It was tactically good enough to win most of the battles, while designed to strategically play to America's strengths in mass production to win the war. it was perfectly capable of doing the job. Against the Pz4 or lighter, infantry, buildings, fortifications etc.
But ultimately the Shermans were winning against them, air support or not. On the few occasions where the Sherman encountered the German big cats they did have a tougher time yes. If your tank has the thickest armour, the biggest gun and can theoretically outfight anything your opponent has, but you can't make enough of them to support the rest of your army in completing their objectives, is it truly superior? If anything, a tank that operates better in cooperation with the rest of the military is going to be superior than one designed for one-on-one duels (which rarely, if ever happened). Remember that the Sherman was already in use by 1942 in north Africa, used to invade Italy in 1943 and also delivered to the Russians, all well before Normandy. The fact that the allies had air superiority probably played a much smaller part than you think. Instructions and advice on how to best do an AMA. Want to do an AMA or know someone who does? Message the mods! Comments should be on-topic and contribute.ĭiscussions are limited to events over 20 years ago.If a post breaks one of our rules or guidelines you will be informed about it. So it is perfectly normally for your post to not show up in the new listing. Feel free to submit interesting articles, tell us about this cool book you just read, or start a discussion about who everyone's favorite figure of minor French nobility is!Īll posts will be reviewed by a human moderator first before they become visible to all subscribers on the subreddit. r/History is a place for discussions about history. Join the r/history Discord server to chat with other history enthusiast!
0 kommentar(er)
