the M4A3 Sherman

[privatehudson]

And the fact that the Germans had superior armour would have been little comfort to the tank crews killed when the tank they were in took a rocket up the backside, or when the "inferior" enemy tanks overan their position and put them out of action through sheer numbers.

War is hell.

As for the Nashorn they would be highly unusual circumstances, you would rarely find a situation in NW Europe where a tank could target an enemy at that range, let alone hit and destroy it.

 

[sabo]

As for the Nashorn they would be highly unusual circumstances, you would rarely find a situation in NW Europe where a tank could target an enemy at that range, let alone hit and destroy it.

Nahorn.. but now we're talking about tank destroyers again, not tanks. The Nashorn didn't have a traversable turrent.

 

[privatehudson]

That tended to be a common feature of most tank destroyers, but especially German ones.

 

[Zardnaar]

Alot of the tank destroyers had the same weapons used in Panthers, Tigers, etc. They still count as armor even though technically they're not a tank. I'm not saying Shermans are complete crap or useless but as a general rule German tanks were better.

 

[Ethics]

Another design restriction of the Sherman was height and width restrictions for American rail tracks from the midwest to the coasts. The brass was not unaware that the tank was underpowered, but they did the job and otherwise avoided having to replace or modify infastructure across the country.

 

[Zardnaar]

Another design restriction of the Sherman was height and width restrictions for American rail tracks from the midwest to the coasts. The brass was not unaware that the tank was underpowered, but they did the job and otherwise avoided having to replace or modify infastructure across the country.

Was it Patton who claimed it was the best tank in the world though and then they encountered the German kitties in Normandy.

 

[neutrino]

I think the comparison between the Sherman and its variants and late-war German medium and heavy tanks is prone to go out of context. After all, a battlefield does not consist of an array of one-on-one shootout.

Anyway ......

Among the design restrictions imposed on the Sherman is its narrow tracks. It had to be able to roll off landing crafts. The use of gasoline engine was problematic if it catches fire.

Much more than tanks themselves, the thing that turned the ground campaigns unfavorably for the Germans was the disparity of mobility. While all of the Allied ground units were motorized, only a small fraction (I think it was somewhere around 20%) of the German units were. Not to mention that the Allies enjoyed absolute air superiority, and the Americans in particular enjoyed superior fire supports from their artillery units. Finally, chronic fuel shortage suffered by Germany did not help.

 

[Ethics]

Was it Patton who claimed it was the best tank in the world though and then they encountered the German kitties in Normandy.

Eisenhower actually requested a more beefy tank but was rejected for the previously mentioned reasons. He was the politician commander, Patton was the front line commander.

As for the Patton quote, I surmise there are a variety of reasons for it. The tank served him well in Africa and Italy due to its size and ability to go where larger tanks couldn't. The "cramped" landscapes of Western Europe were ideal for a smaller tank such as the Sherman to perform in as well. Other than that, Patton was not a man to encourage complaning in his ranks for obvious reasons.

Certainly, in a tank vs tank encounter, we'd all rather be in a Panther, but thats not the type of combat the Sherman was put in for the most part. It was just one more peg in the combined arms cog of the US military and it did that job extremely well. I assume things may have turned out differently if the US had been operating on the Russian plains though.

 

[dosed150]

Eisenhower actually requested a more beefy tank but was rejected for the previously mentioned reasons. He was the politician commander, Patton was the front line commander.

As for the Patton quote, I surmise there are a variety of reasons for it. The tank served him well in Africa and Italy due to its size and ability to go where larger tanks couldn't. The "cramped" landscapes of Western Europe were ideal for a smaller tank such as the Sherman to perform in as well. Other than that, Patton was not a man to encourage complaning in his ranks for obvious reasons.

Certainly, in a tank vs tank encounter, we'd all rather be in a Panther, but thats not the type of combat the Sherman was put in for the most part. It was just one more peg in the combined arms cog of the US military and it did that job extremely well. I assume things may have turned out differently if the US had been operating on the Russian plains though.

the total inferiority of italian tanks to most allied tanks probably helped the sherman do so well in north africa

 

[Zardnaar]

the total inferiority of italian tanks to most allied tanks probably helped the sherman do so well in north africa

The German armor for the most part was also 2nd rate. Only a few Tigers made it there as most were sent tothe Eastern fornt and no Panthers. Shermans not to bad vs Panzer III.

 

[privatehudson]

The German armor for the most part was also 2nd rate. Only a few Tigers made it there as most were sent tothe Eastern fornt and no Panthers. Shermans not to bad vs Panzer III.

In my opinion German armour was only "second rate" by the standards of later armour. By the standards of what was available before the campaign ended the armour used in the desert did not significantly lag behind the eastern front. The armour used in the desert has to be put into the context of the time frame the desert war was fought in. No panthers were sent for example because the tank didn't debut at the front until something like 6 weeks after the fall of Tunisia. On the other hand the two best armed tanks to that date (May 1943), the Tiger and Panzer IVF2/IVG were both deployed in the desert war, as were upgunned Panzer IIIs, which was a pretty common tank in 1943. The number of Tigers eventually deployed in Tunisia (around 30 or so I believe) may seem slight, but consider that this represents about 15% of entire production to that point, and the deployment of one and a half batallations of Tigers at a time when there was only 5 available. Considering the relatively small size of forces engaged in the Desert this gives an indication that it wasn't a side show for clapped out armour and Italians.