In message , Eunometic
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
It was less tall than the Panther - you seem eager to damn that capable
if overcomplicated German vehicle.

Merely pointing out that the Allies made mistakes as well.

Certainly, but not enough to lose.

The
Sherman I assert could have been a better tank if it had not of been
designed for installation of an aircooled radial.

With hindsight I'd have designed the Sherman lower, with a much better
gun (the 17pdr is the best that comes to mind in the timeframe so we'll
stick with that, but with a nice big turret ring so we can upgun later)
and - crucially - wet ammunition stowage from the start.

But, hindsight is easy.

Personally, I'd go for 1.5 Shermans and make sure they were Fireflies.

Personaly I'd go for a mix. With Panthers being the bulk

No, not Panthers. Too heavy, too unreliable, too complicated.

The 3 inch 17 pounder was a powerfull gun however from all accounts
the APDS tungsten shot it needed to deal with Panthers and Tigers lost
accuracy rapidly. Thus while the round still had penetraion at 500m
it lost accuracy so much it was difficult to actualy obtain a hit.

Curiously, interviews with the gunners who fired it reckoned that the
17pdr shot flat to a thousand yards and that one or two rounds were all
that would be needed (the Archer crewman whose account I read, commented
that they could usually kill what they fired at with the first shot out
to a thousand yards, and that they displaced rapidly not to avoid
returning direct fire but to evade artillery called on their position)

Doesn't sound like inaccuracy was a gross problem. Of course, he was
merely *using* the weapon in combat, so his opinions are naturally
dubious.

On the other hand without APDS it couldn't obtain penetration except
at point blank range

We *are* talking about the same 17pdr gun here, aren't we?


--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk