Shermans - too effective?

[bulletproofest]

Isn't the M4 the standered tank, not the M3A3?

[Shosties]

There is some good debate generated in this thread regarding the relative cost of the Tiger vs. the Panther and the effectiveness of the American 76mm gun, but I think it drops short of addressing a fundamental question: just how effective was the M4 and it's variants for their time and place?

Here are some "sub-questions" that I think should be addressed before tackling the grand 64 dollar question above...

1) Tigers were encountered in Tunisa, Sicily, and Italy, and Panthers as well in Italy before we landed in Normandy. I am not aware of there being an outcry from the field (from Americans at least) regarding any great inferiority of the early model M4(75) under these conditions. Was this a case of: going up against the buggy early production models? going up against them in too small numbers for their advantages to make any impact on Allied numerical superiority? Were the Tigers and Panthers mostly encountered by the British, who did route complaints up the chain-of-command which were to result in the Firefly upgrade? Were the American tankers that fought these earlier battles more proficient and able to play to the strengths of the M4?

2)While there appears to be some disagrement over the effectiveness of the 76mm gun, I don't think there's any doubt whatsoever that the 17-lber was the superior weapon. Why did we turn down offers to license build the 17-lber here in America? Was it a case of "not invented here"-syndrome or was the 76mm already "in the pipeline" in a big way(having been intended for the one TD the TD command really wanted: the M18) and as such, was considered to be too much of a diversion of production and logistical effort?

and finally (whew!)...

3) Was the general sentiment later in the war by American tankers that, barring giving them the Pershing immediately in large numbers, the best thing would be: first, a better gun for the M4 than the 76mm (i.e. 90mm or 17-lber), and only second more armor?

I think these are important questions to consider, and not just from a purely historical standpoint. If the Future Combat System comes to be, the U.S. Army will be going *back* to a AFV more like the old M4 than today's M1 Abrams, which clearly leans towards the model set forward by the "Ueberkatzen" (though with much improved tactical mobility at the price of even greater fuel consumption!). If our collective memory is overly harsh on the ole M4, then I can see that the FCS may not necessarily be the disaster some heavy MBT partisans are predicting it will be, providing they don't skimp on its firepower. Given it's combat weight of ~20 tons (as set out by the systems integrator, Boeing) all the technology they could possibily develop in time for it will not prevent them from skimping on protection in my opinion.