Well to prove my point why I won't be uploading the D-Day series to TH-cam any time soon. This video has been demonetized. Signing up to CuriosityStream.com/RealEngineering and getting that free access to watchnebula.com will allow me to make these videos. I just can't take the risk on TH-cam anymore.
Real Engineering Is unacceptable for TH-cam to just demonetize original content creators videos but quality ones like yours that have no controversial or shocking content is such a weird move. They basically can be better than any history channel and have no production costs by just not screwing people over. Do they ever make contact / respond and if so what is the action / justification?
@@doomdave475 he hinted in the video towards the end the reason for setting up the new streaming service was to ensure historical content creators, covering war topics, would get funded for their efforts.
@@doomdave475 Anything that references Nazis gets demonitized. And Nazis will flag content that calls them out for their doucheyness and get it demonitized.
A few fun facts: 1 - Statistically, when an M4 was hit, most of the time 4 of the 5 crewmen survived 2 - M4s traveled in squads of 5, hence the 5 Shermans to take out a German tank myth 3 - Complete burnouts were drastically reduced when wet stowage was introduced 4 - The M4s automotive reliability contributed to spectacular feats such as Patton's 160km road march to relieve Bastogne on December 26th. Something a German armored division could only dream of.
TheSaturnV Thanks for the info. I love our chubby M-4 s, but it’s more Romantic to be a Tiger lover and minimize the Sherman. No one could beat our industrial might of that era.
Also Belton Y. Cooper, wrote the book "Death Trap" that the movie "Fury" is based on, was assigned to recovered damaged and destroyed US tanks. So he never survey the US tanks survived those battles nor did he survey any of the damaged and destroyed German tanks.
@@xraymind He probably missed the fact that both sides would keep shooting at knocked out tanks to destroy whatever's left intact and make the tank unrecoverable.
@@fixedguitar47 Real combat veterans will never actually tell how bad their experiences were. They want to forget it but they can't because... It's playing in their heads almost everyday! So if he tells you one thing about it. That one thing will be THE ONLY THING he tells you about it. War is true horror my friend. Their is no good or bad or good versus evil or black and white. It's just all pure evil that's stuck inside a combat veterans head that they wish they can get rid of.
mark blizzard - My dad would always ask me to ask grandpa for stories about the war. The only story he ever told me in detail was the one where he got in the news paper years later for his silver star. That and one where three Germans vs a tank. He was not to pleased about the way it turned out. The Germans got vaporized by his order.
@@black10872 My father was with the 291st Engineers on Omaha beach and trapped with them in Malmedy when they stopped a German Tank army. He only told his funny stories and then he would get quiet and say, "You're lucky to be here, Steven". He kept his M1 carbine and a 1914 German Luger he took of an officer. Said he broke the guys jaw with it too.
The size of a tank platoon in the US army was 5 tanks, so if the US army was sending tanks to battle, it was in multiples of 5, which is why there would always be at least 5 shermans fighting any german tank.
Pyroblaster1 I am a retired tanker, you are absolutely correct. Tanks fight as part of a unit. The smallest maneuver unit is the platoon, which in WW2 was five tanks, today it’s four. Tanks do not fight by themselves. A tank fighting alone is a dead tank.
An allied company could be supported by a platoon of Shermans, a German company had a lot of MG 42 machine guns. The role of German infantry in support of tanks were the Panzer Grenadiers. They had a completely different philosophy. The allied philosophy demanded the production of lots of tanks as they had the initiative after El Alamein.
@@CharlesvanDijk-ir6bl the americans were caught in a bad situation. they had to have a tank that wasn't a tank. they had to have a tank that could be shipped to europe, land in france and cross every bridge between paris and berlin. they did it with disposables. it took 10 american tanks to knock out one german tank, but we had lotsa tanks and lotsa tank crews.
The Germans were on the defensive, in order for an attack to be properly carried out the attacking force needs at the very least a 3 to 1 ratio The reason that the allies have 5 tanks for platoons is primarily because that is what they have brought with them You're not gonna say 'hey the enemy only has one panzer placed there, lets reduce our number of tanks from 5 to 3, lets make this fair'
The British often had a 6th in the form of the Firefly with the very powerful British 17 pounder gun They'd paint the end of the barrels black and white so they'd look like regular Shermans to the Germans and not get targeted first
the 5:1 myth for Tigers also comes from US using tanks in groups of five for operating. Ask yourself: if you spot an enemy heavy tank, are you going to send one of your tanks against them, or all of your tanks?
But so did the Germans they didn't have 1 tank just sitting around the only time you find any tank by them self is if the rest of the platoon was already destroyed BTW Germany had 5 tanks in a platoon or it was 1945 and you were in Germany and the war was basically over...
@@taxidermypolarbear1724 I know exactly where that quote is coming from but a quote can be applied to many things. That is why it was a quote. It was simply never meant for in this case, only when Stalin talk about his T-34/76
If I may make a correction, at 06:47 The "grousers" mentioned were called duck bills because of their shape. They were added in the field. They tended to break off on rocky ground. "Grousers" are actually the bars on the track face itself that give it traction. The term is still used today for caterpillar tractors.
Not surprising. YT has made it its policy to demonetise anything more serious and potentially controversial than a cat riding a roomba. They faced some (at least partially overblown) criticism - most from other media who jumped at the opportunity to hurt the competition - over having some ISIS propaganda vids on their servers and generaly not policing their platform well enough. Advertisement companies not wanting their adds to be associated with some arsehole burning a defenceless prisoner alive - somewhat understandable - demanded action and YT shatt its pants and went full retard in the oposite direction.
Jick Magger Wow. That's your interpretation of this? (unless this is some joke or attempt at trolling ofc) YT making a short sighted and ham-fisted busines descision is in truth part of some world conspiracy to create a comunist world gouvernment? I wonder what you use for shaving. For it's clearly not Ockham's Razor...
Great video, one thing though, the "Easy 8" refers to the new suspension system not the gun, the 76mm gun was put on many different Sherman variants and is identified by the (76)W after the model number, for instance M4A1 (76)W
@@hossep2695 I'm not entirely sure, but there was only one easy 8, it was the tank that tested HVSS in the testing ground in the US. M4's with HVSS were named like that by men on the battlefield but it was wrong and only to indicate that a certain sherman had HVSS.
War is only successful when the different branches of the service work together. Tanks without infantry are useless, air power means nothing without ground forces, etc. Until those nukes change the equation.
@@hieronymusnervig8712 the real work horse was and still is our planet earth. It had to endure everything that is happening to it. And still keep on racing true the galaxy around the sun.
Also Sherman: "Not to mention that our mechanics have a much lower suicide rate since you don't need to disassemble the tank to replace a road wheel or the transmission"
The shermans(and most other WW2 tanks) were pretty unreliable too. Good serviceability and abundance of repair parts made breakdowns less of a problem though.
And towards the end of the war, the Sherman could easily kill the Tiger from the front thanks to the high velocity 76mm. Not to mention it had better optics and maneuverability.
An oft heard statement in Army planning circles is “amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics.” Granted, you need both, but the fighting and shooting and blowing stuff up always gets more attention than the behind the scenes. Glad to see you are interested in this aspect of warfare.
The M4 users did that thru out the war out of fear of running short or out of rounds when the fighting became up close and personal due to expending most of their ammunition on supporting the infantry as direct and indirect fire.
What people dont see, particularly ones who aint been in the army. Is logistics and simplicity. Logistics being the parts being easy to produce and maintain. Simplicity as in being easy to replace and fix THIS is what the Sherman did. Panzer V "Panthers" took far longer too make and maintenance was at times a nightmare. It was a fantastic tank in battle but fights it not what it will mostly do. Tanks mainly throughout war spend time moving or being stationary. War now is 90% moving or waiting 10% fighting as it was then.
The sherman had some genius design to it. If you want to replace the transmission, just remove some bolts on the front and the entire housing will fold down. I'm pretty sure the panther had to remove its turret to get to the transmission.
@@MistahFox You're pretty sure that the Panther needed to remove its turret? You never went through the effort and take a few minute search on google, have you? There are several phots that a 5min search on google will reveal that shows Panther getting their transmission replaced with the turret still on the tank. And no, it was not a genius design feature of the M4 and do you know why? Because it already was like that on the M3 medium.
What's the old saying? "Amateurs discuss tactics; professionals discuss logistics"...? That's an oversimplification, but basically true. Your fighting men can be the best-trained, bravest and toughest fighters around, but if they can't be supplied with "bullets, beans, and band-aids," they will have a very hard time winning. Oh - and don't forget POL, gasoline, oil, lubricants, fuels. It wasn't simply that German tanks were more-complex, costly and difficult to manufacture, it is that the German high command refused to standardize upon a few tank and TD designs and then turn them out in true quantity, as the Russians did with the T34 and the U.S. did with the Sherman. They were always tinkering with their designs, when what they already had was good-enough. Why make the Tiger II when the Tiger I was equal to almost anything sent against it? Why devote resources to such boondoggles as the Maus super-heavy tank, when the Panther had the potential to be such an important and war-winning weapon? For a people reputed to be so logical, it was very illogical thinking. The T34 and Sherman were outclassed by war's end, but made up for their deficiencies by sheer weight of numbers and also by the skilled use of combined arms warfare ("deep war" doctrine is what the Soviets called it). If a formation of Shermans got in trouble and was pinned down and taking losses, the commander could get in the radio net and call in reinforcements in the form of one or more of the following: tank destroyers, artillery, tactical air support, armored infantry, or some combination thereof. No German tank crew wanted to be in the open when it was raining 155mm shells - or rockets or bombs from the feared and hated "Jabos" - Allied ground-attack aircraft. The Anglo-American logistical advantage extended also to the ability to recover, repair or replace damaged/destroyed armored and other vehicles. German tanks and other vehicles once damaged or out of fuel were often abandoned and lost, due to advancing Allied forces, whereas the British, CW and American units could often recover and repair their battle-damaged equipment. The German lack of something similar and as-capable was keenly felt by their ground forces.
@@GeorgiaBoy1961 I believe for the transmission or final drives on the panther requires spinning the turret sideways and lifting off the roof of the hull with a crane to get at the transmission. Also road wheel and suspension replacement on a panther was a nightmare. Often the vehicles were just abandoned and destroyed when they broke down. Which was a lot considering the panther was still going through teething problems. However at the point of panther Germany was already pretty much on the losing side (massive defeat and capture of the sixth army at Stalingrad). Also properly trained crews was another problem. More often than not the crews never had enough time to be properly trained how to use the vehicles. Most of the good tank crews were already dead or missing from fighting on the eastern front and Africa. By the time the Americans had landed they were pretty much just mopping up whatever was left.
@@GeorgiaBoy1961 They weren't logical once Nazism was in full swing. Weapon designs were trying to vie for Hitler's favor. The more you satisfy Hitler's ego, the more you shall get ahead. And of course no one wants to tell him "No".
@@johnmckenna5782 Tiger tanks were so extremely rare on the western front, that statistically there were basically zero. From D-day to VE day US tanks engaged with a Tiger tank on only 3 occasions, with only two of the times it being a Sherman against a Tiger, both of which the Sherman won, though that 2nd time was really not really a fair fight since the Tiger was being loaded onto a train car. The other time a Tiger faced a US tank the Tiger won, though that was against the US M26 Pershing Heavy Tank.
Sherman has some spring loaded hatches Wehraboo: **DEATH TRAP!!!!** Tiger tank having some mechanical breakdown Wehraboo: **Greatest tank ever devised!**
@@mrbladesletplays besides the fact the tiger was design to be repaired over weeks of time solely because they were a breakpoint tank theyre shit? look at the role it was designed for and it was a good tank for that.
@@mrbladesletplays Really? Got any actual written proof or documentation that shows that Tigers ate up their transmission really fast and were so extremely unrealible? Or should I simply come to the conclusion that you're little more than yet another one of those dumb sherman fanboys.
For those still interested, I recommend looking up "The Chieftain" here on youtube. The guy is the historian for World of tanks NA office, and have a bunch of videos detailing both using and living in tanks, as well as historical stuff. He even has a presentation specifically about why the sherman was actually a really good tank, despite what popular media oftentimes portrays.
it would probably be more accurate to say "The Workhorse of Overlord". D-Day is literally just the beach landings which were secured mostly be Infantry.
Technically, "d-day" refers to the day an operation starts. It's primarily used in planning, where multiple factors could cause an operation to start late or early. Every day after the operation is "D-day + X", where X refers to the number of days after d-day.
And also Churchill tank landed idk im wrong or not sorry about this.. Did Churchill tank really crossed/climbed beach defense walls right? It was heavy infantry tank but able to climb through mountains that man can't.
@@uselessshitheadwithcatprof3815 yes the British used the Churchill in their sector. It did have a greater climbing ability allowing it to climb over steep ditches and trenches.
I will always remember that profound moment that Nicholas Moran, aka the chieftain, explained how the lifting eyes were the most important part of a tank designed to fight on battlefields halfway across the world from where it was built.
Outstanding video. I’ve read widely about the M4 and you did an excellent job of describing its development and utilization. Excellent graphics and film use also. Thank you; so grateful for seeing this!
The M4 and it’s family are such durable vehicles, they survived one of the largest and longest lasting misinformation and fuddlore campaigns in history
During your engineering analysis you may wish to look at 79 Armour Hobart’s Funny’s, you have shown the DD and Crab. Also look at Firefly, the engineering to take the best Allies anti tank gun and fit to the best tank, was mind blowing in its simplicity but still had to be engineered. Finally considering the Bailey bridge portable, pre-fabricated, truss bridge built with AVREs. Still used today.
1. The Soviets are generally considered to be an allied power, no matter what they said they were or decided to call whatever company they kept. 2. In a video set in WW2 do I really need to specify if I was talking about THE T-34 (all variants included) or some post war lesser known american name coincidence. Of course I'm talking about the one that the Germans had destroyed more than 34000 of by 1943. Such staggering numbers that Hitler remarked about "See(ing) everything twice or ten times". And the one that became the never ending swarm that finally halted the blitzkrieg. 3. The numbers are readily available online, slightly less than 50000 M4s were built while around 58000 T-34s rolled off the line (doesnt matter if some were unfinished and unpainted). 4. Have a good day.
Thank you for saying this, myths about Shermans are so unfair. Worth mentioning was also M4A3A2 variat with very thick armour capable of bouncing any 88mm round. More of that, I read somewhere M4 Shermans have the highest crew survivaliability of any WW2 tanks.
Very true. The Sherman was a good tank overall. The idea of it being a "death trap" is a complete myth that has been totally debunked, and which contradicts documented facts. The crew survival rate was about 97 percent. I've read about so many battles where Sherman tanks were hit, but the crew was able to easily get out and survived. Some Shermans were able to keep fighting even after taking hits.
The problems we have getting a bunch of coders to lunch together at work (Machine games) I always have my deepest respect for the planners of such a huge endeavor as the D-Day! Looking forward to your new series on logistics. Technology wins battles, logistics wins wars!
There was a glowing year in North Africa when the Sherman used by the British reign nearly supreme as the best tank in the theater. That wonderful year........ But honestly, all things considered, the Sherman was the most underrated tank of the war.
The Stuart light tanks are really the best early war us tank and that’s a understatement the often worked as recon for Sherman’s artillery or tank destroyers and like the Sherman served on all fronts so it’s a light tank that was good at its role and was of the few to get there before the us did However that’s because it’s based of the m2 tank
Very good video! I thought I knew quite a bit about the Sherman, but I learned a few things from this. Chiefly, the spring suspension system. Your graphics are very clear. Thanx!
@@elpatrico2562 The M10 uses a modified M4 chassis, and completely unique turret. Like dernwine mentions, the M3 is a modified M4 chassis aswell. Or maybe by that logic they are all M3's. Just so you know "Shermans" were the british version of the M4A1 with the 75mm, which is modified in its own ways away from an american M4. For instance it had a smoke mortar and almost never had commander AA .50 cal. I think it had 1 less crew aswell, but I cant remember honestly.
Probably due to availability of footage in the Public Domain. A 'lot' of WWII footage is not in fact so, one has to pay their owners, often museums and the like, in order to show them, just as you have to do so with other forms of media. Take a look at how much Pathe charges for some of its clips for example, and you can see why YT makers generally use public domain footage, which is relatively scarce in comparison.
The Soviet T-34 was the most produced tank in WWII, by quite a lot. Though the Sherman was the most numerous tank on the west battlefront, and during D-day.
5 ปีที่แล้ว
Wrong. 35000 built in ww2, versus 49.000 for the M4 Sherman.
@ …. dude, the Soviets LOST almost 45 thousand T-34 tanks (and variants) during WWII, and they still had a lot left when they stormed Berlin. Heck, they lost almost 20k tanks (across all tank types, not just T-34's) to the German Wehrmacht during Operation Barbarossa … how the heck do you think they managed to survive ? By mass producing the ever living shit out of their tanks ! That's how. [Quote] *Altogether, as many as 84,070 T-34s are thought to have been built, plus 13,170 self-propelled guns built on T-34 chassis.* It was the most-produced tank of the Second World War, and the second most-produced tank of all time, after its successor, the T-54/55 series. [end quote] It should be noted that about 7k of those were thought to have been built after the war, that still puts them at around 75k+ at the most conservative estimate. The Soviets knew how to mass produce, heck, that's why the line "Quantity has a quality all its own." is so popular with them to this day. Even though it may have originated from an officer working under Napoleon Bonaparte, it is still often attributed to Stalin. Even if he did not say it, it was certainly his doctrine.
5 ปีที่แล้ว
@@Grumpy_old_Boot Okay, but in that case if you're conflating all variants together, we also need to start including the other tanks from that series. Like the M3 Lee, and the later tanks like the Pershing etc.
@ The M3 Lee was not an M4, nor was the Pershing .. completely different platforms. As for the M4, the 49 thousand *does* include all the M4 variants. Here's the list : Source : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman#U.S._production_history M4 Sherman Production ---------------------------------------------- Designation Produced M4 6,748 M4(105) 800 M4(105) HVSS 841 M4A1 6,281 M4A1(76)W 2,171 M4A1(76)W HVSS 1,255 M4A2 8,053 M4A2(76)W 1,594 M4A2(76)W HVSS 1,321 M4A3 1,690 M4A3(75)W 2,420 M4A3(75)W HVSS 651 M4A3E2 254 M4A3(76)W 1,925 M4A3(76)W HVSS 2,617 M4A3(105) 500 M4A3(105) HVSS 2,539 M4A4 7,499 M4A6 75 ---------------------------------------- Total Production 49,234 Those are the variants based on the M4 platform.
Watching your logistics of d day video on nebula I'd like to add Dieppe was known to be a suicide mission before it started and the Canadians bravely gave their life to give the allies information on what to expect on an assault, they ended up making it further than expected and gained a lot of critical nazi information. The Canadian Juno Beach was also stormed first on D-day while the other allies struggled as most of their tanks didn't make it on land. Canadian troops then shut down nazi infrastructure from behind and allowed for the other beaches to succeed
Excellent post. And superb research. Both my father and uncle were in the war: Dad in the Pacific theater and the Bikini test site. My uncle: in the Battle of The Bulge: (One of two out of his whole company to survive). So I appreciate posts like this. Thanks, bro!
The stabilizer wasnt for firing on the move, it was to make aiming/firing much quicker once the tank had stopped. Most tank crews werent trained how to use it and so for the most part it was under utilized. Those who were trained on its operation did love it though.
My Dad said he say one German tank that was moving under it's own power in combat. Always had Shermans around. It went up against a German solder with a riffle. He was in five major battles including the Bulge.
I know this is older, but I had to mention something about the gun. The gun was not terribly inadequate. It could punch through Panzers reliably. Many tankers preferred the 75mm over the 76. Also, the gun was perfect for what it was designed for, assisting infantry. Its he shells were perfect for fortifications and troops.
Not at range ir couldn't and mean range in Europe was around 800 yards. At that range both 75mm and 76mm struggled frontally against a variety of German armour.
@@matthewjones39 Actually more Panthers than Panzer IVs were deployed in the west. There were 1,837 Panthers and 1,666 Panzer IVs in the west from June 1944 to May 1945. The Jagdpanzer IV had the same front armour and gun as the Panther. Even the Hetzer with its 60mm sloped front armour was problematic for the Sherman 75mm frontally. Add in smaller numbers of Tigers and Jagdpanthers and it's more than you imagine. It partly explains the near 1:3 combat loss ratio the allies suffered in armour against the Germans 1943-45.
You know, this video suddenly makes me wonder which companies actually build tanks? Like, you know with military aircraft, although in wartime they were sub-licenced to many factories to meet demand, the design is typically the work of a single aircraft manufacturer that frequently also makes civilian aircraft. And it's not hard to find the name of the manufacturer of any given military aircraft... Plus, the designs were made by those companies to a government specification list. Yet tanks always seem to give off the impression that they're government made designs. Even if this isn't the case, there's just something about the way they're discussed that makes it feel like that... So who DOES actually make tanks?
Generally tanks tend to be designed by the countries government/military and then built under contract by heavy industry firms. For example, in WW2, US Tanks were designed by the US Military, and were then contracted out to heavy industry to build them. For example, Shermans were built by around a dozen different companies, including a number of car and railway manufacturers. Over in Germany, it worked a little differently, with the German military/government going out to companies to ask for designs. For example, the Panzer III was a Daimler Benz design, chosen from designs by Daimler Benz, Krupp, MAN and Rheinmetall.
finally a concise mini-doc that solves the mysteries and evolution of the ever-changing sherman. with accurate and timed in sequence intel...also contains some rare, unseen footage of the "Ronson".....outstanding video....kutgw.
Very interesting video. I would love to know the story behind that short bit at 7:31 when a Sherman was shot in battle. I wonder who was filming and how much of the war he survived.
5:50, the single cast upper hull didn't include the 3 piece transmission housing at the front as depicted. Nor was the "entire hull" cast in a single block, just the upper hull. Lower hull was welded plate.
I'd like to take a moment and remind the most dangerous Sherman to tigers was the Sherman Firefly. Kudos to Britain for slapping their fearsome 17 pounder to a turret.
The main reason the firefly earned that reputation is because the British brought them, while the Americans left the 76 mm Shermans behind. the firefly had fairly atrocious ergonomics compared to other Sherman variants, making it harder for the crew to bring the gun on target. the 76 was arguably better overall.
Great video, only things I would change is that the t34 was produced in higher numbers and also the 75mm was far superior to the 76mm in anti infantry role as it produced nearly 2x the fragments and also emphasize the impact of rivets becoming projectiles inside the tank when hit on the me lee
I am so excited to see the rest of the series on D-Day. I think too few history channels and books focus on the engineering decisions behind famous battles and wars.
As soon as I get a job I will get a Nebula account. I don't have many subscriptions since I'm in high school but I will get this if for no other reason than to keep watching you man. You have my views and soon money.
The numbers are muddy here since there are so many variables to consider, but during the active years of the war, more Shermans were produced than T34s. The T34 was the most produced tank of all time, however most of them were built late into the war (when the Soviets better utilized their factories in Siberia) and continued production into the early 1950s.
@@Arbbym9er Ehm no, more T-34s were produced during the war at some 55000 compared to the just over 49000 Shermans. The Soviet-Union stopped production of the T-34 in 1945. T-34 is also NOT the most produced tank of all time. Really makes me question if you even bothered to read up on all this.
The statistics and numbers don’t matter. What you’re missing is the fact that the USSR was not part of the ‘Allies’. People will argue against this to the grave but it’s true. The USSR was effectively allied with the Allies, not part of them. I’ve always thought it’s quite easy to understand this. Hitler and Stalin agreed to carve up Poland. Stalin also sought to take over the Baltic States and invade Finland. He wanted to spread Communism just like Hitler wanted to spread Fascism. They had agreements and traded with each other. In fact, Germany was living on borrowed time ever since Russia stopped shipping raw materials to them in 1941. The USSR began to share interests with the Allies when Germany invaded the Soviet Union with Operation Barbarossa. They would then coordinate to take on Germany. What makes it more obvious is what happened immediately after WW2. Do I need to spell that out? So going back to the tank production thing, yes the Sherman was the most produced tank of the Allies. If we’re including allies of the Allies, then yes the T-34 was. But we aren’t.
@@Dreachon Depends on several matters. Many didn't consider the Soviets as part of the Allied powers until after the war. Production numbers for the _T-34_ (and its derivatives) during the war vary wildly. Though Between 54,800 and 57,900 are the most common figures. In total between and 60,235 and 63,335 _T-34's_ in all variants and its derivatives were produced during the war. On the other side the the numbers for the Americans are less under question- 49,253 _M4's_ produced during the war including the _T6_ pilot. In total 63,181 _M4's_ in all variants plus derivatives were produced. Another ~2,180 can be added if you want to consider the _Grizzly's_ and _Sexton II's_ which were Canadian produced (for most part they were assembled in Canada, though most parts were produced in the U.S., they are not added to the _M4_ production list). So if you want 65,369. However referring to the tanks themselves up until 1944 the production and use of the _M4_ was at least notably, then eventually marginally larger than that of the _T-34._ In 1945 the _T-34_ (the _T-34/85_ variant in particular) production outpaced _M4_ production and beat it in overall numbers. That being said, the _T-34_ was produced well after the war to make up for losses suffered and the fact replacement medium tanks weren't in the numbers required. Some ~80,000 were produced in total if we include postwar production. The U.S.S.R. produced them until I believe early 1946.
Am very excited for you to cover the logistics of ww2! I don't see many ww2 channels covering that topic. "Amateurs talk about tactics, but professionals study logistics."
Great vid, only 49,000 M4 Shermans were made by though and 60,000 T34 tanks were made so the T34 is actually the most produced allied tank of WW2 and also post WW2 because most produced tank arguably against its successor the T54/55.
Only 50,000 T34/76 and t34/85 were produced in ww2 and only 6,000 to 8,000 survived the war. The American Sherman had 42,000 to 49,000 produced in the war And 2,300 Canadian Sherman's none left candida as far as I'm aware.
Elliot Wagstaff yea just because you don’t like communism means you can rewrite history, they were in the allies and were the reason the Yalta conference happened between the allies.
It gets a lot less menacing when you realize that we're comparing production numbers of 500 to 50,000 - and still less than 2,000 if you include Tiger Is.
9:52 I didn't know that thing in the front of the tank was supposed to clear mines , I was thinking it was supposed to be Somekind of cover for the tanks deployed in Africa where there's going to be a big dust that covers the tank from it's enemy but the tank also can't shot the enemy beacause of the dust and also the spinning thing Edit : I've also heard that Shermans of the 2nd division ambushed six tigers with a single Sherman knocking out three in quick succession with shots against their thinner armor . I don't really remember the story of it so if I was wrong please correct me thanks ;-;
2:33 small correction the T-34 was the most produced allied tank of the war although if you meen the most produced western allied tank than the Sherman is the most produced
Depends on several matters. Many didn't consider the Soviets as part of the Allied powers until after the war. Production numbers for the _T-34_ (and its derivatives) during the war vary wildly. Though Between 54,800 and 57,900 are the most common figures. In total between and 60,235 and 63,335 _T-34's_ in all variants and its derivatives were produced during the war. On the other side the the numbers for the Americans are less under question- 49,253 _M4's_ produced during the war including the _T6_ pilot. In total 63,181 _M4's_ in all variants plus derivatives were produced. Another ~2,180 can be added if you want to consider the _Grizzly's_ and _Sexton II's_ which were Canadian produced (for most part they were assembled in Canada, though most parts were produced in the U.S., they are not added to the _M4_ production list). So if you want 65,369. However referring to the tanks themselves up until 1944 the production and use of the _M4_ was at least notably, then eventually marginally larger than that of the _T-34._ In 1945 the _T-34_ (the _T-34/85_ variant in particular) production outpaced _M4_ production and beat it in overall numbers. That being said, the _T-34_ was produced well after the war to make up for losses suffered and the fact replacement medium tanks weren't in the numbers required. Some ~80,000 were produced in total if we include postwar production
Dammit... I already subbed to curiosity stream AND nebula... Also, why the hell are they demonetizing a history series with the other crap they leave up on here? Maybe talk to Joerg Sprave from the slingshot channel who is working on fairtube to get youtube to at least be transparent with their policies? (Edited to spell Joerg's name correctly)
1). Rock Island Arsenal produced a small tankette for the cavalry which used vertical volute spring suspension (VVSS) instead of a leaf spring suspension. Standardized as the M1 Combat Car, it entered service with the US Army in 1937. The design was used in the M2 light tank and subsequent Stuart tank series. Design features of the Stuart were scaled up for use in the first M2 medium tanks which would evolve into the more successful M3 Lee and M4 Sherman, all using the VVSS. 2). The Horizontal Volute Spring Suspension (HVSS) system was first field with the US M-6 heavy tank prototype in December 1941 and was a successes. However the M-6 itself was plagued with many problems that lead to the projects cancellation. The HVSS suspension would reappear in the later war on Sherman tanks as the E-8 program. It was never called an Easy-8, that was simply a Hollywood name for movies.. 3). The high velocity 76mm cannon was first fielded in 1942 with the M-18 Hellcats, this cannon was more than capable of destroying a Tiger-I from any angle, even the front. Later with the development of the HVAP round (high velocity armor penetrators') even the Panther and King Tigers thickest front armor was meat on the table. The first time the 76mm appeared on a Sherman was in 1942 as the proposed M4A1(76)W quick fix turret. This project was cancelled because the Sherman's original small turret with the 76mm gun combination was found to be too cramped with other flaws by Armor Board even though it did technically work. This did however kick off the E-6 program when the Chief of US Army Ordnance directed that the then Prototype turret (T-23) be placed onto the Sherman's hull which could easily take the 76mm. This resulted in the M4A2(76)W, the M4A3E2 "Jumbo" and finally the M4A3(76)W. 4). As to the myth it took 5 Sherman's to kill a cat i.e. Tiger is total bunk. American armored units move and fight as a "Platoon". A Platoon is the smallest tactical unit on a battlefield by doctrine and consists of 5-tanks. An American WWII tank company consisted of 3-Platoons with up to 3-spairs for18 tanks. It was Hollywood once again who perpetuated the idea that tanks went about fighting other tanks in one-on-one Chivalric duels. I highly recommend the TH-cam talk called "Myths of American Armor", given by United States Army, Armor Officer, Major Nicholas Moran also know as the Chieftain at his web sight the Chieftain's Hatch.
8:40 Interestingly, tank crews did not like the 76 mm gun. It was better at killing tanks - but tanks are not normally fought with tanks. Unless the situation is hellishly messed up and 1-sided, Tanks draw Tanks into Anti-Tank guns. Meanwhile the 75 mm was better against AT guns, Infantery and Fortifications. Things you actually met. th-cam.com/video/-ZKxmlpbwqk/w-d-xo.html The primary tactic was to draw enemy tanks into your AT guns. While the top killer was guns (with no data differentiating AT guns and Tank guns of the same calliber), it was followed by Infantery with AT weapons like the Bazooka/Panzerfaust, then mines, then technical defects. Note that the airfoce was *not* a tank killer. It is just some part of the "Miscelanous" group: th-cam.com/video/O5DcY8TmOpA/w-d-xo.html As for "5 Shermans to kill a Tiger", I know a variant of it: "It takes 5 Shermans to kill a Tiger. The allies had 6."
The 76mm without the super rare HVAP ammunition wasn't even that great frontally at killing certain German armour such as Tiger I, Tiger II, Panther, Jagdpanther and Jagdpanzer IV. Even Hetzer. It was seen as a disappointing anti tank gun by 1944/45 standards.
Nice doconi did notice a few mistakes. The track width extensions were called duckbills. Trousers are fitted to the track plates and provide more grip, a bit like snow chains do on tyres. They are usually in the form of ribbed plates. The dad tanks did not wade they swam, it was the tanks with extended trunk air inlets and exhausts that waded ashore. Quite a few shots were of M10 tank destroyers. Also you diagram showing the extent of the early main body casting also included the removable front gearbox assembly that bolted into the front.interesting point the VVSS tanks were fitted with 10 different types of track. Otherwise a great little docco just like your others
Except the M4 was actually a better design... Was much more reliable, far cheaper, more maneuverable, more effective as squad support vehicle, and was nearly just as effective versus other tanks.
The M3 Lee is pretty much a mutation and mix of everything: -Speed and mobility of a medium tank -Small turret of a light tank -Hull mounted 75mm like an SPG -armament layout of an infantry support vehicle like in the Char B1 -and a bunch of machine guns like an Armored Personell Carrier -The size and weight of a heavy tank
Parrot Bird its not the comment itself, but the reminder of how scummy the wot team has become. Look at the response to the british light tanks, they have completely lost touch with their players
The Sherman was used to devastating effect against Russian built T-34's in North Korea as well. It's difficult to measure the ability of a tank without looking at all of the deployments of the tank, and how it fared in all circumstance.
to be fair, the Russians didn't directly fight in Korea and supplied the north Koreans and Chinese with mainly surplus and decommissioned T-34s while the Americans did fight directly with WW2 veteran tank crews/officers and used mainly fresh post-war era shermans.
@@hellfun1337 at issue was whether the tanks were viable as a war weapon against other modern armor, not how well trained the crews were. Had the tanks not been viable, it would have mattered little how well the crews were trained.
@@deathguppie I'm not saying the tanks weren't tested, I'm saying the test was weighted in 1 side's favor. The age of the tank matters, new equipment should be tested against new equipment. The experience of the crew matters even more. real life is not 2 tanks sitting on opposing hills lobbing shells at 1000m. You could say the crew experience is paramount, ask any tanker.
@@hellfun1337 the viability of the Sherman tank has been brought into question many, many times. With most people claiming that the T-34 and Panthers were better tanks. My statement was just to point out the fact that the Sherman was not outclassed by its contemporaries. It was in fact a capable weapon for its time.
'it took 5 shermans to take out 1 tiger' is mainly because the allies only send out tanks in groups of minimum 5 tanks. Its not like 'oh joe, its only a pzIV, we only need 2 tanks, leave the rest behind'. No they always traveled in packs of 5.
@John Cornell the US army only encountered tigers three confirmed times. the one time they used shermans they won. a platoon of shermans with an intelligent commander can semi easily take 2 tigers as well
Well to prove my point why I won't be uploading the D-Day series to TH-cam any time soon. This video has been demonetized. Signing up to CuriosityStream.com/RealEngineering and getting that free access to watchnebula.com will allow me to make these videos. I just can't take the risk on TH-cam anymore.
That sucks youtube just hates anything historical
Real Engineering
Is unacceptable for TH-cam to just demonetize original content creators videos but quality ones like yours that have no controversial or shocking content is such a weird move.
They basically can be better than any history channel and have no production costs by just not screwing people over.
Do they ever make contact / respond and if so what is the action / justification?
Collab with Mark felton productions he also does things like this
Why was it demonitised? Also really interesting idea for a series!
I'm a subscriber to CS
It's sad when history documentaries are getting demonetised... Clearly education isn't a priority for TH-cam, just mindless nonsense.
Wolfy262 where can you see that it’s demonetised?
@@doomdave475 he hinted in the video towards the end the reason for setting up the new streaming service was to ensure historical content creators, covering war topics, would get funded for their efforts.
Wolfy262 Especially from Google, the company that was founded with the idea “don’t be evil”
@Trz Because it's usually better educated people watching history videos. Less susceptible to advertising
@@doomdave475
Anything that references Nazis gets demonitized. And Nazis will flag content that calls them out for their doucheyness and get it demonitized.
-Boss, the tanks are sinking!
-They are not allowed to go in water!
-No, they are sinking into the ground!
Sparky all tanks sink into the ground
-so you fixed the sinking, let's put them in the ocean!
German tanks 100
Germans: what are they sinking about?
@@___Me_ Vhat a keschtion... Just schoot zem you dummkopf!
A few fun facts:
1 - Statistically, when an M4 was hit, most of the time 4 of the 5 crewmen survived
2 - M4s traveled in squads of 5, hence the 5 Shermans to take out a German tank myth
3 - Complete burnouts were drastically reduced when wet stowage was introduced
4 - The M4s automotive reliability contributed to spectacular feats such as Patton's 160km road march to relieve Bastogne on December 26th. Something a German armored division could only dream of.
TheSaturnV Thanks for the info. I love our chubby M-4 s, but it’s more Romantic to be a Tiger lover and minimize the Sherman. No one could beat our industrial might of that era.
I personally think the success of a tank depends on the crew skill and experience.
Don't forget the fuel supply. That's something the Allies in 1944 could afford and germans couldn't.
Also Belton Y. Cooper, wrote the book "Death Trap" that the movie "Fury" is based on, was assigned to recovered damaged and destroyed US tanks. So he never survey the US tanks survived those battles nor did he survey any of the damaged and destroyed German tanks.
@@xraymind He probably missed the fact that both sides would keep shooting at knocked out tanks to destroy whatever's left intact and make the tank unrecoverable.
What was D-Day like grandpa?
“Cloudy” - Grandpa cir. 1988
That's deep on a lot of levels, actually.
Casey McMurtry - He was there, never talked about his experiences that much. He was awarded the silver and bronze star and the Purple Heart.
@@fixedguitar47 Real combat veterans will never actually tell how bad their experiences were. They want to forget it but they can't because... It's playing in their heads almost everyday! So if he tells you one thing about it. That one thing will be THE ONLY THING he tells you about it. War is true horror my friend. Their is no good or bad or good versus evil or black and white. It's just all pure evil that's stuck inside a combat veterans head that they wish they can get rid of.
mark blizzard - My dad would always ask me to ask grandpa for stories about the war.
The only story he ever told me in detail was the one where he got in the news paper years later for his silver star.
That and one where three Germans vs a tank. He was not to pleased about the way it turned out. The Germans got vaporized by his order.
@@black10872 My father was with the 291st Engineers on Omaha beach and trapped with them in Malmedy when they stopped a German Tank army. He only told his funny stories and then he would get quiet and say, "You're lucky to be here, Steven". He kept his M1 carbine and a 1914 German Luger he took of an officer. Said he broke the guys jaw with it too.
General Staff: Hey, can you design a new tank to fit our needs?
Tank Designer: Sher, man.
Ha! Nice one
That hit me so hard that I end up blowing myself up
Ba- dum tss
You SOAB, have an upvote
Heh! Nice one
"making evacuation procedures difficult"
**6 ft something irishman climbs out of small hatch sherman in no time at all**
Oh my god, the tank is on fire!
@@i_dodge_trees Panzer IV: *twelve minutes latel*
@@i_dodge_trees
M3 Stuart: *"So much so that the old narrator got bored, and they had to hire a new one"*
He claims 6'5".
“Significant emotional event.”
The size of a tank platoon in the US army was 5 tanks, so if the US army was sending tanks to battle, it was in multiples of 5, which is why there would always be at least 5 shermans fighting any german tank.
Pyroblaster1 I am a retired tanker, you are absolutely correct. Tanks fight as part of a unit. The smallest maneuver unit is the platoon, which in WW2 was five tanks, today it’s four. Tanks do not fight by themselves. A tank fighting alone is a dead tank.
An allied company could be supported by a platoon of Shermans, a German company had a lot of MG 42 machine guns. The role of German infantry in support of tanks were the Panzer Grenadiers. They had a completely different philosophy. The allied philosophy demanded the production of lots of tanks as they had the initiative after El Alamein.
@@CharlesvanDijk-ir6bl the americans were caught in a bad situation. they had to have a tank that wasn't a tank. they had to have a tank that could be shipped to europe, land in france and cross every bridge between paris and berlin.
they did it with disposables. it took 10 american tanks to knock out one german tank, but we had lotsa tanks and lotsa tank crews.
The Germans were on the defensive, in order for an attack to be properly carried out the attacking force needs at the very least a 3 to 1 ratio
The reason that the allies have 5 tanks for platoons is primarily because that is what they have brought with them
You're not gonna say 'hey the enemy only has one panzer placed there, lets reduce our number of tanks from 5 to 3, lets make this fair'
The British often had a 6th in the form of the Firefly with the very powerful British 17 pounder gun
They'd paint the end of the barrels black and white so they'd look like regular Shermans to the Germans and not get targeted first
the 5:1 myth for Tigers also comes from US using tanks in groups of five for operating. Ask yourself: if you spot an enemy heavy tank, are you going to send one of your tanks against them, or all of your tanks?
But so did the Germans they didn't have 1 tank just sitting around the only time you find any tank by them self is if the rest of the platoon was already destroyed BTW Germany had 5 tanks in a platoon or it was 1945 and you were in Germany and the war was basically over...
Depends: which tank full of malcontents are you trying to get rid of? :)
I wouldn't do both, I just have a cup of coffee and order the radio man to call for Thunderbolts to delete it.
"Quantity has a quality all its own."
Cit
Wrong tank
@@taxidermypolarbear1724
M4 Shermans were mass produced by the US at that time, even participating in several theatre of war so he's correct.
Nogi Sonoko no Stalin said that it the quote was meant for t34s
@@taxidermypolarbear1724
I know exactly where that quote is coming from but a quote can be applied to many things. That is why it was a quote. It was simply never meant for in this case, only when Stalin talk about his T-34/76
Wow that whole Curiosity Stream + Nebula thing sounds like quite a deal #notashill
I think I’ll go sign up now at CuriosityStream.com/RealEngineering #notasponsorbutalsokindaasponsor
Hi there wendy!
Oh shut up and go make a video about a tank with wings.
@@RealCadde interesting way to ask for an A-10 video
@@RealCadde dont give Wendover ideas!!! en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_A-40
Real Engineering : the M4 Sherman, the Workhorse of D-Day.
Infantrymen - *am i a joke to you?*
they werent a joke that is why they built it was an Infantrymen dream designed for close in support
Stop calling soldiers horses they do not deserve the disrespect.
Why is this a joke format?
@@Me-md7kx why should it not be a joke format?
Why are they workhorses and not warhorses? Is it only old generals that deserve to be called warhorses?
If I may make a correction, at 06:47 The "grousers" mentioned were called duck bills because of their shape. They were added in the field. They tended to break off on rocky ground. "Grousers" are actually the bars on the track face itself that give it traction. The term is still used today for caterpillar tractors.
I don’t wanna be that mean commenter but it’s almost sickening that you got demonetized. Your an educational TH-camr? I’m kinda confused.
Not surprising. YT has made it its policy to demonetise anything more serious and potentially controversial than a cat riding a roomba.
They faced some (at least partially overblown) criticism - most from other media who jumped at the opportunity to hurt the competition - over having some ISIS propaganda vids on their servers and generaly not policing their platform well enough. Advertisement companies not wanting their adds to be associated with some arsehole burning a defenceless prisoner alive - somewhat understandable - demanded action and YT shatt its pants and went full retard in the oposite direction.
Jick Magger
Wow. That's your interpretation of this? (unless this is some joke or attempt at trolling ofc)
YT making a short sighted and ham-fisted busines descision is in truth part of some world conspiracy to create a comunist world gouvernment?
I wonder what you use for shaving. For it's clearly not Ockham's Razor...
@Jick Magger "The DNC Approves!"
@@Bird_Dog00 It isn't Gillette either...
How are you being mean? It is sickening TH-cam has been an absolute joke for a long while now
Tiger shoots me thinking I’m a regular Sherman.
Me: *Laughs in M4A3E2*
RossTheBoss 101 *Panther A* Laughs in strong 75mm
laughs in Vfw
Giga toaster
Laughts in p1000 ratte
@@josefaschwanden1502 laughs across a bridge calling in artillery
Everybody gangsta until the 75mm gets mounted
British add 17 pounder and call it fire fly who gangster now
The NotFlat Earth everybody gangster till the p47-d is rollin out
you mean 76mm?
@@USSAnimeNCC- everyone gangsta till the Archer tank shows up
@EpicGta5&BTCTutorials America...
America wins
Sherman: *is as likely to burn when it gets hit as any other tank of WW2*
Belton Cooper: "unfortunately for you history won't see it that way"
Unfortunately for Cooper, his credibility is questioned on things he did not personally observe.
@@TheChieftainsHatch So any ancient history historian's credibility can be questioned because they didn't "observe personally" the period?
Depends on whether there is any evidence to back up the assertion. In the case of Cooper's book, there often is not.
Holy shit the chieftain
WOW!
Great video, one thing though, the "Easy 8" refers to the new suspension system not the gun, the 76mm gun was put on many different Sherman variants and is identified by the (76)W after the model number, for instance M4A1 (76)W
Could you verify this by adding the proof? I heard that many, many times from mutiple sources that easy 8 became themselves because of 76mm gun
@@nayahun2 Most Easy 8s had the 76mm gun, but the term itself refers to the suspension. The Chieftain has discussed it many times on his channel.
@Hossep alright if you also have a reliable source for that then fair enough, thanks mate
@@hossep2695 I'm not entirely sure, but there was only one easy 8, it was the tank that tested HVSS in the testing ground in the US. M4's with HVSS were named like that by men on the battlefield but it was wrong and only to indicate that a certain sherman had HVSS.
The real work horses were the balls of the men running up cliffs while being shot at.
Will O'Connell really heavy steel balls
No just a bow and arrow, clamor and bagpipes.
The real work horses were horses
War is only successful when the different branches of the service work together. Tanks without infantry are useless, air power means nothing without ground forces, etc. Until those nukes change the equation.
@@hieronymusnervig8712 the real work horse was and still is our planet earth. It had to endure everything that is happening to it. And still keep on racing true the galaxy around the sun.
tiger: "i'm the best tank in ww2"
sherman: i can operate without breaking down every 5 minutes
That's the way I view American cars. I just want a car that works and I don't have to fix every five minutes. So I go Japanese.
@@jamesrussell2936 or German
Also Sherman: "Not to mention that our mechanics have a much lower suicide rate since you don't need to disassemble the tank to replace a road wheel or the transmission"
The shermans(and most other WW2 tanks) were pretty unreliable too. Good serviceability and abundance of repair parts made breakdowns less of a problem though.
And towards the end of the war, the Sherman could easily kill the Tiger from the front thanks to the high velocity 76mm. Not to mention it had better optics and maneuverability.
An oft heard statement in Army planning circles is “amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics.” Granted, you need both, but the fighting and shooting and blowing stuff up always gets more attention than the behind the scenes. Glad to see you are interested in this aspect of warfare.
7:52 True....early on, Sherman tankers placed ammo everywhere they could (but, that changed as the war went on). But, the Germans also did that.
The M4 users did that thru out the war out of fear of running short or out of rounds when the fighting became up close and personal due to expending most of their ammunition on supporting the infantry as direct and indirect fire.
What people dont see, particularly ones who aint been in the army. Is logistics and simplicity. Logistics being the parts being easy to produce and maintain. Simplicity as in being easy to replace and fix THIS is what the Sherman did. Panzer V "Panthers" took far longer too make and maintenance was at times a nightmare. It was a fantastic tank in battle but fights it not what it will mostly do. Tanks mainly throughout war spend time moving or being stationary. War now is 90% moving or waiting 10% fighting as it was then.
The sherman had some genius design to it. If you want to replace the transmission, just remove some bolts on the front and the entire housing will fold down. I'm pretty sure the panther had to remove its turret to get to the transmission.
@@MistahFox
You're pretty sure that the Panther needed to remove its turret? You never went through the effort and take a few minute search on google, have you?
There are several phots that a 5min search on google will reveal that shows Panther getting their transmission replaced with the turret still on the tank.
And no, it was not a genius design feature of the M4 and do you know why? Because it already was like that on the M3 medium.
What's the old saying? "Amateurs discuss tactics; professionals discuss logistics"...? That's an oversimplification, but basically true. Your fighting men can be the best-trained, bravest and toughest fighters around, but if they can't be supplied with "bullets, beans, and band-aids," they will have a very hard time winning. Oh - and don't forget POL, gasoline, oil, lubricants, fuels. It wasn't simply that German tanks were more-complex, costly and difficult to manufacture, it is that the German high command refused to standardize upon a few tank and TD designs and then turn them out in true quantity, as the Russians did with the T34 and the U.S. did with the Sherman. They were always tinkering with their designs, when what they already had was good-enough. Why make the Tiger II when the Tiger I was equal to almost anything sent against it? Why devote resources to such boondoggles as the Maus super-heavy tank, when the Panther had the potential to be such an important and war-winning weapon? For a people reputed to be so logical, it was very illogical thinking. The T34 and Sherman were outclassed by war's end, but made up for their deficiencies by sheer weight of numbers and also by the skilled use of combined arms warfare ("deep war" doctrine is what the Soviets called it). If a formation of Shermans got in trouble and was pinned down and taking losses, the commander could get in the radio net and call in reinforcements in the form of one or more of the following: tank destroyers, artillery, tactical air support, armored infantry, or some combination thereof. No German tank crew wanted to be in the open when it was raining 155mm shells - or rockets or bombs from the feared and hated "Jabos" - Allied ground-attack aircraft. The Anglo-American logistical advantage extended also to the ability to recover, repair or replace damaged/destroyed armored and other vehicles. German tanks and other vehicles once damaged or out of fuel were often abandoned and lost, due to advancing Allied forces, whereas the British, CW and American units could often recover and repair their battle-damaged equipment. The German lack of something similar and as-capable was keenly felt by their ground forces.
@@GeorgiaBoy1961 I believe for the transmission or final drives on the panther requires spinning the turret sideways and lifting off the roof of the hull with a crane to get at the transmission. Also road wheel and suspension replacement on a panther was a nightmare. Often the vehicles were just abandoned and destroyed when they broke down. Which was a lot considering the panther was still going through teething problems. However at the point of panther Germany was already pretty much on the losing side (massive defeat and capture of the sixth army at Stalingrad). Also properly trained crews was another problem. More often than not the crews never had enough time to be properly trained how to use the vehicles. Most of the good tank crews were already dead or missing from fighting on the eastern front and Africa. By the time the Americans had landed they were pretty much just mopping up whatever was left.
@@GeorgiaBoy1961 They weren't logical once Nazism was in full swing. Weapon designs were trying to vie for Hitler's favor. The more you satisfy Hitler's ego, the more you shall get ahead. And of course no one wants to tell him "No".
"Deaths traps" is an extremely unreliable source of info on the Sherman, the Sherman had a 3% crew fatality rate
I am sorry I find that statement hard to believe. th-cam.com/video/xMSvI1lsBEY/w-d-xo.html
Yes, it's a memoir from a non-combatant so it's based entirely on personal impressions rather than hard facts.
@@johnmckenna5782 Tiger tanks were so extremely rare on the western front, that statistically there were basically zero. From D-day to VE day US tanks engaged with a Tiger tank on only 3 occasions, with only two of the times it being a Sherman against a Tiger, both of which the Sherman won, though that 2nd time was really not really a fair fight since the Tiger was being loaded onto a train car. The other time a Tiger faced a US tank the Tiger won, though that was against the US M26 Pershing Heavy Tank.
@Ric Boni
Not even true. There are time when German will used captured Sherman or T-34.
Warzone ain't got time for preferences.
@Ric Boni
The one that is unreliable & hard-to-repair.
Sherman has some spring loaded hatches
Wehraboo: **DEATH TRAP!!!!**
Tiger tank having some mechanical breakdown
Wehraboo: **Greatest tank ever devised!**
@Trung Thien Dao it was known for eating up Transmissions real fast truthfully it's design it was extremely unreliable
@Trung Thien Dao so your telling me that because of shortages, it has a poor design, which is the point, it had reliability problems
@@mrbladesletplays besides the fact the tiger was design to be repaired over weeks of time solely because they were a breakpoint tank theyre shit?
look at the role it was designed for and it was a good tank for that.
@@chevytos97 besides the reliability problems wasnt a problem at first until it was thrown into a role it wasnt design for. gotcha.
@@mrbladesletplays
Really? Got any actual written proof or documentation that shows that Tigers ate up their transmission really fast and were so extremely unrealible?
Or should I simply come to the conclusion that you're little more than yet another one of those dumb sherman fanboys.
For those still interested, I recommend looking up "The Chieftain" here on youtube. The guy is the historian for World of tanks NA office, and have a bunch of videos detailing both using and living in tanks, as well as historical stuff. He even has a presentation specifically about why the sherman was actually a really good tank, despite what popular media oftentimes portrays.
He also takes part in the whole 'World War Two' project where we can watch the WWII unfold week by week, check their channel too.
Thanks!
Yes, for any tank stuff, his videos are the best
Was just looking through the comments to see if anyone mentioned The_Chieftan. His channel is fantastic for learning about tanks and armored vehicles.
His description of how easy it was to escape from a late model Sherman is really good.
Most underrated tank of WW II.
Most reliable medium tank of WW II.
Outstanding video.!!!
Truly thank you .!!!
it would probably be more accurate to say "The Workhorse of Overlord".
D-Day is literally just the beach landings which were secured mostly be Infantry.
Technically, "d-day" refers to the day an operation starts. It's primarily used in planning, where multiple factors could cause an operation to start late or early. Every day after the operation is "D-day + X", where X refers to the number of days after d-day.
Because Normandy D-day is one of the most famous amphibious landing in history, i bet you never know about the Inchon D-day..
but he has to get the normies to click they don't know what overlord is lmao
And also Churchill tank landed idk im wrong or not sorry about this.. Did Churchill tank really crossed/climbed beach defense walls right? It was heavy infantry tank but able to climb through mountains that man can't.
@@uselessshitheadwithcatprof3815 yes the British used the Churchill in their sector. It did have a greater climbing ability allowing it to climb over steep ditches and trenches.
War Thunder players:
The Expert
PTSD from the old M4A3E8
Laughs in mg hole
Russian bias!
Rash B blin was it removed?
as a german tank player, this video gave me PTSD... those damn jumbos
I will always remember that profound moment that Nicholas Moran, aka the chieftain, explained how the lifting eyes were the most important part of a tank designed to fight on battlefields halfway across the world from where it was built.
Outstanding video. I’ve read widely about the M4 and you did an excellent job of describing its development and utilization. Excellent graphics and film use also. Thank you; so grateful for seeing this!
The M4 and it’s family are such durable vehicles, they survived one of the largest and longest lasting misinformation and fuddlore campaigns in history
During your engineering analysis you may wish to look at 79 Armour Hobart’s Funny’s, you have shown the DD and Crab. Also look at Firefly, the engineering to take the best Allies anti tank gun and fit to the best tank, was mind blowing in its simplicity but still had to be engineered. Finally considering the Bailey bridge portable, pre-fabricated, truss bridge built with AVREs. Still used today.
Why does the Sherman “crab” look like a deadly version of one of those wipers in a car wash?
Is that Jim Pickens as ur account picture?
I mean...is it not effectively exactly what you described?
They can just pour soap in it and wash the tank
*Slaps the side of the tank*
Engineer: this tank is the jack of all trades!
"The most produced allied tank of world war 2."
T34: Am I a joke to you?
@@krypanzer3620 the USSR was part of the Allied Powers before the US (officially) was.
@@krypanzer3620
Yeah, but the Soviet was an allied force.
@ If we have both 75mm M4s and 76mm M4s with the T23 turret, I'd argue that both T-34 and T-34-85 should be considered a "T-34"
Most produced *western tank of WWII.
1. The Soviets are generally considered to be an allied power, no matter what they said they were or decided to call whatever company they kept.
2. In a video set in WW2 do I really need to specify if I was talking about THE T-34 (all variants included) or some post war lesser known american name coincidence. Of course I'm talking about the one that the Germans had destroyed more than 34000 of by 1943. Such staggering numbers that Hitler remarked about "See(ing) everything twice or ten times". And the one that became the never ending swarm that finally halted the blitzkrieg.
3. The numbers are readily available online, slightly less than 50000 M4s were built while around 58000 T-34s rolled off the line (doesnt matter if some were unfinished and unpainted).
4. Have a good day.
Thank you for saying this, myths about Shermans are so unfair. Worth mentioning was also M4A3A2 variat with very thick armour capable of bouncing any 88mm round. More of that, I read somewhere M4 Shermans have the highest crew survivaliability of any WW2 tanks.
Very true. The Sherman was a good tank overall. The idea of it being a "death trap" is a complete myth that has been totally debunked, and which contradicts documented facts. The crew survival rate was about 97 percent. I've read about so many battles where Sherman tanks were hit, but the crew was able to easily get out and survived. Some Shermans were able to keep fighting even after taking hits.
In my opinion, TH-cam needs to wake up from its slumber and realize how important quality content creators like you are.
The problems we have getting a bunch of coders to lunch together at work (Machine games) I always have my deepest respect for the planners of such a huge endeavor as the D-Day! Looking forward to your new series on logistics. Technology wins battles, logistics wins wars!
There was a glowing year in North Africa when the Sherman used by the British reign nearly supreme as the best tank in the theater.
That wonderful year........
But honestly, all things considered, the Sherman was the most underrated tank of the war.
The Stuart light tanks are really the best early war us tank and that’s a understatement the often worked as recon for Sherman’s artillery or tank destroyers and like the Sherman served on all fronts so it’s a light tank that was good at its role and was of the few to get there before the us did
However that’s because it’s based of the m2 tank
Very good video! I thought I knew quite a bit about the Sherman, but I learned a few things from this. Chiefly, the spring suspension system. Your graphics are very clear. Thanx!
10:33 One must also consider that fact that the smallest formation that uses Tanks would have 5 Tanks anyway.
No tank platoon has ever operated at full strength. Ever.
@@coryhoggatt7691bait
I don't want to be "that guy", but with so much M4 footage out there why is so much of this video cuts of the M10 "Wolverine"?
earthy ring same chassis
@@ethanleslie8329 so is the m3...
The M10 (and the M36) were both based on the sherman's chassis, they are somewhat Shermans.
@@elpatrico2562 The M10 uses a modified M4 chassis, and completely unique turret. Like dernwine mentions, the M3 is a modified M4 chassis aswell. Or maybe by that logic they are all M3's. Just so you know "Shermans" were the british version of the M4A1 with the 75mm, which is modified in its own ways away from an american M4. For instance it had a smoke mortar and almost never had commander AA .50 cal. I think it had 1 less crew aswell, but I cant remember honestly.
Probably due to availability of footage in the Public Domain. A 'lot' of WWII footage is not in fact so, one has to pay their owners, often museums and the like, in order to show them, just as you have to do so with other forms of media. Take a look at how much Pathe charges for some of its clips for example, and you can see why YT makers generally use public domain footage, which is relatively scarce in comparison.
The Soviet T-34 was the most produced tank in WWII, by quite a lot.
Though the Sherman was the most numerous tank on the west battlefront, and during D-day.
Wrong. 35000 built in ww2, versus 49.000 for the M4 Sherman.
@
…. dude, the Soviets LOST almost 45 thousand T-34 tanks (and variants) during WWII, and they still had a lot left when they stormed Berlin.
Heck, they lost almost 20k tanks (across all tank types, not just T-34's) to the German Wehrmacht during Operation Barbarossa … how the heck do you think they managed to survive ?
By mass producing the ever living shit out of their tanks ! That's how.
[Quote]
*Altogether, as many as 84,070 T-34s are thought to have been built, plus 13,170 self-propelled guns built on T-34 chassis.*
It was the most-produced tank of the Second World War, and the second most-produced tank of all time, after its successor, the T-54/55 series.
[end quote]
It should be noted that about 7k of those were thought to have been built after the war, that still puts them at around 75k+ at the most conservative estimate.
The Soviets knew how to mass produce, heck, that's why the line "Quantity has a quality all its own." is so popular with them to this day. Even though it may have originated from an officer working under Napoleon Bonaparte, it is still often attributed to Stalin.
Even if he did not say it, it was certainly his doctrine.
@@Grumpy_old_Boot
Okay, but in that case if you're conflating all variants together, we also need to start including the other tanks from that series.
Like the M3 Lee, and the later tanks like the Pershing etc.
@
The M3 Lee was not an M4, nor was the Pershing .. completely different platforms. As for the M4, the 49 thousand *does* include all the M4 variants.
Here's the list :
Source :
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman#U.S._production_history
M4 Sherman Production
----------------------------------------------
Designation Produced
M4 6,748
M4(105) 800
M4(105) HVSS 841
M4A1 6,281
M4A1(76)W 2,171
M4A1(76)W HVSS 1,255
M4A2 8,053
M4A2(76)W 1,594
M4A2(76)W HVSS 1,321
M4A3 1,690
M4A3(75)W 2,420
M4A3(75)W HVSS 651
M4A3E2 254
M4A3(76)W 1,925
M4A3(76)W HVSS 2,617
M4A3(105) 500
M4A3(105) HVSS 2,539
M4A4 7,499
M4A6 75
----------------------------------------
Total Production 49,234
Those are the variants based on the M4 platform.
How many Shermans sank in the Normandy beaches?
One thing, Sherman wasn’t the most produced in ww2, t-34 was.
But only by a couple thousand.
Still a large margin
He said most produced allied tank, USSR was not part of allies
PowstaniecStyczniowy the soviets were parts of the allies during ww2
Which reminds me their where Sherman own by the soviet thank to lend lease
Watching your logistics of d day video on nebula I'd like to add Dieppe was known to be a suicide mission before it started and the Canadians bravely gave their life to give the allies information on what to expect on an assault, they ended up making it further than expected and gained a lot of critical nazi information. The Canadian Juno Beach was also stormed first on D-day while the other allies struggled as most of their tanks didn't make it on land. Canadian troops then shut down nazi infrastructure from behind and allowed for the other beaches to succeed
Excellent post. And superb research. Both my father and uncle were in the war: Dad in the Pacific theater and the Bikini test site. My uncle: in the Battle of The Bulge: (One of two out of his whole company to survive). So I appreciate posts like this. Thanks, bro!
The stabilizer wasnt for firing on the move, it was to make aiming/firing much quicker once the tank had stopped. Most tank crews werent trained how to use it and so for the most part it was under utilized. Those who were trained on its operation did love it though.
Im no expert but playing the easy 8 in war thunder is a blast when you compare how long it takes to get your gun on target compared to a panther
My Dad said he say one German tank that was moving under it's own power in combat. Always had Shermans around. It went up against a German solder with a riffle. He was in five major battles including the Bulge.
"BUt MuH DeaTH DRaAPS"
I know this is older, but I had to mention something about the gun. The gun was not terribly inadequate. It could punch through Panzers reliably. Many tankers preferred the 75mm over the 76. Also, the gun was perfect for what it was designed for, assisting infantry. Its he shells were perfect for fortifications and troops.
Not at range ir couldn't and mean range in Europe was around 800 yards. At that range both 75mm and 76mm struggled frontally against a variety of German armour.
@@lyndoncmp5751Only the heavy German armor, which was not met often.
@@matthewjones39
Actually more Panthers than Panzer IVs were deployed in the west. There were 1,837 Panthers and 1,666 Panzer IVs in the west from June 1944 to May 1945.
The Jagdpanzer IV had the same front armour and gun as the Panther. Even the Hetzer with its 60mm sloped front armour was problematic for the Sherman 75mm frontally. Add in smaller numbers of Tigers and Jagdpanthers and it's more than you imagine.
It partly explains the near 1:3 combat loss ratio the allies suffered in armour against the Germans 1943-45.
You know, this video suddenly makes me wonder which companies actually build tanks?
Like, you know with military aircraft, although in wartime they were sub-licenced to many factories to meet demand, the design is typically the work of a single aircraft manufacturer that frequently also makes civilian aircraft.
And it's not hard to find the name of the manufacturer of any given military aircraft...
Plus, the designs were made by those companies to a government specification list.
Yet tanks always seem to give off the impression that they're government made designs.
Even if this isn't the case, there's just something about the way they're discussed that makes it feel like that...
So who DOES actually make tanks?
Generally tanks tend to be designed by the countries government/military and then built under contract by heavy industry firms. For example, in WW2, US Tanks were designed by the US Military, and were then contracted out to heavy industry to build them. For example, Shermans were built by around a dozen different companies, including a number of car and railway manufacturers. Over in Germany, it worked a little differently, with the German military/government going out to companies to ask for designs. For example, the Panzer III was a Daimler Benz design, chosen from designs by Daimler Benz, Krupp, MAN and Rheinmetall.
finally a concise mini-doc that solves the mysteries and evolution of the ever-changing sherman. with accurate and timed in sequence intel...also contains some rare, unseen footage of the "Ronson".....outstanding video....kutgw.
Great video. Your ads finally got to me. Going to try curiosity steam for a couple months. When will your series begin on Nebula?
Hoping next month. Script is written and I am currently working with illustrator to develop some nice maps of Normandy.
Real Engineering can’t wait for it
Very interesting video. I would love to know the story behind that short bit at 7:31 when a Sherman was shot in battle. I wonder who was filming and how much of the war he survived.
5:50, the single cast upper hull didn't include the 3 piece transmission housing at the front as depicted. Nor was the "entire hull" cast in a single block, just the upper hull. Lower hull was welded plate.
I'd like to take a moment and remind the most dangerous Sherman to tigers was the Sherman Firefly. Kudos to Britain for slapping their fearsome 17 pounder to a turret.
The main reason the firefly earned that reputation is because the British brought them, while the Americans left the 76 mm Shermans behind. the firefly had fairly atrocious ergonomics compared to other Sherman variants, making it harder for the crew to bring the gun on target. the 76 was arguably better overall.
WHAT A DELIGHT! Having breakfast while watching this one!
I saw a great old Sherman in front of a VFW hall in Ely, Nevada, earlier today. Awesome!
You didn't mention the optional extras of Paint filled shells and External Loudspeakers.
Only 10 people have seen Kelly's Hero's.
Great video, only things I would change is that the t34 was produced in higher numbers and also the 75mm was far superior to the 76mm in anti infantry role as it produced nearly 2x the fragments and also emphasize the impact of rivets becoming projectiles inside the tank when hit on the me lee
I love these kinds of videos where you bring history and engineering together
Your next video should be about the b-24 liberator, the most produced bomber of ww2
This video should have been called “The workhorse after D-Day”
Sherman’s appeared in Africa in 1942 so I think it should be called the western allied workhorse seeing that the t34 was built in higher numbers
I am so excited to see the rest of the series on D-Day. I think too few history channels and books focus on the engineering decisions behind famous battles and wars.
Real Engineering: I'm doing a series on ww2 logistics
Me: HEAVY BREATHING
Never been so early to a Real engineering video.
As soon as I get a job I will get a Nebula account.
I don't have many subscriptions since I'm in high school but I will get this if for no other reason than to keep watching you man. You have my views and soon money.
Could you also make a video of the German tanks of that time?
It would be nice to have a comparison of the pros and cons of their stuff.
"The M4 Sherman: the most produced Allied tank of WW2"
T-34: "Am I a joke to you?"
The numbers are muddy here since there are so many variables to consider, but during the active years of the war, more Shermans were produced than T34s. The T34 was the most produced tank of all time, however most of them were built late into the war (when the Soviets better utilized their factories in Siberia) and continued production into the early 1950s.
@@Arbbym9er Ehm no, more T-34s were produced during the war at some 55000 compared to the just over 49000 Shermans. The Soviet-Union stopped production of the T-34 in 1945.
T-34 is also NOT the most produced tank of all time.
Really makes me question if you even bothered to read up on all this.
The statistics and numbers don’t matter. What you’re missing is the fact that the USSR was not part of the ‘Allies’. People will argue against this to the grave but it’s true. The USSR was effectively allied with the Allies, not part of them. I’ve always thought it’s quite easy to understand this. Hitler and Stalin agreed to carve up Poland. Stalin also sought to take over the Baltic States and invade Finland. He wanted to spread Communism just like Hitler wanted to spread Fascism. They had agreements and traded with each other. In fact, Germany was living on borrowed time ever since Russia stopped shipping raw materials to them in 1941. The USSR began to share interests with the Allies when Germany invaded the Soviet Union with Operation Barbarossa. They would then coordinate to take on Germany. What makes it more obvious is what happened immediately after WW2. Do I need to spell that out? So going back to the tank production thing, yes the Sherman was the most produced tank of the Allies. If we’re including allies of the Allies, then yes the T-34 was. But we aren’t.
@@Dreachon Depends on several matters. Many didn't consider the Soviets as part of the Allied powers until after the war. Production numbers for the _T-34_ (and its derivatives) during the war vary wildly. Though Between 54,800 and 57,900 are the most common figures. In total between and 60,235 and 63,335 _T-34's_ in all variants and its derivatives were produced during the war. On the other side the the numbers for the Americans are less under question- 49,253 _M4's_ produced during the war including the _T6_ pilot. In total 63,181 _M4's_ in all variants plus derivatives were produced. Another ~2,180 can be added if you want to consider the _Grizzly's_ and _Sexton II's_ which were Canadian produced (for most part they were assembled in Canada, though most parts were produced in the U.S., they are not added to the _M4_ production list). So if you want 65,369.
However referring to the tanks themselves up until 1944 the production and use of the _M4_ was at least notably, then eventually marginally larger than that of the _T-34._ In 1945 the _T-34_ (the _T-34/85_ variant in particular) production outpaced _M4_ production and beat it in overall numbers. That being said, the _T-34_ was produced well after the war to make up for losses suffered and the fact replacement medium tanks weren't in the numbers required. Some ~80,000 were produced in total if we include postwar production. The U.S.S.R. produced them until I believe early 1946.
@@MrTWICETHEPRESHA USSR literally was one of the founding nations of the Allies. The US joined later.
Nebula is the greatest idea ever. Like, everyone is there, even my boy Isaac Arthur! Amazing!
when he says "german" instead of "nazi"
*happy Historian noises*
and i just downloaded a bunch of rare sherman tank photos from r/HistoryPorn
r/history porn didn't know some people where into tank
Jk XD
r/ihavereddit
USS Anime DD24 look up Panzermadels
Btw Sherman best girl there
Am very excited for you to cover the logistics of ww2! I don't see many ww2 channels covering that topic.
"Amateurs talk about tactics, but professionals study logistics."
Great vid, only 49,000 M4 Shermans were made by though and 60,000 T34 tanks were made so the T34 is actually the most produced allied tank of WW2 and also post WW2 because most produced tank arguably against its successor the T54/55.
The Soviet Union wasn't part of the allies despite the large degree of support and cooperation between it and The UK, US and France.
Only 50,000 T34/76 and t34/85 were produced in ww2 and only 6,000 to 8,000 survived the war.
The American Sherman had 42,000 to 49,000 produced in the war And 2,300 Canadian Sherman's none left candida as far as I'm aware.
Elliot Wagstaff yea just because you don’t like communism means you can rewrite history, they were in the allies and were the reason the Yalta conference happened between the allies.
@@alf-c9r He is right They were an Allie but they were not in the Allies same as china.
Tanks to the m-tree thank, so funny the Irish accent, love your vids
I AM SO HYPED FOR THIS SERIES. DUDE, GOOD LUCK. I ABSOLUTELY LOVE YOUR CHANNEL.
Theres something so menacingly terrifying about seeing an entire squad of King Tigers cruise in formation
It gets a lot less menacing when you realize that we're comparing production numbers of 500 to 50,000 - and still less than 2,000 if you include Tiger Is.
Even if you put every tiger tank every made in ww2, they would alway and continue to be outnumbered
Fortunately that literally never happened
The Sherman was a good mass production tank, comparable to the Soviet T-34 and the German Panzer IV.
I'm so happy creators are banding together to support and build and alternative to TH-cam and I'd be happy to drop a few quid to support it.
9:52 I didn't know that thing in the front of the tank was supposed to clear mines , I was thinking it was supposed to be Somekind of cover for the tanks deployed in Africa where there's going to be a big dust that covers the tank from it's enemy but the tank also can't shot the enemy beacause of the dust and also the spinning thing
Edit : I've also heard that Shermans of the 2nd division ambushed six tigers with a single Sherman knocking out three in quick succession with shots against their thinner armor . I don't really remember the story of it so if I was wrong please correct me thanks ;-;
@youtube
You are helping the development of a idiotic and ignorant future.
Stop demonetising educational videos.
2:33 small correction the T-34 was the most produced allied tank of the war although if you meen the most produced western allied tank than the Sherman is the most produced
Depends on several matters. Many didn't consider the Soviets as part of the Allied powers until after the war. Production numbers for the _T-34_ (and its derivatives) during the war vary wildly. Though Between 54,800 and 57,900 are the most common figures. In total between and 60,235 and 63,335 _T-34's_ in all variants and its derivatives were produced during the war. On the other side the the numbers for the Americans are less under question- 49,253 _M4's_ produced during the war including the _T6_ pilot. In total 63,181 _M4's_ in all variants plus derivatives were produced. Another ~2,180 can be added if you want to consider the _Grizzly's_ and _Sexton II's_ which were Canadian produced (for most part they were assembled in Canada, though most parts were produced in the U.S., they are not added to the _M4_ production list). So if you want 65,369.
However referring to the tanks themselves up until 1944 the production and use of the _M4_ was at least notably, then eventually marginally larger than that of the _T-34._ In 1945 the _T-34_ (the _T-34/85_ variant in particular) production outpaced _M4_ production and beat it in overall numbers. That being said, the _T-34_ was produced well after the war to make up for losses suffered and the fact replacement medium tanks weren't in the numbers required. Some ~80,000 were produced in total if we include postwar production
Make a video on Area 51 bunkers.
He did, and it will be released in 1996.
@@neilwilson5785 what?
Dammit... I already subbed to curiosity stream AND nebula...
Also, why the hell are they demonetizing a history series with the other crap they leave up on here? Maybe talk to Joerg Sprave from the slingshot channel who is working on fairtube to get youtube to at least be transparent with their policies? (Edited to spell Joerg's name correctly)
1). Rock Island Arsenal produced a small tankette for the cavalry which used vertical volute spring suspension (VVSS) instead of a leaf spring suspension. Standardized as the M1 Combat Car, it entered service with the US Army in 1937. The design was used in the M2 light tank and subsequent Stuart tank series. Design features of the Stuart were scaled up for use in the first M2 medium tanks which would evolve into the more successful M3 Lee and M4 Sherman, all using the VVSS.
2). The Horizontal Volute Spring Suspension (HVSS) system was first field with the US M-6 heavy tank prototype in December 1941 and was a successes. However the M-6 itself was plagued with many problems that lead to the projects cancellation. The HVSS suspension would reappear in the later war on Sherman tanks as the E-8 program. It was never called an Easy-8, that was simply a Hollywood name for movies..
3). The high velocity 76mm cannon was first fielded in 1942 with the M-18 Hellcats, this cannon was more than capable of destroying a Tiger-I from any angle, even the front. Later with the development of the HVAP round (high velocity armor penetrators') even the Panther and King Tigers thickest front armor was meat on the table.
The first time the 76mm appeared on a Sherman was in 1942 as the proposed M4A1(76)W quick fix turret. This project was cancelled because the Sherman's original small turret with the 76mm gun combination was found to be too cramped with other flaws by Armor Board even though it did technically work.
This did however kick off the E-6 program when the Chief of US Army Ordnance directed that the then Prototype turret (T-23) be placed onto the Sherman's hull which could easily take the 76mm. This resulted in the M4A2(76)W, the M4A3E2 "Jumbo" and finally the M4A3(76)W.
4). As to the myth it took 5 Sherman's to kill a cat i.e. Tiger is total bunk. American armored units move and fight as a "Platoon". A Platoon is the smallest tactical unit on a battlefield by doctrine and consists of 5-tanks. An American WWII tank company consisted of 3-Platoons with up to 3-spairs for18 tanks. It was Hollywood once again who perpetuated the idea that tanks went about fighting other tanks in one-on-one Chivalric duels.
I highly recommend the TH-cam talk called "Myths of American Armor", given by United States Army, Armor Officer, Major Nicholas Moran also know as the Chieftain at his web sight the Chieftain's Hatch.
8:40 Interestingly, tank crews did not like the 76 mm gun. It was better at killing tanks - but tanks are not normally fought with tanks. Unless the situation is hellishly messed up and 1-sided, Tanks draw Tanks into Anti-Tank guns.
Meanwhile the 75 mm was better against AT guns, Infantery and Fortifications. Things you actually met.
th-cam.com/video/-ZKxmlpbwqk/w-d-xo.html
The primary tactic was to draw enemy tanks into your AT guns. While the top killer was guns (with no data differentiating AT guns and Tank guns of the same calliber), it was followed by Infantery with AT weapons like the Bazooka/Panzerfaust, then mines, then technical defects. Note that the airfoce was *not* a tank killer. It is just some part of the "Miscelanous" group:
th-cam.com/video/O5DcY8TmOpA/w-d-xo.html
As for "5 Shermans to kill a Tiger", I know a variant of it: "It takes 5 Shermans to kill a Tiger. The allies had 6."
The 76mm without the super rare HVAP ammunition wasn't even that great frontally at killing certain German armour such as Tiger I, Tiger II, Panther, Jagdpanther and Jagdpanzer IV. Even Hetzer.
It was seen as a disappointing anti tank gun by 1944/45 standards.
Who played company of heroes?
Nice doconi did notice a few mistakes. The track width extensions were called duckbills. Trousers are fitted to the track plates and provide more grip, a bit like snow chains do on tyres. They are usually in the form of ribbed plates. The dad tanks did not wade they swam, it was the tanks with extended trunk air inlets and exhausts that waded ashore. Quite a few shots were of M10 tank destroyers. Also you diagram showing the extent of the early main body casting also included the removable front gearbox assembly that bolted into the front.interesting point the VVSS tanks were fitted with 10 different types of track. Otherwise a great little docco just like your others
M4 Sherman, the Tiger of the Pacific
Nah, M4 was reliable.
Except the M4 was actually a better design...
Was much more reliable, far cheaper, more maneuverable, more effective as squad support vehicle, and was nearly just as effective versus other tanks.
@@weasle2904 my reply stated that the M4 was reliable while heavily implying that the Toger was not.
@@Ag3nt0fCha0s I meant to be replying to the commentor, not you. My mistake lol
@@weasle2904 oops sorry m8
War Thunder/World of Tanks/Armored Warfare players: allow us to introduce ourselves.
x-D
Wot life
Girls und panzers
I choose both Girl und panzer and war thunder
The M3 Lee is pretty much a mutation and mix of everything:
-Speed and mobility of a medium tank
-Small turret of a light tank
-Hull mounted 75mm like an SPG
-armament layout of an infantry support vehicle like in the Char B1
-and a bunch of machine guns like an Armored Personell Carrier
-The size and weight of a heavy tank
2:47 The most produced allied tank? Did we jump into the Cold War a little quickly there? T-34 easily outnumbered the M4.
Ok commie
Stick with planes Northrop.
@@SQW0 hey man that was really funny
Pffft, I already know everything about the sherman. I play WOT
A Well Dressed Male Papaya preach!
This comment infuriates me so much
Ba Bomb its satire
Parrot Bird its not the comment itself, but the reminder of how scummy the wot team has become. Look at the response to the british light tanks, they have completely lost touch with their players
Ba Bomb the british light tanks were so dissapointing -.-
It's very interesting,informative and easy to understand about how the sherman evolves.Thanks for the video!!!
The Sherman was used to devastating effect against Russian built T-34's in North Korea as well. It's difficult to measure the ability of a tank without looking at all of the deployments of the tank, and how it fared in all circumstance.
to be fair, the Russians didn't directly fight in Korea and supplied the north Koreans and Chinese with mainly surplus and decommissioned T-34s while the Americans did fight directly with WW2 veteran tank crews/officers and used mainly fresh post-war era shermans.
@@hellfun1337 at issue was whether the tanks were viable as a war weapon against other modern armor, not how well trained the crews were. Had the tanks not been viable, it would have mattered little how well the crews were trained.
@@deathguppie I'm not saying the tanks weren't tested, I'm saying the test was weighted in 1 side's favor.
The age of the tank matters, new equipment should be tested against new equipment.
The experience of the crew matters even more. real life is not 2 tanks sitting on opposing hills lobbing shells at 1000m.
You could say the crew experience is paramount, ask any tanker.
@@deathguppie viability was never in question. I'd argue both tanks were capable indeed.
Anything beyond is up for debate.
@@hellfun1337 the viability of the Sherman tank has been brought into question many, many times. With most people claiming that the T-34 and Panthers were better tanks. My statement was just to point out the fact that the Sherman was not outclassed by its contemporaries. It was in fact a capable weapon for its time.
Sherman: Hey! We're a good tank!
Hans und Fritz: *laughs in 88mm*
American commander: *laughs in not breaking down every ten minutes*
@@marthaindahouse1010 11*
@@marthaindahouse1010 also it could be an AT gun or maybe a flak 88 repurposed :/
@@EstonianShark Yeah, Tigers on the battlefield were rare like a white raven. And if they were AT guns, then Sherman just laughed in 75mm HE.
Americans: Laugh in overwhelming air and arty.
'it took 5 shermans to take out 1 tiger' is mainly because the allies only send out tanks in groups of minimum 5 tanks. Its not like 'oh joe, its only a pzIV, we only need 2 tanks, leave the rest behind'. No they always traveled in packs of 5.
@John Cornell so wrong. yes the germans send them out in zugs but not as often. tigers were often alone in an ambush spot.
@John Cornell the US army only encountered tigers three confirmed times. the one time they used shermans they won. a platoon of shermans with an intelligent commander can semi easily take 2 tigers as well
@John Cornell one company is not the entire army
Sherman? Nein, nein, nein, I zink you mean TARGET PRACTICE