Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: C. Edmund Wright

and the Sherman wasn’t a piece of junk. It was more reliable than the kraut’s tanks. It was just outclassed. Not enough armor. Too little a gun.


31 posted on 11/10/2014 8:47:06 AM PST by LouAvul (If government is the answer, you're asking the wrong question.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]


To: LouAvul

semantics dude, semantics.....yes, reliable, weak armor, wimpy gun.


35 posted on 11/10/2014 8:48:40 AM PST by C. Edmund Wright (www.FireKarlRove.com NOW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]

To: LouAvul

I can almost excuse the too little armor part. That would take a major upgrade and a degradation in speed and fuel economy.

But I CANNOT forgive the too little gun part. The British Firefly proved that the US could have fielded a high velocity 75mm gun to take on the Panthers and Tigers. There is absolutely no reason that the Sherman crews had to suffer poor armament for the entire war. No reason at all.


69 posted on 11/10/2014 11:40:52 AM PST by Freedom_Is_Not_Free (Free goodies for all -- Freedom for none.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]

To: LouAvul

And the British proved you could hang a sufficiently powerful gun on the Sherman.
The Israelis took it up to a 105mm.
It was just “doctrine” that kept the Sherman inadequately armed.

Also, US tanks had powered traverse, which meant our tanks could get on target faster.


81 posted on 11/10/2014 12:35:54 PM PST by Little Ray (How did I end up in this hand-basket, and why is it getting so hot?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson