Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe
Oh God, no, not another one!
All of this Sherman-defending is driving me insane!
Please can this be the last time I say this!
The Sherman was a good MEDIUM tank, on par with the PzKpfw IV, T-34/76 and Cromwell. The Panther and Tiger where much better than it (not counting reliability and maintenance issues), but they are a completely different class altogether. The Panther is a heavy medium, along with the Pershing, Comet and T-34/85 (almost). The Tiger is a heavy tank, on Par with the IS-II.
Goodnight!
|
Absolutely, this is merry go around, and I feel like I want to give it a ride, so I'll swap with you joe
Quote:
|
The T-34 on the other hand was so good that it forced the Germans to make the Panther (which would have been the best tank if it had not been so complex). The T-34 actually stood a chance against these tanks and a lot of the time got the better of them. I mean the Germans called the Sherman the "Tommy Cooker". Anyone who thinks that the Sherman with its weak, low velocity 75mm, and light unsloped armor would defeat a T-34/85 is insane.
|
Ok, the Panther was an almost exact copy of the T-34 yes because it was a new inovative tank that was very good at what it did. However the Panther was not only complex in terms of labour time to build, but also in money needed to build, and the sheer complexity of what was required of the manufacters. Now even if this was not bad enough (as I have already posted this, but I will do it in again, because I amin a good mood) The panther having interlocking wheels just like the tiger, konigstiger, and the jadgpanther, all had the trouble with the wheels clogging up in the winter snow and western mud and making the tank immobile until it could be cleaned off, they all also were slow, extremely high on fuel consumption and were just too darn big, just look at the tiger being unable to cross many of the bridges in the combat areas (this somewhat made an attack by tigers prredictable). The panther although to German standards was considered a medium tank, in all regards it was a heavy tank while the T-34 being a medium its self as with the M4 sherman.
Now which is actually the better tank? the one which initiated the designs for all after it, or a copy of the original?
Ok now with the "tomme cooker" part. Yes we all know that the Shermans were prone to catching fire at the beginning, but that changed and they became more reliable and the main stream tank of the american and in some ares the British armoured forces, now you wouldn't use it if was not a good tank, now all the Allied Generals obviously liked it enough to use it, even the Russians, even with their hugh amounts of T-34's.
Who said that a tank can only be put out of action by penertration of its armour? What about the tracks, making it immobile? what about an arse shot taking out the engine? or the turrent with generally less armour and less slope then the hull? after all there is more then one way to skin a cat.
Ok now how well did the T-34 compared with the sherman go against a Tiger tank? Both had trouble knocking them out at any range, and both would be blown to pieces by the 88 KwK. Both had varients to attempt to fix this such as the British 17pdr Firfly (Sherman) and the T-34\85 (t-34\76), plus you cant compare a first varient American M4 Sherman against the last varient of the Russian T-34's. Its like putting the Mk I spitfire against a Me 109 Gustav.
oh and yes we know that there are many people out there that think the the Sherman was the worst tank ever and the Germans had the best tanks, but that simply is not the case mate.
and before you say it JCF I know I am beating what is clearly a mutilated dead horse
Have fun
