
Was the M4 Sherman That Bad? A Soviet Perspective - curtis
http://knowledgeglue.com/was-the-m4-sherman-really-that-bad-a-soviet-perspective/
======
GlenTheMachine
A point often overlooked by war history buffs is that you can't evaluate a
weapon - any weapon - in isolation. “Was the Sherman a better tank than the
Panzer/T-34/whatever” misses the point.

A weapon has to be evaluated in terms of how well it fits in the machinery
that is the military fielding it. Does it align with that military's tactical
and strategic doctrine? How hard is it for it's military to keep it fielded;
is it easily supported by the logistics arm? How hard is it for country
fielding it to produce in the numbrs needed? And so on.

The Sherman wasn't the strongest or best armored tank of WWII, by a long shot.
But it could be manufactured in ansolutely stupendous numbers, and it was
easily supported and serviced by The American and Allied militaries. And it
supported the warfighting doctrine of the US Army in the European theater, in
that it was built to be utilized in close coordination with infantry.

The Tiger was a fantastic tank on its own. But the Germans could never produce
it in the numbrs needed, and when it broke it stayed broke. It was a bear to
strip, so in terms of helping win the war, it sucked. It was a terrible tank.

The T-34 was easily manufactured by the backwards Soviet manufacturing base.
That's what the Soviets needed. It was good enough in battle. It was a great
tank.

