Polish, not only are you stooping to sheer sophistry, now you are bordering on revisionism!
Originally Posted by polishshooter
No the ONLY "statistic" or scorecard that really matters is how many operational tanks were still capable of combat IN GERMANY in April 1945...
In logic, the kind of argument you present is called a "Fallacy of Accident," Polish. Your conclusion has nothing to do with the original argument. It breaks down like this:
P1. The United States and its Allies won the Second World War against Germany.
P2. The United States and its Allies used the M4 Sherman tank against Germany.
P3. Germany lost the Second World War to the United States and its Allies.
P4. Germany used Tiger and Panther tanks against the United States and its Allies.
THEREFORE: The M4 Sherman tank was a better tank than the Tigers and Panthers.
Such arguments prove nothing. It is patently obvious that the Allies won World War II against Germany using the M4 tank. That proves absolutely nothing about the quality or capability of the M4 vs. the German tanks, only that Germany lost the war, a fact already conceded. The true operative question is, "why did Germany lose the war?" It lost for many reasons, not the least of which was a population base too small to stave off the massive forces arrayed against it, and the relative lack of production capability to construct the tools of war in sufficient quantities. Contrary to what you are trying to argue, the loss of the war has nothing logically to do with the relative merits of Allied v. German tanks. I suspect the Allies would have won had they used only British Matildas or American M3 Stuarts, assuming they built enough of them. No, Polish, the statistics I quoted are indeed relevant if the argument focuses on tank capability qua tank capability.