[PUGACHEV]

I once read a book written by a young WWII lieutenant whose job was to recover and restore damaged Sherman tanks. He had no qualms about calling the Sherman an almost criminally inferior tank. The shell holes in the recovered tanks were often so small that they could be quickly plug welded, but that was the easiest part of the job. Next, a special detail — which was held in awe by the other workers — would descend into the tank to remove the remains of the former crew. They would sand and repaint the interior, but they could never get rid of the smell. Once refurbished, the tank would be restored to service, often on multiple occasions. These were very brave men who paid an unconscionable price for the shortcomings of those who had the opportunity to provide them with better weapons. IMHO, credit for winning the war goes to those brave men, not those who designed the Sherman.

[Pilsner]

He had no qualms about calling the Sherman an almost criminally inferior tank.

The Sherman was designed to match up with first generation Panzer IIIs, which were equipped with the same 37mm gun that the Germans used as an anti-tank weapon. The Sherman was dead simple to produce. The hull and turret were both cast in single pieces, in a fraction of the time the Germans needed to roll out, cut, fit, weld and bolt the plate armor they used on Panzers. The Sherman matched up very well indeed against the 37mm gun, either on a Panzer III, or PAK (anit-tank gun). The very first Lend Lease Shermans were an unpleasant surprise to the Afrika Corps (or Africa Corpse, and Obama would say), in 1942. Its armor was pretty good against the 37mm, and its 75mm gun was pretty good against 1st generation Panzer IIIs.

The problem was that by the time the Sherman got into action, the Germans were already seriously upgrading the armor and armament of the Panzer III, were deploying 88mm guns in an anti tank role, and were working on the Panther and Tiger, both of which completely outclassed the Sherman.

Bergerac inertia, and a stubborn "Ours is best, its gotta be the best, 'cause we're the Americans, and they aren't, so there is no way theirs can be as good as ours, much less better" refusal to face up to the Sherman's shortcomings, led to it being produced, without major upgrades, for far too long.

The United States Navy warship I have ever set foot on is the battleship Texas. So I don't have the technical knowledge to judge who is right. But the jingoistic "Ours is best, its gotta be the best, 'cause we're the Americans, and they aren't, so there is no way theirs can be as good as ours, much less better" sounds depressingly familiar.

[mad_as_he$$]

I have heard that story. Good thing their sons sworn it would never happen again and gave us the Abrams.

[rlmorel]

You are absolutely correct. I have seen the german tanks down in Aberdeen, MD with the furrows and grooves where our Sherman’s shots just glanced off of them.

My buddy was in Germany a while back, and saw a Sherman in a museum with a fresh looking smooth hole in it. As if someone had poked a hot rod through a block of butter.

Nice clean and smooth. The Sherman was inferior weaponry against other tanks, and our tankers all knew it too. Makes their performance under fire all that much more remarkable.