Rank the Tank! - Page 7




 
--
 
April 10th, 2005  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SHERMAN

10. M-4 Sherman (US)- I Would definetly put it much higher up than this. Made in huge noumbers and allowed the alllies superiority in noumbers that countered the quality of German tanks. In my eyes it is the American T-34
I generally agree with what you said, except the above. In no way should the Sherman ever be compared to the T-34. True the Shermans were available in very large numbers, were easy to build and service in the field. But there's no getting away from the fact that the Sherman was a bad tank design. The T-34 was also easy to build, available in vast numbers and easy to service in the field but the big difference is that it was an excellent tank design that was improved upon by the Panther. But the Panther was too hard to build in wartime and was too complicated. So I generally agree with the T34/85 being the best overall tank of all time. The Sherman, by contrast, has no right to be on that list.
April 10th, 2005  
SHERMAN
 
 
the shermans only true disadvantge was in its protection. Other than that, it is very easily compared with the T-34.
April 10th, 2005  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SHERMAN
the shermans only true disadvantge was in its protection. Other than that, it is very easily compared with the T-34.
Well, it was also undergunned, the only variant being able to engage German tanks on a somewhat equal basis being the Sherman 'Firefly'. Therefore on 2 of the 3 classic ratings for tanks it was found lacking. It also had a very high silhouette and there was a tendency for its ammunition to explode when the tank was hit, hence why the Germans called it 'tommy cooker'.

The T-34 by contrast had well-sloped, thick armour, a powerful 75mm gun and wide tracks, giving it great mobility. Therefore on all 3 of the classic ratings for tanks it was excellent. It was also a design that was able to be upgraded throughout the war.

There's no way that, objectively, that the Sherman and T-34 designs can be compared favourably. By every measure the T-34 was far superior.
--
April 10th, 2005  
Charge 7
 
 
Quote:
Production by itself does not win wars. That is a wholly simplistic and misleading statement to make. Production is only one of many factors and I'm sure you're aware of this.
Nowhere did I say "production by itself". By "Production wins wars" I most certainly meant and I'm sure you're well aware if you think about it instead of getting hot under the collar at the inclusion of the Sherman, that production is the deciding factor in winning wars. True, you can have a great ability at production and still lose if you have no will to win and no commanders of ability, however, the likelihood of that combination is remote. The Allies did not have superior commanders (though we had great ones), the Allies did not have better quality tanks (until the T-34), but we had good enough in those factors that the production factor told the tale and Germany was defeated. Now you may say that my arguement is flawed, but history has proven me correct.
April 10th, 2005  
beardo
 
Im gonna jump into this one as well.....

Say, in the Zulu war, the British carried the henry rifle or whatever the frig it was called. The zulus carried a spear. The rifle took longer to make but was a better weapon individually. The zulus made thousands of spears. The zulus won bacuse, oput simply, they had more weapons than the british. does this meant that, overall, the spear was a better weapon than the rifle?
April 11th, 2005  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charge_7
Their justification for including production, and since I already said as much earlier I quite agree with them, is that although the Tiger was a greatly superior tank one on one, it wound up being one Tiger against four or five Shermans. With a numerical advantage like that, it doesn't matter how good you are - the Tiger still loses. That is just what the Allies did. They knew they couldn't match the Germans for quality but they sure as heck knew they could out produce them. The Tiger may knock out the first three Shermans but while doing so the fourth one kills it. Production wins wars and is thus a perfectly allowable quality in rating a tank.
Production by itself does not win wars. That is a wholly simplistic and misleading statement to make. Production is only one of many factors and I'm sure you're aware of this. The Tiger 1 is at #2 on the list which I don't have an issue with. The Panther being excluded I do. To state that the Sherman is better than the Tiger or Panther just because there were far more of them is a deeply flawed argument. By your argument the Sherman should have been rated above the Tiger no?

'More' does not equal 'better'.

The numbers of Shermans available did not win the Western Front for the US and her Allies. Indeed, all the sheer numbers of Shermans did was to offset how weak a tank design it really was. The reasons why the Allies won are much more complex and multi-dimensional.

So why was the Panther excluded and not the Tiger? Why was a tank that almost all consider better than the Tiger 1 excluded?
I am backing this argument, I personally wouldnt have rated the Sheman in the top 10 tanks of WW2 let alone all time.

Quote:
Indeed, all the sheer numbers of Shermans did was to offset how weak a tank design it really was.
I think this is the most accurate statement made todate.
April 11th, 2005  
Charge 7
 
 
Never said it was a powerful tank. And your comment that it's numbers offset the weak design was exactly the point I (and Janes, and Aberdeen, and Sandhurst) made. It was a marvel of mass production. That design was what made it a great tank.
April 11th, 2005  
MontyB
 
 
Basically as a tank it was a steaming pile of crap as manufacting exercise it may have been the most awesome thing on earth (although I wonder how many PZ IIIs and IVs were made) but that still doesnt stop it being a worthless bucket of bolts in the job it was designed to do.
April 11th, 2005  
Charge 7
 
 
Well, it obviously wasn't "worthless" or it wouldn't have succeeded. Sure it took four or five Shermans to kill a Tiger, but they still killed it.
April 11th, 2005  
MontyB
 
 
I am sure the first 4 Sherman crews were rapt with those odds, I can just see them saying "well thank the Ford Motor Company we arent the 11th best tank in the world".

I am sorry the fact that incredible numbers of them were produced doesnt make it a good tank just the product of a great industrial base.