Originally posted by Troy21
In The History Channel, I saw a program where a soldier of the WWII commented about the Sherman that made its own country, and he said that was like a "Ronson" (talking about to the lighter for its cigarettes). The Sherman ignited then their armor very easily was very poor compared with the Panzer. We do not say then against a Tiger.
Actually, the Sherman's armor stacks up well against the Panzer IV we have in the game. One place it is thicker is on top of the tank, which is why it is harder to kill from a Hurri IID or IL2 than a Panzer.
The "Ronson" nickname was because of the earlier Shermans' propensity to burn, which was due to inadequate ammunition storage, not the armor. This flaw was largely corrected in later versions.
In Normandy and after, the 30 ton Sherman was often up against the 45 ton Panther (Pzkw V, which is not in AH) that had a better tank-killing gun than even the Tiger I. It isn't surprising the armor didn't hold up. Guess what -- the History Channel's "Best tank ever", the T-34, was just as much mincemeat as the Sherman by that time when compared to the Panther.
The Sherman acquired a bad reputation because by 1944 it was outclassed by the opposition. The T-34 somehow maintained a good reputation that was built up when it was superior to PzkwIIs, IIIs and
early IVs. But it was still outclassed by 1944. I bring this up to demonstrate that reputation does not always neatly mesh with reality.
