|
|
Forums - Research / WW2 |
This WW2 forum is intended for asking and discussing reference or historical related issues pertaining to WW2 (1939-1945) subjects. |
| Topics | 3260 |
| Messages | 14505 |
|
|
| Subject: | It all depends on how you look at it. |  |
| Date: | Mar 21, 2008 |
| From: | Hans Haase | |
Ok, nobody will say the Sherman would defeat a Tiger in a standup fight. But you are comparing vastly different tanks with very different purposes there.
The key strongpoints that made the Sherman successful was that they were versatile, adaptable and mobile. Yeah, they weren't the biggest kids on the block but they were always able to be there when you needed one with enough of a punch for most jobs. Against Panzer IV's and Stugs, which made up the majority of the German armored forces, they performed quite well. Particularly the later 76mm Shermans which could penetrate both with ease. In fact, Shermans were BETTER armored than the Panzer IV in most areas. They also stack up very well against T-34's both in armor and gun performance... in fact the gun penetration data is nearly identical when comparing early Shermans and T-34's... same with Late Shermans and T-34's.
But everybody always compares Shermans to Tigers, which is really not fair to either tank. Remember, there were less than 2,000 Tigers produced (that's combining both Tiger I's and II's over 4 years). The production was horribly slow, they were logistical nightmares to maintain and transport and it was rare to get any concentration of them in one area. Yes, they could dominate the battlefield they were on, but defensively they could rarely dictate where the battlefield would be nor would there ever be enough to cover all possibilities. It was an offensive weapon best suited to a planned fight where you could logistically support it. The Tiger was a battleship of the main fleet. The Sherman was the heavy cruiser that dominates the other 90% of the oceans. Both excellent at what they do, but with very different jobs.
Lastly, the Sherman fought an offensive war of mobility. Tigers and Panthers mostly fought a defensive campaign. Simply put, the big German Cats would not have been able to fight like a Sherman due to their atrocious reliability, maintenance needs and logistical requirements.
-Hans |
| |
|
|
 | Whats so good about the Sherman? - Paul Ramsden - Mar 21, 2008 |
| . . . Re: Whats so good about the Sherman? - Gazza Hollett - Mar 21, 2008 |
| . . . Re: Whats so good about the Sherman? - Otto Huuskonen - Mar 21, 2008 |
| . . . Re: Whats so good about the Sherman? - Georg Eyerman - Mar 21, 2008 |
| . . . . . . Re: Whats so good about the Sherman? - Fred Schwarz - Mar 21, 2008 |
| . . . "Pssst! Paul,...come closer.... - mike foncannon - Mar 21, 2008 |
| . . . Re: Whats so good about the Sherman? - Dan - Mar 21, 2008 |
| . . . It all depends on how you look at it. - Hans Haase - Mar 21, 2008 |
| . . . Re: Whats so good about the Sherman? - tom deimling - Mar 21, 2008 |
| . . . Re: Whats so good about the Sherman? - Gary Cooper - Mar 21, 2008 |
| . . . "fairly rubbish" - Roy Chow - Mar 21, 2008 |
| . . . I read an article several years back where a Panzer General was interviewed - Steve Kubik - Mar 21, 2008 |
| . . . Sheer Numbers. n/t - Jim Johnson - Mar 21, 2008 |
| . . . "Death Traps" - J.Giglio - Mar 21, 2008 |
| . . . . . . Re: "Death Traps" - Fred Schwarz - Mar 22, 2008 |
| . . . Re: Whats so good about the Sherman? - Rob Feehan - Mar 21, 2008 |
| . . . . . . Re: Whats so good about the Sherman? - Johannes Allert - Mar 22, 2008 |
| . . . . . . . . . Re: Whats so good about the Sherman? - Roy Chow - Mar 22, 2008 |
| . . . . . . . . . Re: Whats so good about the Sherman? - Fred Schwarz - Mar 22, 2008 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Whats so good about the Sherman? - Brian Hanley - Mar 22, 2008 |
| . . . Relatively silly topic of discussion - Glenn Gerson - Mar 22, 2008 |
| . . . . . . Re: Relatively silly topic of discussion - Brian Hanley - Mar 23, 2008 |
| . . . Re: Whats so good about the Sherman? - Mike Spivey - Mar 23, 2008 |
| . . . Discussed before - Martin Dogger - Mar 23, 2008 |
| . . . . . . Re: Discussed before - Rob Feehan - Mar 23, 2008 |
| . . . . . . . . . Re: Discussed before - Dan - Mar 23, 2008 |
| . . . . . . . . . Re: Discussed before - Mike Spivey - Mar 23, 2008 |
| . . . Re: Whats so good about the Sherman? - rob galassi - Mar 24, 2008 |
| . . . Shermanaholic - Historical Perspective - James Wechsler - Mar 24, 2008 |
| . . . Shermanaholic - Modeler's Perspective - James Wechsler - Mar 24, 2008 |
| . . . . . . Re: Shermanaholic - Modeler's Perspective - Edward Hall - Mar 24, 2008 |
| . . . . . . . . . Soooooo....... was it any good then? - Dave Williams - Mar 24, 2008 |
| . . . . . . Centurion - Paul A. Owen - Mar 24, 2008 |
| . . . . . . . . . Re: Centurion - James Wechsler - Mar 24, 2008 |
| . . . As you said... - Paul A. Owen - Mar 24, 2008 |
|
|
