M4 Sherman Tank - Crew tell how shocking it was

Doctrine

As the US approached entry in World War II, armored employment was doctrinally governed by FM 100-5 Operations (published May 1941, the month following selection of the M4 tank's final design). That FM stated that: The armored division is organized primarily to perform missions that require great mobility and firepower. It is given decisive missions. It is capable of engaging in all forms of combat, but its primary role is in offensive operations against hostile rear areas.[10]

In other words, the M4 was envisioned to primarily fill the role of a cruiser tank — although the US Army did not use that doctrinal term. The M4 was not primarily intended as an infantry support tank; in fact, FM 100-5 specifically stated the opposite. It placed tanks in the "striking echelon" of the armored division, and placed the infantry in the "support echelon". Neither was the M4 primarily intended for tank versus tank action. Doctrinally, anti-tank engagements were the primary role of tank destroyers. The field manual covering the use of the Sherman (FM 17-33, "The Tank Battalion, Light and Medium" of September 1942) devoted one page of text and four diagrams to tank versus tank action (out of 142 pages).[11] This early armored doctrine was heavily influenced by the sweeping initial successes of the German blitzkrieg tactics. Unfortunately, by the time M4s reached combat in significant numbers, battlefield demands for infantry support and tank versus tank action far outnumbered the occasional opportunities for cruiser tanks.

Although envisioned primarily as a cruiser-type tank, US doctrine did also contemplate the M4's use in other roles. Unlike some other nations, which had separate medium tank designs tailored specifically for anti-tank roles (e.g., the German PzKw III) and support roles (the PzKw IV), the US intended the M4 to fulfill all roles. Although not optimized for tank versus tank engagements or infantry support, the M4 was capable of performing these missions to varying degrees. In the Pacific Theater, the Sherman was used chiefly against Japanese infantry and fortifications; in their rare encounters with lighter Japanese tanks with weaker armor and guns, the Shermans were vastly superior.

The doctrine of the time had Shermans as a sort of infantry tank. All anti-tank work was supposed to be done by tank-destroyer crews. Speed was essential in order to bring the tank-destroyers from the rear to destroy incoming tanks. Thankfully, for Sherman crews, this doctrine was not entirely used as it would create a small window of time of weakness in the armored battalion until tank destroyers moved to the front. Obviously this would make it harder for an armored force to achieve a breakthrough, a main objective of armor, if the enemy had tanks. It would also be easier for an opposing armored force to achieve a breakthrough against an American tank battalion which would not have all of its anti-tank assets at the front during the beginning of any attack

Category:

Autos & Vehicles

Tags:

• yt:crop=16:9
• M4 Sherman Tank

[faheem65asss]

@BARCHOBBY you are right about the infantry part. US doctrine said that the Tank Destroyer was meant for Tank v tank combat. the problem was the allies only had 2 tanks or tank destroyers that could engage german armor effectively at any range. (not counting the pershing, it was too late). The M 36 slugger and the Sherman firefly. US tank crews used to put sand bags and concrete on these tanks to try and live. The generals were asses and brave men paid with their lives

[gijsiescudda]

its amazing that throughout the war , the Germans even bombed could produce king tigers .

and the amis come up with this !? i admire all fighting man (especially the Germans from that time ,regardless of their war-crimes) and the Sherman is a good tank ,but really ?is this what you would call your main battle tank ? i am aware of the Jackson tank destroyer and the rest that can take on panthers and so-on, but this thing cant beat a panzer4, if you think i am wrong , please come up with a reply

[kevinkards1]

the sherman was a shit tank

[VIOLATOR871]

1:04 guy is quoting Patton, that "we" would win this war with Sherman tank. That is so funny! Sorry, but more than 80% of destruction to the nazi germany was done by people of Soviet Union. If soviet lost the war by the end of 1941, by not being able to protect Moscow there would be only German language in all of Europe and both Americas by the end of 1940's. P.S. I'am not protecting soviet ideas, I actually hate communism and nazism, but I just saying who really won that war.

[loocsiyeltsakcir]

@gijsiescudda

the following vehicles could annihilated shermans in a 10:1 ratio as well..

is-2

isu-152

isu-122

king tiger

jagdtiger

jagdpanther

[loocsiyeltsakcir]

@gijsiescudda

you sire, are right.

[MP40MayShootBullets]

That just made me sad for the week.

I guess great-grandpa was the 18th tank out of the 17 that got hit when they went into battle.

That poor commander.

[BARCHOBBY]

Hindsight is 20/20. Pretty easy to sit back and pick holes in the decisions made at the time. This is a slanted one sided view. The Sherman was a good tank for what it was designed for. It was not , and never was meant ot be a tank killer. It was an infantry support vehlcle. It was a Match for the German PZIII, but was totally outclassed by the Panther and Tigers. Allied Air power took care of those. From the moment these Shermans hit the shores, the Germans were in retreat,

[badgerattoadhall]

@fgah chic fag, you say this shit but you live in canada."brave germans up against US aggressor"? germany declared on the US."China will join force with Russia to liberate all Nations suppressed by US tyranny " yeah from georgia to tibet.

[prg1972a]

@fgah Fuck you jagoff....