They sent them in becaue it was what they had, war doesn't often wait for you to catch up with your enemy, plus we did have superior numbers in most cases. That was the main survivability, four to one odds, or whatever, and make sure you got off a good shot when you had one to take.

Because inferior tanks are better than no tanks.

To improve the tank, more armor, a bigger gun. Why did they use inferior tanks, because that's all they had. Generals are notorious for fighting the current war using the last war's tactics. Look at our history. We fought WWII like WWI, at least in the beginning. It took us most of the war to catch up to the Germans who had better equipment and training. We did pretty well in Korea but the Russian tanks we ran into there were better than ours and our anti-tank weapons were insufficient to stop them. So we took most of the war playing catch up. Then came Vietnam and tanks were pretty useless there. But we used a new gun (M16) which took us much of the war to work out the bugs. And we had to learn new tactics, develop new equipment. By Iraq I we had the Abrams tank, which was pretty good but in Iraq II, after the initial battles, the tank is worthless. Now we use the Humvee but discovered it wasn't sufficiently protected. Also, brand new tactics. By the time we get involved in the next war, and you can bet your sweet ass we will get so involved, we'll begin all over again learning new tactics and developing new equipment adn weapons. It's called putting out fires, not preventing them.

The Sherman also was faster and more manurvarable(whatever) and also we often had more tanks. And even if we didn't, a man in a tank with more experience can beat a man in a better tank with less experience. Just because it was more powerful and had more armor, it dosn't mean that the sherman couldn't beat it.

The reason for this is that, at the time the americans did not have a better tank than the germans, they also knew that they could not stop the mometum of the war for evey day that the germans were in the field waging war was one more day that the war would go on. The day's of trech warfare was over to a very large degree with the ezception of Stalingrad. But the war of attrition was not. The american stratgists knew that germany no longer had the abilty to replace tanks as fast as they lost them. so in a combined offensive between the assembly factories and the war department, came to the conclusion that it would take on average 4 shermans to take out 1 operational german tank, there were several designs, one of them being the King Tiger of which there were under 1400 built, and the reamaining tanks the ameicans could afford to loose 4 to the germans 1 and in doing so the war of attrition would be in favour of the americans, and ultimatley Jerry lost again . .

The standard operational tactic was to run a line of Shermans across open ground. The Tigers they faced would kill the first Sherman then have to traverse the turret to kill the second which would be trying to close the angle and get behind. It would be a race between the Tiger and the third. The surviving Sherman(s) were to have made it behind the slower tiger and killed it with its pop-gun.

As others pointed out we had more tanks and faster tanks and we also had air superiority and tank crews had radios that could call in fighter bombers or what the Germans called "Jabo's". As soon as things got tough you could guarentee that there were allied aircraft enroute. Our tanks had great air support which is something the germans did not have. We took out German artillary in much the same way. If a German artillary crew saw one of our little Piper cub scout planes aprroaching they ceased fire imediately as the Piper cub (unarmed) called in the airstrikes on German 88 positions. The Germans were scared sh*tless of those little Piper cubs because they knew if they were spotted by one his big brother was generally less than three minutes behind him after a radio call.

first of all we won didnt we... secondly..most of the western equipment from rifles to tanks to aircraft were inferior to the axis weapons at the beginning of wwII because of the disarmament policies of the west. we werent ever going to have to fight another world war. we sent what we had.. and even david prevailed over goliath...you do what you can

The Allies had little choice in the matter early in the war. The Sherman was our main battle tank at the time. As the economy shifted to a war-footing, better tanks were developed and produced.

The Sherman was pretty much all the US had. What it lacked in firepower and armor though it made up for in sheer numbers, maneuverability and ease of repair. A tank crew in a Sherman could actually take out the entire engine and take apart the drive train on a Sherman where as on many Panzers it was damn near impossible to access many engine parts with out disassembling a lot of stuff. The best tank the allies had and probably the best in the whole war was the Russian T-34. They were able to build great nbumbers of them and in some cases they actually rolled right out of the factory and onto the battlefield. Also you have to realize many Allied generals saw the tank as infantry support which was it's original role when tanks were developed in the first world war. They really didn't intend on it taking on other armored vehicles.

Just point something out before I answer the question, the Sherman was not an inferior tank to the Pzr. IV. The armor thickness was about equal, infact it was about 10mm thicker, and the shermans 75mm M3 L/40 gun was perfectly adaquite in the early years of the war when it went up against Pzr III's and early Pzr IV's. The tanks were essentially on equal terms. There are a couple of reasons why the sherman was used instead of making a new tank. The first is that the tank had to be shipped across an ocean. The sherman was designed with this in mind that is why it has relatively thin tracks and moderatly thick armor. A lot of people were adamant that it would be impossible to ship a heavier tank in large quantities. This was obviously disproven with the introduction of the pershing. Second, there were a few generals among the leaders of the US Army who thought there there should be specialized tank destroyers, such as the M10 or M36. While its a good idea on paper, battles like the one at Kesserine Pass pretty much displayed this doctrines many short comings. But the few generals who liked the tank destroyer doctrine would not back down and the tank destroyer programe took a lot of resources away from the developement of the US's own heavy tank. I guess the last reason that I will discuss is the fact that like the T-34, the Sherman was cheap and easy to manufacture in large quantities, christ they built more than 50,000 of them. Something important to note is that while Tiger was a formidable tank only 1,355 were built so they were pretty rare. The same goes for the panther as only about 6000 were built. Oh and to comment on dr. james's answer. We had the semi-automatic M1 garand back in 1936. The germans used the bolt action k98 throughout the the war. While the K89 is considered by many to be the best bolt action rifle ever built, because of the bolt action it is still an inferior combat rifle compaired to the M1. What i would have done to increase the survivability is pretty simple, I would have put an extra 40-50mm of armor on the front of the tank and another 30mm on the sides, though that would require a whole new suspention but w/e. I also would put at least the 76mm on most of tanks (the only reason I would keep the 75mm is because it had a very good HE and therefore would be useful in engagments against infantry and buildings such as in a city), I also would make sure there was wet storage for the shells because it was the shells not the fuel the would often get the tank burning.(the the enemy shell would rupture the shell caseing of the stored shells and ignite the propellant) Wet storage means the shells are stored in a box the is surrounded by water so when the box gets hit the water poors over the shells putting out any ruptured shells. I would also have put wider tracks to increase offroad performance. And i guess the final improvement that I can think of would be making a commander's cuopla standard on every tank, oh yeah and making a lot more HVAP, though those were rare because of a shortage of tungsten not because they didnt want to make them.

isn't it called a panzer tank?

The bottom line is the military lies about everything. They do not and never will know how to tell the truth. The truth works against them. So they will say whatever they feel suits them even if it gets you killed. You are a number to them, they as an entity have no regard for your life. In fact because of political correctness they care more about what happens to the enemy. I served and I know what it's like not to have the proper equipment to do a job or even save your life. I almost froze to death because our cold weather gear was old and did not work. As for the Tanks, Patton had warned them. We were complacent before the war and played catch up technology wise until we were dominate in that department at the end of the war. If they had told them the truth they could have devised better tactical plans instead of meeting them head on. The Sherman was faster and more nibble so they could have used maneuver better.

They had no choice... The Sherman and the Cromwell (A British tank simelar to the M4 Sherman) where fine tanks, just in hindsight we say otherwise as we compare them to tnaks of a different class-the PzKpfw VI Tiger and PzKpfw V Panther where heavy tanks, the PzKpfw IV, Sherman and Cromwell where medium tanks, but the later PzKpfw IVs could be considered medium-heavy tanks due to that monsterous gun, the High velocity KwK 40. The Allies had 2 options in 1944, go ahead with D-Day with the Shermans, or wait for the Pershing and Comet to be produced. No.2 was impossible for a number of reasons; -it would allow the Germans to fortify more the area in which the lands might commence -The Germans might find out about the landings and the element of suprise would be lost -Stalin would be angry that his allies where not helping him (as he was by 1944 anyway) -The Soviets would have pushed the German army right back into France even, then that might result in a third world war, but Communism instead of Nazism. So the Allies went ahead with No.1. Waiting until 1945 would have been disasterous. Another thing, the U.S. economy was focused on making M4 Sherman tanks, as these where excellent tanks in 1942. Switching production to another model would mean lower numbers of tanks produced. The Allies could not afford a lack of replacements in armour. Have you ever heard of the Sherman Firefly? It was an upgraded Sherman with the British 17pdr anti-tank gun in it, allowing it to penetrate the frontal armour of a Tiger at long range. Unfortunatly, there was only eneugh for 1 per troop (1 Firefly for every 4 Shermans). This was due to a lack of available 17pdrs (The Anti-tank battallions had first priority), and a lack of 75mm Sherman turrets. By 1944 the Americans where producing the M4A4 version with a 76mm gun, which was better than the 75mm M3 used in early Shermans, but no match for the Germans. This had a different turret, so there where less vehicles for the British to convert. I could go on all night, but I'll save my fingers.

Make it smaller and more mobile! If you mean the existing Sherman tank then I would drape multiple layers of sand bags on the outside with a net holding them in place! The more layers the better! I would position my Sherman's in the tightest places where the German tanks can't maneuver, like in a dense urban environment with narrow streets and alley ways!

well as most of you have answered (why) i will answer (what). i would have taken the turret off and made the sherman into a tank hunter with with thick slopeing armour and a bigger gun, it would be shorter, faster, more manouverable, with less crew and sent them out in packs to hunt the enemy tanks.

Yes the tank was not as good as the other ones it was faceing. the hope was the sherman was a easy tank to mass produce and they want to overwelm the enemy with mass numbers hopeing that one could get behind an enemy tank and land a shot at its rear where the armor was very thin and cause the enemys rounds in the rear or fuel tank to rupture

Like everyone else is saying, It was all they had. Germany was huge on research and the US hadn't taken technology serious and hadn't advanced anywhere near what Germany had. IMPROVE survivability in a Sherman tank??? Take it off the line. There was little that could be done. The German guns could blow a hole through them at large distances whereas a Sherman had to be right next to them AND hit a soft spot. The only thing that could have been done for the Sherman would have been to replace it. It was fine before big gunned tanks.

In a war, you use what ever is available. ... perhaps better RECON ... longer range artillery support & fighter aircraft support would have helped ... as well as a more back and forth defensive trap strategy where a few vulnerable looking tanks appear to make a run when spotted, and when chased & hunted, they lead the chasers into an ambush full of mines, booby traps, snipers, artillery barrages, and air strikes.

It's incontrovertible that the Sherman was a poor rival to the much superior Panthers and Tigers, but there were several other reasons besides "It's all we had" for the US to keep the M4s in service. The Sherman had excellent reliability, superior "soft" qualities (track life, low maintenance, good mileage, speed, and maneuverability). Remember also that the majority of combat (by a large margin) was against infantry, AT guns, and soft skinned vehicles or halftracks. In these contests the Sherman's 75 really excelled, in addition to its 2 medium and 1 heavy machinegun. Furthermore, the majority of German tanks were upgraded versions of the Panzer III and IV against which the Sherman fared much better, though still at a disadvantage. Evan after better armed Shermans became available most units kept the older 75s because they were much better in the vast majority of combats. So commanders were left with a hard choice. Yes, they knew the Sherman was dead meat against the latest German armor and against prepared infantry if they had no infantry of their own, but the Sherman still proved so useful in so many other ways that it was hard to just get rid of them.

There was no question that the Sherman was a crappy tank. Both the Germans and the Allies referred to it as a "Ronson" (A popular cigarette lighter of the time whose slogan was "lights every time.") But if it was so crappy, why did we win? Because we had a lot of them and they were fuel efficient. When all your supplies are coming in over the beach, that's pretty important. Having a lot of tanks and being able to supply them meant that they could engage the enemy in a lot of different locations putting pressure on them in many places at once. While the Shermans were total losers tactically, strategically, they were winners.