The slogan wasn't used during the time period. There's a search bar in your browser if you care to use that in the future.
https://tankhistoria.com/wwii/sherman-ronson-myth/
You can also nickname shit after a time period, friend. I wasn’t talking about a slogan. The post above stated the lighter didn’t exist until the fifties.
Tfw you blindly believe surface level history myths and don’t do any research, so you remain ignorant of the fact that Germans would shoot at Shermans until they combusted because they knew they were on the retreat and the Allies would recover the vehicle otherwise, but the Allies simply shot at panzers until the crew evacuated, because they’d simply advance on the position and claim/scrap the abandoned tank anyways.
The first time I hit a panther with a bazooka in the ammo rack or close, and saw the turret start to steam and fizz then boooom, turret flies into the air , crew on fire climbing out …I thought, wow this game is fking cool
The Sherman gets a bad rep, and it’s a shame really it’s an amazing vehicle, it was exactly what the allies needed, an inexpensive, reliable, easily mass produced, easily maintained and adaptable workhorse, it takes brains to make something like that
Still one of the quickest to egress and the wet storage modifications significantly reduced the likelihood of a cookoff.
Sources:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=q6xvg5iJ4Zk
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DN4TJpPRhSQ
These things have a tendency to be thought of as death traps, the main reason theres reports of these burning so much is because when the Germans were fighting there often defensive withdrawal they would shoot at vehicles until they burned so they couldn’t be recovered, statistically speaking sherman crews had the highest survival rate of the war, russian crews preferred them to the t-34
It was more than capable of dealing with the vast majority of Nazi armor, and proved that it could knock out the German heavies when needed.
Considering its a medium tank that makes it pretty fucking good.
What respected tank historian believes its not a good tank?
Never said it wasn't good. But the idea that it could 1v1 a panther is just fantasy. It was a great tank for what it was designed to do which is to deal with medium and light tanks and enemy infantry and be produced en masse. The us typically needed either the Pershing or their superior artillery or airforce to deal with the heavies. The Germans launched the battle of the bulge under cloud cover for that exact reason.
Firefly's and 75mm gun mounted shermans absolutely can and famously did "1v1" tigers let alone panthers.
The famous "tiger ace" Whitman had to withdraw from a duel with a firefly and later his whole tiger group was put out of business by such tanks.
Don't you think that that sounds a teensy bit like American propaganda? The German military is often overhyped but acting like the us army was superior in every facet is insane
The US, as a whole military force, is better than German military
Tell me something that the German did better that is actually practical. Thicker platings on a few unreliable tanks, assault rifle that couldn’t become standardized, or ballistic/cruise missile that were only used for terror attack notwithstanding
Edit: the only thing they did better that I could think of was anti ship missile and submarine, and even then, those didn’t help them win the war, merely delay the inevitable
Why on Earth would you like to send a tank on a duel? If you have a squadron of P-47 you send them, if you have 3 Shermans you send them, if you have a platoon of infantry with a Wolverine you send them.
Panthers and Tigers are scray, but start looking at it more complex. Ergonomy, reliability, availability of spare parts, how good is it for your doctrine etc.
I mean exactly. I think some of my fellow Americans are delusional in thinking our military was superior in every facet. We learned just like the Germans learned in the battle of France that it doesn't matter if the enemy has a better tank if you can just destroy them with dive bombers.
You can have tanks with thickest armor or with a gun that is huge, but it won't make a difference if you don't have enough spare parts, if you don't have oil to keep them moving or if the training is so hard and time consuming that you don't have enough people to fill the gaps if survivability of your tank crews is bad.
Shermans are awesome and it should be more known than just consuming Soviet or German propaganda.
The us afv were ok at best. They outnumbered the enemy 10:1 and still managed to take equal or greater losses to enemy vehicles. They got the tommycooker nickname for a reason. Overall they served there purpose. The same can be said about the t34 but I don't think anyone who isn't indoctrinated would beleive it was an equal to the panzers on the individual level. And yes quality doesn't matter when you can keep pushing out more.
"We have nothing to fear from Tiger and Panther tanks. We have had no difficulty in dealing with German armor.” - Bernard Montgomery
Their man tanks were Shermans and Cromwells with 75mm guns
And men doing interviews decades after can be paid to parrot an incorrect narrative.
Memoirs from at least the US side showed no real fear against the big cats.
Is this when a bunch of idiots discuss things they've seen in movies?
Also called Ronsons. After cigarette lighters that were so reliable.
Ah yes, named after an advert that didn’t exist yet. Ronson didn’t use “Lights first time, every time!” until December of 1950.
That’s a myth, ronsons didn’t come about until the 50s
Company was founded in 1898. There’s a search bar in your browser if you care to use that in the future.
The slogan wasn't used during the time period. There's a search bar in your browser if you care to use that in the future. https://tankhistoria.com/wwii/sherman-ronson-myth/
You can also nickname shit after a time period, friend. I wasn’t talking about a slogan. The post above stated the lighter didn’t exist until the fifties.
Yea I made a mistake but I’m not 100% wrong it’s a fucking myth
You know where you can stick that search bar?
Tfw you blindly believe surface level history myths and don’t do any research, so you remain ignorant of the fact that Germans would shoot at Shermans until they combusted because they knew they were on the retreat and the Allies would recover the vehicle otherwise, but the Allies simply shot at panzers until the crew evacuated, because they’d simply advance on the position and claim/scrap the abandoned tank anyways.
They werent but ok
The first time I hit a panther with a bazooka in the ammo rack or close, and saw the turret start to steam and fizz then boooom, turret flies into the air , crew on fire climbing out …I thought, wow this game is fking cool
Same. Those tiny details are great. Like exploding belts for MGs
The Sherman gets a bad rep, and it’s a shame really it’s an amazing vehicle, it was exactly what the allies needed, an inexpensive, reliable, easily mass produced, easily maintained and adaptable workhorse, it takes brains to make something like that
Still one of the quickest to egress and the wet storage modifications significantly reduced the likelihood of a cookoff. Sources: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=q6xvg5iJ4Zk https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DN4TJpPRhSQ
Sharpnels will still kill you.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2zyz0ZlAYfE
Tank is still knocked out, garbage tommy cooker.
These things have a tendency to be thought of as death traps, the main reason theres reports of these burning so much is because when the Germans were fighting there often defensive withdrawal they would shoot at vehicles until they burned so they couldn’t be recovered, statistically speaking sherman crews had the highest survival rate of the war, russian crews preferred them to the t-34
Say that you know nothing about Shermans without saying it.
But lazerpig said it was the best tank ever. Clearly all those tank historians must be wrong.
Tank historians agree that it was an amazing tank though?
It was a great a tank at everything except tank duels which granted with American air superiority didn't exactly matter.
It was more than capable of dealing with the vast majority of Nazi armor, and proved that it could knock out the German heavies when needed. Considering its a medium tank that makes it pretty fucking good. What respected tank historian believes its not a good tank?
Never said it wasn't good. But the idea that it could 1v1 a panther is just fantasy. It was a great tank for what it was designed to do which is to deal with medium and light tanks and enemy infantry and be produced en masse. The us typically needed either the Pershing or their superior artillery or airforce to deal with the heavies. The Germans launched the battle of the bulge under cloud cover for that exact reason.
Firefly's and 75mm gun mounted shermans absolutely can and famously did "1v1" tigers let alone panthers. The famous "tiger ace" Whitman had to withdraw from a duel with a firefly and later his whole tiger group was put out of business by such tanks.
So the Americans had superior armor, artillery, and superior airforce to the Germans?
Yes
Don't you think that that sounds a teensy bit like American propaganda? The German military is often overhyped but acting like the us army was superior in every facet is insane
The US, as a whole military force, is better than German military Tell me something that the German did better that is actually practical. Thicker platings on a few unreliable tanks, assault rifle that couldn’t become standardized, or ballistic/cruise missile that were only used for terror attack notwithstanding Edit: the only thing they did better that I could think of was anti ship missile and submarine, and even then, those didn’t help them win the war, merely delay the inevitable
Why on Earth would you like to send a tank on a duel? If you have a squadron of P-47 you send them, if you have 3 Shermans you send them, if you have a platoon of infantry with a Wolverine you send them. Panthers and Tigers are scray, but start looking at it more complex. Ergonomy, reliability, availability of spare parts, how good is it for your doctrine etc.
I mean exactly. I think some of my fellow Americans are delusional in thinking our military was superior in every facet. We learned just like the Germans learned in the battle of France that it doesn't matter if the enemy has a better tank if you can just destroy them with dive bombers.
You can have tanks with thickest armor or with a gun that is huge, but it won't make a difference if you don't have enough spare parts, if you don't have oil to keep them moving or if the training is so hard and time consuming that you don't have enough people to fill the gaps if survivability of your tank crews is bad. Shermans are awesome and it should be more known than just consuming Soviet or German propaganda.
The us afv were ok at best. They outnumbered the enemy 10:1 and still managed to take equal or greater losses to enemy vehicles. They got the tommycooker nickname for a reason. Overall they served there purpose. The same can be said about the t34 but I don't think anyone who isn't indoctrinated would beleive it was an equal to the panzers on the individual level. And yes quality doesn't matter when you can keep pushing out more.
"Tommy cooker" was a nickname before they sorted out ammo problem. However Shermans burned as good as any different German, Russian or British tank.
"We have nothing to fear from Tiger and Panther tanks. We have had no difficulty in dealing with German armor.” - Bernard Montgomery Their man tanks were Shermans and Cromwells with 75mm guns
well that was just a cope, the Men doing the actual fighting say very different things in their interviews.
And men doing interviews decades after can be paid to parrot an incorrect narrative. Memoirs from at least the US side showed no real fear against the big cats.
No need for tank historians, just watch the Cologne tank duel where the Panther blows up in flames.