Comments by "josh fritz" (@joshfritz5345) on "Military History not Visualized"
channel.
-
6
-
@WmPryor1 It sounds like you got most of your information from memoirs and TV programs. There's nothing wrong with that, but keep in mind that these sources aren't always 100% reliable, and should be supplemented by other sources.
When the M4 Sherman was introduced, it was resistant to the 50mm high velocity and 75mm low velocity guns used by the German PzIII and PzIV respectively. It was also all but immune to the towed Pak 36 and Pak 38 AT guns, and resistant to the 75mm Pak 97/38, the stopgap AT solution until the infamous Pak 40 was able to be mass produced. In terms of sheer thickness, the Sherman was about equal to the late model PzIV but with a better angled frontal plate giving it slightly better protection overall.
Moving away from armor thickness for now, the M4 wasn't especially prone to fuel fires simply due to being gasoline powered. Many nations, including Germany, used gasoline powered tanks for most of the war. What did plague the M4 were ammunition fires in the early models. It earned a bad reputation for ammunition fires, but it actually wasn't any more prone to these than any other tank, but its reputation am among troops took a worse hit since it was seen as the premier tank at the time, and it shared this same flaw with other, less reputable tanks.
You could argue that badly placed ammunition made the M4 a bit more vulnerable, but in reality, all tanks were at risk of ammunition fires at this point in time since wet ammo racks weren't a widespread feature. The M4 was one of the first mass produced vehicles to receive them actually.
No, the M4 was not as well armored as a Tiger or Panther, but it was quite probably the best armored medium tank at the time of its introduction, and unlike the European powers at the time, the USA had strict weight and size limitations when designing the M4 to allow it to be shipped overseas en mass. It was the best tank for America at the time. It wasn't a rolling fortress, but a nigh inpeneratable heavy tank that was twice the weight, twice the cost and half as reliable would inarguably have been less suitable for the needs of the US military at the time.
As to your point about American crews covering their tanks in improvised armor, yes, this happened, but it wasn't unique to American forces. German tankers made fairly regular use of improvised armor, the side skirt armor you see on many PzIV and StuG models was designed in response to widespread use of AT rifles by the Russians, and prior to its deployment, German tankers would use makeshift armor in much the same manner as American tankers did. There are photos of German Panzers covered in elaborate welded on armor boxes that are clearly makeshift applique armor, but these photos are rarer since many German records were destroyed when they lost the war, while allied records of similar unofficial modifications remain intact.
6