Shermans used by the Germans.......

[armypainter]

Did the Germans use captured lend lese Sherman 57mms on the Russian front?

[Hauptmann6]

You mean 75s? I've never heard of them changing guns on a sherman.

[Mk 1]

Armypainter asked:
Did the Germans use captured lend lese Sherman 57mms on the Russian front?

May I presume you meant Sherman 75mms?

Good question...

Oddly, I don't think I've ever seen a reference to Shermans in German service on the Eastern Front. I have seen lots of information, and more than a few images, of allied armor in German hands on the Eastern Front. But no Shermans.

On reflection I think the reason is this: by the time the Sherman was in service on the Eastern Front, the Soviets were advancing, and the Germans retreating.

The great bulk of "foriegn" armor that saw service with the Germans was picked-up as they advanced. The same is true with most any modern army. Retreats involve leaving behind whatever won't run at the moment. That generally means a fair number of tanks. To make use of them, they must be repaired to running condition. The repairs may often be quite minor, but they still must be made. That's why the tank was left behind in the first place ... it didn't work, and the retreating forces didn't have the time to fix it. The advancing forces get that time, as the non-runner is now within their expanding territory.

Most of the captured equipment used by the Germans in Russia was captured from the Russians. I have seen images of French R35s and UE prime movers, and British Universal Carriers, in German hands on the Eastern Front. These came from stocks captured during the campaigns in the west. But they were fairly light vehicles, available in large numbers, and worthwhile transporting to the Eastern Front. They also took part mostly in the early phases of Barbarossa. Later in the war, western kit is just not seen much in the German forces on the Eastern Front.

The Sherman didn't come into service with the Red Army until after Kursk. By that time the Soviets were advancing relentlessly. Yes, German units still occasionally managed to get their hands on a piece of Russian kit. But if you think about it, most of the captured material you've seen in German hands came from the early part of the war: T-34/76s, T-26s, KVs, M1936 76.2mm guns, GAZ trucks, etc. These were all equipment in wide scale issue in 1941/42. SU's, T-34/85s, IS's ... these are rarely, if ever, seen in German hands. Occasionally, but rarely. Not because the Germans wouldn't have tried to make use of anything they managed to grab hold of, but because, when you're falling back, you just don't manage to pick up things that don't run by themselves already.

[Extra Crispy]

It does suggest a wicked German Shermans vs. captured Tiger scenario though! Hmmm...even I can paint tanks pretty fast!

[armypainter]

Thanks MK1 !

And yes I did mean 75mm ...........

[Bull`s eye]

Sorry, the first shermans entered eastern scenario in late 1942. And retreat as an argument , that germans didn´t use captured land lease shermans ? They used jeeps and studebakers and some more allied types captured from the russians at any time.
The main reason perhaps was, like with all of the russian churchills, shermans, grants : one direct hit one explosion five dead tankers. Russian tankers didn´t like the allied tanks because of their thin armor. It was a necessity, after the heavy tank tank losses, to use allied material,nothing else. And after production of the Many T34, even T34/85 had been used by the germans f.e as recovery vehicles, even after 1943.
retreat is not the reason ( remember, that the germans did use many captured shermans and other vehicles at the normandy front; and there has been reatreat retreat retreat all the time ). But sometimes counter attacks had been very successfull ( Charkow f.e )and everything that runs was used immediatly

[Mk 1]

Bull's eye said:
Sorry, the first shermans entered eastern scenario in late 1942.

No need to be sorry. But perhaps you can provide some more detailed information? Any sources you can note for us?

My information is that the Soviets tested but rejected gasoline-powered Shermans, taking none into active service. The first M4A2 (diesel engined) Shermans arrived in the spring of 1943, just prior to Kursk. However, I have seen no indication that any Sherman-equipped formation participated in the Kursk action. There are clear records of M3A1 Stuart, M3 Lee and Churchill Mk3 formations participating in the Kursk battles, and I presume there were multiple Valentine formations as well (though I have no details at the moment). But I have never seen a reference of Shermans in action with the Soviets before the race to the Donets after Kursk.

And retreat as an argument , that germans didn´t use captured land lease shermans ? They used jeeps and studebakers and some more allied types captured from the russians at any time.

I don't mean to suggest that the Germans would not use captured equipment when and if it was available. Certainly, if it was captured in running (or nearly running) condition, it would have been used. The question is whether and when they would have been captured.

The main reason perhaps was, like with all of the russian churchills, shermans, grants : one direct hit one explosion five dead tankers. Russian tankers didn´t like the allied tanks because of their thin armor. It was a necessity, after the heavy tank tank losses, to use allied material,nothing else.

I don't know what sources have lead you to develop this view, but without meaning to sound too judgemental I think it is not a "well informed" perspective.

Statistics show, quite contrary to popular literature, that the Sherman had excellent crew survivability. Survival rates in US service were such that more Sherman crewmen were killed outside of their tanks than inside, quite regardless of popular talk of "ronsons". The average casualty rates were just a bit more than one dead, and one to two wounded, per Sherman that was completely destroyed.

Soviet statistics indicate a far higher survival rate for Sherman crews than for T-34 crews once the armor had been penetrated. The statistics I have seen indicate an average of just more than one surviving crew member per T-34 that was completely destroyed.

Have you ever tried to get into or out of a T-34's driver or co-driver seats? I have. I can hardly imagine having to get out in an emergency.

As to "thin armor" ... well there are many aspects to consider in comparing the protection levels of a Sherman versus its Soviet counterpart the T-34.

First, one should note that the frontal armor on a Sherman was thicker than the frontal armor on a T-34. Always was. On every sub-variant that the Soviets ever saw. However, the sloping was not as good. So the protection level, particularly over most of the front slope, was not as good against German high-velocity AT guns. But it was better against large-caliber HE and HEAT rounds (such as artillery and infantry AT weapons) . Once the M34A1 mantlet appeared the Sherman had better frontal armor on the turret. The shape of the T-34 turret had a well developed ability to deflect rounds to the side (much of the frontal profile area is actually the side of the turret at a very sharp angle) which gave a boost to protection from shots hitting the turret from the frontal aspect, but also made a larger target without added side-away sloping when firing on the turret from the side aspect.

Also, US rolled or cast plate was not as brittle as Soviet armor, so a hit which did damage to the tank (full penetration, partial penetration, or over-match with interior spalling) did not cause as much harm inside the fighting compartment. Soviet armor plate was of higher hardness, and lower ductility, than any other nation's homogenous plate, to the point where it can be viewed as a sort of "all or nothing" design philosophy. It had a better ability to deflect a projectile, but if the armor was not sufficient for a full "bounce off", then it tended to shatter, and the armor itself became as much of a danger to the crew as the projectile.

The Soviets took many tanks from British, Canadian, and US sources. They took almost any tanks they could get in 1941 and 1942. They took Mathildas, Mk VIs, M3 Grants and Lees, Churchills, even Tetrarchs. But that stopped by the middle of 1943. They no longer accepted Mathildas, nor Churchills, nor Lees. They were no longer short of tanks, and so they rejected the tanks that didn't serve them well. But they not only accepted, but requested, more Valentines and Shermans. They found these tanks to be usefull. More than 4,000 Sherman M4A2s were accepted into Soviet service AFTER Kursk. AFTER the Soviets had ascended to the level that they outnumbered the Axis armor by more than 2-to-1 on all fronts. AFTER the Soviets were fielding the largest tank force in the world.

So suggesting that the only reason they took Shermans was because "It was a necessity, after the heavy tank tank losses, to use allied material,nothing else" does not appear to be justified by the facts.

And after production of the Many T34, even T34/85 had been used by the germans f.e as recovery vehicles, even after 1943.

Why would the Germans use a T-34/85 as a recovery vehicle? It was a first rate combat tank.

retreat is not the reason ( remember, that the germans did use many captured shermans and other vehicles at the normandy front; and there has been reatreat retreat retreat all the time ). But sometimes counter attacks had been very successfull ( Charkow f.e )and everything that runs was used immediatly

The Germans did not use many captured Shermans at the Normandy front.

They used many captured Hotchkiss chassis, and Char-Bs. These had been captured by the Germans in 1940, when they were advancing against the French.

Shermans were rare in German service.

"Everything that runs was used immediately" does not explain the use of captured tanks. Warfare is not like a video game. You don't find unmanned but fully functional tanks just sitting around on the battlefield, and infantrymen don't just run up, jump into an empty tank, and drive it away to fight.

Local counter-attacks do not tend to net large quantities of usable tanks. Tanks are generally abandoned for a reason, such as ... they aren't runners at the moment that the forces have to run. Since tanks are highly valued fighting vehicles, if they are in working condition they tend to be used in the fighting, even when a unit is loosing. A local counter-attack seldom holds the ground long enough, nor has the excess resources, for recovery and repair of large, heavy, non-functional enemy fighting equipment. It is hard enough to recover your own stuff.

However large operational-scale offensives (or counter-offensives) often capture quantities of enemy equipment, including tanks. Depots and repair facilities can get overrun, and as the front continues to advance, rear-area support echelons come to occupy these areas and have the time to effect recovery and/or repairs.

Jeeps and truck, on the other had, are often grabbed in small quantities when local HQs are overrun or encircled in tactical actions. An encircled HQ element is likely to leave their jeeps and trucks behind while it tries to defend itself or fight its way out. They are easy war booty, compared to tanks.

Most trucks and jeeps will run for months with fuel and oil. Tanks will run for a couple of days at most before maintenance is required. If you don't have a reasonably well developed ability to supply parts and materials for a tank, it won't run more than a few hundred Kms. The best you can do is make it a pillbox.

It is true that German formations occasionally managed to put captured tanks into service against the Soviets on a local basis. But that was the exception rather than the rule.

The Germans, as the Soviets, had a pretty well developed and CENTRALIZED process for collecting, sorting, modifying (when appropriate) and re-issuing captured equipment. Regulations called for captured enemy equipment to be turned over to higher command for submittal to a collection point. Tanks that were not in very good condition were scavanged for spare parts to be issued to units that had received the tanks that were in good running condition. Thus, a T-34 in German service on the front lines could be supported, rather than abandoned when the first trackpin broke. The T-34s, for example, often received a commander's cupola (deemed a necessity by German tankers) and side-skirts (as much to change the vehicles appearance and reduce fratricide as for any other reason). This was a fairly well organized activity.

It was because of this centralization that you saw German forces using Universal (Bren) Carriers on the Eastern Front, or Soviet 76mm guns (Pak 36(r)) in the western desert.

The US Army had no such system. Some units captured enemy tanks, and kept them in service as "hacks", scavenging spare parts from battlefield wrecks as they went. So you saw one or two Panthers in service with some divisions. But nothing like the scale of German or Soviet use of captured equipment.

I have never seen, nor do I expect to find, Shermans in common usage by the Germans on the Eastern Front. One or two, running for a few days, in an isolated instance? Sure, could be. I'd be interested to read of it if anyone finds such a case. But regularly, even reflected on the unit readiness reports, as was done with captured T-34s? No, I've not seen it, nor do I expect it.

[Mk 1]

OK, now JB has pointed out a link, in the "Allied Equipment Used by the Soviets" thread, that indicates Sherman M4A2s in action on the Taman Penninsula by late 1942.

Interesting. I'm willing to be convinced. But I am not convinced -- yet. A secondary source says the M4A2 entered into Soviet service sooner than I had thought. I sure would like to see more details offered. Units that operated them? Actions involving them?

I don't know of any Soviet tank action on the Taman Penninsula in late 1942. Doesn't mean there wasn't any, just that I don't have any information about it.

I am familiar with the German / Romanian efforts to clear the penninsula in September-October. I know of no Soviet armored response/re-inforcement until the 1943, when amphibious actions did include lend-lease tanks -- M3A1 Stuarts, not M4A2 Shermans. I know specifics about units and operations.

My sources say no M4A2s were received until Spring of 1943. A primary source or two sure would be helpful in this case, but even then negatives are hard to prove. I'd need to find sources that show 1) a complete record of EVERY item shipped/received by date can be shown, or 2) a clear record of FIRST shipment can be shown along with 3) a clear record of the FIRST unit to receive them, and take them into combat. I have none. Only the secondary source that asserts that #2 happened in spring of 1943, versus another secondary source that asserts #2 and #3 happened near the end of 1942.

Hmmmm.....

[jb]

MK1 ,if you go to the link,go to the numbers,and then to the lend lease link with official stats on vehicles when and how many shipped. I am not able to go further because my daughter is at the moment telling me in no uncertain terms to get moving!
Ill get back...

[Mk 1]

jb jabbered:
MK1 ,if you go to the link,go to the numbers,and then to the lend lease link with official stats on vehicles when and how many shipped.

Thanks for the pointer, JB. Had a look.

If I read it all correctly, it says 36 M4A2s were received by the Soviets in 1942.

And again if I'm following it all, the source for that number is:
M. Kolomiets, I. Moshchanskiy, »Tanki Lend-Liza«, Exprint, 2000, in Russian

Interesting enough.

Unfortunately, the site seems to indicate that the number of M4A2s shipped in 1942 comes only from a Russian language source. The English language (US Government) source cited for number of M4A2s applies only to the total number of vehicles by type, not the number of a type by year.

Oh well, guess I'll have to take it at that. My Russian skills are not up to reading the primary source (and it would take a bit of work to come up with it).

So I will stand corrected on Shermans reaching Soviet hands in 1942. 36 of them. Still interested to find out more on when they saw combat. A bit surprising, but not incredible, to think that the Soviets would have gotten into combat with a type they only had 36 of. (Or less, perhaps, as they might not have received them all in one shipment before they took them into combat.)

[jb]

...I couldn't find that,but I did find info from the Winpedia stating that the first Shermans that were delivered were just before the Kursk campaign. It didn't state that they were used in the campaign,though.
One interesting fact that I read was that of the almost 5,000 shermans we sent ,almost half were of the 76mm type...

[Mk 1]

jb joined-in with:
I couldn't find that,but I did find info from the Winpedia stating that the first Shermans that were delivered were just before the Kursk campaign.

Hmmm. Perhaps the "just before Kursk" reference, which may have originally been an interpretation of "late 1942", grew into "the spring of 1943" as the story was quoted and re-quoted among secondary sources.

Just another good example of the reason to look for primary material.

One interesting fact that I read was that of the almost 5,000 shermans we sent ,almost half were of the 76mm type...

Yep. The Soviets got the lion's share of 76mm armed M4A2s. The Brits were the biggest user of the A2, I think, but since they prefered their own 17pdr-armed Fireflies, they took very few 76mm-armed A2s. The USMC was the third largest user of A2s, but they didn't have any interest in 76mm-armed tanks, preferring the HE firepower and ammo load-out of the 75mm-armed version. And so, out of about 2,900 M4A2 76's made, more than 2,000 went to the Soviets.

But (sticking my fool neck out again) I believe the first 76mm-armed tanks didn't reach the Soviets until the mid- to late-summer of 1944. The majority would have been received in 1945. Again (not meaning to abuse a moribund equine) it is clear that the Soviets were not short on tanks in 1945. But still, they gladly took Shermans. They were much in evidence in the Guards tank units that liberated (conquored?) Vienna, and also in the tank and mechanized corps shipped to the far east for the Manchurian campaign.

It also happens that the summer of 1944, July to be precise, is when the 76mm-armed Shermans were first issued to US Army forces in the ETO. One odd thing is that in order for the Soviets to have received them by the mid-summer of '44, 76mm-armed Shermans must have been issued for shipment to the Soviets before they were issued to US Army units in ETO.

I'm quite sure that the Soviets had no hesitation to request the up-gunned tanks. They knew the realities of combat with German armor better than the US Army did. More's the pity that the US Army didn't pay attention to Soviet wisdom.

In the US, Army Ordnance was pushing the 76mm-armed Shermans hard. The US Armored Board was not so convinced, but still had shipped some 130 M4A1 76s over to England by April of 1944. It was unit commanders in the ETO who declined to issue them, being convinced that the issuance of an unfamiliar piece of kit right before Overlord would be a mistake, in part because they were also convinced that the Sherman's 75mm gun was good enough. And so the troops that went into France in June of 1944 had exactly ZERO up-gunned Shermans on their rosters.

[Bull`s eye]

Recommended source

http://www.o5m6.de/m4a2_75mm_early.html

Yes, in late 1942...

The M3 f.e already in late 1941.

Short and succinct

btw : be shure, that the germans did use ANYTHING, which was usable. The fact, that there is not a pic of a " russian sherman " in german use is not a proof. But i believe they did prefere T34

[Bull`s eye]

Ah, and don´t forget : the simpel question was " did germans use land lease shermans ".
And the answer is simpel too : YES if they got an intact sherman ( but i guess for maintenance and training duty, not in the combat role ). But i don´t believe that they use it on platoon level or bigger, but single vehicles yes.
But till now i only have seen pics of shermans in german service captured in the west

[jb]

...In the US, Army Ordnance was pushing the 76mm-armed Shermans hard. The US Armored Board was not so convinced, but still had shipped some 130 M4A1 76s over to England by April of 1944. It was unit commanders in the ETO who declined to issue them, being convinced that the issuance of an unfamiliar piece of kit right before Overlord would be a mistake, in part because they were also convinced that the Sherman's 75mm gun was good enough. And so the troops that went into France in June of 1944 had exactly ZERO up-gunned Shermans on their rosters.

...I also beleive the reason that our troops didn't recieve the upgunned Sherman was due to the US Army's doctrine at the time. The doctrine was that the "tank" was strictly an infantry support weapon,if enemy armour was involved it in turn was to be dealt with "tank destroyer" units. It is beleivable that some of these "Desk" tankers in the ETO were responable for unfortunate decisions due to a written doctrine...