tanks during the second world war

[franksolich]

This, from Citizen Soldiers (Stephen Ambrose, 1997, Touchstone):

The Sherman [tank] was universally denounced by anyone who had to fight in one against a Panther or Tiger.  But one thing about the Shermans--there were a lot more of them than there were Panthers or Tigers.  Quantity over quality and size was General Marshall's deliberate choice.  He wanted more, faster (and thus lighter) tanks, in accord with American doctrine, which held that tanks should exploit a breakthrough, not fight other tanks.

Marshall's first problem was that American tanks had to cross the Atlantic to get to the battle, and the number one strategic shortage of the Allies was shipping.  Experiment showed that you could get two Shermans into the space required by one larger tank on an LST.  Of course, that equation didn't work out if one Tiger could destroy four Shermans, which sometimes happened.  But not often, because there were so few Tigers compared with the number of Shermans.

By the end of 1944, German industry would produce 24,630 tanks, only a handful of them Tigers.  The British would be at 24,843.  But the Americans would have by then turned out the staggering total of 88,410 tanks, mainly Shermans.

For all their shortcomings, the Shermans were a triumph of American mass-production techniques.  First of all, they were wonderfully reliable, in sharp contrast to the Panthers and Tigers.  In addition, GIs were far more experienced in the workings of the internal combustion engine than were their opposite numbers.  The Americans were also infinitely better at recovering damaged tanks and patching them up to go back into action; the Germans had nothing like the American maintenance battalions.

Indeed no army in the world had such a capability.  Within two days of being put out of action by German shells, about half the damaged Shermans had been repaired by maintenance battalions and were back on the line.  Kids who had been working at gas stations and body shops two years earlier had brought their mechanical skills to Normandy, where they replaced damaged tank tracks, welded patches on the armor, and repaired engines.  Even the tanks beyond repair were dragged back to the maintenance depot by the Americans and stripped for parts.  The Germans just left theirs where they were.

After pointing out the advantages of the American-designed Soviet T-34 tank, allegedly the best tank during the second world war (a boast I myself oftentimes heard, when wandering around the socialist paradises of the workers and peasants, although they did insist the American Studebakers were the best automobiles in the war), the writer goes on to say:

Thanks to American productivity and ingenuity, there were many more Shermans in action than Panthers or Tigers (in fact, about half the Wehrmacht's tanks in Normandy were Mark IVs, twenty-six tons).  Besides numbers, the Shermans had other advantages.  They used less than half the gasoline of larger tanks.  They were faster and more maneuverable, with double and more the range.  A Sherman's tracks lasted for 2,500 miles; the Panthers and Tigers more like 500.  The Sherman's turret turned much faster than that of the Panther or Tiger.  In addition, the narrower track of the Sherman made it a much superior road vehicle.  But the wider track of the Panther and Tiger made them more suited to soft terrain.

And so it went.  For every advantage of the German heavy tanks, there was a disadvantage, as for the American medium tanks.  The trouble in Normandy was that the German tanks were designed for hedgerow fighting.  If and when the battle ever became a mobile one, the situation would reverse.....

Okay, a whole lot of questions, from a professional civilian.

(a) What were the significant differences between a Sherman tank and a Soviet T-34; one has the impression they were very much alike?

(b) A by-then-antique British Centurion tank has been the only tank I myself have ever seen up close, and operating (although not in combat, of course); how did that tank compare with the Shermans and T-34s?

(c) One gets the impression the Allies did in fact have some heavy tanks, comparable with the German Panthers and Tigers, but not a whole lot of them; some, but not many.  What were such equivalent tanks?  Did they demand a vastly different training and skill to use, as compared with Shermans, or only a little bit different?

(d) Why did tank tracks, formidable-looking things, last only 2,500 miles, or in the case of German tanks, 500 miles?  To this professional civilian, such tracks look virtually indestructible, good for a trip to the moon and back.

(e) If the Soviet-made T-34 was the "best" tank of the war, why wasn't it adapted by the Allies, too--and remember, apparently the T-34 was American-designed in the first place.

(f) What is the current equivalent of the now-obsolete (one assumes now-obsolete) Sherman tank--light-weight, fast moving, smaller, but not so well armored as heavy tanks?

There's probably more questions, but after a recent excursion to Skins's island, the brain is rather sluggish.

[franksolich]

An except of this also posted at

http://www.freerepublic.c...s/f-vetscor/2263076/posts

to see what sort of agreements, and disagreements, and conclusions, are arrived at, by people who know what they're talking about.

[FGL]

I don't know the answers but I posted some links at FR

[TxRadioguy]

(f) What is the current equivalent of the now-obsolete (one assumes now-obsolete) Sherman tank--light-weight, fast moving, smaller, but not so well armored as heavy tanks?

The last medium tank the Army had was the M551 Sheridan.  They were capable of being dropped from an aircraft.  They were primarily used in the 82nd Divisions 3/73 Armor and there was a Troop (Company) of them in the 11th ACR in Fulda.

They were scheduled to be replaced by the XM8 but Clinton killed the project in the mid-90's and as such killed the Armor Battalion at Bragg.

The Stryker has kinda take on the role of the medium tank/armored scout vehicle...but the only tank we use now is the M1A2 Abrams.  

My Brigade Commander and the Battalion Commander for one of our Armor units when I was in Iraq cut their teeth on the Sheridan.

The young kids of the Airborne Infantry unit that was attatched to us were shocked at the sight of a tanker with a mustard stain on his jump wings.

[franksolich]

I don't know the answers but I posted some links at FR

Yeah, I saw that, but the problem is that of perception.

One can read that one tank was 52 tons, and another tank "only" 26 tons, but that doesn't mean excresence to the average person, who understands only that one tank is twice the size of the other.

One is looking for a human, not a statistical, version of such weapons.

This is why the question about the British Centurion tank, the only tank I've ever seen in real life in "action;" something with which one can compare other tanks.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Well, there is a lot that is true in that and a lot that is just bullshit boosterism.  I happen to know a pretty fair amount on this topic and will try to get as much into the 20 minutes I can use before my next meeting to address it.

Okay, a whole lot of questions, from a professional civilian.

(a) What were the significant differences between a Sherman tank and a Soviet T-34; one has the impression they were very much alike?

They really had almost nothing in common, either in design or in the doctrine they were designed to fight under.  The Soviet tank was NOT American-designed, the suspension and other general design aspects was however a much-improved version of that on the Christie-based BTs (Bistrokhodniy Tankiy, or "Fast Tanks," which were obsolescent by 1941).  Both appeared in variations of cast and welded construction, both had a gun in roughly the same caliber.  American pre-war doctrine (Pursued until 1945) called for enemy tanks to be engaged by very lightly-armored tank destroyers with high-velocity guns, while tanks were to be used to break through where enemy tanks were not and engage everything else with lower-velocity general purpose guns.  Russians used a single vehicle, the T34 for this (As we have since the dismal failure our WW2 tank doctrine induced), and the T34 was designed with a vastly superior ballistic shape.  The T34s suspension gave it not only superior off-road capability, but also higher road speed, though using a dry-pin track that did not last as long as American rubber-bushed track.  Your source does not go into it, but while dry-pin track is considerably shorter-lived, it is also much easier to repair or replace in the field.  The T34 used a diesel engine, while the Army's Shermans used gas, or even aviation gas in the radial-engined models (Many engine and suspension variations over the production life of the Sherman); Diesel fuel is far less volatile, and the gas fuel is what earned the Sherman its nickname of "Tommy-cooker" against the Afrika Korps.
     

(b) A by-then-antique British Centurion tank has been the only tank I myself have ever seen up close, and operating (although not in combat, of course); how did that tank compare with the Shermans and T-34s?

The first Centurions went for field trials in 1945, and remained in service through the lifespan of the post-war M46/47/48 US tanks, the later variants armed with the same 105mm M68 cannon that was on the M1 Abrams before we switched to 120s, and the Centurion weighed 10-15 tons more.  It's like comparing a Tiger (After adding hydraulic power traverse, gun stabilization, and a reliable transmission) to a Sherman or T34 - no match.

(c) One gets the impression the Allies did in fact have some heavy tanks, comparable with the German Panthers and Tigers, but not a whole lot of them; some, but not many.  What were such equivalent tanks?  Did they demand a vastly different training and skill to use, as compared with Shermans, or only a little bit different?

In the US case we never did get our stuff together due to the resistance of many senior officers who generally go unnamed in the accounts, though one gets the impression Patton was one of them.  The M26 Pershing was fielded for combat trials in the last couple of months of WW2 in Europe and saw action, including a few engagements with Tigers.  It had some transmission issues, but with an altered transmission became the M46, the most advanced tank of the Korean War.  The Brits had many projects, some good and some bad, but mostly Mediums; the Centurion was the Brit equivalent of the Pershing in size and timing, it also appeared for combat trials shortly before V/E Day but a bit later than the Pershing as I recall (Armed with the 17-pounder) and I do not recall that it showed in time to actually fight any German tanks.   

(d) Why did tank tracks, formidable-looking things, last only 2,500 miles, or in the case of German tanks, 500 miles?  To this professional civilian, such tracks look virtually indestructible, good for a trip to the moon and back.

There is friction every time it moves on the pin.  Americans used a rubber bushing between the pin and the track shoe (Expensive and dependent on rubber), about everyone else including the Brits generally used dry track (Steel pin through a steel shoe, or "Dry track").  There is a lot of stress involved in moving a 30-50 ton tank around, and in abrasive dust and sand at that.

(e) If the Soviet-made T-34 was the "best" tank of the war, why wasn't it adapted by the Allies, too--and remember, apparently the T-34 was American-designed in the first place.

It actually wasn't American-designed, any more than the V2 was designed by Robert Goddard.  We had our own way of doing things, and pursued technology on those paths to a viable end (eventually).  As large as our acceptable casualty rates were, the T34 was designed to fight for a nation where even bigger ones were not just acceptable but the norm.

(f) What is the current equivalent of the now-obsolete (one assumes now-obsolete) Sherman tank--light-weight, fast moving, smaller, but not so well armored as heavy tanks?

Doctrine is pretty different these days; since the late 50s there are only main battle tanks and "Other" armored vehicles.  I could explain at length why it's better, but I'm out of time.   

[franksolich]

Thank you, Tanker, sir; I appreciate it.

I know for people like you, it's like trying to teach nuclear physics to kindergarteners, but you do awesome.  Your points are, as usual, understood, easily and confidently.

[dutch508]

(a) What were the significant differences between a Sherman tank and a Soviet T-34; one has the impression they were very much alike?

Alike in some ways, very different in others. For one thing, the sloping armor on the T34 was much greater than the T-34. The Sherman was larger in size, but slower than the T-34. The targeting mech and sites were better on the Sherman. The T-34 was up gunned as the war went on to the 85mm gun. The Sherman was up gunned to the 90mm but only in small numbers. The T-34 was similar in design and more rugged- but the crews had less training. The production numbers of the T-34 blew all the other nation's tank numbers combined, away-  

(b) A by-then-antique British Centurion tank has been the only tank I myself have ever seen up close, and operating (although not in combat, of course); how did that tank compare with the Shermans and T-34s?

The Centurion was a post WWII tank, are you meaning the Crusader? The Sherman was much taller in size and boxy. the T-34 was lower and 'sleeker'. The wheel patterns were completely different- see Christie suspension.

(c) One gets the impression the Allies did in fact have some heavy tanks, comparable with the German Panthers and Tigers, but not a whole lot of them; some, but not many.  What were such equivalent tanks?  Did they demand a vastly different training and skill to use, as compared with Shermans, or only a little bit different?

The heavy Allied tanks on the western front were few. The Soviets had a JS-1 and JS-2 tanks than could be compared to the Tiger or Panther. Also, the Soviets went with a tank destroyer concept early on, creating a 122mm gun on a T-34 frame. Later they up gunned that to a 152mm gun.

(d) Why did tank tracks,  things, last only 2,500 miles, or in the case of German tanks, 500 miles?  To this professional civilian, such tracks look virtually indestructible, good for a trip to the moon and back.

The wear on the track system was very great. Track had to be replaced often. Further, the engines and transmissions took one hell of a beating, the more complicated the system- the harder it was to maintain.  The big problem with the Panther was it was rushed into use before all the bugs were worked out of the transmission, rather than some flaw with the tactical design. That- and it was so difficult to make only a handfull- when compared to the T-34/85s- were made.

(e) If the Soviet-made T-34 was the "best" tank of the war, why wasn't it adapted by the Allies, too--and remember, apparently the T-34 was American-designed in the first place.

National Pride, I think. The T-34 and Panther designs drove new tank design after the war and up to this day.

(f) What is the current equivalent of the now-obsolete (one assumes now-obsolete) Sherman tank--light-weight, fast moving, smaller, but not so well armored as heavy tanks?

The Sherman was a Medium tank, as was the T-34. The Tiger was a heavy, we can argue about the Panther.
The Abrams is a Main Battle Tank, during WWII that would have been a medium- but it would have been called a heavy back then. The T-80 Main Battle Tank could fall into that classification, I suppose. Realistically, the Main Battle Tanks of WWII;

1) T-34
2) M4 Sherman
3) PzKfWg IV (notice I don't say Panther or Tiger- they were heavy tanks in special companies. The PZ IV was the medium tank of the German Army)

would all be similar to the Abrams or T-80.

[franksolich]

Thank you, dutch508, sir, but I remain confused about one thing.

Am I correct in my impression that the U.S. Army had no heavy tanks during the second world war, or only just a handful of them?

I fully understand General Marshall's attitude that sheer quantity was more important than quality, and obviously it was the correct attitude.

But surely there must have been at least some on drawing-boards?

[TxRadioguy]

Thank you, dutch508, sir, but I remain confused about one thing.

Am I correct in my impression that the U.S. Army had no heavy tanks during the second world war, or only just a handful of them?

There was one U.S. Heavy tank that made it into production just before the end of WW II...the M26 Pershing.

It became the basis for the M48 and M60 Patton series of tanks.

[JohnnyReb]

I see "Mr Ira" just about every afternoon. He's a 90 year old vet of the 3rd Armoured Division (Spearhead). He may be old and a little feeble now but his mind and memories are still clear as a bell. He was a WO over maintenance from the time the 3rd hit the beach at Normandy until the war was over. The stories he tells sometimes puts tears in his eyes (and mine). He can number in great detail everything you want to know about the Sherman. I wish I could remember more of what he's told me.

A few things I remember about the Sherman and some others. One tank, a light one, had an aircooled radial aircraft engine in it, 7 cylinders I believe. A lot of times when a Sherman was knocked out, the projectile would be found inside the tank. They'd clean up the inside and repair and paint the inside. If they had the projectile, they'd drive it in the hole it had made with a sledge hammer, weld it in the hole, grind it off smooth, smear on some paint and send it back out. The GI's didn't like getting one that had been shot up so they tried to hide any evidence that they had been knocked out before.

Now cleaning  up the tanks after being hit wasn't for the weak. Mr Ira says he had a Russian immigrant that would do it, clean the blood, guts and brains off everything inside. Frozen bodies were something else to remove. The Russian (can't spell his name)would go down in the tank and harness the frozen bodies to a 10 tank retriever boom and pull them out thru the hatch. He says that once a new man saw that done once, he didn't have to tell them to leave when him and the Russian were doing that.

He says a Sherman didn't stand a chance in a head on fight with a German Panther or Tiger tank. The Shermans only chance at taking one out was catch one broadside and hit it in the tracks with an HE shell (break tracks) then follow up with phosphorous shells to make the Germans think they were on fire. The German would bale if they thought they were on fire. When they heard a German tank coming (track squeal because of the dry tracks) they'd try to set it where they could catch him from the side. I can't half hear now because of the 'track squeal' from bulldozers so I know what he's talking about.

And like others have said we did get a heavy tank right at the end of the war. Mr Ira got to see one go head on with a Tiger and he said it was no contest. He blames the lack of heavy tanks on Patton.

OH! something else, sometime you see Sherman tanks with an extra set of tracks draped across the front.....that is not extra tracks, that's where they welded old tracks on the front for extra protection. Those tracks draped on the side were more likely to be "extra" tracks. He's says the fellows would request some extra armour cut off German tanks or other stuff be welded on the tanks and if they had time, they'd do it for them.

And the blade for the tanks to push thru the hedgerows.....was made from bridges they cut up and drug to where they were working. An old farm boy from the midwest told them about a gadget they had made back on the farm for similar work and the rest is history.

Edit to add: Don't you ever. I mean DON'T YOU EVER slip up and say Third Army when you talk about or mean The Third Armoured Division.........LOL. 
 

[franksolich]

Thank you, John, sir.

That was, as usual, a typical example of your as-usual wonderful writing.

Damn, you're good.

[JohnnyReb]

Just remembered something else Mr Ira told me. We had a mobile artillery piece of some description that worked well against the large German tanks. If they had some warning German tanks were coming they'd set up and sight in where they thought the tank would first appear. If the tank come up in that spot, they'd fire and run like hell to cover. The Germans sometimes traveled with their gun to the rear, if this were the case they might get 2 shots. The Germans had to hand crank their turrets into firing position where the Sherman was electric or hydraulic.

[BadCat]

The Sherman had a rather odious nickname, used by the Germans, Brits and Americans.

It was called "The Ronson", after the Ronson cigarette lighter.  Because the Ronson lighter "Lights first time, lights every time".

The Germans also called them "tommy cookers".

[Wineslob]

Excellent read guys, even for "Tankers".       


My father was in a tank division in the early 50's, (Monmouth NJ) I'll have to ask him some questions. He was also stationed out at White Sands for awhile.