My Dad was a Tank commander and served in both the Churchill & The Sherman, In both North Africa and Italy. He was quite clear in saying that both Tanks were adequate, for what they were designed for. First and foremost, the Sherman was never designed as a Tank Destroyer, it had a good record against the medium German Tank. But would be no match for the Heavy Tank But as most Commanders new this, they would avoid direct confrontation. The Sherman was more suited to infantry support, and in this role was an excellent Tank. The Churchill again was a fine Tank But not suited as a Tank Destroyer against anything more than a Medium Tank. But it excelled as a Special, and was used with great success in its many variants. Again had great success as an Infantry support Tank...
@mecaguy03
9 жыл бұрын
Even though sherman drivers should rightfully feel a bit nervous while facing Tigers and Panthers, most of the time it was probably pretty nice to be inside a sherman while the infantry around you have to storm through MG42 fire. Couple that with the tank rounds not being completely massive and the tank being reliable and pretty fast, and it was probably a joy compared to the panther. Hell the panther would catch on fire on its own accord, and really even though popular history thinks it, the sherman was never especially fire prone.
@Manuelomar2001
9 жыл бұрын
It absolutely was. The Sherman had an engine originally designed as a aircraft diesel, it ran on high-octane fuel and caught fire very easily. "Nervous" is an understatement. We lost 5 Shermans for every Tiger or Panther they lost.
@mecaguy03
9 жыл бұрын
***** Keep in mind that german tanks also used gasoline engines, but avoid this reputation. Also higher octane rating does not translate directly to flammability, and in combat fuel fires only occasionally occured. When a tank gets hit the most dangerous objects in the tank are the ammunition racks, which can detonate from hot fragments either from detonation of a shell or spalling. If a tanks ammo ignites it is almost universally done for unless it uses modern techniques for ammo storage. The only reason the sherman ever had a reputation for flammability was that for a time crewmen would stuff ammo anywhere they could fit it inside the tank, causing it to be improperly stowed and at a greater risk for igniting when the tank was hit. This practice was soon discontinued. All this is also in light of the fact that the majority of the time shermans were supporting infantry, not fighting tanks. We also manufactured something like twice as many shermans as the entire spectrum of german tanks combined.
@bradleycampbell5933
9 жыл бұрын
***** each version of the sherman was done by engine type. 9 cylinder air cooled radial for the m4, m4a1 same but cast hull and twin 6 cylinder diesels for the m4a2 and a 500 hp v8 for the m4a3.the m4a4 had a engine that was 5 chrylser 6 cylinder gas engines of massive complexity that turned out to be very reliable engine choice.all hulls were the same and interchangeable, all turrets were interchangeable, all suspension interchangeable and all transmissions were the same--.all panthers and all tigers and all SP guns based on those chassis designs share no parts with other types. talk about a fucked up supply chain!!! all shermans fit our landing craft (for tanks, for beach landings) and all our rail cars. all tank recovery equipment was made with sherman in mind and that simplified making those vehicles as well. Tigers had special recovery vehicle (Bergetiger) as did panthers (bergepanther) . yet more fucked up supply chain to deal with. all our shermans fit our bailey bridges, and so did all the recovery and repair equipment.you cant run tigers or panthers on soft ground or on any bridges. the effort and steel to make one tiger , they could have made 3 Pzkpfw IV tanks with high velocity 75mm gun that was very effective.so for teh 1500 tigers they could have made 4500 Mk IV tanks. slave ;labor sabatouged panther engine plants.... they often caught fire on startup. brand new engines would have catastrophic failures and immobilise the tanks. you dont mention the Ausf A panthers and their NOTORIOUS torsion bar problems. the front half torsion bars would fail and the tanks drive about nose down and ass in the air. nothing like combat with a piece of shit that doesnt even operate as designed.
@ramonmartinsoto3717
6 жыл бұрын
1- Literally every single nation except the Soviet Union used petrol engines . 2- Western Allies actually had a 3:2 K/D ratio against german armor in general, and that's not even the best part. The Sherman's K/D ratio agains panthers was 3,6:1. Yes, you read that right: it actually took four panthers to take a Sherman. so, yeah, the Panthers were the ones who needed to be afraid.
@ramonmartinsoto3717
6 жыл бұрын
except they didn't, as the Ronson slogan wasn't invented after ww2. Thus, it is physically impossible, nevermind the fact that the data shows that even the first models, where the crew just carried ammo outside their compartments wherever they wanted, leading to the tank brewing up often, the percentage of burned shermans was at worst equal to the panzers, when not better. When the war processed, the Sherman actually became the safest tank in the war, due to wet stowage, the great number of hatches to allow escape, and the usually underestimated good frontal armor. Seriously, late war Shermans had better frontal armor than the Tiger H1 and E variants.
@satanicrawrofdoom
12 жыл бұрын
1:11 extremely ill fitting music....
@deathsagaXX
3 жыл бұрын
"You will probably die by 1 shot from the opposing enemy tank" *queue music*
@TheBanjoShowOfficial
2 жыл бұрын
LOL
@Cheezymuffin.
3 жыл бұрын
The sherman had the lowest crew mortality rate of any tank in ww2. The armor was nicely sloped and the cast turret provided a hard shape for enemy shells to penetrate The hatches where spring loaded allowing for quick evacuation of the vehicle The ammo was stored wet, and coocked off less often The gun was stabelized and gave the tank a bigger chance to shoot first, or catch an enemy before they could go into cover The tank was easy to produce The tank was easy to repair The platform proved upgradable The vehicle was reliable The HE shells where quite good on the 75mm, the 76mm had worse performance crews stated . . . The sherman was probably the best tank of ww2.
@adrianshephard224
2 жыл бұрын
AS IF! The only thing that worked in Sherman favor was quantity and ease of production. What worked against it was: 1. It was under-powered. 2. It had a very flammable engine that would easily caught fire (nicknamed Ronsons - a lighters). 3. It had a very thin armor and it was very easy to penetrate. 4. Very bad mobility, especially on wet and muddy terrains. 5. Gun that was designed against personnel and not other tanks. Sherman's were probably "on pair" with Panzer III and even that is questionable due to the fact that Panzer III outperformed everything on the field during 1939, 40 and even 41 and still provided a chassis for a STUG that was probably the best AT during WW2. Best tank of WW2 according to, well, *EVERYONE* who was a legit tanker back in the day, was a Panzer V Panther. Tank small enough to be concealed, with a slopped and thick enough armor to withstand almost all calibers of tank and anti-tank guns that were used. Great visibility, wide tracks, great mobility and above all, craftsmanship that was way above anything allies could produce. The only downfall of Panther was a problem of production and quantity. If the Germans were facing American-British invasion with everything they had (entire divisions being used against USSR), the outcome of D-day would be questionable (to say the least) and the "Panther - Tiger phobia" would be even greater than it was.
@MrEvans555
2 жыл бұрын
@@adrianshephard224 no. The Panther was a design that worked on paper but was an absolute disaster in the field. One look at how the Panther performed at the battle of Kursk gives you enough of an idea how bad it was. The tank was riddled with mechanical problems (transmission, the most severe of them). Coupled with the fact that Germany did not have enough materials to build them and fuel to power tanks such as the Tiger or the Panther. Added on top of that are the extremely poor ergonomics of the tank and low survivability rates. 1. The Sherman was not underpowered. Compared with a tank like the T-34, the Sherman outperformed the T-34 all the time. This was due to T-34s poor transmission and gear lever, effectively not allowing a driver to shift into the higher gears. 2. No, no, no. This was a post-war myth that has been debunked a number of times, this was mostly fixed with wet ammo stowage pretty early on. 3. People tend to forget the majority of armor that the german army fielded in 1944 were Panzer IVs and StuGs. The Sherman was more than capable of dealing with those tanks. 4. ? 5. Again, not true. The 75mm had a pretty good HE shell, but the Sherman still carried a very capable AP shell. IDK who you refer to as "EVERYONE" but most historians agree that the Panther performed extremely poorly in the field, required expensive and time consuming repairs and if it ever got hit and the tank caught fire, the crew was most likely dead due to how poorly designed the escape hatches were. The major downfall of the Panther was not only a problem of production and quantity. It was what characterized the German engineering of WWII - lack of understanding what sort of tank they actually need for the kind of war they were fighting.
@xahmadx6442
2 жыл бұрын
@@adrianshephard224 The panther performed poorly for example The death to kill ratio for Shermans is 3.6 panthers for every 1 Sherman
@cjackson4863
9 жыл бұрын
It would be refreshing to see one of these "documentaries" which actually looked at the truth instead of just replaying Belton Cooper's book over and over. Belton Cooper didn't fight in M4s, He probably couldn't tell an M4 from a Tiger 2 unless someone told him which one to pick. He was a liaison officer. Not a tanker ! When the Armor Board approved upgrading the M4, What hit the battlefields in late 44 ??? First the "Jumbo" M4 which had frontal armor that was proof against every German tank gun including the "dreaded 88". The "Jumbo" had mobility problems so was quickly followed up with the M4A3E8 "Easy Eight" which mounted the long 76mm High Velocity gun and kept the frontal armor of the Jumbos and had a new improved suspension with wide tracks which gave it better (lower) ground pressures than either the Panther or Tigers !!! SO where is the "engineering disaster" of building a tank which had frontal armor impervious to enemy tank guns, lower ground pressure than any enemy tank, faster than enemy tanks, and so reliable that it could go 5000 km between servicing. (T34 required a complete OVERHAUL after 200km ---- but seldom reached that mileage because they usually broke down after as little as 30km and only survived combat for about 70km before being blown apart by enemy fire ........... The Soviets lost 44,900 T34s in the war, the US lost fewer than 8,000 M4s.)
@softicadnan
9 жыл бұрын
US lost 8000...are u fac.idiot.Clasical american,fat idiot.
@cjackson4863
9 жыл бұрын
Adnan Softić Actually 8000 is a bit HIGH since the actual reports of the U.S. Army SHAEF in 1945 reported 6546 M4s (75mm & 76mm) lost as un-repairable from the period of June 1944 to May 1945 (end of war). During the same time period the Soviets lost about 14,000 T34 tanks as completely destroyed, un-repairable. FACTS --- pesky things aren't they ?
@JohnMorrisonMusic
9 жыл бұрын
C JACKSON Soviets were up against far more heavies. The Germans pulled most of their heavy armour to the Eastern front. Facts can be pesky especially when people don't consider them when posting statistics. In fact the King Tiger (Tiger II) was designed specifically for taking on Soviet Armour.
@jers59
9 жыл бұрын
Belton Cooper repaired the death trap Shermans so he can tell the difference between M4 and Tiger I will take the word of a WW2 veteran over armchair general such as yourself anyday. When the Russians creceived M4 Shermans they thought it was sent to them so Russian tankers would be killed off in a way they were right.
@jers59
9 жыл бұрын
C JACKSON The soviets also killed 80% of the german soldiers in WW2 this left measly 20% for the americans, british and French to knock off. Western Europe had no tank battle that even came close to Kursk where Russian tankers out of ammo would ram german tanks. The soviets won the European war.
@scruffytomato3927
9 жыл бұрын
1:46 pause.. I've never gotten flipped off from a youtube video before
@derrickmanning1226
4 жыл бұрын
Hahaha
@danielschannel444
3 жыл бұрын
oh hahahahaha good catch LOL
@gavinserdena4693
6 жыл бұрын
Am I the only one who thinks the Sherman looks badass?
@casdemeulenaere416
5 жыл бұрын
The tiger looks 100x more badass
@SetuwoKecik
5 жыл бұрын
You're not alone, pal
@SetuwoKecik
5 жыл бұрын
@@casdemeulenaere416 *laughs in stuck in the mud*
@justashadow2747
4 жыл бұрын
@@casdemeulenaere416 i couldnt agree more
@1sonyzz
4 жыл бұрын
yes, as paper weight
@michaelcurrier4492
10 жыл бұрын
On the tactical level, the Panther's only advantage is a few kilometers of speed. The Panther had more trouble on the operational level, also, as even though most tanks require similar maintenance, the tank that breaks down most often is the one that ties down mechanics most. Fixing the drive on the Panther, I'm sure, was a recurring nightmare for most Panther mechanics and it's a problem that was never solved.
@quickzilver333
13 жыл бұрын
The heroism and the determination of the US tank crew is very significant. Knowing that they are outgunned and out armored they still went inside that tank to fight on.
@bankerduck4925
3 жыл бұрын
Couldn't put it to words how much this video means to me. One of the first proper tank inside videos that was on KZitem, and just AMAZING! I have watched this countless times. First time was when I was three years old and my father showed this to me!
@Jogojump
6 жыл бұрын
1:09 great music choice😂 *slow clap*
@sincityq
9 жыл бұрын
War is hell no matter what your battlefield, what you shoot, what you fly or what you drive. Of course, looking back at it all from the victory in which this machine played a major role, is far more comfy so... it's easy to call it names.
@FrayAdjacentTX
5 жыл бұрын
Only 0.6 crew members died per Sherman knocked out in combat... that's pretty dang survivable!
@MistahFox
5 жыл бұрын
The second best survival rate of the war, in fact.
@sweetgyy
9 жыл бұрын
nowadays people fight wars behind a computer keyboard
@llamingo
8 жыл бұрын
true, some are King Tigers, others are Sherman tanks. ..
@CptFishball
7 жыл бұрын
real wars are mostly fought behind screens too,,,, drones are taking more and more over, you wont get a war today as you got for 70 years ago when you run around in stalingrad with your shovel, or even a rock to crush theskull of your enemy to survive, ro even take your helmet and beat him do death with
@teller121
7 жыл бұрын
don't bet on it. wars for survival and conquest will always have to eventually have large numbers of violent men go in and kill the others at some point.
@GhostofCicero
14 жыл бұрын
There was an M4A1 outside the National Guard armory in a town I lived in as a kid. The escape hatch was open and we used to climb inside to play. The tank was taken away about 20 years ago, I'd love to know where it is now.
@Unit987654321
15 жыл бұрын
The T34 was the most produced tank in WW2 with 84 070 units.
@mbabist01
11 жыл бұрын
Boss! Thanks for posting!
@Viacheslay
11 жыл бұрын
Good clip, perfectly illustrates the interior
@chuckg2016
3 жыл бұрын
The M4 isn't a star attraction in history because it was a good armored vehicle, it's a star because there were so many of them made and continuing to be made.
@stevieRay3211
15 жыл бұрын
Army studies from the time showed that it wasn't the fuel that lit the Sherman, it was the ammo. With the introduction of the 'wet system" the Sherman was less likely to burn when penetrated.
@michaelcurrier4492
10 жыл бұрын
The only problem I can find with that is that it's only a bonus if you're losing the battle and the tanks stuck in depots wouldn't be enough to turn the tide. Otherwise it makes the most sense to have as many tanks in battle as possible. However, the problem isn't even really to do with maintenance. It's all about how likely the tank is to malfunction in combat. Maintenance is an operational factor, reliability in combat under non-optimal conditions is a tactical one.
@DR-mk2in
10 жыл бұрын
2:30 loader playing with the m1917
@Kimi-uk6lf
6 жыл бұрын
Its a giant goddamn box, we won with a giant bulldozing box
@mikemiller4979
5 жыл бұрын
It's a cross between a late 70s Volvo and a Ford Pinto.
@michaelcurrier4492
10 жыл бұрын
In reality, the Pershing was more reliable than the Panther, and was very much supported after the Battle of the Bulge. It was a viable tank that, while it couldn't have been produced in 42, was ready by 44 and if it had been rushed, could have been available in 43. It wasn't until fighting in Europe that the need for a heavier tank even came up, and within 6 months of the opening of the Western European front they were deploying the Pershing, with 310 deployed an 20 seeing combat.
@allgood6760
2 жыл бұрын
Awesome... we have a Sherman (moulded hull) here in a NZ museum.. Thanks from NZ 👍🇳🇿
@khajrane
12 жыл бұрын
"not thinking very far ahead" was just another way of putting "not meant to fight THIS type of enemy" since Tigers were developed at a later time. Yes, Tigers had fantastic kill ratios, but were too few to make a difference.
@danielschannel444
3 жыл бұрын
thank you so much for sharing video, i was playing warthunder and was wondering if the loader had a place to sit when not working, im glad to see he does.
@danishcossack4392
3 жыл бұрын
Good, now you can sleep at night
@scottduncan44
12 жыл бұрын
The primary reason the Sherman was not upgunned was Gen. leslie McNair commander of army ground forces who blocked every attempt by the arnored board and ordance to upgun the Sherman. He espoused a tank destroyer doctrine. He also blocked deployment of the M-26. Fortunatly he was "accidently" killed by "friendly" fire in Normandy the senior american officer killed "in Combat". The M-36B and a single protoype by Chrysler show the Sherman could have carried the 90mm which was an effective weapon.
@DalonCole
9 жыл бұрын
When it was 20 degrees outside and snowing those Shermans look pretty dang inviting to me. When it gets down to it, there was everything else and the Infantry when it came to the suckage factor.
@JASCOBAR
11 жыл бұрын
The Ronson lighter - BANG! My uncle and three other M4's ran into a Tiger unit at close range in the Ardennes during a blizzard. I do not know all that happened but I do know it was ugly.
@headshot0211
12 жыл бұрын
the canadians called them ronsons so that is where the saying came from. the popular advertisement was "lights first time, every time" It was not the germans who said that but the did call the tommy herd or tommy cooker
@michaelcurrier4492
10 жыл бұрын
It was completely viable, and a major delay in it's viability was only caused by the lack of direction in the research for the tank. It's only issue was it's lack of power in the engine. It was six kilometers slower than the Panther, and because it was underpowered in the engine it did have a number of issues with everything wearing out too quickly. On the flat ground of western Europe these problems were less pronounced than in hilly Korea.
@ElephantRage
13 жыл бұрын
This was not a tank, this was a torture device. Rip those poor bastards.
@centurion180ad
11 жыл бұрын
Ballistic protection of initial M4A1 (an otherwise superlative vehicle) left something to be desired, by June 1944. Sherman was not designed to be run into the teeth of Wehrmacht panzers or into a Wehrmacht PAK front.
@michaelcurrier4492
10 жыл бұрын
There was a huge debate from mid-43 on about whether or not the Pershing should have been used. There was a particular camp headed by one General McNair who was opposed to a heavy tank desighn entering service. Nobody, and I mean nobody, said that work had been started on the Pershing before work started on the Sherman. That doesn't even make sense. And when the pershing was replaced it was by the Patton, which was a bigger and better evolution of the Pershing.
@Tchristman100
7 жыл бұрын
With the engine in the rear and transmission, drive on the front, various engines could be fitted to the Sherman. Most popular was the 9 cylinder Continental 400hp air cooled radial gasoline engine. Ford 1000 cu/in V-8, Chryslers 5-6cylinder engine, GM's twin 6-71 Diesel, Cadillac twin 500cu/in V-8. All modern tanks now have the tanks built around the engines so only one engine is available. That's why the Bradley's engine, Cummins VTA903 V-8 Diesel-Cummins stopped making the VTA903 years ago, but has to keep making it for the military.
@01Laffey
12 жыл бұрын
Because Diesels at that time were simply uncompetitive in terms of size and weight until the 60s where superchargers were added on. Also gasoline was used since aircraft engines were usually used as tank engines which were light weight and compact. The V-2 was a very big engine and didn't actually make a lot of power for its size
@goldcommander1
13 жыл бұрын
how did u fit in there with the camera wow ure amazing :0 who agrees?
@nickdanger3802
Жыл бұрын
17,000 M4's were Lend Leased to Britain, you're welcome. "From late 1942, US tanks were required in increasing numbers to make up for the deficiencies of home-grown products. Only in 1944 was British industry able to deliver a tank reasonably fit for a fast-moving battlefield, and even then it was scarcely a match for its opponents." IWM Britain's Struggle To Build Effective Tanks During The Second World War
@DFX2KX
10 жыл бұрын
because they decided that's all they wanted. And they where able to make thousands of them. They where also fairly reliable, which is more then can be said for some of their competition under the adverse circumstances involved.
@michaelcurrier4492
10 жыл бұрын
To say that the Pershing had no support after McNair's death and the revelation that the Germans intended to use their supposed new heavy tank as their primary tank is folly. By the end of the war, it would be hard to find somebody who was opposed to the Pershing, engine reliability be damned. 6,000 Panther's is scary, the Pershing was the answer and everybody but McNairs camp knew that. He got killed and the Pershing started seeing service.
@1Dougloid
11 жыл бұрын
All of the GM diesels used were two stroke supercharged. The twin 6-71 diesel used on some Shermans was supercharged. 852 CID (about 14 liters displacement), about 400 hp. By comparison the Russian V2 was normally aspirated 4 cycle 38.8 liters displacement, about 500 BHP.
@khajrane
12 жыл бұрын
At least they HAD the transmission. Tigers were just left out in the open. And did not a freaking picture book of a manual to work with.
@michaelcurrier4492
10 жыл бұрын
It did produce a viable tank, though. One that proved it could knock out both tigers and panthers. I might be incorrect, but in spite of the low number of kills I think the Pershing has one of the best ratios in the war. One death from a Tiger ambush at 100m, one from an 88mm AT gun at 300m, and one from a 150mm field gun, the tank that took three Tiger hits was repaired, if not the other two. In tank versus tank, it killed 2 Tigers a Panther and 3 Panzer IVs for a 2:1 ratio, 6:1 in tank vs tank
@manassurya2019
5 жыл бұрын
The vast majority of German tanks were Panzer 4's and 3's, which were easily defeated by the Sherman. Panthers could also be defeated with good tactics. Tigers were very few and far between. Only 2000 of them were produced vs 50,000 Sherman's.
@michaelcurrier4492
10 жыл бұрын
Hell, the M46 was just the M26E2--an M26 with a better engine. The M4s that were still in service didn't have to be shipped in to replace the M26 when it was discovered how poorly the M26 fared in hilly terrain. The M26 was simply withdrawn and the M4s and M46s that were already there "replaced" them because they all had decent power to weight ratios and there was very little tank vs tank happening anyway. The M26 also wasn't unreliable, per se, it just used a reliable, underpowered engine.
@Quick-Silver206
7 жыл бұрын
That scene where the camera man looks over at the driver sticking his head out of his hatch - what about when his hatch is closed and he's using the periscope? Does he adjust his seat down or just hunch over?Always wondered this.
@peterson7082
7 жыл бұрын
It lowers.
@Birdy890
12 жыл бұрын
@doktorbimmer to Continue The Sherman Jumbo/Sherman 17lbr was able to not only penetrate the armour of the Tiger, but also the Panther. Also the Americans relied on other means for Anti tank, Air power, And Tank destroyers, they didn't usually like to send Shermans against the Enemy anti-tank positions, instead the Shermans were to support the infantry in taking out such positions, like for instance a Tiger/Panther in a defensive position.
@crafter170
5 жыл бұрын
Horrible time for all these brave men .My old dad told me they had nicknames for different tanks .One was called the Ronson because it lit up first time .
@peterson7082
5 жыл бұрын
Not the case
@crafter170
5 жыл бұрын
@@peterson7082 ok
@pdunc1976
6 жыл бұрын
my uncle howard was 3rd armored spearhead.said they were like the russians w/their t-34.they had large numbers and we were lucky our number was not up.seeing burning tanks,w/cook crews was not a pretty sight and even worse was the thought that you could be next.
@spacecadet35
12 жыл бұрын
@doktorbimmer It reminds of the story from tank school. The chief mechanic points out if the engine doesn't work, but the radio and gun works then what you have is a pill box. The radio sergeant points out if the engine and gun work, but the radio doesn't; one cannot find the enemy. The gunnery sergeant then points out that if the radio and engine works and the gun doesn't, then what you have is a 30 ton portable radio. A Firefly might not be great, but it made holes in the enemy.
@khajrane
12 жыл бұрын
And for one extra final point on the Tiger - it ran on the freaking gasoline. Did they think their oil refineries were invincible?
@neverletyoufall
3 жыл бұрын
That music came outta no where haha
@khajrane
12 жыл бұрын
Just FYI though, M4 was a damn effective tank early in the war, when it was first deployed. Mobile (top speed 48 kph, obviously less for cross country), well armored, featuring gyroscopic stabilizers on its gun and sight. Although it was NEVER INTENDED for tank-vs-tank combat, it fared well against german light Pzs, which were the majority of forces, and it recieved a slew of upgrades, such as the Jumbo, or the Easy Eight.
@michaelcurrier4492
10 жыл бұрын
So basically, the Pershing was the only tank anybody had any faith in from the 16th of December until the end of the war. If the Battle of the Bulge had been a success for the Germans, they would have found themselves advancing against a US force that was steadily supplanting their M4s with M26s and likely a future model with an improved engine as cross compatibility with M4s became less of an issue. But the M26 was nothing but a viable tank, and could have been viable from almost the beginning
@AINGELPROJECT667
11 жыл бұрын
Not if you were in the Pacific, where they performed quite well. They became death traps when we thought it would be a good idea to put an infantry support tank up against a main battle tank. It was like putting a Bradley up against a T-80.
@0YtsanBlowout0
12 жыл бұрын
We actually did build a better tank, it just came too late because of so many factors that needlessly delayed its production. The M26 Pershing was the America's late response to the tiger and the panther. It very roughly had the same armor thickness of the Tiger and a gun that had more range and packed a bigger punch. infact, there is a video of it here on youtube of it stalking and tearing apart a panther tank in the city of Calogne.
@Dontwlookatthis
3 жыл бұрын
He should have a M10 around somewhere to take on the German armor. While the M10 was thinner for armor than the Sherman it was a heavyweight largely overlooked by folks who think the only way to compare tanks is in head on combat. The M10s and other tank destroyers knew not to ever do that and as a result, they accounted for a lot of Tiger and Panther kills.
@MrPants1970
7 жыл бұрын
What the hell was that music at 1:15
@spacecadet35
12 жыл бұрын
@doktorbimmer Unfortunately a lot of the British tank effort was stop gap measures. They always had to fight with what they had, not what was needed. A bit like the Americans with AT guns. The Sherman was perfectly capable of doing its primary function of shooting up the soft stuff. But due to a lack of heavy tanks the Sherman was often asked to double as a heavy tank and that is when the problems started. I am still impressed that they got a 17 pounder into a Sherman turret.
@Mike-tg7dj
5 жыл бұрын
The first thing they told us in armor school was that your tank has no conscience it kills without concern for friend or foe. Sure there were safety devices such removable screens that allowed access to the side and but these pieces often would get bent so you had to remember to stay clear of the sides otherwise you could lose a limb or your life by being accidentally ripped in two. The tank is a killing machine with no redeeming values other than making it into a plow.
@michaelcurrier4492
10 жыл бұрын
I can actually find a quote if you'd like where a high ranking officer or else someone very important (I only saw the quote once) said that Hitler had insisted that the Tiger, which was originally supposed to be the size of the Panther, be given more and more armor until it was 15 tonnes heavier. The same thing happened with the successor to the Pz.IV., which resulted in a 45-ton tank that had to be simplified to maintain a rate of production equal to it's predecessor.
@Brothersinarms01
15 жыл бұрын
I actually thought that too, i swore to it, but i found out last week while researching that the panther, tiger, and king tiger used the same gasoline engines. the only thing was that the german fuel tanks were better protected.
@crosstimbers2
11 жыл бұрын
A hull down position protected against it. It is hard to shoot through a hill or the ground. The 88 is good in the open but so are the airplanes that killed 88s and tanks that carried 88s. Massed artillery also destroyed any kind of 88.
@roopee6985
11 жыл бұрын
well im glad that guys did take the risk of these Tommy cookers. thanks
@michaelcurrier4492
10 жыл бұрын
And when you compare the Pershing to the Panther, the reliability issues seem much less severe. I know the A and G models improved the reliability of the Panther, but the D was half as likely to break down as it was to fight, and the later models were still considered unreliable by the standard used to judge the Pershing. America didn't believe in the inherent superiority of the Sherman once it became out classed by long gunned IVs and Panthers, McNair the famous artillery officer did.
@thenoobfactor
12 жыл бұрын
The Sherman was a fairly good tank when it was first built, it was just outdated by 1944 as equipment rapidly becomes obsolete during wartime. Look at what happened to Japanese tanks when they went up against the Sherman. Upgraded Sherman were able to destroy t55s and t34s during the six day war.
@danzervos7606
10 жыл бұрын
Consider that armor is defensive. The German tanks had big enough guns to penetrate really thick armor. If the Allies had relied on a tank with the Armor of a Tiger or Panther, they would have had fewer tanks, tanks harder to keep supplied, tanks that were more prone to break down, and tanks without the maneuverability in towns and countryside that the Sherman had. When attacking exposed against dug in enemy positions, heavier armored tanks would have been almost as quickly knocked out as Shermans.
@doktorbimmer
10 жыл бұрын
How exactly is it harder to keep fewer tanks supplied... your comment is not logical. Cheers!
@Dreachon
10 жыл бұрын
doktorbimmer It is if you factor in the supply network being under constant attack, that is what caused trouble for the germans in supplying their armed forces.
@doktorbimmer
10 жыл бұрын
Thus if you increased the number of tanks in service your supply situation would get worse.... not better. The Tiger was specifically designed with those problems in mind, it simply took less resources to build Tigers than to build many more Shermans... its a simple cost to benefit analysis. For example it took more fuel to operate a larger deployment of Shermans than a smaller force of Tigers.. When you factor in the manpower and the increase in supplies for each additional man the supply problems increase very quickly.. Germany was short of manpower as well as fuel and manufacturing resources. Cheers!
@Dreachon
10 жыл бұрын
Indeed, the allies could actually bring in the massive quantaties of fuel their forces needed. As for being cheaper to produce than a sherman, that is pretty vague as one on one the sherman will be cheaper, after that it really requries a good comparison in materials and manhours.
@doktorbimmer
10 жыл бұрын
Less expensive than 3 Sherman, and a Tiger used less fuel than 3 Shermans. 10 less crewmen to feed, train and supply. The Tiger was designed to optimise both the available technology and the resources. Cheers!
@robertbones326
9 жыл бұрын
It looks so cozy inside
@CptFishball
7 жыл бұрын
THe sherman was known for some sort of comfort inside, at lest you could die sitting well, ^^
@Slayerrrrrr
13 жыл бұрын
awesome!
@khajrane
12 жыл бұрын
Reclassification further proves that the M4 was simply not meant to tackle things like the Tiger. I can see it being comparable to, say, the french B1, thus heavy tank seems logical though. On the point of "all tanks requiring ridiculous maint" - no and no. Few tanks were as prone to failures as the german ones - the Tiger sounds impressive on paper but its transmission was so inadequate and prone to jamming, it broke as soon as it was not maintaned in top condition...
@surfing636
15 жыл бұрын
The Sherman did well before the Germans made the Panther and Tiger tanks. While the Panthers gun was bout the same caliber, the Panthers round was high velocity. The Sherman was a .38 w/snubnose 2" barrel, The Panther was a .357 mag with a 6'" barrel. The Tiger was a 44 mag. The Germans were inside heavy armor, not so for the Shermans. But maintenance and reliability (and sheer numbers) went to the Shermans. Fuel and supply lines left German armor in limbo too!!!
@2serveand2protect
12 жыл бұрын
The 75mm Sherman's gun (relative) power was -btw- TOTALLY "overflawed" by the Sherman's optics - the worst of all of Allied tanks. Every hit over 800 mts was considered as "lucky" by its crews. At 1000 mt's the "precision" of the Sherman's gun was already 32% (obviously providing that both - tank and target stood absolutely firm, there was no wind deflection, etc). Many W. Allies tank units preferred simply to stick to British models, like the Cromwell (equally reliable & FAR more efficient).
@michaelriehl7206
3 жыл бұрын
Manly men doing manly things with manly tools
@ZerokillerOppel1
12 жыл бұрын
@xCh34pShOtx actually the Sherman's engine sound is very loud. The early versions with the airplane engines made the most noise.In this movie they tuned the enginesound down.But as said they used an enormous variety of engines as the war progressed; each one with it's own sound ofcourse.
@TheHunter909
12 жыл бұрын
Pretty sure T-34/76 was most produced of all time and WWII
@lebarosky
9 жыл бұрын
Before Pearl Harbor, before we had any plans to get involved, Gen. George Marshall made a decision to use the Sherman as our MBT and to discontinue all heavy tank production. His goal: arm our forces with a tank that would be useful in a two front war spanning the globe. He foresaw that the huge production numbers of the Sherman would be sufficient to arm our troops fighting in both Europe and the Pacific. His role in helping win the war by this decision is often overlooked.
@fantasia55
4 жыл бұрын
Being a tank crewman was six times safer than being an infantryman.
@Birdy890
12 жыл бұрын
@doktorbimmer Also the Sherman did have variants to help in the Infantry support role, The 105mm was much like the British centaur tank. Also, how else do you explain fitting the slow-moving 75mm gun on a tank? Because it worked against the German lighter tanks, and was able to fire a hard hitting HE round. The panther was not able to engage infantry to the same efficiency as the Sherman was able to because it was designed with armored combat in mind, to fight the Russians.
@michaelcurrier4492
10 жыл бұрын
If they'd have started research two years earlier, they would have been starting before they had even produced the M3 medium tank that was so terrible it only served to prove how far the US had progressed from it's early days of tank design. I can say that the DECISION to build panthers wasn't an awful one, the decision to build Shermans wasn't awful, but it would have been a better choice for the US to invest in heavy tanks and Germany in mediums, because that's what each could afford to do.
@WW2SolitaireBoardGameChannel
Жыл бұрын
I'd rather be in one of these babies than in a B-17
@billyyesreally
6 жыл бұрын
Id love a decommissioned one to cruise around in out in the country
@JuglarEuskaldun
12 жыл бұрын
This is why I always wanted to be a fighter plane pilot instead...
@Gixxer983
12 жыл бұрын
Tommy Cooker rite there.. Germans used to joke about it.. "Lights Up First Time"
@aleaf1167
6 жыл бұрын
That ending was creepy thou
@LemoneyFishmas
14 жыл бұрын
Its no coincidence it sounds like a plane, it used a modified aircraft engine ;)
@KindaGross
11 жыл бұрын
just watching this and then thinking about tigers or panthers makes me fucking anxious.
@granskare
15 жыл бұрын
didn't the crews call this tank the 'ronson' or maybe some other tank...Patton wanted this tank in preference to one that was already available with better everything...generals don't always know best :) a great video...the local army place has on display a knocked out sherman from battle of the bulge in 1944:)
@prnkstr
12 жыл бұрын
I'm pretty sure the 88 tore that bucket of bolts to shreads...
@michaelcurrier4492
10 жыл бұрын
That said, the problems that the Panther had were not a result of any lack of knowledge or expertise on the part of German engineers, but rather a lack of the necessary industrial capacity. At the rate of production they were capable of with even simplified models, they barely had enough tanks of any mark.
@rixille
6 жыл бұрын
The effectiveness of a tank is so situational. One moment it could dominate the battlefield, with enemy infantry at its mercy; then it could be a pile of scrap another moment from a air strike, rocket launcher hit, or a bigger tank enters the fray and blows your puny tin can to bits; if not the cannon hiding in the woods or the mines on the ground. If not even artillery manages to blow it up, or a mortar with a strong enough charge sabotages it; then it could get stuck in thick mud, a track could snap loose, a transmission gear tooth could clip off; it could flip over from a unexpected hillside that it drove into wrong or there could be a engine or fuel problem. So situational.
@lightmetro7508
2 жыл бұрын
Vietnam helped prove that too
@bere5de
11 жыл бұрын
NOTHIN protected against the 88mm
@yamahonkawazuki
11 жыл бұрын
aka a ronson ( of lighter fame ) as narrator said, the ammo or fuel could / did with a well placed shot
@khajrane
12 жыл бұрын
"Many" is not equivalent to "all". They also used diesels on "many" tanks, such as the KWs, ISs, Su85/100, yes, T34 also being one of them. This kinda puts a dent in the "power of choice" point, specifically the "world over" part. On the other hand, Shermans did run on gas. Huh. As an aside, I'm enjoying this discussion.
@DefendinMyBase
10 жыл бұрын
Actually the Pershing was well on its way to replacing the Sherman had the war dragged on any longer. Over 6,000 could have been produced and deployed in one year had WWII continued on, and Pershings were superior to the German Panzer IVs and Panthers in pretty much every way. Fairly equivalent to Tigers, and more than capable of knocking them out with its 90mm Gun. Only 20 or so saw combat in WWII, but they certainly proved their mettle in Korea against T-34s.
@JulesVernesDream
12 жыл бұрын
Currently wikipedia gives amount 84070 of T34
@Krom1hell
6 жыл бұрын
Protected? :))....I thought that history was taught the same to every human......And the Sherman was like a cookie holder compared to a sledgehammer of a round :))
@aldoraine3364
6 жыл бұрын
I liked the angled armored Sherman’s better with the 6 pounder
@michaelcurrier4492
10 жыл бұрын
In fact, the Panther could have been much better than it was. German engineering and tank design were both sufficiently advanced to produce a tank like the Pershing and even make it faster than the Pershing was, perhaps even better armor and armament. German industrial capacity, however, meant that they could only choose between the best Panzer IV and the simplest, most dumb downed Panther.
Пікірлер: 685