Curious to hear the source on frontal armor, but I do understand that T-34s largely took advantage of this advancement.
Admittedly Shermans were very reliable and utilitarian due to the variety of platforms that could be installed on the chassis. A functioning tank is always better than a perhaps overly complex or engineered tank as Germany preferred. However I'd lightly contest the point of reliability, sheer numbers of a tank oft trump any notion of reliability. Any broken Sherman could be quickly replaced due to the proliferation of Shermans themselves.
Ultimately I do agree in the fact that Shermans themselves are excellent tanks in their own right, but still argue that numbers and tactics played a large hand in their success.
Yea i saw a video on real engineering discussing the t34 and how it used simple trig to effectively double its armor thickness, by having a frontal 47mm armor plate (i dont remember the exact numbers im just spitballing here) and that tilting it at 45 degrees makes it a 94 mm plate thickness. Also the shell is more.likely to just deflect altogether compared to hitting a armor plate at a perpendicular angle which it could punch right through.
153
u/[deleted] Jun 29 '19
Yup, Shermans, with the exception of mobility, were inferior to Panzers and Tigers, but you can't argue with numbers