You are here:

Military History/United States Tank Tactics


I would like to know what was the primary tank strategy or use for M4 Sherman, M18 Hellcat, and the M3 Stuart in the European Theater of World War II, and if any are is there any books about this topic that I can get for more information?


Dear Andrew,

i have yet not come across many books detailed to american tank warfare but i am copying some info that i did come across for the role of the sherman in WW2

The M4 was envisioned to primarily fill the role of a cruiser tank although the US Army did not use that doctrinal term. The M4 was not primarily intended as an infantry support tank; in fact, FM 100-5 specifically stated the opposite. It placed tanks in the "striking echelon" of the armored division, and placed the infantry in the "support echelon". Neither was the M4 primarily intended for tank versus tank action. The field manual covering the use of the Sherman (FM 17-33, "The Tank Battalion, Light and Medium" of September 1942) devoted one page of text and four diagrams to tank versus tank action (out of 142 pages).[10] This early armored doctrine was heavily influenced by the sweeping initial successes of the German blitzkrieg tactics. Unfortunately, by the time M4s reached combat in significant numbers, battlefield demands for infantry support and tank versus tank action far outnumbered the occasional opportunities for cruiser tanks.
Although envisioned primarily as a cruiser-type tank, US doctrine did also contemplate the M4's use in other roles. Unlike some other nations, which had separate medium tank designs tailored specifically for anti-tank roles (e.g., the German PzKw III) and support roles (the PzKw IV), the US intended the M4 to fulfill all roles. Although not optimized for tank versus tank engagements or infantry support, the M4 was capable of performing these missions to varying degrees. In the Pacific Theater, the Sherman was used chiefly against Japanese infantry and fortifications; in their rare encounters with lighter Japanese tanks with weaker armor and guns, the Shermans were vastly superior.
The official doctrine of the time had Shermans as a sort of infantry tank. All anti-tank work was supposed to be done by tank-destroyer crews. Speed was essential in order to bring the tank-destroyers from the rear to destroy incoming tanks. Thankfully, for Sherman crews, this doctrine was not entirely used as it would create a small time window of vulnerability in the armored battalion until tank destroyers moved to the front. Obviously this would make it harder for an armored force to achieve a breakthrough, a main objective of armor, if the enemy had tanks. It would also be easier for an opposing armored force to achieve a breakthrough against an American tank battalion which would not have all of its anti-tank assets at the front during the beginning of any attack.

the M-18 was tank destroyer used for frontal assault and fast speed tactics hence meaning lessor armor. Its most notable battles were the battle of the bulge and in Anzio Italy. Every tank deployment is based mostly in keeping with the Division's role and battalions orders either for a breakthrough mode or defensive role.


Military History

All Answers

Answers by Expert:

Ask Experts


Rizwan Saleem


help in military history ,war tactics and mobalizations covering world war 2 , vietnam and the 1965,1971 indo-pak wars and some Special operations.


independent research , collective information through various sources that would give an insight of different perspectives from both sides.

Independent studies and research, various official and non official sources.

©2016 All rights reserved.