Armorer
Posts: 29
Joined: 4/8/2002 From: Englewood, OH Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Damien Thorn quote:
ORIGINAL: mdiehl quote:
t... well, its from the same poster who thinks the Sherman tank was better than the Tiger tank... You, sir, are a liar. I never made the claim that the "Sherman tank was better than the Tiger tank." Just for the record I'll say it again. The Sherman was more RELIABLE than the Tiger tank, and at moderate to close range a 76 armed Sherman had a reasonable chance of destroying a Tiger tank. On the steppes of Russia or in North Africa, where ranges are of course much greater owing to the open nature of the terrain, the Tiger has a tactical advantage on the battlefield. Oh come on mdiehl. There was a LONG multi-page thread where you were the sole defender of the Sherman tank. I have no idea if you ever said in a direct quote that the Sherman was "better" but that sure was the point you were trying to make. Everyone who read that thread would agree with me that that was the conclusion you were trying to sell on everyone. I bet you still haven't even bought the game. If so, you have no stake at all in how the game models bombs, battleships, or anything else. You are just a troll and I should ignore you but hey, it's a slow day at work. No offense - but why does the fact that only one person defends a certain stance necessarily make him ( or her ) wrong? I recall the thread you are referring to, and seem to remember mdiehl not requiring much help. If I remember correctly, diehl's entire point was that the Sherman was as good as, if not better than, any MEDIUM tank in the war. I happen to agree, so long as one considers the Mk V Panther a heavy, which in American usage, it would have been. When introduced in 1942, the Sherman was far and away superior to anything in the German inventory, and, with the exception of its propensity to 'brew up' when taking penetrating hits in its fuel tanks ( which problem was eventually solved, if I'm not mistaken ), probably equal or superior to the T-34. By 1943-44, it was outclassed by the Panther and the Tiger, so long as the latter was in a defensive posture - which of course, was the vast majority of the time. However, had there been a little more foresight on the part of a few members of the US Army's ordnance bureau, and more Shermans been upgraded to the Firefly ( with the 17lbr ) configuration, or even the M4a3e8 with the 76.2 gun, there's little doubt in my mind that the Sherman would be considered one of the finer AFVs of the war. There was nothing wrong with the Sherman's basic design - it was well armored, for a medium ( certainly far superior to the German's workhorse, the MKIV ), incredibly reliable, and capable of extensive up-gunning and up-armoring. That the up-gunning did not happen in a reasonable manner is not the fault of the weapon system or its designers. Blame that on the Army. Sorry for the rambling, just wanted to add a little. Thanks, Randy
_____________________________
|