I think the problem was that the US just didn’t get around to building a proper medium or heavy tank, finding it easier and cheaper to churn out Shermans. It almost seems a little cynical as the Shermans inadequacies probably got a lot more tankies killed than would have been had there been a better tank available in sufficient numbers, they almost seem to have calculated that they could afford to expend men more easily than retool.
The British on the other hand knew the weaknesses of the tank and also (probably because of the Regimental system - losses are more difficult to hide than “pipeline” replacement) knew that they couldn’t afford the loss of men, hence the Firefly and the continuation of the British tank programme.
I often wonder how much quicker tanks like the Comet or Centurion could have been available if the US could have been persuaded to contribute to their design and production. After all it is far more space and cost efficient to ship in a completed product from the US.
USA had a better tank than Sherman : M 26 Pershing
M 26 Pershing was manufacturated for first time in november 1944 by Fisher Tank Arsenal, Detroit Tank Arsenal (Chrysler).
Primary Armament :
90mm Gun M3
Calibre 90 mm
Muzzle Velocity 853 m/sec
Shell Weight 11 Kg
Other Designation(s) M26 (T26E3) Pershing
Engine Ford GAF
Type & Displacement V8, 18.0 liters
Horsepower (max.) 500hp@2600rpm
Power/Weight Ratio 11.9 hp/tonne
Gearbox 3 forward, 1 reverse
Fuel Gasoline (Petrol)
Range on/off road (km) 161
Mileage (liters/100km) 517 on road
Fuel Capacity (liters) 832
Speed on/off road 40 km/h
I have often wondered the same thing as the Centurion especially was far better than anything the western allies had at the time or for a few years to come.
I think it had more to do with the concept of tank use in the USA. The US looks on tanks in the old light cavalry way. Once a break through has been produced they move into the rear area and create havoc. With this concept on the use of the tank not as a heavy weapon but as an exploitation weapon the need to change is not there. The Sherman suits the light cavalry/exploitation role as its name implies called after General Sherman. British tank design had 3 levels, light, cruiser and infantry support. It was only with experience that they changed and developed the Sherman. The US looked a the Matilda early on in the war (pre 42) and dispelled the concept but liked the powered traverse.
Alot of US tanks were not really tanks, they were artillery on a tank bed, the Allies’ “tank” on the Western front could be better described as a bazooka team. And the military channel is AWESOME, every cable/sat company should have it 
GO DIRECT TV!
Please inform us of the Artillery tanks? And what they were used for?
I dont know nothing about Artillery tanks I search on google and i can find nothing.
Ah good old google.
Well, there was the Sherman 105
The Priest again 105
The Bishop - UK 25 lbdr ( i think, not exactly sure though)
Then of course there were the TD’s
not artillery tanks though…
Anyone know about the TD’s?
Check this out:
http://www.onwar.com/tanks/usa/
And for the British armour
"This made it a formidable weapon as there were always lots available as opposed to the Axis vehicles which were so complicated that they broke a lot. It was also built in more numbers than any other tank in ww2 and in my opinion the equal or better of a T-34 85.
A much maligned vehicle, undeservedly so."
i think the t-34 /85 is better then the sherman in tank vs tank. its armor is better sloped.
the sherman’s greatest asset was that it was a good at pursuit and a good infantry killer thanks to its fast moving turret with a small gun. i would equate the regular sherman the equal of the t-34/76.
What I mean is that they are really just a cannon on top of a tank bed, the operators have no cover because you can’t go inside unless you need to fix engines ‘n’ what not, but the driver would stand to the right of the cannons and drive it with regular tank controls
I dont see how? Please give me your reasons and I will give you mine, thanks…
I love the Sherman even if everyone hates it. American industry just poured them into Europe and gave them to everyone to use. I dont care how good a tank is, it cant take on 20 Shermans at once. The Sherman was a masser just like the Russain infantry. So ya ofcourse it has highdeath tolls but it still won the war didn’t it? Speed was its advange and it could run circle around Tigers but its armor and weapons sucked!
Should of made it bigger and added more armor and fire power then you’d have a kick butt tank
T-34 is the tank that won the war. it came out at the right time, in the right numbers. pushed the germans away from moscow.
if your read “death traps” by the 3rd armored ordance manager(cooper), he says that the sherman was less manuverable then the tiger panzer, panther, and panzer IV in non-road conditions due to very thin treads and lack of ground-bearing pressure.
3rd armored suffered 580% permanent tank losses in the western front. thats around 1400-1500 tanks lost in one armored division…
he talked about how by the ardennes offensive, so many tanks were wia or kia that they could only field an average of 3-4 men for each tank. there were always plenty of tanks, but the personnel losses slowed down the advance to berlin.
in comparison, the germans lost a grand total of 1300-1400 tanks in the normandy battles.
the only time the sherman dominated in manuverbility were on paved roads, which most tank battles don’t take place.
cooper says the only advantage of the sherman was that it was super reliable, with only 1 out of 10 in the shop due to engine trouble. in comparison, 1/3 of german tanks were in the shop.
the sherman was there when it was needed, and often fought tank-less german infantry with panzerfausts.
the other advantage was the turret speed was faster then the panther’s and panzer ivs’. i believe it was 18 to 22.
I agree with a lot of this. The Sherman wasnt confined to roads however. But would have struggled in certain terrain. The reliability factor was a huge bonus for the Allies. The German tanks were in many ways superior, Gun, Armour, Optics etc. But reliability played a huge factor. Also remember 1 thing, Tanks are not designed to fight other tanks primarily. The Sherman as stated before was designed as a fast moving cavalry type tank. The very fact that they were used against infantry only is what should happen.
Some good points though, do you have the ISBN for that book?
isbn 0-89141-722-2
another advantage of the sherman, is that it was available in such large numbers that every infantry division had one battalion of shermans and one battalion of tank destroyers attached.
compared the german infantry divisions, who usually had at the very most one company of tank detroyers/assault guns. most german infantry divisions in fact had a mere 12-24 man-handled anti-tank guns.
so often, it was 12-24 75mm paks,panzerfausts, panzershrecks, vs 100+ allied tanks/tank destroyers.
Thanks for that.
Also we come to the other Allies. The brits had the Firefly, mounting the only allied gun that could take on the Panzers at range.
Allbeit it was still the flimsy firefly and was not superior in any way, but did have a bite against german armour.
It was probably the supreme Sherman of the war. And by the wars end the Uk armour was equipped mainly with this.
i think in the western front, most of the panzers were older panzer IVG-Js, which are similiar to the sherman in armor but superior in cannon and optics.
however, they weren’t as dominating as panthers or tigers. meaning that the sherman was somewhat on even ground with this model.
most panthers and almost all of the ~14-16 or so operational tiger battalions were sent to the russian front to combat the tougher t-34/85s and JS IIs.
i believe only 4 tiger battalions were deployed in the west, which is a mere 200 tigers. according to wolfgang schenider’s tigers in combat 1,2, they accounted for about 2,000 allied tanks. then the rest were withdrawn and earmarked for operation spring awakening.
so panthers, and tigers weren’t as great as a threat.
and, only 1/3 of german armor was present in the west in the last year.
Slight correction here. No German Tanks were pulled back for Op Spring Awakening.
They were all lost. hardly any german Equipment left falaise.
panzer divisions/tiger battalions were pulled out after the ardennes offensive.
the tiger battalion that pulled out of the bulge had light losses.
yeah, falaise claimed 300 abandoned panzers. i think most panzer divisions left with betwen 5-35 panzers. but 25,000 halftracks/trucks made it out though.