It has the holy trifecta of Armour, Mobility and Firepower.
It is also easy to produce
Let down by bad ergonomics, lack of radio and indifferent crew training
Not especially reliable, but equally reliable no matter what the weather is
Not my tank of choice if I want to go Michael Wittman on somebody, but more than adaquate to equip an army
I thought you were writing about 'the Shermie' (per Ami) until I read back
If you want to do an essay telling me that is worse than, for example:
Fiat 3000
Matilda I
FT-17
Please do, I could do with a laugh
No laughing matter for those crews, I agree. Nor for 'the Shermie' either.
Off topic: One of the mysteries for me is why the North West European campaign armies never developed a battle tank to match the Tiger or Panther. I fear this may be down to Montgomery, who saw tank battles as Mobility, with not much thought for amour or firepower. It was if the battle of Khursk never existed - maybe for the Allied General Staff, it never did?