183
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2023
183 points (96.4% liked)
History
3867 readers
15 users here now
Welcome to History!
This community is dedicated to sharing and discussing fascinating historical facts from all periods and regions.
Rules:
NOTE WELL: Personal attacks and insults will not be tolerated. Stick to talking about the historical topic at hand in your comments. Insults and personal attacks will get you an immediate ban for a period of time determined by the moderator who bans you.
-
Post about history. Ask a question about the past, share a link to an article about something historical, or talk about something related to history that interests you. Please encourage discussion whenever possible.
-
No memes. No ads. No promos. No spam.
-
No porn.
-
We like facts and reliable sources here. Don't spread misinformation or try to change the historical record.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It’s not visible to you, but Kbin users can see who downvotes them. They were being sincere.
I'm well aware, on both accounts. They were sincere, and correct, and you have fallen for either Belton Cooper's stories, or stories of people who have fallen for his stories. Shermans did have one of the best safety records of the war, and the laments of Sherman crews have been greatly, and I mean greatly exaggerated.
The Sherman was adequate for the task of defeating the thoroughly mismanaged Germans. It was created to defeat an enemy that had lost the ability to effectively engage in most forms of AA, reconnaissance, and coordination. It was effectively the same as a named boxer fighting nobodies to bolster their record. Was it a bad tank? No. Was it a good one? No. It was adequate. Numerous and adequate.
I’m sincerely not sure what you’re referring to, I was joking about its design philosophy involving tailored solutions to exact specifications.