Looking at the ERAs served, which is a better tank, the Sherman or Abrams?

2015-05-05T15:51:33-04:00

Hint: You can paste a link to a video or article, or simply add more details to your question.

Invite others to respond by typing @name

Response by 1LT Nick Kidwell made May 5 at 2015 3:58 PM

2015-05-05T15:58:13-04:00

The Sherman, while a great tank in its time, was severely outmatched and outgunned by the anti-tank weapons and tanks the Germans were fielding.

In contrast, the Abrams enjoyed a time where it was arguably the best battle tank of all time.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made May 5 at 2015 3:58 PM

2015-05-05T15:58:02-04:00

Abrams by far, Sherman's had to "Gang up" because they were out-gunned by Panthers, Tigers and even up-gunned Panzer Kampfwagen Mark IVs.

Response by SSG Ronald Williams made May 5 at 2015 4:05 PM

2015-05-05T16:05:23-04:00

To be fair you would have to add the M48 series and M60 series in Korea, Vietnam and the Cold War actions. There are so many variables based on terrain it is hard to answer. Sherman fought far superior German armor and loss ratio was high, but it is considered one of the top weapons platforms of WW2. M1 series is superior to the Russian built armor of the Middle East and those crews were ill trained to take on US Tankers. Tanker nine years, "Never get of the Tank." :-)

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made May 5 at 2015 4:10 PM

2015-05-05T16:10:23-04:00

Abrams

The Sherman was a grayhound for the era, fast and maneuverable, also had the added joy of just being so damn many of them. But that's about all you can say about them, they had a high profile, light armor, and wimpy gun

The Abrams, almost falls victim to the same thing the Germans had of over engineering but all in all it has the best of armor, weapon systems, and speed

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made May 5 at 2015 4:19 PM

2015-05-05T16:19:46-04:00

The Sherman was outclassed by just about everybody's Main Battle Tanks at the time. It was inferior in armament and crew protection, and only through force of numbers and guts did they prevail against the Germans.

The Abrams on the other hand is clearly the gold standard of tanks. Some would argue for the Leopard II or Markava, but the Abrams has proven itself over and over. Even the Army's last two attemps to improve upon it for a new tank have both failed to prove to be "better enough" to justify the investment.

With honorable mention to the Tiger II and T-34C, the M-1 will likely go down in history as the best tank ever.

Response by SPC David S. made May 5 at 2015 6:01 PM

2015-05-05T18:01:02-04:00

Any parameters on the engagement? If none Abrams as it has the range - autoloader could be a problem but one shot one kill and larger kill radius Abrams wins

Response by SSgt Dan Montague made May 5 at 2015 6:38 PM

2015-05-05T18:38:24-04:00

I love the old sherman for some reason. As for a medium battle field tank, it sucked. Though, the maintenance was easy. A blown out tank could be cannibalized in the field easily to fix other down tanks. Germans could not do that with their mighty tigers.
Over all, the M1 is a better tank in comparison to it's era.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 5 at 2015 7:48 PM

2015-05-05T19:48:43-04:00

Is this a Sherman Tank? It was donated and in honor of Major Russell H. Kline, one of my cousins.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made May 5 at 2015 8:16 PM

2015-05-05T20:16:02-04:00

It took a lot of guts to be a Sherman tanker. As others have said, they were outclassed in nearly every aspect and losses were high. The only advantage Sherman tankers had were sheer numbers. I think the Abrams is the winner hands down. I spent 6 years on M1A1 Abrams tanks, so I'm relatively familiar with their capabilities. I'd put the Abrams up against any tank in the world today. While other tanks may have individual capabilities that are better, none have the total package that the Abrams offers.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made May 5 at 2015 8:27 PM

2015-05-05T20:27:55-04:00

If I remember properly, when the Shermans defeated the Panzers, it was due to superior numbers or Tank Killers helped. I vote Abrams. It had world class armor, suspension, and used ballistic solutions to make it deadly accurate.

Response by MAJ Anthony DeStefano made May 5 at 2015 9:03 PM

2015-05-05T21:03:32-04:00

The Abrams is and has been a world leader from its inception, It can defeat anything in any inventory around the world with a high success ratio. It is getting on in years and shows no sign of slowing down or becoming antiquated.

The Sherman was a gasoline death trap up against superior German armor. It is only the fact that the USA could out manufacture in great numbers that quantity outdid quality...It wasn't a terrible piece of equipment it was good enough to get the job done, but it just was not a superior piece of equipment as is the Abrams

Response by SPC Angel Guma made May 5 at 2015 11:01 PM

2015-05-05T23:01:15-04:00

The Abrams is only the best tank, ever. How many times has this tank been beaten in battle?

Response by SPC David Hannaman made Jun 17 at 2015 12:39 PM

2015-06-17T12:39:53-04:00

You're kidding right?

The M-4 Sherman earned such nicknames as "The Burning Grave", "Ronson" (a lighter of the time, think Zippo) and "Tommycooker" because it was so outmatched, the only redeeming quality of the M-4 was it could be mass produced and worked on any farm kid with tractor experience.

Contrast the M-1. Fast and mobile, at the time of development it was the finest tank in existence with cutting edge technology that was thought to be the stuff of science fiction. 35 years later it's still a contender on the battlefield, and I read somewhere that no-one has EVER died in an Abrams during combat (I even heard a story of a driver trapped in a burning M-1 for four hours... everyone thought he was dead, but when they finally got the hatch open he blinked and said "What took you so long?!".

-Ability to protect it's crew.
-Rank in the "food chain" in it's Era.
-Service life.
Abrams.

-Nostalgia
-Mass production
Sherman

Response by PO3 Donald Murphy made Jun 22 at 2017 1:10 PM

2017-06-22T13:10:22-04:00

The Sherman's problems are tactical. Not physical. The Sherman was used incorrectly. The Sherman was supposed to be part of a set doctrine. And it was. Problem is that the doctrine changed. And when that doctrine changed, the M-4 found itself doing roles for which is was not intended. This would have painful results when M-4s attempted to dance with Panthers and Tigers. The upgunned variants were little better. The M-4 was never intended to battle other tanks.