Maybe a Vodka..

Yep. The turret is a stopper. 

[Donward]

which is why i said alcohol

 

and besides, drinking out of that would seem really awkward, dont get me wrong- its a great thing to have

 

But your gonna look like a jackass when you actually try to drink out of it infront of even friends

You don't drink out of the bottle. There is a spout that you insert into the hole to pour out the booze. These were novelty items that were popular in the 1950s and 1960s.

[Meplat]

which is why i said alcohol

 

and besides, drinking out of that would seem really awkward, dont get me wrong- its a great thing to have

 

But your gonna look like a jackass when you actually try to drink out of it infront of even friends

Tied, they make these things called "glasses"... You can drink from the bottle, but it's difficult with those novelty decanters.  So you instead pour the alcohol into the "glass"...

[Tied]

You don't drink out of the bottle. There is a spout that you insert into the hole to pour out the booze. These were novelty items that were popular in the 1950s and 1960s.

 

 

Tied, they make these things called "glasses"... You can drink from the bottle, but it's difficult with those novelty decanters.  So you instead pour the alcohol into the "glass"...

 

Well you did saw straw 

[Meplat]

Well you did saw straw 

You have to admit that would be an amusing sight.

[Walter_Sobchak]

The most manly way to apply perfume.

 

[Sturgeon]

Posting this just to troll Jeeps:

[Jeeps_Guns_Tanks]

Posting this just to troll Jeeps:

Is there a version where the guy is speaking english, cause I don't understand whatever that crap was, the only part I understand was the twat calling the Sherman bad. 

 

I may have to comment on his video, if I could just understand most of it!~

[Walter_Sobchak]

Is there a version where the guy is speaking english, cause I don't understand whatever that crap was, the only part I understand was the twat calling the Sherman bad. 

 

I may have to comment on his video, if I could just understand most of it!~

To be honest, the Sherman was kind of shit when used by the British.  Oh yeah, I said it.  British in WW2 were just bad at tanks.  

 

"Cheerio, here's the plan chaps, we will be grouping our tanks into a narrow frontage and attacking straight into the Jerry's anti-tank guns.  Once Jerry has exhausted himself from reloading his guns so many times, we will have weakened them to the point where the American's can pull of a successful breakthrough somewhere else."  

 

We gave the British a perfectly fine medium tank and they have trash-talked it ever since.  

[Jeeps_Guns_Tanks]

To be honest, the Sherman was kind of shit when used by the British.  Oh yeah, I said it.  British in WW2 were just bad at tanks.  

 

"Cheerio, here's the plan chaps, we will be grouping our tanks into a narrow frontage and attacking straight into the Jerry's anti-tank guns.  Once Jerry has exhausted himself from reloading his guns so many times, we will have weakened them to the point where the American's can pull of a successful breakthrough somewhere else."  

 

We gave the British a perfectly fine medium tank and they have trash-talked it ever since.  

 

 

Hah, good point, and it was sooo much better than their native tanks, yet they wax poetic about those heaps. 

[Jeeps_Guns_Tanks]

AT guns, cheap and easy to produce, these guns were a big threat to tanks, but had little value to a mobile force.     

AT guns were just what they sound like, large, Anti-Tank guns, on towable mounts. Most were as small and low slung as possible. Unless it was a US 3 inch AT gun, then they are huge. Even guns normally not a huge threat to a Sherman like the PAK 38 50mm AT gun could punch through the Shermans side if it was hidden well enough for the Shermans to give them the shot.  All the larger PAK guns had no trouble punching right through most Shermans.  Guns setup in ambush would have pre range cards, giving them an advantage shooting and getting hits.  They are much easier to hide than a tank and can even have bunkers built around them. Those are all reasons why these things made Sherman tankers lives harder.

Towed AT guns have a lot of negatives. For one, they are towed, by trucks, or halftracks, they have to be limbered and unlimbered, or set up, or packed up to go.  This is very hard to do in a useful way if you’re attacking with a mechanized force. By the time the guns are set up, if done at safe distances, the battle has moved on. At guns only have a small lightly armored shield, the crews would have to rely on personal foxholes or larger trench works if they had time.  The more time it had to get in place and camouflaged the position the better things would be for the gun and crew. But unless they had fortifications with overhead cover for the gun and crew, making it effectively a fixed gun, any kind of indirect fire weapon is going to make their lives hard. If the artillery fire wasn’t killing the crew, it would at least be keeping it from firing.    

 About half of the US tank destroyer battalions used only towed anti-tank guns. The battalions were not very successful, even during German offensives like the Battle of the Bulge. Both tracked TD battalions and towed were quickly disbanded after WWII, and towed anti-tank guns would not be a big part of most western nations militaries after the war either. AT guns would prove very useful the Germans from mid war on, after they were losing. They had a lot of these guns, and they accounted for a lot of tank kills. It was hard to determine in many cases what type of gun killed a tank, but tanks were much rarer than AT guns.

The Sherman 75mm tanks were actually better at dealing with AT guns than the later model tanks that had the 76mm gun, since it had a smaller explosive charge. It was far from useless though.  A tank’s best way of dealing with an AT gun was shoot the hell out of it with all guns available once it was spotted, and sometimes if the crew was suppressed, they’d even get a dose of the tracks.

Pak 38 50mm AT Gun:

This little gun was the main German AT gun from 1941 until superseded by the Pak 40. It was still used until the end of the war though. The Germans were so desperate they couldn’t afford to retire any weapons. Crewed by five men, it could be moved around pretty handily by the crew, but required a light truck or some kind of tow vehicle to go any real distance.  I won’t go into great detail about the gun but it needed to be very close to a Sherman to knock it out from the front, not so much from the sides. Nearly 10,000 produced.

Pak 40 75mm AT Gun:

This gun was larger; almost double the weight of the Pak 38.  This gun could also take the Sherman out at the combat ranges they normally faced each other. They Germans made nearly 20,000 of these guns, so they are probably responsible for a lot of knocked out Shermans. In some cases the same type of gun may have knocked the same Sherman out multiple times.  This gun required a bigger truck or halftrack to haul, but overall, it was a great gun.

Pak 43 88mm AT Gun:

This ‘fearsome’ gun had the same PR people as the big cats, but at least in this case the gun performed well, though not to the mythical levels some would have you believe. No it can’t take out an M1 ‘Abrahams’, it could take out any allied tank it faced, but it was nearly as rare as the Tiger I&II. They only produced around 2000 of these guns, so they only outnumber the combined Tigers production number of 1839. Overkill for most of the combat it saw, it would have been more useful if the Allies had made the same mistake of wasting resources on heavy tanks, but since they didn’t this gun was almost entirely a waste of time.  The gun weighed almost 10,000 pounds, and it was a heavy awkward gun mount, even worse than the US 76 AT gun mount.  It needed a very large tow vehicle and its size and weight limited where it could be employed.

 Flak 18/36/37 88mm dual purpose AA/AT Guns.   

 Another ‘mythical’ German weapon, this one started life as a mediocre AA gun that was pressed into use as a direct fire weapon when needed. As a direct fire weapon it was pretty good, these larger and much more powerful guns were better at penning armor than anything being mounted on a tank before or at the beginning of the war.  Capable of destroying all the French and British tanks the Germans faced, this gun could even handle the T-34 and KV-1/2 tanks, and it was the only thing the Germans had in any real numbers that could. This led to it being mounted in the Tiger I. The Pak 43 was more powerful, but this gun was more numerous with over 20,000 being produced. If any allied troops were right when an they thought an 88 was shooting at them it would be one of these.  

There was a Flak 41 88mm, but it was a failed attempt to improve upon the 18/36/37 failings as an AA gun.  The reason the basic 88 Flak gun failed as an AA gun was that it had optical range finding, and couldn’t lob a shell high enough to hit US heavy bombers, even the older models like the B-17. They also lacked radar ranging or laying unlike the superior US M1/2/3 90mm AA gun system. Had these guns not found their nitch in the direct fire role they would have gone down in history as the mediocre AA guns they were.

Next up, Panzerfausts, or AT-sticks as I now call them. 

[Sturgeon]

It's worth noting that Colonel Rene Studler considered the greatest achievement of his career to be his pushing through the development of recoilless rifles, which replaced towed AT guns, for the very reasons you cite above.

[Jeeps_Guns_Tanks]

I wanted to get this in before I hit the sack. 

 

40,005 words now, not including the individual spec sheets I did. 

 

The Tank Battalion or how Sherman tanks were used.

There were two types of tank battalion, the type attached to infantry divisions, as ‘independent’ tank battalions,  and the type that were a part of an armored division. They were pretty much the same in organization, if not in how they were used. The life of a tanker could vary wildly from another’s depending on where he got assigned, and the tamest would probably be when they got sent to an armored division.

The Tank Platoon:

Let’s start with the smallest sub unit of the Tank Battalion, The tank platoon.  A Sherman platoon would be made up of five Sherman tanks, by late 44, they might be a mix of types. The likely mix would be some M4A3 75 tanks, and M4A3 76 tanks, with some M4A1 76s mixed in with some small hatch M4s and M4A3s. The optimal number of men for a tank platoon is 25, 1 Officer, 9 NCOs, and 15 regular GIs.

These men would be permanently assigned to one of the tanks. In most cases the tanks were named, and the name reflected the platoons, company designation, for this example we’ll say the platoon belongs to B Company, so all five tanks will be named something starting in B.

 

No. 1 Brenda: M4A3 76w, Platoon leader, Commander by a Lieutenant, Gunner: Corporal, Loader, Driver and Co Driver: Jr enlisted.  New tank, has commanders radios.

 

No. 2 Bonnie: M4A3 75w, Commander by a Sargent Gunner: Corporal, Loader, Driver and Co Driver: Jr enlisted. Nice new large hatch tank

 

No. 3 Battlingbitch: M4A1 76w, Commander by a Sargent Gunner: Corporal, Loader, Driver and Co

Driver: Jr enlisted. Tank been around since Cobra.

 

No. 4 Bronco: M4A3 75, Commander by a Staff Sargent Gunner: Corporal, Loader, Driver and Co Driver: Jr enlisted.  Another small hatch survivor, has all updates, and C/O radio.

 

No. 5 BettyW: M4A1 75, Commander by a sergeant, Gunner: Corporal, Loader, Driver and Co Driver: Jr enlisted.  Small hatch survivor.

 

This was as small as the unit was broken down in an armored division, at least most of the time. In a separate tank battalion things would be different. Often a battalion would be assigned to an infantry division for an extended period of time, a few the whole war, and they used tanks differently.  At a tactical level, when operating with infantry in direct support, they could be broken down into a two tank light section, and a three tank heavy section.  Sending a tank out by itself, even with infantry support was something they tried to avoid.

In a separate tank battalion, once assigned to a division, for battle they were often broken down much further. The way they usually did it was each regiment of the division would get a company, and then each battalion of the regiment got a platoon. The HQ platoon would be held in reserve or used to beef up a special combat team.  One tank platoon could get to know a battalion of troops very well if they worked together often, and that made for a better team. The longer they stayed assigned together the closer that bond got.

The Tank Company:

The next unit up in the Battalion is the Company. A Company is made up of three Platoons, just like the example we just talked about and an Headquarters platoon. The unit has now grown much larger B Company has 5 Officers, 39 NCOs, and 73 Jr. Ems The HQ Platoon had three tanks, a pair of M4 tanks of any 75/76 variety for the Company Commander and 1^st Sargent. The third tank would be a M4A3 105 tank or an M7 priest if the 105 tank was in short supply. The HQ platoon would also have ARV assigned.

It would also have a maintenance section and admin, mess and supply Section attached. This parts of the company HQ would have their own trucks and jeeps and would hang back with the ARV and the 105 tank while the fighting was going on. Sometimes the truck would run ammo out to a tank or the ARV would move out to get a tank unstuck or deal with another problem of that type.  It would not be uncommon for the men in the HQ platoon not assigned to the combat vehicles to not see the rest of the men in the company for weeks at a time when assigned to a separate tank battalion. When part of an armored division, the companies worked together, and the company commander would lead his company into battle.

A late 1944 tank battalion would have four tank companies; three just like the ones we have just covered and one made up of M5 light tanks. It would also have its own HQ Company. The HQ Company had a pair of tanks, M4A3 76w tanks, and the 105 Shermans. They also had 3 self-propelled mortar half-tracks. The tanks would be held back in most cases when in an armored division, only committed where needed during an on the spot basis, often with the battalion commander commanding one.  In the separate battalions, the tanks were often put together as another light section and sent out to a trouble spot, usually with sergeants from Battalion HQ commanding both.

Commanding a battalion was very different depending on if you were an independent battalion, or part of an armored division. In an Armored Division, the battalion worked together as a unit a lot, it would be very rare for one to be broken up for some reason. He would have tight control over his company commanders and would know them all well.  They would also have worked with the division infantry for a longer time though rarely in the direct support role. They would have much easier access to spare parts and replacements since they would have the fixed asset of the division to work with.

The Commander of a separate battalion could have anything from a similar time to a much harder time depending on how his battalion got assigned. In a few cases separate battalions really got taken in by the Division they worked with, and got tied into their supply system and were accepted into the divisions command structure making keeping track of his men and tanks easier, but this was rare. The best they could really hope for was getting to stay with the same infantry division for extended periods of time. Some didn’t even get this, and a battalion commander could have a lot of work just keeping track of where all his tanks and people were. He would rarely man his tank, and the Battalion HQ assets combat assets would be farmed out like the companies.

. . .

The main point behind all this is, up to this section, we’ve always talked about the Sherman tank as an individual thing, and it wasn’t. At worst, you would be facing two or three at once but you could face up to seventeen or much much more, because they were part of the greatest combined arms team of the war.

It’s possible that the myth you need five Shermans to face a tiger has some roots in a historic misunderstanding. The Sherman units didn’t need five Shermans to kill a single panther, but that’s what they operated in as the smallest unit, and more often than not, there are going to be twelve other Shermans, all blood thirsty, looking for that tiger, cause just like the real animal, they were a rare and sought after prize to kill.     

[LoooSeR]

US Sherman, knocked out during battle for Saipan, 1944.

[Walter_Sobchak]

Check out this picture gallery of a really early production M4A3 on display in WI.  Some nice close up shots of the direct vision slits.  

[Walter_Sobchak]

In case anyone is wondering about the post war career of the Sherman tank in the Canadian Army, there is a book about it.

[Jeeps_Guns_Tanks]

Nice links Walt, I'm going to have to buy that Sherman book. 

 

That Sherman is interesting, DV, but somehow ended up with latr suspension, and an early turret, with half a welded on gunshield, it would be great to know the tanks story. 

[Sturgeon]

Given, *ahem*, recent events, here's the reference drawing for the "M4 Improved" (from Hunnicutt):

[Sturgeon]

Two more improved Shermans:

Note that the angles were because the Army anticipated a shortage of foundries for casting the tanks. This turned out to be half-right, as the turrets were cranked out just fine, but the welded hull variants became very numerous.

[Jeeps_Guns_Tanks]

New section on Sherman DDs.  They were much more useful than I thought. 

Duplex Drives: wow, floating tanks and it worked!

   The Duplex Drive Sherman story starts with the British. They came up with the idea of making a canvas skirt system for a tank and tried it on the valentine tank. It worked so well they went on to try it on their M4A2s, and then on the M4A4s. They worked so well, when they were shown to the US Army in a demonstration, the US Army was so impressed they decided to they would use some for the coming D-Day invasion. They had planned on just using Sherman tanks with deep wading kits and LSMs. They would use both.

Though any version of the Sherman could be converted if the M4A4 could, the US chose to only use M4A1 tanks. They wanted the most modern version they could get for the conversions the M4A1 76w, but the first 150 of these tanks were reserved for use in England for crew familiarization. They got M4A1 75 tanks, some late large hatch wet models in the batch. At first they thought the conversions could be done in England, but the complication of moving the air cleaner to the inside of the engine compartment, made the conversions complicated enough it was decided to build and install the kits on tanks in the US, and the M4A1s were there waiting.

   The kits were engineering marvels, if not a little fragile, they still worked very well. I think the impression they were failures comes from a single battalion that mostly sank on D-Day, but they launched into conditions that were known to be very dangerous for the tanks. All the other D-Day DD battalions had the vast majority of their tanks make it into shore just fine and then help a great deal on the landing beaches. The kit was made from a steal frame with rubberized canvas skirts. They were raised by inflating them. There was a little air pump mounted on the right rear of the tanks engine deck that kept it the inflatable parts inflated. Much of the structure that supported the canvas skirts was made of inflatable ribs.

The tank was propelled in the water by a pair of propellers built into a modified idler wheel mount. I don’t think they had a ruder of any kind and the tank was steered by braking with one track or the other. The British converted tanks were slightly different, and had sprocket teeth added to the idler.  On the American conversions these sprocket teeth were found to clog with sand and cause tracks to be thrown, so they were removed from the entire run of American made DD tanks. The kits included periscope extensions for the driver and commander so the tanks could in theory be operated buttoned up. There were extensions for the head and taillights for use in training only and extensions to the controls so the tank could be driven from outside. While in the water all DD conversions could make 4 ½  MPH.

   In use, the biggest drawback was how fragile the skirts were both in and out of the water. Even a small tear would cause the DD to sink. There were several cases of DDs being lost because they tore their skirts driving off the ramp of an LCT. They were also vulnerable to bad weather, and the weather on D-Day was not ideal. It was only deadly for one tank battalion though.  The American 741^st tank battalion launched 32 DDs 5000 yards from Omaha beach, 1000 more than ideal, into very rough surf conditions. 27 of the DD sank, 3 three from damage to their skirts, the rest foundered in the rough seas. They had it by far the worst accounting for most of the lost DD tanks.  Of the 122 total launched, this total is all the DD tanks, British and American, 36 were lost, and that includes all the tanks from the 741^st. When they were used in other landings later in the war they had a better success rate. They also came up with metal flaps to cover the screen when it was down, to protect it from being torn on just about anything.

For more detailed info, check out the info on the Sherman Minutia Site.