Sherman is a great tank for mass production...although Tiger maybe stronger...but it is so damn hard to produce and maintain......

Originally Posted by Topgunjn1

Ya I forgot about Polands attempt at armour.
You do have a very good point about the Sherman. Nobody knew about the powerful tanks that Germany and Russia had come up with. However, the Tigers had come out long before the war was over. You would have thought that the U.S. would have done something to seriously update the Sherman.

The Sherman was a Light Support Tank not a Heavy Tank. You can't just throw on some extra armor and a larger gun.

From 1944-1946 the US Army has the T-28, T-29 and T-29E2 tanks. The T-29 "SUPER HEAVY" was a giant turtle. All had 105mm to 120mm guns.

Besides, the germans only produce 435 Tigers and less than 50 Royal Tigers.

The Russians had serious defects on the T-34 and it wasn't upgunned to 85mm until late in 44'.

Germans did produce more than 1000 Tigers....but still, most of them were a total waste of resources in my opinion, they could use the same amount of time and money to build like Panther

by teh way, I think Panther is one of the best tank in world war 2, it is a lethal combination of armor, mobility and firepower, but luckily, U.S airforce bombed the crap out of Panther factory.

Sherman was a very fast tank and easy to maintain..however, it was a weak one if you look at this fact: usually U.S troops had to put in 5 shermans to kill one tiger and often have to lost 3-4 shermans during the fighting.

T-34 is sort of like Soviet Union's vision of a tank for mass production like Sherman, but it seems T-34 is a bit better than Sherman according to the impression of German tankers left by T-34.

Originally Posted by Cadet Seaman

The Sherman was a Light Support Tank not a Heavy Tank. You can't just throw on some extra armor and a larger gun.

Besides, the germans only produce 435 Tigers and less than 50 Royal Tigers.

The Russians had serious defects on the T-34 and it wasn't upgunned to 85mm until late in 44'.

The Sherman was not a 'light support' tank it was a designated medium tank.

The Germans produced rather more than 435 Tigers, 1,355 to be precise, and 485 King Tigers were built.

What serious defects did the T-34 have exactly?

Sometimes I wonder where you get your info Cadet Seaman.

Originally Posted by AlexKall

Hehe, never said that S-Tank was the worst, it came on 6th place on the top ten tanks of the world :P

Oppss my bad But I still think it is the worst tank :P

Originally Posted by BangorRamsJROTC

Oppss my bad But I still think it is the worst tank :P

Well it wasn't the best thats for sure, it did have big flaws

It doesn't really matter how you look at it, the sherman was one of the worst tanks to be in. One hit was all it took to knock it out. It was no match for what the germans were fielding against it.

yesterday worst M3 Grant/Lee,Panzer MKIII,M551 Sheridan&M60A2 these
last 2 for the gun/missle launcher set up.
Best today Leo2A6 along the with A5 for $ reasons those that use it are getting there moneys worth. But the M1A2 and CH2 stand alone for protection though the facts that both use DU in armor makeup has me placing them in there categroy in regard to protection.

"But the M1A2 and CH2 stand alone for protection"

Really? A Swedish test told another thing, to bad CH2 didn't make the tests, that is the only thank I have doubts with, well besides Merkava but its in a league of its own

CH2 from the looks of it is the same as the Abrams, except I know it has completely different armor, in my opinion the Challenger 2 is the best tank as of now.