ChristopherPerrien wrote:One last thing America had the best equipment of anybody in the war in just about every area , planes, ships, except late subs, radios, artillery, except AT guns, trucks, small arms except MGs, hell even chow.
Why did we stay with a tank of "marginal" performance for 5 years 1940-1945 ?
History is written by the victors some of the truth gets "marginalized", buried by feel-good propaganda because it is "icky". Hell we won.
A lot of burned-up tankers made sure we did. RIP fellow tankers
The sheman was not evan an itch in 1940 they first produced and used by late 42. May 45 makes less than 3 years. But you are right in one repect they kept using them long after the war all through korea and into the late 50s. But that is more than the 5 years you quote abouve. If they didn´t have the best tank of the war then thier was probably some reason why. Look to my above message for an answer.
Another example at morooco not a single sherman could wade ashore the area had to be sized by stuarts and then the shermans lifted in at ports. Imagine trying to do that with pershings in normandy. The difficulty of finding ports with heavy, intact cranes to actually try this. Not to mention siezing the port with only sturats supported by inf in the face of the german army.