Instale o Steam
iniciar sessão
|
idioma
简体中文 (Chinês simplificado)
繁體中文 (Chinês tradicional)
日本語 (Japonês)
한국어 (Coreano)
ไทย (Tailandês)
Български (Búlgaro)
Čeština (Tcheco)
Dansk (Dinamarquês)
Deutsch (Alemão)
English (Inglês)
Español-España (Espanhol — Espanha)
Español-Latinoamérica (Espanhol — América Latina)
Ελληνικά (Grego)
Français (Francês)
Italiano (Italiano)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonésio)
Magyar (Húngaro)
Nederlands (Holandês)
Norsk (Norueguês)
Polski (Polonês)
Português (Portugal)
Română (Romeno)
Русский (Russo)
Suomi (Finlandês)
Svenska (Sueco)
Türkçe (Turco)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamita)
Українська (Ucraniano)
Relatar um problema com a tradução
M4 was an exceptional tank, and served well in Korea (And elsewhere) after. The Pershing had issues considered too troublesome to deal with, hence the Army and Marine Corps ditched it in favor of the M4, as well as M46 / M47 Patton in Korea, followed by the M48 later.
M26 had a very short service life, and it's really telling that her "Parent" the M4 outlasted her in frontline service.
Compared to the PzIV and T34, tanks far more comparable in cost and function, the Sherman is not only adequate but excellent. Best frontal armor, good gun, and better ergonomics too.
I know you didn't make this but I can't help but say something. I'm glad the "death trap" myth is starting to die off.