-
This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
What is your opinion on the M4 Sherman?
- Thread starter swing_voter
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2017
- Messages
- 8,518
- Reaction score
- 2,430
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
That's what my uncle thought of the Sherman. He hated that tank. He, and his buddies, thought they had been lied to back during training about how "capable" the Sherman was going to be in combat. My uncle served on a Sherman crew and went ashore on D-Day. He was wounded but back after about a month. If you didn't have five Shermans to attack a Tiger or even a Panzer IV you just didn't stand a chance. He said the only way was to distract them and get around back. Distracting them cost a lot of American lives. The Sherman's weren't called "Ronsons" for nothing.
They did do well against the Japanese. But not in Europe. I understand they were undersized, under powered and under gunned in order to make it possible for them to fit on rail cars and be hauled across railroad bridges here in the States. Only later when they were up-armored and up-gunned later in the war did they do better against the German tanks. Even then, they weren't a match.
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2019
- Messages
- 17,883
- Reaction score
- 3,983
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
I used to know a tank commander from Patton's 3rd Army. He graduated in 1942 and entered the theater as a green butterbar in August or September, stationed in England. He missed the capture of Sicily but saw some action in Italy prior to the Normandy invasion. His arrival in 3rd Corps was concurrent with Patton's. So, he was in all of the French campaign and was deeply involved in the Ardennes counter attack. We had some chats about what it was like working under Patton.
One thing he said was that a Sherman was very good at what Patton wanted it to do--take and occupy ground in support of infantry. It was not suited for the way some other commanders wanted to use it, as a spearhead or counter to the Panzers. He's not around any more. However, I suspect that he would tell everyone that it was what it was--a light, multi-purpose tank.
One thing he said was that a Sherman was very good at what Patton wanted it to do--take and occupy ground in support of infantry. It was not suited for the way some other commanders wanted to use it, as a spearhead or counter to the Panzers. He's not around any more. However, I suspect that he would tell everyone that it was what it was--a light, multi-purpose tank.
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2019
- Messages
- 37,337
- Reaction score
- 23,425
- Location
- San Antonio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
I call bull**** on the claim you needed 5 Shermans to kill a Panzer IV. They were not undersized, under powered, or under gunned compared to any other medium tank in the world. They had trouble fighting heavy tanks, but *every* medium tank had trouble fighting heavy tanks.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2009
- Messages
- 17,650
- Reaction score
- 12,265
- Location
- State of Jefferson
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
It was a decent medium tank, reliable, and cheap and quick to produce.
Of course, most people seem to have no real idea of what the role of a tank like this actually is in warfare. And it is not to attack other tanks, that is the role of the Tank Destroyer, they were made to support Infantry. And as a medium tank of the era they were inadequate to go against Heavy Tanks, like the Tiger series. But that was never their mission, that mission was to support Infantry.
I always tend to get a bit ticked, when people try to look at tank battles during WWII, because that was never their role. The M10, M36, and M18 Hellcat were "Tank Destroyers", with the explicit mission of going after enemy tanks. Tanks like the M4 Sherman were only there for infantry support, but because both sides generally followed the same doctrine (send tanks with infantry when possible) they did end up in battles against each other.
Today, things are very different. Most modern armies have settled on a single Heavy Tank model that performs all roles, but that was not the case at the time.