Indeed, she's right to fear in this situation. The Germans certainly did in WWII -- not because Shermans were particularly difficult to knock out, but because American factories were basically printing them, on top of them being relatively easy to recover and repair. I remember reading somewhere that one German tank commander reportedly just stopped shooting Shermans because so many more would come up to replace them.
Indeed, she's right to fear in this situation. The Germans certainly did in WWII -- not because Shermans were particularly difficult to knock out, but because American factories were basically printing them, on top of them being relatively easy to recover and repair. I remember reading somewhere that one German tank commander reportedly just stopped shooting Shermans because so many more would come up to replace them.
Alanis, killed by an M4 Sherman
America really hit the sweet spot with the Sherman. It had to be capable of using existing infrastructure in Europe to get around, which put a limit on how big and heavy it could be. It needed to be mechanically sound and reliable, and easy to repair in the field. Like, the Germans could just put a broken tank onto a train and send it back to the factory for repairs, sure, but that was not an option for the Allies. It had a decent all-rounder main gun, too.
America really hit the sweet spot with the Sherman. It had to be capable of using existing infrastructure in Europe to get around, which put a limit on how big and heavy it could be. It needed to be mechanically sound and reliable, and easy to repair in the field. Like, the Germans could just put a broken tank onto a train and send it back to the factory for repairs, sure, but that was not an option for the Allies. It had a decent all-rounder main gun, too.
I recall hearing that carrier design was in a similar state: the British built them for survivability and repair because they needed to last a long time a long way away from home, whereas the Japanese tried to armor the heck out of theirs because they could only build so many.
I recall hearing that carrier design was in a similar state: the British built them for survivability and repair because they needed to last a long time a long way away from home, whereas the Japanese tried to armor the heck out of theirs because they could only build so many.
The British built theirs for survivability because of where their fleets spent most of their time - the Mediterranean, for example. Lots of places where land-based aircraft and enemy ships can come at them from, so their carriers needed to be tough as hell. The Illustrious-class had 76mm of deck armouring, along with 114mm of side belt. The American designs, in comparison, were fairly lightly armoured since the Pacific is fuck-off huge, and carriers reigned supreme there.
Leave a comment