Americans today tend to forget how different were attitudes of most very-senior US military during WWII from those ideas which came later.
I think, for example, even Patton viewed his tanks as primarily infantry support, rather than anti-tank weapons.
Consider that Lt. Col Creighton Abrams, after whom the M1 is named, was a battalion tank commander in the WWII European theater.
And yet, after Patton himself, what other famous tankers did we have?
Compare to Rommel, Guderian or any number of others on the German side.
PzLdr: "I used to be a tanker. While you would love to have the absolute superiority of an M1A Abrams, you hope for, at least, a chance in combat."
I have a former tanker in my family, an in-law who did have that absolute superiority. So attitudes have changed.
I'm only saying, there seems to have been a surprising lack of senior American commanders' demand for better tanks to fight the new German models.
I agree wholeheartedly. The brass knew no later than Tunisia that they were in a world of hurt with the M4. Yet they did almost nothing about it. Except for the Firefly, they didn’t address the gun disparity. Except for field expedients, they didn’t up the armor. They left the gas engines in them. It really was a shame.
The Chaffee was everything the M4 wasn’t, but they refused to shift production over. And the Pershing should have been in service WAY before it was. Doing either would have forced the Germans, at a minimum, to alter their tactics.