The flaw in Nazi Armor

[rhodesbe]

I'd heard it was a trade of for speed and maneuverability.

Engineering Disasters - The Sherman Tank of WW2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEeQPUp5VTY

That's an interesting video.

I think it's crazy talk to presume tank designers deliberately shorted the Sherman for the sake of performance. I think the design parameters were just plain mistaken.

Patton is pretty vilified in that video, but he had no choice but to use the Sherman.

Elsewhere in the war, in Asia and North Africa specifically, the Sherman dominated. It wasn't even close against Jap armor.

I totally agree on the point it was outmatched by many German tanks, but remember that we were fighting an offensive war overseas. Not only did we have to produce and ship great quantities of armor overseas, we actually did (see original post). Not sure that spectacular achievement is well considered in hindsight.

 

[Billybob]

That's an interesting video.

I think it's crazy talk to presume tank designers deliberately shorted the Sherman for the sake of performance. I think the design parameters were just plain mistaken.

Patton is pretty vilified in that video, but he had no choice but to use the Sherman.

Elsewhere in the war, in Asia and North Africa specifically, the Sherman dominated. It wasn't even close against Jap armor.

I totally agree on the point it was outmatched by many German tanks, but remember that we were fighting an offensive war overseas. Not only did we have to produce and ship great quantities of armor overseas, we actually did (see original post). Not sure that spectacular achievement is well considered in hindsight.

Mistaken or shortened to "do what we had to do"(cross the ocean to save the Brits and Europe).
Not like it's the first time Patton was vilified, he was an interesting sort.

 

[Grindstone]

Since a number of the Shermans were used by the British, I've heard or read in places that the Germans referred to the Sherman as a "Tommy Cooker."

The Russians called the M3 Lee that we gave them during Lend-Lease a "Coffin for three brothers".

 

[Mitch Rapp]

But the Panther was probably the most superior tank in the world at the end of the war.

My understanding is that the Panther was also a copy of the Russian T34

 

[Mitch Rapp]

Another thing many people don't know is that the Sherman was never designed to fight other tanks. That was the job of the M26 Pershing.

 

[Grindstone]

My understanding is that the Panther was also a copy of the Russian T34

Influenced, sure. But it's hardly a direct copy.

Another thing many people don't know is that the Sherman was never designed to fight other tanks. That was the job of the M26 Pershing.

The Persh was designed as an improvement of the M4, specifically to counter the Tigers and Panthers.

It was the British whose tanks were primary designed for infantry support and not tank-fighting. Hence why their guns tended to be far underpowered in comparison. They did have a winner in the Firefly modified M4, though.

 

[Mitch Rapp]

The Persh was designed as an improvement of the M4, specifically to counter the Tigers and Panthers.

It was the British whose tanks were primary designed for infantry support and not tank-fighting. Hence why their guns tended to be far underpowered in comparison. They did have a winner in the Firefly modified M4, though.

Belton Cooper's book "Deathtraps" is what I am basing my info on, he says that Patton basically decided to put production emphasis on the Sherman over the Pershing due to his concept of how the tank was to be used in combat. Because of that the Pershing was not actively produced until the serious failings of the M4 became brutally obvious.

Fascinating book, one random fact learned from it, you know the "Hedgrow cutters" you see on the front of tanks after D-Day? He said the idea came from a young farmboy in their unit, after D-day they Hedges were a serious problem, so this kid tells the guys what they used to do with their tractors, welding teeth on the front to rip out rows of shrubs etc. One problem, they didn't exactly have a ton of steel laying around to cut and weld to the front of the tanks... or did they ? They went back to the beach and collected the "Belgian hedgehogs" basically the X's of steel the Germans intended to rip out the bottoms of landing craft at high tide, and used those to make the teeth. They had to set up a giant welding shop, and covered a barn with Canvas so they could weld overnight without making a giant target of themselves. Talk about working with what you have!

 

[Grindstone]

Belton Cooper's book "Deathtraps" is what I am basing my info on, he says that Patton basically decided to put production emphasis on the Sherman over the Pershing due to his concept of how the tank was to be used in combat. Because of that the Pershing was not actively produced until the serious failings of the M4 became brutally obvious.

I think it was also because of other factors, including utilizing fast, heavy-hitting, low-armored tank destroyers (IE, Hellcat) rather than slugging it out in an open field, like the Russians.

I'll have to check out that book, thanks for the tip.

 

[rhodesbe]

Belton Cooper's book "Deathtraps" is what I am basing my info on, he says that Patton basically decided to put production emphasis on the Sherman over the Pershing due to his concept of how the tank was to be used in combat. Because of that the Pershing was not actively produced until the serious failings of the M4 became brutally obvious.

I don't think Patton is to blame. I think his affinity for armor and high profile make him an easy target, but if we are going to assign blame for the poor performance of Shermans against Nazi armor, hold General Lesley McNair (killed in the Normandy invasion) culpable.

Tactical doctrine controversies
McNair also espoused controversial theories on armored support of infantry forces, theories which were later found to be inadequate. He particularly came in for criticism over the tank destroyer doctrine. As an artillery officer, McNair favored towed anti-tank artillery over self-propelled tank destroyers, even after it had become apparent that German forces were converting their anti-tank forces into self-propelled guns as soon as such vehicles could be produced. Due to inherent delays in deploying such towed guns, combined with greatly increased crew exposure to German small arms and mortar fire, American towed anti-tank artillery was never really effective during the war in Europe; instead, some units were tasked as substitute howitzers firing conventional artillery missions. When used in their original role as towed anti-tank guns against German tanks and defensive emplacements, the towed battalions suffered disproportionate casualties compared to the self-propelled tank destroyer battalions.[26][27]

As a result of his belief in the tank destroyer doctrine, McNair was instrumental in obstructing the production of the M26 Pershing. McNair saw no need for a heavy tank and believed that tank versus tank duels were "unsound and unnecessary". McNair would agree only to the production of the 76mm M4 Sherman which he believed were capable of handling the Tiger I tank that had appeared in late 1942. Gen. Jacob Devers, the main proponent for the M26, had to go over McNair's head to Gen. Marshall to begin production of the M26.[28]

The tank destroyer doctrine, continued...
Gen. Lesley J. McNair was head of Army Ground Forces. McNair, an artilleryman, championed the tank destroyer within the U.S. Armored Forces. Tanks were to support the infantry, exploit breakthroughs, and avoid tank-to-tank battles. Enemy tanks were to be engaged by the tank destroyer force, composed of a mix self-propelled tank destroyers and towed anti-tank guns. Self-propelled tank destroyers, called "gun motor carriages" as were any US Army self-propelled armored vehicles mounting an artillery piece of heavy caliber, were similar to tanks but were lightly armored with open-topped turrets. The tank destroyers were supposed to be faster and carry a more powerful anti-tank gun than tanks; armor was sacrificed for speed. The tank destroyer doctrine played a large role in the lack of urgency in improving the firepower of the M4 Sherman, as the emphasis was on its role as infantry support.[46] The relatively small numbers of Axis tanks on the Western Front, and other Allies assets, allowed this revival of the old infantry support tank doctrine to be successful.[citation needed]

McNair approved the 76 mm upgrade to the M4 Sherman and production of the 90 mm gun-armed M36 tank destroyer, but he staunchly opposed development of the T26 and other proposed heavy tanks during the crucial period of 1943 because he saw no "battle need" for them.

In mid-1943, Lt. General Devers, commander of U.S. forces in the European Theater of Operations (ETO), asked for 250 T26s for use in the invasion of France. McNair refused. Devers appealed to General George Marshall, the Army Chief of Staff. Marshall summarily ordered the tanks to be provided to the ETO as soon as they could be produced. Soon after the Normandy invasion, General Dwight D. Eisenhower urgently requested heavy tanks (now designated M26 Pershing), but McNair's continued opposition delayed production. General Marshall intervened again and the tanks were eventually brought into production. However, only a few saw combat on February 25, 1945, too late to have any effect on the battlefield.[47]

Patton was a celebrity of the GI, but he wasn't a good political General. He was ostracised by the military aristocracy for his personal conduct (slapping injured solders, giving Montgomery the bird in Italy, etc...) He was not nearly as influential on war planning as the history channel would have people believe. The man was a warrior, not a war planner.

 

[ronny]

I think it was also because of other factors, including utilizing fast, heavy-hitting, low-armored tank destroyers (IE, Hellcat) rather than slugging it out in an open field, like the Russians.

I'll have to check out that book, thanks for the tip.

I was always fascinated by the Hellcats. They were apparently very effective against even Tigers and Panthers when in active hit and run combat. They scored some decisive victories during German advances, often stopping them completely.