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.
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.
Am surprised the 75mm Sherman's rapid rate of fire and fast turret traverse wasn't mentioned. All very useful in Normandy when the typical engagement was at close range (less than 500m). The HE round was outstanding.
It didn't help at Estrees la Campagne on 9th August 1944 when 44 Canadian Shermans of Worthington Force were decimated at range by the Tigers of Schwere SS Panzer Abteilung 101 and Panthers of 12th SS. Not a single Tiger was lost there. The Tigers stood back and picked the Shermans off at range.
@@lyndoncmp5751 decimated? So just four Shermans were knocked out? Regardless, that's a heavy tank at long range doing what it was designed for, vs a medium not in its element. Plenty of times where the Sherman's rapid fire was beneficial, including Semken of the Sherwood Rangers knocking out a Tiger, frontally, on the 26th June 44
@@MarkofZollo And George Dring (also Sherwood Rangers). Knocked out 2 Tigers, 2 Panthers and a MKiv in one day with a 75mm. Mind you what alot of people don;t understand is knocked out doesn't mean destroyed completely, it just has to not fucntion (crew bailing out, engine dies, turret jams etc.)
@@lyndoncmp5751 sorry, what was your point here? It's so bizarre people feel the need to bring up the Tiger constantly when there's no need to. OP is talking about the Sherman's positive traits in infantry support (HE), which y'know we're allowed to talk about.
@@lyndoncmp5751 literally this entire comment reads as: I have an SS flag in my room and I listen to Erika all day, no I don't speak to my childhood friends anymore and that was their choice not mine.
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.
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.
If I had to pick one tank to go to war in during WW2, it would be the Easy 8 Sherman. Reliable engine, wider tracks, big enough gun, and again, reliable engine.
great but that hit the battlefield in 1944, the war started in 39 and the Sherman was produced starting in 42. so what do you ride before that? after all just like the Germans didn't give their Tigers to cherries, neither did the Americans, Brits, or anyone else with 2 or more functioning brain cells. they gave them to the veteran crews that had proved their worth on the battlefield. don't get me wrong, if i was a tanker (no way in hell) in WW2 i too would want an Easy Eight or a Firefly if i was a Brit.
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)."
The Sherman was the perfect example of the best balance of all the different requirements. Easy to produce, relatively cheap, quick, reliable, easy to maintain and repair, decent guns and decent armour. Whilst other tanks could have beaten it 1 on 1, there were many the Sherman could also go toe to toe with. Any that could best it directly on the field would have had glaring weaknesses elsewhere, usually related to production, reliability and logistics.
One could say the major strength of the Sherman was not that they could go 1 v 1 with the best of the Axis tanks but because they were so reliable they never had to.
Shermans were great for shipping by ship and rail. And even more importantly pontoon or Bailey bridges hurriedly throw up across rivers. It was alright for Germany to use big heavy tanks during 1943-1945. They were almost always on the defensive. And only had to cross permanent bridges. When the Ludendorff bridge was taken in March 1945, Sherman tanks were able to cross the Rhine river over the heavily damaged bridge, and over pontoon bridges. In contrast, the Pershing tanks had to be ferried one at time over the bridges, one or two per day. While the Shermans streamed across the Rhine taking the war to Germany. Of course using the Pershing tanks in this case was no problem, assuming you didn't mind holding up the war for a few days, didn't mind giving the Germans several days to respond to the sudden emergency, and had a few engineering companies available with nothing better to due than to laborious ferry Pershing across the river one at a time.
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 reserve armoured regiment in Canada was equipped with Shermans into the 1970s. I served with guys in the 80s and 90s who were trained Sherman crewmen.
Funny, just last week Paul Woodadge at WW2TV just did a myth busting episode on the Sherman with Chieftain as his guest to specifically address the origins of the Tommy Cooker myth.
Chieftain also pointed out the the original Sherman was not more likely to "brew up" than contemporary tanks. What may be remarkable, though, is that the US Army tested the issue and designed the wet stowage that improved crew survivability.
I have seen it claimed by a number of experts that the phrase "tommy cookers" was first applied to British tanks, and when it was used, it referred to the temperature inside ill-ventilated tanks, especially in hot climates.
If it wasn't an issue at the time, then the US army would not have gone through the trouble of devising wet storage. Same could be said for the welded plates, tankers famously improvise especially when it comes to saving their lives!
@@michaelporzio7384 It was an issue as the war went on. Every nation with any sense will upgrade equipment as necessary when the situation changes. A clear modern example is the current scramble in Russia to improve the survivability of their tanks vs. drones.
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.
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.
My dad was a Tank Commander of a M4 Sherman, he fought with the 1st Echelon of the New Zealand Division, he was converted to tanks after being wounded taken POW and Escaped. He loved his Sherman and particularly its engine. Yes all the New Zealand Shermans were powered by the the mighty Ford GAA V8, 18 Litre engine. My dad only purchased and drove a brand new Ford to the day he died! My Favorite was his Ford Falcon 500, Super Pursuit, Station Wagon, it was so big and strong with a 3.65 Litre engine, or was it 4.1Litre? Cripes I'm getting old!
Salute to both you and your Dad, mate. Perhaps it was the 1967 Falcon Wagon with the 4.7L (289cui) V8 - a legendary small-block engine. Ford did have the very famous "7 Liter" engine in 1966 (and beyond), at 428/429 cui reserved for "larger" Ford Models until roughly 1968 (in the USA) when it began use in the Mustang. Cheers!
According to my reading, the reason for the sponson gun in the M3 was because of the challenge of casing a hull with a turret ring large enough to fit the turret. Building the turret was not the limiting factor. It was the inability to pour the turret ring.
That doesn't sound right. It makes no sense that the turret ring was the problem in a cast hull...it's just a hole in the hull. The problem was that neither the USA or the UK had ever cast a turret big enough for a 75 mm gun, and it took a bit of time to work out how to do it. Do you have a source for that? Every source I see echoes the 'need to built a bigger turret'.
@@Ocrilatyea your correct. They needed a 75 asap but weren’t able to put it in a turret yet at that moment so stuck it in a hull. Thus, the m3 was born.
It was the design of the ring. The Army and Ordnance wanted a ring design that could handle the weight of larger turrets holding bigger guns that they planned to use within a year or two. The Jumbo is a good example. It was a basic M4 that had extra armor added to the hull and a much thicker cast turret. When one had its turret shot up then it was replaced with any available M4 turret. The M10 and M36 also used the same turret ring. Fisher Body built the M10 whose hull was to hold the M36 turret. Fisher had labor problems so couldn't produce more M10 hulls. Ordnance told Ford to set the M36 turrets on M4'S coming off the production line and redo the ammo storage outside in the storage yard. Fisher Body was then given the contract to design and produce the Jumbo while the Army rounded up all of the M10's at the training bases. Those totalled 1000 and were refurbished by Fisher Body before they received the M36 turret. Fisher was to produce 6000 M36 TD's but Ordnance cancelled the contract after the 1000 were finished since the M36 on M4 hulls were preferred by their users for being better armored. Ordnance discovered that after shipping 29 M36 turrets to France after D-Day to set on repaired M4 hulls to get it to the troops faster.
The M3 is a very standard interwar Design. Look at the early Churchills, the B2. and a pile of proposed designs. It's just what the thinking was. the little gun on top was considered plenty for antitank work. the big gun was for bunkers. The MGs everywhere were because the US had a machine gun fetish.
The Tommy Cooker and Zippo names when used in reference to the tanks catching fire is incorrect according to a few other historians. Apparently the British tankers referred to all of their tanks in the desert as Tommy Cookers due to the extreme heat inside the tank, and the Zippo was a nickname given to flamethrower tanks. The thing about the Sherman fire myth is that all tanks, especially early to mid war, would burn. Most tanks stored ammo in the sponsons or other dangerous areas.
@@johnnycab8986 The Ronson nickname came from guy, who write a book and during the war he was in repair depot. His view is horrible biased, because, well....he was in repair depot, so he saw a lot of burned out Shermans, because....well, this is where all destroyed/damaged tanks went...to repair depot.
@@podunkman2709 Incorrect in every statement. The M4's gun, and optics, and armor, were peer with the tank it faced the most which was the Panzer-IV. The engine was so much more reliable than anyone else's that it beggars belief.
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).
As far as I know, according to WW2 statistics Sherman's didn't catch on fire more frequently than other gas run tanks of the era... The Chieftain explained it thoroughly many times...!
I can't recall exactly when, but pretty early on in the evolution of the Sherman, the shells for the 75mm were surrounded with a liquid mixture to lessen the chance of the rounds cooking off after a hit. If there wasn't at least some truth to the claims that Shermans burned easily, why go to the trouble and expense of wet-stowage?
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.
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
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.
In a Sherman was one of the safer jobs to have. Also it's down to logistics. We had to ship it across a ocean to fight. Then transport supplies once it got there. On top of that spare parts were available.
@@Fireclaws10 an under appreciated fact was also that US tankers still wore helmets inside the tank. there was actually a noticeable increase in survivability compared to British tankers in their own shermans since they only wore berets inside their shermans.
Plus the ability for the allies to provide a complete new tank relatively quickly to replace those lost as unrepairable on the battlefield. That's something the enemy couldn't match due to allied air supremacy shooting up most replacements.
@dominuslogik484 A British medical study, concluded the Cromwell was more survivable 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 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.
But that this tank was great in logistics is a myth, if they would have built a better one, they wouldn't need to transport so many replacement tanks. In Africa they have been good enough, but in Europe they were outmatched as Germany had until late 44 enough resources in the West to roast them. Only allied air power ended the battle of the bulge.
@@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.
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!
yea, it had a gasoline engine and ammo stored at the sides just like everyone else including the overrated Tigers. And yet some think the Shermans burned more, with ammo later stowed on the floor it was very survivable
It happened with the British in Africa due to them shoving ammo in every spot they could. Beyond that though, it's burn rates prior to wet stowage were the same as the Panzer IV. With wet stowage, it was the lowest of the war (at least for production tanks).
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.
14:55 75mm M3 was absolutely designed as an anti-armour weapon, being a successor to the 75mm M1897A4 which served on M3 GMC halftracks as tank destroyers.
Agreed when looked and what tanks they thought they would be going up agianst the Panzer 3 and Panzer 4 but the troops did love the HE shell compared to the 76mm that came later.
@@tasman006that’s cus the amount if the he in the 76mm, was much less than the 75, the 76 was necked down and specifically made for an anti tank round.
@@alexanderthegreatzabaras7492 The HE filler wasn't "significantly less" but it was less. the major complaint by a lot of tankers was the reduction in ammo storage. its also why the 90mm wasn't adopted on tanks sooner since they figured the 76mm was enough and they preferred to not give up even more ammo for a bigger gun.
Well to be fair that is because most modern tanks have more advanced equipment by necessity. P-38 Lightning is technically more reliable than an F-35 Lightning II because it is a piston-engine craft and not a stealth jet. As Star Trek III once put it “the more complicated the plumbing, the easier it is to clog the pipes.”
@@emberfist8347 "Contemporary" doesn't mean "today". "Contemporary" means "of the same time". He's referring to the Sherman's _contemporaries_, not modern tanks.
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.
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.
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.
The Sherman was a robust enough design that with upgrades it could be a competitive tank with any medium tank in the world and have a decent chance against any heavy tank in the world, of course depending on variant, etc. even at the end of WWII. It was an easily repairable tank, something Chieftain has remarked on before.
Not inconsequential was the fact that US Army M4 Shermans armed with the 75mm gun operated in platoons of at least 4 tanks, usually 5. They were quicker than the Tiger and the Panther, were more agile in the turn and their turrets could turn faster. That meant that a platoon of Shermans could outflank any lone heavy cat they met and get a shot into the side or rear of the heavy tank before the German could lay his gun on one of them. The M3 gun, firing M61 or M72 AP rounds, could penetrate the Tiger's side and rear at close range, and the accuracy of the gun made track and wheel hits possible at longer ranges. This is the source of the legend that it took 5 Shermans to kill a Tiger, implying that 4 of the 5 Shermans would be destroyed getting the Tiger. That was not the case. They swarmed the big cats and shot them where the armor was thinnest with their 75 mm M3 guns, getting at least a mission kill, often without losing a single attacking tank. The real good news is that they rarely met a Tiger I in France (less than 1400 were ever made) and Panthers were almost as rare because Allied air power decimated German armor units when they attempted to road march to the Normandy front. The up gunning of the M18 and M36 tank destroyers later in the war provided a class of powerful and flexible armored fighting vehicles that were a match for any tank the Germans could field, and they were a development of the Sherman chassis and running gear as well. The tactics were simple. Shoot first, fire two or three rounds and then move to a secondary position to prevent the enemy from getting a shot on you.
@@boydgrandy5769 US Shermans virtually NEVER fought a Tiger after D-day. It actually only happened twice, and I don't count one of those times because they were unmanned Tigers loaded onto a train for transport. Even though 1943 if you saw a German tank it was likely either a Panzer 4 (all around equal to a Sherman) or a Panzer 3 (Sherman way better here.)
Sherman was arguably the best tank of WWII. Armour was good for medium tank, same as optics and gun. It was reliable, could be easily repaired and cheaply produced. It was also comfortable for the crew and the size offered good survivability. The only thing where Sherman was lacking was off-road ability, similarly to many German tanks. But it was corrected in the HVSS version.
Chris Copson is an excellent presenter, yet another informative film with first rate production quality from the Tank Museum, how fortunate we are. Both Chris and Fam are superb new additions to the presentation team and the recent content from the world’s best armour museum seems to just get better and better. Thanks to all at the Tank Museum !
Thie was an enjoyable vid. My father's regiment, Lothian and Border Horse Yeomanry, was equipped with the M4A2 later on in North Africa. Matildas and Crusaders being superceded by it. They were part of the 6th Armoured Division and took part in Operation Torch. Later, fully equipped with Shermans, they were brought over for the 4th battle of Monte Casino and chased the Wehrmacht all the way to the river Po.
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.
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.
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.
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.
something to keep inmind about the shermans bursting into flames. they bursted into flames about the same amount of other tanks, but it was way more survivable and easy to escape. and later war shermans had the ammo moved to the floor reducing the tanks chances of ammunition cook off. wet stowage itself is controversial, and its consider to probably of not done much to help
Very good video, but one thing that wasn’t really addressed was the weight factor for shipping to different war theaters which was of great importance. The weight that can be shipped on a train is far different than a ship in regard to lifting and stowing. The ability to mass produce medium tanks and quickly load them onboard transport ships was always at the forefront of the U.S. Ordnance Department’s mind. The book “Logistics of WWII: Final report of the Army Service Forces”, covers this in some detail.
T-34 was a lot better in that regard, it could be shipped any place Sherman could, it was not as tall and tippy-flippie, and did not got stuck where M4 would not go… So is any German tank of first part of the war better in those regards, then M4.
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 😂
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 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.
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.
Should have gone on about postwar modifications such as Egypt replacing the Sherman’s turret with that of the AMX-13 and Israel’s deep modifications with 75mm and 105mm guns.
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.
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.
The only problem with the Ronson nickname is the explanation that this was due to the slogan “lights first every time.” The issue is that this slogan appears in almost no surviving print ads, and not in any ads from the period right before or during the war. The most common slogan used in print ads for the Ronson is “The World’s Greatest Lighter.” To a leaser extent, the slogan “Flip… It’s Lit… Release… It’s Out” or “Press… It’s Lit… Release… It’s Out” appears regularly. Nowhere does the slogan “lights first every time” appear, except in a single ad from 1929 which states “Lights every time.” TANK AND AFV NEWS From the Editor: Lights First Every Time? page
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
As The Chieftain pointed out during a Sherman myth-busting video, the US Army M4 field manuals of the period fully described tank-on-tank tactics, showing that the Sherman WAS designed and intended to fight other tanks. Additionally, the 76mm HVAP gun was not the preferred gun by the tankers fighting across France. They preferred the 75mm since it had a better HE round and the Panther/Tiger engagements were relatively rare. My personal favorite is the 105mm-equipped M4.
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.
The Sherman was the Best Tank of World War 2. I'd always figured it got a bad rap but Chieftain convinced me it was the best with his Myths of American Armor and Sherman Tabk videos. Note: Yes, the M3 75mm WAS meant to shoot tanks. Really? Tank Museum? Why, oh WHY would you give it AP ammo in the first place? Lazerpig knows better. Love to Lazerpig! Edit: The gun was meant to do *everything* that might be asked of it; from infantry support, to anti-tank duty. Too high a velocity, the HE would sail over a target and loses the ability to give the shell good, plunging fire as well. Too low and it can't take on other tanks. 619-625m/sec isn't bad at all, right down the middle, really and gives the tank amazing utility. If you had the correct sights and equipment, I bet you could use it for anti-aircraft work as well😂. And, throughout it's many variants, it's crew survival rates were into the 80% range and it only got better with water storage. The T-34 only had a 5% to 15% crew survival rate, could only get off a couple rounds a minute while the Sherman could get off around 10! The Sherman was faster by a wide margin as well and the roomier of the two, aiding the soft factors lile loading and target acquisition. Sherman. BEST. Tank. Of. WW 2.
The M4 could got off a few more than 10 rounds a minute. An M60a1 could get off 18 rounds the first minute, it slowed down once the 15 rounds in the ready racks were spent, and that is a 105mm round.
@@lyndoncmp5751 True, but given everything the Sherman was, the roles it was expected to fill, ease of repair/maintenance, hard and soft factors, and the fact it has to be supplied from thousands of miles away successfully (which it was) compared to every other tank, not one vise in the maintenance/repair shops because *the parts all fit perfectly From The Factory and no modifications were ever required...* Yeah, best tank of WW2, I'm calling it here and now.
Also bear in mind that we had to load these thigs on ships and send them across the atlantic so producing massive tanks like the germans did was out of the question
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.
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.
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
best tank of WW2, as close to perfect as you can get. realiable, easy to repair, easy to transport, easy to mass produce, easy to upgrade, capable against tanks, capable against infantry; absolutley perfect for global attritional warfare. hard to point at a single thing and credit it for winning a whole war; but I'd think history'd be different if we never got the sherman.
There isn't really a best tank, every country had different doctrines throughout the war, US: Mass production USSR: Mass production Britain: Infantry support Germany: Blitz (early war idk what I'd call late war) France: Infantry support Italy/Japan: Didn't really focus on tanks
@@lyndoncmp5751 The book "Armored Champion" by Steven Zaloga does a really, really good "best tank" breakdown for each period of the war, by criteria. So, commanders choice, crew choice etc. Feels like the best way to do it imo
The soft stats of the Sherman were excellent in a way that really hadn't been seen in tanks up to that point. The crews were comfortable, and had fantastic visibility with virtually every position but the gunner having a pivoting spotting periscope. On top of that, it had virtually unheard of reliability and crew survivability, , becoming THE gold standard for the 'Oh my god, the tank is on fire' test.
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.
@@kevinprzy4539 Holy Roller was built in Canada, landed on D-Day and went to VE Day and is currently a monument. So not all were just used for training
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
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.
The Chieftan has discussed this point at length. In the end, the Sherman was a pretty good comprise of production, world-crossing transport and logistics, reliability, field maintenance, armament, and armor. There were tons of them everywhere, they were reliable, filled many battlefield rolls, and were decent fighters, especially when not pitted in the oft-debated hypothetical situations that didn't actually happen much in real life. They also suffer from a similar situation to the M16. The very earliest originals had some teething problems that were soon worked out, but the old guys from back them never moved on, and continue to grump around about it.
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
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.
An excellent and informative presentation which illustrates the strengths of the vehicle without shying away from the weaknesses. These days far too many commentators have moved to the extremes and treat this all a zero sum game where, for example, acknowledging that the Sherman's armour was never really adequate for the threat environment it faced means you also think the Tiger II was the best thing ever and the Germans only lost because they were outnumbered.
Reliability is by far the most important factor on a battlefield. The sherman was simple, reliable; easy to maintain, good mobility, adequate gun ( especially the firefly) and tens of thousands of them!
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.
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
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.
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.
Catching on fire and crew survivability are not mutually exclusive. What is important is that the crews were more likely to get out without being burned
@@TheChieftainsHatch still, with the exception of British heavies allied tankers were safest in the sherman. If there's anything to take away from the sherman it's the crew mortality rate, for a vehicle that catches so much flak for various flaws most people forget to mention the benchmarks it set.
@@addisonherbert6686 And one of the major reasons was that the crew hatches were spring-loaded. Open the catch and give it a one-handed push, the hatch opens. A lot of other tanks required the crew to push open heavy slabs of steel against gravity - not great when you have seconds to get out.
@@TheChieftainsHatch I would like to read or watch a direct response from you regarding some informations of this video, like the tendency of the Sherman burning, the myth of it, that you talk so much in your videos, that in fact Shermans were burning in the same rate of other tanks, this wasn't even addresed in this video. Another thing that you talk about was the myth of US doctrine of tank destroyers being responsible for engaging enemy tanks while tanks were not, when in fact tank destroyers were supposed to engage tanks when on the defense, while tanks, in their supporting or exploitation role were expected to engage any threat, including enemy tanks. Another strange piece of information is the pair of Panzer IVs knocked out by Ekins after he knocked out the 3 Tigers. In Stephen A Hart book (Sherman Firefly vs Tiger - Normandy 1944) it's said Ekins knocked out 1 Panzer IV at 1200m, not 2, then his Firefly got hit and the crew baled out. I was so thrilled about this video, but it's so much dubious information, especially regarding what I'm used to read/watch from you, that's disappointing.
@eliasmiguelfreire8965 unfortunately, I am on a family vacation in Costa Rica. I'm not likely to spend 20 minutes watching a Tank Museum video and then assessing it until after Christmas
It was good for what it was designed for. For building, shipping, making en masse, for simplicity and toughness, for ease of repair..it was not only good, it was excellent. Comparing it to a German tank, which was used and built for entirely different reasons, is rather short sighted. In the end, the Germans might've been better off with improved, up-gunned Panzer IV's, rather than the larger, harder to produce machines they had.
There was no way to up gun the Panzer IV after spring 1943. It had reached the end of its evolution as a tank and was not capable of being improved to to toe to toe with the next generation of allied tanks expected to be met. The Panzer IV was only ever 25 tons at most. This was nearly 10 tons lighter than the Shermans and T-34s coming out in 1944. The Germans felt already in 1942 they needed a main tank to carry the 75mm L/70. The Panzer IV couldn't. Hull was too narrow so the turret ring was too small.
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
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.
![⭐️( ลอยกระทง 2024 ) Ver. แดนซ์ Remix BY [ ดีเจกิต รีมิกซ์ ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/rMWOLhgXUHc/mqdefault.jpg)
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.
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.
Am surprised the 75mm Sherman's rapid rate of fire and fast turret traverse wasn't mentioned. All very useful in Normandy when the typical engagement was at close range (less than 500m). The HE round was outstanding.
It didn't help at Estrees la Campagne on 9th August 1944 when 44 Canadian Shermans of Worthington Force were decimated at range by the Tigers of Schwere SS Panzer Abteilung 101 and Panthers of 12th SS.
Not a single Tiger was lost there. The Tigers stood back and picked the Shermans off at range.
@@lyndoncmp5751 decimated? So just four Shermans were knocked out?
Regardless, that's a heavy tank at long range doing what it was designed for, vs a medium not in its element. Plenty of times where the Sherman's rapid fire was beneficial, including Semken of the Sherwood Rangers knocking out a Tiger, frontally, on the 26th June 44
@@MarkofZollo And George Dring (also Sherwood Rangers). Knocked out 2 Tigers, 2 Panthers and a MKiv in one day with a 75mm.
Mind you what alot of people don;t understand is knocked out doesn't mean destroyed completely, it just has to not fucntion (crew bailing out, engine dies, turret jams etc.)
@@lyndoncmp5751 sorry, what was your point here? It's so bizarre people feel the need to bring up the Tiger constantly when there's no need to. OP is talking about the Sherman's positive traits in infantry support (HE), which y'know we're allowed to talk about.
@@lyndoncmp5751 literally this entire comment reads as: I have an SS flag in my room and I listen to Erika all day, no I don't speak to my childhood friends anymore and that was their choice not mine.
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.
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.
If I had to pick one tank to go to war in during WW2, it would be the Easy 8 Sherman. Reliable engine, wider tracks, big enough gun, and again, reliable engine.
And ease of maintenance and lots of spare parts making field repair relatively quick and easy compared to many of its contemporaries
And if things go wrong you have a good chance of getting out and getting another.
guess you could say it's very "easy going"
great but that hit the battlefield in 1944, the war started in 39 and the Sherman was produced starting in 42. so what do you ride before that? after all just like the Germans didn't give their Tigers to cherries, neither did the Americans, Brits, or anyone else with 2 or more functioning brain cells. they gave them to the veteran crews that had proved their worth on the battlefield.
don't get me wrong, if i was a tanker (no way in hell) in WW2 i too would want an Easy Eight or a Firefly if i was a Brit.
@@abntemplar82 Hmmm, early war, I’ll go with a Matilda, then maybe a Panzer III.
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 was the perfect example of the best balance of all the different requirements. Easy to produce, relatively cheap, quick, reliable, easy to maintain and repair, decent guns and decent armour. Whilst other tanks could have beaten it 1 on 1, there were many the Sherman could also go toe to toe with. Any that could best it directly on the field would have had glaring weaknesses elsewhere, usually related to production, reliability and logistics.
Yep, the Sherman was also a convenient size to transport by ship.
@@frankstonrat Ship And Rail.
One could say the major strength of the Sherman was not that they could go 1 v 1 with the best of the Axis tanks but because they were so reliable they never had to.
@@billalumni7760 Yes, very well designed for strategic deployment half a world away.
Shermans were great for shipping by ship and rail. And even more importantly pontoon or Bailey bridges hurriedly throw up across rivers. It was alright for Germany to use big heavy tanks during 1943-1945. They were almost always on the defensive. And only had to cross permanent bridges.
When the Ludendorff bridge was taken in March 1945, Sherman tanks were able to cross the Rhine river over the heavily damaged bridge, and over pontoon bridges. In contrast, the Pershing tanks had to be ferried one at time over the bridges, one or two per day. While the Shermans streamed across the Rhine taking the war to Germany. Of course using the Pershing tanks in this case was no problem, assuming you didn't mind holding up the war for a few days, didn't mind giving the Germans several days to respond to the sudden emergency, and had a few engineering companies available with nothing better to due than to laborious ferry Pershing across the river one at a time.
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 reserve armoured regiment in Canada was equipped with Shermans into the 1970s. I served with guys in the 80s and 90s who were trained Sherman crewmen.
Centurions were still in use in the British army until the early 90s and Centurion is only a few years younger.
Funny, just last week Paul Woodadge at WW2TV just did a myth busting episode on the Sherman with Chieftain as his guest to specifically address the origins of the Tommy Cooker myth.
If it's on TH-cam, mind looking that? It sounds like a fun watch.
Chieftain also pointed out the the original Sherman was not more likely to "brew up" than contemporary tanks. What may be remarkable, though, is that the US Army tested the issue and designed the wet stowage that improved crew survivability.
I have seen it claimed by a number of experts that the phrase "tommy cookers" was first applied to British tanks, and when it was used, it referred to the temperature inside ill-ventilated tanks, especially in hot climates.
If it wasn't an issue at the time, then the US army would not have gone through the trouble of devising wet storage. Same could be said for the welded plates, tankers famously improvise especially when it comes to saving their lives!
@@michaelporzio7384 It was an issue as the war went on. Every nation with any sense will upgrade equipment as necessary when the situation changes. A clear modern example is the current scramble in Russia to improve the survivability of their tanks vs. drones.
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.
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.
My dad was a Tank Commander of a M4 Sherman, he fought with the 1st Echelon of the New Zealand Division, he was converted to tanks after being wounded taken POW and Escaped. He loved his Sherman and particularly its engine. Yes all the New Zealand Shermans were powered by the the mighty Ford GAA V8, 18 Litre engine.
My dad only purchased and drove a brand new Ford to the day he died!
My Favorite was his Ford Falcon 500, Super Pursuit, Station Wagon, it was so big and strong with a 3.65 Litre engine, or was it 4.1Litre? Cripes I'm getting old!
Salute to both you and your Dad, mate. Perhaps it was the 1967 Falcon Wagon with the 4.7L (289cui) V8 - a legendary small-block engine. Ford did have the very famous "7 Liter" engine in 1966 (and beyond), at 428/429 cui reserved for "larger" Ford Models until roughly 1968 (in the USA) when it began use in the Mustang. Cheers!
According to my reading, the reason for the sponson gun in the M3 was because of the challenge of casing a hull with a turret ring large enough to fit the turret. Building the turret was not the limiting factor. It was the inability to pour the turret ring.
That doesn't sound right. It makes no sense that the turret ring was the problem in a cast hull...it's just a hole in the hull. The problem was that neither the USA or the UK had ever cast a turret big enough for a 75 mm gun, and it took a bit of time to work out how to do it.
Do you have a source for that? Every source I see echoes the 'need to built a bigger turret'.
@@Ocrilatyea your correct. They needed a 75 asap but weren’t able to put it in a turret yet at that moment so stuck it in a hull. Thus, the m3 was born.
The most have produced casted M3's with turret before the M4's, but if it's the turret ring or turret itself that was the problem I don't know.
It was the design of the ring. The Army and Ordnance wanted a ring design that could handle the weight of larger turrets holding bigger guns that they planned to use within a year or two. The Jumbo is a good example. It was a basic M4 that had extra armor added to the hull and a much thicker cast turret. When one had its turret shot up then it was replaced with any available M4 turret. The M10 and M36 also used the same turret ring. Fisher Body built the M10 whose hull was to hold the M36 turret. Fisher had labor problems so couldn't produce more M10 hulls. Ordnance told Ford to set the M36 turrets on M4'S coming off the production line and redo the ammo storage outside in the storage yard. Fisher Body was then given the contract to design and produce the Jumbo while the Army rounded up all of the M10's at the training bases. Those totalled 1000 and were refurbished by Fisher Body before they received the M36 turret. Fisher was to produce 6000 M36 TD's but Ordnance cancelled the contract after the 1000 were finished since the M36 on M4 hulls were preferred by their users for being better armored. Ordnance discovered that after shipping 29 M36 turrets to France after D-Day to set on repaired M4 hulls to get it to the troops faster.
The M3 is a very standard interwar Design. Look at the early Churchills, the B2. and a pile of proposed designs. It's just what the thinking was. the little gun on top was considered plenty for antitank work. the big gun was for bunkers. The MGs everywhere were because the US had a machine gun fetish.
The Tommy Cooker and Zippo names when used in reference to the tanks catching fire is incorrect according to a few other historians. Apparently the British tankers referred to all of their tanks in the desert as Tommy Cookers due to the extreme heat inside the tank, and the Zippo was a nickname given to flamethrower tanks. The thing about the Sherman fire myth is that all tanks, especially early to mid war, would burn. Most tanks stored ammo in the sponsons or other dangerous areas.
It was poor tank; gun, optics, engine, armour...
But delivered in huge ammount on west front where germans were weaker than eastern front.
It was the German gun crews who called them Tommy cookers not because they were hot inside.
@@johnnycab8986 The Ronson nickname came from guy, who write a book and during the war he was in repair depot. His view is horrible biased, because, well....he was in repair depot, so he saw a lot of burned out Shermans, because....well, this is where all destroyed/damaged tanks went...to repair depot.
@@podunkman2709 this video and history legit says otherwise
@@podunkman2709 Incorrect in every statement. The M4's gun, and optics, and armor, were peer with the tank it faced the most which was the Panzer-IV. The engine was so much more reliable than anyone else's that it beggars belief.
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).
As far as I know, according to WW2 statistics Sherman's didn't catch on fire more frequently than other gas run tanks of the era... The Chieftain explained it thoroughly many times...!
Oh bugger...the tank is on fire.
Diesel tanks are still superior though
@@KekusMagnusvery few of them in WW2
Soviets built plenty of diesel tanks. T34, KV1, IS1. V12 diesel.
I can't recall exactly when, but pretty early on in the evolution of the Sherman, the shells for the 75mm were surrounded with a liquid mixture to lessen the chance of the rounds cooking off after a hit. If there wasn't at least some truth to the claims that Shermans burned easily, why go to the trouble and expense of wet-stowage?
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.
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
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?
In a Sherman was one of the safer jobs to have. Also it's down to logistics. We had to ship it across a ocean to fight. Then transport supplies once it got there. On top of that spare parts were available.
especially safe when wet storage was put in
@@Fireclaws10 an under appreciated fact was also that US tankers still wore helmets inside the tank. there was actually a noticeable increase in survivability compared to British tankers in their own shermans since they only wore berets inside their shermans.
Plus the ability for the allies to provide a complete new tank relatively quickly to replace those lost as unrepairable on the battlefield. That's something the enemy couldn't match due to allied air supremacy shooting up most replacements.
@dominuslogik484
A British medical study, concluded the Cromwell was more survivable 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 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.
But that this tank was great in logistics is a myth, if they would have built a better one, they wouldn't need to transport so many replacement tanks. In Africa they have been good enough, but in Europe they were outmatched as Germany had until late 44 enough resources in the West to roast them. Only allied air power ended the battle of the bulge.
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.
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!
The constant bursting into flames is kind of a myth.....
yea, it had a gasoline engine and ammo stored at the sides just like everyone else including the overrated Tigers. And yet some think the Shermans burned more, with ammo later stowed on the floor it was very survivable
Sour grapes? 🍇😁
Even Tanks today are constantly bursting Into flames.
It happened with the British in Africa due to them shoving ammo in every spot they could. Beyond that though, it's burn rates prior to wet stowage were the same as the Panzer IV. With wet stowage, it was the lowest of the war (at least for production tanks).
@Chopstorm. In fast moving open desert warfare you don't want to stop to wait for the supply truck for more ammo..
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.
14:55
75mm M3 was absolutely designed as an anti-armour weapon, being a successor to the 75mm M1897A4 which served on M3 GMC halftracks as tank destroyers.
Agreed when looked and what tanks they thought they would be going up agianst the Panzer 3 and Panzer 4 but the troops did love the HE shell compared to the 76mm that came later.
@@tasman006that’s cus the amount if the he in the 76mm, was much less than the 75, the 76 was necked down and specifically made for an anti tank round.
Agreed. Also read FM 17 the armored Force.
@@alexanderthegreatzabaras7492 The HE filler wasn't "significantly less" but it was less. the major complaint by a lot of tankers was the reduction in ammo storage. its also why the 90mm wasn't adopted on tanks sooner since they figured the 76mm was enough and they preferred to not give up even more ammo for a bigger gun.
The biggest reason is that the 76mm had a higher velocity and thus the spread pattern of fragments is more elongated and narrower.
The Sherman was reliable and much easier to repair unlike many contemporary tanks.
Well to be fair that is because most modern tanks have more advanced equipment by necessity. P-38 Lightning is technically more reliable than an F-35 Lightning II because it is a piston-engine craft and not a stealth jet. As Star Trek III once put it “the more complicated the plumbing, the easier it is to clog the pipes.”
@@emberfist8347 "Contemporary" doesn't mean "today". "Contemporary" means "of the same time". He's referring to the Sherman's _contemporaries_, not modern tanks.
@@hoilst265 I now of the other definition. Contemporary is also used to refer to modern things so I incorrectly assumed it was that definition.
Wow u guys settled it without a Twitter style flame war.
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.
Spring assisted hatch’s are always nice
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.
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.
The Sherman was a robust enough design that with upgrades it could be a competitive tank with any medium tank in the world and have a decent chance against any heavy tank in the world, of course depending on variant, etc. even at the end of WWII. It was an easily repairable tank, something Chieftain has remarked on before.
the cheiftan also remarked the myth of the sherman always burning was because the germans had a tendency to shoot everything until it burned.
@@RasEli03That and the Brits put ammo wherever they could stuff it.
Not inconsequential was the fact that US Army M4 Shermans armed with the 75mm gun operated in platoons of at least 4 tanks, usually 5. They were quicker than the Tiger and the Panther, were more agile in the turn and their turrets could turn faster. That meant that a platoon of Shermans could outflank any lone heavy cat they met and get a shot into the side or rear of the heavy tank before the German could lay his gun on one of them. The M3 gun, firing M61 or M72 AP rounds, could penetrate the Tiger's side and rear at close range, and the accuracy of the gun made track and wheel hits possible at longer ranges. This is the source of the legend that it took 5 Shermans to kill a Tiger, implying that 4 of the 5 Shermans would be destroyed getting the Tiger. That was not the case. They swarmed the big cats and shot them where the armor was thinnest with their 75 mm M3 guns, getting at least a mission kill, often without losing a single attacking tank. The real good news is that they rarely met a Tiger I in France (less than 1400 were ever made) and Panthers were almost as rare because Allied air power decimated German armor units when they attempted to road march to the Normandy front. The up gunning of the M18 and M36 tank destroyers later in the war provided a class of powerful and flexible armored fighting vehicles that were a match for any tank the Germans could field, and they were a development of the Sherman chassis and running gear as well.
The tactics were simple. Shoot first, fire two or three rounds and then move to a secondary position to prevent the enemy from getting a shot on you.
@@boydgrandy5769 US Shermans virtually NEVER fought a Tiger after D-day. It actually only happened twice, and I don't count one of those times because they were unmanned Tigers loaded onto a train for transport. Even though 1943 if you saw a German tank it was likely either a Panzer 4 (all around equal to a Sherman) or a Panzer 3 (Sherman way better here.)
Sherman was arguably the best tank of WWII. Armour was good for medium tank, same as optics and gun. It was reliable, could be easily repaired and cheaply produced. It was also comfortable for the crew and the size offered good survivability. The only thing where Sherman was lacking was off-road ability, similarly to many German tanks. But it was corrected in the HVSS version.
Chris Copson is an excellent presenter, yet another informative film with first rate production quality from the Tank Museum, how fortunate we are. Both Chris and Fam are superb new additions to the presentation team and the recent content from the world’s best armour museum seems to just get better and better. Thanks to all at the Tank Museum !
Thie was an enjoyable vid. My father's regiment, Lothian and Border Horse Yeomanry, was equipped with the M4A2 later on in North Africa. Matildas and Crusaders being superceded by it. They were part of the 6th Armoured Division and took part in Operation Torch. Later, fully equipped with Shermans, they were brought over for the 4th battle of Monte Casino and chased the Wehrmacht all the way to the river Po.
brilliant video as always , we are all very lucky to have this content
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.
The Sherman was a revolutionary tank. Every tank nowadays has "rolling upgrades" just as the Sherman's started
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.
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.
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…
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.
The sherman was my introduction to tanks growing up and will always have a special place in my heart.
something to keep inmind about the shermans bursting into flames. they bursted into flames about the same amount of other tanks, but it was way more survivable and easy to escape. and later war shermans had the ammo moved to the floor reducing the tanks chances of ammunition cook off. wet stowage itself is controversial, and its consider to probably of not done much to help
Very good video, but one thing that wasn’t really addressed was the weight factor for shipping to different war theaters which was of great importance. The weight that can be shipped on a train is far different than a ship in regard to lifting and stowing. The ability to mass produce medium tanks and quickly load them onboard transport ships was always at the forefront of the U.S. Ordnance Department’s mind. The book “Logistics of WWII: Final report of the Army Service Forces”, covers this in some detail.
T-34 was a lot better in that regard, it could be shipped any place Sherman could, it was not as tall and tippy-flippie, and did not got stuck where M4 would not go… So is any German tank of first part of the war better in those regards, then M4.
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 😂
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.
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.
Thank you for taking the time to make this documentary. It was very useful and informative!
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
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.
Should have gone on about postwar modifications such as Egypt replacing the Sherman’s turret with that of the AMX-13 and Israel’s deep modifications with 75mm and 105mm guns.
The Israeli Shermans are really cool. Definitely my favorite variants.
@@GeneralLee131 mine too, those guys really know how to modify a tank!
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.
An excellent dissertation! Well done! 👍
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.
The Chieftain believes the appellation Tommy cooker was coined by the British in N Africa as all British tanks there were saunas.
This is an excellent review of the Sherman and its variants. From development to deploymemt. Thank you!
Thank you for doing another one of these!! I loved the Spitfire one, so seeing this had released made me super hyped!
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.
The only problem with the Ronson nickname is the explanation that this was due to the slogan “lights first every time.” The issue is that this slogan appears in almost no surviving print ads, and not in any ads from the period right before or during the war. The most common slogan used in print ads for the Ronson is “The World’s Greatest Lighter.” To a leaser extent, the slogan “Flip… It’s Lit… Release… It’s Out” or “Press… It’s Lit… Release… It’s Out” appears regularly. Nowhere does the slogan “lights first every time” appear, except in a single ad from 1929 which states “Lights every time.”
TANK AND AFV NEWS From the Editor: Lights First Every Time? page
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Thank you Mr. Copson - really nice presentation with plenty of detail, and discussion around the pros and cons of the Sherman.
As The Chieftain pointed out during a Sherman myth-busting video, the US Army M4 field manuals of the period fully described tank-on-tank tactics, showing that the Sherman WAS designed and intended to fight other tanks. Additionally, the 76mm HVAP gun was not the preferred gun by the tankers fighting across France. They preferred the 75mm since it had a better HE round and the Panther/Tiger engagements were relatively rare. My personal favorite is the 105mm-equipped M4.
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.
The Sherman was the Best Tank of World War 2. I'd always figured it got a bad rap but Chieftain convinced me it was the best with his Myths of American Armor and Sherman Tabk videos.
Note: Yes, the M3 75mm WAS meant to shoot tanks. Really? Tank Museum? Why, oh WHY would you give it AP ammo in the first place? Lazerpig knows better. Love to Lazerpig!
Edit: The gun was meant to do *everything* that might be asked of it; from infantry support, to anti-tank duty. Too high a velocity, the HE would sail over a target and loses the ability to give the shell good, plunging fire as well. Too low and it can't take on other tanks.
619-625m/sec isn't bad at all, right down the middle, really and gives the tank amazing utility. If you had the correct sights and equipment, I bet you could use it for anti-aircraft work as well😂.
And, throughout it's many variants, it's crew survival rates were into the 80% range and it only got better with water storage.
The T-34 only had a 5% to 15% crew survival rate, could only get off a couple rounds a minute while the Sherman could get off around 10! The Sherman was faster by a wide margin as well and the roomier of the two, aiding the soft factors lile loading and target acquisition.
Sherman. BEST. Tank. Of. WW 2.
The M4 could got off a few more than 10 rounds a minute. An M60a1 could get off 18 rounds the first minute, it slowed down once the 15 rounds in the ready racks were spent, and that is a 105mm round.
There was no best tank of WW2.
@@lyndoncmp5751 Yes there is! And it's right here!
@OasisTypeZaku
There was no best tank of WW2. Each nation had different requirements. It wouldn't have served the Germans better 1943/45.
@@lyndoncmp5751 True, but given everything the Sherman was, the roles it was expected to fill, ease of repair/maintenance, hard and soft factors, and the fact it has to be supplied from thousands of miles away successfully (which it was) compared to every other tank, not one vise in the maintenance/repair shops because *the parts all fit perfectly From The Factory and no modifications were ever required...*
Yeah, best tank of WW2, I'm calling it here and now.
Also bear in mind that we had to load these thigs on ships and send them across the atlantic so producing massive tanks like the germans did was out of the question
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.
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.
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
The Sherman was the ground variant of the P-40 Warhawk/Kittyhawk; Effective at everything, but could have been more.
best tank of WW2, as close to perfect as you can get. realiable, easy to repair, easy to transport, easy to mass produce, easy to upgrade, capable against tanks, capable against infantry; absolutley perfect for global attritional warfare. hard to point at a single thing and credit it for winning a whole war; but I'd think history'd be different if we never got the sherman.
There was no best tank of WW2.
Each country had different requirements.
There isn't really a best tank, every country had different doctrines throughout the war,
US: Mass production
USSR: Mass production
Britain: Infantry support
Germany: Blitz (early war idk what I'd call late war)
France: Infantry support
Italy/Japan: Didn't really focus on tanks
@@lyndoncmp5751I agree but the Sherman is the closest
@@lyndoncmp5751 The book "Armored Champion" by Steven Zaloga does a really, really good "best tank" breakdown for each period of the war, by criteria. So, commanders choice, crew choice etc. Feels like the best way to do it imo
@@0lionheart
Zaloga is widely criticised for being too America biased.
The soft stats of the Sherman were excellent in a way that really hadn't been seen in tanks up to that point. The crews were comfortable, and had fantastic visibility with virtually every position but the gunner having a pivoting spotting periscope. On top of that, it had virtually unheard of reliability and crew survivability, , becoming THE gold standard for the 'Oh my god, the tank is on fire' test.
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.
Not all Shermans were built in the US, hundreds were built in Canada. My Grandmother worked at GMC Diesel in London Ontario
As I recall, a Canadian version was called a 'Grizzly'.
@@johnharrison6745 Lets not forget the Canadian Ram tank which was then converted into the Kangaroo APC
Ah those must have been the ones that blew up then. That explains a lot.
188 were, and they were all used for training.
@@kevinprzy4539 Holy Roller was built in Canada, landed on D-Day and went to VE Day and is currently a monument. So not all were just used for training
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
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.
The Chieftan has discussed this point at length. In the end, the Sherman was a pretty good comprise of production, world-crossing transport and logistics, reliability, field maintenance, armament, and armor. There were tons of them everywhere, they were reliable, filled many battlefield rolls, and were decent fighters, especially when not pitted in the oft-debated hypothetical situations that didn't actually happen much in real life. They also suffer from a similar situation to the M16. The very earliest originals had some teething problems that were soon worked out, but the old guys from back them never moved on, and continue to grump around about it.
The Sherman was a great MEDIUM tank that was designed for infantry support and it filled that role perfectly.
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
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.
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.
An excellent and informative presentation which illustrates the strengths of the vehicle without shying away from the weaknesses. These days far too many commentators have moved to the extremes and treat this all a zero sum game where, for example, acknowledging that the Sherman's armour was never really adequate for the threat environment it faced means you also think the Tiger II was the best thing ever and the Germans only lost because they were outnumbered.
Reliability is by far the most important factor on a battlefield. The sherman was simple, reliable; easy to maintain, good mobility, adequate gun ( especially the firefly) and tens of thousands of them!
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.
i`m wearing my Sherman Fury slippers bought form the tank museum shop. Rugged an reliable!
Furry Fury slippers? Great fun! 😂
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
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.
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.
Yeah that catching on fire thing is a post war myth, the sherman had insanely high survivability even in 1943
Catching on fire and crew survivability are not mutually exclusive. What is important is that the crews were more likely to get out without being burned
@@TheChieftainsHatch still, with the exception of British heavies allied tankers were safest in the sherman. If there's anything to take away from the sherman it's the crew mortality rate, for a vehicle that catches so much flak for various flaws most people forget to mention the benchmarks it set.
@@addisonherbert6686 And one of the major reasons was that the crew hatches were spring-loaded. Open the catch and give it a one-handed push, the hatch opens. A lot of other tanks required the crew to push open heavy slabs of steel against gravity - not great when you have seconds to get out.
@@TheChieftainsHatch I would like to read or watch a direct response from you regarding some informations of this video, like the tendency of the Sherman burning, the myth of it, that you talk so much in your videos, that in fact Shermans were burning in the same rate of other tanks, this wasn't even addresed in this video. Another thing that you talk about was the myth of US doctrine of tank destroyers being responsible for engaging enemy tanks while tanks were not, when in fact tank destroyers were supposed to engage tanks when on the defense, while tanks, in their supporting or exploitation role were expected to engage any threat, including enemy tanks.
Another strange piece of information is the pair of Panzer IVs knocked out by Ekins after he knocked out the 3 Tigers. In Stephen A Hart book (Sherman Firefly vs Tiger - Normandy 1944) it's said Ekins knocked out 1 Panzer IV at 1200m, not 2, then his Firefly got hit and the crew baled out.
I was so thrilled about this video, but it's so much dubious information, especially regarding what I'm used to read/watch from you, that's disappointing.
@eliasmiguelfreire8965 unfortunately, I am on a family vacation in Costa Rica. I'm not likely to spend 20 minutes watching a Tank Museum video and then assessing it until after Christmas
Masterful video, well explained, thanks,as ever Christopher!😊
It was good for what it was designed for. For building, shipping, making en masse, for simplicity and toughness, for ease of repair..it was not only good, it was excellent. Comparing it to a German tank, which was used and built for entirely different reasons, is rather short sighted. In the end, the Germans might've been better off with improved, up-gunned Panzer IV's, rather than the larger, harder to produce machines they had.
There was no way to up gun the Panzer IV after spring 1943. It had reached the end of its evolution as a tank and was not capable of being improved to to toe to toe with the next generation of allied tanks expected to be met. The Panzer IV was only ever 25 tons at most. This was nearly 10 tons lighter than the Shermans and T-34s coming out in 1944.
The Germans felt already in 1942 they needed a main tank to carry the 75mm L/70. The Panzer IV couldn't. Hull was too narrow so the turret ring was too small.
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
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.