Why did the US choose such a flawed design as their main battle tank?

...

Seems to be working pretty well, must be a low quality board.

>high fuel consumption when lack of fuel is a major concern
I wish more people took this into account. The AusfG had a 60-80 mile range on road with 190 gallons of fuel. The Sherman had a 100 mile range with 168 gallons. The Panther was produced by a country that had chronic fuel shortages since the start of the war, especially after losing its only non-synthetic source after the Romanians switched sides.

Actually, you're mostly facing artillery pieces, command posts, repair yards, and machine guns. A tank's major job was to advance through second echelon forces, which were usually light on hard targets.

That isn't QUITE true. Germany itself produced very small quantities of real oil, but hardly enough to actually run anything on.

digital.library.northwestern.edu/league/le0277ah.pdf (p 6 of the pdf)

everything wrong with the sherman can be seen in this image.

they were forced to use a radial gasoline engine. so they turret had to be raised for the drive shaft to clear to the front wheel drive transmission. which made the whole thing taller and more flammable.

If they had a inline diesel. Then they could have made the whole tank shorter. plus diesel wouldn't flammbe the crew as much.

>overweight
>slow as shit
>piddly main gun
>decade out of date

yet somehow was every british infantryman's favourite tank of the war.

The dustbin version was great in city fighting

Here's the thing, the Navy called dibs on the US production of diesel engines, using them in some 20,000 higgins boats.

The later iterations were more well armored than the friggin' Tiger, so I would expect a love for it simply for being able to eat 88mm rounds.

Easily mass produced. Smaller footprint, so more can be stowed on a ship. Reliable, abundant spare parts, easily modified into other types of vehicles.

A better question is "why didn't the Germans choose one adequate tank design and build a shit ton of them?"

In an industrial war. 1000 adequate weapons are far better than 10 wonder weapons. Every time.

Idk what you're talking about man

The armor on that thing was fine, considering the only tanks more heavily armored than the Sherman were heavy tanks that were considerably slower. The Americans are known for heavily armoring their vehicles compared to other countries. Just look at this one compared to most standard German tanks and look at the p-51 compared to Zeros or any German fighter.

Also the shitty gun was replaced part way through the war

>Poor traction
The Americans coined the design of detachable treads on case of damages (A LOT easier to repair). Also it was terrible for the treads to travel long distances so they would take them off and just roll when they weren't in battle. The "poor traction" was a sacrifice that put them ahead of most other tanks.

>Also the shitty gun was replaced part way through the war
IT wasn't even shitty. The gun would kill most German armor easily, and was better against bunkers and infantry.

We have reports of crews refusing 76mm guns because they simply weren't needed.

>flawed
A US infantry division in 1944 had 113 tanks. A German tank division in 1944 would often have a table strength of 120, but almost always got stuck in the double digits. We are talking about a tank so easy to produce that infantry divisions regularly had more tanks than the panzer divisions they fought. And then 15 armored divisions on top of that. And then Free French and Polish armor divisions. And then most of the British armor as well. And several division-equivalents in the Red Army. And the Chinese because why the fuck not.

Like a whale eating plankton.

>>only 30 tons compared to 60 tons on a Tiger tank
why are you implying that's a flaw?

>Like a whale eating plankton.
Pretty dishonest statement considering it took years for the western allies to reach Berlin even though they were only up against about 20% of the Axis forces in Europe (the USSR was fighting the rest by itself)

Bridges are evil, and don't even get me started on reliable transmissions

>low velocity gun
>thin armor
It had impressive performance during its introduction, and its upgrades kept it competitive as the war progressed
>high center of gravity
Not this, but its high profile for me is literally its only flaw
>prone to fire
All tanks of the period were reasonably fire prone, and they eventually introduced wet storage
>only 30 tons compared to 60 tons on a Tiger tank
your comparing a medium tank to a heavy tank

It was never about designing the perfect tank, Aberdeen had pic related designed by late 1941 and it would undoubtedly be a better tank in World of Tanks and War Thunder, yet in reality it wasn't built nor should've it been.

Cheap and mainly unsed to support inf, not to fight other tanks I guess

digitalhistoryarchive.com/uploads/2/5/4/1/25411694/article_by_us_army_tank_battalion_commander_-_tank_versus_tank_1946.pdf

I think 40 tons was the max of most port cranes in the US at the time, which was responsible for the weight requirements.

> though they were only up against about 20% of the Axis forces in Europe

I heard that the Luftwaffe and Kreigsmarine don't actually exist.

That's how the Russians beat the Germans so the Americans copied.

>le Ronson meme
>even though Ronsons did not exist until the 1960s
Do Wehraboos not know what a Zippo lighter is?
>le 5 Shermans vs 1 Tiger meme
>going into the field with a full unit is a bad thing because Krauts had shortages in everything

This. The Americans needed a tank that they could transport across the ocean. There is like the Atlantic between America and Europe.

It isn't flawed necessarily, it's simply due to tactics and need. The USA used their tanks in support of the infantry who were meant to be the ones breaking enemy lines. The low velocity gun is meant to use high explosive shells and basically is there to knock out fortified positions. They aren't meant to engage armour. Also low weight makes it easier for them to move over terrain.

The tiger on the other hand, like a lot of German armour was designed to engage enemy armour and break the lines. It's gun is designed to shoot enemy tanks. But it was very complex and fairly over engineered so they broke down regularly, used a ton of fuel and their high weight meant they were limited in where they could move. Basically designed to fight armour not infantry.

Also Germany thought sloped armour was a fad it seems and hence their tanks wieghed a ton. Sloping armour is lower weight and still effective just look at the t-34-85.

Going to the original point the sherman and tiger were designed with very different roles in mind to fit very different armour tactics.

USA had no actual war experience.

>They aren't meant to engage armour.
I want this meme to end.

The answer is really quite simple. We had to ship our tanks to another continent, less weight meant more tanks on the beach. We didn't have the luxury of rolling our tanks out of a factory 50 kilometers from the warfront.

Fucking faggots all of them.

>why are you implying that's a flaw?

Abrams tanks weigh 60 tons or more. Why would you want a lighter tank with less armor.

>But much bridges

Pic-related.

youtube.com/watch?v=bWMrY49qqDw

>Comparing a Sherman to an Abrams
>A tank made 60 years later
I really wonder about this board sometimes

You're basically admitting that the Tiger was 60 years ahead of its time.

Not him but you are so fucking retarded like omg wtf.

>Weight makes it as modern as an Abrams

Well, the Abrams has a more powerful gun but that's basically the only difference. And its not like a more powerful gun was needed against the fragile American tanks of the time.

Good post

Lol you got me.

>easily mass produced
>easily altered/modified during war to keep up with threats
>easily repaired in the field compared to any other tank in the war
>great range
>was more for infantry support than tank on tank war.

>good thing the Germans had so manybof those.
>good thing they never had to worry about logistics in general, really

>when it was meant to be more maneuverable than a T-34

source ?

...

...

The original submission for the Panther was 30 tonnes using the same engine as the Tiger so it went fast, Hitler decided (just like the Tiger which was originally 50) that bigger = better. There's several books about German tank design and how Hitler basically ruined every single idea, for one purely about the Panther there's one called Guderians Problem Child

by that standard the Char 2c is more than a century ahead of its time, as there are no current tanks equal to its weight.
simply weighing more does not a better tank make; conversely, weighing more is a bad thing. Weight is something that should be attempted to be kept down, a heavier tank, other elements not accounted for, requires more resources to make, has a higher ground pressure, is less capable of dealing with various infrastructure elements such as bridges or even roads, needs more fuel to power, has a larger size which makes hitting and spotting it easier, and its mechanical systems have to deal with the extra weight and might be less reliable as a result.
The only thing one gets in return is maybe that it can knock trees over more easily....

also

>bridging machines

so now one has to spend a huge amount of money to build bridging machines for one's super heavy tanks instead of just taking the bridge there.

"the only difference between an Abrams and a Tiger is a more powerful gun"
I fell for it

Something about the Sherman's suspension just seems sexy.

Like it.

>The original submission for the Panther was 30 tonnes using the same engine as the Tiger so it went fast

>so it went fast

Stop implying stuff where is the evidence for your "more maneuverable than T-34 ???

I hate when people like you imply stuff for no reason.

It's is horrible tho, the christie suspension is better in every aspect.

>comparing a late war t-34 production model to an early production model of the sherman

the sherman was taller than the t-34, how can slav tanklets even compete?

Why did OP choose such a low quality bait for his thread?

> gun was on par with the most common tank guns ( F-34. KwK 40, 75mm MK V) and the advent of the 76mm M1 allowed it to keep pace with the T-34-85

> poor traction was rectiifed mostly with the wider tracks used in the HVSS but overall wasn't a big deal

> also not really a big deal but was a result of using a radial engine in the initial design

> armor was equivalent to any other medium tank at the time

> the ammo storage issue was eventually fixed but the idea that they caught on fire regularly is mostly a meme

> this proves that you must be baiting

What a nice shape it has. US tanks always have great aesthetics.

All of the fucking models they had that were useless in the end. One light tank, one medium tank, and one heavy tank, and you're set. You don't need a separate infantry/anti-armour models, and you don't need so many different types of gun. The late war Panzer IV filled the role of a medium tank well enough, and the Panther could have preformed the role of a heavy tank very easily once the kinks were worked out.

Both VVSS and Christie fell by the wayside in favor of torsion bars.

How come a tank like the Tiger I had such a small gun when it was nearly 60 tonnes? I know tanks were relatively primitive in World War II compared to today, but it still amazes me. When I look at something like the Panther, it looks as though it should have a 90mm gun at least. A Tiger II looks like it could have had a 120mm.

Also, why did the Germans use go for such awkward sizes when designing guns? This might be my OCD talking, but 88mm? Why not just go for 90mm? And 37mm? Why not just go for 40mm?

f-34 was like 10 times better

>why did the Germans use go for such awkward sizes when designing guns? This might be my OCD talking, but 88mm? Why not just go for 90mm? And 37mm? Why not just go for 40mm?
It's not just them but i wonder that too.

>gun was fine
It really wasn't. Why do you think everyone was clamoring for a 90mm?

It's so the enemy can't use captured ammo. If your shells are a couple millimeters off from enemy's, they can't be fired from their guns.

Actually most of the use of the Sherman's gun was for shooting HE at soft targets. Machine gun nests, etc.

When Sherman tanks had their guns upgraded, the crews usually complained because the new gun wasn't as good at firing HE shells, despite being a better anti-tank gun.

>the crews
Don't generalize all crews. Any tank crew who ever had to face a Panther was quite happy to get the 76mm I'm quite sure.

37mm is 1.5 inches, which is a nice round number for the British.

This is a soviet thing, Germans didn't practice it.

>This might be my OCD talking, but 88mm? Why not just go for 90mm? And 37mm? Why not just go for 40mm?
Germans didn't measure tank guns in mm, they measured in calibers like L56, L71, etc

The Tiger I's tank was perfectly fine. In fact it was by far the best thing about it. It was considering larger than most guns ever considered at the outset of WWII. They took it from an AAA gun, originally. Germans found it was very effective against T-34s, when found themselves overrun and had to turn their AAA guns down for direct fire purposes.

There had been plans to outfit the Tiger II with the 128 mm gun used on the Jagdtiger, but I can't remember if it ever actually got built.

Non-round units, IIRC came from conversions from other units. The original 37 mm, I think, originally fired a 1 lb shell of british design. This got mass produced, they mass produced the shells, they wanted new designs that used old shells, they produced new ammo for the new guns as well, 37 mm was just a legacy caliber. Same with 57 mm etc. There's no virtue in having a round number caliber, so those retards who couldn't handle odd numbers were sent to the front to be used as cannonfodder.

but again most tank crews were fighting against bunkers, machine guns, enemy infantry, and not panthers. Most crews are going to be complaining that they can't deal with those as easily.
Besides, the 75mm was more than capable of defeating the panther's side and rear armor, while the 76mm couldn't defeat the panther's glacis armor anyway.

You do not understand armored tactics/warfare because you play War Thunder. The Sherman was decently maneuverable, fast, armored, and it had an okay gun. It also was extremely easy to mass produce and repair.

I like you, user-kun

The Sherman's pretty good in War Thunder. Shows off the good frontal armor. Unlike their competitors, they do a pretty good job in historical accuracy of their vehicles. The "Shermans suck" meme comes from History Channel. In fact a lot of War Thunder players got shocked at how decent the Sherman was when they introduced it to the game, because of that myth.

>Maneuverable
>fast

Not really. It was "maneuverable" but in the strategic sense of the word. You could fit them compactly onto boats and ship them to anywhere in the world. You could squeeze them through narrow European roads, and they were light enough to cross bridges that much heavier German tanks couldn't cross. Which is very important, obviously.

In the actual battlefield, it wasn't quite as maneuverable as German tanks, struggling with mud and hills where German tanks did better. This was mostly due to track design, which later Sherman variants fixed.

>speed

Pretty average for medium tanks. They could get to the front well due to above mentioned reasons and good American logistics, but top speed wasn't anything to write home about.

Is it just me or do British WWII vehicles have a certain ruggedness about them that no others have?

The early Sherman models honestly look so dumb and intimidating

Their infantry tanks doctrine was purposefully rugged.

They felt that some tanks would be used specifically to support infantry advancements, and except for the early blitzkrieg movements, that's largely how tank warfare preceded in WWII. It was similar to, but different in description from, the light/medium/heavy tank doctrine of Germans and Soviets.

The dimensions of the T-34 didn't change very much and neither did the Sherman.

Also, height isn't something you want in tank design. Sherman tank's height was to compensate for its narrow width, and advantage in shipping.

By that logic they should never have replaced the 75 at all.

Even Army Ordnance finally decided the "purity" of the logistics train could get fucked and so could the tankers doing infantry support, they needed to keep up with the gun arms race. Your tanks cannot support infantry if they can't knock out enemy tanks when encountered. There's a reason the M26 was made standard in 1945; the Sherman was brought back for Korea only because they hadn't figured out how to give their heavier tank an engine capable of handling the mountains.

The Sherman was out of date by 1945, period.

The caliber stands for the length of the barrel in relation to it's calibre, the 75mm L/48 gun for example had a barrel of 75*48=3600mm length.

You mean the Royal Engineers version with it's Petárd-mortar? That thing was mental.

That is a fantastic fucking table, where is it from?

This book. amazon.com/Data-World-War-Tank-Engagements/dp/1470079062

But most Shermans were not fighting Panthers. Statistically the bigger concern was actually soft targets- some dude hiding in a fox hole with a panzerfaust or an AT gun hidden in a stand of trees was far more dangerous than an enormous Panther.

The Soviet 76 and 85mm guns they put on the bulk of their T-34's performed on par with the American 75 and 76mm guns. Performance differences were insignificant.

>low velocity gun
In 1942 a multi-role gun adopted from a French field gun was the logical choice for a general purpose tank. Remember, Panthers were not a thing and Tigers were never going to hit major production numbers. Against a Panzer 3 or a Panzer 4 the 75mm was more than adequate and still featured a robust variety of other munition types.
>thin armor
Armor was more than sufficient.
>prone to fire
On introduction they were statistically on par with tanks in their class, and by the end of the war was actually the safest tank to be in.
>only 30 tons compared to 60 tons on a Tiger tank
34 tons, specifically. And that was a good thing. Tanks like the Panther and the Tiger had to be designed to ford rivers because most bridges that were not in urban sectors likely would not be able to support them.

The Sherman was not a "bad" tanks by any means but it certainly wasn't good. Just like the Soviets, the US sought to get an advantage on Germany's superior tanks by going quantity over quality with fast and simple technology. It's 75mm cannon wasn't bad (i can point to several worse British/Soviet tanks) but its armor was pretty weak. It got the job done.

I agree with the fuel problem, but the Panther was a bad ass tank - considering it was Germany's medium tank through the mid-late war, it put her back at the forefront tank-wise when the Pz IV was becoming rather obsolete. That being said, it could put a hole through pretty much everything the Allies could throw at it, while being a little bit more practical than Tiger or Konigstiger.

This. The 76mm Sherman and the Firefly were better, differentiated versions of the Sherman. I still prefer German technology, but the Firefly proved capable to take out the heavy tanks while the 76mm was a necessary upgrade similar to the 85mms on the Soviet T-34s.

The time between the Normandy landings and the surrender of Germany was only about 11 months. They made pretty good time all things considered.

This. The Churchill was utter trash, as the case for pretty much all of the British tanks. They're lucky they had absolute naval superiority.

Maybe when it comes to Pz IVs the 75mm was decent, but unless they were flanking, Panthers/Tigers would fuck them up. The 76mm at least gave American tanks a chance in that regard.

Germany's huge mistake was Hitler trying to play supreme commander and alter designs created by skilled engineers that would have been deadly effective.

God I love the early-war period. Pitting a TKS against a Pz I. Amazing how in how almost 4 years they were battling with Konigstigers and the like.

This.

Although I have no gripe with the Tiger's armament, Konigstiger solved the problem there.

Europe is small - and considering the Soviet Army was a thing, 11 months is quite a long time. 11 months is long considering there are 3 world superpowers fighting you simultaneously and your lone ally is getting man-handled by just 1 of them.

>low velocity gun
>M4 75mm gun muzzle velocity - 618 m/s
>T-34 76mm gun muzzle velocity - 655 m/s
*thinks*

>Also, why did the Germans use go for such awkward sizes when designing guns? This might be my OCD talking, but 88mm? Why not just go for 90mm? And 37mm? Why not just go for 40mm?
Oftentimes the gun chosen was due to one of four reasons
>Inches vs mm (76.2 mm gun is 3 inches, 152 mm is 6 inches)
>Differentiating between guns (if you have two guns that are both the same bore diameter but not interchangable than you might shrink or increase one of them by 1 mm to differentiate. Eg. the 77 mm HV was a 17 pounder with a cut down case, but was called the 77 mm to differentiate it from 76 mm guns that it wasn't interchangeable with)
>Gun was based off older weapons measured in pounds
>Needing to fit inside another tank or vehicle

Beyond that minor increases in calibre can greatly increase shell size. Think of it like this an 80 mm long cylinder with a diameter of 37 mm has a volume of 86,000 cmm, increase the diameter by just four inches and its volume increases to 101,000 cmm or a 17% increase, which is pretty big, especially when that increase might make it so you have to make a new tank altogether or a new carriage for an artillery or anti-tank gun.

you missed the point mate. on paper the churchill was trash, but in the field it was the ordinary footsolider's best mate and had immense utility and was as reliable as they come. probably the most important allied tank of the war.

compare that with the late war german tanks that were absolutely immense on paper, but as the designs became more intricate, complex and expensive, they became a burden.

i meant the western front allied factions here. t34 was obviously THE most important tank of the war.

>Churchill
Dude what? The most important Allied tank was the Sherman, bar none, no contest. Or do you mean "best" tank? Though even then you're still wrong.

>This. The Churchill was utter trash, as the case for pretty much all of the British tanks. They're lucky they had absolute naval superiority.

The churchill was by far the most successful heavy tank design to have originated early enough in the war to bear many design quirks from the WW1 era. The end result was a lot of soft perks that enabled it to cross terrain that tanks normally should not have been able to, and providing an effective platform for various utility needs.

>Maybe when it comes to Pz IVs the 75mm was decent, but unless they were flanking, Panthers/Tigers would fuck them up. The 76mm at least gave American tanks a chance in that regard.

Statistically the Americans just didn't run into too many Panthers and even fewer Tigers. They never had more than ~24 in North Africa, and in western Europe the Tiger 1's they did have were all concentrated in the British sector of Normandy.

>Germany's huge mistake was Hitler trying to play supreme commander and alter designs created by skilled engineers that would have been deadly effective.

Minor- or major- design shifts wouldn't change Germany's strategic situation.

>Although I have no gripe with the Tiger's armament, Konigstiger solved the problem there.

They built a tank that had an armament that was only realistically remotely practical for fighting IS-2 family vehicles. For every other imaginable vehicle the Germans fought another gun was more practical in light of considerations like weight, gun wear and manufacturing.

>This.

The Panzer 4 was showing it's age in 1942. It was a good design for it's time but it's armor simply wasn't up for the task. The notion of the Panther being a heavy tank is hysterical, it was a tank hunter, pure and simple. Soviet after-action reports struggled to tell the difference between AP and HE rounds, and the entire point of a heavy tank is to establish a breakthrough. Can't exactly do that when your tank vomits AP rounds.

Panthers were quite common, I dunno what you mean. The Nazi production rate of Panthers was higher than that of PzIVs as they were trying (though they failed) to re-equip all their armoured forces with them. Normandy Divisions had mixes, but Panzer divisions in late 44/early 45 had plenty of Panthers.

So yes, the 76mm was absolutely necessary. A Sherman or, for that matter, a Churchill with a 75 had no chance against a Panther if faced head-on, and in any case, the Panther outranged it.

>most successful heavy tank design to have originated early enough in the war to bear many design quirks from the WW1 era

That's an extremely specific category that does not help your case. The best heavy tank of the war was the Tiger I as it had the best gun, pretty good armour and was still decently mobile.

>The best heavy tank of the war was the Tiger I as it had the best gun, pretty good Armour and was still decently mobile

>better armor
>better mobility
>much cheaper
>comparable gun.

The Panther was considered a heavy tank by the Allies and it fell near enough to the weight range. The Tiger I was also a tank hunter and it was a heavy tank, so I don't see your point. As for the Panzer IV, it was obsolete by the late war, but it was still a decent medium tank and designing a new tank would take too long.