Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Derren" data-source="post: 7553287" data-attributes="member: 2518">A better medium tank for dealing with heavies? Easy. The Panther. And of course when you stuff post war technology into a WW2 hull it will perform better than a pure WW2 design. The reason why so many Shermans were used also simply was that there was a lot of them and the US sold them to everyone while no more Panthers could be produced, or only with great difficulties and few survived in the first place. This is also the reason why a "bad" tank was given to the troops. They simply had so many of them and completely misjudged the number of Panthers produced. And also the general US strategy of tanks being only for infantry support and fast tank destroyers like the M18 being used whenever the Shermans encountered enemy armor.In the end all the successes of Shermans were not because of the merits of the tanks themselves, but because of the strong US industry which simply could outproduce Germany by the truckload and because they could call in air or artillery strikes whenever they wanted. But when just comparing the tank, the Sherman falls short as, while upgradeable, it simply was an outdated design from 1941 which was not up to date with the developments later in the war.Just imagine how the war would have turned out if the US had mass produced the superior tank instead of the inferior one.Not sure why you bring up the 88mm or fotoage of a Panther one shotting a Sherman before being destroyed by a Pershing.The French by the way replaced their Panthers with their own tanks and not American ones.</blockquote>

Verification