Edited by author 11-07-2003 02:59 PM
The Sherman was the bomb! It was the sherman that won the major battles! Not the german tiger tank. Besides it went to slow. It deseves to be 17th place. Oh, and history fan you spelled crazy and all incorrectly. Now this message has been on this very posting board long enough for someone to have answered my message!!!! Now will someone please answer my god forsaken message!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i agree with the history fan. the tigers were obsolete except for the fact that they were out-produced. when 5,000 german tigers were made in prage(moslty) and some parts of germany, 54,000 shermans were manufactured and sent to the fronts per month by the U.S. if dont have any experience of these tank-titans, but i would go in a king tiger vs 5 shermans. and if any one wants to say the shermans were ANY good try fighting in a sherman with the same amount of odds with 9 shermans per tiger.

what i mean when i said the last thing was 9 tigers per sherman(sorry)

the only problem that the germans encountered and why the allies were so efficient was that most tanks, particularly at the battle of the bulgde would run out of gas before or right after a battle started. it wasnt a fair fight, because for the germans it wasnt an objective to defeat the enemy any more, it was "where can i find gas to use this tank!"

now had the germans plaentiful gas, i feel the possibilities of the full scale use of the tigers would have been used more often, and would not have been limited to the minimal use of gas which sometimes didnt even last an entire battle.

I don't agree with you WW2 Fanatic. Istill think the sherman is the bomb!! That is my input for now. Sincerly IAmOsamaHater Originally known as (John Doe) sorry I changed my site name. Semper Fi. Carry on!!

ok iamosamahater if what u say is true and the shermans were the best than why were 8 shermans destroyed per tiger throuout the rest of the war since d-day? and riddle me this would u go 1v1 with a sherman verse a tiger? or never mind thats an unfair question because tanks dont fight 1v1. would u fight with 1000 shermans vs 1000 tigers, on a broad open field with few hills and trenches? like the typical non-urban battle site? oh and this goes to the maker of the web site. i you would like to make this ww2 portion of the site more debatable, you should add a debate to the best fighters, best bombers, and opinions on certain battles of the war itself. for example you could have a d-day debate or somethin like that. and by the way this site kicks @$$!

by that i meant this is a great site!

oh yeah, another thing, new topics would be what if the war would have lasted 1 more year, and who were the best generals of the war...i could have a debating "war" with those topics, and the srtongest overall country.

Fanatic and OsamaHater - nice discussion. It is fun to talk about history, epsecially if people actually know something.... The "best" usually requires that we set a criteria and this list does not do that, so the reliability of the tank may mean more to the author than its fighting potential. Would I perfer a working Sherman to an immobile, broken down Tiger, of course I would! If both had a full tank of gas, and both were running well, then the Tiger is certainly a better choice. But how many days a month did the Tiger operate?

Remember Fanatic, this is a history site, not a place to discuss countless endings to various events, but keeping the dicussion going!

Fanatic and OsamaHater - nice discussion. It is fun to talk about history, epsecially if people actually know something.... The "best" usually requires that we set a criteria and this list does not do that, so the reliability of the tank may mean more to the author than its fighting potential. Would I prefer a working Sherman to an immobile, broken down Tiger? Of course I would! If both had a full tank of gas, and both were running well, then the Tiger is certainly a better choice. But how many days a month did the Tiger operate?

Remember Fanatic, this is a history site, not a place to discuss countless endings to various events, but keeping the dicussion going!

dude u just said the same thing 2wice

what u say is in completely true about 80% of the tigers that participated in the war, broke down within a month of exiting the assemply line. but, with this in mind, lets say they broke down and the tanks were to NEVER be repaired, which they were, the average kills for this tank before it was destroyed was 8 to 1. and i know that this tank could at around kill 4 if being abandoned after braking down.

i do know for a fact that whatever what ratio is the correct one in deaths comparing the tiger and the sherman there is and at VERY VERY LEAST 1 tiger per 2 shermans destroyed. and if u wanna talk bad about the tiger...answer me this question has there ever been a even match(in quantity such as 1000 verse 1000) between the sherman and the tiger which resulted in the victory of the allies?

Does it matter WW2 Fanatic? You have to look at the objective of each military power? What do they want their tanks to do? While tank battle certainly took place during WW2 it was my belief that our tank philosophy was not to place tanks in battle against one another. They had other roles. But yes, General Patton, our celeb tank advocate, was one of our main reasons we did not develop a super tank. He saw no reason for it. This is on the record. Don't get me wrong when I call him our celeb tank advocate, for I feel he the absolute best commander in WW2. The Sherman of that war. For all his notoriety as "blood and guts"....his techinique of warfare conserved lives rather than wasting them.

I agree with you about that Genaral Patton bein' the bomb!
Like Patton said "No GOOD Decision was ever made in a swivle chair."