Stuarts And Shermans?

Question

Which were the best?
keep in mind stuarts dint stand a chance against the panzers and tigers

Answer 1

it is impossible to compare this two tanks because they are build to do two complete different missions
the Stuart was a light tank with a 37 used to do some recon. and the Sherman was the medium tank to be used as the general battle tank.
Please keep in mind that also the Sherman didn't stand a change against the German panzer's ( the panzer IV and the Sherman where almost on even therms but ever thing bigger could kick the Sherman's a.s.s )

Answer 2

Neither was a successful stand alone tank. That said, in the numbers available both played valuable roles in not only the Second World War but Korea and in the Middle East.

The Stuart remained a viable platform throughout the war both in Europe and in the Pacific, where its size and weight were more advantageous to the terrain.

The two tanks had somewhat different operational roles as well. In fact, there might have been occasions where being in a Stuart would have been advantageous versus the Shermans, which would have been more active in tank killing roles.

At the end of the day, I love 'em both and am glad that I didn't have to serve in either.

Answer 3

Overall, the Shermans were superior to the Stuarts by virtue of better armament.

The Stuarts had a 2-man crew area, which wasn't enough for navigating, firing, reloading, during combat and it only had a 37 mm gun. However the Stuarts were valued for their maneuverability and mechanical reliability. Many were converted to armored personnel carriers because the 37 mm guns were virtually worthless against the German tanks at normal combat range. The US produced the Stuarts but didn't use them in combat, but they supplied them to the Brits and Russians.

The Shermans replaced the Stuarts and were used by the Americans. They initially had a 76 mm cannon that was still ineffective against German tanks at long range. Those guns were soon replaced with higher velocity 76 mm guns that allowed the Sherman to hold their own against the German tanks, though the Germans typically had better training and tactics. The Shermans also had 3-man crews, which facilitated their functionality in combat. One man could navigate, the gunner could aim and fire, and the third man could reload, which improved their effectiveness over the 2-man Stuarts. By the time Shermans met up with the Germans in large numbers in 1944 and 1945, the Germans were experiencing widespread fuel shortages, that limited the effectiveness of their tanks in offensive maneuvers. By that time the Luftwaffe was effectively out of the picture due to fuel shortages and loss of experienced pilots. Their efforts were concentrated on trying to fend off Allied bombers. With air superiority firmly in hand, the Shermans could call in air support to help and the advantages of the German tanks were effectively negated.

Also, the Shermans were adaptable and could be fitted with flame throwers and rocket launchers. The flame throwers, aka "Zippos" were used extensively against the Japanese in the Pacific for clearing out the well-entrenched Japs at close range.

Answer 4

Two different types of tanks. Stuart was a light tank armed with a 37-mm. The Sherman was a medium armed initially with a 75-mm.

Answer 5

Sherman tanks were, it was used by every allied country during ww2 including the Soviet Union. Was it a good tank? Not really. US doctrine at the time was to use tanks in infantry support roles. Tank to tank combat was to be handle by tank hunters such as the hellcat which had better armament. Our first true tank that could go toe to toe with panzers arrive rather late in the game. It was called the M26 Pershing

Shermans had a 5 man crew

Answer 6

Shermans were the best