>the US produced 45 sherman tanks a day during WW2
>50,000 shermans eere made during the war
frick me dead
>the US produced 45 sherman tanks a day during WW2. >50,000 shermans eere made during the war
>the US produced 45 sherman tanks a day during WW2
>50,000 shermans eere made during the war
frick me dead
not all of them have been accounted for. There could still be shermans out there, waiting for the right moment to come out of hiding
SHERMANS could be here
>with a StuG you can assault anywhere you want
Except you know, to the left, right, or behind you.
>assaulting where THEY want you to assault instead of where YOU want to assault
ngmi
America made it just fine with turrets, even on their TDs.
the weak radio signal crackled in the curved hull armor
Sherman vs t-34 in donbabwe when?
an m4 sherman firefly just came out of hiding in the netherlands
Didn't a brit get arrested for hiding a fully functional Sherman in his garage for 50+ years?
And then the authorities confiscated it and destroyed it?
yeah, and the Dutch farmers from a couple of days back also had a Sherman tank
My uncle has a chassis in his backyard. New Jersey is being a c**t about getting it registered like everything else.
They'll be making them again in WW3 after global supply chains breakdown. US relies too much on rare earth minerals
Turkey found big deposits, and there's still also plenty in the APAC sea bed that china mines.
The ral issue is th emining process just kills the land and makes it unusable for agriculture permanently.
Rare Earth minerals aren’t even rare, the problem is processing. It takes a shitload of acid baths to make mere ounces of the stuff. You can find the actual ore everywhere.
Look up how many aircraft carriers they made
Deploying smoke.
After a thousand battles one only sees death.
>Give 'Er some gas tiny!
Based CoH player. I still hit it a couple times a month with an old college friend.
A full war footing America is unbeatable. Considering each of those tanks shipped with a stabilizer and a good enough gun, nobody could stop them.
Puma is trying to engage our armor! Good luck!
Why is this impressive? The USA makes 9 million cars a year.
Theres like a billion vehicles in the world, tens of thousands of commercial ships, tens of thousands of passenger jets.
17,000 Shermans given to the UK.
4,000 to Russia.
Russia pretended we never gave them any.
Also, Firefly was based.
Was Sherman the best tank of WW2? Serious question. I'm not talking about specs sheet but real war experience.
It was the best tank for the Americans to use at the time, considering that they had to mass produce and ship them across an ocean. It also set the standard for crew comfort and survivability features that aren't just "lol add more armor and slope it". In combat it was good enough for 99% of situations, which were fighting infantry in fortified positions, and even the short 75mm was enough to kill the vast majority of German armored vehicles deployed to the western front.
>also set the standard for crew comfort and survivability features that aren't just "lol add more armor and slope it".
bad bait
Death Traps has been deboonked for a while now. Crew fatality rate for a destroyed Sherman was around 0.9 per loss. The "oh god my tank is on fire" test is a pretty legitimate method for measuring a tank crews odds of survival.
read what actual Sherman crew thought about it, ya moran
if the survivability was bad, there wouldn't be crews left to share their experience anon. See: T-32
Because soldiers are omnipotent and never get anything wrong, just like how those silk coats the chinks wore in Korea definitely made them bulletproof, or how the m16 is a plastic peashooter that couldn't kill a rabbit.
They were right about 5.56 though. That shit is weak sauce
Anyone dumb enough to not be put to intelligence services or at least battalion level officers are too dumb to understand the strategic implications of crew survivability over emotional anecdotes.
I think you would make a good crewmember.
>read what actual Sherman crew thought about it, ya moran
From soviet tank commander dimitri loza
>For a brief period of time, perhaps six weeks, I fought on a T-34 around Smolensk. The commander of one of our companies was hit in his tank. The crew jumped out of the tank but were unable to run away from it because the Germans were pinning them down with machine gun fire. They lay there in the wheat field as the tank burned and blew up. By evening, when the battle had waned, we went to them. I found the company commander lying on the ground with a large piece of armor sticking out of his head.
>When a Sherman burned, the main gun ammunition did not explode. Why was this?
Tangent, he did not like the matilda
>Well, there were always problems. In general, the Matilda was an unbelievably worthless tank! I will tell you about one of the Matilda's deficiencies that caused us a great deal of trouble.
Matilda was neat, especially early war, but its gun and slow speed made it worthless outside of an early war equivalent to the Jagdtiger. nigh impenetrable and able to punch through any enemy tank but shit at supporting infantry. By late war it couldn't even penetrate any German tanks on the front out to normal combat ranges and was useless for infantry support.
Wrong
Correct.
To lose less than one person per tank knocked out is very good. Significantly better than the T-34.
T-34 had a higher rate of injuries due to spalling as well.
Maybe cuz soviet tankers did not jump out of the hatches after seeing a PAK/Panzer?
Wrong. Russian "soldiers" were the worst fighters.
They were even worse than Italians. Italians being poorly equipped is why they rank lower.
Nope; the Panzer III was the most successful tank of the war.
"Best" is a relative term - it all comes down to "have or have not" in the MILLIONS of little scenarios that happened during WW2 and the Sherman design answered plenty with "available".
Just think if the other guy has a tank and you don't. Without resistance the tank can obliterate things, even if there's a better tank SOMEWHERE in Europe.
Same goes for T-34, plenty of quality issues but they turned the situation to that "have or have not" point.
Noice, I was the one who posted that pic a while ago
Right, I've had it for 3 years 😀
that picture is fricking insane
If your measurement of best is "preformed well in every theatre of service, functioned reliably and did what it needed to" then yes, the Sherman is probably the best.
There are a million different what if scenarios but the long and short of it is that Shermans saw service everywhere and did alright, something not many tanks can claim period. Was it perfect? No. But is its service record impressive? Yes.
Behold
Chrysler alone built more Sherman’s than every German tank manufacturer combined across all models.
Over 6,000,000 k-frame S&W 38s were made in the 20th century. Why don't you have one? Don't you want to be one of the 6 gorillion?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_%26_Wesson_Model_10
https://www.thesurvivalistblog.net/smith-and-wesson-model-10-review/
https://www.gunbroker.com/Revolvers/search?Keywords=Model%2010&PageSize=96&Sort=4&View=1&Ch-model=10
www.thesixgunjournal.net/a-revolver-buyers-checklist/
https://www.thesixgunjournal.net/a-revolver-buyers-checklist/