That’s exactly what won WW2 - the Sherman was a piece of junk compared to the Panzer, Panther, Tiger tanks - but we made a zillion of them, and they were simple to maintain, relatively good on gas, and fast.
Germans, as they do sometimes, over engineered magnificent machines - so great were they that they could not be mass produced, and sometimes were not reliable.
This also played out on the Eastern front, where the crappy T-34s of the Soviets overwhelmed the superior German tanks on sheer numbers, not to mention logistical supply lines.
T-34s were not crappy.
They outclassed every German tank at the time of thier introduction...
It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.
There was nothing wrong with the T-34. The PKW V Panther was an attempt by the Germans to copy it. Unfortunately, some sort of committee got hold of it and turned it into a mechanical nightmare.
Likewise, the Sherman was a great tank; it was our doctrine that was flawed. The US Army (including Patton) thought that Tank Destroyers and anti-tank guns were supposed to fight tanks and that tanks were supposed to kill infantry and create breakthroughs. So the Sherman was armed with a low-velocity 75mm that good for throwing HE. Patton wanted a second MG mounted coaxially with the main gun, but didn’t want it converted into an anti-tank weapon.
The Brits, with the Sherman Firefly, proved that the Sherman was perfectly capably being converted into a tank-killing machine, but the nice people in charge of US Ordnance didn’t follow up with our own version. It was not until the very end of the war that the US got good tank-killing tanks, like the Pershing.
The Sherman went on to see service into the 1960s, when they were still serving with the Israelis as 105mm armed “Super Shermans.”
I don't know for sure, but I'd expect the Russians made more T-34s and did the same damage Shermans did.
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.
“where the crappy T-34s of the Soviets”
Care to explain that? None other than Guderian said it was the most deadly tank in the world. First sloped armor, best gun, simple, very fast and mobile. Wonderful on cross country. In fact, most German supertanks were designed precisely to counter the T-34 which was killing them on the eastern front. The Panzer 4s were outclassed and the Panthers were meeting something with as good of a gun as they had but with better armor and in huge numbers.
Forget ideology, the T-34 was nearly perfect for its role and outclassed the Germans.
T-34 was crappy? You are joking.
The T-34 was so effective, the Germans designed the Panther tank to counter it. Hence the sloped armor of the Panther compared to the Panzer III and Panzer IV.
Germans, as they do sometimes, over engineered magnificent machines - so great were they that they could not be mass produced..........................
Sounds a bit like America has a tendency to do in the years since WW 2. High dollar, and the best is the norm. Instead of small, agile, safe and inexpensive. Witness the numbers of Carriers that really will be sitting targets in any new full out war. I think there was a Sci-Fi book where one side kept upgrading until they had the very best machinery, but were beaten because of the “changing horse in mid stream” phenomenon.