So, no actual empirical source other than some anecdotal quotes...
I might point out that the Sherman was totally behind the loop in tank design...the US industry was strongly against marrying it with the Brit 17lbr, which was the premium western allied AT gun at that stage of the war, although their own command in Normandy was desperate to get some from the British. Suggesting that it was successful because it didn't see much tank vs tank combat is rather obtuse, don't you think? Any tank, fighting against no other tank, is a good tank.
My 'Normandy wasn't needed' comment was in response to your 'winning tank strategy', so don't play the victim, boyo. If you come up with crap statements with me, expect to have them rammed back down your throat...and further to that point, if you want to insult people, you better be prepared to be called for what you are, biased and closed-minded.
What you obviously took offence at was my pointing out the fact of the US administrative tail, which was far larger than that of other armies. The M4 guzzled fuel (not as much as others though), it required a heavy maintenance schedule, particularly in mobile operations, which was crippling for the advance across France and the pursuit in North Africa, however, and I will agree with this, it was suited for a mass army that was largely unconcerned about casualties supported by an industrial base that churned out numbers of cheap equipments. That said though, the US never managed to tie their land-warfare industry to the actual military need (unlike the airwar orientated industry, or the naval industry), something that the Soviets actually did do from the early 1930's onwards, and which to a far lesser extent, at least so far as in responsiveness, the germans did (accepting the limitations of their industrial base and the anarchy of their command/planning process).
In view that the US didn't care about casualties, and only needed men and tanks on the ground, yes, the Sherman was a good tank. It wasn't if you were a crewman going up against another tank, though.
Look up the 'allied tank crisis' issue, you'll find that there's actually quite a story behind it.
Now, a bit more to the story...I have no disagreement re M4 vs Mk4, except that the Mk4 ended up carrying a much more powerful 75mm gun (around the same time as the Sherman went into battle). But, and I stress this, the germans recognised that the Mk4 was outdated, and were already producing better tanks, when the Sherman first saw combat. The Soviets were producing 'better tanks' (for the war they were fighting), and even the Australians had a concept model of a far better tank, which was pulled from planning in mid '43 (after prototype trials) (which mounted a 17lbr, was planned to have better mobility, loading, optics and survivability, than what the Sherman actually had at the end of the war).
The vision of the M4 as a half decent tank is largely mythology, tempered and padded out by 'during the war' cover-ups regarding its' weaknesses, and the post-war euphoria at winning and ending the war. I suspect if a Soviet/western allied war had eventuated in 45-46, the shortfalls of the western tanks and the western ground war capabilities would have come very much into the open in a very embarrassing fashion.
Please note, I did not refer to myself as 'Mr Ammunition Expert', I merely made comment that my trade is military ammunition (Australian usage), and as you were promoting a contentious point, I asked you to provide some sources I could look at, so, if they are valid, I could accept your point. Your lack in doing so makes me think you actually are simply spouting populist crap. In fact, I suspect you may be one of the argumentative trolls that were formerly kicked from the forums...
