Yes- and No. The Sherman did prove to be very reliable and manuvered very well thru European terrain. As an infantry support tank it excelled using muliple machine guns and a highly effective HE 75mm round.
On the down side it showed to be poorly armored against anti-tank weapons with insufficient pentration with it's main 75mm and 76mm guns. Logisticaly it was great. Cheap to produce and maintain, easy to ship by rail and sea, and available in high numbers. It was a good tank no matter what anybody says. The thing is, it was forced into too many different roles to wich it was not suited. Tank on tank combat would have fared much better if the Army brass back home would have OKed the M26 Pershing sooner rather than later. But descision makers thought 3 Shermans were beter than 1 Pershing and so kept killing the project. The T20/T23 tanks also would have been a better tank for going against German armor, but would arrive in smaller numbers than the M4 due to size constraints in shiping. In the end I feel the real failure was not to the M4 Sherman its self, but rather to not supliment M4s with M26 and/or T20 back-ups. Even mounting the 90mm or the Brit 17 pounder in new turrets would have helped US. Aaron " Still loves the Sherman" F On Nov 26, 8:14 am, Chairman Miaow <[email protected]> wrote: > No - but under the circumstances there wasn't much else. US tank > designs pre-war were hampered by the choice of tall radial engines > allied to front sprocket drive which resulted in a high hull > silhouette. The M2 was developed into the M3 Lee/Grant and then the M4 > which was adequate but no more. The only other line of development for > medium tanks in the US was the T20/T23 line which eventually led to > the M26. -- You are currently subscribed to the "R/C Tank Combat" group. To post a message, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe, send email to [email protected] Visit the group at http://groups.google.com/group/rctankcombat
