They were pierced by German tanks as if they were butter. I think shermans suck.

Fair enough, my interest is in the gun, which pierced German tanks like butter.

--
So British it hurts...

To the optimist, the glass is half full. To the pessimist, the glass is half empty. To the engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

The point of the Sherman is not to be an ultra hard tank- its to be cheap, easy to produce and effective. And frankly I'll swap my 5 Shermans for your Tiger because I've got another 95 Shermans and you have about 4 Tigers left.

Plus as pointed out the 75mm gun did the German tanks no favours either.

--
I work for; [link]

[link]

Quantity over quality, if you're going through that approach then you might as well just do things like the Soviets in WW2 and arm every other man.

May as well. Lets be fair- the Soviets did so...and the Soviets won the war.

--
I work for; [link]

[link]

They had a larger population and more resources. When you compare ratios though you have to give Germany credit for the fight they put up for their size.

Tanks such as the Panther and King Tiger would have been impractical for the allied drives across Europe because they broke down too often. The Sherman was an extremeley reliable machine, you have to credit it for that if nothing else.

--
So British it hurts...

To the optimist, the glass is half full. To the pessimist, the glass is half empty. To the engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

That is true.

Yes but their industry was still behind Germanies at the beginning of the war, their High Command including most of their own versions of men like Gueridan or Rommel had been executed and the Army had bad morale and bad equipment.

That said I would never deny Germanies ability to fight- they fought harder than anyone but the Soviets. (Though we should also remember all the various German Allies and volunteer Waffen SS units who contributed- the last unit to reinforce Berlin were French Waffen SS.)

--
I work for; [link]

[link]