WWII Tanks: Sherman Tank
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ก.ค. 2018
- Join Simple History in battle on War Thunder now for free and also get a free Premium tank or aircraft and 3 days of Premium time: v2.xyz/WarThunderSimpleHistory
Copyright: DO NOT translate and re-upload our content on TH-cam or other social media.
SIMPLE HISTORY MERCHANDISE
Get the SImple History books on Amazon:
www.amazon.com/Daniel-Turner-...
T-Shirts
www.zazzle.com/simplehistory/...
Simple history gives you the facts, simple!
See the book collection here:
Amazon USA
www.amazon.com/Daniel-Turner/e...
Amazon UK
www.amazon.co.uk/Daniel-Turner...
www.simplehistory.co.uk/
/ simple-history-5494376...
/ simple_guides
Credit:
Created by Daniel Turner
Narrator:
Chris Kane
www.vocalforge.com
Music Credit
Failing Defense by Kevin MacLeod is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution licence (creativecommons.org/licenses/...)
Source: incompetech.com/music/royalty-...
Artist: incompetech.com/
Join Simple History in battle on War Thunder now for free and also get a free Premium tank or aircraft and 3 days of Premium time: v2.xyz/WarThunderSimpleHistory
I'm 1st :D
Simple History hello :D
EARLY :D
Simple History
Simple History how can you have 10 views but 77 likes
Allies: yo America can I borrow a tank
America: Sherman
i get it
I got it...Hahahaha Funny Bro
Sur maan
Ah, good one.
I N F E R I O R
"These German tanks could knock out a Sherman tank from far distances"
*_Showing animation of a Tiger bullying a Sherman at point blank_*
Orno 03 Despite the fact Sherman’s with HVAP M93 could often frontally penetrate the Tiger at similar ranges.
kim kyok-sik Uh what? M4 Sherman never carried HVAP, the M10 Wolverine did.
@@wtf-hc3tp It did. The M4A3(76)w HVSS was capable of carrying M93 HVAP rounds. However, these HVAP rounds were mostly in the hands of TD Crews. Luckily, the 76mm tanks were mostly in TD Battalions so they received HVAP rounds.
kim kyok-sik You didn’t say a specific variant.
@@wtf-hc3tp I just referred to the 76mm on the M4A3(76)w HVSS in my comment. How is that not referring to a specific variant?
USA lend lease during ww2:
"YOU GET A SHERMAN, AND YOU GET A SHERMAN, EVERYBODY GETS A SHERMAN"
It's a dang good warmachine overall. Even the Chileans put in a high velocity 60mm gun on their Shermans. The M-60 Sherman wasn't even phased out of the Chilean army until 2003.
Everyone look under your seat...
sher.. man.
@@imgvillasrc1608 the sherman was not that good
@@imgvillasrc1608 theres a sherman with 105 mm gun
M1 Abrams: “I’ll make you proud, gramps”
No, only in America, the Father of tanks is the Mk1 of the British.
@@herrbonk2211 what are you saying the mk1 was the "mother"
Fqry I get it
Yes sir we respect our gramps
M3 Lee: b r u h
I'm surprised that there was no mention of the M4 having the highest crew survivability rating of any tank in WW2. By this I mean that once the tank is disabled, how many of the crew are likely to get out and live to fight another day.
Yep, on average, 0.6 casualties out of a 5 man crew
I do believe a variant of the valentine had one slightly superior, considering the shermans problem with fire. I'm not 100% sure though.
gobblox38 The Churchill tank was the most survivable if I'm remembering right
Doesn’t such a statistic mean that the Sherman was simply very prone to breakdowns or was given up very easily? No way that you only have less than a single victim when a German 7.5cm (or even bigger) APHE shell hits you.
@@Ameritard no not the churchill
Grady: "Clear!!!"
Wardaddy: "Fire!!"
Bible: "on the way!!!!"
@Andypandy Lemonsquandy same mate
Ive seen alot of war movies but fury is the best by far
@@andrewparis9956 i really liked it but the shells bouncing off the sherman was a lil hollywood lol plus a waffen ss could take out a sherman in about 2 mins but it was a great movie
@@st3phn158 yeah I was worried that the movie would just be borderline propaganda but it was really enjoyable
Fury: "Boom!!!"
4 saddest words ever: "Hans, ze transmission broke."
It's fine Hans,we're on the defensive
well now you have a bunker
"Hans, hold ze F key"
I'm the 100th like!
Why would this matter for a Sherman?
It's been disproven that the Sherman, in doctrine, was not expected to engage other tanks.
It absolutely was, part of the purpose of armor in us doctrine was to engage and destroy enemy armor to allow the infantry to advance, things like tank destroyers we're intended to be a mobile reserve
This is false, infantry support means to defeat any obstacle it needed, be it enemy armor, fortification or infantry. The US and British Infantry support doctrine and meaning is very different
Guys he literally said "it's been disproven that the Sherman was not expected to engage other tanks" he literally agrees with you two lol
@@nomad8166 profile pic matches comment
Why do french tanks have rear mirrors?
So they can also see the front lines
gold old french ft
Nice
good one
Good ol'd ww2 humor eh?
Probably to make sure they don’t get flanked again
I had a grandpa who built Sherman Tanks, and a great-uncle who was killed fighting Nazis at the Battle of the Bulge during WW2. RIP to both of them.
Evidence?
@@stupidumbasshithead5715 💀
4:34
Sherman VC “Firefly” ‘s didn’t had a hull mg. They removed it and the co-driver seat for extra ammo storage.
But is optional add the machine gun
Filling a tank to the brim with ammo in typical British fashion
17lb shells are big, how else can they fit enough ammo to fight german armor?
Almost all the advantages the Sherman had are not mentioned while mentioning all of it's disadvantages and some myths about the tank
Exactly! Maybe they should do a remastered version of this episode mentioning pros, cons, and breaking the myths of the Shermans.
They mentioned the ease of maintenance
CRENO K that was it tho. They could’ve mentioned heaps more
ConcededGold I know
It also ignores that the reason the US would send multiple Shermans against one Tiger is because that they sent the smallest tank unit to handle it. They'd do the same even if the tank they were being sent against was an old Panzer 3. That is simply how it worked. They also downplayed the effectiveness of the 76mm M1a1 that some Shermans were fitted with.
How many Tigers did it take to kill a Sherman?
Five.
Two in the shop for maintenance,
Two to run out of gas,
and One to take the shot.
Dino Mate, relax, we have 50,000 of them👌
1 76 from 800m or less, and the tigers a tinderbox, but I guess the tigers gonna run out of fuel first, so I guess it won't catch fire at all
Dino Mate Do you know that Sherman were always in group because the minimum number required for a platoon was 5 tanks, and not because they couldnt pen your """"overpower"""" piece of crap?
Ale LGB lol
Do you ever see a sherman that was shot by a tiger?
Brutal
Titusz Valdner No, siply because...
It never happened LOL.
A Tiger won against Americans only one time out of two, and that time the destroyed tank was a Pershing and not a Sherman.
Do stuka video pls
Legend 23 i agree
I agree I think that the Stuka is the best dive bomber ever
banzi 1942 yeah and me too
banzi 1942 the best dive bomber is the japanese zero. You know what i mean. Lol.
Nah m8. A-36 best dive bomber
There’s a lot of issues with this one. Many of the Sherman’s pros were ignored here.
Belton Cooper where you at?
It's pros are: It can be mass produced.
Cons: It was already outclassed before D-Day.
@@sammcneillmckinnell5003
Pros:
Easy to escape
Easy to modify
Easy to repair
Easy to upgrade
Reliable
Mobile, and relatively light
105, 76mm, and 17pdr guns were great for AT use, and 105/75mm guns were good for support/anti-infantry use.
Wet ammo storage
Actual sloped armor, nearly on par with the Tiger
The army using it actually knows what logistics is
@@TankDragonSherman Cons: It was a generation or so behind by 1945, its gun doesn't have worldbeating penetration and its offroad abilities were somewhat inferior to competing armor variants.
Pros: Everything else. Armor, above average for a medium. Reliability, absolutely excellent, best in the war. Survivability, same. Mobility, average. engine power, above average.
Special feature: Modilarity, easily the most adaptable and versatile tank of the war Also provides massive bonus to repair speed in the field.
@@hagamapama dont forget gun stabilizer
There were many variants of Sherman tank. It was very important on D-day.
I reccommend watching The Chieftan's Myths of American Armor. It really sheds some light on the true effectiveness of the tank. For example, the Sherman was likely the most survivable tank of the war, with 0.28 tanks killed per tank lost, or about 4 Shermans lost per crewman.
who knew a fatherless child could learn about history
Finally a weapon to surpass metalgear
Justin Y. Dood ded meem
Justin Y.
You know, you are a dead meme now lmao
Justin Y. Oh my goodness
Yo wassup Justin y.
Totally didn't expect you here.
Soviet m4= loza's sherman
M4 rocket= t34 calliope
Michael Richa Actually the Reds called them Emchas, and the 76s were referred to by their British designation of M4C
clearly a wotb player
Ok
technically ,loza's Sherman, is his Sherman that he commanded, not a Soviet Sherman.
@@michaelricha7959 ok
When a Sherman tank goes through a muddy terrain
Crew: Awesome! Free camouflage!
In the Korean War he faced his former ally, the T-34...
Mari Mon and it did decently well
loli protection *koff-koff-koff* t34 were piloted by lousy Korean tankmen and t34 werent in good shape, thats why they burned so much in Korea *koff-koff-koff*
The terrain also made it hard for gunners to aim properly since the one menacing problem that haunted Russian tanks was gun depression whereas its counterpart, the M4A3E8 and the M4A3E2 had no problems engaging from a hill.
Mari Mon
read up on I-400 and other japanese submarines fates when soviet experts asked to analyze them. What allies? And people say Cold War started with Berlin Airlift...
TheArklyte It was started with Churchil who talked about iron curtain
2017: WWII Tanks: Sherman Tank
2040: *WWIII Tanks: Abrams Main Batlle Tank*
riza_skylovt_mafia gv 543 the rival of Leopard2😂
Or T-90S.
2583 human covanant war tanks the scorpion
Nope leopard
2100:WWIIII Tanks: Freedom oil machine
I recommend potential history’s video on the inaccuracies of fury where he talks about the Sherman vs Tiger myth. Very very informative
Good video isn’t it
Shameless self promoting smh
@@ark4am7night91 that moment when you shame someone who didn't self promote for self promotion
M4 in fury was a M4 Sherman with 76mm (maybe M4A3E8)
@@nrz4000paronmen it was a M4 Sherman firefly…….
American doctrine _didn't_ say tanks weren't supposed to fight other tanks! I recommend watching watching Chieftain's hatch, where in one of the videos Nicholas Moran dispels myths about American armor.
oddly enough called "Myths of American Armor" if anyone's wondering
So are you supposed to go around all tanks and let enemy tank take objectives? That comment might have been said by the US military but then they went right ahead and put tanks to tanks.
@@joeyguillen2081 The German Tigers didn't take many objective after 1943 because they didn't have many of them. The US in the 2nd half of 1944 had their 76 mm anti tank and tank guns this gun could brew up German heavy tanks. This joker doesn't know there were more types of Shermans and doesn't know much about the subject. The 17 Pounder was not much good beyond 1 km as the bugs of the APDS was not sorted out till the mid 50's. The 76 mm with HVAP was actually better in the T23 Turret, the problem HVAP was only supplied to the TD's. Tungsten was hard to come by in WW 2,
@@joeyguillen2081 not a realistic problem on a tactical scale. If they were short on TDs sure, but American TDs were specifically designed as quick-responders to any German armored advances.
@@CharlesvanDijk-ir6bl the Famous German Tiger Aces Michel Wittman was killed may have being 75mm Gun Sherman M4 Tank, by the Canadian Sherbrooke Fusilier Tank Regiment, the Canadian Tanks destroyed Two Tiger Tanks, Two Panzer IV and Two SP guns in Wittman's force, the British Northamptonshire Yeomanry Tank Regiment destroyed Three Tiger Tanks. There was a case in Italian Campaign of a Tiger Tank Knockout by a M4 75mm Gun Tank, there also cases of 75 PAK and 88mm Anti Tank Guns bouncing of M4 Tank Armoured front no joke, most Tank battles are unusual ambush and surprises 90% most engagement that a fact, the side hull of a tank knockout or destroy same with German Tanks and Italian to, the Main enemy of all allied and Axies tanker where Anti Tanks Guns 80% of tanks, tank on tank engagement was 14.5%.
The Bob semple is the Chad of all tanks
I wish this was noticed more
Wait, it's only 17 minutes old.
edgy nerd *T S A R T A N K*
0 combat losses
edgy nerd don't forget when you needed extrea fire power you could use "big bob" (heavy version of bob semple )
Simple history: "Tiger tanks could take out Sherman tanks from far distances"
Me: you call that far?
For that matter, after a British operation in North Africa to relieve the seige of Tobruk called Operation Battleaxe, where Rommel made great use of 88-mm Flak guns as improvised anti-tank guns, which decimated British armor, a captured British major complained, "It's just not 'cricket' to use an anti-aircraft gun on a tank!" The '88 could put a round clean through a Matilda II at over 2,000 yards, with a first-shot accuracy rate at better than 95%. The British tanks never had a chance to return fire, and better than half of Gen. Wavell's tanks were lost the first two days. They only saved themselves from complete disaster by having 25-pounder guns lob smoke shells to blind the German gunners, to give the tanks caught out in the open a chance to retreat. After Battleaxe, Wavell was replaced by Sir Claude Auchinlek, who likewise was out-generaled by Rommel, but a year later, once "Monty" was in charge, things got better for the Eighth Army.
“It takes multiple Shermans to destroy a single Tiger tank”
Me who watched Fury: *aRe YoU sUrE aBoUt ThAt?*
What about a Maus...
Lol
Fury was pure fiction that scene was not realistic at all
I watched fury it’s a great movie
@@Moonlight.Deadite Fury, like many history based movies, was an amalgam of stories from WWII. Regardless of the accuracy, which lets face it would likely appeal to a crowd too small to make a profit if it were 100%, I found it to be a very well made movie. There are plenty of other directors who would not have shown Fury the same attention that it got. The interior shots, bringing in real tanks, and shots that aren't tanks are fiberglass reproductions laser scanned from the originals. This is the sort of thing I want to encourage from movie production where possible. Tired of seeing GCI just everywhere, and when actors don't have something to interact with, it shows. I have also found a lot of complaints about Fury are just spergs rattling off statistics and averages but not actually factoring in the crew the movie depicts. Yes such numbers do show an ideal scenario however war always has the potential to be less than ideal.
Retrofitted with newer cannons, Shermans even used in Yugoslavia in 90s.
Great, simple and practical machine.
Who would win?
Several M4 Shermans
Vs
One Tiger boi
A V2 rocket 😂
One tiger boi
JUST MONIKA Ahaaa....
Booooooo....
Any m4 with a 76 mm
JUST MONIKA katyusha
“Oh bugger, the tank is on fire.”
This girl is on fire, this girl is on fireeee.
"realistic game"
*cries in T-34-57 capable of pening front of tiger E*
cries in ghost shells
*All my homies hate the T-34-57*
@@ReySchultz121 It's a really good tank so that's understandable, It's refreshing to use a Russian tank with a quicker reload because the 76mm and the 85 load around 1 to 2 seconds slower than their American or German counterparts.
germans dont need any concessions, they're unbalanced, and cheaty to begin with. infuriating to see idiot inexperienced players, just ruin the match when they just charge into our spawn taking no damage, and one-shotting all of us, like its some kind of arcade turkey shoot.
its just cheaty and unfair, and not at all balanced or enjoyable to play.
@@livethefuture2492
in order to have a good vehicle
they need to be fun to play as and up against, germans arent fun to play against especially as a russian...
Sorry, American doctrine DID NOT say that the Sherman was not supposed to fight other tanks. That's a fallacy. It was designed to fight other tanks hence it had, for the time it was designed, a rather good 75mm gun. By DDay they were producing 76mm Shermans which could penetrate the frontal armour of a Tiger at over 1km. Tank Destroyers were not designed to fight other tanks, they were designed for defence. Tanks hunted down other tanks, tank destroyers waited for German tanks to come to them.
And funnily enough, the user manual for the Tiger tank said that the 8.8cm on the Tiger could not penetrate the frontal armour of a Sherman, from any range, if the Sherman was angled 30 degrees to the side from front on. This is because the Sherman had an effective armour thickness almost as thick as the Tiger's and on top of that the US used better steel.
3 years ago and no one appreciated this man's effort to type this much?
One tiger will destroy at least 5 shermans
@@Hsp-hr2hn Ahh, the ol' 5 Shermans myth.
@@RandomStuff-he7lu this isnt a myth the sherman is a weak tank compared to the tiger
@@Hsp-hr2hn cringe wehraboo. The myth was only started because allied tank were frequently seen in groups of 5. Stop spreading false info
but even the short barrled 75mm could pen tigers at very close range, and they threw on the 76mm after tigers were around
Bounce that shell
On paper yes, in practice no. 75mm could not penetrate the front of a tiger
@@a.t6066 it could at distances within around 100 yards or so, just get that close was fairly hard and normally not practical
@@joseffliegl4167 Yeah it makes no sense because for example the tiger in fury would have probably broken down a mile away from the front line. Plus tigers were extremely rare and you wouldn't just have Sherman's running into them 24/7 if frequently at all, so i'm assuming people are just trying to bash the Sherman by comparing it to the Tiger?
@@aurilius8145 Anyone bashing the Sherman by saying it can't 1v1 a Tiger is just being a German fanboy and missing the point anyway. The Sherman couldn't 1v1 a Tiger, but it would never have to either. They massively outnumbered the Tigers, and always had air support and infantry support nearby. It's like complaining that a Wolf can't 1v1 a Lion, when realistically it's going to abuse it's pack to win the fight.
4:54 that is one of the coolest things I have seen in a while
I was used against the japanese in the pacific theater as jungle exist in there
As a guy from the Southern States I had to change my pants when I saw that.
Can we end the myth that American tanks weren't meant to fight other tanks the reason why new tanks took so long to be developed is because they couldn't be sent back to the factory like German tanks so they had to be easily repairable. Another interesting fact is that when attacking it really only took one tanks to take out a tiger the myth that it took five Shermans to take out a tiger comes from the fact that a tank platoon is five tanks. Most German tanks were panzer 4s that Shermans had easy times taking out. And people forget that while the Germans where making entirely new tanks we upgraded our tank and made things like the easy eight that could punch through the tigers frontal armor at four hundred yards.
Actually it could take 1 Sherman tank to kill a tiger if it fired first and hit the right spot
@@Bromyguywhayisup that's what I've been saying for years
@@randomnessman3514 well you said it took two Sherman tanks to kill a tiger
@@Bromyguywhayisup so I did
@@Bromyguywhayisup edited it
Plz do the panther tank in next video.
They already did the Tiger
I think he already made a video with the Tiger I but I wholeheartedly agree on the Panther video
Ezekiel Craft me to
They been made pne
One
The M3 was NOT behind/outdated.
It had LOTS of firepower, respectable armor, decent mobility and good reliability. it was very rugged.
For 1941 a 37mm gun was average for tanks, a 75mm was great - the M3 had both.
They didn't even mention that the M3 was stopgap vehicle until the M4 was finished.
Why did the Soviets nickname it "a coffin for seven brothers"?
@@iamnothere454 primarily because the Lee got to the Russians latter on in comparison to the English, meaning instead of fighting panzer 3s with 57mm guns, it fought panthers and panzer4s with the long 75mm gun, hence becoming heavily outclassed
WHY, THEN, WAS IT DISCONTINYED?
I know I am late, but there were some myths that you stated.
The SHerman RARELy faced the Tiger, and when it DID, it was usually the Tiger that lost. And for panthers? Most engagements with one was by a flank ambush, in where the sherman 75 could easily nail the sides of the panther.
Also it did not take a lot of shermans to kill a tiger, it only took 1 with good positioning and crew.
@Christopher Strimbu Yes
4:08 they took that scene from Fury
Yeah but there was another one
Yep it's is
Just as unrealistic as that scene too.
My grandfather was a tank commander in WW II and Korea. I love this tank.
How many gears do french tanks have ?
1 forward 5 reverse
im german we have so many jokes about french amor ^^
Billote: Hold my baguette
Until you meets B1 bis...
Remember that time the Russians took over half your country for 45 years?
Pierre shift it in to 5th baguette
Still one of the best tanks if not the best tank of ww2. Several small armies still use them today along with the M3 Stuart and the equally iconic T-34-85.
the m2.50 browning machine gun was amazing for its time because of its such long range and the impressive penetration power that could tear through german armoured vehicles armoured plates but its still in use for the army service today but its also such an old gun and has great reliability each shot counts for great damage and penetration power.
Epic! Love it!!
Matsimus oh hello there?
Matsimus correct me if I am wrongz but isn't the 17 pdr the same as the 76 mm?
@@RedCardei pretty much but the other guys said was spot on 17 pounder was a little bit longer so it has a little bit more Firepower because it was going faster I've ever when it came down to it there wasn't too much of a difference especially when you are fighting against the king tigers in that could rather easily penetrate a regular tiger though assuming you get a good hit
@@evensickle1083 there was more than one 76 the one used on the m4 a 3 easy eight and the m4a2 jumbo were very different and the later used model on the m4 a3 and above we're out preforming the 17 pounder guns
@@derekhenschel3191 oh thanks
*realistic online game*
Soviet bias
Joseph Stalin You're probably very happy
Playing a soviet vehicle intensifies-
*50 years Work Gulag*
go to gulag stalin
3:15 the Sherman frontal armor as thinner but slanted to such a degree that it was comparable to Tigers the only difference was that German guns were stronger.
3:39 The US had several hundred Shermans with 76 guns ready for D-Day but the Sherman tank crews didn’t want to switch because up until that day they hadn’t seen anything that they couldn’t kill.
3:52 No, American doctrine said that tanks were best used as exploitation vehicles, but they were also designed for fighting other tanks that’s why they had a giant heavy gun. Also tank destroyers were ambush units not hunter killing machines.
4:00 all tank crews did this because it doesn’t take a genius to think that more armor=less chance of dying. The victor of a tank battle isn’t the number of tanks but who fires first.
4:26 for about a month after that hundreds of 76s were injected into the front line, and the Firefly was considered the most difficult Sherman variant to use because unlike the Americans who designed a new turret to protect the ergonomics of the tanks the British just shoved a 17 pounder (same caliber as a 76 but with a bigger gun section) into a small turret were only the smallest or unluckest men in the BTF could even move around. Every time they had to reload they had to play a game of wiggle the high explosive into the chamber.
You probably an american who thinks only the tanks of their country are the best right?
You're probably some moron who thinks the americans can't have a good tank.
@@johnisaacfelipe6357 He's right, everything he said is true about the Sherman. Although I would say the Sherman amor isn't really comparable to the tigers 104mm frontal armour. A bunch of British tank crews actually did complain about the tight spaces in the Firefly.
Moon- Rider the slanted armor made the armor plating of the Sherman thicker and increased the likelihood of a bounce. I would never intentionally say that the armor of a Sherman was better or even the same aa a Tigers, but they did have similar penetration thresholds. (Like chocolate and vanilla one is definitely better than the other, but you could easily compare the two.)
@@moon-rider1220 my comment was not directed to OP
I dont know why people downplay the armor of the Sherman. Its frontal hull armor is sloped, meaning its better armored than any version the T-34 or Panzer 4.
But then I see they went to "Tiger stronK' forgetting that the Tiger 1 were very few in number and prone to breaking down. A lot of this video follows the usual things people say, like that the sherman was never made to fight tanks. If it wasnt then why didnt they have it with a howitzer? Its a multi-purpose vehicle and the Shermans were made in greater numbers than any of the tank destroyers, and fought many more armored vehicles too.
Write the saddest story:
-Sherman:"I can't penetrate the tiger".
jac hug write the happiest story
Sherman: gets *76mm*
Tiger: oh no
Sherman: *loads hvap* oh yeah
Another Communist that's why a Sherman jumbo with heavier armor lead the tank colomm many crews disguised the longer barrel though
Sherman with 75mm M3 CAN kill a tiger
Tiger II: Sup Shermans
You got a hole in your right wing
wow, i'd be willing to bet the only sources that where used for this was "Common knowledge" and Death Traps.
why should a us soldier lie about american tanks? the author of death traps was writing his impression which he got from the battlefield
Deadfly12 that's the experiences of one man but not the whole war.
Deadfly12
"As a memoir, it is meandering and repetitive, far too often wandering away from the authors personal experiences into the realm of speculation. As a history it is lacking, containing no end notes, foot notes or bibliography. And finally, as an indictment of the M4 Sherman tank, the book is filled with so many factual errors and outright falsehoods, it cannot be taken seriously on this count either."
"He was tasked with the 'recovery, repair, and maintenance' of US tanks during the war"
mechanic, not soldier. he only entered the battlefield after the fighting ended.
The author was not an actual tanker. His job was to clean up casualties after the battles so he only saw the worst case scenarios and never the successes of the tank on the battlefield. He had an incredible bias when writing the book. Checkout a historian who researched original source records for a more accurate view of the Sherman's performance. th-cam.com/video/bNjp_4jY8pY/w-d-xo.html
@@deadfly122 actually belton cooper was a mechanic, he didnt actually fight, and completely disregards the army's decision to stay with the low velocity M4s as they were more effective when fighting with the troops and if you ever needed some larger guns you could pull up some TDs.
The Sherman's frontal armor nearly matched the Tiger I in effective thickness, and the Panzer IIIs and IVs that faced the Sherman when it first hit Africa had a lot of trouble dealing with it. Extensive testing after the war found that the upgraded 76mm gun on late-war American Shermans was more effective overall in the anti-tank role than the British 17-pdr, mostly due to the 17-pdr's inaccuracy.
Lol no
Typical Americans in wars
@@husseinoskovjino9398 That all comes from Nicholas Moran's video called "Myths of American Armor" where he pulls directly from primary sources.
@@TheWatzitooya even MORE typical to say it to hundreds pf people to believe it
Bullshit
@Husseino Skovijno, I have very fun fact too, do you know that a lot of people still believe in German propaganda? example: I met cases when people said that one tiger always destroyed five shermans, in Europe the Germans rode only Panzerkampfwagens V (who cares that at that time still most of the German armored forces were pz IV), and the armor of the Tiger II was brilliant and it didn't crack at all after a few hits...
@@gabrielborawski6739 and the US doesn’t make propaganda?
The only guys who matched the germans were the Soviets and other belligerents in the eastern front no the US who kept using the same tank over and over and fun fact the US still uses numbers in battles still uses propaganda
My grandpa was a tank Chief(sergeant rank in my country, portugal) we bought them in second hand, still my grandpa rarely got any engine failures after seven years in service to army my grandpa moved to the Patton tank after the Shermans we had got phased out of service(1950-1975), my grandpa still has the 50 cal machines(one from the Sherman, another from the Patton) with him, he considers them as a souvenir thing. Still is a great tank way ahead of it's time for me.
I'd say it's not quite true to say that the Sherman was poorly armoured. It was worse armoured in comparison to German heavy tanks it sometimes encountered would be a much more accurate description. The tank destroyers had a purely defensive role. The M4 was designed to fight tanks. It did this well until it was put up against large amounts and Concentrations of the big cats. The notion that the Sherman was obscolete or otherwise useless beyond Normandy could not be further from the truth. It was not effective at fighting big cats, however this was not too big a problem, as cited by the fact that the allies continued gaining ground every day after D-day. The easy 8, easy 6, and any other '76 variant American Sherman's were generally superior to the Firefly due to their accuracy, especially at longer ranges.
It was obsolete by a point of view that in a 1vs1 battle a Sherman would usually draw the short stick even against a Panzer IV, not to mention a Panther which was about to replace the Panzer IV as the Standard Tank. Overwhelming numbers and supplies still made the Sherman a sufficient tool.
Regarding the armor a Sherman usually had not enough armor to reliably hope to stop a penetration, even frontally. Same counts for the PzIV btw. It was the same in Korea where the 76 Sherman was pitted against the T-34 85 and was usually one by the tank which spotted and shot at the opponent first.
second-best armor on a medium tank (going by actual use here, Panther is realistically a heavy) in the war: "pOoR aRmOr"
Scheneighnay To be fair you can’t just classify a tank by weight alone. Only because in the US or British army a Panther would have made a heavy tank weight wise it doesn’t make it a heavy tank per se. Tanks class - even in WW2 - was mostly determined by its role and according to the used doctrine. A modern Abrams isn’t classified as a heavy either just because it’s 20 tons heavier than a T 14 armata or a Leopard. All are MBTs. The Panther was intended and already on its way to replace the Panzer IV as the standard German medium tank and was clearly classified as a medium tank by the german army. If we would count the Pershing (which was equally intended to replace the outdated Sherman) or even infantry tanks like the Matilda or Valentine, which were even lighter than a Sherman but had highly effective armor at the time they were used, then the Sherman would drop even further behind in our list of most effective medium tank armors.
That being said having even the third or second best armor of a medium tank in WW2 is relative. A Panther could - up till the very end of the war - withstand most frontal hits up to a certain distance which made its frontal armor quite effective. A T-34 initially had very potent armour given by what its opponents had to offer to crack it open but it’s effectiveness would decrease rather rapidly up to a point where even the most basic German 7,5cm cannons wouldn’t have much of a problem anymore to penetrate it. The Sherman, much like the Pz IV, on the other hand, were mostly used around a time where their armor were barely helpful for what they had to encounter and on top of it the Sherman truly had a huge silhouette. I hope I could make my point clear that even for medium tanks there where huge gaps between tanks with an armor which would prove sufficient in a majority of situations and between those which were almost reliably penetrated. The Sherman was such a tank and at the time it entered the European theatre it’s armor was nothing to rely upon.
Scheneighnay Do you have a reliable source for that? Just because your frontal armour isn’t practically useless against other tanks automatically makes you a heavy tank. The Panther wasn’t exactly a brawler either or meant to form a spearhead but like the Pershing more of an early predecessor of what afterwards would become the MBT doctrine.
I love you man for defending the Sherman. And I do agree with about the gun
By far one of my favourite tanks of all time.
Jeff Jefferson why?
Isaak exactly!
Honestly, this tank is more useable than a tiger
I prefer Panther or even Pz. IV over this.
Jeff Jefferson How is he brain dead? The sherman was a great medium tank when it came out and it could go toe to toe with any axis medium tank that was on the battlefield, it even had encounters with t34s in the Korean war and came out on top most of the time.
Sherman: i will defeat you tiger!
Tiger: nae nae’s the Sherman.
The Sherman firefly: UNO REVERSE
Cringe
Philippine Nationalist thans what she Said when you were born
Cringe^2
Nice to see a Filipino. I'm half Filipino. My mom is from Philippines and my dad is from México. I never learned Tagalog. I wish I could speak and understand Tagalog. :(
M4A3E8 (76mm): Allow me to introduce myself.
One of symbolic Tanks of Allies during WW2. Thanks for adding new info about M4-Sherman
Do Bob Semple tank. Please. I need that video in my life.
Mr. Narwhal its out my man
"The Sherman found an equal adversary in early versions of the Panzer IV" Uh..what? While I wouldn't say early Panzer IVs were hopeless against an early Sherman, they were not equals. The Sherman had a better anti-tank cannon, armor, mobility, survivability, and had a stabilizer. The only advantage that the Panzer IV had is being a smaller target(which also has the trade offs of less room on the inside). The Sherman was superior.
"Soon recognized by the German Panzer crews that the Sherman was lightly armored" This one is just downright objectively untrue, especially at El Alamein. At the time the Sherman was very well armored at about 91mm of effective armor from the front and was almost impervious to the short 75mms, short 50mms, and 20mms used by the Panzer IVs, Panzer IIIs, and Panzer IIs, respectively. Meanwhile, the majority of Panzer IVs and IIIs present were variants with about 50mm effective armor on the front. The Panzer IIs had even less. Calling the Sherman "lightly armored" while sitting in something with only half as much armor is ridiculous.
"When it went against the new heavily armored Germany Tiger or the Panther tanks, the Sherman was no match" This is true if both are teleported right in front of the other in the middle of a flat field, but reality was very different. An example of this is the Battle of Arracourt. How the tank is used makes all the difference. Also, the Tiger had 104mm of effective armor, which is only 13mm more than the Sherman's 91mm. It wasn't that heavily armored.
"Because of American emphasis on mass production, innovations did not catch up with these new German arrivals" + "The true anti-tank answer was the British Sherman Firefly" The vast majority of German AFVs were not Tigers. 10,000 StuG IIIs, 9,000 Panzer IVs, 6,000 Panzer IIIs, 2,000 Panzer IIs, and 1,000 StuG IVs were built. A mere 1,347 Tigers were made. There was no need to increase the anti-tank capability of the Sherman. The 75mm was more than enough to deal with the StuG IIIs, Panzer IIIs, and Panzer IVs that it actually faced. A more anti-tank capable gun like the 76mm or 17 Pounder also has the draw-back of having a less powerful HE shell as the skin on it had to be thickened to deal with the higher pressures of the cannon. A thicker skin leaves less room for explosive. Therefore, unnecessarily increasing the Sherman's anti-tank capabilities would only make it worse at doing the thing it does the most: deal with infantry. The US also already had dedicated tank destroyers like the M18 and M36. The M36's 90mm was more powerful than even the Tiger's 88mm and could penetrate a Tiger at any engagement range.
"American doctrine also stressed that the Sherman tank was an exploitation vehicle-not designed to engage in combat with tanks" Yes it was. Part of supporting infantry was dealing with enemy tanks and the Sherman was also at times deliberately used to attack enemy armor-something it was entirely capable of doing.
"It would take superior numbers of Shermans to take out one Tiger or Panther tank" + graphic of Shermans circling around a Tiger. Please stop. This is a myth from the terrible book "Death Traps". A 76mm armed Sherman is plenty capable of frontally engaging and defeating a Tigers and Panthers at normal engagement ranges. Again, Battle of Arracourt.
ZDProletariat The Wikipedia LMAO. The Wikipedia is an open source page which means that whoever can edit and write how they want. I always take info there with a grain of salt and after reading the wiki I tend to go to journals about the topic to read because I know that journals are written from a single and usually trustworthy source.
""It would take superior numbers of Shermans to take out one Tiger or Panther tank" + graphic of Shermans circling around a Tiger. Please stop. This is a myth from the terrible book "Death Traps". A 76mm armed Sherman is plenty capable of frontally engaging and defeating a Tigers and Panthers at normal engagement ranges. Again, Battle of Arracourt.
"
why did the shermans have to use numbers against enemy tanks? the smallest tactical unit on the battlefield for tanks is the platoon, which consists of 5 vehicles. they're not just gonna send bob to deal with an enemy tank, the whole platoon would go
Also, they said "some" Shermans had the 76 mm canon, whereas in fact 22% of all the M4 variants produced were equipped with the 76 mm canon which was capable of penetrating the Tiger's armor. That equates to 10,883 tanks, more than the entire production of Panzer IVs (about 8.5k), the most widely manufactured German tank.
AppleJooc Park A fun fact did you know the Germans called the Sherman tanks tommy cookers for a reason
@@louishibbs185 That has been proven false repeatedly. The Sherman had the most survivability during the war.
Come on guys, a lot of these are misconceptions of myths. The Sherman was adequately matched (or outmatched) most of the German tanks with the exception of tanks such as the Tiger and Panther. The 76mm on the Sherman (E8) could completely penetrate the Tiger’s frontal armor at normal combat distances. It’s important to note that Tigers and Panthers were rarely seen, so it wasn’t really necessary to change their doctrine.
@Uganda Knuckles, Sherman was actually not significantly faster than Tiger or Panther, but you are correct about the turret.
*still faster*
Outclassed against late Panzer 4 ...
@@julienvidal4142 how? Shermans had no problem destroying panzer iv from normal combat ranges. If anything, I'd say the late panzer iv (1944+) was outclassed by the m4 considering it got the 76mm gun or got heavy armor (m4a3e2)
You know that strong tiger tank will destroy at least 5 shermans
2 things. 1. Tanks were meant to support infantry, if this means fight tanks, tanks fight tanks, 2. The americans had up gunned Sherman's ready by D-day, but the tank crews didn't want them, and the generals didn't think they should waste time training the crews when the normal shermans did fine against tanks they had already fought, not knowing of tigers and Pathers, if you want to know more check out myths of US tanks by Nicholas Moran, The Cheiftan
The Sherman was a necessary compromise of firepower, armor, weight, and cost. It was not the best tank of WW2, but it was definitely not the worst either and its later upgunned variants were significant improvements over the earlier variants armed with the short 75mm. Keep in mind that the US had to transport its tanks across the Atlantic to Western Europe while the Germans simply had to build tanks and load them onto rail cars(or in some cases near the end of the war, just drive them into battle). This allowed the Germans to produce larger, heavier tanks without as much concern for how they were going to transport them to the battlefield. A transport ship can only carry so much and the cranes that load them can only lift so much, so the US chose to send over more medium tanks to the ETO in order to have numerical superiority.
Don't forget that it probably had the best design for crew survivability out of any of the tanks during WW2. Nicholas Moran has done some great demonstrations.
Sturm The Regulator it is the best
wikieditspam The Germans still needed to be able to ship their tanks overseas to North Africa, but lifting a Tiger 1 with ship's cranes must have been interesting to say the least.
@@markfryer9880 And the Germans were only able to ship an exceptionally small number of Tigers to North Africa precisely for that reason.
@@rock3793 t34 tiger panther
The Sherman is indeed a popular but undermined tank. Many armchair history buffs think that the T-34, and every German tank is far better. They also think that the Sherman is the worst tank of the war due to its questionable reputation that the tank will catch fire when being hit, a weak 75 mm main gun, and a thin and light armor.
Study this tank's reputation first before you judge it. This is arguably the best tank of the war not only because it was mass produced but because of how good the technology, and ergonomics this tank has. Despite that, this ignoramus biasedly think that this tank is the worst.
M4 has sloped armor too and sloped armor isn't some magically quality that makes it way better.
AppleJooc Park, sherman did not have sloped armour at its sides, also tank armor quality was lower than those on Tigers and Panthers.
Also I love this tank based to it's looks, and some upgrades like the E8 version .
@SCP Foundation but their 76mm is really good at HVAP rounds or High Velocity Armor Piercing rounds, and they say that a 76mm gun can penetrate 100mm in vertical, I saw that on the shooting test that the M18 Hellcat fires a HVAP to the 100mm thick steel.
U bisaya?
5:25
“You can destroy the enemy with this iconic machine”
Me : *Laughs in panzer III*
Imma invade you
@@bigboijuice6523 it's soviet and n@zi germany gonne do it
A Sherman easily outmatches a PzIII
hagamapama
Its all about who shoots first if its a panzer III F2
You say until a pro comes with a sherman
To me, one of the most beautiful tanks of WWII, especially when it comes to the main cannon turret.
pfft that turrent is puny compared to the German Tiger
@@xReLentLess213 Early models yes. Later models had a much ;arger turret to accommodate the 76mm. Also while the turret on the Tiger was very large it was hard to fight in because of the size of the 88mm gun and round. Also remember that the Sherman was the most survivable tank of the war. US designers actually put allot of thought about crew comfort and Ease of exiting a damage tank.
@@xReLentLess213 sturmtiger :D
@@janme001 Maus
@@kaiserkiefer1760 Bob Semple tank
The legend of blyat tank
SKYREX TR, which bylat tank?
panzer. kpfw ausf. x. prot , no is blyat tank 😂😂😂
That info on us tank doctrine is technically incorrect. Yes there was a more prominant role of exploitation, but tanks were expected to fight tanks. Also, almost all of the time tank destroyers were used in a defensive only role, and were not supposed to advance and meet enemy tanks. In tank destroyer doctrine of the time it is stated that tank destroyers are to rely on tanks to assault enemy tanks, or something along those lines.
Also, the firefly was not a good answer to fighting enemy tigers, the fireflys gun could penetrate armor at longer ranges than the 76mm fitted to some us shermans, but the gun was also so innacurate on the firefly you would basically have to be at the same range a 76mm would have to be at to penitrate a tiger. This is all coming from tests the us did comparing the 76 to the firefly.
It also bothers me that you didnt talk at all about the main reason why the m4 sherman was kept in service; its crew survivability and its reliability. The us had many tanks in development that could take on tigers and defeat their armor, but they were not implemented because of their reliability. The us focused on reliability as the number one priority if a tank was to be put into service. The m4 sherman also had the least amount of crew member deaths per knocked out tank in ww2 thanks to its quick escape hatches.
AwesomeToyoda you watched nicholas moran's videos?
peter Ironborn yes i habe but ive also done some digging myself to confirm stuff that he said for myself
yeah me too, but they deleted my comment when i posted the correction for this video
Im a fan of German armor but the Sherman was the superior tank.
While the early Sherman did not have a longer barreled gun, when it arrived in the battlefield it was perhaps one of the most advanced tanks ever fielded.
They were always focused on survivability so the ammo had dry storage and the main gun was gyro stabilized; something that the German tanks lacked instead focusing in superior optics and the reach of their guns.
Ultimately, as Hitler was insane he kept ordering bigger and bigger tanks which were unreliable and required too many resources the build, which Germany did not posessed as the war got worse for them
sherman vs a PZ IV i dont think so also SOVIET TANKS ARE SUPERIOR TO BOTH IN FIREPOWER AND ARMOUR
@@bluephalanx hilarious comparison and a phallacy of a claim.
The Germans could only afford to reach for the highest combat effectiveness.
Well, building bigger tank is actually smart, the German were short on oil so building less Bigger tank means it was more oil and resources effective than building more Smaller tank
Saints Fan54 but what about Survivability
M4: I have a good speed get on my level
M18: what did you just say?
I ABSOLUTELY LOVE YOU GUYS
For the cost of one tiger, you could make half a dozen Sherman tanks. Combine that with Shermans moving in packs with infantry support and they had a better chance against German armor than many would assume.
Meh. Air supports could kill any ammount of tigers that are placed in one area.
air power, unlike today, couldnt do much during the war. it was too difficult for them to spot the enemy tank and be able to get a successful hit on it. air power was more of a morale thing back then.
Also the myth was spawned by the fact that Shermans were always deployed in platoons. So even if it was 2 guys with machineguns if tanm support is needed you're getting 5 tanks
Great tank. One can discuss this over and over. Few can get over. It simply was a great tank. It could carry 75mm, 76mm, 17pdr and 105mm guns. It was upgraded on suspension and armour. It was reliable. It was less uncomfortable internally. Most tanks were 75mm tanks, yet most adversaries were no tanks, let alone heavy tanks. It aways was in the attack from 42 tot 45, even against the odds. Outstanding design. A Firefly knocked out that SS tank ace's Tiger. You know, a gdam Sherman right?
The factory: So how many tanks do you want
Army : YES
Where's the Sherman Jumbo?
"do Panzers do Panzers waaah waaah"
meanwhile im here enjoying a video about my favourite tank of all time. Cheers!
First, i have same vibe like you, then into the middle of the vid, bias, and myth come, not the actual fact . . .
Can see anyone other than you sperging out tho.
God. You know what would stop this debate?
Build a Tiger and Sherman. considering modern engineering it would be easier to manafacture. Give them the same things that they were equipped with. No special modern treatment given. Except of course for remotely controlling the tank. Because do you really wanna get a crew together just to let them kill each other?
Find an open field in Europe. Tanks shoot each other. Outcome happens. The End.
Please, some uber-rich dude do this
Also the Sherman came over seas it would take a while for new models to get there
Since there is alot of M4 Sherman variants (i'm talking about the Sherman upgrades on 4:57), why just not call it M4 General Platform lmao
While I'm not a fan, I do think this is the best tank of the war. Based on what it was made to do, how well it could do it, and where it could do it. It worked. Kept its crew alive. And it worked everywhere.
And had a lower casualty rate than even the t34 and tiger
*With just 3% of the tank crews dying*
There was also the rhino which was simply a Sherman Tank with welded point on the front that were designed to go through the French hedgerows during the D-Day invasion. They were made from steel beams barriers that were used as obstacles on the beaches of Normandy.
Incredibly-underrated tank thanks to the "big gun make tank more better" mindset with no correlation to actual wartime performance.
@ALEX HUANG which "big gun go boom" doesn't have as much influence on as people like to think
I heard somewhere that when the Americans started putting the 76mm gun into Shermans, more than a few crews complained, preferring the 75mm due to its superior HE shell.
@@ericamborsky3230 They had 76mm Shermans available for D-day. They decided to leave them in England...
@@JustLiesNOR that was the tankers too and not the commanders
@@randomnessman3514 Both the commanders and tankers didn't like the 76mm because the 75mm is performing so well they didn't see the point of the 76mm. Futher proof at just how great the 75mm Sherman are
This M4 tank was super badass tank during the Pacific War and Korean War.
The m4a3 Sherman show the good action in Korean War.
T-34 / KV-1 when
You got the kv-1 now
Simple history: the panther was a superior tank
The panther: catches fire before it reaches the battle field because of muddy terrain
thanks for learning me about history
and my fav. is probaly the The fall off berlin
and good video as always
*M4 Sherman Tank Exist*
TIGER TANK NIBBAS: OH BOIII LOOK AT THIS CHEESY TARGET
ur mom That made me laugh HAHAHHA
I'd suggest watching "US AFV Development in WW2" on youtube, it's a pretty good discussion of the M4, and gives counterpoints to a lot of comments.
Conclusion: if you have a problem there is always a sherman tor that
You should do an episode on the T-34. Excellent work as always
Can you make a video about the bob semple tank from New Zealand?
yes
This one might be a bit difficult, but could you do one on the Second Samoan Civil War 1899, the earliest conflict I can think of regarding Germany and the US
I mean it wasnt really "outclassed" as the 76 could easily take it out and the big cats were very few and far between and was literally one of the best tanks of the war with the best survivability of any tank.
Sadly, the 76mm could not easily defeat the frontal armor of A Tiger A or B, much less the Panther. But that left the other three sides.
@@thomaslinton5765 no it actually could, that's why it was made. Also why it was targeted by Tiger tanks in ambushes due to it being the main threat.
@@mc-kq6yd U.S. Ordinance has asured U.S. Armored Forces that the 76mm and 3" guns would reliably knock out Pathers and Tigers. Testing after D-Day against actual captured Panthers revealed that the face-hardened German Armor typoically was not penetrated by either gun's rounds at typical combae ranages. Sneaky Germans used their armor plate instead of the softerAmerican-made plate we had used in prior tests. Einenhower: "Ordnance told me this 76mm would take care of anything the Germans had. Now I find you can’t knock out a damn thing with it.” But, hey, you may know more than the people who were there. But I suspect that is not the case.
I think its a good tank overall despite it being outclassed to Tigers. The tank is very versatile and adjustable to the point that many variations can be made, such as the Calliope and the Crocodile.
Why outclassed? One is a heavy and one is a medium. The Heavy is of course more Armoured and has a better Gun.
Hope WW3 not come
BOCAH JELEEK it is very possible that ww3 cood happen between 2020 to 2050 I think that's what is going to happen just a theory and the usa defiantly going to be in it.
😁👍
You won't believe.
defiantly?
I hope we get a race war
still waiting for American Civil War 2, SJWs vs the NRA.
My great grandfather was a tank commander in WWII
Tank designer: “ok so we have some free space here, maybe for extra ammo or more food.”
US Department of war: “Put a machine gun there!”
Actually when the Sherman’s were made they left the cult of the machine gun but I get the joke
thanks for putting that seen from fury in there good job
One day you should make a "behind the scenes" video
There are some falsities in this. the M4 sherman was a considerably better tank than the panzer IV. its survivability rates can show that. the 76mm Sherman had a roughly comparable gun to the British 17pndr, it was only the fact that more fireflys where active in the early stages of the allied invasion that they are believed to be better.
CHAD THUNDERCOCK he was talking about the early ones
It was not a better tank than the panzer 4, the panzer 4 had unparalled upgradability (without upgrading the turret) and was not a gas guzzler like the sherman. The crews would defo disagree given that many burned to death inside a sherman!. Panzer 4s were outnumbered on every front.
The 17pdr was significantly better than the 76mm american gun and that capability gap got even wider with specialised ammunition for the 17pdr.
76mm m1 using apcbc has a penetration capability of 98mm at 500m vs the 17pdr with the same ammo of 137mm at 500m
with AP the m1 gun has 109mm at 500m vs 175mm of pen at 500m for the 17pdr. The differences are even bigger than i thought.
The 17pdr ammo is bigger, the 17pdrs gun is longer and the amount of propellant used to fire a 17pdr shot should make it pretty obvious that the 17pdr is the significantly more powerful gun.
+eraldorh
No improvements were made to the drive train, and the added five to six tonnes of weight took a toll on operational life of the _IV._ The _IV_ was notably less survivable, and about as frequent if not more so to burn as the ammunition is stowed even more strewn around, and while not a primary cause, fuel tanks were in the fighting compartment.
"many burned to death inside a Sherman"
The Sherman was the most survivable tank of WW2. A Panzer IV crew was far more likely to die if their tank was penetrated. And where are you getting "the panzer 4 had unparalled upgradability"? There were many different versions of Shermans and some with modern upgrades are still in service today.
The 76mm could and did take out Tigers and Panthers. That actually is a fact. Why are you ignoring reality? Does it really hurt your feelings that much if your favorite Panthers and Tigers turn out to actually not be very good tanks at all?
I think it is alo worth mentioning that there was also the Jumbo Sherman, a stop gap heavy tank that was produced for a while as the Americans waited for the M26 Pershing to arrive.
Ah yes the sherman
the only WWII tank people know
Balehead, meanwhile we show them a KV-2 and they said it was fake....
+panzer. kpfw ausf. x. prot
wait people actually say that?
The tank that were popularised by films. Yet it was still overall a great tank for the entire allied war effort.
I know a lot of WW2 tanks, like the T-34, the Panzer 4, the Tiger 1 and 2, the Panther, the IS2, the M-26 Pershing, etc.
I personally prefer the Panzerkampfwagens. The Panzerkampfwagen Vier und Fünf are particularly interesting.
Clicked directly.
PaperxZone me aswell