Better Shermans Pershings Earlier

So with the above combination of Sherman Tanks armed with 76mm high velocity cannons(like the British firefly)and M-26 Pershing's arriving in time for Normandy does the 1944-45 European campaign change significantly, such as German Army destroyed west of the Rhine.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Short answer is no.

However, since I HATE brevity...

:p

The much repeated horror tales about the Sherman are just that, tales. The Sherman was, without question, inferior to the Panther, Tiger, and even the Pz IV long barrel in tank on tank combat. The thing is, there was very little tank on tank combat in the West, certainly in comparison to the Eastern Front. The Sherman was excellent at what it was built for, infantry support, was available in huge numbers, and was sufficient to push the Heer back into Germany.

The Sherman's biggest problem is that it isn't the Panther or the T-34/85 & it seems that a lot of people simply can't bare to face the fact that:

a) This mattered not a bit in the end

&

b) There were other ways to destroy the Wehrmacht besides replicating Kursk time & again.

It is facinating to see the amount of effort that this devoted to documenting the "failure" that the Sherman represents, especially considering that it only took the Allies 9 months to drive through the Heer defenses at Normandy to the Elbe (where the Allies VOLUNTARILY stopped).

One can not help but wonder why, in a war where the Western Allies developed whatever weapon needed to prosecute the war as they wished, some individuals continue to push the "Sherman myth" as if it is the biggest issue of the war. Had the need existed, does any reasonable person seriously believe that the U.S. would not have produced THOUSANDS of Shermans modified with the superb 90mm gun that was featured in the M-36 TD (and the Pershing). IOTL the U.S. did send roughly 300 Modified Shermans to the ETO with this exact modification before it was realized that the existance of the Jagerbomber was a more than suficient answer to the Panther/Tiger Problem.

For that matter, given the rather stunning prduction capacity shown by the U.S. during the War, is there anyone who doubts that, if they were really vital to winning the war, that the U.S could not have added a zero to the OTL production of the Jackson (production 1,400; as a reminder the U.S. built around 45,000 M4s).

The U.S. and the UK did not go into a long-term panic development/deployment of the M-26 or Centurion for one elementary reason. They had no need to.
 
the Sherman had two advantages over about any other tank around...
1. It was reliable... sure, the Panther was a better tank, but only when it worked, which wasn't as often as a Sherman.
2. The average US soldier tended to be more mechanically inclined than a lot of the other combatants... when a Sherman (or a truck or a halftrack or damn near anything) did break down, there was a great chance of finding someone nearby who could fix it right there on the spot.
 
. 2. The average US soldier tended to be more mechanically inclined than a lot of the other combatants... when a Sherman (or a truck or a halftrack or damn near anything) did break down, there was a great chance of finding someone nearby who could fix it right there on the spot.
Whilst every other army had to rely on specialist mechanics!!!!!
 

hammo1j

Donor
Totally agree with defence of Sherman's reputation

Effectiveness = quality * numbers * reliability

Panther/Tiger had high quality but low numbers and reliability whereas Sherman was opposite but thus scores higher on effectiveness .

Obviously on a 1 on 1 with Sherman v Tiger then you want to be in the Tiger but 10 Shermans vs a Tiger is a different matter - you would be in one of the Shermans.
 
Top