Evolution of the Sherman | Was it any good? 

Hello tank-nuts! Let us know what you thought of our latest video in the comments.

My grandfather, Sherman commander 17th Tank Battalion 7th Armored said to anyone who asked and I quote "People give the Sherman hell because the armor couldn't stop the kraut 75s and 88s, well name me one damn allied tank that could outside of the big Russian ones at the very end of the war" He also pointed out that "Not every German tank was a Tiger" and "They burned because some guys stuffed them overly full of gun rounds" Granted this was one man's perspective, but I wish he could have been interviewed by a museum like yours before he passed in 2012, in his shed, smoking a cigar cleaning a shotgun after pheasant hunting. Great man.

"Holy Roller" is an M4A2 that landed on D-Day and was still in service on V-E Day. It can be seen in Victoria Park in London, Ontario.

A key advantage of the sherman that you didn't touch on was logistics. it was designed to be very easy (relatively, for a tank of the time) to transport by rail and by sea to all corners of the world. also, compared to its contemporaries, it was designed to be easy to repair, with modular systems like a transmission that could be swapped out as a unit.

Am surprised the 75mm Sherman's rapid rate of fire and fast turret traverse wasn't mentioned. All very useful in Normandy when the typical engagement was at close range (less than 500m). The HE round was outstanding.

If I had to pick one tank to go to war in during WW2, it would be the Easy 8 Sherman. Reliable engine, wider tracks, big enough gun, and again, reliable engine.

Funny, just last week Paul Woodadge at WW2TV just did a myth busting episode on the Sherman with Chieftain as his guest to specifically address the origins of the Tommy Cooker myth.

The Sherman was the perfect example of the best balance of all the different requirements. Easy to produce, relatively cheap, quick, reliable, easy to maintain and repair, decent guns and decent armour. Whilst other tanks could have beaten it 1 on 1, there were many the Sherman could also go toe to toe with. Any that could best it directly on the field would have had glaring weaknesses elsewhere, usually related to production, reliability and logistics.

Strategic mobility is also important…the Sherman was designed to be built in Michigan, shipped to England, and ferried across the Channel in an assault landing craft…lots of weight restrictions involved even before it appeared on the battlefield.

Honestly once the Sherman tanks got upgraded cannons they were able to go toe-to-toe against all German tanks. The armor wasn't as good compared to some of the later German models. But the number 1 deciding factor in tank v tank warfare was always about who got visual and range and fired first. Not to mention the US could outproduce everyone and field the most tanks.

My father served in the Canadian army as a radio operator/loader on a Firefly. He was at the front from October 1944 until the end of the war. Returning home in 1946. His tank was hit and burned out but thankfully they all got out.

The Sherman tank was also one of the safest tanks of the war. Sherman tanks that were hit had the highest chance of all crew members escaping the tank

The Sherman was not the greatest at tank on tank combat, but it was great at distributing high explosive shells and machine gun fire across the battlefield, and we built tons of them. if you were an infantryman, pinned down by a mg-42 in a barricaded position, or by a half-track, or what have you, you didn't care if the thing could penetrate a king tiger turret or not, you were just glad it was there

My reserve armoured regiment in Canada was equipped with Shermans into the 1970s. I served with guys in the 80s and 90s who were trained Sherman crewmen.

The Tommy Cooker and Zippo names when used in reference to the tanks catching fire is incorrect according to a few other historians. Apparently the British tankers referred to all of their tanks in the desert as Tommy Cookers due to the extreme heat inside the tank, and the Zippo was a nickname given to flamethrower tanks. The thing about the Sherman fire myth is that all tanks, especially early to mid war, would burn. Most tanks stored ammo in the sponsons or other dangerous areas.

As far as I know, according to WW2 statistics Sherman's didn't catch on fire more frequently than other gas run tanks of the era... The Chieftain explained it thoroughly many times...!

That the Israelis were still using Sherman's (upgunned, of course and with a Cummins diesel motor) into the 1980s testifies to its good design.

According to my reading, the reason for the sponson gun in the M3 was because of the challenge of casing a hull with a turret ring large enough to fit the turret. Building the turret was not the limiting factor. It was the inability to pour the turret ring.

The constant bursting into flames is kind of a myth.....

The Sherman was reliable and much easier to repair unlike many contemporary tanks.

The Sherman was a revolutionary tank. Every tank nowadays has "rolling upgrades" just as the Sherman's started

I learned recently that the British Army actually really liked the US 75 mm gun from the Sherman tank, at least early on. They would salvage 75 mm guns from damaged/destroyed Shermans and mount them on Churchill tanks. Field modified Churchills are easy to spot in photographs because they have the external gun shield from the Sherman.

In a Sherman was one of the safer jobs to have. Also it's down to logistics. We had to ship it across a ocean to fight. Then transport supplies once it got there. On top of that spare parts were available.

The Sherman was an outstanding tank in its basic configuration, with excellent armor and a good gun with a superb HE round when it was introduced, and it was still a very good match for US tank doctrine late in the war, even in the European theater. The fact that it was accompanied by Shermans and M10 tank destroyers with 3 inch guns that could frontally defeat Tigers and Panzer IVs in ample abundance made it even better in theater, and it's part of why the Allies steamrolled their opposition in every theater. The Sherman in any configuration is one of the best tanks of the war, and they had tens of thousands of them available. The numbers alone tell the tale, it did very well.

Another advantage, pointed out by historians, it was shippable. It was small/light enough to be shipped easily by rail, or by boat across the Atlantic. Try that with a Tiger. or even a Churchill.

14:55 75mm M3 was absolutely designed as an anti-armour weapon, being a successor to the 75mm M1897A4 which served on M3 GMC halftracks as tank destroyers.

I wish you would have talked about the life of the Sherman after WWII, because there's a lot of interesting things that countries did with Shermans in the Cold War Era. The French, Israelis, and other countries had projects to adapt and up-gun Sherman Tanks they purchased

As in so much of such assessments, context matters: when did it come into usage; how was it intended to be used; what was its strengths and vulnerabilities; etc.. This is true for a wide range of "its", not just tanks. When introduced, the M4 was very effective. That it had an effective HE round - better than the upgrade 76 mm gun's - indicates that infantry support was intended to at least be a significant role (just as having an AP round proves that tank vs. tank was an expected role). Infantry support actions get less attention in tank histories, thus the M4's effectiveness in this role is much less visible/known. Implied, though not directly mentioned, is that contemporary British and German tanks were less reliable and serviceable than M4s. Also not mentioned is that because the allies were attacking to liberate, M4s (and other allied tanks, of course) often were driving into German tanks in concealment or prepared positions, advantageous to the German tanks.

My father was a design engineer/ welder at Detroit facility for the duration of WW II. He would design and make modifications on the first shift, then went on the line and welded for his second shift every day. He had an unbelievable constitution. Rarely slept more than 4 hours a day. I know he gave his all to help support and win the war. I am honored and grateful to him, and all the other men and women who " left it all on the field" for this nation. Thank you!

Excellent video. I think two points were sadly missed: 1) part of the M4's design was to allow for its shipment across the oceans, which limited its tare mass; and, 2) the provisions for crew survival with the reasonably well-placed hatches for the crew to escape a knocked out tank. I'd also add its relative ease of maintenance, but the archive photos made the point.

Honestly surprised that the myth of excess flammability being continued here.

One of the major advantages of the Sherman was it was mechanically reliable - 15 to 20% of German tanks had issues before they reach the battle.

Thie was an enjoyable vid. My father's regiment, Lothian and Border Horse Yeomanry, was equipped with the M4A2 later on in North Africa. Matildas and Crusaders being superceded by it. They were part of the 6th Armoured Division and took part in Operation Torch. Later, fully equipped with Shermans, they were brought over for the 4th battle of Monte Casino and chased the Wehrmacht all the way to the river Po.

Tank Museum should pay more attention to the research done by LTC Nick Moran (the Chieftain). Why the Sherman was what it was had as much to do with the fact that every Sherman had to be shipped a minimum of 3000 miles on ships and from port facilities not suited to tanks much larger or heavier. The concept of a heavy tank wasn't unappreciated by American planners but, for a big part of the war, logistics and production concerns dictated a medium tank. I believe it was Moran who said something along the lines of, "Better to have a hundred medium tanks now than 25 heavy tanks in a while."

The Sherman was a robust enough design that with upgrades it could be a competitive tank with any medium tank in the world and have a decent chance against any heavy tank in the world, of course depending on variant, etc. even at the end of WWII. It was an easily repairable tank, something Chieftain has remarked on before.

Chris Copson is an excellent presenter, yet another informative film with first rate production quality from the Tank Museum, how fortunate we are. Both Chris and Fam are superb new additions to the presentation team and the recent content from the world’s best armour museum seems to just get better and better. Thanks to all at the Tank Museum !

My grandpa was a tank commander in the 1st Canadian Armored Division under General Patton in the 8th Army. He rode in a Sherman all the way across Europe and said it was one of the best tanks of the war. He told me that he pissed himself the first time they got hit. But the round didn't penetrate so they kept on fighting.

brilliant video as always , we are all very lucky to have this content

Excellent video thanks Chris. Many years ago we met an ex Sherman tanker out walking and got chatting after he overheard us talking tanks as kids. He was open about its flaws but very proud of it. He said their commanders worked out of the tank a lot to spot the enemy first and said where possible they then used its speed to outflank the Germans to get at their side or rear. That’s where their radios and coordination allowed them to effectively take on even Tigers. That chap was so important in my grasp of tactics being a major part of the effectiveness, over ’Top-trumps’ figures, from a relatively young age.

Thank you for taking the time to make this documentary. It was very useful and informative!

something to keep inmind about the shermans bursting into flames. they bursted into flames about the same amount of other tanks, but it was way more survivable and easy to escape. and later war shermans had the ammo moved to the floor reducing the tanks chances of ammunition cook off. wet stowage itself is controversial, and its consider to probably of not done much to help

Like you already said in the video combat is fought in the factory as well as on the battlefield, if you look at the cost and production time of the Sherman tank then it rivals and may even surpass the efficacy of the T-34, and that is something, while maintaining decent quality of armor and gear.

And the last thing to add, whey criticising Sherman's armiir dont forget about the armour of the British equivalent, the Cromwell. It had thinner, not sloped armour and a shorter barelled gun which made it anti-armour effectiveness worse than m3 gun. It was just faster and more manoeuvrable.

Excellent 'chat’ that put to bed some of the myths of the Sherman. I wasnt aware of the number of variations. Very well delivered and the ‘pacing’ and editing in of actual footage was excellent. The Tank Museum is very lucky to have such authoritative people delivering the talks. If I was to have a suggestion it would be that with all the technical info a graphic to show differences would be good. For example a graphic (bar chart?) comparing the muzzle velocity and penetration of the various guns.

def the best, most adaptable, most reliable medium tank of WWII. No other tank could have exploited Operation Cobra the way the Sherman did.

A fine video. Nicholas Moran (The Chieftain) also does a great analysis of the tank citing it's realability, it's adaptability (including assault engineering roles) and the fact that it could be shipped just about anywhere from the battlefields of Western Europe to a far flung Pacific atoll. It doesn't have the glamour or the mystic of a Tiger but it's a solid work horse of a tank.

Chris's presentations come with plenty of great research and brilliant video back fill. Thank you Tank Museum.

The sherman was my introduction to tanks growing up and will always have a special place in my heart.

Masterful video, well explained, thanks,as ever Christopher!😊

So tank museum hired the former "history channel" writers? All tanks burn, it is often combat doctrine to shoot a tank till it burns 1942 Sherman is under gunned ? Ok what could it not kill ? M2 gun was very short lived even on M3 The harping on height is common, because hull down is not a thing I guess. No TDs were not supposed to be the primary AT unit as the Sherman was also supposed to fight tanks read Armor Force FM. A2 was sent to USSR in good part due to Soviet use of Diesel. 98mm not bad ? So Tiger I is what ok at less than a cm more ? APDS was wildly inaccrate. 76mm was available in june commenders decided not to use them on D Day.

My dad was a Tank Commander of a M4 Sherman, he fought with the 1st Echelon of the New Zealand Division, he was converted to tanks after being wounded taken POW and Escaped. He loved his Sherman and particularly its engine. Yes all the New Zealand Shermans were powered by the the mighty Ford GAA V8, 18 Litre engine. My dad only purchased and drove a brand new Ford to the day he died! My Favorite was his Ford Falcon 500, Super Pursuit, Station Wagon, it was so big and strong with a 3.65 Litre engine, or was it 4.1Litre? Cripes I'm getting old!

Thank you Mr. Copson - really nice presentation with plenty of detail, and discussion around the pros and cons of the Sherman.

Name one other tank that would have worked better than the Sherman. From performance, to reliability, to manufacturing, to repair, to logistics, from the Pacific to the Bastogne, I can’t come up with a better choice for the allies.

We have a saying here in America that puts an end to arguments like this one. "Scoreboard." It translates roughly to, "yes your panzers were ferocious but we won so..." Yeah.

Since I found your channel I’ve learned so much about WW2 amour and I’ve been a war buff most of my life so thank you very much for your Tank Chats they’re most entertaining and informative very well done.

Great video! Thanks for bringing these things out, and thanks for clearing up a Lot of the misconceptions about the M4. Great work!

An excellent dissertation! Well done! 👍

This is an excellent review of the Sherman and its variants. From development to deploymemt. Thank you!

Look at how many M4's saw combat service, and how man were lost, and also many of the crew actually died. Something incredible like 97% of all M4 crew survived the war. Even when a Sherman was badly hit, the crew still had a very good chance of surviving. There's even some incredible footage this actually happening caught on film. It's amazing how quickly the crew could bail out if they needed to. Most other tanks of that era were much harder to bail out from, and I don't think any were easier to bail out from.

You missed one of the M4's greatest strengths being so simple and easy to be maintained. She was built from the outset to be able to be completely rebuilding drivtrain with nothing more than a small engine crane and simple hand tools and to have the job done in a matter of hours instead of the days to weeks required by a drive train swap for even the Mk4 much less a Tiger or Panther.

A lovely overview of the Sherman. I came to really appreciate the Sherman and get increasingly annoyed by various myths surrounding it. The Sherman burning myth, for the matter. I always wonder how does it compare to similar tanks of other nations and often struggle to find any decent data. From what I was able to stumble upon over the years, it does not look like Shermans burned at any more significant rate than comparable designs of other nations, like T-34, or Panzer IV. And when wet ammo bins became available, Shermans burned considerably LESS than competition, it seems. Ammo placement of the Sherman seems to be a contributing factor to the myth of its flammability, which bothers me to no end. Because most of the tanks of the period have similarly placed ammo, yet do not face the same amount of criticism. Iconic Tiger and Panther tanks have ammo stored in sponsons exactly like Sherman does. Panzer IV has one of its racks just behind the Driver's position, meaning a hull penetration is likely to detonate it. Crusaders and Cromwells have ammo around turret ring areas. Soviet tanks are also infamously crammed, with ammo stored on the floor and sides of the hull, on top of the entire sides being covered in fuel tanks. Most of the medium tanks of the period also had similarly thin side armour - 38mm for Sherman, 30mm for Panzer IV H, 45mm for T-34, 40-45mm for Panther. It is not like Sherman was uniquely thin. And yet, somehow the Sherman is supposedly uniquely flammable? Something does not add up here. Now, as for Sherman's gun not being designed as AT weapon... Well... M3 GMC would like to have a word - a tank destroyer carrying basically the same gun as Sherman. It is just that Sherman's gun could no longer keep up when Panthers and Tigers became more common.

Montgomery built his reputation on the fortuitous arrival of 300 Shermans, at the time it was excellent compared to its enemies.

Very well done video! Covered so much ground in an easily understood and viewable way.

I think that is a very fair assessment and documentary about the evolution of the Sherman and its value. Thank you for your even handed approach.

I read a memoir of a Soviet tank commander. He loved the Sherman, thought it much better than the T-34, and he'd fought in both. One point was that the Sherman was comfortable, while the T-34 beat the crew up. This may not sound like much, but crew fatigue is a real thing. Exhausted men can't react as fast or aim as well. He also lauded the Sherman's reliability. His company of Sherman tanks would handle a long journey with no problems, while the T-34's would be dropping out due to malfunctions. Their mechanics were envied, because they had abundant spare parts and were equipped with full sets of American tools. The T-34 mechanics had to cannibalize and make do with the bare minimum of tools. Did he feel that it was a problem going against Panthers and Tigers? Not really, he never allowed his boys to fight one on one if he could help it. 2 to 1 was the minimum, 3 to 1 was better. Use one tank to distract at long range while working the others close, take off a tread, then they're dead meat. He noted that he had to always guard his Sherman tanks against Soviet infantry. They would steal the leather off the seats to fix their boots.

Very good video, but one thing that wasn’t really addressed was the weight factor for shipping to different war theaters which was of great importance. The weight that can be shipped on a train is far different than a ship in regard to lifting and stowing. The ability to mass produce medium tanks and quickly load them onboard transport ships was always at the forefront of the U.S. Ordnance Department’s mind. The book “Logistics of WWII: Final report of the Army Service Forces”, covers this in some detail.

The only problem with the Ronson nickname is the explanation that this was due to the slogan “lights first every time.” The issue is that this slogan appears in almost no surviving print ads, and not in any ads from the period right before or during the war. The most common slogan used in print ads for the Ronson is “The World’s Greatest Lighter.” To a leaser extent, the slogan “Flip… It’s Lit… Release… It’s Out” or “Press… It’s Lit… Release… It’s Out” appears regularly. Nowhere does the slogan “lights first every time” appear, except in a single ad from 1929 which states “Lights every time.” TANK AND AFV NEWS From the Editor: Lights First Every Time? page

Nick Moran demonstrated a significant survivability advantage of Shermans built after the first few - "Bugger! The tank's on fire". Escape from all positions is very fast.

to say the us wasn't doing anything to improve the fire power of the Sherman is inaccurate, there were designs to mount the 76mm gun into the Sherman as early as 1942, its just on the originally turret it wasn't as ideal even with modifications made. Add in that in 42 the Sherman was facing mostly pz IVs and pz IIIs, there was no need for the more powerful gun as the 75mm was sufficient against those vehicles. Even going into 43 where the tiger would show up, they were so rare that it wasn't worth forcing a 76mm into the Sherman just for the rare tiger sighting. it wouldn't be till 44 that a better designed turret for the 76 mm in the form of the T23 turret that they would make the switch now that it could be done much more reliably, rather than having another rush job like the Lee/Grant or the Firefly.

Don't forget that the Sherman was also used in the Pacific theater. A good all around tank for a bitter war.

I read a memoir of a Red Army tank commander who served in both T-34s and Shermans. He said that they were both good, and had their positives and negatives as any tank did. The Sherman was very ergonomic and "luxurious", and the comparative drawback of the high profile ended up saving his life once - the Sherman hit a ditch and rolled on its side, and as the rest of the platoon proceeded down the road, they came upon an ambush of antitank guns and were destroyed.

As always, an excellent, informative and entertaining video! Nothing less expected from them lads.

The Chieftain believes the appellation Tommy cooker was coined by the British in N Africa as all British tanks there were saunas.

The Germans feared the Firefly. They always looked for that massive 17 pounder sticking out of the turret so they could take those out first. This prompted British tank crews to paint a camo scheme on the barrel of the gun to make it look like a 75mm.

Great video Chris, love the way you explain everything so well.

My family visited the UK in early July 2018 and my son and I altered our visit to include the museum because of my son’s love of the game World of Tanks and our love of Fury. We had an awesome visit and can’t wait to go back someday.

i`m wearing my Sherman Fury slippers bought form the tank museum shop. Rugged an reliable!

At the Battle of Arracourt, those older M4’s with 75mm guns took on Panthers and won. There’s more to a tank than the triangle of armor, gun, and mobility. Need to consider how well it’s set up for the operators, logistical support (maintenance, spares, etcetera), operational doctrine, and training. The German cats were harder to supply, maintain, operate, and learn compared to the Sherman.

I enjoyed this enlightened program. I recommend books by Stephen Zaloga. As others have mentioned, the weight, dimensions, and length of the gun were chosen so that the maximum number of M4s could fit on the ships that were designed to carry them. The Sherman was indeed designed to be easy to repair, because none of them were going back across the Atlantic (or Pacific) to be repaired at the factory. One thing that the United States got right in WW2 was the logistics train. That train kept new tanks coming, and shipped the parts to repair the ones that could be fixed.

My father was the bow gunner in a Sherman tank. 3rd Army, 4th Armored, 37th Tank Battalion, Company C. His company, under Colonel Creighton Abrams, spearheaded the 3rd Army's penetration into Nazi lines in Baston. Massive respect to everyone who fought in that war.

Should have gone on about postwar modifications such as Egypt replacing the Sherman’s turret with that of the AMX-13 and Israel’s deep modifications with 75mm and 105mm guns.

Easy to produce, easy to maintain, quick, relatively light so not bogged down and economical on fuel. Yes it didn’t have the best armour or gun but give me 5 Sherman’s over one panzer any day!

Very comprehensive story. Makes the point. Well done.

Well put together vid and well narrated. Thank you!

Sherman: the transmission broke after driving 1500 km from France to Germany - just unscrew these few bolts and replace the gearbox, spare parts are there. Panther: after rolling off the railway ramp, the transmission broke and the tank burst into flames - back to the factory...

The later versions were much improved over the early versions, less likely to catch fire when hit too. The Germans thought highly of their reliability, ease of maintenance, & space inside for the crew in examples they captured

Thank you, Sir. As a former Infantry Officer, I can tell you that ANY tank is better then no tank when you need one. I believe the Sherman tank filled a gap when it was needed.

Another solid addition to this series. Pls keep them coming. Cheers from across the pond.

best tank of WW2, as close to perfect as you can get. realiable, easy to repair, easy to transport, easy to mass produce, easy to upgrade, capable against tanks, capable against infantry; absolutley perfect for global attritional warfare. hard to point at a single thing and credit it for winning a whole war; but I'd think history'd be different if we never got the sherman.

Could also have mentioned that with engine and armament upgrades the Sherman was used by the IDF well into the 1970s and was able to hold its own against T54's and T62's in the 1973 War

Well done. A superior presentation. Thank you.

Brilliant bit of video ! Well done guys!

I’m surprised no mention of the stricken weight limit because it was loaded by crane onto ships. While German and Soviet armor were not limited by this weight restriction because they were shipped by rail.

Not all Shermans were built in the US, hundreds were built in Canada. My Grandmother worked at GMC Diesel in London Ontario

It’s important to remember that the Sherman was on the offensive which increased combat losses being one side is hiding in the trees while the other is rolling down roads & open fields.

Superb video, your production value is so high now. Merry Christmas!

Sherman is my favorite tank. It's a winner.

I recently read the story of the Sherwood Rangers-book title currently ‘escaping’ me. The Sherman was used as an assault tank and occasional indirect-firing self-propelled artillery, hence the higher numbers of damaged and destroyed tanks. The gun also had a superb rate of fire. The British Army Sherman tanks were operated in conjunction with Churchill tanks, massed artillery and significant infantry attacks; to do the heavy work of destroying fortifications and forcing back the German Heer-Army. The Comets were used for rapid exploitation of defensive gaps.

Thank you for doing another one of these!! I loved the Spitfire one, so seeing this had released made me super hyped!

Setting aside that online tank debates often don't define what measure of "good" they're using - it feels like the Sherman succeeds in all the ways that aren't "sexy". It doesn't have the biggest gun or the most armour or some superweapon unproven technology...it's survivable, easy to maintain, was available in large numbers, and was flexible / adaptable enough to suit multiple theatres of war and multiple roles, none of which have that "bedroom wall poster" factor that makes tanks 'cool'.