Myths of American Armor. TankFest Northwest 2015

TheChieftainWoT

I've always liked this guy's video's. I don't play the "game" WoT but really grateful for their support of the TeW "Tanking enthusiasts' World"

Very interesting talk by Nicholas Moran. He brings out many facts of the Sherman and overall tank warfare that is very much over looked by most authors/writers today.

Case in point, just Google a single fact about for say a Sherman tank, when you read the information available from for say Wikipedia, almost all of the other sites information is just carried over almost word for word on these other sites, or vise or versa.

A common modern myth, the name Vikings. If you called them that back in their day, they would be scratching their heads wondering who you were talking about. LoL

As Viking is a term simply referred to all Scandinavians who took part in overseas expedition. Also try wearing a helmet with horns on it into battle, a perfect way to add something which is attached to your head to better able to catch a sword, axe or just a club on and knock your helmet off along with your head. Well just a thought anyway.

Thank's for posting... hope he does some writing in the near future.

Yes thanks. It was an interesting presentation. The point about Beltran Cooper not knowing for certain that Patton did not want a better tank than the Sherman is well taken. I'm not fully convinced yet that Cooper was not right however about the Sherman being a death trap. But Moran presents some information that is new (for me). Of particular interest were the factors affecting the introduction date of the Pershing into combat.

Since he's representing WoT, I wish someone had asked if Gold Ammo was available for purchase on the West Front and how can tanks from all vintages and disparate countries like Japan and France appear on the same battle field.

I'm so happy he called out that "E8" thing, though he glossed over it rather quickly and never made a point on it.

I did a research paper years ago about the myriad of Sherman models used in the war.  I still have one of the partial lists that I used to organize into manageable groups the many different models (there were an unbelievably huge number of different Sherman variants built during the war).  I used all my own acquired literature on the subject, online sources, and I also visited the Military Vehicle Technology Foundation museum near my home in Portola Valley, California.  In addition, I also visited the archives located in San Francisco.

To the point; the E8's were simply pilot vehicles used to evaluate new design features like the horizontal volute spring system and so on.  Officially, the "E" stood for "Evolution", or "Experimental".  The number was the serial representation of the evaluation model, i.e. 8th Evolution or 8th Experimental evaluation, with different serials trying out different features like, again, the suspension, 76.2mm gun, etc...

For example:

Horizontal Volute Suspension System (HVSS) Pilot Vehicles

M4A1E8 - First-generation M4A1 equipped with HVSS ("E" indicated "Experimental")
M4A2E8 - First-generation M4A2 equipped with HVSS ("E" indicated "Experimental")
M4A3E8 - First-generation M4A3 equipped with HVSS ("E" indicated "Experimental")

The three models shown above were modified versions of production M4A1s, 2s, and 3s which originally had the standard un-damped vertical volute suspension.  Due to their role in development, the pilot vehicles did not see service outside the United States.  However, the models listed below are the actual production, in-service variants based on the E8's listed above, but often it is these that are commonly referred to by many as the E8 or "Easy 8":

HVSS Production Variants

M4A1(76)W HVSS - Production M4A1(76)W with new HVSS
M4A2(76)W HVSS - Production M4A2(76)W with new HVSS (used by the Soviets against the Japanese in Manchuria at the very end of the war, and by the Canadians after the war)
M4A3(75)W HVSS - Production M4A3(75)W with new HVSS
M4A3(76)W HVSS - Production M4A3(76)W with new HVSS

So, in summary, the term E8 has nothing to do with a tank having a V8 engine or being easy about anything, and due to nomenclature the actual E8s (or E-anything, for that matter) were never used by combat units in either the European or Pacific theater, unless an individual, particular E-model was still serviceable and pressed into a combat formation after it's developmental and evaluation duties were completed.  The listed service models, derived from the E8 developments, were obviously used by combat units.

Keep in mind however, that soldiers being soldiers, one of their unofficial jobs is to give names to the equipment issued to them, and they can call them whatever they please!  Also, as more fingers dip into the historical pie, names tend to "evolve" over time, so when decades pass, the names may have evolved into something that has entirely no relation to it whatsoever during its active period.

I've lost count on how many times I've had to explain this to people who have little idea of what they're talking about, but yet stubbornly insist "That's a 76mm Sherman Easy 8 next to that burnt-out Panther!", or, "That was a Easy 8 in Fury!"  (Brad Pitt's tank in the movie was a M4A3(76)W HVSS, by the way).  This issue is a very, very common misconception regarding this excellent vehicle, and I hope to dispel some of that with this post.

Sorry if it was so lengthy.  

Treetop193... interesting read concerning the "Easy 8" thing and thank's for posting.

A note from the "Headquarters 6th Armored Division 14 December 1944" describing their loses of Shermans at that time of the war.

B. All tanks of the M4 series. There is a definite lack of floatation and power compared with what we require to get effective results. Time and again a tank has been knocked out by direct fire because it could not negotiate a reasonable hill except at the very slowest speed.

The great majority of tank losses can be attributed directly to being stuck in the mud or on a hill where they became easy targets for direct fire guns. Experience is indicated that direct fire guns have great difficulty in hitting moving tanks. Our whole tactical conception of the employment of tanks is based upon their maneuverability. When this is lost through lack of flotation or power, tank tactics disappears. …

One other note that has the thoughts from the tanker's and what they were saying about the Sherman at that time period of the war.

7 December 1944,

Tank units [743rd and 747th Tank Battalions] have lost confidence in the 75mm tank gun as it cannot do the job it is called upon to do.

Among tank requirements, the gun comes first. Tankers desperately desire a gun capable of knocking out enemy tanks and bunkers. Armor protection is secondary but is considered of far more importance than was formerly the case.

All other considerations are minor and are considered as mere refinements and gadgetry. The M4A3E2 is very well liked and the two battalions prefer to be equipped 100% with this tank. The 76mm should be standard with this tank. Neither battalion now has any 76mm guns.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2998207/posts

Woofie, you post reminds me that the M4A3E2 was a model that kept it's "E" designation after it entered production and distributed to formations.  That was lost on me since I was concentrating on the HVSS models so much.

Interesting point those notes raise.  After all, the whole point of a tank in the first place is to transport and tactically maneuver to bring the gun to bear on the enemy, in support of operations in the battle area, while protecting it's crew.  Mitigated ground pressure and adequate power are obviously key to good mobility, two areas the Russian T-34 got right.

It seems to depend on who you ask in regards of the perceived quality of the 75mm vs. 76mm guns and their ammo.  Some units preferred the 76, while others still favored the 75 even to the end of the war.  The old 75mm stuck around for as long as it did not only because of it's availability, but also because of the performance of it's HE round, specifically that it proved more effective against a dug-in enemy thanks to it's lower velocity and near howitzer-like trajectory.  The 76mm HE round was considered by many as inferior to the 75mm one, not by any lack of physical quality, but it's trajectory was too flat to be useful against a dug-in enemy, or on the other side of a slight rise in the terrain.  Also, when fused on impact it's blast area was more elongated narrowly behind the point of impact than that of the 75mm HE.  Of course, that's all irrelevant when shooting at fortifications with vertical surfaces.  Against armor the 76mm was universally considered the better "hole puncher" of the two.

Mitigated ground pressure and adequate power are obviously key to good mobility, two areas the Russian T-34 got right.

Yes, have read about the Sherman and M3-M5 also having problems with mud and sand. They did add some known as "grouser shoes" to the Shermans and later versions M4A3's had 23 inch widetrack for mud and snow.

Sherman did have different track types, here is a site covering the track types.

http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/tracks/vvss_tracks.html

Also a little info covering the "Various things about Sherman tanks"

http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/index.html

Is this a Sherman Firefly M4A4?

Yes it is - a Sherman VC ['five C'] in British nomenclature. You can see by the bigger gap between the roadwheels on each VVSS suspension unit, that it has the longer hull of the M4A4. And it's clearly a Firefly.

33lima wrote:Yes it is - a Sherman VC ['five C'] in British nomenclature. You can see by the bigger gap between the roadwheels on each VVSS suspension unit, that it has the longer hull of the M4A4. And it's clearly a Firefly.

Thanks!