[mollusc]

I think what it boils down to is this:

Are you an economist or not?

If you are an economist you will marvel at the efficient and plentiful output of Shermans and the ease of maintenance and recyclability (I think I just make that word up)....

If not, you will always look to the losses of shermans in combat, and much, much more importantly, the crew losses.

Let's not forget, even if the sherman had the same armour as the enemy tanks it would still have been vulnerable; all the german tanks were vulnerable to their own armaments, so I think the bigger shortfall of the sherman was in its armament, rather than its armour. Give it a decent gun (ah-ha like a 17 pdr!), and you've got a decent tank to take on virtually any german opponent in combat conditions. Why bother adding bits of armour when, really, only DOUBLING it would make a significant difference.

It wasn't too high..but it's centre of gravity WAS too high. I've read of more than one veteran making this observation. Yes, and tracks too narrow, ground pressure was too high.

Overall I'd say, given the 17pdr, a good (score 7/10) tank - a poor mans panther is a good quote! Mostly not having the 17pdr though, I wouldn't want to go to war in one.

When I was a wee lad of about 12, I was spraying my Tamiya 1/35th scale King Tiger in the garage, and in popped Harry, who must've been about 55 years old but seemed ancient to me at the time, looked at the model and was quite shaken by it. He called it a Royal Tiger and then told me he fought against them in the war in a Sherman, and he was visibly upset just by looking at the model - "terrible things". As a young lad I didn't know what to say, I felt guilty in a way that I had this model of an ENEMY tank and that it had upset him. That's my only face-to-face with a Sherman vet, and to this very day I can remember how haunted he seemed by it.

That means so much more than anything I can read in a book.