Didn’t the German Wehrmacht use a sizable number of M-4 Shermans? I recall flipping through a book on it many years ago.
Anyone have information on it’s primary roles? Modifications? The German’s regard for it? Etc.
From what I’ve read there were only a small number used, and this was only on a ad hoc basis, in that a unit would make use of any that was captured in a reasonable condition until it either broke down, or suffered battle damage, at which point it would be discarded.
I have not heard of any modifications, but if there were it would have had to have been done at a local level.
In German service the M4 series was known as the Pz Kpfw M4 748(a)
A photo of german sherman, captured British Sherman VC “Firefly” (armed with 17 pounder gun) in Normandy, 1944.
A German Sherman. I never heard about one of those.
Weren’t most tanks, including all German tanks, powered by gasoline/petrol engines? That would seem to be a ‘problem’ with tank design in general, and not a disadvantage owned by the Sherman specifically. If a tank’s propensity to brew-up is exacerbated by having a gasoline engine, a Tiger would be, and was, just as vulnerable as an M4 in this regard.
Various articles, History Channel shows and what not, will usually point to the Sherman’s engine when the “Ronson” issue is discussed (along with armor and stowage), yet they never take any points away from the Panther on account of its equally fire-prone gasoline/petrol engine. I wonder why the petrol=brew-ups stigma is so often only attached to the Sherman. Seems unfair because, with the wet stowage improvement, the Sherman was actually the only tank of the era (gasoline powered or otherwise) to employ a measure designed specifically to protect itself from brew-ups.
the russian T-34 had diesel engines and if you watch fotos or film-sequenzes of hit T-34, you will see that they also brew up in most cases. again, I personally think that the sort of engine is not so important to answer the question if a tank brews up easily or not. if hit properly by the right device, any tank (even modern ones) will catch fire fire and burn like hell. it is intersting because you might think that such a machine only consists of steel. maybe it is a factor how the whole wiring is done in the engine compartment, and so this area will easily catch fire (cooling slots!) if hit by a molotov cocktail or flamethrower.
jens
That’s incorrect other tanks did have measures to deal with the problem, the Panther for example, had protected stowage bins for its ammo.
Well then, scratch my last.
In what manner was the Panther ammo protected? Did the bins just have extra armor? Was it standard on all models, or was it added later in production?
the russian T-34 had diesel engines and if you watch fotos or film-sequenzes of hit T-34, you will see that they also brew up in most cases.
Well, If a hollow charge round (like the one in Panzerfaust, RPzB54, etc) hit a T-34 fuel tank it ignited no matters if diesel because it unleah a fire jet with 4000 degrees celcius …so in that aspect there was no much difference.
But yes the T-34 was much less prone to cath fire and explode that The Sherman.
Seems unfair because, with the wet stowage improvement, the Sherman was actually the only tank of the era (gasoline powered or otherwise) to employ a measure designed specifically to protect itself from brew-ups.
Teorically yes, some Shermans had a thing called “Wet magazine” wich was a water deposit wich broke up in impact and showered the ammo, but I dont know how effective it was.
It worth to note that The M4a2 had disel engines, 1 x Grey Marine 6-71 Model 6046 (375 HP)
Ultimately it comes down to supply issues in Normandy. Due to the situation (lack of a suitable port and major logistics problems) tank crews carried far more ammunition than the tank was designed to, usually having it just lying loose around the tank. When hit, they brewed up every time. When they broke out and the supply situation was normalised, they stopped doing this and reverted to the wet stowage. The problem with it brewing up when hit went away, but the tank’s reputation never recovered.
A great deal of the later production Shermans, including all of the 76mm armed tanks, used the wet stowage system. There’s lots of claims out there that state it was plenty effective, but they tend to lack any hard facts and figures. I assume the wet stowage was well recieved by the tankers. Various sources say things from “less likely to brew up” and “reduced casualties” to “drastically reduced instances of brewing up” (I’ve read at least one claim where a percentage of improvement was given and it was very high.)…But I’ve never read any extensive official studies of the system specifically.
Like the USMC M4A2s, the Shermans lend-leased to the Russians also used diesel engines. It would be interesting to find out if they were more, equally, or less likey to brew up when compared to the T34s they were serving along side of.
I’d imagine they were more likely to brew up since the M-4s armor was less effective than the T-34s. That coupled with the fact that the Shermans were employed in an exposed offensive role against concealed German armor and infantry in hedgerows with anti-tank weapons during Normady, there’s no question that the Sherman was at a disadvantage.
This is a good story,it also gives the details on where to hit the tank with what weapons which is kinda cool.
Indeed, a normal 75mm gun Sherman knocking out a Tiger 1…that is something you dont see every day.
Actually it did happen, it only took three to five Shermans being destroyed first, most of the time…
In here you got the penetration tables for U.S tank guns, the normal APC penetrate 64 mm of armor at 400-500m, the side and rear armor in the Tiger H was 80mm so you figure.
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/usa/guns.asp
So what? The US could replace them. What actually happened most of the time was that the Shermans were up against unsupported German infantry. When compared to an infantry shirt, the Sherman is a very heavily armoured beast indeed.
When compared to an infantry shirt, the Sherman is a very heavily armoured beast indeed.
Quite a remarkable statement.