the sherman sucks

was the sherman a good tank?
idk about history records but when i play graviteam tunisia against the germans the shermans always get fricked by enemy tanks while they themselves take alot of shots to pen the german panzer 3 and 4, especially 4, and even then they often keep working for a bit even if damaged, while when the shermans get penned they get rekt and die.

and btw i'm using them properly, its just that even if i manage to get enfilade fire on a flnked enemy or ambush them or have numerical superiority i get off alot of shots, even hit them multiple times, and almost nothing happens, then they react and start shooting back and my tanks start dying

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >On Shermans. We called them "Emchas", from M4 [in Russian, em chetyrye]. Initially they had the short main gun, and later they began to arrive with the long gun and muzzle brake. On the front slope armor there was a travel lock for securing the barrel during road marches. The main gun was quite long.
    >Overall, this was a good vehicle but, as with any tank, it had its pluses and minuses. When someone says to me that this was a bad tank, I respond, "Excuse me!"
    > One cannot say that this was a bad tank. Bad as compared to what?
    excerpt from dmitri loza, who fought in an M4A2 lend-leased to the USSR from 43 to 45, in the 46th guard tank brigade

  2. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    to be fair last game i killed 3 panzer 3 and 6 panzer 4 with 4 shermans, but the problem is that at the end 2 got killed and 2 got tracked so i had no tanks left for maneuver, this was a frontal attack because it was the only option available.

    and on the other flank of the battle there were 4 panzer 4, i had 6 105mm m3 tank destroyers, they fired on them for 30 minutes, the m3s all got destroyed, but t the end all panzer 4s were damaged very badly and the crews fled

    considered that it was a meeting engagement and i got a 1:1 ratio of kills to casualties while being outnumbered 2 to 1 i think thats decent, especilly since their hardware was superior

  3. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    compared to t-34 which is the wonder tank, it was bad. but serviceable in the west front where it did not matter

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Explain why Soviet Sherman crews had to guard their tanks from T34 crews stealing bits off it.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        >war…war never changes.
        That’s hilarious, Russians have been pulling moronic logistics shit since forever it sounds like. I gotta have the source for this.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >compared to t-34 which is the wonder tank, it was bad
      How? Comparable armour, very similar gun. The only plus for the T34 was better mobility, but at the same time it had infamous ergonomics and situatoinal awareness. On the flip side, the Sherman was more reliable and safer for its crew.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        The "wonder tank" idea comes from mythologizing that the Soviets perpetuated constantly, and which Russia continues to the day. The T-34 was an objectively bad tank, but it was the best the Soviets could produce at the time. They could not waste time with all of the details to improve crew safety, the gun sights, suspension, crew awareness, ergonomics, etc. They were about to collapse.

        You can compare the Soviets and their production of the T-34 as someone eating dog food when they're about to starve to death. It doesn't make the dog food amazing, it means it helped you not die.

        The T-34 was a bad tank, but the Soviets had no alternative.

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          The T-34 could have been average if it was built to spec.

          T-34s were never built to spec but always had corners cut.

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          Even built to "spec", it had a two man turret and a transmission design rejected for agricultural tractor use a decade prior.
          The T34 wasn't fully functional by human standards until the T44 and IS3 were rolling, which adittedly also sucked until after they were obsolete.
          Hmm...

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >T-34
      >Thin, overhardened (and thus brittle) armor
      >2-man turret with bad visibility
      >Laughable crew survivability
      >Four forward gears but only three are usable
      >No turret bustle, crew have to physically move to stay out of the way when the turret is turned
      >Bad ergonomics means crew fatigue is high
      >And despite all this it ALSO has trash reliability
      That T-34?

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        You mean turret basket, and the crew has seats. Putting ammunition in the floor made a turret basket a pain in the ass, as the US discovered when it went to wet stowage. It removed the turret basket from the Sherman, and didn't put one in the Chaffee, Pershing, or M46.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        the 76mm sherman with wet racks also didn't have a turret bustle, it was strictly something that the early shermans with the "less safe" stowage had

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          The Sherman 76 has a half bustle. The gunner and commander move, the loader does not.

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          The Sherman 76 has a half bustle. The gunner and commander move, the loader does not.

          Basket. A turret bustle is the bulge at the rear. And late-production 76 mm tanks had the basket completely removed since even a half basket is a pain with ammo in the floor.

  4. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    it was produce and deployed en masse all over the globe in practically every existing environment.
    its the contemporary war machine par excellence

  5. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >vatniks now trying to revise history into the t-34 is totally good guys it’s not embarrassing!

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >now
      homie the cult around the t34 has existed since the 2000s when lazy historians and putin's ww2 death cult shit started in earnest

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        Older than that, hex-and-counter games from the 70s gave t-34s some great stats.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      obsessed

  6. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Robust gun
    >Frontal armor that could reliably shrug off most early war weapons.
    >Later was given the single best widely used high velocity tank cannon of the war if we are looking at a balance of factors.
    >Had a fricking ridiculous crew survival rate, leading to a near-nonexistent attrition of talent, leading to massive retention of knowledge that strongly influenced post-war development.
    >Easy to maintain with nothing but forward repair bases.
    >Was actually stablized

    It is, pound for pound, by far the best tank of the war. Especially the later 76mm versions

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      the armor is really understated
      in 1940 an effective front armor thickness of 100mm (taking slope into account here) arguably qualified the Sherman for heavy tank status, and it was very mobile, with a gun adequate to penetrate anything fielded at the time
      really, the perceived failure of the sherman in the late war came down to the decision not to Jumbo-ify every Sherman tank they reasonably could/and or replace it in assault roles with the Pershing, not that the Sherman itself was bad.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        What does it mean to jumbofy

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          it's like embiggening

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          a few hundred shermans were known as jumbos
          they were comparatively rare as they were seen as niche vehicles, so a division only got a platoon of them
          they had a 1.5in thick steel plate welded to the hull front and side, and they used a special 6in gun mantlet on the turret

          they were incredibly popular due to their ability to withstand damage
          frontal hull was 100mm at 45 degrees, giving approximately 140mm of LOS protection while the increased side armor meant it could expose a lot more of its sides before it became vulnerable

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            Jumbo was a bit more than a field addon kit for a regular M4A3, the chassis also had a thicker casting over the transmission housing.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        Sherman came out in 1942, when the main German tank was the panzer IV and III, with about 50mm of frontal protection

        The IV was upgraded to 80mm frontal armor and the panzer IIIs were replaced with stug IIIs with comparable armor
        But the IV still had a thin 50mm frontal turret face and only 30mm of side armor

        Its only in mid-1944 when panthers rolled out in large numbers and had the worst reliability issues fixed do you start to see US armor feel thin in comparison
        But panther strength only made up about 50% at most, and only 33% when you count not-tanks like the stug

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      It also drove well compared to alternatives, it wasn't some rattle box that required all your strength to steer. It was easy to operate and train people to operate. It had a pony motor to save gas and keep people warm (the Russians loved this).

      They also made it easily transportable by ship and therefore had to keep the weight down to achieve this. They also designed it so it could be built on assembly lines for regular vehicles which is why it was so tall and thin. They eventually solved some of the downsides to this by modifying the tracks after delivery.

      It was also ridiculously cheap and easy to build even compared to Russian tanks and virtually every secondary feature was a "strength", from radios, to ammunition storage, to fuel economy, to optics, to visibility, to comfort, to anti-infantry weaponry.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        The Sherman did require considerable physical effort to steer.

  7. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    They were good, but not in the way people think. They good because they were the best tank *for America* during the war.

    The M4 wasn't nearly as reliable as people make it out to be. It's reputation for reliability stems from America's material wealth, and abundance of tanks and spare parts. More vehicles could be rotated to the rear, and be serviced with spare parts quicker.

    What made the M4 good was it's balance of performance, and transportability. Every tank the US went to war with had to be shipped across and ocean to get to the fight. The M4 was a good compromise between mobility, firepower, and ease of transport for the US.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      The reliability reputation stemmed from a bunch of things:

      1. It was not hand fit as much as many tanks of the era. It was fully assembly line produced with multiple vendors for parts supply. The interchangeability made it easier to repair.
      2. The parts availability stemmed from how cheaply it was made. The Tigers and Panthers were constantly in demand and so were parts because they could never build enough tanks to begin with, which stemmed from production style and design features. The Sherman sacrificed features to make it easier/cheaper to build and therefore more numerous and therefore able to afford extras like spare parts. Cheaper/faster to produce tanks = allows for more spare parts.
      3. It was designed to be easy to repair and maintain. Which is no small matter. Hours spent taking out and engine, replacing a transmission, etc.. post-war analysis was favorable, but so were many other tanks. They also updated the design multiple times to improve things.
      4. The Allies did a good job of recovering them and repairing them quickly. This was easy because of their weight and well designed recovery vehicles. Tigers were notoriously abandoned because they threw a track or ran out of gas and couldn't be easily recovered under fire. The Sherman having good range and recovery characteristics is a benefit of the design choices
      5. Reliability itself was fine because they had good quality control, something that eluded the Soviets who had a fine design on paper but suffered from poor workmanship which often resulted in poor reliability.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        Let's stop with the Only USA had Assembly Line meme. It was a concept introduced in the 19th century. All industrial nations had them.

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          I'm sorry, but the US (and to a lesser extent Canada/UK) brought mass production techniques to their full potential in WW2. The assembly line is only one element. Sub-contracting programs (and sub-subcontracting), production-facing design choices, the use of existing manufacturing space, and new technologies were all used to increase production often well beyond what was employed by countries like Germany, Japan, and the SU. All of the combatants had assembly lines, but how many specifically designed their tanks to use existing infrastructure so they didn't have to redesign factories? How many redesigned every part down to the barrel shrouds so they cut down on labour costs during production? The USA was especially famous for bringing in production experts from industry into the design phase not to make the guns better but make them easier to produce. A good example being the Grease Gun. They also used industry experts to simplify existing designs like the Thompson to speed production. The UK was still hand fitting Merlin engines while the US completely redid the design with looser tolerances and sacrificed performance so that it could be more easily mass produced my inexpert machinists.

          Another good example is the Liberty Ship which was mass produced at an absolutely unprecedented scale. One design choice they made was in using welded hulls, which were considered an expensive luxury. The USA chose to do so because they could be welded by women rather than riveted by specially trained men, making it was easier to produce because they could increase the labour pool and save the men for other tasks.

          The UK did the same with the Mosquito by using a wooden design and thereby accessing woodworker labour pools rather than an already stressed metalworker labour pool. (that said, this design choice was accidental rather than deliberate)

          I'm sorry, but there is a reason labour productivity was so much higher per manhour in the Anglosphere.

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            You literally said Germany didn't have assembly lines and had one master tanksmith fold tanks out of steel and now write a fricking novel just to move goal posts instead of just conceding.

            • 11 months ago
              Anonymous

              delusional

            • 11 months ago
              Anonymous

              No, I did not say "Germany didn't have assembly lines". I said "It was not hand fit as much as many tanks of the era. It was fully assembly line produced with multiple vendors for parts supply. The interchangeability made it easier to repair." I was specifically speaking to two things:

              1. Hand fitting of parts which exists to some extent in all assembly lines
              2. The increased level of interchangeability resulting from the use of multiple subcontractors for a single part.

              Hand fitting was not just common among Germany, but the UK as well. The example I used, the Merlin engine, was a UK example. Go read Adam Tooze's "Wages of Destruction" or Speer's Autobiography if you want to read about how poorly Germany did at standardization and the extra hand fitting that was required for their tanks, engines, and aeroplanes.

              A feature of allied (US/Uk/Canada's) greater commitment to mass production through the dispersal of production among non-traditional arms manufacturers has been written about extensively. Hell, the Soviets had different factories practically making different tanks in different factories even though they were supposed to be making the same thing.

              Is English not your first language?

            • 11 months ago
              Anonymous

              NTA but you're ignoring like 3/4ths of what he said:
              > It was fully assembly line produced with multiple vendors for parts supply. The interchangeability made it easier to repair.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Reliable here means the same thing ""reliable"" means when discussing Russian tanks. Not that it will never break down, but that it can be repaired with a basic toolbox and a hammer. The US just had stupidly easy to repair tanks mixed with a stupidly well organized motor pool, standardized large batch chassis and an absolute embarrassment of spare parts

  8. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    If the Germans had used the Sherman to defend, it would have lengendary status. But because it was used to attack, it's "just" a Sherman.

  9. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >idk about history records but when i play graviteam tunisia against the germans
    Bruh
    I really hate tank discussions these days tbh. In the past I loved them but any nuance and thoughtfulness the discourse is long gone.
    It's just shitflinging of x good, nu uh y good, nu uh y bad in game.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      i just got into this subject thanks to the game , but im claiming its bad bc of how its represented in it

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        im not claiming*

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        Fair enough guess I'm just too cynical these days.
        There's nothing inherently bad or wrong about the Sherman.

        Are you sure they actually perform as badly as they appear in comparison? Pretty are it shouldn't, what do the after-battle stats show?

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          maybe i was too negative about it given that the enemy had such numerical superiority
          note that 2 out of 7 got tracked in the beginning and werent able to see the enemies for most of the time/were very far from it

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            they had 17 platoon i had 7

            also note that all my damaged but repaired vehicles got counted as lost because i lost the battle so i couldnt recover them

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            https://i.imgur.com/fjfYqZo.jpg

            they had 17 platoon i had 7

            also note that all my damaged but repaired vehicles got counted as lost because i lost the battle so i couldnt recover them

            As Papa Stalin said, quantity has a quality all its own. That's pretty stiff odds and I'd expect the smaller force to lose unless it was able to engage the enemy piecemeal.

            • 11 months ago
              Anonymous

              i think I did pretty good tho in the sense that I killed all their tanks or damaged them very badly so they wouldn't be serviceable for follow on operations, i lost all my tanks and TDs but they did too plus they lost some infantry platoons, so I think it's decent

  10. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Good enough

  11. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Even the basic models of the Sherman were solid, reliable, 'It Just Works' style tanks that had better than average ergonomics and crew/ride comfort (doesn't sound like much, but it does have a huge effect on how the tank and its crew preform in combat), that could be churned off of a production line in such high numbers that the bottleneck in the supply to the European front was shipping them across the Atlantic.

    It wasn't an all powerful sci-fi supertank, but it didn't have to be.

  12. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Think about it like this. Germany's doctrine was built around using heavy tank battalions in concentrated formations to create breaches in the enemy lines which could be exploited by panzergrenadiers. In their specific operational area, the Tiger was unmatched.

    The issue being that you have very few of them, and realistically you can only perform like one offensive operation with them at once. And really think back, what offensive operations did the Tiger succeed in? Kursk? Nope. Case Blue? Before the Tiger's time. Counter attacks after D-Day? Failure. Battle of the Bulge? Failure.

    What's the main problem of the Tiger? You can concentrate them in a small area and you might see success, but you have so few of them. America could attach 52 Shermans to every infantry divison which could allow them to conduct limited offensive operations with ease. Whereas the Germans had to commit to one specific thing.

    If you experience with German tanks is video games where there is no greater context other than who has the biggest gun, of course the German tanks seem better. But wars aren't won by who has the biggest gun.

    The Sherman could be anywhere. It was logistically friendly, it rarely catostrophically broke down, it could operate amphibiously, it could operate in tropical environments, only heavy mud slowed it, it could be redeployed with ease, it could be replaced easily, it could be repaired easily. It could be a flamethrower tank for breaching entrenched infantry, it had built in indirect fire measurements to as as an impromptu artillery piece, it could handle most anti tank weapons, it was speedy, it could be easily modified, it prioritized crew safety, it could go over any bridge, two could fit on a single rail car.

    There's so much the Sherman does that doesn't amount to "big gun = win". It was a good tank if you aren't moronic. After all, if your tank can't make it to the battle, you have no tank.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      thanks for the info, btw I think graviteam is more a simulator than a game but its focused on the tactical side and a bit on the operational but its simplified so some things aren't evident.
      I also have Gary grigsbys war in the west but havent bothered to learn it yet, but it's cool since you got a operational/strategic level simulator which seems well made

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      thanks for the info, btw I think graviteam is more a simulator than a game but its focused on the tactical side and a bit on the operational but its simplified so some things aren't evident.
      I also have Gary grigsbys war in the west but havent bothered to learn it yet, but it's cool since you got a operational/strategic level simulator which seems well made

      Imagine you're conducting an offensive operation in charge of a heavy tank battalion in the German army.

      >You come across a bridge that wasn't built in the past 40 years, which is common in the Soviet countryside.
      You do not progress. You sit there and stall and waste fuel and the enemy regroups. You cannot cross this bridge, it does not support your weight.

      >The enemy is conducting an offensive 300km to the south, you need to support.
      The Tiger is slow and mild mud causes several tanks to be stuck in the unpaved roads. You arrive two days after the offensive began, the enemy has broken through, you're now doing a retreating action to cover the withdrawal of infantry to a more defensible position.

      >A Tiger breaks down ahead of the column and halts the movement
      The Tiger cannot be easily recovered and needs a heavy equipment vehicle. It cannot be easily repaired in the field, it needs to be sent away for repairs for weeks. There is not enough newly produced Tigers to supplement your ranks.

      >Fuel trains travel over 1,000km to be able to reach your unit and offer your tanks the ability to run.
      They get ambushed on the way by the basically un-policable Soviet partisans. Your tanks require so much fuel that even idling drains stockpiles rapidly, but leaving them not running risks them becoming disabled due to the cold temperatures preventing the tank from functioning.

      If you want an actual example of all of this, look at the Operations Room on Youtube, they made a series on the Battle of the Bulge. Repeatedly German armored units got held up by underequipped & unprepared Allied divisions which gave sappers enough time to rig the bridges with explosives making any German advance basically impossible, combined with them being forced to go around pockets of Allied troops still fighting, it meant their supplies couldn't safely proceed. Allied troops were able to easily redeploy units to a relatively tiny part of the frontline

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Your tanks require so much fuel that even idling drains stockpiles rapidly
        Tigers were pretty good on fuel, considering. Jentz says they could go 195 km on 540L, while for example afvdatabase.com/usa/m4sherman.html says the M4A3 could go 210 km on 636 L.

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          The numbers are irrelevant without considering how much fuel is available. If you have zero liters of fuel, a tank that can travel 1,000,000 km on 1 L is still useless as anything but a stationary gun.

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            The numbers are not irrelevant, as anon was asserting that the Tiger used an inordinate amount of fuel. He was simply wrong, and moving the goalposts to obfuscate the argument with fuel stocks that equally applies to any vehicle isn't becoming.

  13. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    It was better than the Turd-34

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >It was better than the Turd-34

  14. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    I just like them

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      It's the most "tank" looking tank of the WW2 lineup, if that makes sense

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        M4A3 76mm just looks so damn cool. Not fond of the 75mm Shermans though.

  15. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    It was the most comfortable tank of the period, and was also easiest to egress; British tankers converting to Cromwells complained of the difficulty in getting out quickly due to restricted space and small hatches, crew confidence was higher in Shermans. A happy crew is an effective crew.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      No wonder Russians are abandoning tanks to this day.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yep.
        A crew that doesn't think they can get out in time in an emergency WILL abandon it before an emergency actually happens

  16. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >was the sherman a good tank?
    I heard that the U.S. Ordnance Department was aware of the Sherman being a 'Tommy Cooker', and attempted to implement various measures to address this issue. The design team was led by Sheldon Rosenstein, a convicted child-beater, arsonist, and avid necrophiliac. Sheldon was reportedly pen-pals with Shiro Ishii, and Oskar Dirlewanger. When questioned about these letters outgoing to hostile countries, Sheldon replied that he was merely exchanging 'tips and tricks'. Sheldon's team designed a mechanism that would lock the crew hatches shut, thus trapping the crew, when smoke was detected inside the sherman after being penetrated and set alight. Not only that, but apparently there was also a following feature that was a re-take on the Brazen Bull. When the crew was burning to death, their screams would be amplified by speakers that projected outside the tank. The U.S. Ordnance Department justified these features by proclaiming that the Germans would be frightened by the hellish screams of the sherman crews being incinerated, and allied soldiers would be more motivated to fight hard, lest the same fate befall them. Sheldon also later devised a system that had a 1 in 59 chance of setting off an explosive charge in the ammunition storage every time the Sherman's engine was turned on. Supposedly, this was to 'test the crew's luck before battle'. This innovation was well-received by the U.S. Army, but was rejected for budgetary reasons. Upon receiving news of the Army's rejection, Sheldon bludgeoned his manservant to death with a fire iron in a fit of unstoppable rage. Years after the war, Sheldon tragically died in a fire, which he had started in a New York orphanage.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Ah, the infamous Sherman. Often referred to as the 'Tommy Cooker' by the Germans. The nickname referred to when the Germans starving from lack of rations, would scavenge destroyed Sherman tanks for the precious cooked meat inside. In fact, the designers of the Sherman designed it to light every time, so that cooking of the crews was guaranteed. Of course, the Germans would often eat the allied tank crews whether they were cooked or not, regardless. My grandpappy told me this in great detail when I was a young boy. Truly the horrors of war. Why couldn't we just use the war winning T-34 like the Russians?

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        One of my all time favourite pastas. Thanks, anon.

  17. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Can I ask you to drop character for a moment and tell me what sort of responses you actually look for when you make a thread like this? Is it just a hope of baiting people new or autistic enough to respond seriously, or is it a humor thread where you're fishing for the most ridiculous replies for a laugh? Or is it neither of those and you just want to talk about the Sherman?

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >neither of those and you just want to talk about the Sherman?
      this

  18. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    It's an Efficient tank more than anything else. The bogie suspension with VVSS and later HVSS wasn't the best for weight distribution but it didn't take up interior space. It was top heavy but fit well in cargo ships and freight trains. The Radial Engines ran on gas but also tanked damage like a champ. The frontal armor was sloped as much as possible while still leaving space for hull top hatches.

    It was a cost effective tank that could match anything it's weight or lighter.

  19. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >when i play graviteam tunisia against the germans the shermans always get fricked by enemy tanks
    Sounds like a skill issue. Get good, scrub.

  20. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Used to like the T-34 more but now the Sherman is my shit

    Loved using them in Steel Division to frick up kraut tanks in close quarters combat thanks to their faster aim time

  21. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Sherman's sucked because the Americans sold a shit load of their aluminium to the Nazis and so didn't have the materials to create a new tank at war levels of production so they pumped out the serviceable if under performing Shermans to hopefully overwhelm any theatre in which they were needed

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *