Early Access: Most underrated US tanks

Very intersting discussion.

Great and insightful conversation. I especially appreciated learning more about the German thoughts on the Sherman. Can I say safety that the Germans had a better impression on the American’s Shermans than on the British Cromwells ?

And you did not even touch on the survivability. As Chieftain pointed out: it was very easy to get out, thus probably saving many lives of tankers. - The T-34 of the western front: this is probably the best a German officer could say at the time.

Aha...finally the prove: you make one big take of all the talks and then release them one by one. I was suspecting this…

It is so pleasant to step back and out, and contemplate how problems were solved, and the mechanics of problem solving, in an intellectually stimulating but non emotional way. Like I said,lowers the blood pressure, engages the intellect.

As usual, Bernhard, your discussion with David Willey reminds me of what Machiavelli used to say about going into his library (paraphrasing): "it gives me the ability to shake off the concerns of the day, and communicate with the learned wise men."

What a wonderful, thoughtful discussion. The big problem with the AGF commander was that he did have doctrine wrong: tanks needed to be able to fight other tanks.

The US Army cavalry assets were the perfect example of this. The M5 light tank and the M8 armored car, backed up by the M8 GMC were the most unimpressive AFVs, but they were good ENOUGH to do the job and they had plenty of them.

Very nice, perhaps the best of the series so far? I think it does link with the presentation / article from Jens about the costs. For one, I have suffered, repeatedly, the assault of standards and oddly enough, pursued it myself. It makes sense, reduces costs, development and problems. Things like using a few types of bolts, you can get an appropriate specification for the part and then you must design all the interfaces to comply, but then it is simple. It might be a small example but it is indeed a paradigm shift. Now, I think often about functional design. What does it have to do? Americans are (were?) good at it. The reason for it is that function shall define solution ( and form). It also allow to radically remove those fixations like detachable guns. Those requirements are, as you say, fetiches. Sure there is a logic behind but, is it relevant? The sherman, as the Ford T did very well on many fronts, not only the ultimate battlefield or stats but sure did not excel. Trade offs are where the great designs are. Uncompromising designs are just that