Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

While in Sweden, the famous Danish physicist Niels Bohr went to the train station with his family and friends to meet his brother. Wanting to do everything right, Bohr volunteered to get platform tickets for everyone.
He returned soon after, looking a bit puzzled and downcast. “You know,” he said, “things in Sweden are so much more rational than back in Denmark. At home, ticket machines run on electricity, but here, each machine has a sign telling you to stand on a little platform before inserting your coin. That way, the machine operates using gravity, saving expensive electricity!”
The group proceeded to the platform entrance—only to have the station attendant stop them and say, “These aren’t platform tickets… these are receipts from the weighing machines. You seem to have weighed yourself several times.”

I have thought the M3 "Grant" was underappreciated.  Early in the war, the opposing tanks (Panzer 3s and 2s) were not much if any better.  The turret gun on the M3 was a 37 mm, and the sponson gun was 75 mm, admittedly limited trajectory and lowish muzzle velocity.  But as a stop gap before the Sherman was available in numbers, I think it was at least adequate.  Our troops mostly had the M1 Garand which by all accounts is a fine weapon.  The Jeep is revered.  I think US Army gear in 1942 was "decent".

It took most armies quite a while to figure out exactly how tanks were best used in WWII.  

The British invented Tanks during WWI.  The name has a rather amusing backstory:
For code purposes the project was originally called a "Water Carrier" but one of the British politicians on the committee insisted that it be changed because he didn't want to serve on the "WC" Committee (WC being a British name for a restroom, 'water closet').  Based on his objection that switched from "water carrier" to "tank" as in a "tank of water" and thus the name of tanks even to this day.  

Anyway, in WWI Tanks were used with limited success to overrun Infantry, trenches, barbed wire, etc.  The guns on them were originally only intended for use against relatively "soft" infantry targets.  It was thought that artillery strikes would be called in for "harder" targets such as pillboxes and AFAIK nobody in the original design so much as contemplated that eventually the other side would have tanks and thus tanks would need weapons capable of destroying or disabling enemy tanks.  

Between the wars pretty much everybody developed what were called "Tank Destroyers".  Tanks were still thought of as for use against infantry and other "soft" targets so they had relatively small and not terribly powerful munitions for use against soft targets while Tank Destroyers were MUCH less armored because they weren't intended to traverse enemy territory but they were MUCH more heavily armed because they were intended to take out relatively "hard" targets, ie enemy tanks.  

While a few officers in the various armies figured out that eventually tanks would need to be able to take out enemy tanks this lesson was not fully understood by any WWII army until learned the hard way through experience.  The expansion/improvement in tank munitions over the course of WWII is frankly astounding.  At the beginning of the war the M3's 37MM and low-velocity 75MM gun were typical.  By the end everyone was utilizing high-velocity munitions such as the German 88MM which had extremely high velocity because it was originally designed as an AA gun and those need very high velocity in order to preform against aircraft at altitude.  

Every army had these issues and, unfortunately, most of them had to learn for themselves.  The British had provided a lot of information to the US based on their experiences against the Germans in France and elsewhere but a lot of it was ignored under the theory that they were "just British" and out "US" tactics would work fine.  They didn't which is why they called us "our Italians" in North Africa in 1942.  At that point in the war we simply didn't have the experience.  

I am astonished to think we were able to move a considerable force across the Atlantic in 1942 to attack ... the French.  What happened with materiel production from there was and is astonishing.

It was decided to have the Americans lead that attack because the French were pretty ticked at the Brits for attacking their ships so the hope was that the French would surrender to the Americans more readily.  

 @MrNubbz just stop, you are only further embarrassing yourself. 

You are obviously in WAY over your head here. You've been schooled repeatedly by me and now you've also been schooled by @847badgerfan , @SFBadger96 , and I think even @Cincydawg got in on the act.

You made multiple factually inaccurate statements and got called out on it. Apologize, respect people who are more knowledgeable than you, thank us for educating you, and STFU.

The WW 2 classification of tanks and tank destroyers has interested me for some time.  There was a notion in the US that tanks should be able to fire exposive rounds to aid infantry, armor piercing rounds were available but stored in lower numbers in "tanks".  The TDs were meant to be faster with less armor with larger or more powerful main guns, usually with an open top for space for the gunners.

The Germans came to this a bit late by refitting captured French and Russian chassis with more powerful guns (also at times Russian guns).  They did have an early TD "based" off the Panzer I chassis with a decent 47 mm gun (at the time).

The German word for tank was "Panzer", the French term was "Char" (as from chariot).  The French in 1940 had some very capable tanks including a monster and one of my favorites the Somua S35 which the Germans used a fair bit after capturing quite a few.  The Germans also used a Czech tank quite a bit early in the war, the Panzer 38t, which was about as good as an early Panzer III.

The other oddish thing about tank (and naval) guns is the use of the term caliber, which in handguns and rifles means something quite different.

Maximum extent of Spanish Empire.

I watched some Braves Baseball

Wisconsin!