Anytime discussions about World War 2 pop up so too do discussions about the ultimate superiority of German tanks and how the Sherman was little more than a glorified coffin on tracks. This could not be farther from the truth. Here I will be discussing three of the most common and enduring myths of the Sherman tank.

First up is the armor of the Sherman, which is often criticized as being too thin and making the tank overly vulnerable to all forms of anti-tank weaponry of the period. The Sherman was actually one of the best armored medium tanks of the war from the front, far better than its equals the much vaunted and revered T-34, and the undervalued Panzer IV. The 51 mm of frontal hull armor on the Sherman was sloped back at 56 degrees from the vertical, giving it an effective armor value only slightly lower than that of the Tiger's 100 mm of un-sloped armor. The turret was protected by 76 mm of frontal armor which is enough to get the job done against the kinds of weapons it was facing. The sides and rear are sadly however another story entirely. The 38-45 mm of armor on the sides of the hull while weak, is about the same as that of the Panther and slightly more then that of the Panzer IV. The Waffenamt released a report which estimated that a Sherman angled sideways at 30 degrees would be impervious to the 8.8 cm KwK 36 L/56 gun of the Tiger and that the Panther would have to close to under 100 m to penetrate the Sherman with its 7.5 cm KwK 42 L/70 gun under the same conditions. The conclusion on the armor is that the armor was either superior or equal to nearly everything the Sherman faced in combat during World War 2.

Next up is the legendary "Ronson" moniker. People often point to the fact the Sherman uses an aircraft engine as evidence of how the Sherman would light up "first time, every time", as per the tag line of the source lighter. Now the engine may have been an aircraft engine, but that does not mean it must run on high octane fuel as this famous Youtube personality erroneously explains. Instead of high octane gasoline the Sherman used more often than not around 80 octane fuel, that's a lower octane rating than the lowest octane rated gasoline available at a gas station today, not to mention the ratings for octane differ on the type of vehicle being used. The standard 110 aircraft octane rating fuel is actually more around 130 octane fuel for ground vehicles. Now the Ronson myth does however have a bit of truth to it. Early Shermans had very vulnerable ammo racks which were stored in the "humps" near the front of the hull. The placement of these ammo racks made it easy for German gunners to know where to hit for catastrophic kills on the Sherman tanks. The army knew of this problem and moved immediately to fix it. The army developed "wet" ammo racks which involved putting the ammo racks inside of water filled jackets to douse any embers or fires immediately, and they also moved the ammo racks to the bottom of the tank to reduce the chances of them being hit by AT weapons. Wet stowage reduced the chances of an ammo rack fire or detonation in Sherman tanks to only 15% compared to 60-80% of dry stowage Shermans. The conclusion on the Ronson myth is that while there is truth behind it, the myth has been so overblown as to rival the invulnerability myth of the Tiger.

Next and last is the “it takes five Shermans to kill a cat” myth. Now this one is pretty easy and a real laugh once you understand where it comes from. The myth is that German tanks were so superior to Shermans that the US had to field five Shermans to take them on. A simple answer is required for this one. US army tank platoons operated in groups of five tanks, this was the smallest operational group the US fielded from dedicated tank units. It may take only one Sherman to destroy a pillbox, but any time US command heard there was a tank or armored vehicle in the area they immediately dispatched a platoon regardless of what type of vehicle it was. If it was a Stug they would send five Shermans, a Panzer IV would merit the same response as would a Panther or a Tiger. We must remember this is war, you don’t fight fair, you fight to win and survive another day. You want as much of an unfair advantage over your opponent as is possible. If you were the commanding officer of a tank platoon you wouldn’t tell two of your tanks to head home when you find the vehicle you are after is a Stug III. You would likely tell those two tanks to sit back and cover your advance so as to make sure you and your other two tanks aren’t ambushed and killed while you engage the Stug. The same principle applied to higher numbers of enemy tanks, if the enemy had a platoon of tanks you went in with a company of tanks and so on and so on. This part of the US armor doctrine has unfortunately lead many to believe the German tanks were of far superior quality when in fact they were often comparable or even inferior to the Sherman in terms of combat performance. There is a reason tankers preferred the Sherman over the M26 Pershing even during World War 2 and why we quickly switched out our Pershings for M46 Pattons and you guessed it Shermans during the Korean War. The conclusion to this myth is that while it again had a basis in fact these facts have been twisted and misinterpreted into something they are not and in fact quite dramatically refute.

Sources:

Zaloga, Steve. Armored Champion: The Top Tanks of World War II. Mechanicsburg: Stackpole, 2015. Print.

Zaloga, Steve. Armored Thunderbolt: The U.S. Army Sherman in World War II. Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole, 2008. Print.

Wikipedia

Edit: Some words and clarification.

Edit 2: HOLY CRAP. I come off work to see my inbox stuffed and find this is my most liked and commented on post ever. Thanks guys for the wonderful discussions and information!