Why couldn't Americans make a decent WWII Tank?

Question

America made decent planes, ships, weapons etc. But from what I've been told a Sherman was no match for a German tank and not even a fair fight for a Russian T34. Why was our tank technology so bad? If it takes 6 Shermans to take on 1 German tank, either the Germans had terrific engineers or we had we had engineers that never had a science class in their life. Why?

Answer 1

Yes it took 6 American tanks to take out one German tank...but we out numbered the german tanks by 10-1 and as we killed the german tanks off we could replace ours at a 20-1 advantage.





Numbers has a quality all its own, Col John Boyd USAF Ret

Answer 2

The M-4 Sherman was produced in greater quantity than the German PKw V or VI. The Sherman may not have been a better tank but there were more M-4s allowing for victory through numbers. German tanks were mechanically complex and could not be easily repaired at the front while American tanks were simpler to operate and maintain. Damaged American tanks could be repaired and returned to the battle faster than their German counterparts.

Answer 3

I choose you had written western allies. the main powerful reason that the tanks of the western allies have been so blah- became because of the fact the U. S. became searching for some thing that should be cranked out immediately and extra to a theater of operation and that they have got been ok for struggling with the the tanks the Germans began the conflict with. the terrific allied tanks have been those utilized by potential of the Russians the T-34 and KV-a million KV-2 and IS tanks that have been in some far greater recent than the M4 sherman which became devloped from the M3. those tanks have been designed to out type the Panzer III's that have been used in the invasion of the U.S. and have been the justifications the Germans equipped the Panther, Tiger and Jagdpanthers

Answer 4

Although the German tanks were more formidale, they had their drawbacks. A tiger tank used fuel at the rate of 6 miles per gallon. It weighed 60 tons ans was useless on soft ground due to this weight. It took 3.4 minutes for the gun turret to turn full circle. It had a top speed of 20 MPH again due to the weight of the tank.

The british and American tanks were faster, used less fuel and could travel on soft ground, althought they had to be within 700 metres to be able to hit a tiger tank with a shell. The British and American tanks would aim for the Tigers tank Tracks to disable it before moving closer to finish it off.

Answer 5

Nope get your facts right. The Sherman was not as terrible as you say. The Sherman had lighter armor and smaller caliber guns. But because of that, it was more manoeuvrable, and in a one on one, a skilled Sherman driver could easily defeat a Panzer. The Tiger was a different issue, it could blow up a Sherman easily. Plus, US had better CAS, so they didn't require to go one on one, their planes would destroy German Armor easily.

Answer 6

HVSS, aka Firefly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman

Pershing



put simply, people buying the "glorious German engineering" should replace their wet undies then see some actual numbers, not just fancy TV series with loads of bullsiit and computer generated graphics.



then, possibly, those guys would realise that the most common german tank had been the Pz IV in later variants, big cats being fancy tools spread too thin to mean a serious threat in strategic meaning.



as you would read elsewhere, an average allied tanker hardly ever encountered a bigcat armor. majority of their fire missions were HE rounds to suppress infantry and snipers, NOT taking down tigers and panthers.



besides> quoting from the wiki link above.. armors were meant [in US doctrine] to support the infantry with direct fire.. taking down enemy armors was assigned to tank destroyers..\

dead end? definitely; but that's how the war works.

Answer 7

1. The Great Depression. Thus military spending was low.

2. Little R&D or real world info pre war to go on. Tanks had only been invented in WW1.

3. Tactics.... Most were designed as infantry support weapons. Not tank killiers. Thus small guns, light armor were the norm for most tanks in the world.

Answer 8

The U.S. tank concept was simple. It was meant to protect infantry and act like a cross between mobile artillery and a shield for infantry. It was not meant for attacking other tanks. To attack other tanks, the U.S. went with armored vehicles called tank killers/destroyers. Only after WW2 did the U.S. drop the tank killer/destroyer and improve on the tank. The U.S. ended up with a 90mm cannon for it's M10. It could penetrate 3" of 30 degree tilted steel at 1,000 yards. The toughest part of a Tiger tank was 8", but the tank destroyer was meant to outflank the Tiger tank and hit it from the sides or rear. One of the problems was the round itself, which was meant to penetrate and then explode, but they exploded on contact and the problem was never fixed.

Answer 9

Every tank has advantages and disadvantages, the sherman was light, fast, and maneuverable. The german line of tanks were all heavily armed and armored but were very slow, heavy, and not maneuverable.

Answer 10

We figured for tanks it was more important for mass production, but we had more tanks than just the Sherman out there, plus we had tank killers like the Wolverine.

Answer 11

weight/cost was a big concern in shipping, air transporting.beach/shore landings,,,cost in manufacturing,

the us took 3 years to rebuild,design new ships,aircraft, training a 16,000,000 man army.navy,to be used on 2 fronts,,the medium tank was a compromise,,

Answer 12

Americans could,



it's all about the money.