Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Are you saying the Patton tank would be a negligible improvement on a Sherman? Even if the Sherman can kill a Panzer or T34 that doesn’t invalidate the notion of getting the greatest possible advantage you can get.

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. How is one Pershing better than two Shermans, which is what could be shipped? While a 90mm has about the same explosive filler as a 75mm and definitely more than a 76mm shell, two Shermans have...two tubes vs. one. To put the situation in a better context, US actions were the first 2/3 of Fury. The tiger fight almost never happened.

Just because the Sherman uses combined arms warfare/numbers to be effective doesn’t mean that wouldn’t be done with a Pershing/Sherman. You’re insinuating that they would stop doing that if they had the big tank.

Yes I am. There would be less tanks overall. In urban / wooded Western Europe, a Pak40 and a Panzerfaust are going to kill a Pershing almost as well as a Sherman.
In the steppes of Mother Russia (VODKA!!!) the long range of German antitank guns (both towed and attached to large armored behemoths) were a far more dangerous threat in 1943 - 1944 (untl they moved out of the steppes). Even there the Russians had a similar response: upgunned T34s / SUs, and big heavy assault guns (IS2s, and SU 152s) lots of artillery and more Stormoviks than flies. Had the US been been facing the Germans on the Eastern Front they would have employed the same strategy. It would be an interesting question if the tank destroyer doctrine would have actually been better on that front.

Is it impossible to fire a HE shell out of a longer gun? You’re assuming these technical hiccups were insurmountable but they were all overcome. Again we’re not talking about the Mause which was never going to work. We’re talking about the US being on he cusp of getting an MBT into the field.

Yes actually, given the technology of the time. The same shell is going to have less filler, because the shell has to be made substantially stronger with thicker steel walls.

OT: we forget that the actual engagements are not Game of Tanks. GIs with antigrenades from dinky Garands killed almost as many tanks as Bazookas, and the threat facing US / UK tanks was kids with Panzerschrecks and Panzerfausts. The US typically dealt with Hitler's fire brigades very well indeed.

 Frazzled wrote:

Are you saying the Patton tank would be a negligible improvement on a Sherman? Even if the Sherman can kill a Panzer or T34 that doesn’t invalidate the notion of getting the greatest possible advantage you can get.

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. How is one Pershing better than two Shermans, which is what could be shipped? While a 90mm has about the same explosive filler as a 75mm and definitely more than a 76mm shell, two Shermans have...two tubes vs. one. To put the situation in a better context, US actions were the first 2/3 of Fury. The tiger fight almost never happened.

Just because the Sherman uses combined arms warfare/numbers to be effective doesn’t mean that wouldn’t be done with a Pershing/Sherman. You’re insinuating that they would stop doing that if they had the big tank.

Yes I am. There would be less tanks overall. In urban / wooded Western Europe, a Pak40 and a Panzerfaust are going to kill a Pershing almost as well as a Sherman.
In the steppes of Mother Russia (VODKA!!!) the long range of German antitank guns (both towed and attached to large armored behemoths) were a far more dangerous threat in 1943 - 1944 (untl they moved out of the steppes). Even there the Russians had a similar response: upgunned T34s / SUs, and big heavy assault guns (IS2s, and SU 152s) lots of artillery and more Stormoviks than flies. Had the US been been facing the Germans on the Eastern Front they would have employed the same strategy. It would be an interesting question if the tank destroyer doctrine would have actually been better on that front.

Is it impossible to fire a HE shell out of a longer gun? You’re assuming these technical hiccups were insurmountable but they were all overcome. Again we’re not talking about the Mause which was never going to work. We’re talking about the US being on he cusp of getting an MBT into the field.

Yes actually, given the technology of the time. The same shell is going to have less filler, because the shell has to be made substantially stronger with thicker steel walls.

OT: we forget that the actual engagements are not Game of Tanks. GIs with antigrenades from dinky Garands killed almost as many tanks as Bazookas, and the threat facing US / UK tanks was kids with Panzerschrecks and Panzerfausts. The US typically dealt with Hitler's fire brigades very well indeed.

Why would the US not be able to build or ship as many Pershings as they did Sherman’s? Was the US operating at 100 percent? Did it have a shortage of skilled workers and steel? Given that they did upgrade the entire tank fleet with Pattons and stationed a lot of them in Europe this was a surmountable issue. You’re vastly understating the advantage the US had over Germany, it had one arm tied behind its back for that entire war.

Won’t you get the first shot off if you have a gun that can fire at a longer range? That’s a pretty major advantage.

I don’t see why it’s relevant to bring up that artillery and infantry can kill tanks. That’s a reason against using tanks at all. The criticism of the Sherman isn’t that it was too vulnerable to those things. It’s that, inexplicably, the US didn’t leverage its industrial capacity to crush a vastly inferior enemy and instead decided to create an unnecessary gap in its arsenal. That probably got people killed unnecessarily. Yes, it’s just one cog in a machine that was mostly working. But that doesn’t mean you approve of doing nothing to fix the cog. That’s defending complacency.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
Why would the US not be able to build or ship as many Pershings as they did Sherman’s? Was the US operating at 100 percent? Did it have a shortage of skilled workers and steel? Given that they did upgrade the entire tank fleet with Pattons and stationed a lot of them in Europe this was a surmountable issue. You’re vastly understating the advantage the US had over Germany, it had one arm tied behind its back for that entire war.

For a start, the Pershing is a heavier vehicle, which uses more raw materials- it is absolutely not going to be a one-to-one ratio based on that alone. Secondly, changing to a new vehicle requires retooling production- whilst changing over, those factories are producing nothing. Switching factories over takes time, and reduces the number of tanks (and tank spare parts) available now. The Sherman had commonality of some parts with the M3, that aided this transition. During wartime, the costs of such a change is not negligible.

In addition, the logistics of transporting the tanks is changed up. A standard US flatbed rail truck of the era could hold two Shermans, but only one Pershing. The Liberty ships the US was pumping out had cranes that were rated for a tonnage that could lift Shermans, but not Pershings. How are you getting all of your new tanks to the frontline? It doesn't matter how many are being produced if you can only transport a small fraction of those per unit time- it will deplete frontline tanks stocks compared to before. Changing all of these logistical elements to be able to handle larger vehicles also costs resources, and time.

Won’t you get the first shot off if you have a gun that can fire at a longer range? That’s a pretty major advantage.

Most of the time, in Western Europe? Not really. The majority of tank combat already happened at ranges of 1000m or less. The terrain in Western and Southern Europe is not amenable to long-range sniping. Things were different on the Steppe in the Eastern front- here the German big cats made good anti-tank snipers.

I don’t see why it’s relevant to bring up that artillery and infantry can kill tanks. That’s a reason against using tanks at all. The criticism of the Sherman isn’t that it was too vulnerable to those things. It’s that, inexplicably, the US didn’t leverage its industrial capacity to crush a vastly inferior enemy and instead decided to create an unnecessary gap in its arsenal. That probably got people killed unnecessarily. Yes, it’s just one cog in a machine that was mostly working. But that doesn’t mean you approve of doing nothing to fix the cog. That’s defending complacency.

It absolutely did by prioritising getting an effective tank in sufficient numbers to effectively support frontline infantry across the entire front, and not just a small number of cat-counters.

Why would the US not be able to build or ship as many Pershings as they did Sherman’s? Was the US operating at 100 percent? Did it have a shortage of skilled workers and steel? Given that they did upgrade the entire tank fleet with Pattons and stationed a lot of them in Europe this was a surmountable issue. You’re vastly understating the advantage the US had over Germany, it had one arm tied behind its back for that entire war.
***After retooling they could have produced gobs of Pershings. The issue is that the weight and dimensions of the Sherman were specifically tailored for ease of shipping. The Wallies could physically load substantially more M4s than M26s in the same ship. If the Western Front was accessible by rail instead of ship, I'd proffer that your argument would have a much stronger case.

Won’t you get the first shot off if you have a gun that can fire at a longer range? That’s a pretty major advantage.
***Yes, except that ranges in West Europe were generally less due to terrain and a more built up overall area breaking up LOS. Its the same reason tanks were such a thing in North Africa campaign and the ME wars. You had LOS for miles. Again the Allies were facing concealed AT guns / TDs and dudes with early RPG weapons. A pershing is only marginally better in that environment against that opposition.

I don’t see why it’s relevant to bring up that artillery and infantry can kill tanks. That’s a reason against using tanks at all.
***Its an argument that there were plenty of things to kill German armor.

The criticism of the Sherman isn’t that it was too vulnerable to those things. It’s that, inexplicably, the US didn’t leverage its industrial capacity to crush a vastly inferior enemy and instead decided to create an unnecessary gap in its arsenal.
***Its a stupid argument. The US did indeed leverage its industrial capacity. In addition to tens of thousands of Shermans, they also built more fighter bombers than German armored vehicles and 6,500 M10 tank destroyers.

That probably got people killed unnecessarily. Yes, it’s just one cog in a machine that was mostly working. But that doesn’t mean you approve of doing nothing to fix the cog. That’s defending complacency.
***The cog was continuously improved through the war. A 76mm could kill any tank it faced. It was operationally better than any German tank it faced, with better radio, better reliability, and easier maintenance. It had equal or better vision than its opposition, and its front armor was better than a Tiger with slope. It proved capable of wiping out regiment strength panther formations.

Its not perfect, but its its what the Wallies needed in WWII.

 Frazzled wrote:
I don’t see why it’s relevant to bring up that artillery and infantry can kill tanks. That’s a reason against using tanks at all.
***Its an argument that there were plenty of things to kill German armor.

As a point of fact, most German armor destroyed by the Western Allies was destroyed by air elements, not ground elements. The US so rarely needed tanks to deal with other tanks that indirect fire training became mandatory of US tank and tank destroyer crews, cause 75-95% of their time was spent using their guns as artilly to dig out entrenched German positions.

 LordofHats wrote:
As a point of fact, most German armor destroyed by the Western Allies was destroyed by air elements, not ground elements.

I'm not sure that is a point of fact. I believe it's more thought to be a myth at this point, owing to a significant number of reports not matching up with each other, either regarding numbers claimed vs numbers present (the favoured Soviet style), or numbers claimed vs post-battle analysis. The two most infamous cases I've seen are:

Operation Goodwood, where the RAF and USAAF claimed 257 and 134 tank kills respectively - 222 from Typhoon rockets - and of the 301 wrecks from 456 German tanks counted in the aftermath, only 10 could be accredited to Typhoon rockets, with only 3 out of 87 APCs due to Typhoon rockets, too.

And at Mortain, where the RAF and USAAF claimed 140 and 112 destroyed tanks respectively, where not only was the number of tanks in the area only 177, but only 46 were ever lost and of those only 9 to air attack.

 Avatar 720 wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
As a point of fact, most German armor destroyed by the Western Allies was destroyed by air elements, not ground elements.

I'm not sure that is a point of fact. I believe it's more thought to be a myth at this point, owing to a significant number of reports not matching up with each other, either regarding numbers claimed vs numbers present (the favoured Soviet style), or numbers claimed vs post-battle analysis. The two most infamous cases I've seen are:

Operation Goodwood, where the RAF and USAAF claimed 257 and 134 tank kills respectively - 222 from Typhoon rockets - and of the 301 wrecks from 456 German tanks counted in the aftermath, only 10 could be accredited to Typhoon rockets, with only 3 out of 87 APCs due to Typhoon rockets, too.

And at Mortain, where the RAF and USAAF claimed 140 and 112 destroyed tanks respectively, where not only was the number of tanks in the area only 177, but only 46 were ever lost and of those only 9 to air attack.

Destroyed probably isn't the right word.

The Germans by 1944 were very good battlefield scavengers/salvagers, and they didn't record vehicles they recovered from the field as lost but a vehicle that has to be recovered from the field is also a vehicle that got knocked out of the fight. Most of these losses came from allies bombing campaigns that preceded major offensive. That also meant the Germans got to recover their vehicles and rework them into field conditions, but it still removed them from battle. The prime example is the Panzer Lehr Division on the eves of Operation Overlord and Operation Cobra. They lost half their tanks to allied bombing before the offensive even began.

My understanding is that around 5-7% of German armour losses on the Western front after D-Day were from aerial attack. The majority lost to enemy action were still inflicted by gunnery and mines.

Aerial attacks were great at destroying morale though- inexperienced crews had a habit of abandoning their vehicles for "safety", which was actually a terrible idea when only a direct hit would kill a tank, but shrapnel can devastate the unprotected crewman. Experienced crews wold button up and ride out the strom instead.

Aerial attacks were also great at destroying armoured mobility- they could devastate the support elements that supplied the tanks, which prevented them from operating effectively just as much as knocking out the tanks themselves. Can't do much if the ammo and fuel is blown up. The Germans still relied on a lot of horse-drawn supplies, these were especially vulnerable to air interdiction.


This is an excellent, well-sourced video on the matter.

 Avatar 720 wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
As a point of fact, most German armor destroyed by the Western Allies was destroyed by air elements, not ground elements.

I'm not sure that is a point of fact. I believe it's more thought to be a myth at this point, owing to a significant number of reports not matching up with each other, either regarding numbers claimed vs numbers present (the favoured Soviet style), or numbers claimed vs post-battle analysis. The two most infamous cases I've seen are:

Operation Goodwood, where the RAF and USAAF claimed 257 and 134 tank kills respectively - 222 from Typhoon rockets - and of the 301 wrecks from 456 German tanks counted in the aftermath, only 10 could be accredited to Typhoon rockets, with only 3 out of 87 APCs due to Typhoon rockets, too.

And at Mortain, where the RAF and USAAF claimed 140 and 112 destroyed tanks respectively, where not only was the number of tanks in the area only 177, but only 46 were ever lost and of those only 9 to air attack.

He is correct however in that TD's were used much more in the dire and indirect fire support role for infantry vs. dealing with German armor. TDs were often used like the tank companies that became attached to infantry formations as assault support.

While i'm a fan of the firefly as Frazzled said it is a bit of a lash up with a gun that only just fits in the turret which means terrible ergonomics and slow firing (got to make that first shot count),

but it was only ever suitable for supplementing a units firepower as the lack of a hull MG (and a turret MG that was harder to use than normal because of the 17 pounder main gun getting in the way of everything) would mean real problems when it came up against infantry

The internet never disappoints - home to historical revisionists with their perfect 20/20 hindsight and Wehraboos alike. And M4 Sherman bashing is a cottage industry for each of them.

 totalfailure wrote:
The internet never disappoints - home to historical revisionists with their perfect 20/20 hindsight and Wehraboos alike. And M4 Sherman bashing is a cottage industry for each of them.

Whats cool is how everyone is having a nice discussion and then this pops up. As the daughter would say, "not cool bro."

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
While i'm a fan of the firefly as Frazzled said it is a bit of a lash up with a gun that only just fits in the turret which means terrible ergonomics and slow firing (got to make that first shot count),

but it was only ever suitable for supplementing a units firepower as the lack of a hull MG (and a turret MG that was harder to use than normal because of the 17 pounder main gun getting in the way of everything) would mean real problems when it came up against infantry

A fact I used to great effect in my FoW games. Firefly's were easy pickings for my FJs.

How many Tigers did it take to kill a Sherman?

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:
How many Tigers did it take to kill a Sherman?

That isn't a bad point. The German tanks were prone to breakdowns and hard to repair since they were designed based on how much armor and guns was wanted, not on what could easily be achieved. The Sherman on the other hand was built with ease of manufacture, transport and maintenance first. A service crew could pull the transmission on a Sherman, replace it and bolt the thing back up before a German crew had even dismantled a Panther so they could remove the same part. Tanks that can't move have to be left behind if your position is being overrun, and that's where a huge number of German tanks were lost.

Spetulhu wrote:

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:
How many Tigers did it take to kill a Sherman?

That isn't a bad point. The German tanks were prone to breakdowns and hard to repair since they were designed based on how much armor and guns was wanted, not on what could easily be achieved. The Sherman on the other hand was built with ease of manufacture, transport and maintenance first. A service crew could pull the transmission on a Sherman, replace it and bolt the thing back up before a German crew had even dismantled a Panther so they could remove the same part. Tanks that can't move have to be left behind if your position is being overrun, and that's where a huge number of German tanks were lost.

Sometimes this was MUCH worse when it came to German repairs. Changing a Sherman Transmission was (if I remember correctly) a 4 hour job for 2 men in the field with hand tools.

If a Panther blew a transmission (which it did at much higher frequency) it needed to be towed to a workshop, have the turret lifted off with a crane, a firewall removed, the driver's chair removed, radio removed, some hydraulic lines removed, and then the transmission was unbolted and pulled back to the turret ring where it was crane-lifted up and out. Then everything was replaced. This was a 6-day ordeal for an 8-man crew in a well-supplied workshop.

That's a repair time factor of 80 times the man-hours of labor, not including the towing. That's staggeringly huge.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:
I think we can solve most issues by saying that the US should have mirrors UK doctrines at the time. Put a 17pdr in one tank per platoon, problem (mostly) solved.

The Firefly was adopted by the US Army but not in any numbers and way too late. There is no reason why the US army could not have had massed Firefly variants in time for the Normandy landings.

As for using the Sherman as a focus of quantity and logistical quality. I think that was sound even with hindsight.

The Firefly used the smaller turret from the 75mm Sherman, and the 76mm Sherman used the new, larger turret. I've been in one of those "larger" turrets before, and I really wouldn't want anything smaller.

Yes.... the 17 pounder was more powerful, but at the ranges you'd expect to engage in both shredded armor. the 17 pounder was just overkill. It's like wondering if you should use a .357 or a 500 S&W to hunt rabbit during pistol hunting season.

the 76mm was simply less taxing on crews, target acquisition was significantly better, and follow up shots were better too.

No.

And there is no point me repeating what's been said so I won't do that.

But just no.

Too much effort.
Too much time.
And just look how the pershings debut went.
It wasn't great.

I think we need to be fair on German armoured maintenance requirements. The Panther and later tanks were famously difficult to maintain, but the earlier vehicles were actually pretty good. Not as easy as a Sherman with its factory-spec interchangeable parts, but still fairly straightforward.

I think we also need to consider one perspective: It's not just what you have, it's where you can take it and how fast you can get it there.


Europe at the time was industrialized, but a lot of it's road infrastructure was NOT modern at all. A vast majority of their road bridges were well over 100 years old, some several hundred years old. They were designed to last many years, but they were intended to have a handful of well stocked carts on them at any given time. An architect in the late 1700's really didn't plan on having heavy armor drive over it. The difference in weight and width between the Sherman and the Patton was the difference between taking any old stone bridge, or waiting for the Army Corp of engineers to set something up. When literal minutes count, I'd rather have something decent now than the perfect tool rolling in too late.

I would have to say no. The US had the 90mm TD and artillery. Which is more than sufficient when you consider how outnumbered the Germans were at that point in the war. Just heard a stat the other day that was pretty telling. 97+ % of TD use on the western from was indirect (they actually had to retrain the crews because they had nothing to do). Perhaps if Germany had handled the war differently it could have been a necessity to match their heavy armor but Germany was not really a capable foe the way things turned out. In a hypthoetical situation in which Hilter does not engage in invading Russia and another 2 million men and 1000 more tanks with lots being tigers...Yeah. Then the US would have needed a heavy tank to match the tiger1.

Also for all the gakking about the Tiger being so fantastic. Reliably mobility and guns are the most important factors for tanks. The Tiger really only had 1 of these - It had a great gun and huge armor. That armor wasn't enough to stop the t34's gun most the time (and the t34's gun was only a 76.2mm) and the t34 was far more reliable and mobile. Tigers were pretty mobile for a big tank but it put it's priorities in the wrong -places and was WAY over engineered. For the cost they could have built 3000 more panthers and it would have been a better decision.

As for the Sherman - it actually did really well during the war. It was basically never seeing tigers anyways. It's biggest failing was always being quite combustible on being knocked out. It killed a lot of crews than might have lived in a safer tank. Really though - this also seems a little embellished. How often does a tank crew survive when they have an AP round bouncing about the cabin? I'd say...rarely but I don't have that data.

I thought most war time production T34s were the upgunned T34/85 with an 85mm main gun.

I also understood that the Sherman's tendency to burn was somewhat overstated, they were no more likely to burn than a PzIII or PzIV both of which were also petrol fueled and was less likely once wet stowage was introduced. Because it was extremely numerous and mostly used offensively compated to the Panzers though Shermans were more likely to be hit and penetrated in the first place, so you would be more likely to encounter a burned out Sherman on the battlefield compared to a German tank.

Looking at the numbers - it appears that the soviets produced significantly more 76.2 t34s but you are right. The 76.2 struggled a bit more than I thought it did against tiger frontal armor. At Kurst though. These would have primarily been 76.2mm t34s.

 Xenomancers wrote:
I'd say...rarely but I don't have that data.

For the earlier "dry" shermans I believe the chieftain himself had that data and stated it as being an average of 2 deaths and I think 1 injury per 5 crew.
With "wet" I think it was 1 death 1 injury.
It was something along those lines.
And that seems to of been also down to hatch access compared to earlier smaller hatch shermans.

Where as other tanks like T-34 and the much hailed Churchill was pretty much "why do crews need to survive?"
The Churchill was practically a death trap if penetrated.
Which it could be despite claims of its immortality.

 Xenomancers wrote:

That armor wasn't enough to stop the t34's gun most the time (and the t34's gun was only a 76.2mm) and the t34 was far more reliable and mobile.

Don't know where you got this information but that is wildly inaccurate. The 76.2mm gun on the T34 was absolutely no match for a Tiger except at point blank range, and even then it wasn't exactly a sure thing.

Tigers were pretty mobile for a big tank but it put it's priorities in the wrong -places and was WAY over engineered. For the cost they could have built 3000 more panthers and it would have been a better decision.

I see this argument often. I don't think most armchair military historians take into account the Wehrmacht's manpower problems when they think of this issue in those terms. Fewer, more sophisticated machines was pretty much their only option. Even if they did churn out more Panzer IVs, I highly doubt they could have manned them all.

The exaggerated claims of Shermans bursting into flames is pretty much a myth. The main cause of combustion came from the ammo cooking off, and due to how US ammo was made it was actually more stable than that of other countries. Even the dry storage version of the Sherman was ever-so-slightly LESS likely to burst into flames than a Panzer4 or Churchill. Of course this doesn't totally matter because normally both sides kept hitting an enemy until they burned anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Can we all agree though that the most over-hyped tank of the war is by far the T-34? I often see it praised as the end-all, be-all of WWII. Honestly though, in many areas it totally sucked.

It was what it needed to be, which was easy to produce and be used by untrained crews and have a field life expectancy calculated in days, not weeks or months.

The t34 did exactly what it was supposed to do, so no.
It isn't overhyped and considering that it probably best achieved the need of the side it fielded is a big plus.

I think people tend to overestimate the T34's arms and armor, but that's mostly because people in general have a poor grasp of the realities of tank warfare in the war.

In 1941 at least, the hype is generally accurate. The Germans didn't have any guns capable of reliabily penetrating the T34's armor in 1941. The emergence of the 75 and 88 guns that became standard on German vehicles as we popularly remember them happened specifically because of the T34 and the KVs. The Germans needed to upgrade their guns to deal with these vehicles, but in 1941 when this first became apparent neither of these vehicles were that common.

By 1943 the T34 was still a very good tank, easily one of the best warmachines of its time. But it certainly wasn't the same monster it was in 1941 when it was too well armored. Instead it was a different monster, a metaphorical horde.

“Was the Sherman actually bad” is the question very new armchair historians ask when they get bored asking how Germany could have won the war. It’s a great topic because there is tons of information, and a great gateway to thinking about tactics, logistics, and mass production.

That said, most serious historians think that the Sherman did what it was supposed to do in the war that it actually fought. Even if the US had fast tracked the Pershing in, say, 1943, the impact would have been marginal.

Different allied forces were all ready arguing about who got the fuel. This was a rather limited resource, and there literally wasn't enough to go around all the time. The Pershing sucked up WAY more fuel than the Sherman, and was slower on roads and across country. This means fuel transportation lines would have been even more of a limiting factor in the war, and speed was a huge factor.

If I had to choose between 100 shermans rolling into an area on Thursday, or 60 Pershings coming into the same area on Monday (giving the enemy 3 days to dig in) I know which I'd prefer.

 Xenomancers wrote:
As for the Sherman - it actually did really well during the war. It was basically never seeing tigers anyways. It's biggest failing was always being quite combustible on being knocked out. It killed a lot of crews than might have lived in a safer tank. Really though - this also seems a little embellished. How often does a tank crew survive when they have an AP round bouncing about the cabin? I'd say...rarely but I don't have that data.

From June 1944 until April 1945, American armored forces suffered .98 crew casualties per vehicle loss (both medium and light tanks combined).

The Sherman was one of, if not the, most survible tanks of the war.