Debunking Myths about the Sherman - Blog Post

Ask, comment, read.
Ritalingamer
Major
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2012 2:05 pm

Debunking Myths about the Sherman - Blog Post

Unread postby Ritalingamer » Wed Nov 04, 2015 8:17 pm

A new post is up on the blog by yours truly, reviewing Armored Thunderbolt and debunking myths that the Sherman was a bad tank.

http://unityofcommand.net/blog/2015/11/ ... en-zaloga/

What do you guys think?
If you were to include American and British, primarily Sherman equipped armored divisions in a future UoC game, how would you stat them out?
Also, what insights into armored combat can the UoC team incorporate into the game?

ironbmike
First Lieutenant
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 10:19 pm

Re: Debunking Myths about the Sherman - Blog Post

Unread postby ironbmike » Thu Feb 11, 2016 10:48 pm

It's a good topic and good article. There are lots of unfounded or exaggerated myths about the Sherman. It was essentially on par with the Pz.IV H and the long barreled Shermans could engage Tigers effectively.

BrotherSurplice
Newcomer
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2016 10:53 am

Re: Debunking Myths about the Sherman - Blog Post

Unread postby BrotherSurplice » Fri Aug 19, 2016 12:29 pm

Still a couple of myths here I'm afraid.
urthermore, the US Army had misguided doctrine regarding tanks. According to the “tank destroyer doctrine,” Shermans and other tanks were intended for infantry support. Enemy armor, when encountered, was supposed to be handled by anti-tank guns and self-propelled tank destroyers like the M10 Wolverine. Thus, there was no need for the Sherman to have the heavy armor or high velocity guns needed to engage enemy armor. In practice, though, the Sherman formed most of the spearheads and tank destroyers were often not available when enemy tanks were encountered. Meanwhile, the open-topped tank destroyers were poorly protected and armed against infantry. Rather than phase out tank destroyers and upgrade the Sherman to handle both roles, armored formations muddled along with specialized vehicles doing each other’s job in addition to their own.

One look at the contemporary field manual for US tankers shows that this is a myth. Medium tanks were fully expected to engage enemy tanks. Source: FM17-10, pages 46 and 192 (warning; pdf download) http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/FM/PDFs/FM17-10.PDF.

(most notably the tendency to catch fire)

Only the early versions. The problems with ammunition storage were recognised and rectified relatively quickly and once they were, the Sherman was no more likely to burn than any other tank of the war. When they started using wet stowage the Sherman became even less fire-prone.


Return to “Unity of Command”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 5 guests