On the southwestern front (Italy) reports on the cross-country mobility of the Sherman have been

very favorable. The Sherman climbs mountains our tank experts consider inaccessible to tanks.
One great advantage is that the Sherman has a very powerful motor in proportion to its weight.
Its cross-country mobility on level ground is, as the 26th Panzer Division reports, definitely
superior to that of our tanks.[116]

However, while this may have held compared with the first generation German tanks, such as the
Panzer III and Panzer IV, comparative testing with the second generation wide-tracked German
tanks (Panther and Tiger) conducted by the Germans at their Kummersdorf testing facility, as
well as by the U.S. 2nd Armored Division, proved otherwise. The M4's initial tracks were 16.5
inches wide. This produced ground pressure of 14 pounds per square inch.[114] U.S. crews found
that on soft ground, the narrow tracks of the Sherman gave poorer ground pressure compared to
the Panther and Tiger.

Because of their wider tracks and use of the characteristic Schachtellaufwerk interleaved and
overlapped road wheels (as used on pre-war origin German half-track vehicles), the Panther and
Tiger had greater mobility on soft ground because of their greater flotation (i.e., lower ground
pressure). Lieutenant Colonel Wilson M. Hawkins of the 2nd Armored Division wrote the
following comparing the U.S. M4 Sherman and the German Panther in a report to Allied
headquarters:

It has been claimed that our tank is the more maneuverable. In recent tests, we put a captured
German Mark V [Panther] against all models of our own. The German tank was the faster, both
across the country and on the highway, and could make sharper turns. It was also the better hill
climber.[117]

This was backed up in an interview with Technical Sergeant Willard D. May of the 2nd Armored
Division who commented: "I have taken instructions on the Mark V [Panther] and have found,
first, it is easily as maneuverable as the Sherman; second the flotation exceeds that of the
Sherman."[117]

Staff Sergeant and tank platoon sergeant Charles A. Carden completes the comparison in his
report:

The Mark V [Panther] and VI [Tiger] in my opinion have more maneuverability and certainly
more flotation. I have seen in many cases where the Mark V and VI tanks could maneuver nicely
over ground where the M4 would bog down. On one occasion I saw at least 10 Royal Tigers
[Tiger II] make a counterattack against us over ground that for us was nearly impassable.[117]
A Sherman with track widening "duckbill" extended end connectors

The U.S. Army issued extended end connectors ("duckbills") to add width to the standard tracks
as a stopgap solution. Duckbills began to reach front-line tank battalions in fall 1944 but were
original factory equipment for the heavy M4A3E2 Jumbo to compensate for the extra weight of
armor. The M4A3(76)W HVSS Shermans and other late models with wider-tracked suspensions
corrected these problems but formed only a small proportion of the tanks in service even in 1945.

Reliability
This section cites its sources but does not provide page references. You can help to
improve it by introducing citations that are more precise, and providing page numbers
for existing citations. (September 2021) (Learn how and when to remove this template
message)

M4A1

In September 1942 the British developed some potential improvements and tested the tanks.[118]
[119]

After 805 km (500 mi) the springs of the left front bogie broke, considered typical for this type
of suspension. Oil accumulated on the floor of the engine compartment during driving. The
engine periodically stalled under high load due to interrupted fuel supply. It was found that the
engine had been built and installed incorrectly. Upon disassembly carbon deposits were found on
the working surfaces of the cylinders; they were very worn out after only 65 hours of operation
or 702 mi (1,130 km) run. In the absence of a replacement by October 10, the engine was put
back in the tank; the revised fuel