Jump to content

Talk:M4 Sherman

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tgiesler (talk | contribs) at 01:55, 12 July 2013 (→Comparable to the T-34?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"Ronson"

A note that might be useful: as I recall from a mis-spent model-building childhood Sherman tanks in the African campaign (at least) got nicknamed 'Ronsons' by the British because they were prone to burn furiously when hit. This suggests but need not automatically imply a weakness that doesn't seem to have been mentioned here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.198.114 (talk) 04:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They had the same chance of burning as most German tanks, in fact iirc Tiger tanks had a greater chance of catching fire once hit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.192.142 (talk) 08:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Ronson nickname, the reason for fires, and the use of wet racks is already included in the article at the bottom of the Armor section. (Hohum @) 13:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
German tanks were powered by diesel, which has a much higher ignition temperature, whereas Shermans were powered by gasoline. This, combined with the very light armor on the Shermans, meant that if hit by German tank fire (even the lighter guns, say on the Panzer, as in the armored car with treads they invaded Poland with, rather than even the French Invasion tanks) they’d catch fire. The use of the word Ronson is a reference to the cigarette lighter; “Lights the first time, every time.” A. J. REDDSON
Rather than peddle myths, look at the stats contained in the article that come from an operational research paper. Panzer IV and VI had the same and better chance to catch fire as the Sherman once penetrated. Iirc there is also a myth surrounding the difference between diesel and gas engines, but both had the same chance of going boom.
It should also be pointed out that German tanks generally used gasoline engines and not diesel engines.
Please sign your posts. Also, you're wrong. The problem wasn't "once penetrated", although that's a clever diversion. The problem was that if you hit a Sherman centrally at any range with the KwK 40, by far the most commonly used German towed AT and tank gun at the time of the Normandy invasion, it literally "Lit the first time, every time". As in it took exactly one round from a Pak-40, Panzer IV or StuG-III to penetrate anywhere on the tank, and once penetrating it had a 2.5-3 in 4 chance of brewing up promptly. Compare this to the Panther which the 75mm couldn't penetrate at anything other than "miracle range" and the 76mm which required a steady, practiced hand to direct the shot through the mantlet rather than the glacis, which remained impenetrable frontally. Make more sense now why they treated it with such contempt? Just because you can build five times as many tanks and overwhelm them with mass-production doesn't make the criticisms invalid. 67.246.15.91 (talk) 07:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Shermans could penetrate the side armour on panthers at standard combat ranges. It is why the mainly panther force at Arracourt was kicked around by the Sherman equipped 4th Armor Division in late September. The Germans certainly didn't have contempt for Allied tanks, it was consistently remarked by German crews after the war, as well as men like Guderian, that the most feared opponents the Germans faced were Tank Destroyers, then Tanks, Planes, then AT guns. Allied tanks may not have been as good as German tanks but when used smartly they were quite lethal, as the Germans found on multiple occasions from Le Deseret to the Battle of the Bulge. Wokelly (talk) 20:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


German tanks were not running on diesel, but gasoline. Reference e.g. Maybach HL230. -- DevSolar (talk) 11:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I though only Americans were that stupid. (Yes, I said it.) Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 07:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That was not stupidity on behalf of the Germans, but necessity. Germany has virtually no indigenous oil reserves, and had to rely on Coal liquefaction for most of its fuel production - which yielded gasoline, not diesel. -- DevSolar (talk) 08:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hesitate to reignite this debate... but just learned that the Germans also called Shermans 'Tommy Boilers'. There does seem to be a chauvinistic determination here to carol the praises of the Sherman. Does the article mention the claim that the Firefly's muzzle flash was so bright that it gave away the tank's location to an inordinate degree and could even temporary blind whoever was sighting the gun? The Sherman was clearly a superior tank - but I don't think it's generous or helpful to discount the opinion of wartime tank crews by accusing them merely of 'peddling myths'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.197.102 (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Shermans used in North Africa by the British were facing the 88mm Flak gun that would easily penetrate a Sherman at a mile. If so, then the Sherman burned. That's why they called them 'Ronsons'. There's no cover in the desert area of much of the fighting so with the Shermans advancing over flat terrain the 88s had a field day.
Against the opposing German tanks such as the 50mm-armed Panzer III and the short-barrelled Panzer IV the Sherman gave a good account of itself. It only started to be out-gunned by the introduction of the long-barrelled 75mm Panzer IV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sherman?

Gentlemen, in a german WIKI-article I found a picture of an armored vehicle. Any idea what type it is? Thanks, Hans Maag, Switzerland

Amerikanische Panzer rollen durch Avranches

--hmaag (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ones in the distance are. The one in the foreground looks like an M3 Stuart, due to the flat looking front among other reasons so not the latter M5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.192.142 (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the one in the foreground seems to have an open gun in place of the turret, a T18 75mm Howitzer Motor Carrier? --hmaag (talk) 10:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since the one in foreground doesn't appear to have the 75, I'd guess the further one doesn't, either. In context, it seems more likely they're the same outfit. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 21:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno about the tanks, but units would have more than one type. The tank battalion would, iirc, have support tanks, command tanks, and a light tank recon unit. So there could be a mixture in the photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.0.3 (talk) 10:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A hi-rez version of the photo is available here: link. One notes that the website labels the lot as Stuarts.
I don’t know if it is just the angle the tanks in the middle and background of the photo are moving at, but their turrets look huge compared to what I believe an M3/M5 should look like. I have tracked down two photos, one of the M3 and one of the M5: link and link. I would inclined to say they are Shermans, unless some M3/M5s had larger turrets I am unaware of?
The one in the foreground is deffo a stuart due to the wheel layout. On the hi rez version it looks like the chap has a turret hatch behind him so not a SP gun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.0.3 (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The vehicles are both M5A1 Stuarts (Stuart VI). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 17:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnote to Post–World War II

A hatnote to Post–World War II Sherman tanks should be added to the Post–World War II section of this article. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

there's a link under "Foreign use" further down the article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What book is "Copp, pp. 399-406 "?

Can anyone give the book's full name?(talk) 19:08, 17 june 2012 (UTC)

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Installed phones.

Maybe not all, but at least some M-4's had phones installed in the rear (presumably so that infantry could talk to the tank crew). Example: sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/408456_4722001761555_1146891136_n.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.5.199.107 (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comparable to the T-34?

I notice that in the introduction the Sherman is compared to the Soviet T-34. The article on the T-34 describes it as a truly revolutionary design. This article on the Sherman is at best mixed praise. Is it really accurate to compare the two?Tgiesler (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:M4_Sherman&oldid=563897788"