Figure 1.--The M-4 Sherman was a highly effective tank when it first appeared on the battlefield in North Africa during 1942. The problem for American tankers is that the Germans introduced advanced tanks in 1943 and 44 while the Americans continued using the Sherman as their main battle tank. Even so, the Sherman still had two important advantages: mobility and numbers. Notice that the Shermans here in Normandy (August 1944) do not have the standard U.S. Army white star. That is because they are being turned over to the French 2nd Armored Division. That is something the Germans did not do, turn over their heavy equipment (tanks and artillery) to their allies in any quantity. That is becuse they did not have the industrial capacity to do so, but also because Hitler did not want his allies too well equipped fearing they would than be able to resist his orders. This explains why the Red Army so easily cut through the Hungarian, Italian, and Romanian units protecting the 6th Army's flank around Stalingrad. A centrtion of Germn armor and truks of this magnitude was impossible for the Germans because it would have attracted Allied air attacks. The image also gives an idea of the coiled spring unleased on the Germans when the American finally broke through the German lines in Normndy (late-May 1944).

The backbone of American armored forces during the War was the M-4 Sherman. It is unclear to what extent American tank designers managed or even tried to get Soviet or German technology. Even French technology available before 1940 would have been helpful. And of course the British were building tanks with modern features. Even a photograph of Soviet or German tanks should have given American tank designers clues. The high profile of the Sherman was one of its worst features. Designers were also working on the larger and heavier M-26 Pershing. Appararently the simplicity of the M-4 and the ability to begin production sooner won out. The Americans had high hopes for the M-4 Sherman. And it proved very effective in North Africa where it only faced the German Mark IV Panzer. Based on this experience, the U.S. Army decided to focus on the M-4 rather than the more advanced M-26 Pershing. American arms developers semed to have paid no attention to the rapid advances in armor occurring on the Eastern Front. We know of no effort to meet with Soviet specialists or inspect the German tanks littering Eastern Front battlefields, esoecially Kursk. As a resukt, the M4 was essentially obsolete by the times the Allies landed in Normandy. The M4 proved to be very vulnerable because of relatively thin armor and had an underpowered 75/76-mm gun with which to hit back. It is unclear why the United States did not build a more effective tank and was so slow to introduce an improved version, but seems to have been primarily compalcency based on the North African experience. The Sherman had its advantageous features. It was highly mobile and fast. And it was was produced in great quantity. Pitted against the formidable German armor, however, the American tankers had to develop armored tactics to play upon the Sherman's strong points. The U.S. Army at the start of the War planned to use the tank as infantry support and not for pitched armored battles with German tankers. Americans tankers proved to be quick learners, although many lost their lives in the process. The learning curve in the field, especially after Kaserine, was steep. Tankers made a range of battlfield modifications. Thus we see M4s piled high with sand bags or extra metal sheets welded on. Some appear to have had some effectiveness, although actual tests were very limited. One great advantage the Americans had was the increasing Allied superority in the air. The Americans were able to develop tactics to deal with the superior German tanks, primarily based on mobility and numbers. the Shermans also had the advantage of close-air support and excellent artillery support.

Importance

The backbone of American armored forces during the War was the M-4 Sherman. Actually it was the backbone of the Allied forces fighting in the West, the British, Dominions, Free French, and Poles. In fact, first Shermans to go into action were those President Roosevelt ordered rushed to the British Eighth Army fot the Battle of El Alamein (October 1942). The Americans who landed further West as part of the Torch landings had to rely on Stuarts and Grants (November 1942). The U.S. Army was not happy with this, but soon as production began in quantity, Shermans soon began reaching the Torch forces.

Design

It is unclear to what extent American tank designers managed or even tried to get Soviet or German technology. Even French technology available before 1940 would have been helpful. And of course the British were building tanks with modern features. Even a photograph of Soviet or German tanks should have given American tank designers clues. The front had slanting armor, but not the weakly protcted sides. The high profile of the Sherman was one of its worst features. Designers were also working on the larger and heavier M-26 Pershing. The simplicity of the M-4 and the ability to begin production sooner won out.

Time Factor

The M-4 Sherman was desined (1940). This was before many of the great tanks of he War such as the T-34 had appeared. The German Mark III Panzer had appeared. But it sems to have been ignored by the American designers. The first Sherman prototype appeared (September 1941). The Americans had high hopes for the M-4 Sherman. It was rushed to the British Eighth Army defending the Suez Canal. It faced the the German Mark III at Alamein and did well (October 1942). It proved less effecive against the Mark IV and its more powrful gun Based on this initial experience, however, the U.S. Army decided to focus on the M-4 rather than the more advanced M-26 Pershing. American arms developers seemed to have paid little attention to the rapid advances in armor occurring on the Eastern Front. We know of no effort to meet with Soviet specialists or inspect the German tanks littering Eastern Front battlefields, especially Kursk. As a result, the M-4 was badly outclassed, esopecially the gun, by the times the Allies landed in Normandy in tank on tank engagements. Fortunately for the Allis this is not how World War II was fought.

Transport

Transport wa a major factor in American World War II decesions. American war plants (unlike German and Soviet factories) were located at some distance from World War II battlefields, both in Europe and the Pacific. Themajor constraint on the Allied was transport, especially sea transport. But with tnks, there was also the ptoblem pf getting the tanks from the fctories in he Midwest to the the ports. America hadthe largest rail system in the wold. The ptoblem with tnks was the the weight. American rail lines were not capable of transporting a measurably heavier tank ot the port infrastructure to load them on ships. So if the U.S. Army ws going go have tnlks in 1942, the Shedrman would have to do. American factories cold hsve begun building the Heavy M-26 Pershing earliker, transporting it was a different matter.

Numbers

The United States had the greatest ability to build tanks, far exceeeding both the Germnans and the Soviets. American produced steel (the most important tank making mateial) in far larger quantities than any other country. And the Detroit assembly lines gave America the capacity to turn out Sherman in unbelievable numbers--nearly 50,000. The Soviets buikt simikar numbers of T-34s, deoending on the source consulted. The only reason that more were not porduced is that the Army began to reduce oeders before the War was over. As a result, total Soviet tank production was slightly higher than Amrican production. German tank production was a small fraction of both Soviet and American production. The reason for this was American productive capacity and Soviet concentration of their smaller industrial capacity on tanks. The Germans could have produced more, but they were not as committed to efficient assembly line production and the Wehrmacht offices overseeing production kept making large number of minor changes adversely affecting production runs. And the Germnans were unable to concentrate their industry on tanks because of the demands of the war in the West--the needs for aircraft and ships.

Weaknesses

The M-4 proved to be very vulnerable because of its high profile and relatively thin armor. Perhaps the greatest wekness was an underpowered 75/76-mm gun with which to hit back. When the Sherman first appeared on the battlefield at El Alamein (October 1942), it was competive with German armor. New more advanced German tank than appeared, including tanks with more powrful guns and long barrels. OThe total length of the barrel helps in the velocity of the fired round.) Redesigning the Sherman would have significantly impacted production meaning American and other Allied forces would have had far fewer tanks for combat opertations. Thus attention as givn go creating a more powerful gun. Even as recently as the D-Day landings (June 1944), the Sherman still had under-powered guns and short barrels). Notice the short barrels here in Normandy during August 1944 (figure 1).

Infantry Support

The huge number of Shermans meant that many were avialable for infantry support. This is different than the situatiion with German soldiers which rarely got armored or air support. Beginning in Sicily, the German Panzers became primarily moveable blockhouses used to fortify positions.

M-26 Pershing (1945)

It is unclear why the United States did not build a heavy tank that cold more effectivly take on the German Panzers. Or was so slow to introduce an improved version, but seems to have been primarily complacency based on the North African experience. The transport issue was another factor. The M-26 Pershing was a heavy tank, although on the smaller side. Some expets put it somewhere intermediate between the medium and heavy classification. It was named after General of the Armies John J. Pershing, who led the American Expeditionary Force in France during World War I. The M-26 Pershing was intended as a replacement for of the Medium M-4 Sherman. Delays in its development and improvements to the Sherman resulted in it not becoming vailbkle until the finl months of the War in Europe. As a result, it did not have a major impct on the War. Only about 2,200 were actully built. It was not nearly as heavy as the Germzn Tigers, maning less well armored, but assesing firepower and mobility, made it competitive, especially with the Tiger I and Panther. 【Hunnicutt. p. 200.】It only came intyo combat during the Invasion of Germany (1945), but was used extensively during the Korean War.

Strengths

The M-4 Sherman had its advantageous features. we read more about its weaknesses and the strengths have are often ignored. It was reliable and comparitively inexpensive to produce. Unlike the German tanks, the Sherman and te Soviet T-34 was designed to be mass produced. That is part if the reasin thatv the Allies had so many more tabks than the Germans. It was highly mobile and fast. And it was was produced in huge quantity. Numers are important for several reasons. One was that the American infntry got far more tank cover thasn the Germans. It was esasy to service. This is an often under appreciated strength. But if a vehicle is complicaed to service, it means that large numbrs were as effectively out of action as if they had been danmaged in combat. Not only did the Americans (and their allies) have far more tanks to begin with, but far more were operational at any given time. The Sherman was not a gas guzzeler like the German Panthers and Tigers. While America had the needed petroleum, fuel economy eased the logistical problem which was the Allies major constraint after the D-Day landings. In addition the M-4 could get into positions that the Pathers and Tigers could not. This proved to be a very important facor in th Ardennes Bulge offendsive where the Germans faced narrow forst roads and weak briges over the many streams. The Panthers and Tigers in the Ardennes were often stopped by a stream because of the absence of strong bridges. The lighter Shermans was usually able to get across. And even when there were no bridges, the enginners were abke to put up temporary bridges for the Germans. Pasnthers abnd Tigers require far heavier bridges mean a much more substastiual effort.

Tactics

Pitted against the formidable German armor, however, the American tankers had to develop armored tactics to play upon the Sherman's strong points. Americans tankers proved to be quick learners, although threre were lives lost in the process. The learning curve in the field, especially after Kaserine, was steep. Tankers made a range of battlfield modifications. Thus we see M-4s piled high with sand bags or extra metal sheets welded on. Some appear to have had some effectiveness, although actual tests were very limited. The Americans were able to develop tactics to deal with the superior German tanks, primarily based on mobility and numbers.

Tank Destroyers

The U.S. Army studied armored tactics, but mostly on a theoretical basis during the inter-War era. War games conducted in Louisiana used trucks matked as tanks (Summer 1941). The United States did not have a substantial armored force until well after The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, propelling America into the War (December 1941). Large-scale construction of American armor began only at this time. American armored concepts were strongly influenced by the German Blitzkrieg tactics and the fall of Fance (June 1940). American commanders as they prepared for war, expected to have to confront large-scale German Panzer attacks on relatively narrow fronts, which is how the Germans achieved their victory in France. The pre-war American assessment was that the Germans would be able tp break through anti-tank gun screens. And at the time, effective infantry anti-tank weapons did not exist. The U.S. Army decided that the answer to this threat was specialized anti-tank units -- Tank Destroyer (TD) battalions. The decesion was to make them highly mobile and thus capable of concentration. As the War progressed, American forces did not have to face such attacks. Such tank battles did take place, but in the East. There were two reasons that massive tank battles did not take place in the West. First, German armor was primarily deployed in the East, meaning the Western Alllies never had to face the full brunt of German armor. Second, the Western Allies achieved air superority in the major combat zones. The loss of air suoeriority made it impossible for the Germans to move and concentrate armor. Doing so, exposed them or more acurately their fuel and support vehicles to devestating air attacks. Only one TD battalion fought an engagement as anticipated -- the 601st at the Battle of El Guettar in Tunisia (February 1943). Soon after contact with the Germans, the U.S. Army tank concept began to shift toward an infantry support role.

Support

The Shrman M-4 by the time it went into action, had far greater support than the German Panzers. This in large measure made up for its dfincicies compared to Panthers and Tigers. The Allies Startegic Bombing campaign forced the Germans to wiythd=raw the Luftwaffe from the Ostkrieg to protect their cities. One great advantage the American tankers had was the increasing Allied superority in the air which by the time of the D-Day invasions. The Luftwaffe was destoyed in the skies ovedr German cities. The resulting air superiority made D-Day possible (June 1944). The German soldier by 1944 almost never got air support. The Shermans had the advantage of close-air support which was highy develpoed by the time of the D-Day landings (June 1944) with polanes like the P-47 Thunderboldt, a massive fighter with an incredable ground support payload. American infantry also had excellent artillery support, far greater than athat available to the German soldier.

Improvements

Beginning with D-Day, the need for a more powerful main gun became increasingly pronounced as armored ebgagements escated. The issue had surfaced in Tunisia (February 1943). Improving the Sherman was, however, not an easy task. A longer barrel was a relatively easy matter, but a heavier gun mean that it had to be fitted into the cramped area inside the already cramped turret. The British who were using large numbers of Shermans worked on the gun problem. The British managed to fit their more powerful 3-inch (76.2 mm) calibre 17-pounder anti-tank gun into the Sherman as its main gun (1943). About 2,100 were modified and are easily recognizable because of the long barrel. This was meant to be a temprary stopgap neasure until British tank designs created a new tank. It was called the Firefly, but became the most common vehicle mounting the 17-pounder in the war. It worked, but the crew had to work under extremly crampd conditions. A Canadian reder comments, "Yes it was very cramped in the tank with the longer 17 pounder." A more powerful vrersions did not bcome avilable to American tankers until well after D-Day (June 1944). The U.S. Army accepted a limited run of 254 M4A3E2 Jumbo Shermans (May-July 1944). The Jumbos had thicker hull armor and the 75 mm gun in a new, better- protected T23-style turret. The Jumbos could accomodate the 76mm M1 cannon which could be employed to attack fortifications, leading convoys, and spearhead armored columns. The M4A3 wasfirst produced in factory runs (August 1944). It also had horizontal volute spring suspension (HVSS) system and wider tracks to better distribute weight. The resulting smooth ride of the HVSS led to the tankers calling it the 'Easy Eight'. (The experimental designation was 'E-8').

Variants

Surviveability

There is a misunderstanding about tank warfare. And especially abput the Sherman. We see comments like the Germans callsing the Sherman's 'Ronson lighters'. Or the Americans calling them, 'coffins on wheels'. Many just assume that when a tank is hit, the entire crew is killed. This can occur, but is usually not the case. In fact the average number of fatalities when M-4 Shrmans were hit was just a little over one fataliy. The Germans succeeded in destroying a large number of Shermans, but the mortality of the tankers was only a fraction of what was commonly assumed. And Americans could asily rep;ace the tanks.

Iconic World War II Weapon

The American World War II M-4 Sherman medium tank is arguably the most iconic weaoon of Worlds War II. It became the primary symol of libetation. There are other contendres like the British Spitfire and the American P-51 Mustang. But it was the Sherman that helped liberate the oppressed people of Western Europe sa as the Allies fought their way up the Italian Peninsula and rooled through France and the Low Couuntries. It was waht was in the ground and what Europeans saw as the Western Allies moved through their towns abd cillages. Ans what smashed throujgh the gates of NAZI concentration camps. The M-4 Sherman was not the most powerful tank of the war, but whereever the Sherman went, freedom, democracy, and the rule of law followed in its wake. Another candiudate is the Soviet T-34 tank. It terms of smashing the Wehrmacht it was probably more important than the Sherman. The T-34 effectively helped drive out the Germans, but tragically libration and democracy did not follow in its wake. Rather a new form of oppression as substiututed for the NAZIs--Soviet impopsed Communism. It imposed the Iron Curtain on Eastern Europe and four decades of totalitarian rule.

Sources

Hunnicutt, R. P. Pershing, A History of the Medium Tank T20 Series (Feist Publications: 1996).

Created: 11:20 PM 7/2/2017
Last updated: 3:06 AM 12/16/2021