T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor

[jimmy olsen]

I may be a minority on this, but I think the Sherman was a pretty good tank.  It was easy to build, reasonably effective and reliable.  It displayed it's weakness in Normandy and Italy, but was quite impressive in the race across France and the invasion of Germany.  I'm not fully sold on the importance of Heavy Tanks.  They were good in tank duels and close combat, but less useful for the rapid advance.  It would seem the rapid advance into the enemy rear is the most important thing.  It did fit the doctrine wonderfully.  Unfortunately the doctrine was flawed.

It was good enough, but as Grumbler said it wouldn't have been difficult to give it a much stronger punch. If they'd gone in Normandy with 90mm guns the campaign would have been less bloody for sure.

[Neil]

I may be a minority on this, but I think the Sherman was a pretty good tank.  It was easy to build, reasonably effective and reliable.  It displayed it's weakness in Normandy and Italy, but was quite impressive in the race across France and the invasion of Germany.  I'm not fully sold on the importance of Heavy Tanks.  They were good in tank duels and close combat, but less useful for the rapid advance.  It would seem the rapid advance into the enemy rear is the most important thing.  It did fit the doctrine wonderfully.  Unfortunately the doctrine was flawed.

It was good enough, but as Grumbler said it wouldn't have been difficult to give it a much stronger punch. If they'd gone in Normandy with 90mm guns the campaign would have been less bloody for sure.

Maybe.  They would still have taken a shitkicking in the hedgerows though.

[grumbler]

I would be inclined to say that air superiority was the key.  I think I read somewhere that all King Tigers destroyed on the western front were destroyed by air attack.  Zero by tanks, antitank guns, and infantry.

Air superiority was the key to Blitzkrieg, for sure.  I think that the major problem that plagued tank doctrine was the unwillingness of the tankers to accept that the Blitzkrieg had worked because of factors that no longer applied.  Infantry anti-tank weapons and air power had made tank operations in other than infantry support simply too expensive.

Heavy tanks have their place in some doctrinal schemes, but I would agree that, in general, they were a waste of money.  Not because they are so slow per se, but because they are so limited in terms of the roads and bridges they can use.

[Darth Wagtaros]

So what would you say was the impact of the Arab-Israeli Wars on tank doctrine?

[Iormlund]

Don't ever wander beyond AA cover.

[Mr.Penguin]

An easy to use reliable medium Tank is key to winning the war, not slow, expensive heavies...

I would be inclined to say that air superiority was the key.  I think I read somewhere that all King Tigers destroyed on the western front were destroyed by air attack.  Zero by tanks, antitank guns, and infantry.

Lets just say that the flyboys claims usually was a bit inflated, already in Normandy did they claim to have knocked out more Tigers that there was build doing the whole war. I say it for sure, but I believe more King Tigers was lost to break downs than to enemy fire...   

[Mr.Penguin]

So what would you say was the impact of the Arab-Israeli Wars on tank doctrine?

Focus on long range gunnery and better protection against infantry tank hunter teams... 

[CountDeMoney]

So what would you say was the impact of the Arab-Israeli Wars on tank doctrine?

Don't buy Russian, and let the Israelis pimp out your tank.

[Berkut]

I don't think much of anyone really bought into the "heavy" tank doctrine by late in the war. What we mostly consider heavy tanks (Tiger, IS, etc.) were really more designed as heavy armor more than heavy tanks in the manner that the pre-war doctrines imagined various tanks in various roles. The role of big tanks was really to destroy enemy tanks, as opposed to the pre-war doctrinal role of heavy tanks which was typically to take on fortifications and be able to ignore enemy AT and artillery.

The Sherman was a decent tank for what it was designed to do. But the Americans let themselves get behind the doctrinal curve, and refused to learn the lessons that were being taught throughout the war about how armor was used, and how it actually worked. There was not reason for this other than doctrine - the Americans could certainly have deployed a much more capable Sherman much earlier.

[Razgovory]

I may be a minority on this, but I think the Sherman was a pretty good tank.  It was easy to build, reasonably effective and reliable.  It displayed it's weakness in Normandy and Italy, but was quite impressive in the race across France and the invasion of Germany.  I'm not fully sold on the importance of Heavy Tanks.  They were good in tank duels and close combat, but less useful for the rapid advance.  It would seem the rapid advance into the enemy rear is the most important thing.  It did fit the doctrine wonderfully.  Unfortunately the doctrine was flawed.

Please disregard the last two sentences of this post.  I rewrote the post but must have left the last two sentences in.  They referred to the Sherman tank and not the Heavies.