"Everyone forgets one big issue. The Sherman had to fight all over the world and the American logistics system couldn't transport a bigger and heavier tank. The Germans could build a tank and then put it on one rail car and have it at the front in less than two days. The Sherman got put on a rail car, had to be lifted into a boat, taken off the boat, put on a rail car, put in another boat and then put on another rail car."
Electronick7714 posted: . . ."Last point, people forget the Sherman had to be shipped across the ocean. It's why America decided to not go with the M6/T1E1 heavy tank. It was too much of a headache for the logistics and shipping to deal with for not much game. Why ship this big complicated heavy tank when you can ship 2 or 3 Shermans, or, a Sherman and a tank destroyer/s that can carry the same 76 gun? There's no Chrysler, Ford, etc factories over the ocean, so these tanks had to be interchangeable with each other, work well, and be reliable. And that's exactly what they did. The fact it had nicer features like a secondary motor for the turret/electrical systems, more room, better ergonomics, etc was an added bonus, especially to some of the Soviet troops. (Loza fought in t-34s, Matilda, and Sherman's and he gave high praise to the latter).
"Not saying that the Sherman is perfect or any tank is perfect for that matter. They all have pros and cons that are affected by a multitude of factors. Some issues with these tanks were fixed or made better with solutions brought on from battlefield experience. Other issues came about as a result of logistics or improper usage of said tanks. It's all incredibly complicated and there's tons of factors that go into what makes a tank effective or not, but for me, I've come to greatly love the Sherman tank and it would definitely be my first choice to be in compared with other tanks of that period." . . .
M4 Sherman Tank VS Panther Tank A look at the Sherman's drive train will tell you why it was so tall.
No comments:
Post a Comment