The M4 Sherman was certainly adequate for infantry support role (probably more so than Panzer IV and on par with T-34-85) and with the "Easy Eight" up-gunned version it became an adequate tank hunter as well. The thing about American tanks was that for most of the war US high command rejected the idea of tank vs tank combat and focused on deploying their tanks purely in infantry support role, with the (relatively) fast and maneuverable tank destroyers (M10 and follow-up designs) created to protect them against enemy tanks.
People like to make fun of the T-34 and KV-1, but the rear-mounted transmission layout became the standard by the end of WW2 (Pershing, Centurion, etc). Leaving aside firepower and protection, the front mounted transmission (raising the height of the tank substantially) and narrow tracks on most Shermans were not an optimum design.
#ARMS TRADE TYCOON TANKS STEAM SERIES#
though numerous better prototype tanks were tested in North America (T20 and T30 series come to mind). Instead of up-gunning the Sherman en masse (after encountering the Tiger in North Africa) or mass producing a new tank, the US built tank destroyers for that purpose. Luftwaffe was a shadow of its former self by the time Allied troops arrived at Normandy. But the Germans were outfought on the strategic level and their communications were compromised. Purely from a numbers point of view, the StuG series reportedly destroyed up to 19 tanks for each one lost. But they went with Messerschmitt because they required less man hours, looked cooler and Heinkel was not as politically astute. Many thought the Heinkel was the better plane (it became the foundation of the highly succcesful Yakovlev and Kawasaki families) and that Messerschmitts had a too bad reputation (Messerschmitt planes often had bent in the air because they were so flimsily made). I cant say I know a great deal about tanks, but had to think of the competition between the Bf-109 and the He-100. Otherwise it could have lost them the war.
The Americans looked like they got some things right by building small, agile tanks but it only worked because they didn't rely on tanks as much. Italian tanks were deathtraps, Japanese tanks were a joke, French tanks outdated, Soviet tanks had weird omissions and German tanks were way too expensive.
It seems many mistakes were made on the planning level, not by designers. The process of tank procurement changed a little bit since WW2, but we underestimate the amount of bureaucracy and politics that was involved even then.
0 kommentar(er)
