Talk:M4 Sherman

M4 medium tank

Shouldn't this article be known as M4 medium tank? M4 medium tank is the formal name for the vehicle. Wasn't it the British who gave the m4 the name sherman? just curious...

Wikipedia is like scrabble: common usage. Most articles about countries are known by their commonly used (usually shorter) names, like United Kingdom instead of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. 75.141.228.239 (talk) 21:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

You're both right. WP uses the Brit name because it's better known by more people, tho (strictly) wrong. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

British official service names for US-built tanks were those of US Civil War generals; Stuart, Lee/Grant, and Sherman, with the notable exception of Chaffee who was a later US WW I general. The US later carried on this naming scheme, starting with the Pershing and later Patton, and so-on to the current Abrams.

... similarly, British names for US-built armoured cars were those of breeds of hound; Staghound, Boarhound, Deerhound, and Greyhound, as they were used for scouting.

British tanks since the Covenanter have mostly had names beginning with 'C'; Crusader, Churchill, Centaur, Cromwell, Challenger, Comet, Centurion, Conqueror, Chieftain and the two later Challenger 1 and Challenger 2.

British self-propelled guns have all had names of ecclesiastical titles, Bishop, Deacon, Priest, Sexton, and Abbot.

... so there was actually a reason for the M4 being named 'Sherman' by the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 14:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Doctrine Section

The doctrine section reads in a very confusing manner. It looks like someone tried to throw in British tank doctrine jargon where the U.S. Army never used it. There is zero evidence that the U.S. Army ever called the M4 a cruiser tank. This should be edited out of the article. Also, at the start of the doctrine section it talks about how the the role the U.S. Army saw the M4 playing. At the start of the paragraph it states it was not primarily used in a infantry support role, and not in the anti tank role primarily. It was to be used primarily as a rear eschelon raider. Later in the section it states it was used primarily as an infantry support vehicle. Reading the cited FM 100-5 it appears the M4 was a jack of all trades and was envisioned as a rear eschelon raider. However it was used in every role possible during the war. TL:DR Edit out the non U.S. Standard doctrinal jargon, and clean up the way the sections reads.132.3.65.81 (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I've tried implementing the changes you suggested. I would also add that it would be useful to expand the section with how US doctrine changed during the war (which I assume it did). --Sus scrofa (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Lead length.

Currently I would say the lead looks about 1-2 paragraphs too large. I think the fourth paragraph could be taken out/moved (well, it's not exactly doing any harm but it's less essential info for the lead to have I think) perhaps. Any thoughts? --Somchai Sun (talk) 23:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

'Ronson' nickname a myth

I just took a look at the Ronson Lighter page, and it says that Shermans were not called Ronsons during the war, and that it was a post-war myth. The 'Lights Every Time' Slogan did not enter use until the fifties. We should probably consider fixing that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronson_(company)#Wartime_shift_in_production

Jessikitten (talk) 13:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

A whole bunch of reliable sources disagree, while the assertion on the Ronson wikipedia page is unsourced. (Hohum ^@) 14:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

A bunch of crappy post facto coffee table books is no evidence for anything. Can you show a contemporary source for the nickname?

Personally I rather doubt it. There was a "Ronson" as a semi-official nickname, it was one of the (non-Sherman) Crocodile flamethrowers. The idea of a such a name being granted officially in a "positive" connotation at the same time as a nickname having appeared in such a negative way elsewhere is really stretching credibility. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:33, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Steve Zaloga isn't a reliable source for tanks? Since when? So far, we have an unsourced assertion that it wasn't sometimes nicknamed the "Ronson", countered with actual sources which say it was. Wikipedia reflects what reliable sources say. Contemporary sources would likely be WP:PRIMARY and be our own WP:OR. We tend to leave it to WP:SECONDARY sources to interpret them. (Hohum ^@) 17:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't find it implausible that soldiers came up with this nickname, and I think the source is good enough.--Sus scrofa (talk) 18:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Is the armor wrong?

The listing in the table says 76mm maximum, but the early war M4 had 51mm armor@34 degrees, which is 91.2mm of effective armor from straight on, slightly inferior to the late war M4's 93.8mm of effective armor. I ask because the table's armor listing isn't cited.

The issue isn't "effective armor", it's the actual thicknes... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Well it is 76mm at it's thickest, the mantlet is 76mm thick iirc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.182.79.21 (talk) 16:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure where the 76mm figure comes from, nor which part of the tank it applies to. The mantlet of the Sherman was 89mm, to the best of my knowledge. 99.107.241.102 (talk) 01:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

M103 heavy tank in the US armored vehicles of WWII list

Just noticed that the M103 is in the American armored fighting vehicles of WWII list. Why is this so? The tank wasn't developed until 1955 iirc, and fielded by 1957. That's a long way away from WWII, and I don't think it has any relation to any vehicle of the war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Žiga Auer (talk • contribs) 16:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Fixed--L1A1 FAL (talk) 23:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)