Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Keep in mind the superiority of numbers - there's more to strategy and tactics than just producing an ubertank, such as Tigers or King Tigers, and boldly declaring the superiority of the german armaments industry.
Allied tankers would commonly tackle a single german tank with 3 or 4 M4s - the numbers produced easily enabled this tactic. Sure, there were german tank aces that popped shermans like balloons with their StuGs or Tigers, but in my military opinion the germans would have been much better served building as many PzIVs as possible - taking steps to simplify the manufacturing process like the americans did w/ the M4. Note the ruggedness and reliability of the sherman vice the mechanical fragility of several german tanks...
I understand you can't beat 50,000 tanks, but try explaining that to the guy in the sherman lucky enough to go against any of the three German tanks mentioned.
The US tank situation by the end of fall 1944, was so bad that General's Eisenhower, Bradley and Patton (through Gen. Marshall of course) ordered the ordinance dept to get the M26 Pershing out of test and into production.
The M4 was simply not up to the task.
I know its slightly off topic, but didnt pre war US Army doctine say that the medium tanks were to avoid a tank vs tank fight, and instead keep "rolling forward" and allow the specialized tank destroyers to go one on one in a fight?
Of course it didnt work out that way in the real world, but that can explain why the Sherman was under gunned and not capable of going one on one with the German designs.
mkloby said:Allied tankers would commonly tackle a single german tank with 3 or 4 M4s - the numbers produced easily enabled this tactic. Sure, there were german tank aces that popped shermans like balloons with their StuGs or Tigers, but in my military opinion the germans would have been much better served building as many PzIVs as possible - taking steps to simplify the manufacturing process like the americans did w/ the M4. Note the ruggedness and reliability of the sherman vice the mechanical fragility of several german tanks...
The US won the war.
Ah Ah Ah the Allies won the war.
I have heard that the Sherman's usually 75mm gun could not pierce even a Pzr IV's frontal armor. My question is, was the Sherman's gun good against any tank aside from the lighter Pzer I-IIIs? Also, aside from logistics, why would the US use a gun that seemed to be so useless against enemy armor?