|
|
Post by Nick on Feb 9, 2013 11:14:46 GMT -5
Which was the better tank? If the Sherman had not been created in such huge numbers, would it have earned such a big reputation?
|
|
ade
New Member
Posts: 1
|
Post by ade on Feb 11, 2013 13:23:03 GMT -5
I would rather have been in a Churchill - thicker armour all round!
|
|
l71
New Member
Posts: 1
|
Post by l71 on Feb 12, 2013 5:20:11 GMT -5
Not sure if this sort of comparison makes a lot of sense, really. Both were flawed as a result of circumstances surrounding their creation and development. Armament problems,(both, for different reasons), reliability (Churchill initially), armour (Sherman, but Churchill was not fault-free here). Sherman fits the old dictum about 'Getting there firstest with the mostest'. In the end you cannot separate numbers and reliability from the equation. Combat is not a theoretical exercise. Both did the jobs for which they were designed more or less well according to circumstances. Both lived on long after the war in various guises.
|
|
