I wish video technology had been more advanced during WW2, it was a war like we will never see again especially the eastern front tank battles. 600 tanks all rumbling towards each other firing, what a sight that must have been.
Go pros in the front of STUG III'S and T34'S...As soon as that time machine gets here from ebay that is endorsed by Napolean Dynamite...I'm going back to do it...worth the risk to come back and get 30M views and not have to work ever again!
Easy for you to say, mullet head. You never sat in one when a high velocity tungsten round from a 75mm or 88mm sliced through your front armor like butter and decapitated, shredded and dissected you and your crewmates as it passed through the rear engine deck and ignited the aviation fuel in the unarmored gas tank. It was a death trap in the ETO and no amount of revisionist history from greasy wannabe historians from PA will ever change that fact.
John Donnellan ...The US got caught flat footed. We had to build a war machine from scratch. Fast. The M4 was chosen for its light weight and maneuverability. It's a medium tank. Most likely a poor choice.
1:23 Looks like an A1 sherm because of the rounded hull but sounds like an A2 engine with the whine of the Detroit Diesel blowers Edit: Or I can't really distinguish the GAA and the 6046 sound at idle
LMAO at the sound engineer that added sound! @10:54 he thinks that the guns are only firing when he sees a muzzle flash, and then at 11:01 he thinks that each bullet has a tracer and makes the sounds like the machine guns are firing in semi auto...
"200 metric tons each" for the tracks on an Abrams, you say. That would make the tracks alone weigh six times the weight of the entire Abrams. You need to do better. 0__0
To say that a Sherman tank can kill a German the standard M4 with the 75 was low velocity but the Sherman was fitted with the 76 to take out any German tank and they stood their ground in Korea against the Russian tanks
80% or so of the rounds fired by M4’s were HE rounds in support of infantry. The 75 mm HE round had a larger effective zone than the comparable 76mm round.
my grand grandfather was in ww2 he killed 20 + people and he died inside a tank because my grandma said a person chuck a grenade inside the tank and my grand grand father was in it so it ended up killing him
wow, very intesting documantary! I`ve been at Volturno in Italy and nowadays is is nearly impossible to Visualise the incredibly muddy, torrential rainy and very strong wind. Mind you that it has never been a beautiful place but still.....
I think the British had it right and thus the Sherman firefly was born.the standard short barrel 75 mm was all but useless except close range.where as the Brit high velocity qf 17 pounder could engage german panzers at range.
Not really. The 75mm was a vastly more effective ALL AROUND weapon compared to the 17# gun. The 17 could kill tanks, but it didn't have a good HE round, and it couldn't fire smoke or other service rounds. US tankers used way more HE rounds and that was a big part of the reason why the 75mm stayed around for so long. Also, the Germans just didn't have that many tanks, so the 75mm was just more useful more often than not. I do agree that the British got it right in one way: mixing Fireflies with standard M4s. That way you have the gun tanks supporting the regular tanks with each doing what they are best at. A 2:2 or 3:1 ratio with standard M4s to Fireflies looks reasonable.
@@rcgunner7086 really if you read any of the after action reports you would know that the Sherman's were Cleary outmatched going up against german panzers and suffering huge losses.even later in ww2 the US army started to experiment with longer barrel 75mm guns realizing that the short barrel gun simply was outmatched with its very low muzzle velocity.and you can clearly see the US army was learning its lessons with the introduction of the perishing late in the war sporting a long barrel 90mm which prove to be a huge success when engaging Panthers and tigers at range.
@@HiTechOilCo ok and your point is.but generally when referring to german armour its reffered to as as panzers.only time I've ever heard panzers referring to American armour is obviously when germans are talking about American armour.
For those of you trying to compare the US tanks to the German and Soviet tanks of WWII, there is no comparison. Literally - there is no comparison. US tanks were not designed to take on other tanks. They were designed as infantry support. The American anti-tank plan was to use aircraft (which is why the Battle of the Bulge started off so poorly for the Western Allies) and exploit the known shortages of Axis oil reserves. While Shermans did, on occasion take on Panzers, they eventually learned tactics that would mitigate the German tank's advantages. That said, they avoided tank battles whenever possible as pound for pound the German tanks were considerably better.
Honestly, I don't think that they avoided German tanks. There just weren't that many of them and the ones there were out there tended to go after the Brits due where the Panzer Divisions were. That changed later in war as the allies got closer to Germany. More often than not the US was going up against TDs like the STUG III, Hetzer, and so on. The M4 was quite good against them, and frequently it held its own against even Panthers. The battles of Arracourt Schmidt are examples of where well handled M4s clobbered Panthers. German tanks were technically better, but German training got really bad towards the end. The US Army didn't really scream for 76mm and up gunned tanks until it got a real dose of them in the Bulge.
@@astudentpilotlife You do know going into ww2 the Americans and British didn't have alot of experienced tankers right? Which would lead to loses and always being on the offensive pulled that number up also. The usa had the correct tank for what it was doing which was combined arms. Even then the sherman out classed the panzer 4 and everything smaller. It killed tigers and Panthers and well almost everything it met. Now the tank that was supposedly better the pershing actually ended being replaced by the sherman so which was better?
@@chadjustice8560 I do know that but i was thinking at the beginning of the war. American thought they were ready but once they realized it. They upped their game. It still amaze me tho
it wasnt. 1 out of 5 sherman crewmen died as an average in the european theathre. besides, they were the only tanks capable to atleast kill things aside from infantry (see the panzer IV)
Myth. Shermans combined with American combined arms, training and doctrine were vastly supperior to their German counterparts, as seen for an example in the Voges panzer offensive.
The most effective use of the Sherman was by the 4th and 3rd Armored Divisions. Their tactics involved close infantry support, combined with adequate air support, and intelligence to find and penetrate where the German forces were weakest, not frontal attacks against heavily defended positions. They moved quickly, keeping the Germans off balance, and bypassed positions where possible. Too many commanders simply didn't understand how to use the Sherman effectively, Ironically, the Russians had a number of Shermans, and loved them.
@@jonaspianomusic3101 That's another myth, and it was "Ronson" in the lie, not, "Branson". That advertising slogan didn't exist until the '50s. Sure, Shermans burned, all tanks burned. Do you know why? Because once they're disabled by the first hit, the enemy will continue to fire at them UNTIL they burned to make them unrecoverable. Most crew lived on after the first hit because they'd bail out of the tank before it was set on fire.
As the troops move up everything around them turns into a wasteland, horrible place for a young soldier to die. War is dreadful and the weak are not sacrificed but the best. It could be the reason that the human brain has decreased in size for the last ten thousand years. War continually taking the best along with stalin figures throughout history. It could be the reason we can't figure out how the ancients made the wonderful Egyptian stone works.
Did the War Department ever provide any kind of explanation as to why the Sherman had such a low power main gun? It became clear almost immediately that the Sherman's main gun couldn't do the job. Why did it take so long to fix this problem?
@Johnny Dotson His point was the _M4_ was intended for infantry support. While partially true (Armored Force viewed medium tanks as a supporting asset to all other combatant units in making and exploiting breakthroughs ), per Field Manuals _FM 100-5_ and _FM 17-5_ the priority target for medium tanks were other tanks. They did not do such when it came to the _Panther_ or _Tiger._
Yeah, the sherman was so bad that only one person got killed every time a tank was destroyed! It was ssoooooo bad that it was only 3 times more effective than the panther!
Most Tigers and Panthers were taken down by running out of fuel or just breaking down and being blown up by their own crews. A Sherman actually having to face a Tiger or Panther in combat was pretty rare. Mostly they were quite successfully blowing up StuGs and pill boxes.
@@BW-og1vu No, you were clear, just clearly wrong. There were too few Tigers and Panthers operational (not broken down or out of fuel) to make any difference. They may have been "waiting", but only because their crews had blown them up and run off.
@@Mishn0 By telling me that i was clearly wrong, i would suggest you to do some homework. There have been quite some documented fights between Tigers, Panthers and Shermans at the western front. Which, counting the numbers where all won by the german side. I never said that the V and VI wheren't low on fuel or stuck due to technical problems. And by telling me they waited ONLY because the crews blew them up i furthermore suggest you to get some research about the operational behaviours of the 3 heavy tank battalions at the western front.
@@BW-og1vu "Clearly wrong" is pretty close to "massively overstating" in my opinion. What percentage of Sherman losses were due directly to Tigers and Panthers? Maybe 5%? Probably less. Regular old artillery probably accounted for more. AT guns and StuGs were FAR more likely to encounter a Sherman than either of them. You're just another of the crowd of people that like to bash the Sherman using false characterizations. Go away.
They were knocked out by the thousands, but the spam proved to be too much for the germans. Sherman's design was intended for ease of maintenance and so parts could be replaced quicker. Not only were they spammed, damaged shermans got back into battle quickly rather than german vehicles who suffered breakdowns and replacing a damaged transmission took too long. Sherman's were like ants man, they may be weak, but u kill one, hundreds more take its place
the sherman had a better gun than the tiger (easy 6 and easy 8) and could go faster (any myth about how a sherman could not pen a tiger from the front is a lie). also they didnt catch fire as often and finally, the book death trap isnt accurate (look at the cheiftain explaining how the shermans really did in combat for more proofs).
Wait what!? -tiger was a food of sherman -japanese tanks was a food od sherman -italian tanks was a food of shermans -t-34 was a food of sherman -pz4 was a food of sherman -pz3 was a food of sherman -kongstiger was a food of shermans
My Dad served with the 1st Armored Div in Italy during WWII, so it was nice to get another glimpse of what it might have looked like for him.
Wow. It’s nice to see some appreciation for family heritage. Thank you
Cool.
I wish video technology had been more advanced during WW2, it was a war like we will never see again especially the eastern front tank battles. 600 tanks all rumbling towards each other firing, what a sight that must have been.
Awe inspiring but these are human lives you're talking about
@@JJ-xe2gr better to do it once and get it on film. Don`t have to do it again after that...
Unless you were in one of the tanks.
Go pros in the front of STUG III'S and T34'S...As soon as that time machine gets here from ebay that is endorsed by Napolean Dynamite...I'm going back to do it...worth the risk to come back and get 30M views and not have to work ever again!
"bounced off" "we didn't even scratch them"
World of Tanks
“We didn’t penetrate their armor”
"that one didnt go through
@@1bscrimdeserva583 yeah
We just singed them
The tanks are awesome...but how about those Army Engineers? Those dudes are amazing
Yes we where.
Definitely because of frequent problems am I right 😬😬😂😂😂
Very little tank action in this video. Still not a bad video though.
The engineers were wading in waist derp COLD water! Dont know how they stood it! Truly the GREATEST GENERATION!
Very interesting and informative video! I wish there were more tank action, but overall great video!
My great grandpa was in world war 2 and did something really brave when a lot of people were dying he go onto the tank and started firing it
The US Army lost about 4900 medium tanks in WWII with approximately 1800 crewmen KIA. The Sherman was not the death trap that it’s made out to be.
Easy for you to say, mullet head. You never sat in one when a high velocity tungsten round from a 75mm or 88mm sliced through your front armor like butter and decapitated, shredded and dissected you and your crewmates as it passed through the rear engine deck and ignited the aviation fuel in the unarmored gas tank. It was a death trap in the ETO and no amount of revisionist history from greasy wannabe historians from PA will ever change that fact.
America's Choice ...And neither did you.
But at least I didn't make asinine comments about things I didn't know about, like you mullet head.
John Donnellan ...The US got caught flat footed. We had to build a war machine from scratch. Fast. The M4 was chosen for its light weight and maneuverability. It's a medium tank. Most likely a poor choice.
@John Donnellan The _M4_ was not a death trap in the slightest.
1:23 Looks like an A1 sherm because of the rounded hull but sounds like an A2 engine with the whine of the Detroit Diesel blowers
Edit: Or I can't really distinguish the GAA and the 6046 sound at idle
M4 sherman i love it
Why it's terrible tank
Im too :-D
@@traktori2888 shut up, sherman are the best tank of world war 2, why are you getting your knowledge from WoT!? Based on what are you seeing!?
@@traktori2888 - Says who?
@@traktori2888 You serious?
LMAO at the sound engineer that added sound! @10:54 he thinks that the guns are only firing when he sees a muzzle flash, and then at 11:01 he thinks that each bullet has a tracer and makes the sounds like the machine guns are firing in semi auto...
it's 80 something years ago.
Gotta love the added sound effects lol
"200 metric tons each" for the tracks on an Abrams, you say. That would make the tracks alone weigh six times the weight of the entire Abrams. You need to do better. 0__0
Firing into an empty mountainside, no enemy would expose themselves there.
This is only one reason we stand for our great flag, God bless our troops thank you.
I love those old films...
These "training videos" always make war seem ease,clean and planned. But it is hard, dirty, and chaotic.,.,.,.,.
To say that a Sherman tank can kill a German the standard M4 with the 75 was low velocity but the Sherman was fitted with the 76 to take out any German tank and they stood their ground in Korea against the Russian tanks
The 75mm. was not low velocity.
Yes. Compared to other tank rounds it was very low velocity what was a very good round
@@russellbrill3721 Not the 76mm. _F-34_ or the Italian 75mm. for that matter.
The T-34 featured a 76mm but compared to the American 76mm witch was high velocity that doesn’t mean the T-34’s gun was low velocity.
80% or so of the rounds fired by M4’s were HE rounds in support of infantry. The 75 mm HE round had a larger effective zone than the comparable 76mm round.
Those tires squeaky
I'm here because of the movie Fury. I've seen it maybe 10 times.
11:35 Fellow on the truck is not Murrican.
?
@@peterson7082 Australian?
Aussie
Yep..... That’s an Aussie alright.
Thanks to all that served and paid the ultimate price in past and current conflicts and wars for our freedom. 🇺🇸
A tank is technically a cramped death sentence
Can I use some of the footages for an inverview please?
my grand grandfather was in ww2 he killed 20 + people and he died inside a tank because my grandma said a person chuck a grenade inside the tank and my grand grand father was in it so it ended up killing him
wow, very intesting documantary! I`ve been at Volturno in Italy and nowadays is is nearly impossible to Visualise the incredibly muddy, torrential rainy and very strong wind. Mind you that it has never been a beautiful place but still.....
Critical hit!
How do they edit these films?
Smoking pot.
Thomas Linton ?
play yoko ono's classic hit song warzone and then play this
clearly NOT combat footage, tho most shot in combat theatres.
Hardly "amazing," given that it's nearly eight decades old. 0____0
well, we all know this is only for propaganda purposes, the battle is more hellish. I pray for those who died in this battle
I think the British had it right and thus the Sherman firefly was born.the standard short barrel 75 mm was all but useless except close range.where as the Brit high velocity qf 17 pounder could engage german panzers at range.
Not really. The 75mm was a vastly more effective ALL AROUND weapon compared to the 17# gun. The 17 could kill tanks, but it didn't have a good HE round, and it couldn't fire smoke or other service rounds. US tankers used way more HE rounds and that was a big part of the reason why the 75mm stayed around for so long. Also, the Germans just didn't have that many tanks, so the 75mm was just more useful more often than not.
I do agree that the British got it right in one way: mixing Fireflies with standard M4s. That way you have the gun tanks supporting the regular tanks with each doing what they are best at. A 2:2 or 3:1 ratio with standard M4s to Fireflies looks reasonable.
@@rcgunner7086 really if you read any of the after action reports you would know that the Sherman's were Cleary outmatched going up against german panzers and suffering huge losses.even later in ww2 the US army started to experiment with longer barrel 75mm guns realizing that the short barrel gun simply was outmatched with its very low muzzle velocity.and you can clearly see the US army was learning its lessons with the introduction of the perishing late in the war sporting a long barrel 90mm which prove to be a huge success when engaging Panthers and tigers at range.
German panzers? ow about American panzers? Panzer is German for, "Tank".
@@HiTechOilCo ok and your point is.but generally when referring to german armour its reffered to as as panzers.only time I've ever heard panzers referring to American armour is obviously when germans are talking about American armour.
For those of you trying to compare the US tanks to the German and Soviet tanks of WWII, there is no comparison. Literally - there is no comparison. US tanks were not designed to take on other tanks. They were designed as infantry support. The American anti-tank plan was to use aircraft (which is why the Battle of the Bulge started off so poorly for the Western Allies) and exploit the known shortages of Axis oil reserves. While Shermans did, on occasion take on Panzers, they eventually learned tactics that would mitigate the German tank's advantages. That said, they avoided tank battles whenever possible as pound for pound the German tanks were considerably better.
Wrong.
Nonsense.
U talk about M4A3 but they had tank destroyers too, yes they
Then whose side would you have wanted to be on?
Honestly, I don't think that they avoided German tanks. There just weren't that many of them and the ones there were out there tended to go after the Brits due where the Panzer Divisions were. That changed later in war as the allies got closer to Germany. More often than not the US was going up against TDs like the STUG III, Hetzer, and so on. The M4 was quite good against them, and frequently it held its own against even Panthers. The battles of Arracourt Schmidt are examples of where well handled M4s clobbered Panthers. German tanks were technically better, but German training got really bad towards the end. The US Army didn't really scream for 76mm and up gunned tanks until it got a real dose of them in the Bulge.
"I am coming to you to ax for a quick favor." Sure Joe. Here's a favor. Get institutional help.
The Sherman Best Tank of WWII
T-34*
@@stalingaveusanorder6262 I think you need to actually research that. T34 way over rated
Uhm, you know they lost alot of tank before they realized that they need to build a better one against the German tank.
@@astudentpilotlife You do know going into ww2 the Americans and British didn't have alot of experienced tankers right? Which would lead to loses and always being on the offensive pulled that number up also. The usa had the correct tank for what it was doing which was combined arms. Even then the sherman out classed the panzer 4 and everything smaller. It killed tigers and Panthers and well almost everything it met. Now the tank that was supposedly better the pershing actually ended being replaced by the sherman so which was better?
@@chadjustice8560 I do know that but i was thinking at the beginning of the war. American thought they were ready but once they realized it. They upped their game. It still amaze me tho
Where's Animal???
The Sherman was fine in the Pacific. It was murder to send men out in Sherman's on and after D-Day.
it wasnt. 1 out of 5 sherman crewmen died as an average in the european theathre. besides, they were the only tanks capable to atleast kill things aside from infantry (see the panzer IV)
Myth. Shermans combined with American combined arms, training and doctrine were vastly supperior to their German counterparts, as seen for an example in the Voges panzer offensive.
Given that infantry had over 3x the casualty rate of tank crews, what do you call what they experienced?
1/3 as likely to die as an infantryman. So no infantry?
The most effective use of the Sherman was by the 4th and 3rd Armored Divisions. Their tactics involved close infantry support, combined with adequate air support, and intelligence to find and penetrate where the German forces were weakest, not frontal attacks against heavily defended positions. They moved quickly, keeping the Germans off balance, and bypassed positions where possible. Too many commanders simply didn't understand how to use the Sherman effectively, Ironically, the Russians had a number of Shermans, and loved them.
Military training film is not action.
M4 tank. Only the British troops called it a Sherman during the war.
Not exactly
Branson they called it, cuz it burned fast....
@@jonaspianomusic3101 That's another myth, and it was "Ronson" in the lie, not, "Branson". That advertising slogan didn't exist until the '50s. Sure, Shermans burned, all tanks burned. Do you know why? Because once they're disabled by the first hit, the enemy will continue to fire at them UNTIL they burned to make them unrecoverable. Most crew lived on after the first hit because they'd bail out of the tank before it was set on fire.
The US adopted the name at the end of either 44/45.
@@Mishn0 Not only that you're inside a metal box full of stacked explosives.
As the troops move up everything around them turns into a wasteland, horrible place for a young soldier to die. War is dreadful and the weak are not sacrificed but the best. It could be the reason that the human brain has decreased in size for the last ten thousand years. War continually taking the best along with stalin figures throughout history. It could be the reason we can't figure out how the ancients made the wonderful Egyptian stone works.
We didn’t even penetrate their armor
Yes, we did. This video is myth unrelated to reality.
Did the War Department ever provide any kind of explanation as to why the Sherman had such a low power main gun? It became clear almost immediately that the Sherman's main gun couldn't do the job. Why did it take so long to fix this problem?
Sherman was not initially designed as anti tank - it was mass produced for infantry support - hence the low velocity HE shells and low armor pen
@@jstop311 Not the case at all
Not the case at all
@Johnny Dotson His point was the _M4_ was intended for infantry support. While partially true (Armored Force viewed medium tanks as a supporting asset to all other combatant units in making and exploiting breakthroughs ), per Field Manuals _FM 100-5_ and _FM 17-5_ the priority target for medium tanks were other tanks. They did not do such when it came to the _Panther_ or _Tiger._
The "job" was far more than the occasional heavy enemy tank or tank destroyer. Learn first; then opine.
Sherman was the pinto of the tank world.
No it really wasn't.
Vega.corsair.gremlin.k car.
Ignorance is bliss.
wrg
Check tank losses Europe.
HIIII
LMFAOO AHAHAH
If they told the truth they would have said, “our Sherman’s get their butts kicked against German tanks”.
Yeah, the sherman was so bad that only one person got killed every time a tank was destroyed! It was ssoooooo bad that it was only 3 times more effective than the panther!
This video was about the pacific theater. The Japanese had little in the way of tanks.
@@APFS-DS my ass if they hit our ammo load it would light up like the t72
Rather be on my feet with a bazooka
You would be slightly over three times as likely to be killed than an M4 crew member.
can you imagine a world where this actually happened ?
What
Pretty boring. Not much action here. The German war videos are much better.
childlike production ..the work of USA Oafs..
too bad they dont show the Tigers and Panthers waiting for them to take them down with fun :-)
Most Tigers and Panthers were taken down by running out of fuel or just breaking down and being blown up by their own crews. A Sherman actually having to face a Tiger or Panther in combat was pretty rare. Mostly they were quite successfully blowing up StuGs and pill boxes.
@@Mishn0 maybe i havent made myself clear^^ i ment the tigers and Panthers taken out the Shermans!
@@BW-og1vu No, you were clear, just clearly wrong. There were too few Tigers and Panthers operational (not broken down or out of fuel) to make any difference. They may have been "waiting", but only because their crews had blown them up and run off.
@@Mishn0 By telling me that i was clearly wrong, i would suggest you to do some homework. There have been quite some documented fights between Tigers, Panthers and Shermans at the western front. Which, counting the numbers where all won by the german side. I never said that the V and VI wheren't low on fuel or stuck due to technical problems. And by telling me they waited ONLY because the crews blew them up i furthermore suggest you to get some research about the operational behaviours of the 3 heavy tank battalions at the western front.
@@BW-og1vu "Clearly wrong" is pretty close to "massively overstating" in my opinion. What percentage of Sherman losses were due directly to Tigers and Panthers? Maybe 5%? Probably less. Regular old artillery probably accounted for more. AT guns and StuGs were FAR more likely to encounter a Sherman than either of them. You're just another of the crowd of people that like to bash the Sherman using false characterizations. Go away.
Shermans knocked out in their thousands.
the*
Panzers knocked out in their thousands.
They were knocked out by the thousands, but the spam proved to be too much for the germans. Sherman's design was intended for ease of maintenance and so parts could be replaced quicker. Not only were they spammed, damaged shermans got back into battle quickly rather than german vehicles who suffered breakdowns and replacing a damaged transmission took too long. Sherman's were like ants man, they may be weak, but u kill one, hundreds more take its place
+spooT
Weak as compared to what?
the sherman had a better gun than the tiger (easy 6 and easy 8) and could go faster (any myth about how a sherman could not pen a tiger from the front is a lie). also they didnt catch fire as often and finally, the book death trap isnt accurate (look at the cheiftain explaining how the shermans really did in combat for more proofs).
this tank is the biggest fail of ww2
Food of tiger
Wait what!?
-tiger was a food of sherman
-japanese tanks was a food od sherman
-italian tanks was a food of shermans
-t-34 was a food of sherman
-pz4 was a food of sherman
-pz3 was a food of sherman
-kongstiger was a food of shermans
Could do without the goddamn music
Oh, so I guess you want to go back to WWII and ask the guy to remove the music?