If I were in WWII I would rather be in a Sherman than a Panther because if I were in a Panther I would be on the side run by the sort of blindingly incompetent fools who take half again the weight and therefore precious wartime resources to deliver a tank that is only armored noticeably better against one major threat (75mm AT guns, what about 90mm, AT mines, infantry LAWs, lack of fuel, being outnumbered and their own transmissions) and only from the front. The side's like butter and has these lovely ammo racks in the sponson that are part of the reason that German tanks burned much more reliably than Shermans with wet racks safely in the hull floor. The simple fact of the matter is that if I were on the side that produced such astoundingly awful weapons, I'd be on the side that's liable to lose. Being on the losing side is really unsafe in a war.
The fact of the matter is that a tank is a weapon that is designed to drive to the enemy and deliver violence to him until he gives way and then drive through the enemy and cut off his positions and take his land. If a tank fails at driving it is terrible at the first and second and no marginal enhancement (and without a unity sight for the gunner or a good HE shell any enhancement is dubious at best) is going to make up for that.
BabyOlifant, on Jan 27 2014 - 21:49, said:
You forgot Dompaire. Roughly equal forces. French losses were five M4A2 tanks, two M5A1 tanks, two half-tracks, two jeeps; 44 killed and a single P-47 was shot down. After the resulting fight the I/Pz.Rgt. 29 had lost 34 of its Panthers and had four operational, and Pz. Brig. 112 had been reduced to 21 tanks of its 90 and lost 350 dead and 1,000 wounded.