How many m4 shermans were built in ww2

Army built seven principle variations of the M4 Sherman. These variations did not represent a linear improvement of the vehicle but rather changes in engine type, production location, or fuel type. As the tank was produced, a variety of improvements were introduced, including a heavier, high-velocity 76mm gun, "wet" ammunition storage, a more powerful engine, and thicker armor.

In addition, numerous variations of the basic medium tank were built. These included a number of Shermans mounted with a mm howitzer instead of the usual 75mm gun, as well as the M4A3E2 Jumbo Sherman. Featuring a heavier turret and armor, the Jumbo Sherman was designed for assaulting fortifications and aiding in breaking out of Normandy.

Other popular variations included Shermans equipped with duplex drive systems for amphibious operations and those armed with the R3 flame thrower. Tanks possessing this weapon were frequently used for clearing enemy bunkers and earned the nickname "Zippos," after the famous lighter. The first U. Shermans saw combat the following month in North Africa. These two variants were the principle versions in use until the introduction of the popular hp M4A3 in late When the Sherman first entered service, it was superior to the German tanks it faced in North Africa and remained at least on par with the medium Panzer IV series throughout the war.

With the landings in Normandy in June , it was learned that the Sherman's 75mm gun was incapable of penetrating the front armor of the heavier German Panther and Tiger tanks. This led to the rapid introduction of the high-velocity 76mm gun. F2, G and H, known as the "Mk. IV Special". This led to the rapid introduction of the high velocity 76mm gun, initially on a limited scale, to Sherman units. Even with this upgrade, it was found that the Sherman was only capable of defeating the Panther and Tiger at close range, or by attacking from the flank.

Using superior tactics, and working in conjunction with tank destroyers and air power, usually offered Allied tanks the best opportunities for destroying their heavier German counterparts. The British Army, in order to ameliorate the problem of the Sherman's lack of killing power, also devised the Sherman Firefly: a modified M4, mounting the exceptionally powerful British pounder gun as its main armament. This was capable of taking on the Panzers V and VI Panther and Tiger , even across the frontal arc the most heavily protected part of the tank ; however, difficulties in design delayed the deployment of the Firefly, and limited British manufacturing capability meant that there were never enough to equip all British armoured regiments in Normandy.

There are copious original source records extent and readily available that prove it historically. If you had done this research with an open mind, intent on learning for yourself what the pros and cons of the M4A series were when pitted against the German PzKpfw VI Tiger and PzKpfw V Panther, you would have quickly discovered that you were wrong on every point.

The idea that American tanks were not meant to combat enemy armour is not a product of scholarship but of apologists. Tanks in Independent Tank Battalions were intended to support infantry operations, again including combating enemy armour.

The military mission of a tank is not to be reliable or easy to maintain. The performance of the M26 Pershing in Korea is not relevant here. The M4A could not master its German foes, full stop. The men who fought the outclassed and obsolete M4A-series tanks got the job done, in spite of appalling losses and bureaucratic betrayal.

Imagine such men fighting from the M Imagine how many more might have come home. Well, speaking of bias, you seem to have rather obviously chosen a side. As much as you dismiss its performance in Korea, it is true that, when it came to fighting other tanks, the Pershing was favoured — but in every other situation, the Sherman was preferred.

Maybe not a popular one, but considering the actual logistical and tactical situation, making and modifying a proven weapons system rather than deploying a tank still in development was the wise thing to do, as the reliability and ease of maintenance meant the Sherman could prove a vital component of the American combined arms system.

Same tank, different name. For a very good comparison of the Sherman Vs the T34 from a crew combat viewpoint; there are two books written by a retired Russian General of Tanks. He has some very interesting things to say about the combat functionality of the Sherman and the T Sorry, I cannot remember his name, or the titles of the books. T 34 Soviet Medium Tank around 85, were produced during the war a few months ago I did some research on this tank. It was not all that it was cracked up to be.

The Model , and tanks were armed with the Soviet The model speed and Models the Turrets were so cramped to begin with for two men, you were basically trapped. The Hull crew had one hatch and they were also working in very tight quarters. Location of fuel tanks one was in the fighting compartment with the main gun ammunition. THe M2 medium tank was the new tank armed with the 37 mm gun and a load of machine guns.

We were not in a position to build a new tank from the ground up so they took the best components of the M2 its suspension system for example enlarged the lower hull and Built over 6, M3 medium tanks the main production model had riveted armor and made use of either the M2 or M3 75 mm gun on a sponson mount and of coarse the turret had the main antitank gun the 37 mm gun.

The 75 mm gun was alow velocity weapon meant more for artillery than killing other tanks but it could be done they also had six or seven 30 caliber Brownings could be carried original crew members number seven but modifications reduced the crew to six in U.

The tracks of the M3 were to be one of the weak points they had large square like pads that had no gripping power. Latter production trucks had off set return rollers. The Upper hull of the M4 M4A2 and M4A3 were welded hulls and had direct vision ports for the driver and hull machine gunner and also had three. It is said that some of the early sherman were armed with the shorter barrel m2 75 mm gun just as were the M3 mediums were. Most were armed with the longer barrel M3 75 mm Low velocity gun howitzer.

In the early part of the war the United States was going to rely on towed Antitank guns and Half track mounted tank guns. They then decided to design a purpose built fully tracked anti tank gun based on the lower hull of the M4 Sherman tank specifically the M4A2 the and its diesel engine it was called the M10 the upper hull made use of angled welded armor and was armed with a 76 mm high velocity Antitank gun.

The turret was open top construction and its armor was lighter so as to increase speed and mobility they say and it was used in north Africa. This was the tank that was designed to hunt and kill enemy tanks,not the Sherman nor the lee, but in combat that did not always turn out to be the case.

Hello Mark, thanks for your insight, however for production numbers: Tmod40 tanks in , 2, T in with about 2, Tmod41s , 12, in 42 11, mod42s , 15, in , 14, in 44 with 21, mod. Note that some sources state slightly different numbers. Hello Jack. It is correct, it is in Eastern Prussia. It is a historical region which was German and now is Polish, south of Lithuania.

They also built the Grizzly, which was based on the M4A1. For the Russian M4A2 late production it says it had a 47 degree frontal armor, but also had an additional mm of armor added on… Is this true?

The above site and development history of the M4 Sherman fails to mention one of the most important transitional elements in the use of many components from the M3 Lee tank when designing the Sherman.

That is the design and construction of the Canadian Ram tank beforehand. A cursory examination of this tank reveals that with the exception of a slightly modified glacis and a redesigned turret capable of holding the larger 75mm main gun, the Sherman is nearly an exact copy of this tank.

The Ram design incorporated the suspension, engine and drive train of the M3 Lee, but utilized a lower profile cast hull mounting a turret containing the main gun — originally a 2 pounder which was eventually upgraded to a 6 pounder 57mm.

Thousands of Ram tanks however did fulfill a vital crew training function in Canada and Britain because in most respects they were identical to the Sherman tanks that Canadian Army crews first fought with in Italy and later in Northwestern Europe.

The later version Ram II also featured return rollers moved aft of the main suspension units, so by the time that the first cast hull versions of the Sherman began rolling off the assembly lines, with the slight exception of the turret, they looked like nearly an identical copy of the Canadian Ram tank.

Fantastic info on these Shermans. My grandfather drove one during the war so its always been my favorite. Keep up the great work guys! This is my new go to site for anything involving tanks.

Glad to hear it, Kevin. Does your Grandfather have any interesting tales? Sadly he passed away when I was young. I never really got a chance to talk to him about any of it. He was in the Pacific, Peleliu and Okinawa. He bought me a little Sherman tank made by Corgi when I was a kid, I still have it. Sorry to hear that, Kevin. That is very similar to my own grandfather.

He didnt say much either, not many of the war-fighting generation do, but when you read about the events you can understand why. And like you, my grandfather died when I was also very young. Well then Mark lets raise a glass of cheer for our grandfathers. Because without men like them doing that kind of job at that time then the world would have been a very dark place indeed.

I find it interesting that people think the Russian T34 was all that and a bag of chips, and that it was superior to German tanks. And that German tanks were superior to American tanks. Most late war german tanks in a one-on-one fight could defeat any allied tank at the time. However, the most famous German tanks Tiger 1, Panther, Tiger 2, Jagdtiger also tended to be quite expensive. They also usually had other issues that brought down their usefulness Tiger 1 was prone to track breakage, the Panther had weak side armor, the Tiger 2 had an overloaded suspension and an underpowered engine, and the Jagdtiger had numerous mechanical issues.

The T was produced in such high numbers that it was used for the entire war. Infact, instead of going with the prototype T, the Russians decided to upgun the T with a 85mm gun. When it was first introduced, it was able to go to-to-toe with any German tank until the Tiger 1 was introduced.

The T later served as the base for the SU The chassis of the M4 was also very easy to rebuild into numerous other vehicles M10 Wolverine, M36 Jackson, M40, etc. Both tanks were sold to other countries after WW2, and some still see service today those ones have probably been heavily upgraded with modern guns and electronics.

Translation: What nickname did the Germans give to the Sherman? The tank is not bad and it played its role in the war. It should be noted that tanks delivered to the USSR by Lend-Lease were not at all superfluous and successfully fought at various theaters of military operations from Europe to China.

A characteristic episode: the first to Vienna, overcoming kilometers, a number of barricades and resistance centers, on April 9, , the Shermans M4A2 76 W of the 1st battalion of the 46th Guards Tank Brigade of the 9th Guards Mechanized Corps of the 6th Tank Army. The detachment held the city center until the main brigade forces arrived. The Sherman,though incredible against Japanese armor, were terribly inferior to the German heavy tanks.

Japanese armor was half a decade to a decade older than the Sherman. Of course, the Sherman will slaughter the Japanese tanks. Normandy the 21st Army Group ratio against German 9 armour divisions was 1. However the 3 Tiger units propaganda claimed kills against 21st Army Group have been accepted by a lot of historians without review. It does not make sense, if these claims are accurate why are they loosing the battles. Tank kill claims like aircraft claims need to be treated with a lot of care and require detailed research.

Tank Battalion Company A really existed? It was derived into countless derivatives and had a very long postwar care going to need to fix this guys. It is another one of articles that need a little bit of work.

Such nomenclature will be added. Hey guys lets face facts. The sherman was an amazing tank. End of discussion.

Just accept that the sherman was an amazing tank. Thank you. Thanks, im using this for my research project im citing somethings but anyway thanks.

S anyway to show me when this was published? This is great. This has so much information on the Sherman tank. I like how much detail there is. Overall, Good Job. In spite of the side by side comparisons, the Army knew that the Sherman was good enough. By , there was no longer any doubt who was going to win the war.

I think diverting resources to produce heavier would reduce the firepower advantage we had. We knew the Germans would never be able to produce their best tanks in serious numbers and we also knew that the Soviets would see most of them. After the Normady breakout the only thing that held us up were supplies and weather and Monty. That sid, I love the Sherman and I have the upmost respect for their crews….

Some pictures seems to show an different colour of American, British and Canadian Armour. They had dozens of tanks to drive and shoot, tons of artillery, car crushes, etc.

The M4A2E8 was pretty easy to drive once you got the hang of it, but I was really surprised how much muscle it took to Operate the controls. The Russians must of had midget crews as barely fit in it! Despite the one next to the other correlations, the Army realized that the Sherman was adequate. By , there was never again any uncertainty who would win the war. I figure occupying assets to deliver heavier would decrease the capability advantage we had. We knew the Germans could never have the capacity to deliver their best tanks in genuine numbers and we additionally realized that the Soviets would see the majority of them.

After the Normady breakout the main thing that held us up were supplies and climate and Monty. The logisticians were responsible for the lack of a US heavy heavy tank in Europe. They were also responsible for the fact that US tanks used gasoline engines instead of diesel—much simpler to have to supply only one type of fuel for all vehicles.

Wow, and I thought the Tiger II got bad fuel mileage! According to my math, gallons and miles comes to. Or should I say Or You talk about eliminating the drivers direct-vision ports without talking about the bulges they were housed I, or how they eliminated these by increasing the slope of the glacis.

And so on and on. See new Jumbo and T6 articles and more to come. Sherman, RP Hunnicutt page The 90mm Sherman, requested by The Amour Board. They had concluded Auturm that Sherman would be the only tank available for Normandy. Basically, follow the British example get our best gun and put it into our best tank.

A prototype with a Pershing turret was built. They understood the 76mm was not up to the job or again why want a 90mm Sherman 3. The 21st Army Sherman 75mm and Firefly crews were rather good, given they were civilian soldiers.

The Panthers had the highest ratio at 2. Of course it is who are using them. The political units have a poor performance record when you get into the detail. Of these thirty-five days, the battalion faced intense combat for twelve.

During these twelve days, it lost thirty-three Panthers as total write offs and twenty-two to battle damage. Out of an authorised strength of seventy-nine Panthers, it never had more than sixty-six tanks on hand. The average daily number that was serviceable was thirty-five. First of all a very nice website! Thank you for putting it together. I would like to mention that I think there is an error on the fuel consumption of the M4A3E8. The decimal point is off, the value should be about 2.

Great page on a great site. Great article though! And keep up the good work. We are also looking at writing separate articles on those. If more are, could you add them to your site? Thank you for considering this. If we were to list them all, the list would be about twice as long as the whole rest of the article.

Agreed, in fact we already have made extra variants as independent posts already. The current article is being rewritten but its a slow process. At the end no doubt it will integrate all those missing variants as well.

Just the IDF variants are an amazing subject. Gotta love all these armchair generals who think they know tanks better than the men who tried and tested them in the field. The Audi symbol is four ceiling rings that reflect the four manufacturers of Auto Union. In many ways, most of the posters are correct no matter the side they chose.

The Tank Museum owns the oldest surviving example of a Sherman. It has two significant features not seen on later production Shermans. One is the main armament sight, set in the top of the turret; the other is the extra pair of machine-guns, operated by the driver, at the front. It is painted to represent a tank of Guards Armoured Division around the time of Arnhem. Registered Charity Registered Company