Wow that was an awsome vid on in my opinion one of if not the best tank of WW2. The only thing is thier could be a part 2, its service in the Korean war agianst the T34/85 tank and later conversion of the ultimate Sherman tanks helped with french technology. Isreali upgunned and moddified Sheman M50 and to the Super Sherman M51 tank which knocked out a Russian T62 tank in the Yom Kippur war and going up agianst its old nemisis the PZIV that Syria had needs to be told.
What do you mean? It was bursting into flame all the time! Constantly! 4000-8000 times per second in a very small, contained area at the rear of the vehicle. This carried on the entire time the tank was operating. I believe this was a common issue with the majority of tanks.
Any reference for Germans using the term Tommy cooker, or the Zippo name? I've seen a number of discussions on this in FB, Quota etc, and no evidence for either has been found by anyone who's tried looking. D
My grandfather, Sherman commander 17th Tank Battalion 7th Armored said to anyone who asked and I quote "People give the Sherman hell because the armor couldn't stop the kraut 75s and 88s, well name me one damn allied tank that could outside of the big Russian ones at the very end of the war" He also pointed out that "Not every German tank was a Tiger" and "They burned because some guys stuffed them overly full of gun rounds" Granted this was one man's perspective, but I wish he could have been interviewed by a museum like yours before he passed in 2012, in his shed, smoking a cigar cleaning a shotgun after pheasant hunting. Great man.
@@SHADOWFRENZY92 Think of the possibilities of a visit . . . The tank museum at Base Borden, Ontario Regiment tank museum, and the Canadian War Museum''s tank collection are all in Ontario.
For some reason I remember "Holy Roller" being in the background of the first campaign mission of Call of Duty 3. Would be a nice Easter egg if I'm remembering correctly.
Honestly once the Sherman tanks got upgraded cannons they were able to go toe-to-toe against all German tanks. The armor wasn't as good compared to some of the later German models. But the number 1 deciding factor in tank v tank warfare was always about who got visual and range and fired first. Not to mention the US could outproduce everyone and field the most tanks.
that stabilizer when used made for a huge improvement too. getting the gun stable faster after moving gave you precious seconds of advantage during a meeting engagement.
Another factor that is often overlooked is that the M4 had two periscopes, one for the commander and another for the gunner. In the german tanks the gunner had no periscope, only the aiming telescopic sight, with a reduced width of field, and therefore was slower to adquire targets. That was an advantage for the crews of the M4.
@@luisangelgonzalezmunoz7071 I would still say crew experience is the #1 defining factor. A good tank commander would maximize his advantages whilst reducing the disadvantages by picking terrain and angle of attack. Sherman crews became very adaptable towards the end of the war once they had actual battlefield experience.
Exactly, it was just a medium tank which is hard to compare with German or Russian heavies... Even the Panther was in fact rather a heavy than medium tank.
Strategic mobility is also important…the Sherman was designed to be built in Michigan, shipped to England, and ferried across the Channel in an assault landing craft…lots of weight restrictions involved even before it appeared on the battlefield.
This is an important factor that often gets overlooked! Not to mention a lot of the bridges it had to cross in Europe couldn't support anything much heavier.
@@0lionheart The wehraboos don't like discussing contexts, only looking at a Top Trumps-like set of stats, not the practicalities. It was either the Chieftain or the Mighty Moustache himself, David Fletcher, who said the most important thing on the Sherman were the lifting eyes that got them off the docks and craned onto Liberty Ships.
Wasn't one other thing they had to consider was that it had to fit on the existing railroad flatcars for transportation to whatever port it was leaving from? 🤔
@@hoilst265 Actually the silly Sherman fanboys don't look at look at logistics al that much either as they love to repeat those silly myths about the Sherman could not not weigh more, Liberty ships had a crane with a 50 ton capacity, much heavier stuff was shipped across the ocean, and German engineers likely had a much better idea of what European bridges could handle than American engineers.
@@Dreachon But how many could you send over on each ship? how many can you transport on ships and landing craft? How many landing crafts will you need? And how will it affect your overall war effort in time, material, and manpower? Unlike most other designs, the Sherman survived in regular service in some armies for decades. Maybe mostly due to numbers, but it was effective, reliable and up-gradable enough to do so.
The Sherman was not the greatest at tank on tank combat, but it was great at distributing high explosive shells and machine gun fire across the battlefield, and we built tons of them. if you were an infantryman, pinned down by a mg-42 in a barricaded position, or by a half-track, or what have you, you didn't care if the thing could penetrate a king tiger turret or not, you were just glad it was there
It was also really good at being where it was needed, operational, with trained crews, fuel, ammo, maintenance crews and spare parts, in numbers large enough to win.
My father served in the Canadian army as a radio operator/loader on a Firefly. He was at the front from October 1944 until the end of the war. Returning home in 1946. His tank was hit and burned out but thankfully they all got out.
@@bebo4807 Who is HAVE? Made it out how and what? If you you want to correct someone else correctly, then you need to write correctly, too. A good example: Try ".., your father might not have made it out (in time)."
@@Paronak Not only large hatches, MANY hatches. 5 in fact And they were spring loaded so you didn't have to lift the entire weight to open it.. A T-34 might only have one. A sherman crew took less time to get out and stand up on the ground than it took to open a single hatch on a T-34.
There was a significant difference in casualties between the Cromwell and Sherman when hit by artillery and anti tank fire typically 55% of the Cromwell Crew escaped unhurt whilst its only 35% for Sherman. Also a greater number of casualties died from their injuries in the Sherman 46% than did in Cromwell 33%. From "Montgomery's Scientists Operational Research in Northwest Europe, the Work of No.2 Operational Research Section with 21 Army Group June 1944 to July 1945” by Canadian historian Terry Copp, published by Laurier Centre for Military Strategic and Disarmament Studies Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
I learned recently that the British Army actually really liked the US 75 mm gun from the Sherman tank, at least early on. They would salvage 75 mm guns from damaged/destroyed Shermans and mount them on Churchill tanks. Field modified Churchills are easy to spot in photographs because they have the external gun shield from the Sherman.
The British also figured out how to bore out a 6 pounder to 75mm and make it use American 75mm ammo. pretty sure a modern engineer would have a stroke if you suggested thinning out a cannon barrel to push a wider round through it today lol.
@@dominuslogik484 There would only be a problem if you tried to use the ‘76’ mm round because that round has a much bigger case to hold more propellant thereby generating higher breech pressure and velocity. The higher pressure ‘76’ mm round was also much heavier, just like the German equivalent. Doing the same thing to produce more powerful German 88mm flak guns and British 3.7” flak guns was not so much of an issue because the gun crews were larger, had more room to work in and simply had to place the rounds into automatic loading systems that also set the fuses.
@@dominuslogik484 The 6lb gun was overbuilt. Ammunition could not always be relied upon to have consistent charges and sometimes there would be "hot" rounds that produced elevated breech pressures. The conversion of these guns to 75mm took advantage of that extra strength built into the design to handle the new ammunition. There was the extra risk because of the reduced capacity to handle "hot" rounds but that was considered acceptable because it got a more capable round into the fight.
A key advantage of the sherman that you didn't touch on was logistics. it was designed to be very easy (relatively, for a tank of the time) to transport by rail and by sea to all corners of the world. also, compared to its contemporaries, it was designed to be easy to repair, with modular systems like a transmission that could be swapped out as a unit.
If I remember correctly, a Sherman with a busted transmission could be fixed (complete tranny swap) in the field, with hand tools, by 2 guys, in 5 hours. A Panther? first you needed to tow it to a shop, then remove the entire turret with a crane, then remove a firewall, driver seat, radio, etc. Pull tranny out of the turret ring and replace. A Dozen guys over a week to do.
The Sherman was an outstanding tank in its basic configuration, with excellent armor and a good gun with a superb HE round when it was introduced, and it was still a very good match for US tank doctrine late in the war, even in the European theater. The fact that it was accompanied by Shermans and M10 tank destroyers with 3 inch guns that could frontally defeat Tigers and Panzer IVs in ample abundance made it even better in theater, and it's part of why the Allies steamrolled their opposition in every theater. The Sherman in any configuration is one of the best tanks of the war, and they had tens of thousands of them available. The numbers alone tell the tale, it did very well.
I wish you would have talked about the life of the Sherman after WWII, because there's a lot of interesting things that countries did with Shermans in the Cold War Era. The French, Israelis, and other countries had projects to adapt and up-gun Sherman Tanks they purchased
Isreal is great at upgrading old tanks, their up-armored M60 Magach still looks like a viable war machine today, even though they stopped using them once they had enough Merkavas built.
@@peterrobbins2862 Is the right answer. Other middle east nations still used the Panzer IV and Jagdpanzer into the 1960s until they were all gone (not many left to begin with).
Another advantage, pointed out by historians, it was shippable. It was small/light enough to be shipped easily by rail, or by boat across the Atlantic. Try that with a Tiger. or even a Churchill.
That was a design factor in all of them. The Churchill was even limited by "being train transportable on standard tracks" not sure if the German designers gave similar consideration as the Tiger apparently had problems due to its width.
@@Dreachon Not silly - a discussion like normal people have. I would be interested in knowing how many Tigers and Churchills were in N. Africa compared to all the other tanks on both sides.
My father was a design engineer/ welder at Detroit facility for the duration of WW II. He would design and make modifications on the first shift, then went on the line and welded for his second shift every day. He had an unbelievable constitution. Rarely slept more than 4 hours a day. I know he gave his all to help support and win the war. I am honored and grateful to him, and all the other men and women who " left it all on the field" for this nation. Thank you!
Excellent video. I think two points were sadly missed: 1) part of the M4's design was to allow for its shipment across the oceans, which limited its tare mass; and, 2) the provisions for crew survival with the reasonably well-placed hatches for the crew to escape a knocked out tank. I'd also add its relative ease of maintenance, but the archive photos made the point.
Excellent video thanks Chris. Many years ago we met an ex Sherman tanker out walking and got chatting after he overheard us talking tanks as kids. He was open about its flaws but very proud of it. He said their commanders worked out of the tank a lot to spot the enemy first and said where possible they then used its speed to outflank the Germans to get at their side or rear. That’s where their radios and coordination allowed them to effectively take on even Tigers. That chap was so important in my grasp of tactics being a major part of the effectiveness, over ’Top-trumps’ figures, from a relatively young age.
Hmmm what about when the Tigers knew that Shermans were there and simply outgunned them, for example when 44 Shermans of the Canadian 28th Armoured Regiment (Worthington Force) were decimated at Estrees la Campagne on 9th August 1944, mostly by the Tigers of Schwere SS Panzer Abteilung 101 plus Panthers of 12th SS. The Shermans didn't stand a chance. The Tigers stood off at range and simply picked them off. No Tigers were knocked out. It was a one sided annihilation.
Which is why they developed the tactic to find the German tanks from outside the tank because they could then use their mobility to counter the superior standoff ability. As I said in my first post they understood the flaws and compensated for them as much as they could. The advantage of surprise or open terrain that suits the bigger guns would always be an advantage.
@PaulRhB I don't think you understood my point. It wasnt always possible to use mobility etc. Estrees la Campagne is a perfect example of Shermans being able to do nothing in response.
@@lyndoncmp5751 But in counterpoint the situation you describe didn't happen often, in an open field situation where the Tigers had a clear field of fire. Read any books or talk to the people who fought there, they will tell you the situation you describe was rare. The terrain suited the Shermans, because the terrain in France was where you had towns and villages, hedgerows, dykes, forests that didn't lend itself to that. There is another thing, one that James Holland pointed out in his book on the Sherwood Rangers. They found the moss effective use of the Sherman was working with infantry ( which after all it was designed to support), it was symbiotic. The visibility in a tank isn't that great, the infantry acted as the eyes and ears for them. I would bet that the Canadian unit was operating stag, without infantry support. The situation you describe would be rare. Tactics emphasized working with infantry, they realized it was effective. Another reason was Tigers were rare on the western front, and against standard German tanks they were effective. The third reason was Shermans by doctrine were not out there looking for tanks. The US had tank Destroyers for that. They were exceedingly mobile, could spot the enemy tank before they saw them, maneuver, and kill them from a long way out. They were designed for going after tanks& were used that way. The British w the firefly could be more aggressive , though from reading Holland they like the US didn't seek out tanks, but the firefly could protect a unit against any kind of german tank.
@@njlauren The British/Canadian sector of Normandy was not characterised by lots of Bocage, as the American sector was, especially once Caen was taken in early July, and even at times before that. The country was more open east and south east of Caen. Fields of fire were often pretty good. I believe the mean range was 750 yards. The British and Canadians had an increase in tank losses end July and August, when they had to advance across more open ground. Operation Goodwood and Totalize are examples of this. In June British Commonwealth forces reported under 200 tanks as total losses. In August it was over 800. This was when the ground was more open, and superior Germany gunnery came into play.
You missed one of the M4's greatest strengths being so simple and easy to be maintained. She was built from the outset to be able to be completely rebuilding drivtrain with nothing more than a small engine crane and simple hand tools and to have the job done in a matter of hours instead of the days to weeks required by a drive train swap for even the Mk4 much less a Tiger or Panther.
Tank Museum should pay more attention to the research done by LTC Nick Moran (the Chieftain). Why the Sherman was what it was had as much to do with the fact that every Sherman had to be shipped a minimum of 3000 miles on ships and from port facilities not suited to tanks much larger or heavier. The concept of a heavy tank wasn't unappreciated by American planners but, for a big part of the war, logistics and production concerns dictated a medium tank. I believe it was Moran who said something along the lines of, "Better to have a hundred medium tanks now than 25 heavy tanks in a while."
I'm not sure I subscribe to Morans transport theory, US and European ports had been handling items far bigger and heavier than even modern tanks for decades before WW2. Things like steam locomotives, huge naval gun, transformers, armour plate and massive turbines, every modern port in every modern country could handle such things and I can't see why there'd be an insoluble problem with handling 40-60 ton tanks. The Germans got a few Tigers to Tunisia in early 43 and the British had no problem with their Churchill tank so I just can't see why the USA might have struggled with similar weights and sizes. There is of course the question of actual hold space on board ships but I can tell you that weight is not the deciding factor in this issue, a ship designed to carry 12000 tons of iron ore would not even notice 100 50 ton tanks. The prohibiting factor is actually the individual volume of a tank, with their turrets reversed all tanks are rectangular boxes and some are obviously bigger than others. An M26 is not greatly larger volumetrically than an M4, it is however larger and so instead of a typical T2 cargo vessel toting 80 M4's it totes 70 M26's.
@@antonrudenham3259 I'm not so sure it was an issue of being able to "handle" large items, I think it's a matter of handing large volumes of heavier materiel as rapidly as was needed, especially initially. Moran did research and, IIRC, stated the average port crane in the US could do 45 tons in a single lift. And the problem was solved later in the war via various infrastructure upgrades. Go back and look at Moran's various presentations for clarity. And then we go back to logistics, standardization and the fact that tank to tank duels were relatively uncommon. Most of the time, a tank was truly and mainly an infantry support weapon. It can be argued that US Tank Destroyer doctrine was a somewhat flawed concept, vs upgraded tanks or a new heavier tank. IMO, the biggest mistake in the ETO was not sending the 76mm Shermans in from the D-Day getgo.
Oh I expect they have and continue to do so. Nicholas Moran is a professional Armoured Officer, the Tank Museum staff are professional Historians. All of them know their stuff so I don't get too bent out of shape when they differ a bit on details.
I would count Moran as an actual historian at this point considering the amount of research he does with primary sources in the US national archives and the archives of other countries.
As in so much of such assessments, context matters: when did it come into usage; how was it intended to be used; what was its strengths and vulnerabilities; etc.. This is true for a wide range of "its", not just tanks. When introduced, the M4 was very effective. That it had an effective HE round - better than the upgrade 76 mm gun's - indicates that infantry support was intended to at least be a significant role (just as having an AP round proves that tank vs. tank was an expected role). Infantry support actions get less attention in tank histories, thus the M4's effectiveness in this role is much less visible/known. Implied, though not directly mentioned, is that contemporary British and German tanks were less reliable and serviceable than M4s. Also not mentioned is that because the allies were attacking to liberate, M4s (and other allied tanks, of course) often were driving into German tanks in concealment or prepared positions, advantageous to the German tanks.
So tank museum hired the former "history channel" writers? All tanks burn, it is often combat doctrine to shoot a tank till it burns 1942 Sherman is under gunned ? Ok what could it not kill ? M2 gun was very short lived even on M3 The harping on height is common, because hull down is not a thing I guess. No TDs were not supposed to be the primary AT unit as the Sherman was also supposed to fight tanks read Armor Force FM. A2 was sent to USSR in good part due to Soviet use of Diesel. 98mm not bad ? So Tiger I is what ok at less than a cm more ? APDS was wildly inaccrate. 76mm was available in june commenders decided not to use them on D Day.
A centimeter more is all it takes, and when your enemy has a far more potent gun than your armour stands you are in trouble, fortunately Tigers were not in abundance. The Sherman suffered from its own mass production, it was fine when it came out but steadily dropped back as development carried on, the problem was production was totally geared to making it, so changing to another tank would impact the numbers - which you need, but you also need something better, the Germans had this problem with the 109, we had it with the Hurricane, both very good aircraft but in the requirement of numbers development was limited, the T34 was the same, not the best tank but huge numbers of them and at what point do you interrupt production for a new development, which may not give the desired results, it's a gamble and had the war continued the lack of a better design may well have been problematic, as it worked out the designs lasted the conflict. I discuss this as original manufacturers not as service with third parties as that is a whole other topic.
Nick Moran demonstrated a significant survivability advantage of Shermans built after the first few - "Bugger! The tank's on fire". Escape from all positions is very fast.
Sherman: the transmission broke after driving 1500 km from France to Germany - just unscrew these few bolts and replace the gearbox, spare parts are there. Panther: after rolling off the railway ramp, the transmission broke and the tank burst into flames - back to the factory...
You are referring for the whopping TWO Panthers out of the TWO HUNDRED deployed to Kursk that caught fire and were written off while moving from the detrainment sector? This was caused by defective fuel line seals which was quickly rectified. Von Laucherts report on the two Panther abteilungs at Kursk is actually an eye opener. It shows battle damage was far more prevalent than mechanical issues for Panthers in the repair workshops. Von Lauchert also reported: "After several days the number of motor breakdowns decreased. Therefore it is speculated that the motors were not sufficiently run in" and that "transmissions didn't experience a high number of breakdowns. The transmission modification at Grafenwoehr were apparently successful". Nor did they get sent back to the factory in Germany. They were repaired by the field workshops within the Panther abteilungs. You can read this report in detail on pages 132, 133 and 134 in Tom Jentz's excellent book on the Panther tank.
@@lyndoncmp5751 still yet, those panthers could only go miserably short distances before burning up clutches, blowing transmission gears, grinding down transaxle bearings and so on, due to their crappy metallurgy late in the war and immense weight and overall crap design. And the idiot germans made it where you had to pull the entire turret off to get the transmission out, which became a very real problem after a very short amount of operational time.
@@ironfox2411 You are repeating exaggerated myths, and who told you that the Panther turret had to be removed to take the transmission out? All you did was turn the turret to the side. There are literally pictures showing this 😂
Like you already said in the video combat is fought in the factory as well as on the battlefield, if you look at the cost and production time of the Sherman tank then it rivals and may even surpass the efficacy of the T-34, and that is something, while maintaining decent quality of armor and gear.
Especially when you look at the performance on the battlefield by comparison. Shermans outperformed T-34s in every category. They even had early gun stabilization that allowed faster aimed shots on the short halt. This along with the wide view spotting the periscopes and excellent mobility enabled them to score about even with Panther tanks despite the Panther's bigger on paper numbers in armor and firepower.
@@josephahner3031 Correct, and well said. The Panther by tonnage is a WW2 heavy tank. Look up the tonnage of the T-34, M-4, Panzer IV. Then look at the KV-1 and IS-2, you will see the Panther is a medium tank in name only.
I read a memoir of a Red Army tank commander who served in both T-34s and Shermans. He said that they were both good, and had their positives and negatives as any tank did. The Sherman was very ergonomic and "luxurious", and the comparative drawback of the high profile ended up saving his life once - the Sherman hit a ditch and rolled on its side, and as the rest of the platoon proceeded down the road, they came upon an ambush of antitank guns and were destroyed.
I read a memoir of a Soviet tank commander. He loved the Sherman, thought it much better than the T-34, and he'd fought in both. One point was that the Sherman was comfortable, while the T-34 beat the crew up. This may not sound like much, but crew fatigue is a real thing. Exhausted men can't react as fast or aim as well. He also lauded the Sherman's reliability. His company of Sherman tanks would handle a long journey with no problems, while the T-34's would be dropping out due to malfunctions. Their mechanics were envied, because they had abundant spare parts and were equipped with full sets of American tools. The T-34 mechanics had to cannibalize and make do with the bare minimum of tools. Did he feel that it was a problem going against Panthers and Tigers? Not really, he never allowed his boys to fight one on one if he could help it. 2 to 1 was the minimum, 3 to 1 was better. Use one tank to distract at long range while working the others close, take off a tread, then they're dead meat. He noted that he had to always guard his Sherman tanks against Soviet infantry. They would steal the leather off the seats to fix their boots.
We have a saying here in America that puts an end to arguments like this one. "Scoreboard." It translates roughly to, "yes your panzers were ferocious but we won so..." Yeah.
A fine video. Nicholas Moran (The Chieftain) also does a great analysis of the tank citing it's realability, it's adaptability (including assault engineering roles) and the fact that it could be shipped just about anywhere from the battlefields of Western Europe to a far flung Pacific atoll. It doesn't have the glamour or the mystic of a Tiger but it's a solid work horse of a tank.
My grandpa was a tank commander in the 1st Canadian Armored Division under General Patton in the 8th Army. He rode in a Sherman all the way across Europe and said it was one of the best tanks of the war. He told me that he pissed himself the first time they got hit. But the round didn't penetrate so they kept on fighting.
There was no 1st Canadian Armoured Division serving in Europe During World War 2. There was a 1st Canadian Armoured Brigade which saw service in Italy. II Canadian Corps (January 15, 1943, to June 25, 1945) 2nd Canadian Infantry Division 3rd Canadian Infantry Division 4th Canadian Armoured Division 2nd Canadian Armoured Brigade these are the Canadian units that saw service in Northwest Europe 44 - 45.
The tank destroyer myth NEEDs to die. TDs were defensive in doctrine, meant to counter large armored thrusts. We're talking panzer corps at a minimum if not multiple panzer armies. The idea was an operationally mobile force that could rush to an area to blunt any penetration and stop a breakthrough. They'd be held at corps and army level, often in their own larger formations. This didn't change what the tanks were meant to do though. Tanks were meant to fight tanks. Sherman was meant to fight tanks. To oversimplify, they were the offensive, proactive side of the force while TDs were the defensive, reactive side (in theory, by late 44 they got dispersed to divisions and often used as quasi tanks; bunker busting was a common role due to their guns being good at concrete penetration).
Excellent 'chat’ that put to bed some of the myths of the Sherman. I wasnt aware of the number of variations. Very well delivered and the ‘pacing’ and editing in of actual footage was excellent. The Tank Museum is very lucky to have such authoritative people delivering the talks. If I was to have a suggestion it would be that with all the technical info a graphic to show differences would be good. For example a graphic (bar chart?) comparing the muzzle velocity and penetration of the various guns.
By mid 1944 both the Cromwell, Churchill, Panzer IV, Tiger and Panther had roughly similar reliability. In fact, during the pursuit phase after Normandy, Cromwells broke down less often than British Shermans.
@@TTTT-oc4eb Not true on reliability, plenty of facts out there on that. I purposely mentioned medium tanks. Look up the tonnage of the T-34, M-4, Panzer IV. Then look at the KV-1 and IS-2, you will see the Panther is a medium tank in name only. I want you to declaratively state what tank could have exploited Operation Cobra the way the Sherman did.
@@OPFlyFisher304 So show me those "plenty of facts". By mid 1944 both the Panzer IV, Tiger and Panther had readiness rates of 70+%, more than good enough for something like operation Cobra. Shermans broke down en masse during road marches, too, like all WW2 and Cold War tanks. And the Cromwell was at least as good by mid 1944.
@TTTT-oc4eb Correct. British 2nd Army reported a lower mechanical breakdown rate in Cromwells than Shermans during The Great Swan across France end August/early September 1944. By the way, a British medical study showed there was a significant difference in casualties between the Cromwell and Sherman when hit by artillery and anti tank fire typically 55% of the Cromwell Crew escaped unhurt whilst its 35% for Sherman. Also a greater number of casualties died from their injuries, in the Sherman 46% than did in Cromwell 33%. In essence, the Cromwell was considerably safer. From "Montgomery's Scientists Operational Research in Northwest Europe, the Work of No.2 Operational Research Section with 21 Army Group June 1944 to July 1945” by Canadian historian Terry Copp, published by Laurier Centre for Military Strategic and Disarmament Studies Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
Name one other tank that would have worked better than the Sherman. From performance, to reliability, to manufacturing, to repair, to logistics, from the Pacific to the Bastogne, I can’t come up with a better choice for the allies.
A lovely overview of the Sherman. I came to really appreciate the Sherman and get increasingly annoyed by various myths surrounding it. The Sherman burning myth, for the matter. I always wonder how does it compare to similar tanks of other nations and often struggle to find any decent data. From what I was able to stumble upon over the years, it does not look like Shermans burned at any more significant rate than comparable designs of other nations, like T-34, or Panzer IV. And when wet ammo bins became available, Shermans burned considerably LESS than competition, it seems. Ammo placement of the Sherman seems to be a contributing factor to the myth of its flammability, which bothers me to no end. Because most of the tanks of the period have similarly placed ammo, yet do not face the same amount of criticism. Iconic Tiger and Panther tanks have ammo stored in sponsons exactly like Sherman does. Panzer IV has one of its racks just behind the Driver's position, meaning a hull penetration is likely to detonate it. Crusaders and Cromwells have ammo around turret ring areas. Soviet tanks are also infamously crammed, with ammo stored on the floor and sides of the hull, on top of the entire sides being covered in fuel tanks. Most of the medium tanks of the period also had similarly thin side armour - 38mm for Sherman, 30mm for Panzer IV H, 45mm for T-34, 40-45mm for Panther. It is not like Sherman was uniquely thin. And yet, somehow the Sherman is supposedly uniquely flammable? Something does not add up here. Now, as for Sherman's gun not being designed as AT weapon... Well... M3 GMC would like to have a word - a tank destroyer carrying basically the same gun as Sherman. It is just that Sherman's gun could no longer keep up when Panthers and Tigers became more common.
Overwatch. Germany used insanely powerful 88's with a delayed action HE fuse against tanks since the Spanish civil war and throughout WW2. We didn't do that, the Soviets did but we didn't. When a 88 round only has to spend a small portion of its energy to penetrate say 50mm of armour its residual energy is spent inside the tank which makes it far more destructive and conversely when a 75 round has to spend most of its energy just making a hole its residual energy is greatly diminished with happier results for the recipient. The men who crewed the M4 all considered it brew up prone, you only need to read some of their memoirs to see that and coupled with the one hatch turret high casualties were inevitable, they also knew that. All tanks burn if penetrated with enough force and it's inevitable that an undergunned tank will burn more often than vice versa.
@@antonrudenham3259 Using gasoline rather than diesel made them burn more often when fuel was hit. also our most common shell was the APHE for the 75mm since the solid shot was really only used during north Africa and by the time we were fighting in Europe largely that shell was replaced. also almost all American weapons and equipment are surrounded by myths and negativity because Americans like to complain / we are allowed to complain with a free press all too happy to share our complaints on papers. You can find statements regarding every single piece of US equipment from WW2 to today talking about how the troops hate everything and how it definitely won't/doesn't work and yet somehow in the end everything works out.
@@lyndoncmp5751 Ditto, it's nice to know I'm not alone. The M4 came along at an opportune time, it was a good tank early on but these latter day revisionists who claim nonsensical 3% casualty figures for M4 crewmen really show their ignorance. The British found that for every M4 knocked out there were 1KIA and 2WIA and that's no better or worse than the other tanks they operated with one exception and so I can only assume that the tanks these people claim were so safe were different tanks fighting a different war against a different enemy. When asked none of them can show me the source for their claims, they just 'know' because 'somebody told them'. They do a great dis-service to the brave crewmen who mounted up and drove them into action day after day.
My family visited the UK in early July 2018 and my son and I altered our visit to include the museum because of my son’s love of the game World of Tanks and our love of Fury. We had an awesome visit and can’t wait to go back someday.
Look at how many M4's saw combat service, and how man were lost, and also many of the crew actually died. Something incredible like 97% of all M4 crew survived the war. Even when a Sherman was badly hit, the crew still had a very good chance of surviving. There's even some incredible footage this actually happening caught on film. It's amazing how quickly the crew could bail out if they needed to. Most other tanks of that era were much harder to bail out from, and I don't think any were easier to bail out from.
At the Battle of Arracourt, those older M4’s with 75mm guns took on Panthers and won. There’s more to a tank than the triangle of armor, gun, and mobility. Need to consider how well it’s set up for the operators, logistical support (maintenance, spares, etcetera), operational doctrine, and training. The German cats were harder to supply, maintain, operate, and learn compared to the Sherman.
Yes the Panther crews of Panzer Brigades 111 and 113 were green and poorly trained. They didnt even know how to use their own Panthers properly. They'd only received their Panthers to start training on a few weeks before. Panzer Brigade 111 didnt get them until 5th to 7th September. Arracourt began less than two weeks later. Also, the hastily formed new Panzer brigades (stop gap rush formations while the Panzer divisions were being rebuilt after Normandy and Bagration) didn't have any organic recon section. They engaged at Arracourt more or less blind. American air power became a factor as well.
@louislopez55 The Panther commander usually had excellent vision (superior cupola to the Shermans) and the aiming optics were excellent, especially for long engagements. Built by Zeiss. No problem with German aiming optics. Best in the world at the time. Germany lead the way in this.
@@lyndoncmp5751 True. This system is great for popping off T-34’s on the Russian Steppe, lying in wait with clear lines of fire. The Panther was brought on hastily, and proved to be a logistical Achilles heal for the German army. It was notorious for breaking down. Tanks are just part of the combined armed team. Making it effective, regardless of its capabilities read in the showroom brochure, in concert with other systems, with tested and proven doctrine and logistical support is what wins wars. The Sherman on the other hand was easier to maintain/repair, had ample spares available, and was easier for crews to operate and learn.
@@darrenvanderwilt1258 On the other hand the Panther when used by properly trained crews did well in Normandy and in the westwall battles of autumn 1944. In contrast to Arracourt, when the US 2nd Armored Division faced the Panthers of the experienced 9th Panzer Division at Puffendorf, they came unstuck. Panthers of 2nd Panzer Division also got the furthest in the Battle of the Bulge.
My father was the bow gunner in a Sherman tank. 3rd Army, 4th Armored, 37th Tank Battalion, Company C. His company, under Colonel Creighton Abrams, spearheaded the 3rd Army's penetration into Nazi lines in Baston. Massive respect to everyone who fought in that war.
One of the more underrated parts of it was all the different ammo types. Ive seen lots of docs where the crew uses the smoke shells to screen a hard target and then hit the flanks. Or fire smokes and give the crews an opportunity to retreat. One tanker called it the best tank there was for fighting against infantry.
The Germans feared the Firefly. They always looked for that massive 17 pounder sticking out of the turret so they could take those out first. This prompted British tank crews to paint a camo scheme on the barrel of the gun to make it look like a 75mm.
to say the us wasn't doing anything to improve the fire power of the Sherman is inaccurate, there were designs to mount the 76mm gun into the Sherman as early as 1942, its just on the originally turret it wasn't as ideal even with modifications made. Add in that in 42 the Sherman was facing mostly pz IVs and pz IIIs, there was no need for the more powerful gun as the 75mm was sufficient against those vehicles. Even going into 43 where the tiger would show up, they were so rare that it wasn't worth forcing a 76mm into the Sherman just for the rare tiger sighting. it wouldn't be till 44 that a better designed turret for the 76 mm in the form of the T23 turret that they would make the switch now that it could be done much more reliably, rather than having another rush job like the Lee/Grant or the Firefly.
I’m surprised no mention of the stricken weight limit because it was loaded by crane onto ships. While German and Soviet armor were not limited by this weight restriction because they were shipped by rail.
That is nothing more than a myth, dockcranes could lift way more than the 33 ton weight of the Sherman and early on the Libertyships got a 50 ton crane install for the number 2 hold. The entire claim that the Sherman could not weigh more because the cranes could not lift it is nothing more than a nonsensical piece of fiction.
The later versions were much improved over the early versions, less likely to catch fire when hit too. The Germans thought highly of their reliability, ease of maintenance, & space inside for the crew in examples they captured
@@chaptermasterpedrokantor1623- Even T-34-85 was a harder target to hit, then Tall and wide Sherman tank silhouette. T-34 was more stable, faster and did a lot better in mud, show and ice.
Easy to produce, easy to maintain, quick, relatively light so not bogged down and economical on fuel. Yes it didn’t have the best armour or gun but give me 5 Sherman’s over one panzer any day!
Well yeah, but you could get at most two shermans for one tiger 1, and 5 tigers to 10 shermans I'm pretty sure is L for the Shermans. Also not to mention panthers or panzer 4 which would be similarly priced and with much better performance than a sherman
@@deadringer4577 It took about 2 weeks to make a Tiger. The Sherman could be shipped and put into the fight in those two weeks. Correct me if I am wrong but I believe about 10 Tiger's were being built at any one time. Meanwhile America was making about 45 Shermans a day. So if we want to talk pure numbers. In two weeks there would be about 10 Tigers vs about 540 Sherman's.
@@deadringer4577 your numbers are slightly off as far as I can tell, shermans are estimated as a little cheaper than that, but even if you are correct in 2 Shermans costing 1 Tiger what is your point? Germany had very limited resources & its factories were getting constantly bombed. And many of its tanks were notoriously unrealible Better to have an all-rounder good enough tank than an expensive tank that you can never make enough of and is a logistical nightmare. Also since the US was on the offensive far from home, manouverability, reliability & supply chain was even more important than normal
@@trathanstargazer6421 maybe, but we saw how history turned out, and Germany could produce far fewer tanks in general than US, so we're not comparing that aspect, since if the US produced tigers, it would be a whole other story. In conclusion, having more stuff doesn't mean that the unit itself is better than the one you have less of
@@Dreska_ a generalisation. We are comparing a tank on tank or a platoon on platoon, not a country vs country since we already know which side won so there's no point. Also I'm pretty sure that having less stuff makes logistics easier to handle
I enjoyed this enlightened program. I recommend books by Stephen Zaloga. As others have mentioned, the weight, dimensions, and length of the gun were chosen so that the maximum number of M4s could fit on the ships that were designed to carry them. The Sherman was indeed designed to be easy to repair, because none of them were going back across the Atlantic (or Pacific) to be repaired at the factory. One thing that the United States got right in WW2 was the logistics train. That train kept new tanks coming, and shipped the parts to repair the ones that could be fixed.
It’s important to remember that the Sherman was on the offensive which increased combat losses being one side is hiding in the trees while the other is rolling down roads & open fields.
This is a weirdly inaccurate video for Tank Museum. The M4 was designed from the start for both anti-armor and anti-infantry roles. Its gun upgrades were planned from the start, and often delayed for lack of perceived need against enemy armor. Through the war it saw three different upgrades: in addition to upgunning some M4s with the 76mm M1 guns, the M10 and M36 vehicles - M4 derivates - carried 76mm and 90mm guns, respectively. But most Allied commanders didn’t think they needed the 76mm M4s before Normandy. But what the Americans seemed to understand from their British and French advisors is that most tank battles were fought and won by ambush. Everyone saw high losses on the attack and low losses on the defense. Whoever got the first shot typically won. What swung the balance in the favor of the Allies was that the Allied tanks had great tactical mobility and dominant strategic mobility, plus situational awareness: even though broadly the Allies were on the attack, tactically they were often ambushing German armor. M10 tank destroyers were able to lock down Tiger I tanks as soon as they met in North Africa. M4s had a 3.6:1 kill ratio over Panther tanks and about a 1:1 with Tiger tanks, both tanks that had a lot of great features and on paper the M4 shouldn’t have been able to scratch! Over 86% of M4 tanks survived the war, compared to 22% of T-34s and less than 5% of each German type. In fact, when Americans were worrying about M4s brewing up, they were 5% less likely to burn than Panzer IVs, and wet stowage widened the lead significantly. Moreover, the average number of tank crews killed when an M4 was penetrated was about 1, meaning in most cases all 5 crewmen got out safely.
"M10 tank destroyers were able to lock down Tiger I tanks as soon as they met in North Africa." Not a single Tiger was knocked out by any M10 in North Africa. Out of the 32 Tigers deployed there, only 7 were lost to direct enemy action. None to M10s. Source : Sledgehammers, Strengths and Flaws of Tiger Tank Battalions in World War Two by Christopher Wilbeck. "M4s had a 3.6:1 kill ratio over Panther tanks" Myth. It came from a skewed cherry picked report which ommited losing engagements and did not sufficiently establish that the tanks in question were even Panthers. Not to mention the propensity for American crews with ample ammunition to lob shells into already abandoned enemy tanks and calling it a "kill". This was a common practice. "and about a 1:1 with Tiger tanks" An even bigger myth. What is your source for this?
Those weren’t advance. They were tanks designed for an offensive role that ended up little more than semi-mobile pill boxes fighting defensive or holding battles. As with much the Germans did they simply designed the wrong stuff at the wrong time.
Thank you, Sir. As a former Infantry Officer, I can tell you that ANY tank is better then no tank when you need one. I believe the Sherman tank filled a gap when it was needed.
Could also have mentioned that with engine and armament upgrades the Sherman was used by the IDF well into the 1970s and was able to hold its own against T54's and T62's in the 1973 War
It was a very survivalable tank when hit. The reason so many are shown in news reel burning is because they were shot until they did burn. If it was only pierced but not burned it could be repaired. If it burned it was junked.
Since I found your channel I’ve learned so much about WW2 amour and I’ve been a war buff most of my life so thank you very much for your Tank Chats they’re most entertaining and informative very well done.
"Amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics." The Sherman fought in every Allied military, in every theater of the war, performing well in the role it was designed and acceptably in those it wasn't, and was relatively easy to maintain. It may not stand up to every tank on the field, but if you're trying to win a war not on forums it's a solid pick.
The Sherman carried my uncle through El Alamein to North Italy in the X Hussars. Another uncle rode one from Normandy into Germany, XXX corps armoured spearhead, 2 Grenadiers.
@@bigantplowright5711that's brilliant. my grandfather was in 1 para he was at Arnhem. Before that he'd been in north Africa (Tunisia) then Italy. It seems all of them had a long war
Love the video! M4A3(105) HVSS was an interesting variant. It had the upgraded suspension, wider tracks, slightly better frontal armor with the revised slope, field howitzer, 2x 30cal, m2 50 cal, manual turret & elevation, dry storage and that sweet Ford V8 propelling it to 30 mph.
What no one I have heard, or in books, “tank experts” ever says or notes is this when comparing American, Russian, British, and German tanks of WWII. . “What happens if you hit a Tiger with a Tiger 88mm? What happens if you hit a Mark IV with their great AT 75mm?” It was less about the armor, and more about the guns. Of corse we had desk generals in America saying “Tanks Don’t fight other tanks, they are for infantry support. Tank destroyers fight enemy tanks.” Of course they forgot to inform the other side. That one man killed a lot of allied tankers.
"Tommy cooker" was a term used of any tank and had nothing to do with it bursting into flames. In the heat of the desert, a metal tank without air condition would cook those inside, not literally of course. Also, while Shermans would catch fire (just like any other tank, Germans included) the crew survivability was high with Shermans.
And it could fit into ships/be hoisted at the ports with existing cranes. Imagine the infrastructure nightmare of re-building ports to hoist in the American Tiger tank!
One fascinating feature of these Tank Chats is the photographs used. When you pause on them and study them, there is a wealth of information to be gained. In one, for instance, there seem to be soldiers in German uniforms who have distinctly non-Aryan features. How did that happen? you wonder. I love these Tank Chats.
One of the things that always gets missed in these 'which tanks was better' arguments is the actual data. In particular, late-model Shermans went up against T34-85s in Korea, and did just fine against them. A lot of that came down to better training, but a fair bit also came down to better ergonomics and optics. Shermans could see and accurately hit T34s much more easily than the opposite, at range. The 76 was good enough in that environment that the on-paper advantages the T34 had in armor and penetration just really didn't matter.
@@yxmichaelxyyxmichaelxy3074 well as luck would have it Sherman tanks did fight T34s and was the superior tank. In the Korean war the shermans showed a kill ratio against T34s as 2.3 to 1. On top of that these would be post/late war T34s where the build quality and ergonomics would be better than earlier models.
@@matthewredman7814 'During the period July 1st - Sept 20th 1951, 40 UN tanks were penetrated by AP projectiles fired by T.34 tanks mounting 85 mm guns, self-propelled 76 mm guns, and 45mm, 57mm, & 76mm anti-tank guns. All these tanks were American, since British armour did not engage enemy tanks or anti-tank guns during this period [which contradicts the article above- I told you that information is confusing!] The tanks studied were the M24 Chaffee, the M4A3 Sherman, the M26 Pershing, & the M46 Patton.' Now do the staggering numbers of American armour. Ask the Soviets about this tactic. 😎
@@yxmichaelxyyxmichaelxy3074 yes you are right the Americans lost tanks too I'm not disputing that. And especially the Chaffee which did horrible because it neither had the gun nor the armour. But when it came to tank on tank between the Sherman and the T34, the Sherman's were taking out more than double their own number. This isnt my opinion its written down In multiple areas.
To me it simple, The fact 3% american tankers died in the war is much lower then any other country. Sherman did it job in the war and also brought back over 95% of it crew back home.
My Canadian reserve regiment fought in WW1 as an infantry battalion. In the 30s it became armoured and in WW2 it fought from the invasion of Sicily, through Italy then into NW Europe equipped with Shermans the whole time. It's WW1 honour roll goes on forever. For WW2, it's reasonably short.
I seem to recall the Germans having a pretty strict doctrine on when their crews could abandon their tanks - it had to be on fire, iirc. They were so hard up for materials that the tank was more valuable than the crew. Meanwhile, three more Shermans rolled off the assembly line to replace the one that was damaged, and two more were repaired and sent back into action - likely with experienced crews, because they survived their tank being hit.
My dad was with the 4th Armored Division as a tracked vehicle mechanic. That picture often shown of the engine being changed out with a wrecker is of keen interest to me. That is my dad sitting on the tank with his back to the camera. That photo is actually from the training center, I have the original one in the "yearbook" from his graduation from training. He and his 3 other mechanics got hit with a shell somewhere between Nancy and Metz. Dad was the only one to survive. He was in a coma for over a year. The dog tags from the others got mixed up and dad was listed as KIA. Being in a coma he couldn't sort out the error. He remembers waking up in a hospital where he saw a nurse standing at the end of the bed writing in his chart. "Well hello there" he said to the nurse who promptly fell out in a dead faint. Dad said he could still hear the back of her head hit the concrete floor. He felt really bad about it and said his voice must have sounded like the devil himself. They stayed in touch for several years but when he got married mom was the jealous type. He never told me the nurse's name. Dad lived on to die on his 70th birthday in 1979. He was my best friend and I miss him every day. Cheers Terry
Fascinating! This video corrected some of the misconceptions I've long had about this grand design. Like the P-51 Mustang (US air frame, British Merlin engine), the Sherman Firefly is a living symbol of the vital Anglo-American alliance that won the war.
There's always a stinky, dishonest idea that pops up in the collective's minds once the M4 is brought in discussion: its comparison with the Tiger and the Panther, as if those were the standard german tanks. People need to start comparing the M4 with the Pz. IV instead.
Another great video. My father-in-law was a tank and troop commander in C squadron of 149 RTR (7th KOYLI) which was equipped with Shermans instead of the Grant/Lee M3s the rest of 149 RTR was equipped with
A key element was working as platoons or troops with infantry helping to spot targets that needed to be dealt with. Many tank commanders spent considerable time on foot looking for good hidden routes and firing points. No stupid swanning around like the first north African battles with inferior tin cans on tracks. Kasserine pass for the US pointed out the need for well-planned movement at all times. Keep up the great reports.
The thing that made the Sherman great isn't that it was great at anything a tank needs to do. It's that it was *pretty good* at almost EVERYTHING a tank needs to do, and there were a lot of them!
Two other points to consider in this debate which tend to get lost in the abstract of 'Tank Top Trumps' is about complexity and weight. On the former, it was easier to repair a Sherman than most of its German counterparts, and the reliability meant that there was a greater chance of getting large numbers of Shermans into the field and keeping them there, something which was increasingly hard for the Germany army as the war continued, the supply lines suffered and their big tanks became more complicated. On the latter, it's also worth noting that you had to get the Sherman to the battlefield in the first place, which involved moving by sea (i.e. across the Channel, and indeed across the Atlantic or the Pacific for the American made ones depending on the theatre). The weight therefore limited where the Shermans could be put off from their ships, as there weren't that many ports on the European coastline which could handle the unloading of a 50-60 tonne tank, even in the best of circumstances. As such, the Sherman always has to be considered as having more limitations to its design than the German machines, which is why it tends to suffer either in head to head match ups or if we're considering it within the artificial constraints of a game like World of Tanks which strips a lot of that nuance away.
I wish that more would be said about how safe the crews actually were in these tanks. Due to the large internal volume and having 4 and later 5 large spring loaded hatches, when a Sherman was knocked out, there would be on average 0.8 deaths out of the crew of 5. In fact more Shermans were destroyed than crewmen lost. Of all tanks in WW2, only the Churchill Mk VII (at 0.76 deaths per tank lost) had a lower death rate when getting hit, while many of the more celebrated tanks like the T-34 which on average suffered 3.0 deaths per tank lost.
Two of my Uncles were in the ETO separate divisions. Both got Silver stars for taking out Mark 4 German tank. They told me one guy got the DSC for taking a tiger tank out.
For me, the M4 was one of the best armoured vehicles. Well designed, robust, rather easy to repair. It post WW2 career, especially in Tsahal hands, proved there was still spare potential after WW2
We found a Sherman 105 outside Taji, Iraq in early 2004. It was loaded onto a HEMTT and carted back to base. Last I heard, it was taken back to the States and sits outside the headquarters of some armored battalion. When I saw it, I was geeking out. "It's a Sherman! IT'S A SHERMAN!" Everyone else was, 'Yeah, so?' "That's from World War II! What's it doing out here? GASP! It's a 105 Sherman!!!! Dibs."
A Sherman 105? As in the howitzer version? It would make more sense to be a M51 but dang, yall are really lucky and I too would be freaking out if I saw one
During the Korean War Shermans Kille T-34/85s at a rate of 2 to 1. Not bad for a undergunned, under armoured tank. When designing the Sherman they knew that the tank would often engage with other tanks and the design they came up with was superior to the Panzer IV in armour, mobility and firepower.
I suspect most 88mm antitank guns shooting at western allied tanks were towed artillery, not German tanks. Those 88’s were quite vulnerable to 75mm HE rounds
Nicholas Moran found the US Army's war statistics on the casualties of Sherman tank crews in WW2. In comparison to both Russian (extremely high)and German (medium) crews, the Sherman crews were twice as safe. More US tankers were killed OUTSIDE the tank than inside. The British crews had a 30% higher death rate, mainly due to wearing a beret instead of a helmet. That said, the Normandy campaign was a terrible place to operate any tank, US or German, due to the close in fighting of the bocage hedges.
Numbers. We have seen the 60,000th Sherman in the video. Germany produced around 25,000 tanks - altogether all of the models, all the years of the war. Add another 50,000 T-34s to the Soviet side, and you will see how little it counted how good or bad the Sherman was.
Sure it was. As soon as the Brits put that 17 pounder inside the Sherman tank, it became the bully on the block. Unfortunately, Michael Wittmann (Germany's panzer ace) found this out the hard way.
Michael tank along with two other Tiger 1 where knocked out because they focused on British tank in woods in front of them . The Sherbrooke Fusiliers Shermans where on left Frank hidden behind the walll of an Abbey . They could not miss , as they where 150 yards away . By the way their young commander was the highest scoring allied tank with 18 kills . I personally knew one crew member Bill Paw . God Bless him !
@@lyndoncmp5751 The Sherman was the best because it best fit the tactical doctrine of the nations that used it and it was able to cover the most doctrines across the most nations. Which is why it was so widely used and saw so much success both during the war and post war.
@@DavisJ-ln6fw Well, as balance the British reported fewer mechanical problems and lower injury and survival rates with the Cromwell than Sherman and nobody would declare that the Cromwell was the best tank of WW2.
The Cromwell was nowhere as widely used as the Sherman nor was it as versatile nor was it used nearly as much after the war so I would still argue the Sherman's superior to the Cromwell as it's advantages had more substantial implication for the overall war effort. Note this is just my opinion .
@@DavisJ-ln6fw The Sherman was widely used after the war because there were tens of thousands of them left. Same with the T-34. There were nowhere near as many Cromwells built. The Cromwell basically turned into the Comet.
In the End... It was Good Enough at everything it was asked to do. It was Reliable, easy to Ship, easy to Maintain, able to be Mass Produced & Available when it was needed... Which is fortunate because it was all they had at the time.
The short and easy way to answer the question posed in the title is to answer which side won the war and how many functioning (as in can move on its own power) specimens are left? The other side of that question would be that the US pulled a bit of an unthinkable miracle. During the conflict that proliferated armored warfare and coming from having absolutely no experience creating any kind of tank aside from the few examples we made between wars using the purchased samples we got from the UK and France, the US came into this absolutely cold. After being rushed for the M3's, we got the M4's rolling and we didn't really make much better that hit that ratio of weight, firepower, armor, speed, and cost. Everything else we made during WWII compromised one of those in one form or another including variants of the Sherman. That's also a bit of a cheat to the proposed, "There is no perfect balance between armor, firepower, and speed." There isn't in one tank, but you throw enough Sherman variants at the problem and you've probably averaged that perfect balance. But that was another thing that was a bit unique about the Shermans compared to their German counter parts. German armor could be "factory reset" if needed while Shermans were "long distance shipped" and had a "no returns" policy so to say. You shred a transmission gear on the field, you're fixing that yourself if it's a Sherman. If it's a Panzer III, you might be able to send that back to the factory to get it fixed....maybe if there's an available backup and you don't mind explaining why you broke your tank. But the Shermans came with spare parts, small package, and almost IKEA level of instructions. The fact that an entire transmission case could be swapped out by a seasoned crew in about 2 hours on a Sherman is impressive. Looking at the amount of McGuffin-ry it takes to change one of the inner road wheels of a Tiger I.......... Yeah, we kept them simple, cheap, small enough, and just improved the design as we found problems. Was it the best tank of all time? No. Was it an undeniably impressive and respectable line of armored vehicles as a whole? Absolutely.
Hello tank-nuts! Let us know what you thought of our latest video in the comments.
Prefer thr Sherman Easy 8😂
Wow that was an awsome vid on in my opinion one of if not the best tank of WW2. The only thing is thier could be a part 2, its service in the Korean war agianst the T34/85 tank and later conversion of the ultimate Sherman tanks helped with french technology. Isreali upgunned and moddified Sheman M50 and to the Super Sherman M51 tank which knocked out a Russian T62 tank in the Yom Kippur war and going up agianst its old nemisis the PZIV that Syria had needs to be told.
Sherman Firefly is much superior myess jolly ho ohoho@@pyeitme508
What do you mean? It was bursting into flame all the time! Constantly! 4000-8000 times per second in a very small, contained area at the rear of the vehicle. This carried on the entire time the tank was operating.
I believe this was a common issue with the majority of tanks.
Any reference for Germans using the term Tommy cooker, or the Zippo name?
I've seen a number of discussions on this in FB, Quota etc, and no evidence for either has been found by anyone who's tried looking. D
My grandfather, Sherman commander 17th Tank Battalion 7th Armored said to anyone who asked and I quote "People give the Sherman hell because the armor couldn't stop the kraut 75s and 88s, well name me one damn allied tank that could outside of the big Russian ones at the very end of the war" He also pointed out that "Not every German tank was a Tiger" and "They burned because some guys stuffed them overly full of gun rounds" Granted this was one man's perspective, but I wish he could have been interviewed by a museum like yours before he passed in 2012, in his shed, smoking a cigar cleaning a shotgun after pheasant hunting. Great man.
The one non Russian heavy that could stop a German round was the Sherman Jumbo.
The Sherman was an amazingly upgradable design
@OnEEmONErD
There is a picture of a, Sherman Jumbo with a 88mm round through it. Nothing is going to stop a 88mm L/71.
@@lyndoncmp5751 through the turret or the hull?
Through the turret front.
@@OnEEmONErD as I stated....one man's perspective
"Holy Roller" is an M4A2 that landed on D-Day and was still in service on V-E Day. It can be seen in Victoria Park in London, Ontario.
M4A4 Forceful III landed later but was the only one of it's regiment 21 CAR / GGFG to survive until VE day. It's at the Canadian War Museum in Ottawa.
I was thinking I would go and see it until the last word. Sad times.
@@SHADOWFRENZY92 Think of the possibilities of a visit . . . The tank museum at Base Borden, Ontario Regiment tank museum, and the Canadian War Museum''s tank collection are all in Ontario.
@@michaelmanning5379 I would certainly like to but the pond is preventing me from doing so, that and a lack of funds.
For some reason I remember "Holy Roller" being in the background of the first campaign mission of Call of Duty 3. Would be a nice Easter egg if I'm remembering correctly.
Honestly once the Sherman tanks got upgraded cannons they were able to go toe-to-toe against all German tanks. The armor wasn't as good compared to some of the later German models. But the number 1 deciding factor in tank v tank warfare was always about who got visual and range and fired first. Not to mention the US could outproduce everyone and field the most tanks.
that stabilizer when used made for a huge improvement too. getting the gun stable faster after moving gave you precious seconds of advantage during a meeting engagement.
Another factor that is often overlooked is that the M4 had two periscopes, one for the commander and another for the gunner. In the german tanks the gunner had no periscope, only the aiming telescopic sight, with a reduced width of field, and therefore was slower to adquire targets. That was an advantage for the crews of the M4.
@@luisangelgonzalezmunoz7071 I would still say crew experience is the #1 defining factor. A good tank commander would maximize his advantages whilst reducing the disadvantages by picking terrain and angle of attack. Sherman crews became very adaptable towards the end of the war once they had actual battlefield experience.
Exactly, it was just a medium tank which is hard to compare with German or Russian heavies... Even the Panther was in fact rather a heavy than medium tank.
No it couldn't go toe to toe (as in frontal engagements at range) with Tigers and Panthers.
Let's not get carried away here.
Strategic mobility is also important…the Sherman was designed to be built in Michigan, shipped to England, and ferried across the Channel in an assault landing craft…lots of weight restrictions involved even before it appeared on the battlefield.
This is an important factor that often gets overlooked! Not to mention a lot of the bridges it had to cross in Europe couldn't support anything much heavier.
@@0lionheart The wehraboos don't like discussing contexts, only looking at a Top Trumps-like set of stats, not the practicalities. It was either the Chieftain or the Mighty Moustache himself, David Fletcher, who said the most important thing on the Sherman were the lifting eyes that got them off the docks and craned onto Liberty Ships.
Wasn't one other thing they had to consider was that it had to fit on the existing railroad flatcars for transportation to whatever port it was leaving from? 🤔
@@hoilst265 Actually the silly Sherman fanboys don't look at look at logistics al that much either as they love to repeat those silly myths about the Sherman could not not weigh more, Liberty ships had a crane with a 50 ton capacity, much heavier stuff was shipped across the ocean, and German engineers likely had a much better idea of what European bridges could handle than American engineers.
@@Dreachon But how many could you send over on each ship? how many can you transport on ships and landing craft? How many landing crafts will you need? And how will it affect your overall war effort in time, material, and manpower?
Unlike most other designs, the Sherman survived in regular service in some armies for decades. Maybe mostly due to numbers, but it was effective, reliable and up-gradable enough to do so.
The Sherman was not the greatest at tank on tank combat, but it was great at distributing high explosive shells and machine gun fire across the battlefield, and we built tons of them.
if you were an infantryman, pinned down by a mg-42 in a barricaded position, or by a half-track, or what have you, you didn't care if the thing could penetrate a king tiger turret or not, you were just glad it was there
It was also really good at being where it was needed, operational, with trained crews, fuel, ammo, maintenance crews and spare parts, in numbers large enough to win.
and compared to a king tiger it was able to show up without breaking down
And if you were pinned down by a BAR you had to pray the tank would make it and not break down
My father served in the Canadian army as a radio operator/loader on a Firefly. He was at the front from October 1944 until the end of the war. Returning home in 1946. His tank was hit and burned out but thankfully they all got out.
One big overlooked thing in judging tanks is how easy is it to get out of. If that was a T34, your father might not of made it out.
HAVE made it out. Learn how to speak and write your native language.
@@bebo4807 Who is HAVE? Made it out how and what? If you you want to correct someone else correctly, then you need to write correctly, too. A good example: Try ".., your father might not have made it out (in time)."
@@bebo4807 Get a life dude!
@@bebo4807 How do you know what his native language is?
The Sherman tank was also one of the safest tanks of the war. Sherman tanks that were hit had the highest chance of all crew members escaping the tank
yep, had the biggest crew hatches.
@@Paronak Not only large hatches, MANY hatches. 5 in fact And they were spring loaded so you didn't have to lift the entire weight to open it.. A T-34 might only have one. A sherman crew took less time to get out and stand up on the ground than it took to open a single hatch on a T-34.
@@matts1166 lets say the T-34 had 2, 1 giant heavy hatch on the turret and a heavy hatch for the driver. Machine gunner had to sort it himself
It wasn't even the safest allied medium tank. The British reported that the Cromwell had a higher survival rate than the Sherman.
There was a significant difference in casualties between the Cromwell and Sherman when hit by artillery and anti tank fire typically 55% of the Cromwell Crew escaped unhurt whilst its only 35% for Sherman. Also a greater number of casualties died from their injuries in the Sherman 46% than did in Cromwell 33%.
From "Montgomery's Scientists Operational Research in Northwest Europe, the Work of No.2 Operational Research Section with 21 Army Group June 1944 to July 1945” by Canadian historian Terry Copp, published by Laurier Centre for Military Strategic and Disarmament Studies Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
I learned recently that the British Army actually really liked the US 75 mm gun from the Sherman tank, at least early on. They would salvage 75 mm guns from damaged/destroyed Shermans and mount them on Churchill tanks. Field modified Churchills are easy to spot in photographs because they have the external gun shield from the Sherman.
It was the HE round ; the 2lber and 6 lber wernt great for anti infantry work (poor HE) whereas the 75mm was.
The British also figured out how to bore out a 6 pounder to 75mm and make it use American 75mm ammo. pretty sure a modern engineer would have a stroke if you suggested thinning out a cannon barrel to push a wider round through it today lol.
@@dominuslogik484 There would only be a problem if you tried to use the ‘76’ mm round because that round has a much bigger case to hold more propellant thereby generating higher breech pressure and velocity. The higher pressure ‘76’ mm round was also much heavier, just like the German equivalent.
Doing the same thing to produce more powerful German 88mm flak guns and British 3.7” flak guns was not so much of an issue because the gun crews were larger, had more room to work in and simply had to place the rounds into automatic loading systems that also set the fuses.
@@dominuslogik484 The 6lb gun was overbuilt. Ammunition could not always be relied upon to have consistent charges and sometimes there would be "hot" rounds that produced elevated breech pressures. The conversion of these guns to 75mm took advantage of that extra strength built into the design to handle the new ammunition. There was the extra risk because of the reduced capacity to handle "hot" rounds but that was considered acceptable because it got a more capable round into the fight.
Easy 8 M1A2 muzzle brake is disturbingly similar to the one in german KwK 40. Who copied who?
A key advantage of the sherman that you didn't touch on was logistics. it was designed to be very easy (relatively, for a tank of the time) to transport by rail and by sea to all corners of the world. also, compared to its contemporaries, it was designed to be easy to repair, with modular systems like a transmission that could be swapped out as a unit.
And Bridging equipment. One of the Criteria was that it had to be able to cross Class 40 Bailey Bridges.
@@jamesabbot-cole6814Well most nations in their right mind wanted a tank that could cross bridges.
@@emberfist8347 nono, we'll just put a snorkel on it im sure it will be fine
@@dxb338 -
That was the plan for the Maus.
If I remember correctly, a Sherman with a busted transmission could be fixed (complete tranny swap) in the field, with hand tools, by 2 guys, in 5 hours. A Panther? first you needed to tow it to a shop, then remove the entire turret with a crane, then remove a firewall, driver seat, radio, etc. Pull tranny out of the turret ring and replace. A Dozen guys over a week to do.
The Sherman was an outstanding tank in its basic configuration, with excellent armor and a good gun with a superb HE round when it was introduced, and it was still a very good match for US tank doctrine late in the war, even in the European theater. The fact that it was accompanied by Shermans and M10 tank destroyers with 3 inch guns that could frontally defeat Tigers and Panzer IVs in ample abundance made it even better in theater, and it's part of why the Allies steamrolled their opposition in every theater. The Sherman in any configuration is one of the best tanks of the war, and they had tens of thousands of them available. The numbers alone tell the tale, it did very well.
I wish you would have talked about the life of the Sherman after WWII, because there's a lot of interesting things that countries did with Shermans in the Cold War Era. The French, Israelis, and other countries had projects to adapt and up-gun Sherman Tanks they purchased
That the Israelis were still using Sherman's (upgunned, of course and with a Cummins diesel motor) into the 1980s testifies to its good design.
Isreal is great at upgrading old tanks, their up-armored M60 Magach still looks like a viable war machine today, even though they stopped using them once they had enough Merkavas built.
Not really they were readily available and cheap
@@peterrobbins2862 yes, really, because they were still useful into the 80s. Duh.
Because there were literally thousands left. Same with the T-34.
@@peterrobbins2862
Is the right answer. Other middle east nations still used the Panzer IV and Jagdpanzer into the 1960s until they were all gone (not many left to begin with).
Another advantage, pointed out by historians, it was shippable. It was small/light enough to be shipped easily by rail, or by boat across the Atlantic. Try that with a Tiger. or even a Churchill.
That was a design factor in all of them. The Churchill was even limited by "being train transportable on standard tracks" not sure if the German designers gave similar consideration as the Tiger apparently had problems due to its width.
Both the Tiger I and Churchill fought in North Africa, please think before you post something silly
@@Dreachon Not silly - a discussion like normal people have. I would be interested in knowing how many Tigers and Churchills were in N. Africa compared to all the other tanks on both sides.
My father was a design engineer/ welder at Detroit facility for the duration of WW II. He would design and make modifications on the first shift, then went on the line and welded for his second shift every day.
He had an unbelievable constitution. Rarely slept more than 4 hours a day.
I know he gave his all to help support and win the war. I am honored and grateful to him, and all the other men and women who " left it all on the field" for this nation. Thank you!
Excellent video. I think two points were sadly missed: 1) part of the M4's design was to allow for its shipment across the oceans, which limited its tare mass; and, 2) the provisions for crew survival with the reasonably well-placed hatches for the crew to escape a knocked out tank. I'd also add its relative ease of maintenance, but the archive photos made the point.
Excellent video thanks Chris. Many years ago we met an ex Sherman tanker out walking and got chatting after he overheard us talking tanks as kids. He was open about its flaws but very proud of it. He said their commanders worked out of the tank a lot to spot the enemy first and said where possible they then used its speed to outflank the Germans to get at their side or rear. That’s where their radios and coordination allowed them to effectively take on even Tigers. That chap was so important in my grasp of tactics being a major part of the effectiveness, over ’Top-trumps’ figures, from a relatively young age.
Hmmm what about when the Tigers knew that Shermans were there and simply outgunned them, for example when 44 Shermans of the Canadian 28th Armoured Regiment (Worthington Force) were decimated at Estrees la Campagne on 9th August 1944, mostly by the Tigers of Schwere SS Panzer Abteilung 101 plus Panthers of 12th SS.
The Shermans didn't stand a chance. The Tigers stood off at range and simply picked them off. No Tigers were knocked out. It was a one sided annihilation.
Which is why they developed the tactic to find the German tanks from outside the tank because they could then use their mobility to counter the superior standoff ability. As I said in my first post they understood the flaws and compensated for them as much as they could. The advantage of surprise or open terrain that suits the bigger guns would always be an advantage.
@PaulRhB
I don't think you understood my point. It wasnt always possible to use mobility etc. Estrees la Campagne is a perfect example of Shermans being able to do nothing in response.
@@lyndoncmp5751
But in counterpoint the situation you describe didn't happen often, in an open field situation where the Tigers had a clear field of fire. Read any books or talk to the people who fought there, they will tell you the situation you describe was rare.
The terrain suited the Shermans, because the terrain in France was where you had towns and villages, hedgerows, dykes, forests that didn't lend itself to that.
There is another thing, one that James Holland pointed out in his book on the Sherwood Rangers. They found the moss effective use of the Sherman was working with infantry ( which after all it was designed to support), it was symbiotic. The visibility in a tank isn't that great, the infantry acted as the eyes and ears for them. I would bet that the Canadian unit was operating stag, without infantry support.
The situation you describe would be rare. Tactics emphasized working with infantry, they realized it was effective. Another reason was Tigers were rare on the western front, and against standard German tanks they were effective. The third reason was Shermans by doctrine were not out there looking for tanks. The US had tank Destroyers for that. They were exceedingly mobile, could spot the enemy tank before they saw them, maneuver, and kill them from a long way out. They were designed for going after tanks& were used that way. The British w the firefly could be more aggressive , though from reading Holland they like the US didn't seek out tanks, but the firefly could protect a unit against any kind of german tank.
@@njlauren
The British/Canadian sector of Normandy was not characterised by lots of Bocage, as the American sector was, especially once Caen was taken in early July, and even at times before that. The country was more open east and south east of Caen. Fields of fire were often pretty good. I believe the mean range was 750 yards.
The British and Canadians had an increase in tank losses end July and August, when they had to advance across more open ground. Operation Goodwood and Totalize are examples of this. In June British Commonwealth forces reported under 200 tanks as total losses. In August it was over 800. This was when the ground was more open, and superior Germany gunnery came into play.
The Sherman was a revolutionary tank. Every tank nowadays has "rolling upgrades" just as the Sherman's started
You missed one of the M4's greatest strengths being so simple and easy to be maintained. She was built from the outset to be able to be completely rebuilding drivtrain with nothing more than a small engine crane and simple hand tools and to have the job done in a matter of hours instead of the days to weeks required by a drive train swap for even the Mk4 much less a Tiger or Panther.
Tank Museum should pay more attention to the research done by LTC Nick Moran (the Chieftain). Why the Sherman was what it was had as much to do with the fact that every Sherman had to be shipped a minimum of 3000 miles on ships and from port facilities not suited to tanks much larger or heavier. The concept of a heavy tank wasn't unappreciated by American planners but, for a big part of the war, logistics and production concerns dictated a medium tank. I believe it was Moran who said something along the lines of, "Better to have a hundred medium tanks now than 25 heavy tanks in a while."
I'm not sure I subscribe to Morans transport theory, US and European ports had been handling items far bigger and heavier than even modern tanks for decades before WW2.
Things like steam locomotives, huge naval gun, transformers, armour plate and massive turbines, every modern port in every modern country could handle such things and I can't see why there'd be an insoluble problem with handling 40-60 ton tanks.
The Germans got a few Tigers to Tunisia in early 43 and the British had no problem with their Churchill tank so I just can't see why the USA might have struggled with similar weights and sizes.
There is of course the question of actual hold space on board ships but I can tell you that weight is not the deciding factor in this issue, a ship designed to carry 12000 tons of iron ore would not even notice 100 50 ton tanks.
The prohibiting factor is actually the individual volume of a tank, with their turrets reversed all tanks are rectangular boxes and some are obviously bigger than others.
An M26 is not greatly larger volumetrically than an M4, it is however larger and so instead of a typical T2 cargo vessel toting 80 M4's it totes 70 M26's.
@@antonrudenham3259 I'm not so sure it was an issue of being able to "handle" large items, I think it's a matter of handing large volumes of heavier materiel as rapidly as was needed, especially initially. Moran did research and, IIRC, stated the average port crane in the US could do 45 tons in a single lift. And the problem was solved later in the war via various infrastructure upgrades. Go back and look at Moran's various presentations for clarity. And then we go back to logistics, standardization and the fact that tank to tank duels were relatively uncommon. Most of the time, a tank was truly and mainly an infantry support weapon. It can be argued that US Tank Destroyer doctrine was a somewhat flawed concept, vs upgraded tanks or a new heavier tank. IMO, the biggest mistake in the ETO was not sending the 76mm Shermans in from the D-Day getgo.
Oh I expect they have and continue to do so. Nicholas Moran is a professional Armoured Officer, the Tank Museum staff are professional Historians. All of them know their stuff so I don't get too bent out of shape when they differ a bit on details.
I would count Moran as an actual historian at this point considering the amount of research he does with primary sources in the US national archives and the archives of other countries.
@@SootHead Not really. They arrived shortly before the invasion and would require re-training and would cause an additional burden on logistics.
As in so much of such assessments, context matters: when did it come into usage; how was it intended to be used; what was its strengths and vulnerabilities; etc.. This is true for a wide range of "its", not just tanks. When introduced, the M4 was very effective. That it had an effective HE round - better than the upgrade 76 mm gun's - indicates that infantry support was intended to at least be a significant role (just as having an AP round proves that tank vs. tank was an expected role). Infantry support actions get less attention in tank histories, thus the M4's effectiveness in this role is much less visible/known. Implied, though not directly mentioned, is that contemporary British and German tanks were less reliable and serviceable than M4s. Also not mentioned is that because the allies were attacking to liberate, M4s (and other allied tanks, of course) often were driving into German tanks in concealment or prepared positions, advantageous to the German tanks.
So tank museum hired the former "history channel" writers?
All tanks burn, it is often combat doctrine to shoot a tank till it burns
1942 Sherman is under gunned ? Ok what could it not kill ?
M2 gun was very short lived even on M3
The harping on height is common, because hull down is not a thing I guess.
No TDs were not supposed to be the primary AT unit as the Sherman was also supposed to fight tanks read Armor Force FM.
A2 was sent to USSR in good part due to Soviet use of Diesel.
98mm not bad ? So Tiger I is what ok at less than a cm more ?
APDS was wildly inaccrate.
76mm was available in june commenders decided not to use them on D Day.
All true and excellent points, notably lacking in this presentation.
A centimeter more is all it takes, and when your enemy has a far more potent gun than your armour stands you are in trouble, fortunately Tigers were not in abundance. The Sherman suffered from its own mass production, it was fine when it came out but steadily dropped back as development carried on, the problem was production was totally geared to making it, so changing to another tank would impact the numbers - which you need, but you also need something better, the Germans had this problem with the 109, we had it with the Hurricane, both very good aircraft but in the requirement of numbers development was limited, the T34 was the same, not the best tank but huge numbers of them and at what point do you interrupt production for a new development, which may not give the desired results, it's a gamble and had the war continued the lack of a better design may well have been problematic, as it worked out the designs lasted the conflict. I discuss this as original manufacturers not as service with third parties as that is a whole other topic.
Nick Moran demonstrated a significant survivability advantage of Shermans built after the first few - "Bugger! The tank's on fire". Escape from all positions is very fast.
Honestly surprised that the myth of excess flammability being continued here.
Me too. You'd think a professional historian would actually pay attention to objective history on the subject
But muh ronson
War Thunder…
Sherman: the transmission broke after driving 1500 km from France to Germany - just unscrew these few bolts and replace the gearbox, spare parts are there.
Panther: after rolling off the railway ramp, the transmission broke and the tank burst into flames - back to the factory...
You are referring for the whopping TWO Panthers out of the TWO HUNDRED deployed to Kursk that caught fire and were written off while moving from the detrainment sector? This was caused by defective fuel line seals which was quickly rectified.
Von Laucherts report on the two Panther abteilungs at Kursk is actually an eye opener. It shows battle damage was far more prevalent than mechanical issues for Panthers in the repair workshops. Von Lauchert also reported:
"After several days the number of motor breakdowns decreased. Therefore it is speculated that the motors were not sufficiently run in" and that "transmissions didn't experience a high number of breakdowns. The transmission modification at Grafenwoehr were apparently successful".
Nor did they get sent back to the factory in Germany. They were repaired by the field workshops within the Panther abteilungs.
You can read this report in detail on pages 132, 133 and 134 in Tom Jentz's excellent book on the Panther tank.
@@lyndoncmp5751 still yet, those panthers could only go miserably short distances before burning up clutches, blowing transmission gears, grinding down transaxle bearings and so on, due to their crappy metallurgy late in the war and immense weight and overall crap design. And the idiot germans made it where you had to pull the entire turret off to get the transmission out, which became a very real problem after a very short amount of operational time.
@@lyndoncmp5751 You're overanalyzing a meme sir
@@ironfox2411 So much utter nonsense in one comment, it is pretty clear you have never read up on the actual tank.
@@ironfox2411
You are repeating exaggerated myths, and who told you that the Panther turret had to be removed to take the transmission out? All you did was turn the turret to the side. There are literally pictures showing this 😂
Like you already said in the video combat is fought in the factory as well as on the battlefield, if you look at the cost and production time of the Sherman tank then it rivals and may even surpass the efficacy of the T-34, and that is something, while maintaining decent quality of armor and gear.
It definitely had massive logistical advantages over the T-34 in field, in that it was reliable.
The M-4 Sherman constantly out preformed the T-34-85 in Korea.
Especially when you look at the performance on the battlefield by comparison. Shermans outperformed T-34s in every category. They even had early gun stabilization that allowed faster aimed shots on the short halt. This along with the wide view spotting the periscopes and excellent mobility enabled them to score about even with Panther tanks despite the Panther's bigger on paper numbers in armor and firepower.
@@josephahner3031 Correct, and well said. The Panther by tonnage is a WW2 heavy tank. Look up the tonnage of the T-34, M-4, Panzer IV. Then look at the KV-1 and IS-2, you will see the Panther is a medium tank in name only.
And there's also the fact that vehicles had to be loaded on ships and transported all around the world.
I read a memoir of a Red Army tank commander who served in both T-34s and Shermans. He said that they were both good, and had their positives and negatives as any tank did. The Sherman was very ergonomic and "luxurious", and the comparative drawback of the high profile ended up saving his life once - the Sherman hit a ditch and rolled on its side, and as the rest of the platoon proceeded down the road, they came upon an ambush of antitank guns and were destroyed.
Dmitry Fedorovich Loza
@@nickdanger3802 M4 numbered 936 you can find photos of his tank in Vienna in 1945
Don't forget that the Sherman was also used in the Pacific theater. A good all around tank for a bitter war.
And on the Eastern Front too, as it was supplied to the Soviets as part of Lend Lease.
I read a memoir of a Soviet tank commander. He loved the Sherman, thought it much better than the T-34, and he'd fought in both. One point was that the Sherman was comfortable, while the T-34 beat the crew up. This may not sound like much, but crew fatigue is a real thing. Exhausted men can't react as fast or aim as well.
He also lauded the Sherman's reliability. His company of Sherman tanks would handle a long journey with no problems, while the T-34's would be dropping out due to malfunctions. Their mechanics were envied, because they had abundant spare parts and were equipped with full sets of American tools. The T-34 mechanics had to cannibalize and make do with the bare minimum of tools.
Did he feel that it was a problem going against Panthers and Tigers? Not really, he never allowed his boys to fight one on one if he could help it. 2 to 1 was the minimum, 3 to 1 was better. Use one tank to distract at long range while working the others close, take off a tread, then they're dead meat.
He noted that he had to always guard his Sherman tanks against Soviet infantry. They would steal the leather off the seats to fix their boots.
We have a saying here in America that puts an end to arguments like this one. "Scoreboard." It translates roughly to, "yes your panzers were ferocious but we won so..." Yeah.
A fine video. Nicholas Moran (The Chieftain) also does a great analysis of the tank citing it's realability, it's adaptability (including assault engineering roles) and the fact that it could be shipped just about anywhere from the battlefields of Western Europe to a far flung Pacific atoll. It doesn't have the glamour or the mystic of a Tiger but it's a solid work horse of a tank.
My grandpa was a tank commander in the 1st Canadian Armored Division under General Patton in the 8th Army. He rode in a Sherman all the way across Europe and said it was one of the best tanks of the war. He told me that he pissed himself the first time they got hit. But the round didn't penetrate so they kept on fighting.
There was no 1st Canadian Armoured Division serving in Europe During World War 2. There was a 1st Canadian Armoured Brigade which saw service in Italy.
II Canadian Corps (January 15, 1943, to June 25, 1945)
2nd Canadian Infantry Division
3rd Canadian Infantry Division
4th Canadian Armoured Division
2nd Canadian Armoured Brigade
these are the Canadian units that saw service in Northwest Europe 44 - 45.
The Chieftain believes the appellation Tommy cooker was coined by the British in N Africa as all British tanks there were saunas.
The tank destroyer myth NEEDs to die. TDs were defensive in doctrine, meant to counter large armored thrusts. We're talking panzer corps at a minimum if not multiple panzer armies. The idea was an operationally mobile force that could rush to an area to blunt any penetration and stop a breakthrough. They'd be held at corps and army level, often in their own larger formations. This didn't change what the tanks were meant to do though. Tanks were meant to fight tanks. Sherman was meant to fight tanks. To oversimplify, they were the offensive, proactive side of the force while TDs were the defensive, reactive side (in theory, by late 44 they got dispersed to divisions and often used as quasi tanks; bunker busting was a common role due to their guns being good at concrete penetration).
Excellent 'chat’ that put to bed some of the myths of the Sherman. I wasnt aware of the number of variations.
Very well delivered and the ‘pacing’ and editing in of actual footage was excellent.
The Tank Museum is very lucky to have such authoritative people delivering the talks.
If I was to have a suggestion it would be that with all the technical info a graphic to show differences would be good. For example a graphic (bar chart?) comparing the muzzle velocity and penetration of the various guns.
def the best, most adaptable, most reliable medium tank of WWII. No other tank could have exploited Operation Cobra the way the Sherman did.
By mid 1944 both the Cromwell, Churchill, Panzer IV, Tiger and Panther had roughly similar reliability. In fact, during the pursuit phase after Normandy, Cromwells broke down less often than British Shermans.
@@TTTT-oc4eb Not true on reliability, plenty of facts out there on that. I purposely mentioned medium tanks. Look up the tonnage of the T-34, M-4, Panzer IV. Then look at the KV-1 and IS-2, you will see the Panther is a medium tank in name only. I want you to declaratively state what tank could have exploited Operation Cobra the way the Sherman did.
@@OPFlyFisher304 So show me those "plenty of facts". By mid 1944 both the Panzer IV, Tiger and Panther had readiness rates of 70+%, more than good enough for something like operation Cobra. Shermans broke down en masse during road marches, too, like all WW2 and Cold War tanks. And the Cromwell was at least as good by mid 1944.
@@TTTT-oc4eb Brah, what’s your sources? Just give me one book stating the avg distance traveled by the Tiger before critical maintenance.
@TTTT-oc4eb
Correct. British 2nd Army reported a lower mechanical breakdown rate in Cromwells than Shermans during The Great Swan across France end August/early September 1944.
By the way, a British medical study showed there was a significant difference in casualties between the Cromwell and Sherman when hit by artillery and anti tank fire typically 55% of the Cromwell Crew escaped unhurt whilst its 35% for Sherman. Also a greater number of casualties died from their injuries, in the Sherman 46% than did in Cromwell 33%. In essence, the Cromwell was considerably safer.
From "Montgomery's Scientists Operational Research in Northwest Europe, the Work of No.2 Operational Research Section with 21 Army Group June 1944 to July 1945” by Canadian historian Terry Copp, published by Laurier Centre for Military Strategic and Disarmament Studies Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
Name one other tank that would have worked better than the Sherman. From performance, to reliability, to manufacturing, to repair, to logistics, from the Pacific to the Bastogne, I can’t come up with a better choice for the allies.
T-34
The Stuart
@@petergilkes7082 nah
@@petergilkes7082 T-34 is the single most overrated piece of WW2 equipment.
@@oumajgad6805 I'm sure the Nazis agree with you.
A lovely overview of the Sherman.
I came to really appreciate the Sherman and get increasingly annoyed by various myths surrounding it.
The Sherman burning myth, for the matter. I always wonder how does it compare to similar tanks of other nations and often struggle to find any decent data.
From what I was able to stumble upon over the years, it does not look like Shermans burned at any more significant rate than comparable designs of other nations, like T-34, or Panzer IV.
And when wet ammo bins became available, Shermans burned considerably LESS than competition, it seems.
Ammo placement of the Sherman seems to be a contributing factor to the myth of its flammability, which bothers me to no end. Because most of the tanks of the period have similarly placed ammo, yet do not face the same amount of criticism. Iconic Tiger and Panther tanks have ammo stored in sponsons exactly like Sherman does. Panzer IV has one of its racks just behind the Driver's position, meaning a hull penetration is likely to detonate it. Crusaders and Cromwells have ammo around turret ring areas. Soviet tanks are also infamously crammed, with ammo stored on the floor and sides of the hull, on top of the entire sides being covered in fuel tanks.
Most of the medium tanks of the period also had similarly thin side armour - 38mm for Sherman, 30mm for Panzer IV H, 45mm for T-34, 40-45mm for Panther. It is not like Sherman was uniquely thin.
And yet, somehow the Sherman is supposedly uniquely flammable? Something does not add up here.
Now, as for Sherman's gun not being designed as AT weapon... Well... M3 GMC would like to have a word - a tank destroyer carrying basically the same gun as Sherman. It is just that Sherman's gun could no longer keep up when Panthers and Tigers became more common.
Overwatch.
Germany used insanely powerful 88's with a delayed action HE fuse against tanks since the Spanish civil war and throughout WW2.
We didn't do that, the Soviets did but we didn't.
When a 88 round only has to spend a small portion of its energy to penetrate say 50mm of armour its residual energy is spent inside the tank which makes it far more destructive and conversely when a 75 round has to spend most of its energy just making a hole its residual energy is greatly diminished with happier results for the recipient.
The men who crewed the M4 all considered it brew up prone, you only need to read some of their memoirs to see that and coupled with the one hatch turret high casualties were inevitable, they also knew that.
All tanks burn if penetrated with enough force and it's inevitable that an undergunned tank will burn more often than vice versa.
@@antonrudenham3259 Using gasoline rather than diesel made them burn more often when fuel was hit. also our most common shell was the APHE for the 75mm since the solid shot was really only used during north Africa and by the time we were fighting in Europe largely that shell was replaced.
also almost all American weapons and equipment are surrounded by myths and negativity because Americans like to complain / we are allowed to complain with a free press all too happy to share our complaints on papers.
You can find statements regarding every single piece of US equipment from WW2 to today talking about how the troops hate everything and how it definitely won't/doesn't work and yet somehow in the end everything works out.
I get increasingly annoyed at the modern fashionable myth that says the Sherman was the best and safest tank of WW2.
@@lyndoncmp5751
Ditto, it's nice to know I'm not alone.
The M4 came along at an opportune time, it was a good tank early on but these latter day revisionists who claim nonsensical 3% casualty figures for M4 crewmen really show their ignorance.
The British found that for every M4 knocked out there were 1KIA and 2WIA and that's no better or worse than the other tanks they operated with one exception and so I can only assume that the tanks these people claim were so safe were different tanks fighting a different war against a different enemy.
When asked none of them can show me the source for their claims, they just 'know' because 'somebody told them'.
They do a great dis-service to the brave crewmen who mounted up and drove them into action day after day.
@@lyndoncmp5751I mean, it's incredibly safe
My family visited the UK in early July 2018 and my son and I altered our visit to include the museum because of my son’s love of the game World of Tanks and our love of Fury. We had an awesome visit and can’t wait to go back someday.
Look at how many M4's saw combat service, and how man were lost, and also many of the crew actually died. Something incredible like 97% of all M4 crew survived the war.
Even when a Sherman was badly hit, the crew still had a very good chance of surviving. There's even some incredible footage this actually happening caught on film. It's amazing how quickly the crew could bail out if they needed to. Most other tanks of that era were much harder to bail out from, and I don't think any were easier to bail out from.
One of the major advantages of the Sherman was it was mechanically reliable - 15 to 20% of German tanks had issues before they reach the battle.
At the Battle of Arracourt, those older M4’s with 75mm guns took on Panthers and won. There’s more to a tank than the triangle of armor, gun, and mobility. Need to consider how well it’s set up for the operators, logistical support (maintenance, spares, etcetera), operational doctrine, and training. The German cats were harder to supply, maintain, operate, and learn compared to the Sherman.
Also I don’t recall his mentioning about the optics tank vs tank. Which tank could get its gun on target faster and more accurately?
Yes the Panther crews of Panzer Brigades 111 and 113 were green and poorly trained. They didnt even know how to use their own Panthers properly. They'd only received their Panthers to start training on a few weeks before. Panzer Brigade 111 didnt get them until 5th to 7th September. Arracourt began less than two weeks later.
Also, the hastily formed new Panzer brigades (stop gap rush formations while the Panzer divisions were being rebuilt after Normandy and Bagration) didn't have any organic recon section. They engaged at Arracourt more or less blind. American air power became a factor as well.
@louislopez55
The Panther commander usually had excellent vision (superior cupola to the Shermans) and the aiming optics were excellent, especially for long engagements. Built by Zeiss. No problem with German aiming optics. Best in the world at the time. Germany lead the way in this.
@@lyndoncmp5751 True. This system is great for popping off T-34’s on the Russian Steppe, lying in wait with clear lines of fire. The Panther was brought on hastily, and proved to be a logistical Achilles heal for the German army. It was notorious for breaking down. Tanks are just part of the combined armed team. Making it effective, regardless of its capabilities read in the showroom brochure, in concert with other systems, with tested and proven doctrine and logistical support is what wins wars. The Sherman on the other hand was easier to maintain/repair, had ample spares available, and was easier for crews to operate and learn.
@@darrenvanderwilt1258
On the other hand the Panther when used by properly trained crews did well in Normandy and in the westwall battles of autumn 1944.
In contrast to Arracourt, when the US 2nd Armored Division faced the Panthers of the experienced 9th Panzer Division at Puffendorf, they came unstuck.
Panthers of 2nd Panzer Division also got the furthest in the Battle of the Bulge.
My father was the bow gunner in a Sherman tank. 3rd Army, 4th Armored, 37th Tank Battalion, Company C. His company, under Colonel Creighton Abrams, spearheaded the 3rd Army's penetration into Nazi lines in Baston. Massive respect to everyone who fought in that war.
One of the more underrated parts of it was all the different ammo types. Ive seen lots of docs where the crew uses the smoke shells to screen a hard target and then hit the flanks. Or fire smokes and give the crews an opportunity to retreat.
One tanker called it the best tank there was for fighting against infantry.
The Germans feared the Firefly. They always looked for that massive 17 pounder sticking out of the turret so they could take those out first. This prompted British tank crews to paint a camo scheme on the barrel of the gun to make it look like a 75mm.
to say the us wasn't doing anything to improve the fire power of the Sherman is inaccurate, there were designs to mount the 76mm gun into the Sherman as early as 1942, its just on the originally turret it wasn't as ideal even with modifications made. Add in that in 42 the Sherman was facing mostly pz IVs and pz IIIs, there was no need for the more powerful gun as the 75mm was sufficient against those vehicles. Even going into 43 where the tiger would show up, they were so rare that it wasn't worth forcing a 76mm into the Sherman just for the rare tiger sighting. it wouldn't be till 44 that a better designed turret for the 76 mm in the form of the T23 turret that they would make the switch now that it could be done much more reliably, rather than having another rush job like the Lee/Grant or the Firefly.
I’m surprised no mention of the stricken weight limit because it was loaded by crane onto ships. While German and Soviet armor were not limited by this weight restriction because they were shipped by rail.
Why was the Pershing heavier then?
That is nothing more than a myth, dockcranes could lift way more than the 33 ton weight of the Sherman and early on the Libertyships got a 50 ton crane install for the number 2 hold. The entire claim that the Sherman could not weigh more because the cranes could not lift it is nothing more than a nonsensical piece of fiction.
@@kumasenlac5504
Depended. Lots of pictures of Tigers on trains with their battle tracks still fitted. Same even with King Tigers/Jagdtigers.
@@lyndoncmp5751 which is why I deleted - I was mistaken.
@@kumasenlac5504
No worries. Best wishes.
Tigers did change to transport tracks often so you were part right.
I think that is a very fair assessment and documentary about the evolution of the Sherman and its value. Thank you for your even handed approach.
The Sherman was a great MEDIUM tank that was designed for infantry support and it filled that role perfectly.
The later versions were much improved over the early versions, less likely to catch fire when hit too. The Germans thought highly of their reliability, ease of maintenance, & space inside for the crew in examples they captured
So did the Red Army. Much more comfortable to operate and handle then the T-34.
@@chaptermasterpedrokantor1623 Only common soviet complaint was typically that the Sherman was tall compared to what they were used to using.
@@dominuslogik484 I can understand that. But then again the T-34/85 was no Mini Cooper either. Bigger gun -> bigger turret -> bigger height.
But the germans also build tanks with a lot of crew space
@@chaptermasterpedrokantor1623- Even T-34-85 was a harder target to hit, then Tall and wide Sherman tank silhouette. T-34 was more stable, faster and did a lot better in mud, show and ice.
Easy to produce, easy to maintain, quick, relatively light so not bogged down and economical on fuel. Yes it didn’t have the best armour or gun but give me 5 Sherman’s over one panzer any day!
Well yeah, but you could get at most two shermans for one tiger 1, and 5 tigers to 10 shermans I'm pretty sure is L for the Shermans. Also not to mention panthers or panzer 4 which would be similarly priced and with much better performance than a sherman
@@deadringer4577 It took about 2 weeks to make a Tiger. The Sherman could be shipped and put into the fight in those two weeks. Correct me if I am wrong but I believe about 10 Tiger's were being built at any one time. Meanwhile America was making about 45 Shermans a day. So if we want to talk pure numbers. In two weeks there would be about 10 Tigers vs about 540 Sherman's.
@@deadringer4577 your numbers are slightly off as far as I can tell, shermans are estimated as a little cheaper than that, but even if you are correct in 2 Shermans costing 1 Tiger what is your point?
Germany had very limited resources & its factories were getting constantly bombed. And many of its tanks were notoriously unrealible
Better to have an all-rounder good enough tank than an expensive tank that you can never make enough of and is a logistical nightmare.
Also since the US was on the offensive far from home, manouverability, reliability & supply chain was even more important than normal
@@trathanstargazer6421 maybe, but we saw how history turned out, and Germany could produce far fewer tanks in general than US, so we're not comparing that aspect, since if the US produced tigers, it would be a whole other story. In conclusion, having more stuff doesn't mean that the unit itself is better than the one you have less of
@@Dreska_ a generalisation. We are comparing a tank on tank or a platoon on platoon, not a country vs country since we already know which side won so there's no point. Also I'm pretty sure that having less stuff makes logistics easier to handle
I enjoyed this enlightened program. I recommend books by Stephen Zaloga. As others have mentioned, the weight, dimensions, and length of the gun were chosen so that the maximum number of M4s could fit on the ships that were designed to carry them. The Sherman was indeed designed to be easy to repair, because none of them were going back across the Atlantic (or Pacific) to be repaired at the factory. One thing that the United States got right in WW2 was the logistics train. That train kept new tanks coming, and shipped the parts to repair the ones that could be fixed.
It’s important to remember that the Sherman was on the offensive which increased combat losses being one side is hiding in the trees while the other is rolling down roads & open fields.
This is a weirdly inaccurate video for Tank Museum.
The M4 was designed from the start for both anti-armor and anti-infantry roles. Its gun upgrades were planned from the start, and often delayed for lack of perceived need against enemy armor. Through the war it saw three different upgrades: in addition to upgunning some M4s with the 76mm M1 guns, the M10 and M36 vehicles - M4 derivates - carried 76mm and 90mm guns, respectively. But most Allied commanders didn’t think they needed the 76mm M4s before Normandy.
But what the Americans seemed to understand from their British and French advisors is that most tank battles were fought and won by ambush. Everyone saw high losses on the attack and low losses on the defense. Whoever got the first shot typically won. What swung the balance in the favor of the Allies was that the Allied tanks had great tactical mobility and dominant strategic mobility, plus situational awareness: even though broadly the Allies were on the attack, tactically they were often ambushing German armor.
M10 tank destroyers were able to lock down Tiger I tanks as soon as they met in North Africa. M4s had a 3.6:1 kill ratio over Panther tanks and about a 1:1 with Tiger tanks, both tanks that had a lot of great features and on paper the M4 shouldn’t have been able to scratch!
Over 86% of M4 tanks survived the war, compared to 22% of T-34s and less than 5% of each German type. In fact, when Americans were worrying about M4s brewing up, they were 5% less likely to burn than Panzer IVs, and wet stowage widened the lead significantly. Moreover, the average number of tank crews killed when an M4 was penetrated was about 1, meaning in most cases all 5 crewmen got out safely.
literally this
"M10 tank destroyers were able to lock down Tiger I tanks as soon as they met in North Africa."
Not a single Tiger was knocked out by any M10 in North Africa. Out of the 32 Tigers deployed there, only 7 were lost to direct enemy action. None to M10s.
Source : Sledgehammers, Strengths and Flaws of Tiger Tank Battalions in World War Two by Christopher Wilbeck.
"M4s had a 3.6:1 kill ratio over Panther tanks"
Myth. It came from a skewed cherry picked report which ommited losing engagements and did not sufficiently establish that the tanks in question were even Panthers. Not to mention the propensity for American crews with ample ammunition to lob shells into already abandoned enemy tanks and calling it a "kill". This was a common practice.
"and about a 1:1 with Tiger tanks"
An even bigger myth. What is your source for this?
@@lyndoncmp5751 You got anything regarding the British experience with shermans and the german big cats btw?
@sithdoestat4432
In North Africa or in general? In North Africa no Shermans, either British or American, knocked out any Tigers.
@@lyndoncmp5751 in general
How good was the Sherman?
People always compare it with much heavier and advanced Tanks like Tiger 1 and Panthers.
This is how good it was!
Those weren’t advance. They were tanks designed for an offensive role that ended up little more than semi-mobile pill boxes fighting defensive or holding battles. As with much the Germans did they simply designed the wrong stuff at the wrong time.
Thank you for doing another one of these!! I loved the Spitfire one, so seeing this had released made me super hyped!
Thank you, Sir. As a former Infantry Officer, I can tell you that ANY tank is better then no tank when you need one. I believe the Sherman tank filled a gap when it was needed.
Could also have mentioned that with engine and armament upgrades the Sherman was used by the IDF well into the 1970s and was able to hold its own against T54's and T62's in the 1973 War
It was a very survivalable tank when hit. The reason so many are shown in news reel burning is because they were shot until they did burn. If it was only pierced but not burned it could be repaired. If it burned it was junked.
A British medical report showed that the Cromwell was safer than the Sherman.
@@lyndoncmp5751 Maybe, but wasn't the Cromwell closer to being a heavy tank?
@@SithFTW4072
No. Are you thinking of the Churchill? The Cromwell was a medium tank, lighter than the Sherman.
@@lyndoncmp5751 Ah, yeah, I always get those two mixed up
Since I found your channel I’ve learned so much about WW2 amour and I’ve been a war buff most of my life so thank you very much for your Tank Chats they’re most entertaining and informative very well done.
"Amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics." The Sherman fought in every Allied military, in every theater of the war, performing well in the role it was designed and acceptably in those it wasn't, and was relatively easy to maintain. It may not stand up to every tank on the field, but if you're trying to win a war not on forums it's a solid pick.
Meanwhile the Tiger tank crew: Oh sure great gun, great protection, lousy mileage, complicated to maintain or repair. WHERE ARE THE SPARE PARTS!
Imagine if every Sherman was a M51 SuperSherman when the Tiger was first deployed
The Axis would have lost by 1943
The Sherman carried my uncle through El Alamein to North Italy in the X Hussars. Another uncle rode one from Normandy into Germany, XXX corps armoured spearhead, 2 Grenadiers.
Was he in operation market garden?
@@tigerland4328 Yes one of the first tanks over the bridge.
@@bigantplowright5711that's brilliant. my grandfather was in 1 para he was at Arnhem. Before that he'd been in north Africa (Tunisia) then Italy. It seems all of them had a long war
Love the video! M4A3(105) HVSS was an interesting variant. It had the upgraded suspension, wider tracks, slightly better frontal armor with the revised slope, field howitzer, 2x 30cal, m2 50 cal, manual turret & elevation, dry storage and that sweet Ford V8 propelling it to 30 mph.
What no one I have heard, or in books, “tank experts” ever says or notes is this when comparing American, Russian, British, and German tanks of WWII. . “What happens if you hit a Tiger with a Tiger 88mm? What happens if you hit a Mark IV with their great AT 75mm?” It was less about the armor, and more about the guns. Of corse we had desk generals in America saying “Tanks Don’t fight other tanks, they are for infantry support. Tank destroyers fight enemy tanks.” Of course they forgot to inform the other side. That one man killed a lot of allied tankers.
The Sherman was the ground variant of the P-40 Warhawk/Kittyhawk; Effective at everything, but could have been more.
"Tommy cooker" was a term used of any tank and had nothing to do with it bursting into flames. In the heat of the desert, a metal tank without air condition would cook those inside, not literally of course. Also, while Shermans would catch fire (just like any other tank, Germans included) the crew survivability was high with Shermans.
And it could fit into ships/be hoisted at the ports with existing cranes. Imagine the infrastructure nightmare of re-building ports to hoist in the American Tiger tank!
But they built the Pershing. Plus the Germans and British sent Tigers and Churchills to Africa.
Please explain the development, building and orders for 1000's of M6, T28, T29, T30 and T34 from the US
One fascinating feature of these Tank Chats is the photographs used. When you pause on them and study them, there is a wealth of information to be gained. In one, for instance, there seem to be soldiers in German uniforms who have distinctly non-Aryan features. How did that happen? you wonder. I love these Tank Chats.
One of the things that always gets missed in these 'which tanks was better' arguments is the actual data. In particular, late-model Shermans went up against T34-85s in Korea, and did just fine against them. A lot of that came down to better training, but a fair bit also came down to better ergonomics and optics. Shermans could see and accurately hit T34s much more easily than the opposite, at range. The 76 was good enough in that environment that the on-paper advantages the T34 had in armor and penetration just really didn't matter.
It annoys me when it comes to people saying the Sherman had thin armour in one sentence and then say the T34 was well armoured.
The Sherman would get owned by a T-34.
@@yxmichaelxyyxmichaelxy3074 well as luck would have it Sherman tanks did fight T34s and was the superior tank. In the Korean war the shermans showed a kill ratio against T34s as 2.3 to 1. On top of that these would be post/late war T34s where the build quality and ergonomics would be better than earlier models.
@@matthewredman7814
'During the period July 1st - Sept 20th 1951, 40 UN tanks were penetrated by AP projectiles fired by T.34 tanks mounting 85 mm guns, self-propelled 76 mm guns, and 45mm, 57mm, & 76mm anti-tank guns.
All these tanks were American, since British armour did not engage enemy tanks or anti-tank guns during this period [which contradicts the article above- I told you that information is confusing!]
The tanks studied were the M24 Chaffee, the M4A3 Sherman, the M26 Pershing, & the M46 Patton.'
Now do the staggering numbers of American armour. Ask the Soviets about this tactic. 😎
@@yxmichaelxyyxmichaelxy3074 yes you are right the Americans lost tanks too I'm not disputing that. And especially the Chaffee which did horrible because it neither had the gun nor the armour. But when it came to tank on tank between the Sherman and the T34, the Sherman's were taking out more than double their own number. This isnt my opinion its written down In multiple areas.
To me it simple, The fact 3% american tankers died in the war is much lower then any other country. Sherman did it job in the war and also brought back over 95% of it crew back home.
My Canadian reserve regiment fought in WW1 as an infantry battalion. In the 30s it became armoured and in WW2 it fought from the invasion of Sicily, through Italy then into NW Europe equipped with Shermans the whole time. It's WW1 honour roll goes on forever. For WW2, it's reasonably short.
I seem to recall the Germans having a pretty strict doctrine on when their crews could abandon their tanks - it had to be on fire, iirc. They were so hard up for materials that the tank was more valuable than the crew. Meanwhile, three more Shermans rolled off the assembly line to replace the one that was damaged, and two more were repaired and sent back into action - likely with experienced crews, because they survived their tank being hit.
At least partly due to tactics, air superiority and weight of numbers
@@chrisfletcher86 True noting in war lives in vacuum.
@@chrisfletcher86 No, it's also short compared to WW2 infantry battalions.
My dad was with the 4th Armored Division as a tracked vehicle mechanic. That picture often shown of the engine being changed out with a wrecker is of keen interest to me. That is my dad sitting on the tank with his back to the camera. That photo is actually from the training center, I have the original one in the "yearbook" from his graduation from training.
He and his 3 other mechanics got hit with a shell somewhere between Nancy and Metz.
Dad was the only one to survive.
He was in a coma for over a year. The dog tags from the others got mixed up and dad was listed as KIA. Being in a coma he couldn't sort out the error.
He remembers waking up in a hospital where he saw a nurse standing at the end of the bed writing in his chart.
"Well hello there" he said to the nurse who promptly fell out in a dead faint. Dad said he could still hear the back of her head hit the concrete floor. He felt really bad about it and said his voice must have sounded like the devil himself. They stayed in touch for several years but when he got married mom was the jealous type.
He never told me the nurse's name.
Dad lived on to die on his 70th birthday in 1979.
He was my best friend and I miss him every day.
Cheers
Terry
Fascinating! This video corrected some of the misconceptions I've long had about this grand design. Like the P-51 Mustang (US air frame, British Merlin engine), the Sherman Firefly is a living symbol of the vital Anglo-American alliance that won the war.
There's always a stinky, dishonest idea that pops up in the collective's minds once the M4 is brought in discussion: its comparison with the Tiger and the Panther, as if those were the standard german tanks. People need to start comparing the M4 with the Pz. IV instead.
From what I picked out wa the 75mm was preferred when working with infantry. The 76mm was disliked because the HE was less effective then the 75mm.
Thank you Mr. Copson - really nice presentation with plenty of detail, and discussion around the pros and cons of the Sherman.
Another great video. My father-in-law was a tank and troop commander in C squadron of 149 RTR (7th KOYLI) which was equipped with Shermans instead of the Grant/Lee M3s the rest of 149 RTR was equipped with
Well, it beat the German Tanks in the end. So from the user perspective it was a success.
There were 50,000 Shermans but another 200,000 other allied AFVs that weren't Shermans, plus 400,000 planes and 30 million troops. Etc.
People who talk smack about the 'Sherman' series of tank-models, don't know what they're jabbering-about. It's that simple.
A key element was working as platoons or troops with infantry helping to spot targets that needed to be dealt with. Many tank commanders spent considerable time on foot looking for good hidden routes and firing points. No stupid swanning around like the first north African battles with inferior tin cans on tracks. Kasserine pass for the US pointed out the need for well-planned movement at all times. Keep up the great reports.
The thing that made the Sherman great isn't that it was great at anything a tank needs to do. It's that it was *pretty good* at almost EVERYTHING a tank needs to do, and there were a lot of them!
Two other points to consider in this debate which tend to get lost in the abstract of 'Tank Top Trumps' is about complexity and weight.
On the former, it was easier to repair a Sherman than most of its German counterparts, and the reliability meant that there was a greater chance of getting large numbers of Shermans into the field and keeping them there, something which was increasingly hard for the Germany army as the war continued, the supply lines suffered and their big tanks became more complicated.
On the latter, it's also worth noting that you had to get the Sherman to the battlefield in the first place, which involved moving by sea (i.e. across the Channel, and indeed across the Atlantic or the Pacific for the American made ones depending on the theatre). The weight therefore limited where the Shermans could be put off from their ships, as there weren't that many ports on the European coastline which could handle the unloading of a 50-60 tonne tank, even in the best of circumstances.
As such, the Sherman always has to be considered as having more limitations to its design than the German machines, which is why it tends to suffer either in head to head match ups or if we're considering it within the artificial constraints of a game like World of Tanks which strips a lot of that nuance away.
I wish that more would be said about how safe the crews actually were in these tanks. Due to the large internal volume and having 4 and later 5 large spring loaded hatches, when a Sherman was knocked out, there would be on average 0.8 deaths out of the crew of 5. In fact more Shermans were destroyed than crewmen lost. Of all tanks in WW2, only the Churchill Mk VII (at 0.76 deaths per tank lost) had a lower death rate when getting hit, while many of the more celebrated tanks like the T-34 which on average suffered 3.0 deaths per tank lost.
Two of my Uncles were in the ETO separate divisions. Both got Silver stars for taking out Mark 4 German tank. They told me one guy got the DSC for taking a tiger tank out.
For me, the M4 was one of the best armoured vehicles. Well designed, robust, rather easy to repair. It post WW2 career, especially in Tsahal hands, proved there was still spare potential after WW2
With all due respect for Tsahal, you didn’t fight German panzer divisions.
Keep in mind around 85% of the Sherman’s combat was against infantry not other tanks.
Shermans bursting into flames unusually frequently was a post war myth
We found a Sherman 105 outside Taji, Iraq in early 2004. It was loaded onto a HEMTT and carted back to base. Last I heard, it was taken back to the States and sits outside the headquarters of some armored battalion. When I saw it, I was geeking out. "It's a Sherman! IT'S A SHERMAN!" Everyone else was, 'Yeah, so?' "That's from World War II! What's it doing out here? GASP! It's a 105 Sherman!!!! Dibs."
A Sherman 105? As in the howitzer version? It would make more sense to be a M51 but dang, yall are really lucky and I too would be freaking out if I saw one
During the Korean War Shermans Kille T-34/85s at a rate of 2 to 1. Not bad for a undergunned, under armoured tank. When designing the Sherman they knew that the tank would often engage with other tanks and the design they came up with was superior to the Panzer IV in armour, mobility and firepower.
I suspect most 88mm antitank guns shooting at western allied tanks were towed artillery, not German tanks. Those 88’s were quite vulnerable to 75mm HE rounds
Nicholas Moran found the US Army's war statistics on the casualties of Sherman tank crews in WW2. In comparison to both Russian (extremely high)and German (medium) crews, the Sherman crews were twice as safe. More US tankers were killed OUTSIDE the tank than inside. The British crews had a 30% higher death rate, mainly due to wearing a beret instead of a helmet. That said, the Normandy campaign was a terrible place to operate any tank, US or German, due to the close in fighting of the bocage hedges.
Numbers. We have seen the 60,000th Sherman in the video. Germany produced around 25,000 tanks - altogether all of the models, all the years of the war. Add another 50,000 T-34s to the Soviet side, and you will see how little it counted how good or bad the Sherman was.
Sure it was. As soon as the Brits put that 17 pounder inside the Sherman tank, it became the bully on the block. Unfortunately, Michael Wittmann (Germany's panzer ace) found this out the hard way.
Michael tank along with two other Tiger 1 where knocked out because they focused on British tank in woods in front of them . The Sherbrooke
Fusiliers Shermans where on left Frank hidden behind the walll of an Abbey . They could not miss , as they where 150 yards away . By the way their young commander was the highest scoring allied tank with 18 kills . I personally knew one crew member Bill Paw . God Bless him !
The Sherman was the best tank of WW2
No best tank of WW2. Each nation had different requirements. The Sherman wouldn't have served Germany better 1943-1945.
@@lyndoncmp5751 The Sherman was the best because it best fit the tactical doctrine of the nations that used it and it was able to cover the most doctrines across the most nations. Which is why it was so widely used and saw so much success both during the war and post war.
@@DavisJ-ln6fw
Well, as balance the British reported fewer mechanical problems and lower injury and survival rates with the Cromwell than Sherman and nobody would declare that the Cromwell was the best tank of WW2.
The Cromwell was nowhere as widely used as the Sherman nor was it as versatile nor was it used nearly as much after the war so I would still argue the Sherman's superior to the Cromwell as it's advantages had more substantial implication for the overall war effort. Note this is just my opinion .
@@DavisJ-ln6fw
The Sherman was widely used after the war because there were tens of thousands of them left. Same with the T-34. There were nowhere near as many Cromwells built.
The Cromwell basically turned into the Comet.
In the End... It was Good Enough at everything it was asked to do. It was Reliable, easy to Ship, easy to Maintain, able to be Mass Produced & Available when it was needed... Which is fortunate because it was all they had at the time.
Surprised they didn't mention the oblique sloped armor of the Sherman was as thick if not thicker (when angled) than the frontal armor of the Tiger.
I think everyone can agree that the Sherman was a tank.
But could you keep fish in it?
@@lyndoncmp5751 🤣
@lyndoncmp5751 just pour some water in there and you got yourself a mobile aquarium.
@@brennanleadbetter9708
Good to know. I'll get some Clown Trigger fish.
@ lyndoncmp5751 And I’ll add some Sarcastic Fringeheads in there too.
The short and easy way to answer the question posed in the title is to answer which side won the war and how many functioning (as in can move on its own power) specimens are left? The other side of that question would be that the US pulled a bit of an unthinkable miracle. During the conflict that proliferated armored warfare and coming from having absolutely no experience creating any kind of tank aside from the few examples we made between wars using the purchased samples we got from the UK and France, the US came into this absolutely cold. After being rushed for the M3's, we got the M4's rolling and we didn't really make much better that hit that ratio of weight, firepower, armor, speed, and cost. Everything else we made during WWII compromised one of those in one form or another including variants of the Sherman. That's also a bit of a cheat to the proposed, "There is no perfect balance between armor, firepower, and speed." There isn't in one tank, but you throw enough Sherman variants at the problem and you've probably averaged that perfect balance.
But that was another thing that was a bit unique about the Shermans compared to their German counter parts. German armor could be "factory reset" if needed while Shermans were "long distance shipped" and had a "no returns" policy so to say. You shred a transmission gear on the field, you're fixing that yourself if it's a Sherman. If it's a Panzer III, you might be able to send that back to the factory to get it fixed....maybe if there's an available backup and you don't mind explaining why you broke your tank. But the Shermans came with spare parts, small package, and almost IKEA level of instructions. The fact that an entire transmission case could be swapped out by a seasoned crew in about 2 hours on a Sherman is impressive. Looking at the amount of McGuffin-ry it takes to change one of the inner road wheels of a Tiger I.......... Yeah, we kept them simple, cheap, small enough, and just improved the design as we found problems. Was it the best tank of all time? No. Was it an undeniably impressive and respectable line of armored vehicles as a whole? Absolutely.
When I first became obsessed with WW2 and the weapons especially tanks I could only dream of coming across videos like this one. Thanks