Talk:M4 Sherman/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Combat history section

This article doesn't do a good enough job summarizing the effectiveness of the tank. A combat history section would improve the article significantly. --84.212.23.40 (talk) 05:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

As long as people understand the "Tiger vs Sherman" myths and know the truth, I'm satisfied. The fallacies that "The Tiger and Sherman were equals in combat", "The Sherman was garbage because Tigers always killed them.", "Shermans were garbage because they couldn't fight Tigers.", "Shermans fought Tigers a lot.", or "75mm Shermans could kill Tigers" are wide-spread, widely-believed, and constantly reinforced by the internet. Debunking these would do a lot to help tell the truth about the Sherman's effectiveness. And I think that should be done before we add a combat history section.Blamazon (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

We don't debunk, we just state what is the case. With sources. And from after action reports like the one on this page I'd guess you meant to type "75mm Shermans couldN'T kill Tigers" as the myth. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:54, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually no, I have found that many people believe that the 75mm gun could destroy Tigers. The reason why I said "debunk" was because making a combat history section of the Sherman is probably the hardest of WWII tanks. And the reason why it is hard to explain is because the Sherman's logistical scenario during WWII does not really help it look better. Therefore, we need to explain the logistics of the Sherman rather than its combat experience.

For some tanks, this isn't a problem. The Tiger for instance, had (about) a 5-1 or 6-1 kill/Loss ratio during WWII(this includes non-combat losses). We also know that only 1,347 Tigers were made. And they were often used in piecemeal formations or operations that were unsupported by other units. We can prove this from the Tiger's combat history, and from there we can reach the conclusion that the Tiger was definitely effective in combat. The Sherman on the other hand, is more complicated.

Anyway, I agree that we should provide the evidence rather than force a conclusion or perspective by trying to debunk something. I meant that the page should have enough evidence for readers to find the truth about the Sherman and its myths.Blamazon (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

(I might be wrong about the Tiger tank because I don't remember where I got my evidence from, but the point remains the same.)Blamazon (talk) 20:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I think most modern analysis is that the Western Allies win by having more tanks than the enemy in the right place at the right time and with more replacements waiting in the wings. Top Trumps analysis of a tank compared to any other is old hat. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, but what is your point? Blamazon (talk) 17:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Sherman guns and sloped armor

I am making a section about the comparisons of various american tank and sherman guns and their effectiveness using different types of rounds. I will include the effectiveness of the HE(against anything except tanks), APCR(only armor), AP, and other special rounds(against their intended target) of the 90mm, 76mm, 75mm, 37mm, and 105mm. Does anyone have any information on this subject that I could use?

Also I came across an excerpt about the Korean war that said twice as many T-34s were destroyed by M4s(I don't know which version specifically) than M4s were destroyed by T-34s. I know that it isn't a very useable bit of evidence but it does make it look like the Sherman is better than the T-34. That is pretty impressive considering the reputation of the Sherman(not that I think the Sherman is bad) and the T-34. And if the Sherman was better than the T-34, I would like to put the T-34's armor into the section I am making. Does anyone have any more evidence about the T-34 compared to the Sherman?(and if you do, please confirm the version of the M4 and T-34)Blamazon (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like an WP:OR or WP:SYNTH minefield. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Even if properly sourced, it would be better suited for inclusion in the articles on each specific gun, not here. (Hohum ^@) 19:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

In most cases yes, but the sherman used at least three different guns. I want to make a section that helps explain why that is by listing the effectiveness of each gun using different shells. As well as provide an accurate comparison by stating the statistics of other american guns like the 90mm.Blamazon (talk) 08:08, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Summarising the pros and cons here with words, but having fuller information in each gun article, and linking to it, would still be the way to go. (Hohum ^@) 10:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the details and nuances of the various guns should be with their own pages. But I think as just a section of around 5 americans guns(three of which are the sherman's) and their basic statistics of their shells would go a long way to help explain the differences between the guns the Sherman has. It wouldn't have to be much, just the armor thickness penetration for APCR and AP rounds, and the lethal-shrapnel-count/explosive-weight of the HE rounds. I think readers would really appreciate something like that. And the other details about these guns can be linked like you said.Blamazon (talk) 21:15, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Armour on summary card

I feel like range between the thinnest plate on any sherman (I believe this is either the roof plate or rear plate on some models) at 12.7mm and the jumbos Mantlet at 177mm doesn’t really provide the reader with an understanding of how well armoured the tank was. A statement of the most common UFP thickness and angle (since this is the largest plate from The frontal perspective) which iirc was 63.5mm at 60 degrees would give the reader a better sense of roughly how well armoured most Sherman’s were than what is an extremely broad range that would cover the majority of tanks in WW2. Tamoraboys (talk) 07:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

The Infobox is just a summary which is why it doesn't go into detail. Infoboxes tend to either state maximum or a range but there's a whole section in the article on armor M4_Sherman#Armor where the reader can see how it was distributed and its effectiveness. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:18, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Tamoraboys. If what they said is true about 12.7 referring to the roof plate, then it should be removed. The tops of tanks are unarmored because they can't be hit by other tanks on those areas. The thinnest plate listed in the section should be the thinnest one that can be hit by a projectile larger than a bullet, not the thinnest overall.Blamazon (talk) 22:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

The tops of tanks (whether engine deck or turret roof) are relatively lightly armoured because tanks and anti-tank guns usually don't get a line on it but artillery shells and mortars do. And then there's Pavlov's House which shows what infantry can do against tanks with advantage of height. And tanks can be quite well armoured on top eg the Matilda II has thicker armour on its turret roof than the front or side armour of most of the tanks it faced in the Battle of France. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

True, those are important factors. What if we change the page to have two scales: one for armor that can be hit by an anti-tank gun or tank(at heights only observed in battles) and another scale for the thickness overall. That way we don't withhold any info but it is more fair to the tank. We should also make sure we don't use the statistics of parts that don't have armor such as the tracks or the grills over the engine. Sound good?Blamazon (talk) 22:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Even engine deck grills are armour of sorts, and some of the Shermans didn't have grills on the engine deck[1]. Trying to summarize armour is tricky without getting into original research. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Quoting the range of armour on a tank is a bit like quoting the average temperatures for a geographic location. If I said a place was 10 to 35 celsius, you'd know you might need your coat, but and if I said it was 30 - 35 you'd pack lighter. You'd say the latter place was generally a hotter one. Likewise a 15mm to 45mm armour tank is less protected than a 33mm-50mm one although the difference at the top end is a fraction of an inch. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I doubt that the engine grills on a sherman can stop tank rounds, bullets, or grenades of any kind. That said, we should not include them because they don't stand up to anything shot at them. Also stop being so pessimistic. We're trying to solve this problem not abandon it.Blamazon (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

We're trying to give the readers of this page a better understanding of the sherman's armor. Because all people remember is shermans' blowing up(I'll refrain from going down the subject of sherman myths). And if the grills can't stand up to anything that the rest of the armor is designed for, then the grills should not be included because they provide no protection. But if you can find a good enough reason why they should count as armor, list it here. As for your tank armor metaphor, you just used the exact system of armor definition that we are trying to avoid. Lastly, I don't agree with you that mortars can do that much damage to tanks. Maybe light tanks but the armor would have to be really weak. I also doubt that there would be a scenario where enemy tanks are close enough to be sighted and accurately hit by mortars. It would be even more unlikely if at the same time you have anti-tank guns and tanks that don't have the firepower to shoot effectively at anything besides the top enemy armor. And I doubt the enemy tanks would stay still long enough for mortars to hit it anyway.Blamazon (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The infobox is a summary. There is an entire level 2 section of ten paragraphs at M4_Sherman#Armor that goes into detail on the armour (and tells you how thick the engine deck was) including a subsection titled "Effectiveness". GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I know. And the talk page is reserved for discussions about edits to the page. We are trying to edit that infobox. And we want to edit it because it does a bad job of describing the Sherman's armor. If you have nothing to add to this discussion besides your opinion of how hopeless it is, then please stop editing this talk section.Blamazon (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

As a summary, maximum armour or minimum to maximum armour values work because the need no further explanation for a reader. You are suggesting a distinction in the armour value you are quoting based on your interpretation of what it is defening against- this would require 1) justification through reliable sources, 2) explaining. The latter makes it less of an at-a-glance summary. I think if anything you have identified a problem that doesn't exist. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Tamoraboys started this talk section because they felt the infobox did not do justice to the Sherman's armor. Clearly it is not working, otherwise they wouldn't request it to be edited. But to be fair, here is my justification by your terms:

1) The maximum and minimum armor values of a tank are completed out of context when stated next to each other. They tell the least important information by stating the thickest plate(usually the plate between the gun and the turret) and the thinnest plate(usually an unarmored part). Neither of which is useful except as to create exaggerated ideas in readers. 2) No one cares what the thinnest part of tank is because that part is probably not armor. And not many care what the thickest plate is because it is heavily out of proportion with the rest of the armor. I am constantly annoyed by infoboxes only stating the min-max on armor values. Because I don't want to know the thickness of the mud-flaps or the plate between the gun and the turret. I want to know the armor that matters for tanks, which is mostly the front, side, and rear armor. The infoboxes are meant to give the reader a simple understanding of the tank and its armor. And stating the min-max armor values doesn't help in any way.Blamazon (talk) 18:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

you say " and the thinnest plate(usually an unarmored part)." but there are few, if any, unarmoured parts of a tank hull and turret, and they would be outside the armour, and aren't quoted as armour. I've never known an article quote an unarmoured part in the infobox nor where the information is known not to give a breakdown of the armour in the article. The thickest part may be indicative of the whole - for a Tiger the front armour is 100mm except for the 120mm on the mantlet, and in the case of a Matilda II the turret is 75mm and the sides 70mm, for a Light Tank Mk VI the armour is 4mm to 14mm. The infobox instructions say for that parameter "the armour plating of the vehicle; different armour thickness at different points may be indicated if needed" and there's nothing to stop indicating that eg but the infobox is "..to summarize information about a particular weapon or weapon system" and putting too much information in there can be a problem. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:41, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

4mm to 14mm tells me nothing about the Mk VI, and that is what we are trying to fix: the fact that infoboxes' armor value listing is horrible at conveying useful information that doesn't create a disproportionate view of the tank. Because I have no way of knowing which parts of the Mk VI these values that you listed are for. And there are definitely parts of tanks that aren't armored. The undersides of most tanks are unarmored, so the value of that part should not be listed in the infoboxes. The Mantlet is the thickest part of all tanks, which means it doesn't help to list it in the infoboxes because it never is a reflection of how well the tank is armored. Most tanks, anti-tank guns, and anti-tank weapons wouldn't have their sights on the mantlet anyway because they already know that its the thickest part.

You said the thickest part may be indicative of the whole: wrong, the thickest part does nothing to inform the reader of the information that matters. Wikipedia is read by people who want to quickly understand the basic idea of the thing they searched for. And there are two ways to do that is quick to read: 1. comparison with something everybody knows. 2. specific facts that might not inform about everything, but tell the reader the truth about what they should know. For option 1, we could compare the sherman's armor to another medium tank like the panther or the T-34, which would be very helpful. For option 2, we could list the armor values that soldiers(tanks and anti-tank units) would be aiming for and list the rest of the armor values somewhere else in the page.

Both of these ways correctly describe the armor without withholding information from the reader or letting opinions control the page. And both of these options are achievable. No before you respond GraemeLeggett, I want you think about what you are going to write. Every time I post something here, you nitpick at my writing instead of responding to my arguments. Its unhelpful to this talk page, and it makes me angry. If you wanted to actually contribute, you could say something about how to solve the problem instead of just being negative and pointlessly argumentative.Blamazon (talk) 18:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Reliability

The proposed section is large block of text containing much detail and isn't good English writing - too informal for wikipedias encyclopaedic style. As matchjes WP:BRD it's been suggested, removed and its now time to discuss what is required to adequately cover the topic - bearing in mind that single examples of testing, though they make for dramatic narrative, are not representative of what the aggregate performance was in the field and the importance of that to the Allies. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:42, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree, I see no purpose behind this detailed recounting of the results of these various tests, unless it is to make the M4 look bad by listing a seemingly huge number of defects and breakdowns. Without any context, such a list is meaningless. Okay, so a particular M4 had an issue with premature wearing out of the engine: what percentage of M4s were effected by this problem? How does this compare to typical tank reliability at the time, or the issues found on other new tanks being introduced into production? I suspect that in spite of the long list of problems shown here, a similar list for a British (or German, or Soviet) tank would be just as long, if not longer. This mostly needs to be deleted, interesting as it may be. It is beyond the scope of an encyclopedia article, and is meaningless without context, which could not easily be added anyway, unless the reader is skilled at analysing and comparing long lists and mentally calculating their relative strengths. What we need are statistics for _overall_ M4 reliability, and the same for some other equivalent tanks of the era.

64.223.106.178 (talk) 01:53, 12 November 2021 (UTC)