|
Actually, the original M4's in Europe where only armed with the 75mm. That thing had practically zero hope of penetrating the frontal armour of a Tiger. The 76 wasn't a whole lot better.
Even then, calibre makes less of a differance than gun design and shot. The 75mm/L70 on the Panther was more deadly than the 88mm on the Tiger I, and the 76.2mm 17-pounder was probably one of the all round best anti-tank weapons of the Second World War -it was even more effective than the Panther's gun -especially with APCBC or APDS ammunition.
The Sherman, overall, was a rather poor tank design. It was lightly armoured, had a high silhouette, a pitiful main gun (Americans still believed that tank destroyers were meant to kill other tanks, and tanks were only there for infantry support), and generally caught fire within 20 seconds of being hit (hence the invention of wet stowage). The only advantage the Shermans had over their German counterparts was their mechanical simplicity, which meant easier maintenance and easier to build. The Panther and Tiger were horridly complex pieces of machinery in comparison.
__________________
Quote:
|
"Someone in a Prius tried to race me at a stop sign the other day. I couldn't believe it. I had him for the first 100 feet or so but I can only walk so fast."
|
|