OH , Ok! Sorry then I got the wrong info!

As the originator of this thread, I have a thought that I would like to share with you. The tank that I despise above all others is the Sherman. It was reliable and easy to build and repair, but it was underarmoured, undergunned and remained that way until the end of the war. The armour was so weak that the Germans called it the Tommy Cooker, and it was vulnerable to every single anti-armour weapon that the Germans possessed. When they tried to give some to the Russians, they were actually rejected. The Russians diplomatically said that the silhouette of the tank was too high for the Russian steppe battlefields, but the truth was that they hated it. Then again, they had T-34s!
I think that the Western Allies should have abandoned the Sherman design and adopted the T-34 instead. It was just as easy (if not easier) to produce, and the Sherman engine could have been substituted for the Russian one... although it was not that bad to begin with. We would have suffered far fewer casualties that way.

Dean.

Originally Posted by Dean

As the originator of this thread, I have a thought that I would like to share with you. The tank that I despise above all others is the Sherman. It was reliable and easy to build and repair, but it was underarmoured, undergunned and remained that way until the end of the war. The armour was so weak that the Germans called it the Tommy Cooker, and it was vulnerable to every single anti-armour weapon that the Germans possessed. When they tried to give some to the Russians, they were actually rejected. The Russians diplomatically said that the silhouette of the tank was too high for the Russian steppe battlefields, but the truth was that they hated it. Then again, they had T-34s!
I think that the Western Allies should have abandoned the Sherman design and adopted the T-34 instead. It was just as easy (if not easier) to produce, and the Sherman engine could have been substituted for the Russian one... although it was not that bad to begin with. We would have suffered far fewer casualties that way.

Dean.

As well as the faults you mentioned the Sherman used a 76mm gun that was chosen by the Artillery branch of the Army (i.e. not a proper tank gun) and many Shermans were fitted with radial engines designed for aircraft. These engines made a loud backfire upon starting, instantly giving away their positions to the enemy. Also, the ammunition stowage was such that if the turret was struck it would explode, which is where the 'Ronson' and 'Tommy Cooker' nicknames came from.

Certainly for such an important tank the Sherman was one of the worst.

Originally Posted by Dean

As the originator of this thread, I have a thought that I would like to share with you. The tank that I despise above all others is the Sherman. It was reliable and easy to build and repair, but it was underarmoured, undergunned and remained that way until the end of the war. The armour was so weak that the Germans called it the Tommy Cooker, and it was vulnerable to every single anti-armour weapon that the Germans possessed. When they tried to give some to the Russians, they were actually rejected. The Russians diplomatically said that the silhouette of the tank was too high for the Russian steppe battlefields, but the truth was that they hated it. Then again, they had T-34s!
I think that the Western Allies should have abandoned the Sherman design and adopted the T-34 instead. It was just as easy (if not easier) to produce, and the Sherman engine could have been substituted for the Russian one... although it was not that bad to begin with. We would have suffered far fewer casualties that way.

Dean.

Surely you are joking when you call the Sherman the "worst piece of crap tank." Here is what the Russians had to say about the Sherman:

http://http://www.iremember.ru/tankers/loza/loza1.html

When you call the Sherman the "worst piece of crap tank" you are saying that the allies would have been better off with M3 tanks



The Sherman was a huge improvement upon the British and American tanks that preceded it. Hardly the worst piece of crap tank.

Well, good but n ot great! You must weight the barrels and the amour with the other tanks!

The M3 worked very well in Burma during WW2, as the Japanese had nothing to touch them. Where the M3 faced the Germans then it was a different story as they been for more used to tank warfare and used the 88 mm flak gun with great effect on every battle front. Now the Sherman was a good tank when it first came out but the failure to upgrade the known faults in case it slowed production even for a day so caused me an allied soldier their life

Originally Posted by 2dold4this

Surely you are joking when you call the Sherman the "worst piece of crap tank." Here is what the Russians had to say about the Sherman:

http://http://www.iremember.ru/tankers/loza/loza1.html

When you call the Sherman the "worst piece of crap tank" you are saying that the allies would have been better off with M3 tanks



The Sherman was a huge improvement upon the British and American tanks that preceded it. Hardly the worst piece of crap tank.

I think he was saying that the M26-Pershing should have been introduced as soon as possible. If you read the link that I posted in a previous thread, you'll see that the Sherman was built to a cheap budget, using an artillery piece for a main gun and often an aircraft engine for its powerplant. Thousands of UK and US servicemen died needlessly in a tank that was hopelessly outclassed by the enemies it faced.

For the importance it played in history it was amongst one of the 'worse pieces of crap' tanks.

ha! Well, but it did help win WWII!

Zander....Yes it did help win the war but would you have liked to be a crew member in the Sherman during the invasion of Europe. Why do you think that it got it's name from the Germans "Tommy Cooker" or "Ronson" because the dam always burst into flames every time it was hit.

Yeah, That I know!