[Berkut76]

I have to say that Churchill is definitely underrated.

As far as JS-2 is concerned because it was equipped with a field howitzer gun as opposed to dedicated AT one, Germans panzers didn't want to cross its sights. It was known as a "crew killer". While in most cases 122mm couldn't penetrate think armor of Tigers from medium to long ranges, the sheer energy impact was enough to cause catastrophic damage, in most cases the turret was simply blown off.

In the Soviet service IS-2 as well as heavy SPGs were known as "Zverobois", i.e. "animal killers" in reference to Panther and Tiger names.

Regards,

Sergey

[Cardinal]

Originally Posted by timbo

I thought that was the British Tankers nick name for it.

IMHO - The only reason the Sherman was any good was because they were swarming around like midges on a scotish highlands summer night.

The Panther, Tiger, etc would fall down in my eyes because they were a mechanical nightmare.

Early Panthers were plagued with mechanical reliability problems although these were resolved later in its production history. Arguably, the Panther was technically the 'best' tank of the war with the T34 being the best overall performer with regard to general reliability, practicality and ease of production (notwithstanding the manual turret, poor optics and mediocre aiming system - of the T34).

[STARMAN 352ND]

I would have to say it be the Soviet IS-2 Tank as well.
JP

[Shawn 507]

For us Sherman fans:

The wonderful thing about Shermans
Is Shermans are wonderful things
Their wheels are made out of rubber
Their suspensions are made out of springs
They're bouncy, trouncy, flouncy, pouncy
Fun, fun, fun, fun, FUN!
But the most wonderful thing about Shermans
Is you can’t build only one

The wonderful thing about Shermans
Is Shermans outran the Germans by laps
The crews are loaded with piss and vinegar
We lent them to the English Chaps
They're bouncy, trouncy, flouncy pouncy
Fun, fun, fun, fun, FUN
But the most wonderful thing about Shermans
Is you can’t build only one.

Shermans are wonderful fellahs.
Shermans are awfully sweet.
Everyone elses is jealous,
And thats why I repeat...

The wonderful thing about Shermans
Are Shermans are a wonderful thing
They work well in the winter
They work well in the spring
They're bouncy, trouncy, flouncy, pouncy
Fun, fun, fun, fun, FUN!
But the most wonderful thing about Shermans
Is you can’t build only one.
Yes, can’t build only one

One other thing to ponder. Lord knows how many people left in the world who when they see a Sherman, are reminded of the crews that manned them as their homes or in some cases "camps" were liberated. Not many tanks have that effect in so many places.
- Shawn

[FormerViperDriver]

Yeah, well, there's still that embarrassing little fact that most Sherman crews thought their tanks were crap (except maybe the Firefly). They just made the best out of what they were handed out. A testament to their bravery to be sure, but certainly not to the worth of the M-4 tank as such. The fact that we were able to produce Shermans at a faster rate than they were being destroyed on the battlefield is little consolation to the families of the American tankers who were sent to the front with a clearly inferior product and didn't survive as a consequence. Praising the Sherman as a tank is a bit like praising human wave assaults (by the Chinese in Korea for example, or the Iranians against Iraq in the 80s). I guess it occasionally works if you are willing to sacrifice enough people, but that doesn't necessarily make it the best tactic or strategy.

FVD

[Shawn 507]

Originally Posted by FormerViperDriver

Yeah, well, there's still that embarrassing little fact that most Sherman crews thought their tanks were crap (except maybe the Firefly). They just made the best out of what they were handed out. A testament to their bravery to be sure, but certainly not to the worth of the M-4 tank as such. The fact that we were able to produce Shermans at a faster rate than they were being destroyed on the battlefield is little consolation to the families of the American tankers who were sent to the front with a clearly inferior product and didn't survive as a consequence. Praising the Sherman as a tank is a bit like praising human wave assaults (by the Chinese in Korea for example, or the Iranians against Iraq in the 80s). I guess it occasionally works if you are willing to sacrifice enough people, but that doesn't necessarily make it the best tactic or strategy.

FVD

You forget, the Sherman was NOT designed to take on other tanks, that was the Tank Destroyer branch's mission. Much like your beloved F-22 isn't really designed to get into a gun fight with another plane. The Sherman was designed to exploit the rear areas after the breech, much like the Calvary. And to its credit it did just that, see the break out from Normandy.
Also, the Tiger I had been met and defeated in North Africa by far lesser armed / armored tanks. So with that in mind there was no need to stop everything to come up with a new tank. The number of Shermans taken out can be atributed to the Germans fighting from the defense after oh say '42. And the kill usually goes to the first shot, adavantage the defender. There are enough cases where in open country the Sherman handed the Panther and the odd Tiger (not many deployed in NWE after Normandy) its backside.
Kinda like the Luftwaffe, with all the experience pilots drained or dead by whatever year. The Germans didn't have the cream of the crop in Panzermen after '42. Also there is a greater number of Shermans put back into service than completely written off. And that is a combat multiplier.
Had the Allies made a big deal of its successful tankers like oh say pilots, the panzer mania may not have taken hold of everyone past and present. But here is some interesting reading for a guy (SSG. Pool) who commanded one of these junk tanks. Look what he accomplished in 81 days of combat.
http://www.3ad.com/history/wwll/pool...ools.tanks.htm
Michael Wittman barely topped that and it took him until 1944 to rack up that number. As with everything else, don't believe the hype.
- Shawn

[jim]

Dont forget that many Shermans fell to the 88mm. Just my 2cents.

[Shawn 507]

Originally Posted by jim

Dont forget that many Shermans fell to the 88mm. Just my 2cents.

And some of the first Tigers in North Africa fell to the whimpy 6 pounder. Stuff happens.
- Shawn

[jim]

Originally Posted by Shawn 507

And some of the first Tigers in North Africa fell to the whimpy 6 pounder. Stuff happens.
- Shawn

Absolutely Shawn, the point I was making is that Sherman losses tend to get all bunched together. Tank V Tank is one issue but I think that if you take out of the equation the number of Shermans lost to the 88s then it paints a different picture of the Shermans performance.

In Italy for example the Sherman could go into areas that German tanks could not so they did some good.

If only the Sherman had not been so easy to set on fire it would have perhaps come out of the war with a better reputation.

Stupid idea to put a petrol generator just under the turret.

Anyway thats just my perhaps ill informed opinion.

[Shawn 507]

Jim -
Late war investigations showed it wasn't so much the gas that caught fire as the other fluids (hydraulics etc...) in the tank. Apparently they were quite combustible and when it went up, the fuel was sure to follow. Have you ever seen the footage of the Panther that got hit by the T266E3 Pershing in Cologne? It brews up rather quickly after the three hits from the 90mm.
- Shawn