Sherman Tank Performance

[pintere]

Like I said neither a deathtrap or a war winner.

Sounds about right.

[Alejandro_]

It is regretable that at no time did anyone simply attach large number of M10s / M36s / M18s to the Armored Divisions to serve as spearheads to the attacks. An additional layer of frontal armor could have been extemporized at the depots to give them better resistance to HV fire, and this would doubtless have reduced the carnage and improved the moral of the tank forces.

Large losses took place mainly in Bocage terrain, which was ideally suited for defence. When Germans tried to counterattack they had similar difficulties.

Tiger fans claim that the frontal armour of TII was never penetrated during the WWII, I doubt the claim, but have not ever tried to check it.

There are no photos, but then I have only seen one penetration of Ferdinand and IS-2 front armour. I don't know why people make such a big deal about the statement. Tiger I production stopped in August 44 but vehicle only became more numerous than Tiger I in January 1945. It's career was more complicated than Tiger I because by the time it was fielded the Allied and especially the Soviets had a number of guns that could knock it out. OTOH when Tiger I was fielded main Allied guns would struggle with side armour.

[paspartoo]

Just wanted to add that in one area the Pz III was superior to the Sherman. The Pz III had a commander’s cupola that (if I’m not mistaken) the Sherman got in 1944 plus the first version of the vehicle had no gunners telescopic sight fixed to the gun. Instead the panoramic sight had a telescope with 1.44 magnification at 9 degrees field of view. This was not properly aligned with the gun.

The Pz III (and Pz IV) had a fixed gunner’s telescope with 2.5mag at 25 degrees fov.
In 1943 the Sherman got a gunners telescopic sight (M55 3x at 13 degrees) which seems to have had problems with quality since it was replaced by the M70 series (also 3x at 13 degrees). Both Zaloga and Hunnicutt mention the problems with optics quality.

[Carl Schwamberger]

I'm wondering how long til Rich Anderson shows up.

[Michael Kenny]

Elvis has left the building and handed back his membership.

[Michael Kenny]

Both Zaloga and Hunnicutt mention the problems with optics quality.

Do they?
Here are the pages from Hunnicutt.




and here is the text via OCR:

Both Ordnance and the NDRC had been engaged in development work to produce a suitable vision cupola. The version adopted for the medium tank wasfitted with six laminated glass vision blocks uniformly spaced around the central 21 inch diameter hatch. The
blocks were 8 inches long and 3 inches thick and they provided protection against horizontal .50 caliber armor piercing fire at 100 yards. The six blocks gave a
360 degree field of view with vertical limits of +65 to -15 degrees. One M6 periscope was installed in a rotating mount in the central hatch cover and it could be replaced by 7x binoculars. The cupola body armor was 1-1/2 inches thick at 30 degrees on the sides
with a 3/4 inch top. It was installed in the same29-3/4 inch diameter turret roof opening as the older split circular hatch. Installation of the vision cupola required the modification of the tank commander's vane sight by reducing the height of the front element.
The vision cupola was recommended for installation on all production tanks and it was tested in comparison with the British cupola. The Armored Board preferred the U.S. design, mainly because of the larger hatch opening. They recommended that the
desirable features of the British cupola be considered for future U.S. designs. These included the 360 degree rotation and the method of hatch closure without exposing the tank commander.
In addition to the cupola development, other work on vision devices covered new periscopes and sighting equipment. The M6 was the standard periscope used on the Sherman for all crew members except the gunner. It consisted of two large prisms assembled in each end of a metal shell. Frequent problems with moisture condensation resulted in the development of a new periscope consisting of a solid block of plastic with a reflecting surface at each end.
Standardized near the end of the war as the periscope M13, it had a 10 inch offset and a window 1-7/8 inches high by 6 inches wide. The improvement in vision is well illustrated by comparing the M13 with the small prewar protectoscope installed on the medium tank
M3. The protectoscope had a window about 3/4 inches high and 4 inches wide with an offset of only 1-1/2 inches making it impossible to install in heavy armor.
Efforts to improve the driver's vision included the experimental installation of rear view mirrors. Although some improvement was obtained when the driver's head was exposed, they only appeared on very late production tanks.



The development of fire control equipment also showed considerable progress. The standard gunner's sight on Shermans armed with the 75mm gun in the M34 mount was the periscope M4. It enclosed the telescope M38 fitted with a ballistic reticle. A later version was the M4Al equipped with the telescope M38A2. The magnification was 1.44x with a 9 degree field of view and the later model periscope was provided with reticle lighting. For use with the 76mm gun and 105mm howitzer, the M4Al periscope was fitted with the telescopes M47A2 or M77C respectively. The M8 and M8A1 periscopes were similar to the M4 series, but they were somewhat larger. The M8A1 was equipped with the telescope M39A2 having a 1 .8x magnification with a 6 degree field. It was suitable for use with the 76mm gun as it had the same reticle as the M47A2.

Late in the war, the earlier periscopic sights were superseded by the M10 series which actually consisted of two telescopes, both linked to the gun. There was a 1 x magnification system for firing at nearby targets with a horizontal field of 42 degrees, 10 minutes and a vertical field of 8 degrees, 10 minutes. For long range use, the 6x telescope had an 11 degree, 20 minute field.
Fitted with an appropriate reticle, the M10s were used with the 75mm and 76mm guns and the 105mm howitzer. The periscope M16 was similar to the M10, but was equipped with a reticle adjusting mechanism.
Greatly improved mounts for the periscopic sights were introduced with the M10. The sheet metal holders and inadequate linkage of the early models were replaced with cast steel cases and rigid preloaded ball bearing linkages.
The direct sight telescopes showed similar development. The original M55 and M5 1 telescopes were introduced for use with the 75mm and 76mm guns respectively. They only differed in the reticle and both had a 3x magnification with a 12 degree, 19 minute field of view. The M55 also was originally used with the tank mounted 105mm howitzer. These telescopes were replaced by the M70 series which were the same size and magnification, but had much superior optical quality. Later developments included the M71 with 5x magnification and a 13 degree field. With the proper reticle, it was used with the 76mm gun. The M76 series were similar in construction, but the magnification was reduced to 3x and the field was increased to 21 degrees, 30 minutes. The M76G was used with the 105mm howitzer in the M52 mount. The telescope M83 differed from the earlier models in having a variable power optical system for use under different light conditions. The magnification was 4x or 8x corresponding to 7 degrees, 40 minutes or 4 degrees, 15 minutes fields of view. The M83D had the proper reticle for use with the 76mm gun in the M62 mount.
Changes in other fire control equipment included the introduction of the azimuth indicator M20 before the end of the war. It was similar to the standard M19, but added an outer "gunner's aid'' dial for laying off corrections in deflection. Along with the elevation quadrant M9, the azimuth indicators were used for indirect fire. Other efforts to improve the indirect fire control involved the experimental installation of the cant corrector T10 and periscope or turret roof mounts for an artillery type panoramic telescope.

Can you point out the section where 'Hunnicutt mention the problems with optics quality'?

[paspartoo]

Are you retarded? It says right there: ‘These telescopes were replaced by the M70 series which were the same size and magnification, but had much superior optical quality.’

Why do you think they changed the gunsight to the M70 series?

Also from Zaloga’s ‘Sherman Medium Tank 1942-45’, p10-11

‘In the early Shermans the gunner had a periscopic sight for aiming the main gun, but this proved troublesome as the articulated linkage easily misaligned. A telescopic sight was developed and fielded in 1943. Tanks fitted with the M70 telescopic sight were conspicuous by their use of the wider M34A1 gun mantlet. This was a three-power sight without special filters, and was good out to 1000m even though it did not have either the optical quality or the power of German sights and could prove difficult to use if facing into the sun.’

He also says in ‘Pz IV vs Sherman’ that the telescope had unsatisfactory light transmission characteristics.

Also an interesting link here: http://forums.lnlpublishing.com/threads ... 1943.1945/

I hope that people who know more about the Sherman can explain better the reasons for the poor gunner’s optics, as well as the delay in getting a 360 degree cupola.

Also wanted to add that the German tanks had a superior target system in their gun sights. This was the milirad system. I forgot to add it above.

[paspartoo]

Here are two pics from Zaloga’s ‘Pz IV versus Sherman’

Panzer IV’s TZF 5 gunsight (also used on the Pz III)

TFZ 5.jpg (111.12 KiB) Viewed 2671 times

Sherman’s M55 gunsight

M55.jpg (124.36 KiB) Viewed 2671 times

[Graeme Sydney]

I should have made it clear that my problem is with those that try to build up the Sherman as some kind of wondertank.

I didn't read that to any of the above. The lecturer in the vid busts some myths (and may be starts some arguments) but his theme was that it was a adequate tank in a well balanced, well rounded, winning force - which I think is a reasonable appreciation of the facts.

It seems to me it is the Hitler/Nazi/German fanboys always touting the wonder weapon/if only/ we were robbed scenarios.

[pintere]

I should have made it clear that my problem is with those that try to build up the Sherman as some kind of wondertank.

I didn't read that to any of the above. The lecturer in the vid busts some myths (and may be starts some arguments) but his theme was that it was a adequate tank in a well balanced, well rounded, winning force - which I think is a reasonable appreciation of the facts.

It seems to me it is the Hitler/Nazi/German fanboys always touting the wonder weapon/if only/ we were robbed scenarios.

Not the lecturer for sure. But for all the talk about Panzer fanboys, I'm sure you'd agree there are those who devote the same energies to say the same about the Sherman as well.

[Michael Kenny]

Are you retarded? It says right there: ‘These telescopes were replaced by the M70 series which were the same size and magnification, but had much superior optical quality.’

Why do you think they changed the gunsight to the M70 series?

The same reason the Tiger II replaced the Tiger I-improvement?

Also from Zaloga’s ‘Sherman Medium Tank 1942-45’, p10-11...................

Interesting but I only asked about the passage in Hunnicutt that you claim 'mentions' the problems with the M4 optics. As the full text I posted shows there is no such mention. You simply made it up in order to fool people into believing you had authority for your claims.
Not the first time you have been caught out altering sources to get the 'right' answer
See my comments on your (ab)use of a table from Jentz.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... z#p1970884

[Michael Kenny]

Not the lecturer for sure. But for all the talk about Panzer fanboys, I'm sure you'd agree there are those who devote the same energies to say the same about the Sherman as well.

Can you link to some of these Uber-Sherman threads?

[paspartoo]

The same reason the Tiger II replaced the Tiger I-improvement?

I have no words!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Tiger II was superior in armor and firepower to the Tiger I.
The M70 series had the SAME MAGNIFICATION AND FIELD OF VIEW AS THE M55. The only improvement was in OPTICS QUALITY. Which means the previous version had problems.
It’s not rocket science mate. It’s not quantum computing. It’s common sense (which is why you’re struggling).

Interesting but I only asked about the passage in Hunnicutt that you claim 'mentions' the problems with the M4 optics......

Yes it is interesting. But that’s the problem you need to understand what you’re reading. That seems to be your main problem. If you already know what it’s going to say then there is no point in processing the data.

[Michael Kenny]

I have no words!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh that we should be so lucky!

It’s not rocket science mate. It’s not quantum computing. It’s common sense (which is why you’re struggling).

You can not come here making up references and whine when you are caught out. The full text of Hunnicutt is posted above and it is crystal clear to all (but you) that nowhere does if make a comment about 'problems with the optics'
You invented that conclusion.


.

But that’s the problem you need to understand what you’re reading. That seems to be your main problem. If you already know what it’s going to say then there is no point in processing the data.

So unlike your method of going looking for problems and then, when finding none, inventing them.
Exactly like using a table from Jentz and then removing parts so it better fits your prejudice.

[paspartoo]

Here is an interesting report ‘The Application of Metallic Fluoride Reflection Reduction Films to Optical Elements’ - October 1943 Published at the Frankford Arsenal.

http://www.svc.org/HistoryofVacuumCoati ... s/WWII.pdf

From pages 1-2:

‘During this period Frankford Arsenal continued its investigation, largely under the leadership of Major Sturr, until the end of 1942 when certain factors caused us to intensify our work. These factors revolved primarily about sights, telescopes and periscopes for Tank and Combat Vehicle use. Due to size limitations and other restrictions in Tank and Combat Vehicles, this type of telescope was rather limited as to power and dimensions. At the same time, it had to be used both at dawn and dusk and under many other conditions of poor visibility. It was essential therefore, that every practical means be used to make the best telescope possible within these limitations. We therefore first applied coated optics in production of telescopes for Tank and Combat Vehicles. The early orders were placed with RCA. At that time, we had set up the manufacture of telescopes so that optical elements were produced in one place, coated in another and transmitted to a third plant for assembly. Everyone concerned expressed considerable doubt as to whether such a chain of handling could be made to work. A thorough test at the Westinghouse Mansfield plant showed that it could……………..’

Also interesting interview: https://www.svc.org/Publications/Oral-H ... --2003.cfm