I mean… stepping out of a molten disabled husk after it is destroyed by a single shot from an enemy too distant to even see is neat, I guess. What a weird cope.
I am tickled that the perception of Shermans being flimsy death traps can be traced back to a guy who worked at depots of battle damaged Shermans. It’s like, yeah of course that guy only saw the destroyed Sherman tanks, why would he ever see the functional ones?
No, the stories came from Patton who publicly didn’t want his troops demoralized but privately reported on how mismatched the Sherman was against the Tiger.
“Even when upgraded to a 76mm, the M4’s armament could not penetrate the frontal armor of the more heavily armored German tanks and assault guns. Therefore, standard tactics for a five-tank platoon engaging German Tiger and Panther tanks required one section to draw the Germans’ fire, while the other section maneuvered to the flank and engaged the German tanks from the side or rear. Such tactics were not morale-builders for tank crews.”
I’m well aware, on both accounts. They were sincere, and correct, and you have fallen for either Belton Cooper’s stories, or stories of people who have fallen for his stories. Shermans did have one of the best safety records of the war, and the laments of Sherman crews have been greatly, and I mean greatly exaggerated.
The Sherman was adequate for the task of defeating the thoroughly mismanaged Germans. It was created to defeat an enemy that had lost the ability to effectively engage in most forms of AA, reconnaissance, and coordination. It was effectively the same as a named boxer fighting nobodies to bolster their record. Was it a bad tank? No. Was it a good one? No. It was adequate. Numerous and adequate.
I’m sincerely not sure what you’re referring to, I was joking about its design philosophy involving tailored solutions to exact specifications.
The Sherman had the best crew survivability of any tank in the war.
I mean… stepping out of a molten disabled husk after it is destroyed by a single shot from an enemy too distant to even see is neat, I guess. What a weird cope.
Username checks out.
I am tickled that the perception of Shermans being flimsy death traps can be traced back to a guy who worked at depots of battle damaged Shermans. It’s like, yeah of course that guy only saw the destroyed Sherman tanks, why would he ever see the functional ones?
No, the stories came from Patton who publicly didn’t want his troops demoralized but privately reported on how mismatched the Sherman was against the Tiger.
“Even when upgraded to a 76mm, the M4’s armament could not penetrate the frontal armor of the more heavily armored German tanks and assault guns. Therefore, standard tactics for a five-tank platoon engaging German Tiger and Panther tanks required one section to draw the Germans’ fire, while the other section maneuvered to the flank and engaged the German tanks from the side or rear. Such tactics were not morale-builders for tank crews.”
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m4-tiger.htm
It’s not visible to you, but Kbin users can see who downvotes them. They were being sincere.
I’m well aware, on both accounts. They were sincere, and correct, and you have fallen for either Belton Cooper’s stories, or stories of people who have fallen for his stories. Shermans did have one of the best safety records of the war, and the laments of Sherman crews have been greatly, and I mean greatly exaggerated.
The Sherman was adequate for the task of defeating the thoroughly mismanaged Germans. It was created to defeat an enemy that had lost the ability to effectively engage in most forms of AA, reconnaissance, and coordination. It was effectively the same as a named boxer fighting nobodies to bolster their record. Was it a bad tank? No. Was it a good one? No. It was adequate. Numerous and adequate.
I’m sincerely not sure what you’re referring to, I was joking about its design philosophy involving tailored solutions to exact specifications.