Reddit reviews Commanding the Red Army's Sherman Tanks: The World War II Memoirs of Hero of the Soviet Union Dmitriy Loza

It really comes down to crew performance, the crew who identifies the target first and engages first will most likely win. As others have already stated the Tiger 1 was well equipped for long range engagements, but there were disadvantages. The turret traverse was slow, the gunner only had one optical sight which had a narrow field of vision. Only the Tiger crew commander had adequate field of view from his cupola, the rest of the crew had very restricted situation awareness.

While the Sherman on the other hand had a faster turret traverse, some versions of the M4 had a [hydraulic turret control handle for the commander](
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=SOTDzoncMroC&pg=PA101&lpg=PA101&dq=commander%27s+turret+control+handle+on+the+sherman&source=bl&ots=xgI-3Z6aGJ&sig=wig0PDQq1A6-PxqO_iOiKi6qNic&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj4v5mJ3vTVAhUHv5QKHeIgDEIQ6AEIHjAB#v=onepage&q=commander's%20turret%20control%20handle%20on%20the%20sherman&f=false). The gunner had a telescope, a periscope and also a utility sight. Which provided a wider field of view and allowed for hull down observation. The upgraded T23 76mm turret on the M4 provided a x5 magnification sight, and the capacity to fire the M93 HVAP round. Which could penetrate the Tiger 1 at a maximum range of 2286m. The Tiger 1 could effectively engage the M4 further out, but the Tigerfibal taught the crews not to engage until the M4 was within 800 yds/731m.

There are multiple recorded tank duels between M4s vs Tiger Is, Tiger IIs and M4s coming out victorious.

>In the last hours of the final stand, Tiger ‘213’, then commanded by SS-Obersturmführer (1st Lt) Dollinger, was in position at the Wérimont farm along with Tiger ‘221’ of SS Untersturmführer (2nd Lt) Hantusch. From their dominating position, both tanks were guarding the east and southeast approaches of La Gleize. On December 22, 1944, in the early afternoon, they engaged Sherman tanks of TF McGeorge coming down the route from Roanne Coo, at a distance of 2000 yards. Several hits were recorded on the lead tanks and the column was stopped. American return fire focused on both Tigers and succeeded to disable 211’s traverse mechanism. For its part, ‘213’ had a third of its gun blown off by a direct hit. Both tanks had to be abandoned.

Full story

Sgt Dring commander of a 75mm Sherman named 'Akilla' scored two F-kills on Tigers at medium range.

>The advance continued, then suddenly Sgt Dring spotted the boxy shape of a Tiger at about 1000 yards. He began to traverse his turret when the Tiger fired, the round went whistling past his tank, and Akilla was able to return fire. The Sherman’s 75mm fired five rounds in rapid succession, the fifth round hit the driver’s periscope, which caused the crew to bail out in panic.

>Next on his tally during this long day's fight is a Tiger at 1400 yards. Sgt Dring was engaging it, when his troop commander remarked that he was hitting a wall behind the tank. Sgt Dring fired again and replied:
"You don't see a brick wall spark like that!"
Of the six rounds fired at the tank four hit and the tank brewed up.

Full story

Even the Soviets were successful with M4s against Tigers;

>In this battle, comrade Novikov knocked out 4 Tiger tanks, 3 guns, more than 10 machineguns and mortars, and killed more than 130 soldiers and officers of the enemy. The enemy, fleeing, left one functional tank in the swamp.

Tank Archives

The book Commanding the Red Army's Sherman Tanks by Dmitriy Loza (Hero of the Soviet Union). Describes how his tank Guard Battalion battles multiple Tiger tanks. There is one battle I remember, a Tiger protected in cover and has overwatch on a road which the Russians need for a supply route. The Soviets send a sniper out and M4A2 76 hides in a fire position ready to engage. The sniper kills the crew commander of the Tiger, the M4 then engages the now blind Tiger and blows the cannon off. The Tiger retreats and the Russians are free to use their new supply route.


The M4 was more than capable of going up against a Tiger I, that doesn't mean it won every engagement. It proves the deciding factor was the crews situation awareness and their ability to accurately hit the target.

I'm drawing that statement from a Soviet tank crewman's memoirs, hardly something I'd consider western propaganda.
The M4A3E8 met the T-34-85 in Korea, and did very well against it. (Though you could argue that was differing crew capabilities.) A big part of that was that both tanks are capable of penetrating the other, which means he who shoots first generally wins, and the Sherman's superior optics and visibility gave it the advantage there.

​

I would recommend Loza's firsthand account, which is one of the earliest first-hand accounts of actual Soviet soldiers which got translated and achieved widespread distribution in the West:

https://www.amazon.com/Commanding-Red-Armys-Sherman-Tanks/dp/0803229208

As to why it's uncommon - the simple answer is that first-hand accounts of soldiers relating their battle experiences simply did not sell until very recently. The stories of individual soldiers frankly were not that interesting and usually very disjointed, which is why they had to be "fictionalized" and given a narrative that audiences could understand and follow as was the case with All Quiet on the Western Front.

Indeed it was not until Band of Brothers (especially its accompanying mini-series) that the American press really took a big interest in these personal war stories; and it's also why most of the stuff out there is from Normandy. Before then books describing military experiences tended to be limited to smaller publications. And even then, the mini-series still had to fictionalize quite a lot of the actual events in order to make it suitable for television.

Actually it was the M3 Lee that the Soviets refereed to as "a bed of honour [or grave] for six men" (and yes, they always preferred a T-34 over a M3 Lee, because the Lee was a piece of crap that was too high to conceal, insufficiently armed (lacking a main gun in its turret) and had rivets which tended to pop off inside the interior of the tank and ricochet around killing the crew when the tank was hit by a non-penetrating round.)

The Soviets didn't really love or hate the Sherman - they liked the fact that it's ammo was more securely stored, making it less prone (that a T-34/76) to blow up when hit, and they liked the large size of the turret (compared to a T-34/76).

However, the Sherman was top heavy and had thin tracks, making it less useful in the rough terrain (and mud/snow) of the Eastern Front.

There is an interesting book written about the Soviet experiences with Sherman's during the war.

As far as first person accounts of tank commanders go, I found the memoirs of Dmitriy Loza Commanding the Red Armys Sherman Tanks very interesting. It gives some insight on how soviet tankers viewed various Lend Lease tanks.