Shermans outnumbered Tigers 30 to 1. So any statistics about survivability don't apply. One could be sacrificed when there's 29 buddies to cover your retreat.

It's so weird how the US won using human waves yet deride all other militaries that did the same.

Ever see the Seinfeld episode where Kramer dominate the karate class made up of 9 year olds? Then the kids get him in the alley and beat Kramer up.

Kramer is the Tiger.

[–] PugJesus 27 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

It’s so weird how the US won using human waves yet deride all other militaries that did the same.

"The US won WW2 using human waves" is peak noncredibility, thank you for keeping in the spirit of this sub by giving the most ridiculous takes imaginable.

[–] Blue_Morpho 10 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The OP argued that the Sherman was better not because it was more heavily armored with a larger gun that the Tiger, but that it was mass produced.

When it's the US sending 160,000 men into direct machine gun fire on D-Day , it's "superior logistics". When it's China in the Korean War, it's "human waves". I'm calling attention to nationalist language. Just like the US has "Billionaires" while Russians have Oligarchs.

You don't need to be a fan of Nazis to see hypocrisy. Maybe I watched too much MASH growing up.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 weeks ago

NOW LISTEN HERE YOU LITTLE SHIT if we can overwhelm the logistics required to feed those MG42s on the Atlantic Wall using young men’s chests in wave after wave of Higgins boats, that’s our victory and we won’t have your petty facts despoiling our jingoistic narrative.

It worked for us when used against us, and by god there’s no reason it shouldn’t work 79 years later in France.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 weeks ago

Genuinely unsure whether the comment deserves a disgusted down vote or a disgusted but resigned up vote