[Freedom_Is_Not_Free]

Saying the Sherman was the best tank of the war due to its ultimate effectiveness is like saying the Russian soldier was the best soldier of the war due to their ultimate effectiveness.

The point is, man for man, the German and American soldier was a better soldier one on one than the Russian. The Russian’s effectiveness came from the mead grinder mentality of throwing millions of them at the Germans. You can only kill so many people so fast and if they just keep coming, you eventually run out of ammo or get overrun. That is the effectiveness of the inferior Russian soldier.

That is basically what you are saying — that the Sherman tank is individually a better tank than the myriad German tanks just because we flooded battlefields with Shermans,

Tell that to all the tank crews who rode to their deaths in the Ronson Lighters or the Burning Graves. The strategy ultimately proved to be effective but tank for tank, the Sherman was quite mediocre stacked up against the body of German tanks.

[TalonDJ]

but tank for tank, the Sherman was quite mediocre stacked up against the body of German tanks.

False. Tank for tank the bulk of the German forces were made up of tanks such as the PZIII, PZ IV and the StuG. All of these they Sherman compared very favorably to. Just because the Germans had SOME better thanks does not mean all or even most of their tanks were better. Did you know that the Sherman Jumbo had effectively the same frontal armor as a Tiger (taking into account the slope)? Or that E8s with APCR ammo could trash just about anything the Germans had? Comparing the most common American tank (75mm armed M4) with the most rare German tanks is unfair. A more clear comparison is the comparing common to common and rare to rare. Did you know we built more 90mm armed M36s than the Germans built Tiger 1s?