[yarddog]

I remember an interview on “The History Channel”. It was of a German survivor of North Africa. He said that after the British got American Lee and Grant tanks, they were superior to anything the Germans had.

I think he said something about their “sponsons” being superior. I actually don’t know what a sponson is.

[Wyrd bið ful aræd]

I think a sponson is a type of gun turret on ships. I would guess he was trying to say their armaments were superior?

[C19fan]

I actually don’t know what a sponson is.

The US could not make a turret large enough for a 75 MM gun so that gun was installed on the side of the take, the sponson.

[Yo-Yo]

Here is a sponson gun on an M3 General Grant tank:

[Rinnwald]

Hard to believe, but the successor to the Lee, the M4 Sherman, was considered a badass tank in North Africa.

The Germans, already responding to losses in Russia, upgunned their MkIV, and developed their heavy tanks, taking over tank superiority in Europe, where the allies continued to use the Sherman. However, in some ways they inherited the faults of the French Char B1: fuel thirst, mobility issues, unreliability.

And then, nothing is static in warfare. The allies where coming out with their Pershings, Centurions, and JSIII.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

an interview on “The History Channel” . . . was of a German survivor of North Africa. He said that after the British got American Lee and Grant tanks, they were superior to anything the Germans had.

The Grant tank pictured in Reply #24 was held together with rivets . . . which might sound reasonable unless you understand that the shock of a projectile striking the armor could easily pop a rivet or three.

Not a big deal structurally, perhaps - but if you are in the tank and a piece of rivet is also inside, ricocheting around until it inevitably hits someone, that could ruin your whole day.

AFAIK nobody has used rivets in tank construction since then.