BabyOlifant, on Jan 27 2014 - 20:49, said:
That's weird, I'd rather be in a Sherman, and here's why:
1. The gun firing wouldn't make me lose my hearing for several days.
2. I'd have to repair the tank less often, and it would have to go back to the depot less often, which means I'd be in a tank more often.
3. When I would have to repair my tank, it wouldn't be as difficult as it would be with the Panther.
4. The superior ammo storage would mean I'd be less likely to get roasted alive.
5. Leather seats are the height of capitalist bourgeois decadence.
6. There's more room in a Sherman.
7. The great HE ammo of the Sherman (75, 76, or 105, doesn't matter, HE for all is great) means I'd be more likely to win a fight with an AT gun or infantry with AT weapons than the Panther, which is important to me because I would encounter them far more frequently than tanks.
Of course, none of these are the sorts of things you can just read off a Wikipedia spec sheet, so it doesn't surprise me that you don't consider them when formulating your answer. But, seriously, don't pretend I can't tell you're reaching for my hat, trying to pull it down over my eyes.
I don't know much about tanking. You know even less, and I have buddies that are to me what I'm to you. So give it up.
Oh, and all that stuff about the Panther beating the Sherman in direct tank-on-tank combat? How about you pick up a history book once in a while?
Don't forget being able to fight in more terrain because your turret is better balanced so it doesn't jam on an incline and that the gunner can acquire the target much faster than the Panther because of the periscope.