WulfeHound, on Jun 08 2016 - 15:43, said: Except what Chieftain claims is backed up by data, archival documents, and other armor historians. Except what Chieftain claims is backed up by data, archival documents, and other armor historians.

I would much rather trust the word of a former tanker who is also a historian than a random historian who thinks they know what it meant to be a tanker... Also, memories fade and or become embellished over time, so pointing out that "all Shermans were death traps", is not reliably taking in all the fact.

Yes, US Shermans had a number of short comings that made them unique. They also were a very successful tank design that saw combat (in updated forms) until the late 1960's. Yes, German tanks were formidable as well... But they weren't exactly the impregnable fortresses everyone paints them to be... Even Russian tanks suffered losses! (Go figure!). To the crews manning them, driving around in a steel beast made them feel safer, yet more vulnerable then ever as a giant metal pillbox on wheels has a tendency to attract incoming enemy fire.

M4 Sherman bad day at the Office:

Panther caught an ISU-152 round...

Russian Bias!