Was it a deathtrap?

Not that that would have shortened the war by one day. M4s were killing tigers up and down Italy just fine. And after Normandy, we hardly ever saw tanks.
But yeah. A handful of engagements would have been won with a better gun.

I heard that the U.S. Ordnance Department was aware of the Sherman being a 'Tommy Cooker', and attempted to implement various measures to address this issue. The design team was lead by Sheldon Rosenstein, a convicted child-beater, arsonist, and avid necrophiliac. Sheldon was reportedly pen-pals with Shiro Ishii, and Oskar Dirlewanger. When questioned about these letters outgoing to hostile countries, Sheldon replied that he was merely exchanging 'tips and tricks'. Sheldon's team designed a mechanism that would lock the crew hatches shut, thus trapping the crew, when smoke was detected inside the sherman after being penetrated and set alight. Not only that, but apparently there was also a following feature that was a re-take on the Brazen Bull. When the crew was burning to death, their screams would be amplified by speakers that projected outside the tank. The U.S. Ordnance Department justified these features by proclaiming that the Germans would be frightened by the hellish screams of the sherman crews being incinerated, and allied soldiers would be more motivated to fight hard, lest the same fate befall them. Sheldon also later devised a system that had a 1 in 59 chance of setting off an explosive charge in the ammunition storage every time the Sherman's engine was turned on. Supposedly, this was to 'test the crew's luck before battle'. This innovation was well-received by the U.S. Army, but was rejected for budgetary reasons. Upon receiving news of the Army's rejection, Sheldon bludgeoned his manservant to death with a fire iron in a fit of unstoppable rage. Years after the war, Sheldon tragically died in a fire, which he had started in a New York orphanage.

>When taking the slope of the armor into account the front of the Sherman was heavier armored than a Tiger 1
>The 75 could take out nearly any production tank from the side
>Was easy to fix and logistically speaking superior to any tank in production
>US doctrine mandated that specific anti tank weapons be used against heavier armor such as towed guns and fast anti tank carriages
It wasn't an MBT, but it was the best early to mid war tank. The only things better than it were in too few of production to actually matter. That is assuming they even made it to the battlefield

>AH THE TOMMIE COOKER

does anyone have the actual statistics on tank crew casualties?

not in the early versions. Late production models dropped the wet storage as it wasn't needed after the ammo storage was moved lower in the Tank away from the main fuel tanks, solved most of the "Tommy cooker" problem...

>When taking the slope of the armor into account the front of the Sherman was heavier armored than a Tiger 1

Lol what? I'm not a Wehraboo and the Sherman variants are some of my favorite tanks but do you have anything to back that up?

Sherman armor sloped was still weaker than the Tigers flat armor. Now if you want to get into specifics of late war German metallurgy being shit and being weaker I'll buy it but just based on flat numbers the Tiger was better protected from the front and could take a Sherman out at farther ranges than a Sherman could hit it.

The Sherman's glacis plate was originally 50.8 mm (2.00 in) thick.[86][88] and angled at 56 degrees from the vertical, providing an effective thickness of 90.8 mm (3.57 in)
>The Tiger I had frontal hull armour 100 mm (3.9 in) thick
You are right, I miss spoke, I meant to say as thick. They are within 10mm of each other and even less on late war models.
>Tiger was better protected from the front and could take a Sherman out at farther ranges than a Sherman could hit it.
Yes, but why would a Sherman ever take on a Tiger head on? That's the job of anti tank guns. Tanks don't fight in a vacuum, they fight in a unit comprised of multiple elements. Real life isn't a video game, there's a lot more to winning a tank battle than who has the biggest gun.

>GRANDPAPPY

100% casualty rates.

Attached: M4 tank casualties.png (3600x1857, 318K)

Was it a deathtrap on its own?
No.
Was it a deathtrap going up against German panzers?
Yes.

So Panzerschrecks were the most dangerous weapon tank crews faced, in terms of casualty rates?

I imagine that's because balling out lands you in the arms of enemy infantry. Whereas with mines, you can usually just hop out and follow your tracks back to the depo to get a new tank.

You mean like stugs and panzer 3/4?? Cause those definitely did not outperform the shermans

Yep, add the fact that close range allowed the panzerschreck crew to either flank or target weak points on the tank.

Ignorant people use the catch all term "panzer" for the panther and tigers. Not that the Sherman was a "death trap" against either of those.

HEAT charges are the most dangerous penetrators. If the hatch is closed, which it will be in heavy combat the pressure from a HEAT round will kill kill everyone in a compartment.

well considering this user is screaming, i'd say yes

That what I call some high quality bullshit.go back to chuckhawks you fudd

Attached: 9d0c06021fa3985a49b59a6eaf9761bff64f4b1c57ec0d8d7f8198e12d7c5676.jpg (454x600, 42K)

I wouldn't be so sure about that.

Attached: Arracourt.png (314x750, 151K)

Attached: 1548113291458.png (2560x1440, 1.49M)

Attached: 1548114031183.png (2560x1440, 1.45M)

5 crew members? Shit was a party.
The reputation comes from the lend lease faggots who were previously digging up turnips before driving it.

Sounds accurate

Hey wait a second, this guy's being funny on Jow Forums! STOP HIM!

Attached: Ash and Jessie 02.jpg (1286x1274, 108K)

>It wasn't an MBT, but it was the best early to mid war tank.
Early? It first saw combat in September '42, roughly halfway through the war.

Attached: War Daddy II 04.png (800x499, 372K)

Don't worry, it's just old copypasta.

Idk about that
When it was introduced the gun was probably the best multi role AV gun out there. It was perfectly capable of taking out anything the enemy fielded at the time. When enemy tanks became tougher nuts to crack the US reacted quickly and made the long barrel 76mm gun, capable of perforating a pz. VIs armor at ranges of 300yds

I mean it regularly killed everything under the sun in WW2 so I wouldn't say it was bad against the Germans

Why so many variants?

Initially because different factories could make different things. This maker made this engine, that maker made that engine, these guys can cast a hull, those guys can weld a hull. So you got something like four or five variants to make sure everyone was making tanks at full capacity ASAP without unnecessary retooling or rebuilding of the factories. Then you get a few upgrades down the line, larger hatches, wet ammo stowage, 76mm gun, VVS suspension, such things.

depends on the country. britain had much higher casualty figures for tankers than US, possibly had to do with headwear

nothing compared to the wehrmachts fuckery with versions

Great medium tank. People died in it but if you're fighting an enemy with parity you can't expect zero casualties.

In addition to what said, there were also some requirements for each theater. Army units in Europe weren't opposed to the 76mm gun because it had higher velocity. Marine units in the Pacific wanted to keep the 75mm because it had more HE filler and they weren't facing a problem of Japanese tanks they had trouble penetrating. Both also had times they preferred tanks with the 105mm howitzer.
Part of it was the M4 and M4A1 with their cast hull was the initial vehicles, which was replaced by the M4A3 with its welded hull which became the standard Army tank. Both the A1 and A3 ran on gasoline because an Army memo said that was what tanks fielded would use.
The Marines were using the M4A2, which was diesel powered because the US Navy had a supply of diesel.
All the other variants were for things like different suspensions, tread widths, and other fairly minor changes.

Who was the fifth? The loader?

yep,worse then that really.

It was a tank designed best for WW1, it was a mobile coffin in ww2.

iirc
TC
Gunner
Loader
Radioman
Driver

>W E T

Attached: 1D337860-4300-4E6A-B14E-049F84F3992F.jpg (818x640, 67K)

I've seen that number brought up before and have no reason to doubt it, but I think it was a study conducted by one Army based on their experiences. Perhaps not the US Army overall.

It was a tank designed for the 1930s based on what the observed German capabilities were. The M4 was one of the newer tanks at the time of WW2 and it remained relevant even after the war.

Yup. Though the radioman had the designation of co/assistant-driver since they also used the hull's .30 cal machine gun.

Explain this shit, wehraboos

disgusting shitheap

Retard

>muh supplies
>da jews
>mutt

>tommy cooker

Attached: 1489910252257.png (665x465, 115K)

Whoever was closest to the shell hit.

I didn't know quoting Lindybeige was permitted on Jow Forums.

Well also because the British had a bad habit of going into battle with their tanks literally packed with ammo.

Iirc it was a study done by the First Army done on the entire population of said First Army instead of a smaller sample group. Other nations did studies/noticed trends as well and got similar result, iirc the Poles noticed for every 5 tanks knocked out they would lose 1 entire crew.

All tanks are death traps, in fact war itself is a fucking death trap to anyone caught in the middle of it

It's more of a death-related activity, really.
Not so much a trap.
Death and death accessories.

You were far more likely to die carrying an M1 Garand than you were as a Sherman crewman

That is fuddlore. There are actual studies that prove the overpressure is not deadly. The supersonic hot bits of armor and warhead liner are the main killing mechnism, followed by said hot metal bits starting fires and/or setting off the ammo.

Notice "Or broken down" on damage stat.
German tanks are so shit they KO themselves through self destructing transmissions.

>Late 1944
Kraut supplies of exotic additives for high-grade steel were depleted, armor was barely 30s-tier (ie less effective than it should be) and transmissions failed way short of design life (which was already inadequate)

>Was it a deathtrap?
ALL WW2 armour was a deathtrap but your chances of death were higher in a Russian or german tank

Like, every single line of this post is psinful to read.

>>When taking the slope of the armor into account the front of the Sherman was heavier armored than a Tiger 1
No, it had less effective frontal armoring than Pz VIA.
>The 75 could take out nearly any production tank from the side
Yes, and it's true for basically every tank ever. It was true for fucking T-40.
>Was easy to fix and logistically speaking superior to any tank in production
ENGINE, TOMMY, WHAT THE FUCK?
>US doctrine mandated that specific anti tank weapons be used against heavier armor such as towed guns and fast anti tank carriages
Yes, like in EVERY OTHER ARMY OUT THERE. German's most effective and mass-produced AFV of the WWII is a fucking StuG. Soviets produced more SU-76es through the war than US produced of every type of SPG combined.

>but it was the best early to mid war tank
1. It saw no action in early-to mid war, at all.
2. It's not T-34.

>The only things better than it were in too few of production to actually matter.
T-34.

Brainlet detected

Attached: 1553910181712.jpg (539x960, 28K)

I would feel pretty trapped in the middle of a cross fire with shells dropping, but hey that's just me

>ITT ARMCHAIR GENERALS DISCUSS TANKS ON PAPER STATS ALONE

Nearly every single crewman is dead.

Not just the crewmen, but the crewwomen and crewchildren too.

If it was the Jumbo than sure.

>casualty rate on penetrative hit
>Sherman is only 20%
>T-34 is 75-80%

ShErMaN iS a DeAtHtRaP

You're describing some late pattern present in the theater from late 44 onward which is when the fighting was done.

Honestly, the American contribution to WW2 is a cruel joke, compared to how much importance they've assigned themselves.

>Statistically 4 out of 5 crew members would survive every time one was “knocked out”.

That's almost a bogus statistic. Since a penetration from almost any realistic combat azimuth would affect at the very least 2 crew members, because of the way they are seated.

Heh

But the T-34 deflected more shots.

Lend-lease basically kept Russia in the game.

>Eastern front basically kept the Allies in the game

The M4 was actually tougher than the T-34 with a comparable slope and heavier armor.

Cast hulls were less brittle than welded hulls. This made them slightly weaker but also cut down on spalling. As a result you had less shrapnel killing the crew.

Being affected doesn’t mean getting killed.

>Allies kept themselves in the game by keeping the Soviets in the game

Attached: fauxjumbo.jpg (700x416, 96K)

>the freeaboo immediately resorts to attacking German tanks
Pathetic but besides whatever was going on with Germany yes it was hence the nick name tommy cooker

Attached: IMG_4701.jpg (938x890, 516K)

Go back to war thunder forums kiddo. Not every tank loss is from penetration.

Attached: 1542864301432s.jpg (125x125, 2K)

A jumbo would have close to 100mm sloped

I mean, isn't every tank by definition? You're locked up in some shitty metal box, hoping that whoever is firing on you, doesn't have enough firepower to penetrate you. Even then, you gotta pray that you don't drive over some IED and get your asshole and lower intenstines liquified.

I'd honestly prefer to serve aboard a ship than be part of any infantry/ground force.

Cast hulls had great protection for 1942.

>ship
>cowards in a U-boat torpedo you
>stuck in the middle the ocean

A u-boat is a ship too.

Subs are boats

From Armored Thunderbolt:
>A U.S. First Army study found that among the crew, the loader was the leastlikely to be killed (21.4 percent) while the bow gunner and turret gunner were the most likely (27 percent). Of tank crew casualties, about a quarter were killed and three-quarters wounded.
It also averaged as one killed and one wounded per Sherman knocked out.

>U-boat
>destroyers overhead dropping depth charges
>can feel the tremors of each one getting closer than the last
>tail gets hit and you start sinking to the bottom of the ocean while listening to the hull get crushed by the pressure

>do literally anything as infantry
>get arty shelled
>get bomb dropped on
>get shot by enemy infantry
>get shot by enemy sniper
>get shot by enemy tank
>get shot by enemy helo
>get mauled by dogs
>get sucked into mud
>get gassed
>get set on fire
>get white-phosphor-ed
>get IED'd
>get mine'd
>get sent home to mommy and buried whats left of me in a soup can
Thanks army.

>Coward
>In the single most dangerous service of the entire war