"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
news

Yeah, I've always wondered how we shot up Tigers with Shermans. Did
the Shermans have the high-velocity 90mm guns, our answer to the
German 88s?

--
Ed Huntress

The Panther and Tiger were susceptible to ambush from the side where
the armor was much thinner, though this upgunned British version could
penetrate their frontal armor if it managed to shoot first:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Firefly

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/michael-wittmann.htm
"British Sherman VC "Firefly" armed with 17 pounder gun was capable of
penetrating Tiger's armor at range of 800m. "

General Hatcher claimed that our bridging equipment wasn't strong
enough for the heavy tank we had designed. The Germans retreated
across intact bridges and then demolished them. We chose instead to
use a gun too large for a turret in the open-topped Tank Destroyer,
which required infantry support and didn't suit Blitzkrieg assaults
but fit Eisenhower's slow, steady approach.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_destroyer
"The weight saved from the lack of a turret could allow more armour to
be fitted, and the lower profile allowed this armour to be
concentrated in the hull."

"In part because of the effectiveness of US TD tactics, no German
campaign against the US ever achieved its objectives, nor did any TD
unit lose more vehicles than its German opponent."

The Bulge area was defended by a thin screen of infantry since we
considered it poor tank country.
jsw