>The tank crews would probably disagree; Allied tank crews sustained terrible casualties during the invasion of Europe. Sarting on page 72ish TFA handles this

>The tank crews would probably disagree; Allied tank crews sustained terrible casualties during the invasion of Europe. Sarting on page 72ish TFA handles this common criticism. While the crews probably would have preferred something that could go toe to toe with the Tiger in a 1:1 engagement the strategic and tactical reality of invading Europe with such a tank meant that was basically out of the question. The article also mentions the differences between a tank that's optimized for offensive use and one optimized for defensive use. If you read up on German armor you'll see them actually making this transition as they refined their tanks throughout the war. With such a superior numerical advantage your average allied tanker never engaged more than one or two enemy tanks and had a pretty good chance of surviving the war all things considered. American tanks in France spend more time blowing up fortifications and hosing down enemy infantry than engaging enemy tanks because when you have such a massive numbers advantage your tanks do not need to spend all their time engaging other tanks. Your average German tanker was not so lucky. He would have a nearly endless supply of allied tanks to shoot at. >but the poor performance of Allied tanks was still a serious strategic blunder. How was it a strategic blunder if it worked exactly as intended? It's really easy to sit in an air conditioned office and hand wring about people in 1940 not caring enough about the value of human lives but the simple fact is that times were very different and a lot of lives were going to be lost regardless so they may as well be lost winning quickly.