There were 28k light tanks built in WWII including the M2, M3, M5, and M24. I would like to hear a discussion of the doctrine, tactics, actual use, and relative success of these tanks.
I actually own a real M3A1 Stuart (she needs a full restoration but she is still here). While I have read everything I can find on them and watched everything available (just about), I would LOVE to see Nick's take on them and hear his professional opinion . . . Yes I am extremely biased but still 😅
I was born in January of 1942, so I grew up believing the Sherman was the right tank for the U.S.. The trend to denigrate the tank came years later. Until I watched your earlier video, I stood by my original position, but didn't have the expertise to back it up. Your earlier video, and this one, filled in the supporting evidence. Thank you, again. An old man needs to have his beliefs reaffirmed from time to time.
I think an important notion is that a tank does not need to outperform every possible opponent in any imaginable scenario, and yet it can still be the right tank design. Making that explicit at the start of any discussion should prevent most of the name-calling etc. (Today, we focus too much on the idea that one single tank should've been able to drive from London to Berlin and on to Tokyo without ever coming across insurmountable resistance. Okay, maybe I'm going a bit too far there. But I mean that Hollywood gave us things like the Millennium Falcon and the sort. And they all got plot armor. Which we then want to impose on reality. But reality isn't that pliable...)
Same with me, born 40 years after you. During the 1990's the sherman always at the bottom of top ten lists of tanks on Discovery channel with the petrol engine as the culprit. Though even the german tanks also had those engine.
@@jimmylight4866 I disagree. I really like the look of the Sherman, especially the earlier design with the vertical suspension bogies. I don't know exactly why, to me it just has that "classic tank look."
Dad was a leg in WW2 and his favorable impression of the M4 was it was warm when it was cold and saved your feet when able to jump on board for a ride.
@@Pilotmario Depending on the vehicle and the terrain, you'd also see guys riding on the front. Not that it's a good idea, but this is the 1940s we're talking about, safety was merely a suggestion
In summary: A lot of really intelligent people did their best with the information they had at hand. They even had the shocking humility to prioritize the input from the field. They made mistakes but tried to learn from them as quickly as possible. A proud moment in America's history.
This also applys to reading materials for research as a civilian regarding WW1 & WW2 in the 50's to the early 2000's. I say this in regards to certain WW2 channels (TIK) who revel in smug self regard by often berating & ridiculing older viewers who didn't have the latests materials (Glantz etc). The fact that he calls himself as a" reformed" Marxist Leftest (which says alot to his character) which I think contributes to his hubris & ego which often I find insufferable tbh. I actually enjoy learning new information of WW2 thanks to computers over expensive books which has been a boon.
Few people take the time to look at the logistical nightmares of changing weapons and ordinance in the middle of a war. The war fighter needs to have faith in all of their equipment doing it's job when called on. Very good talk by the way.
The UK was very keen on replacing the No. 1 and nascent No. 4 in the 1930s, and trialled the M1. It also wanted to change cartridge. It took the view that changing either or both even just before a war that it expected in 1941 rather than 1939 was too close to call. The USA did well to standardise on the M1, even if there were supply issues in 1942 and one regiment of the 2nd Infantry Division was still using M1903s on D-Day (the latter was the COs odd decision, not a supply issue, though). Even more, bringing in the M1 Carbine and have it be so ubiquitous. I suppose the UK managed to bring in an entire class, the SMG, and produce lots of them, which is also impressive, although you don't get much more basic than a Sten.
Troops and Marines need to know the things they need for survival are coming, rain, shine, darkness or hostiles. More ammo, more shells, more mortars, more chow. No one weapon, no one tool, no one operation, no one theater, no one ally won the war. Combined arms, the might of the free world, the resolve of people to see a desperate fight carried on to victory & a prosperous peace meant victory & peace in the end. Thank you. This vid was worth watching every second of its' prodigious length. Thanks again. DOUG out
@@dougreid2351 Massive application of overwhelming force is not a "desparate fight". The USSR might have been in one of those; we weren't. Germany and Japan could only have "won" by not fighting at all.
I've heard that German tank traks lasted about 400 miles b4 needing replacement whilst the Sherman traks could last up to 2000 miles, 5× the durability. That's impressive by my view if accurate.
My dad was a driver then commander of a M4 Sherman in WWII, albeit late in the war. His mission was to take his tank to the Japanese home islands and kill as many as he could, along with the others destined to die in that first wave of attack. He always said it wasn't the best at anything but good enough by design to do what was needed. Given the A-Bombs were used instead of my dad to draw the Japanese to the table, I am glad the latter was used and not my Dad in the Sherman.
There was a little coincidence that Soviets liberated Manchuria on same time and with conjunction with US fleet at see cut of Japan from resources in rest of Asia. Cool heads knew they lost at that time and there will not be negotiations.
Salute to your brave father (greatest generation). As an Aussie we are completely insync with killing as many Japanese as possible with as few losses as possible. If the Japanese polititions & Imperial forces didn't behave & act as brutal blood thirsty savages with little to no regard of human life. I consider the Japanese got off easy after the war as the US was already planning the future cold war against the encroaching communist influence in Asia.
@scottyfox6376 true. There was no equivalent of the Nuremberg trials in Japan. A lot of the old ways of thinking persisted if not ways of acting. Mark Felton has an excellent video about this, as well as generally excellent WWII content.
I watched the original a few times over the years. I appreciate the high-resolution slides this time around! :) Also, I love the reference to Parshall's "Mines of Moria" presentation; that's one of my favorite tank videos outside of yours. Would you be interested in covering the story of the individual Armored Divisions, and the lessons each learned during the war?
and yet.... Mr. Parshall got a few things off. The McNair (Sp?) comment wasn't 100% correct and he over states the effectiveness of the bombing campaign in Germany. I would look up the old Operation Think Tank videos here on the Chieftains channel. It is my favorite series so far.
As much as I am sad the original video is gone, I must say that the more personal and updated upload is welcome. Nick, might want to consider a few updates for the oldies.
The simple fact is that I stuck around as long as I did watching this video is because everything you talk about is worth listening to. Thanks for the history lesson!
US R&D was one of those things were it's few failings are super well known(Mk14 torpedo etc), to the extent of obscuring the large numbers of successes
Note that the Mk14 Torpedo was developed PREWAR, when the Navy (and note, it was the NAVY) was trying to save money by not properly testing it, and once the war started refused to listen to the end users complaining of it not working, placing the blame on the end users.
@@colincampbell767 there's also very little to argue when something's been all but perfected as much as it can be You can debate endlessly about the the Tiger could have performed had it not been introduced basically after the war was lost, or how good the t-34 would have performed if it had been built with anything resembling quality control.... but the Sherman basically had all it's problems fixed. We know exactly what it's peak performance is, which leaves little to really talk about on an internet forum.
@@petriew2018 I maintain that the Sherman was the best of the war because while each tank relatively for their nation was suited for their needs, if Germany built the Sherman as their medium tank instead of the Panzer IV or the Panther they would have done better. If the Soviets built the Sherman their tank losses would have been more recoverable, and the British would have had a more survivable medium tank. No one would have really suffered by building it instead of their indigenous designs. To go on a tangent about the Lee; We're aware that it wasn't the best tank, but it did have two roles that were beyond critical; they acted as a testbed for the later design changes done for the Sherman, and more important than that, they could be used as an incredibly effective line filler for places where the Sherman was not absolutely needed, like China, Burma, and minor fronts in the pacific theater. The Lee had it's faults, but it still was incredibly reliable and it did come with the same 75mm gun that made the Sherman the Undisputed GOAT of the jack of all trades.
@@PrinceOfDolAlmroth The Germans were stunned when they first encountered it in North Africa. At Gazala, one M3 sustained 31 hits, with only two 50mm strikes on the driver's visor and a rear shot by a 37mm. One was hit 12 times with no damage. "Their appearance was a surprise to the Germans, who were unprepared for the M3's 75 mm gun. They soon discovered the M3 could engage them beyond the effective range of their 5 cm Pak 38 anti-tank gun, and the 5 cm KwK 39 of the Panzer III, their main medium tank"
The M4 was exceptionally good at being there when you needed a tank, Very Badly. It was also good at bringing friends. This is, when you think about it, the best thing for a tank to be good at.
Ohhh been waiting for this ever since the German Doctrine video came out years ago. Will be listening to this while assembling a 1/35 model of a M3 Stuart that fought in Bataan.
@The Chieftain WOW~ An internet military equipment evaluator who can see past the end of his own nose! Thank you! It's nice to find a -caster who can not only present FACTS about the tactical effectiveness of equipment but can go on to see and explain coherently why one tactical concession or another might have been made. Brilliant program! May you present many, many more that rise to this level of educational value. I learned not only the facts behind what happened, but how the decisions were made - in short, not only to see past the end of my own nose but to THINK past it too! If only modern educators could do what it is you do here rather than just regurgitate what some author persuaded the local school board to buy. I could rant on about how much of an improvement this is over 99% of the content out there, but as a Navy Veteran I'm going to go with a simple BRAVO ZULU! I'm confident you'll understand.
@@panderson9561 usually through modification and it’s popularity in South America. The M8 has the advantage of being fairly simple, having mostly automotive components, and being popular. There’s even more if you look at the chassis’s derived from donated M8’s
@@RaeSyngKane I assumed the vehicles themselves must be pretty robust. But beyond that, eventually all parts of vehicles will wear out. I doubt anyone is still mass producing parts for 75 year old vehicles.
The M1 Anti-tank rock. A durable and reliable weapon however its short effective range, heavy weight and questionable armor penetration would lead to it quicky falling out of favor with US forces. The M2 Anti-tank rock would feature enhancements to lighten its weight to increase the amount carried per soldier but would fail to address the main concerns of the M1 and would also be dropped.
But then there was the prototype T6 "Super-Heavy" rock, provided you could get a freakish crocodile-like cretin that went by the name "Killer Croc" to heave it...well, it was a BIG rock!
I saw the original, but like this version better, because you can see the photos being discussed and didn't have the background noise. Thanks for taking the time to do it over.
Please don't ever get rid of this video haha! This is such an informative lecture and it really helped me understand why our equipment needs to be of a certain quality and reliability; we simply can't ship it back to the factory!
@@sadwingsraging3044 Mine too. It's a shame it got sidelined until late 44, it would have been of great use in Normandy (along with 76 Shermans). Hindsight is 20/20 though.
Commanding General of US 2nd Armored Division, Isaac D White, writing to Eisenhower in March 1945: "Tank Destroyer, M36: Has not lived up to expectations, but when HVAP ammunition becomes available it is hoped that it will be more effective. Fighting compartment precludes efficient service of the piece and available ammunition is not effective at required long range."
4:00. Eggs have been laid by animals for well over 500 million years. Chickens (specifically gallus domesticus) have only been around for a few thousand years. So... the egg clearly predates the chicken.
You didn't really address the issue. Of course some eggs laid by something predate the chicken. An argument could be made that the chicken egg came before the chicken because the first bird to lay a chicken egg wasn't quite a chicken.
As an aside. Just how long did it take the domestic chicken to reach it's full extent in the Old World (1) pre Columbus. 1) Yes, I know it's a politically incorrect term but you know what I mean.
@@mpetersen6 Chickens were first domesticated in SE Asia, probably on the island of Ceylon, about 8000 BC. Their final spread throughout Europe and Sub Saharan Africa wasn't complete until about 1000 AD.
@@fearlessfreap8093Did the Red Junglefowl (Gallus Gallus) become the Chicken (Gallus Domesticus) the moment the first person decided to try and domesticate them? If so, did that person first take eggs or hatchling? If not, then the first chicken had to have been laid as an egg. Also, the question did not specify what species laid the egg.
He speaks in a very easygoing way, like he's telling a story, while also giving a lot of great details and information. That's exactly how a presenter should talk.
I had watched the earlier video about the M-4, but really enjoyed this remake (partly because I knew all of the answers to the quizzes). Really makes you realize that the members of the U.S. armed forces specification and development department were some pretty smart cookies-- a lot of logic and consideration that isn't apparent at first glance.
If you think about how quickly they had to come up with a design, the Sherman tank really is amazing. It's not like they rushed it and just slapped something together...there was a lot of forethought put into it and it really was a good tank. I've looked at repair and maintenance manuals, and it definitely was a well built machine.
I find your videos very therapeutic as well as informative as I write reports on other matters pertaining to military history. I have your commentaries running and it helps me generate ideas, while at the same time makes me think of what scale model to buy or work on.
Very well done. I admit that, up until recently, there were many extenuating factors you mentioned that I had not considered in the context of tank design. My grandfather commanded five different Sherman tanks on Iwo Jima; the one he came ashore in struck a buried aerial bomb and was effectively torn in half, but he returned to tell me about it. He recalled hearing all the small arms fire pinging off the armor and feeling sorry for the unprotected infantry, but also reported that, when the subject arose, most infantrymen he talked to were glad they weren't trapped in tanks.
Really thorough and well presented. I watched the old presentation a few years ago or so, that was very informative. This is an excellent refresher. Thank you.
"This is what they really wanted. The crews may not have wanted it but Bruce really wanted it" Lets appreciate the fact that we have freely available videos from an expert who has really entertaining way of storytelling on things that are otherwise very mundane and technical and which the general audience cannot understand
As an aside, during WWII my mother worked for a company called Arcrods in Cuyahoga Heights, Ohio. They made welding rods of various types. Makes me wonder how many tanks, trucks, planes etc. they helped build/repair. Also in 1944 Her and some her other Italian speaking friends celebrated Christmas With Italian P.O.W. s At Camp Perry, Port Clinton, Ohio.
Thank you for the re-issue! The original video was so informative and interesting I often left it on in the background as I did the dishes, worked around my apartment, etc.
I saw the original vid some months ago and it's great to see that there's at least a bit more of info that can be added to it, plus the whole HD/HQ things too... Great video as always!
👉I've heard a lot of discussion of the M4 being too tall, but never about the tank's width. M4: 8'7", T34: 9'10", Panther: 10'9". This must be an advantage head-on in target area offered. Also, this width must have been a huge advantage maneuvering through Europe's narrow roads and towns and across bridges. Any thoughts?👈
I cannot speak to the relative widths of tanks versus European streets and roads. However, I can say that, during a trip to Sicily some many years ago, my friends and I had a rental Fiat MultiPla van. We were driving in Palermo. We took a wrong turn (easy to do there), and went down a particularly narrow street. We could see where the main road was ahead, but the buildings literally got closer together where our street met the main road. At the end of that narrow street, we had to fold in the mirrors and barely squeezed through! All those very small cars made a lot more sense in that context. So, with that in mind, I can see some logic in the question you asked.
Plus when shipping is involved space is a critical factor (folding wings aircraft on carriers). That two foot width difference (panther) I can see 1 or two more tanks per row across a liberty ship's cargo holds would be an attractive aspect. Considering your information regarding the Sherman's dimensions I now realize the limitations of expanding the turret ring to fit a larger turret for larger guns upgrades.
It is more commonly said that the M3 Lee/Grant was too tall. Partly because of its imagined silhouette on the battlefield but mainly problems were encountered with its height and higher centre of gravity. The British Prewar Tank Recovery/Transporter was the Scammel Pioneer which was equipped with 20ton and 30ton articulated trailers. The loaded M3 was found to be too tall for British road bridges (a high density of railways). Additionally when recovering off road the high centre of gravity caused stability problems. The British went with a towed low loader trailer capacity 40tons they also bought the Diamond T truck as a Tractor. The US adopted it as the M20 tank transporter, the only diesel truck on US inventory. Some wartime recovery training film. th-cam.com/video/XvgkqdQvqq8/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/8e8Hxh9jW7c/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/I-W8FSUFE_g/w-d-xo.html
@@Crash103179 In Europe the width of road would rarely be a problem. Most roads would carry two way traffic at least, the narrow single track roads were in rural or more difficult terrain where tanks would be restricted anyway. Bridge capacity was not so much of an issue as denying bridges was an ancient military tactic which Sappers trained to overcome. The loading gauge issue was more to do with the universality of railways, rolling stock had to reach all parts of a system. The width issues had more to do with tighter radius bends more often found on Branch lines than mainlines on faster straighter railways. In Britain, which had the narrowest loading guage, tank transport was eventually restricted to Factory to depot/training area/dock or road transport on dedicated routes as tanks grew larger. It should be remembered the the 1918 Mk VIII tank that was to be built in UK and USA was a 39ton monster of which at least one made its way to Flanders albeit after Armistice. My father was a Sapper from 1901-23. His Workshop Company, on the eve of War in the Curragh, moved its Steam Traction engines to France where they served as Prime Movers until 1919.
Masterful. Puts Churchill's lament of the "tooth to tail ratio" in perspective. Also shows what a country that valued competence and efficiency was capable of. Thank you.
My grandfather was a driver then became a TC of a Sherman in the 4th Armoured. He talked very little about it he did say it was a good tank and it was better then being infantry. He was second generation German.
Combined arms really are greater than the sum of the parts when you can bring them to bear on the enemy. Troops and Marines need to know the things they need for survival are coming, rain, shine, darkness or hostiles. More ammo, more shells, more mortars, more chow. No one weapon, no one tool, no one operation, no one theater, no one ally won the war. Combined arms, the might of the free world, the resolve of people to see a desperate fight carried on to victory & a prosperous peace meant victory & peace in the end. Thank you. This vid was worth watching every second of its' prodigious length. Thanks again. DOUG out
"Availability is the most important ability." I don't know who first said it, but it sure applied to the M4. Numbers, strategic mobility, reliability, and maintainability trumped bigger guns and thicker armor.
@@Cx10110100 Sure. The Sherman was the easiest tank to escape from when hit. Later versions also incorporated wet storage for the main gun ammunition. Cook offs dropped dramatically as a result. So, do add crew survivability to my pervious list. Thanks for pointing out my omission.
@Chilly_Billy Who told you that. The Panzer IV had three escape hatches in the turret. One for each crewman. Try getting out of a Sherman turret quickly in 1943 with its single turret escape hatch for all three turret crewmen. Also the footage of Cologne in 1945 show the Panther crewmen bailing out just as fast as the Sherman crewmen, and more Panther crewmen survived the Pershing hits than Sherman crewmen survived the Panther hits. When your arse is on fire, you can get out of a tank as quickly as you need to. 😉
@@spearfisherman308 Yes really. Panzer IV crews could get out of the turret quicker than Sherman crews. Early Shermans only had one hatch in the turret. The Panzer IV had three. There is no evidence and no data that Sherman crews could escape the Sherman quicker than a Panther crew could escape a Panther either. And of course, the Panther could withstand shells better than the Sherman in the first place.
I haven't watched the full video yet but I hope you still kept the part where you answer the audience Q&A part. Some of them made good points and you were able to answer/refute them well.
I really appreciated this; I've seen the video of the presentation float by but I've avoided it because usually videos of presentations have... shall we say "basic" levels of audio. Which I get, producing something like a TED video is expensive; but it also makes me unintersted in them. Getting a chance to hear your essay with you normal, solid audio quality was very welcome!
Thank you for redoing this , I had shared the previous one with this ... If the foes much vaunted "superior" armor is not in the battle, it does not count. " if we show up and the enemy doesn't , we win "
We had a neighbor on the next block who happen to have my Aunt live on the the other side. He was a WW2 vet in the VFW with my father. A small town. As a kid I heard he had a glass eye and a plate in his head. After I was married and visited home I gleamed information in conversations with my mom and dad. Later mom after dad's death. The neighbor had trained under Patton at Desert Center California. He was later wounded in Normandy in a town while he was partway out of the top hatch. After Belton Cooper wrote his book, he started a correspondence with him. Wish I knew more.
An excellent facts filled discussion on the realities imposed on US AFVs designers, and how they truly did delivery an excellent and reliable design for a war winning tank, and copious archival sources as to why that resulting vehicle may not have not have had the thickest armor or bigger gun!
Thank you for putting out there the common sense reasons why the M4 helped win the war: even if it was not necessarily the best at any one thing, it was "good enough" to be built and fielded in sufficient quantities to get the job done, where ever that job happened to be.
As Nick has pointed out, an Israeli Armor Officer pointed out, "The Merkava may or may not be the best tank in the world, but it is the best tank for Israel" The M4 was the best tank for the US
Anyone who thinks, “Oh no not another Sherman apology”, is WRONG! The Chieftain’s Sherman recap is superb! Producibility, transportability and reliability are king. Anyone who is on vacation and is stuck beside the road with four kids in the backseat just wants the thing to run.
I read a book by A. A. Nofi in the early '80's which was a collection of essays published in military history magazines in the late '70's and early '80's. It was called "Why did the Allies win in WW?" It starts out as a very satirical look on the title by explaining the capabilities and awesomeness of their Axis enemies. He concludes the first chapter with a wry quote by a famous historian asking "why do people keep studying the great losers in war and not study why the victors won?" Mr. Nofi goes on in a later chapter to explain why choosing the M-4 Sherman was a war warning decision. It mostly had to do with the fact that we could ship a lot more Sherman's overseas than any of our larger tanks and also that the M-4 was an easier AFV to keep in service than the other vehicles. When you realize that well over half of the panzers on the Western Front were Pz-IV's or smaller vehicles, that means the majority of tank vs tank conflict in Western Europe were against tanks that the Shermans had a 50/50+ chance of winning and we had much, much, much more M-4's than the Germans had AFV's.
@@mf5535 And been less combat capable (remember that the Armored Force had the M26 more or less forced down its throat due to its unresolved problems) as well as breaking down more often (the M26 was underpowered, which was why it was replaced in Korea by the M46, while the M4 kept going)
I think that Nick has pointed out that the number of authenticated Tiger encounters by US tanks can probably be counted on ghe fingers of one hand, The British weren't so lucky up around Caen....
Hail Chieftain, I managed to download the original version you mentioned with Hilary Doyle. A very informative history of the Sherman. I recently read a book by Belton Cooper on his time with 3d Armour Division Maintenance Division WW2. You have probably read it yourself. It changed the view of the Sherman being "Just" another tank from WW2, to a very cleverly thought out piece of engineering, that could be put back into the field often overnight. And despite their reputation for cooking up, not as many people died in them as people are led to believe. I recently purchased a 1/16 scale Sherman Easy Eight from Andys Hobby HQ. He commissioned it in conjunction with Takom. Its a cracking kit and I think he still has some left. If that doesn't tickle your X-Acto knife nothing will. We could do with some of your model making videos as a lighter viewing. Kept me amused during Covid listening to the true Dub coming out as you searched the teeth of the carpet monster for dropped parts. I dont know how many bits I've found after the kit has been finished. I'm still missing a ships launch from my 1/350 Tirpitz .I think it passed through the dog and got relaunched. I enjoy the channel, always a good watch. And I'm in Dublin, we have the same surname. Could be distant cousins, who knows, there ain't many of us about. 😀
Loved the Original (even though the bad audio quality sometimes), love this one too. Thank you for your time, effort, ambition, heart-blood... you name it🖖☘
This was fantastic,one of your best yet, would like to see you compile these scripts into book form and make yourself some cash but alas I know your a busy chap, anyhoo very well done sir
On the subject of 'which came first, the chicken or the egg?' in a literal sense, my answer would be: First specify what a chicken actually is. Because the early versions probably meet any specification you can give, but don't look much like a chicken. In fact, many modern breeds of 'fancy' chicken don't look much like a chicken.
I have spoken to veterans from foreign armies , one complained that America did not have a heavy tank during the start of the European campaign ... when I pointed out that the unloading cranes could usually handle 35 tons max he understood .
I think a big thing to remember about the Sherman was America had not actually declared war on anybody when it was being designed and later rubber stamped. As far as the designer was concerned it was for the mountians of Machu Picchu. That explains the height of it. If your from a height allready and at distance, extra inchs get magnified on targets looking for cover below.
I really like the Sherman tank :) I like the look of it, and even though it technically might not have been the "best" tank, it was a very good one and did its job well. And it was better than other tanks at the beginning of the war.
The Sherman didn't exist at the beginning of the war. In 1939, it hadn't even been conceived of yet. It didn't start development until America joined the war, and it didn't finish until 1942
I would say the fact that it's the most consistently used and most versatile as well as paramount reliability (as well as a shockingly low casualty rate) makes it the best all around tank of the war.
Apart from cranes in Australia, US army engineers also built bridges in England where stronger or wider ones were needed to move heavy equipment like tanks.
I don't remember seeing that original video but somehow none of the points you made here were new to me. Either due to you covering them in previous Q&As or due to me watching the original and just forgetting about it. Regardless this was still well worth watching from start to finish. And when I say watch I mean listen to as I walked to a store and did some shopping.
Looking at the 1942 available equipment lists, there was still a lot of old stuff and new or old not in full production, still North Africa had to be done. There doctrine started to change faster than the FMs could workout the new equipment. Also, other branches were getting better equipment, most on wheels or tracks and they now all had radios.
I was wondering why this seemed familiar though it's new; i remember this from the recording of you presenting this to a group. Still a fantastic analysis of a complex situation.
Can we all just agree, that the picture with the M4, Pz4 and Panther, that you can also see the germans damn gun? In my opinion, you are missing the fact that the 75mm M4 had a very high rate of fire. That was a very good point too I think.
I've heard many responses to why the U.S. stuck to the medium tank design. The best answer I've heard was common sense, rare for the U.S. Army. The leading Army Quartermaster of the day researched what was the most common weight limit internationally on cranes around the major docks. That's why a Sherman tank could be no bigger. Thanx.
@@TheChieftainsHatch I assume this was feature was removed on MBTs as they are more likely to receive direct contact than self propelled guns which seems to retain this feature today?
Very interesting analysis. I was aware of the general gist of AFV development but this filled in the details. Info on the T-26 was especially informative. Useless trivia: In the British Army, the 'tank destroyers', Archer, M-10, etc., were operated by the Royal Artillery as self-propelled anti-tank guns along side towed 17-pdr AT Guns.
Which raises the question, what if that had happened in the U.S. Army? One possibility is that they would have adopted a variant of the M12 equipped with a 105mm GUN that was both capable of direct fire antitank fire, as well as indirect fire. And before you say that could not have happened, let me point out that many of the early TD Battalions (in fact, possibly all of them) were organized from Antitank Batteries assigned to Artillery Regiments, and the majority of TD Battalion Officers were actually from the Field Artillery.
@@ROBERTN-ut2ilThe head of the Army Tank Destroyer Command, General Bruce (I forget his first name) was focused VERY strongly on speed, so much so that early TD's only carried a 37mm gun, and didn't have any armor whatsoever (look at the M6 TD which mounted a 37mm on the back of a 3/4 truck). Meaning that while it might have been able to get into position very quickly, they wouldn't be able to knock out shit. Place Artillery in charge, and the TD's would have had a "big" gun so that it could supplement the fire of more conventional Field Artillery units. In fact, since so many TD officers had come from Artillery that most TD Battalions (especially in the Mediterranean) spent some of their time providing indirect fire. The people at the top determine what the people in the field are going to be using. And to correct something I said in my earlier comment, there were a few Infantry Antitank Battalions that were also assigned to Tank Destroyer Command.
Having spent most of my career developing kit for the British army I can say with utter certainty that doctrine follows design. Having read years of requirement specification and listened to "advice" from imbedded military "experts", the need for a new piece of equipment was invariably "just like what we already got, but better/faster/lighter/cheaper". How to use a new technology to fight in a different way seemed beyond them. I had multiple examples to draw on.
the german early war combination of Panzer III, IV and Stug III was pretty well thought out in terms of roles. three companies of Panzer III for anti-tank, one of Panzer IV with better HE, and Stug III in infantry divisions for assault.
Until 1941, both StuG III and Panzer III were not fielded in significant numbers. If you're refering to the 1941 OoB, there were usually (on paper !) 2 companies of Pz III and 1 company of Pz IV per battalion; each company still had one platoon of Pz II, mainly for recon purpose. Pz III production couldn't yet keep up with demand. Some Panzer divisions had 38(t) instead of Pz III until 1942. StuGs were never issued to infantry divisions but held at corps level to reinforce an (infantry) assault. IIRC only some of the early Waffen-XX divisions hat organic batteries, but never full battalions until 1942. It was only from 1943 onwards that StuGs appeared in mech. divisions (not infantry !) as tank destroyers and/or as "Ersatz-Panzer". From hindsight I think Pz III turned out surplus to requirements; you could have easily fitted a 3,7cm or 5cm gun in the already tried and tested Pz IV, thus only producing two versions on one chassis. Way better in terms of production and logistics. Both vehicles were about the same size, weight and armor and shared the same engine, but Pz III was a bit more expensive and complicated due to torsion bars and transmission.
Yeah, that's why TDs don't exist anymore. Helicopters filled 80% of the same roles, in addition to a whole bunch of other roles, and tanks could be forced into doing that last 20%
@@ROBERTN-ut2il Yep, and it was a very astute point he made. The Tank destroyer just traded in it's tracks for rotors, and it's high velocity gun for missiles.
An important topic i couldnt seem to find much information online, US ammunition. To keep it simple could you talk about the 75mm ammo (M61, M72, M48, T45, and M89)
Seems slightly odd to listen to again, without the audience, but a clear and masterfull presentation. One point early on, was the example of 40 odd days to collect enough tank carrying wagons in for a 1948 exercise. In that exercise, they had to procure and transfer the wagons from various places scattered around the US, get the wagons to the several bases possessing those tanks, and then transport the tanks to the field site/s. It would not have been the same as in the WW2 situation, as: the specific [heavier] tanks were made in one [or a couple] of factories, new specialized wagons would have been constructed beforehand for the transportation. They would have been operated as train units, and the number of movements based on the port's ability to hold and load, as well as the shipping timetable. I would assume that the factory and selected port were reasonably close, and given priority for the movement, transit time for the train would be in hours not days. The 1948 example is something railroad systems are not especially good at, while the second was, ie transporting large loads point A to point B for a period of time.
I like how in the T23 picture, even though it's the one in the foreground, you eye is automatically drawn to the M36, my dear beloved M36, behind it. And I do like how the M36, despite being "The Unwanted CHild" went on to have the longest serving career in combat out of all the American TD's.
I don’t think anyone would put the BAR on the “best of” list but it didn’t matter in the long run as the M1 created enough base of fire that a poor LMG didn’t count as much.
Given that the US infantry did its best to double the number of BARs per squad by war's end, the Marine Corps was aiming for three, and the M1919A6 was developed, I'd say that the feeling was that the M1 was not proving to be sufficient on its own. The UK was going the same route with it aiming to at least double up Brens per section (a section was slightly smaller than a US squad, so the midpoint of the US Army and Marine Corps automatic weapon complement) as well. The M1 was capable of much faster emergency firepower, but the doctrine was aimed fire, and that closes the gap a bit between the M1 and No. 4, but the former is still going to be better in terms of quick follow up shots and reloads. One thing to note, though, the British section included an SMG as standard, the US Army squad did not.
@@wbertie2604 the BAR was still pretty much inferior to the BREN in just about every way. As an LMG is was frankly already being pushed into a role it wasn't designed for. The infantry wanted more simply because that's what they could get, not because they were especially thrilled with the design. Just about everyone who ever had to use one would agree the thing's all but useless on full auto.
@@petriew2018 The BAR was the worst squad automatic weapon of WW2 but was far from "useless" on full auto. It's actually very stable firing from the bipod and it's weight mitigates much of the recoil when firing from the shoulder or hip. Many GIs attest to that. If the BAR had any advantage over the BREN or MG42 it was the ability to deliver shoulder fired automatic fire more accurately and quickly than they could. It was an automatic rifle after all. It's 20 round magazine and lack of quick change barrel obviously make it come up short but to say it was "useless" in full auto is flat out wrong.
Best Engineered Tank of the war. Durable, maintainable and combat worthy. Strategic, operational and tactical mobility. Available and mass produceable. And they did it quickly and on the fly!
Arguable. It has numerous tactical weaknesses that didnt need to exist, and some even impact its strategic usefulness. Like the ficked up diagonal power shaft that makes the whole tank a meter and a half taller and eight tons heavier than it has any right to be. The sherman does indeed have a laser focus on easy field maintenance, but considering no other tank does this, and few since have adopted sucha design, nor does this approach actually reduce the strategic logistical burden, it is very questionable how much of an impact this actually had. The two primary strengths of the sherman are excellent crew survivability, and good frontal admour out of the box. The former is obvious the letter made it possible to keep fielding the otherwise obsolete vehicle without ridiculously heavy slat armour packages that would overload its transmission, like so many other designs from the late 30s suffered from
I agree that it’s not the ultimate design although it was more than adequate. It the best engineered given the severe time, logistical and industrial constraints.
The argument about who should be in charge of the requirement is an interesting problem. IMHO it is a balance which is very much dependent on peace or wartime. User demands tend to be very much for an evolutionary approach, but this does not allow any improvement in capability as the opposition is doing the same thing. In order to make a step change in capability, there needs to be a revolutionary approach. But this can impact both logistics and tactics. Thus the revolutionary approach is more appropriate to peacetime. It is still a relevant approach and can lead to weapon systems such as the Harrier (AV8B) and the Osprey. During wartime, it is normal for troops to do their best to improve the weapon system. For example, hanging additional armour or whatever to improve survivability, leading to the Jumbo.
Do you suppose that you might find more comparable combat loss data for Sherman-equipped units from British and Canadian archives? All ranks were generally badged as armoured corps or cavalry/yeomanry from COs to troopers.
There were 28k light tanks built in WWII including the M2, M3, M5, and M24. I would like to hear a discussion of the doctrine, tactics, actual use, and relative success of these tanks.
I’d love that.
Probably varied widely by theater, unit (ie cav, armor, etc) and even unit commander. M24 was exclusively a recon tank though, I think.
See the machine gun nest over there? Not if you bring even an m2 along.
I actually own a real M3A1 Stuart (she needs a full restoration but she is still here). While I have read everything I can find on them and watched everything available (just about), I would LOVE to see Nick's take on them and hear his professional opinion . . . Yes I am extremely biased but still 😅
Yes. Lights seem to get very little mention after the first few years of the war. Would love to hear about them.
I was born in January of 1942, so I grew up believing the Sherman was the right tank for the U.S.. The trend to denigrate the tank came years later. Until I watched your earlier video, I stood by my original position, but didn't have the expertise to back it up. Your earlier video, and this one, filled in the supporting evidence. Thank you, again. An old man needs to have his beliefs reaffirmed from time to time.
I think an important notion is that a tank does not need to outperform every possible opponent in any imaginable scenario, and yet it can still be the right tank design.
Making that explicit at the start of any discussion should prevent most of the name-calling etc.
(Today, we focus too much on the idea that one single tank should've been able to drive from London to Berlin and on to Tokyo without ever coming across insurmountable resistance.
Okay, maybe I'm going a bit too far there. But I mean that Hollywood gave us things like the Millennium Falcon and the sort. And they all got plot armor. Which we then want to impose on reality. But reality isn't that pliable...)
Honestly I like to use it as a case study in why "Good Enough" is "Perfect" and why trying to build "Perfect" results in things that simply aren't.
Same with me, born 40 years after you. During the 1990's the sherman always at the bottom of top ten lists of tanks on Discovery channel with the petrol engine as the culprit. Though even the german tanks also had those engine.
Well yeah the Sherman was good enough if you have air and artillery superiority.
Damn ugly tank, but good enuff.
@@jimmylight4866 I disagree. I really like the look of the Sherman, especially the earlier design with the vertical suspension bogies. I don't know exactly why, to me it just has that "classic tank look."
Dad was a leg in WW2 and his favorable impression of the M4 was it was warm when it was cold and saved your feet when able to jump on board for a ride.
Who's leg was he? Where was the rest of your dad at the time?
I'm guessing he's sitting on the back of the tank?
My cousin has a photo of his Dad standing right behind the tank commander while we were able to count 9 soldiers riding on the outside
@@Pilotmario Depending on the vehicle and the terrain, you'd also see guys riding on the front. Not that it's a good idea, but this is the 1940s we're talking about, safety was merely a suggestion
I watched the original about 10 times so I will probably watch this one 12 ..!
donˋt get over 11!!!!!!!!!!!
@@TheLillerO it’s too late
In summary: A lot of really intelligent people did their best with the information they had at hand. They even had the shocking humility to prioritize the input from the field. They made mistakes but tried to learn from them as quickly as possible. A proud moment in America's history.
This also applys to reading materials for research as a civilian regarding WW1 & WW2 in the 50's to the early 2000's. I say this in regards to certain WW2 channels (TIK) who revel in smug self regard by often berating & ridiculing older viewers who didn't have the latests materials (Glantz etc). The fact that he calls himself as a" reformed" Marxist Leftest (which says alot to his character) which I think contributes to his hubris & ego which often I find insufferable tbh. I actually enjoy learning new information of WW2 thanks to computers over expensive books which has been a boon.
Few people take the time to look at the logistical nightmares of changing weapons and ordinance in the middle of a war. The war fighter needs to have faith in all of their equipment doing it's job when called on.
Very good talk by the way.
The UK was very keen on replacing the No. 1 and nascent No. 4 in the 1930s, and trialled the M1. It also wanted to change cartridge. It took the view that changing either or both even just before a war that it expected in 1941 rather than 1939 was too close to call.
The USA did well to standardise on the M1, even if there were supply issues in 1942 and one regiment of the 2nd Infantry Division was still using M1903s on D-Day (the latter was the COs odd decision, not a supply issue, though). Even more, bringing in the M1 Carbine and have it be so ubiquitous.
I suppose the UK managed to bring in an entire class, the SMG, and produce lots of them, which is also impressive, although you don't get much more basic than a Sten.
Copy Voldermort in on that will yah?
Troops and Marines need to know the things they need for survival are coming, rain, shine, darkness or hostiles. More ammo, more shells, more mortars, more chow. No one weapon, no one tool, no one operation, no one theater, no one ally won the war. Combined arms, the might of the free world, the resolve of people to see a desperate fight carried on to victory & a prosperous peace meant victory & peace in the end.
Thank you. This vid was worth watching every second of its' prodigious length. Thanks again.
DOUG out
@@dougreid2351 Massive application of overwhelming force is not a "desparate fight". The USSR might have been in one of those; we weren't. Germany and Japan could only have "won" by not fighting at all.
I've heard that German tank traks lasted about 400 miles b4 needing replacement whilst the Sherman traks could last up to 2000 miles, 5× the durability. That's impressive by my view if accurate.
My dad was a driver then commander of a M4 Sherman in WWII, albeit late in the war. His mission was to take his tank to the Japanese home islands and kill as many as he could, along with the others destined to die in that first wave of attack. He always said it wasn't the best at anything but good enough by design to do what was needed. Given the A-Bombs were used instead of my dad to draw the Japanese to the table, I am glad the latter was used and not my Dad in the Sherman.
amazing what a couple of A bombs can do to change a nations mind instead of 'starve millions to death' or 'fight til the last man'
There was a little coincidence that Soviets liberated Manchuria on same time and with conjunction with US fleet at see cut of Japan from resources in rest of Asia. Cool heads knew they lost at that time and there will not be negotiations.
Salute to your brave father (greatest generation). As an Aussie we are completely insync with killing as many Japanese as possible with as few losses as possible. If the Japanese polititions & Imperial forces didn't behave & act as brutal blood thirsty savages with little to no regard of human life. I consider the Japanese got off easy after the war as the US was already planning the future cold war against the encroaching communist influence in Asia.
@scottyfox6376 true. There was no equivalent of the Nuremberg trials in Japan. A lot of the old ways of thinking persisted if not ways of acting. Mark Felton has an excellent video about this, as well as generally excellent WWII content.
I watched the original a few times over the years. I appreciate the high-resolution slides this time around! :) Also, I love the reference to Parshall's "Mines of Moria" presentation; that's one of my favorite tank videos outside of yours.
Would you be interested in covering the story of the individual Armored Divisions, and the lessons each learned during the war?
Well thats what a few years of pratice can do for someone.🙂
and yet.... Mr. Parshall got a few things off. The McNair (Sp?) comment wasn't 100% correct and he over states the effectiveness of the bombing campaign in Germany. I would look up the old Operation Think Tank videos here on the Chieftains channel. It is my favorite series so far.
As much as I am sad the original video is gone, I must say that the more personal and updated upload is welcome. Nick, might want to consider a few updates for the oldies.
The simple fact is that I stuck around as long as I did watching this video is because everything you talk about is worth listening to. Thanks for the history lesson!
US R&D was one of those things were it's few failings are super well known(Mk14 torpedo etc), to the extent of obscuring the large numbers of successes
Nobody really notices when something works - because it's supposed to work. It's the failures that attract attention.
Note that the Mk14 Torpedo was developed PREWAR, when the Navy (and note, it was the NAVY) was trying to save money by not properly testing it, and once the war started refused to listen to the end users complaining of it not working, placing the blame on the end users.
@@colincampbell767 there's also very little to argue when something's been all but perfected as much as it can be
You can debate endlessly about the the Tiger could have performed had it not been introduced basically after the war was lost, or how good the t-34 would have performed if it had been built with anything resembling quality control.... but the Sherman basically had all it's problems fixed. We know exactly what it's peak performance is, which leaves little to really talk about on an internet forum.
@@petriew2018 I maintain that the Sherman was the best of the war because while each tank relatively for their nation was suited for their needs, if Germany built the Sherman as their medium tank instead of the Panzer IV or the Panther they would have done better. If the Soviets built the Sherman their tank losses would have been more recoverable, and the British would have had a more survivable medium tank. No one would have really suffered by building it instead of their indigenous designs.
To go on a tangent about the Lee; We're aware that it wasn't the best tank, but it did have two roles that were beyond critical; they acted as a testbed for the later design changes done for the Sherman, and more important than that, they could be used as an incredibly effective line filler for places where the Sherman was not absolutely needed, like China, Burma, and minor fronts in the pacific theater. The Lee had it's faults, but it still was incredibly reliable and it did come with the same 75mm gun that made the Sherman the Undisputed GOAT of the jack of all trades.
@@PrinceOfDolAlmroth The Germans were stunned when they first encountered it in North Africa. At Gazala, one M3 sustained 31 hits, with only two 50mm strikes on the driver's visor and a rear shot by a 37mm. One was hit 12 times with no damage. "Their appearance was a surprise to the Germans, who were unprepared for the M3's 75 mm gun. They soon discovered the M3 could engage them beyond the effective range of their 5 cm Pak 38 anti-tank gun, and the 5 cm KwK 39 of the Panzer III, their main medium tank"
The M4 was exceptionally good at being there when you needed a tank, Very Badly. It was also good at bringing friends. This is, when you think about it, the best thing for a tank to be good at.
Ohhh been waiting for this ever since the German Doctrine video came out years ago. Will be listening to this while assembling a 1/35 model of a M3 Stuart that fought in Bataan.
@The Chieftain
WOW~ An internet military equipment evaluator who can see past the end of his own nose! Thank you! It's nice to find a -caster who can not only present FACTS about the tactical effectiveness of equipment but can go on to see and explain coherently why one tactical concession or another might have been made. Brilliant program! May you present many, many more that rise to this level of educational value. I learned not only the facts behind what happened, but how the decisions were made - in short, not only to see past the end of my own nose but to THINK past it too! If only modern educators could do what it is you do here rather than just regurgitate what some author persuaded the local school board to buy.
I could rant on about how much of an improvement this is over 99% of the content out there, but as a Navy Veteran I'm going to go with a simple BRAVO ZULU! I'm confident you'll understand.
Excellent video sir.
Hard to imagine the Sherman, the chassis anyway, is still used for some military vehicles.
Well, large enough, all bugs and vices well and truly hammered out of it and a lot were made. Is it the DC-3/Dakota of tanks?
@@jon-paulfilkins7820 could make the argument for the Centurion or T55 also being the Gooney Bird of Tanks.
There are two countries South America...Paraguay and Peru...who still use the M8 Greyhound. How they get spare parts for the things is beyond me.
@@panderson9561 usually through modification and it’s popularity in South America. The M8 has the advantage of being fairly simple, having mostly automotive components, and being popular.
There’s even more if you look at the chassis’s derived from donated M8’s
@@RaeSyngKane I assumed the vehicles themselves must be pretty robust. But beyond that, eventually all parts of vehicles will wear out. I doubt anyone is still mass producing parts for 75 year old vehicles.
The M1 Anti-tank rock. A durable and reliable weapon however its short effective range, heavy weight and questionable armor penetration would lead to it quicky falling out of favor with US forces. The M2 Anti-tank rock would feature enhancements to lighten its weight to increase the amount carried per soldier but would fail to address the main concerns of the M1 and would also be dropped.
But then there was the prototype T6 "Super-Heavy" rock, provided you could get a freakish crocodile-like cretin that went by the name "Killer Croc" to heave it...well, it was a BIG rock!
Thank you again Chieftain. It's always amazing that you continue to be one of the best teachers of TH-cam military history.
You ROCK so much.
I saw the original, but like this version better, because you can see the photos being discussed and didn't have the background noise. Thanks for taking the time to do it over.
Please don't ever get rid of this video haha! This is such an informative lecture and it really helped me understand why our equipment needs to be of a certain quality and reliability; we simply can't ship it back to the factory!
I'd love it if you talked some more about the M36 Jackson, it's development, and performance in the field.
My favorite TD.
@@sadwingsraging3044 Mine too. It's a shame it got sidelined until late 44, it would have been of great use in Normandy (along with 76 Shermans). Hindsight is 20/20 though.
Commanding General of US 2nd Armored Division, Isaac D White, writing to Eisenhower in March 1945:
"Tank Destroyer, M36: Has not lived up to expectations, but when HVAP ammunition becomes available it is hoped that it will be more effective. Fighting compartment precludes efficient service of the piece and available ammunition is not effective at required long range."
4:00. Eggs have been laid by animals for well over 500 million years. Chickens (specifically gallus domesticus) have only been around for a few thousand years.
So... the egg clearly predates the chicken.
You didn't really address the issue. Of course some eggs laid by something predate the chicken. An argument could be made that the chicken egg came before the chicken because the first bird to lay a chicken egg wasn't quite a chicken.
As an aside. Just how long did it take the domestic chicken to reach it's full extent in the Old World (1) pre Columbus.
1) Yes, I know it's a politically incorrect term but you know what I mean.
@@mpetersen6 Chickens were first domesticated in SE Asia, probably on the island of Ceylon, about 8000 BC. Their final spread throughout Europe and Sub Saharan Africa wasn't complete until about 1000 AD.
@@fearlessfreap8093Did the Red Junglefowl (Gallus Gallus) become the Chicken (Gallus Domesticus) the moment the first person decided to try and domesticate them? If so, did that person first take eggs or hatchling? If not, then the first chicken had to have been laid as an egg.
Also, the question did not specify what species laid the egg.
@@firstcynic92 😂
Always enjoy your talks. Even when I've seen you talk on the same subject multiple times. The way you present is quite entertaining and relaxing.
He speaks in a very easygoing way, like he's telling a story, while also giving a lot of great details and information. That's exactly how a presenter should talk.
I had watched the earlier video about the M-4, but really enjoyed this remake (partly because I knew all of the answers to the quizzes). Really makes you realize that the members of the U.S. armed forces specification and development department were some pretty smart cookies-- a lot of logic and consideration that isn't apparent at first glance.
If you think about how quickly they had to come up with a design, the Sherman tank really is amazing. It's not like they rushed it and just slapped something together...there was a lot of forethought put into it and it really was a good tank. I've looked at repair and maintenance manuals, and it definitely was a well built machine.
Always good to find someone on TH-cam who really knows his subject.
I find your videos very therapeutic as well as informative as I write reports on other matters pertaining to military history. I have your commentaries running and it helps me generate ideas, while at the same time makes me think of what scale model to buy or work on.
Very well done. I admit that, up until recently, there were many extenuating factors you mentioned that I had not considered in the context of tank design. My grandfather commanded five different Sherman tanks on Iwo Jima; the one he came ashore in struck a buried aerial bomb and was effectively torn in half, but he returned to tell me about it. He recalled hearing all the small arms fire pinging off the armor and feeling sorry for the unprotected infantry, but also reported that, when the subject arose, most infantrymen he talked to were glad they weren't trapped in tanks.
Really thorough and well presented. I watched the old presentation a few years ago or so, that was very informative. This is an excellent refresher. Thank you.
I was looking for this video earlier this week and wondering why I couldn't find it. So happy to have a new version!
"This is what they really wanted. The crews may not have wanted it but Bruce really wanted it"
Lets appreciate the fact that we have freely available videos from an expert who has really entertaining way of storytelling on things that are otherwise very mundane and technical and which the general audience cannot understand
As an aside, during WWII my mother worked for a company called Arcrods in Cuyahoga Heights, Ohio. They made welding rods of various types. Makes me wonder how many tanks, trucks, planes etc. they helped build/repair. Also in 1944 Her and some her other Italian speaking friends celebrated Christmas With Italian P.O.W. s At Camp Perry, Port Clinton, Ohio.
Thank you for the re-issue! The original video was so informative and interesting I often left it on in the background as I did the dishes, worked around my apartment, etc.
I saw the original vid some months ago and it's great to see that there's at least a bit more of info that can be added to it, plus the whole HD/HQ things too... Great video as always!
I’ve walked the original video half a dozen times and still wade back into this! Such an excellent presentation.
Love the video! Watched it multiple times…. Thank you for sharing your time and talent! All the best… Chuck
I just watched an hour and a quarter of a guy sitting at a desk and talking. That's a good video.
👉I've heard a lot of discussion of the M4 being too tall, but never about the tank's width. M4: 8'7", T34: 9'10", Panther: 10'9". This must be an advantage head-on in target area offered. Also, this width must have been a huge advantage maneuvering through Europe's narrow roads and towns and across bridges. Any thoughts?👈
I cannot speak to the relative widths of tanks versus European streets and roads. However, I can say that, during a trip to Sicily some many years ago, my friends and I had a rental Fiat MultiPla van. We were driving in Palermo. We took a wrong turn (easy to do there), and went down a particularly narrow street. We could see where the main road was ahead, but the buildings literally got closer together where our street met the main road. At the end of that narrow street, we had to fold in the mirrors and barely squeezed through! All those very small cars made a lot more sense in that context. So, with that in mind, I can see some logic in the question you asked.
Plus when shipping is involved space is a critical factor (folding wings aircraft on carriers). That two foot width difference (panther) I can see 1 or two more tanks per row across a liberty ship's cargo holds would be an attractive aspect. Considering your information regarding the Sherman's dimensions I now realize the limitations of expanding the turret ring to fit a larger turret for larger guns upgrades.
It is more commonly said that the M3 Lee/Grant was too tall. Partly because of its imagined silhouette on the battlefield but mainly problems were encountered with its height and higher centre of gravity.
The British Prewar Tank Recovery/Transporter was the Scammel Pioneer which was equipped with 20ton and 30ton articulated trailers. The loaded M3 was found to be too tall for British road bridges (a high density of railways). Additionally when recovering off road the high centre of gravity caused stability problems.
The British went with a towed low loader trailer capacity 40tons they also bought the Diamond T truck as a Tractor. The US adopted it as the M20 tank transporter, the only diesel truck on US inventory.
Some wartime recovery training film.
th-cam.com/video/XvgkqdQvqq8/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/8e8Hxh9jW7c/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/I-W8FSUFE_g/w-d-xo.html
@@denisrobertmay875 Thx. I was familiar with the Scammel and Diamond T, though I didn't know that combined vehicle height was an issue.
@@Crash103179 In Europe the width of road would rarely be a problem. Most roads would carry two way traffic at least, the narrow single track roads were in rural or more difficult terrain where tanks would be restricted anyway. Bridge capacity was not so much of an issue as denying bridges was an ancient military tactic which Sappers trained to overcome.
The loading gauge issue was more to do with the universality of railways, rolling stock had to reach all parts of a system. The width issues had more to do with tighter radius bends more often found on Branch lines than mainlines on faster straighter railways. In Britain, which had the narrowest loading guage, tank transport was eventually restricted to Factory to depot/training area/dock or road transport on dedicated routes as tanks grew larger. It should be remembered the the 1918 Mk VIII tank that was to be built in UK and USA was a 39ton monster of which at least one made its way to Flanders albeit after Armistice.
My father was a Sapper from 1901-23. His Workshop Company, on the eve of War in the Curragh, moved its Steam Traction engines to France where they served as Prime Movers until 1919.
Masterful. Puts Churchill's lament of the "tooth to tail ratio" in perspective. Also shows what a country that valued competence and efficiency was capable of.
Thank you.
My grandfather was a driver then became a TC of a Sherman in the 4th Armoured. He talked very little about it he did say it was a good tank and it was better then being infantry. He was second generation German.
I've listened to that lecture maybe 50 times now from when it was originally published.
Combined arms really are greater than the sum of the parts when you can bring them to bear on the enemy.
Troops and Marines need to know the things they need for survival are coming, rain, shine, darkness or hostiles. More ammo, more shells, more mortars, more chow. No one weapon, no one tool, no one operation, no one theater, no one ally won the war. Combined arms, the might of the free world, the resolve of people to see a desperate fight carried on to victory & a prosperous peace meant victory & peace in the end.
Thank you. This vid was worth watching every second of its' prodigious length. Thanks again.
DOUG out
The original was one of my favorite TH-cam videos, thanks for making a new version!
"Availability is the most important ability."
I don't know who first said it, but it sure applied to the M4. Numbers, strategic mobility, reliability, and maintainability trumped bigger guns and thicker armor.
Ahem...crew survivability
@@Cx10110100
Sure. The Sherman was the easiest tank to escape from when hit. Later versions also incorporated wet storage for the main gun ammunition. Cook offs dropped dramatically as a result. So, do add crew survivability to my pervious list. Thanks for pointing out my omission.
@Chilly_Billy
Who told you that. The Panzer IV had three escape hatches in the turret. One for each crewman. Try getting out of a Sherman turret quickly in 1943 with its single turret escape hatch for all three turret crewmen.
Also the footage of Cologne in 1945 show the Panther crewmen bailing out just as fast as the Sherman crewmen, and more Panther crewmen survived the Pershing hits than Sherman crewmen survived the Panther hits.
When your arse is on fire, you can get out of a tank as quickly as you need to. 😉
@@lyndoncmp5751not really the hatches on a sherman were spring assisted so yeah wrong he mentions this in a previous lecture
@@spearfisherman308
Yes really. Panzer IV crews could get out of the turret quicker than Sherman crews. Early Shermans only had one hatch in the turret. The Panzer IV had three.
There is no evidence and no data that Sherman crews could escape the Sherman quicker than a Panther crew could escape a Panther either. And of course, the Panther could withstand shells better than the Sherman in the first place.
I haven't watched the full video yet but I hope you still kept the part where you answer the audience Q&A part. Some of them made good points and you were able to answer/refute them well.
I very much enjoyed the original, and I very much enjoyed the recap. Clearly, succinctly, authoritatively put. Thank you so much for your time!
I really appreciated this; I've seen the video of the presentation float by but I've avoided it because usually videos of presentations have... shall we say "basic" levels of audio. Which I get, producing something like a TED video is expensive; but it also makes me unintersted in them. Getting a chance to hear your essay with you normal, solid audio quality was very welcome!
Thanks!
My heart fills with joy at the correct pronunciation of Garand. OH, and thanks for the new video as well.
I was unaware of it at the time that I had recorded the original video. However, that was before I started hanging out with Ian.
@@TheChieftainsHatch I'm surprised no one in the comment section told you that you were pronouncing it wrong...
1 hr 17 minutes of grognard delight! An awesome lecturer.
Wow! All the info.
I appreciate the care of your youtube viewers such as myself, that cant afford too many other services.
Thank you for redoing this , I had shared the previous one with this ... If the foes much vaunted "superior" armor is not in the battle, it does not count. " if we show up and the enemy doesn't , we win "
1:11:55 If you read Carius, he talks a lot about supporting Infantry and how grateful they were to have the tigers around.
Yes even a couple of Tigers could alter the tactical situation.
I watched the original video, but this one was a nice refresher/recap of the matter.
We had a neighbor on the next block who happen to have my Aunt live on the the other side. He was a WW2 vet in the VFW with my father. A small town.
As a kid I heard he had a glass eye and a plate in his head.
After I was married and visited home I gleamed information in conversations with my mom and dad. Later mom after dad's death.
The neighbor had trained under Patton at Desert Center California.
He was later wounded in Normandy in a town while he was partway out of the top hatch.
After Belton Cooper wrote his book, he started a correspondence with him.
Wish I knew more.
An excellent facts filled discussion on the realities imposed on US AFVs designers, and how they truly did delivery an excellent and reliable design for a war winning tank, and copious archival sources as to why that resulting vehicle may not have not have had the thickest armor or bigger gun!
Thank you for putting out there the common sense reasons why the M4 helped win the war: even if it was not necessarily the best at any one thing, it was "good enough" to be built and fielded in sufficient quantities to get the job done, where ever that job happened to be.
And, in fact, when it was implemented, it was the best in many categories.
As Nick has pointed out, an Israeli Armor Officer pointed out, "The Merkava may or may not be the best tank in the world, but it is the best tank for Israel" The M4 was the best tank for the US
The audience reaction and Participation was golden in the C-Span version, but I still came back here for a more different one and high Res slides.
Its kind of amazing the amount of testing and QC that went into the Sherman and other WW2 era equipment that even surpass what we see today.
Anyone who thinks, “Oh no not another Sherman apology”, is WRONG! The Chieftain’s Sherman recap is superb! Producibility, transportability and reliability are king. Anyone who is on vacation and is stuck beside the road with four kids in the backseat just wants the thing to run.
I agree, and hate the term "Sherman apology video" this bad boy had nothing to be sorry about. Truly the best all around tank of the war hands down.
I read a book by A. A. Nofi in the early '80's which was a collection of essays published in military history magazines in the late '70's and early '80's. It was called "Why did the Allies win in WW?" It starts out as a very satirical look on the title by explaining the capabilities and awesomeness of their Axis enemies. He concludes the first chapter with a wry quote by a famous historian asking "why do people keep studying the great losers in war and not study why the victors won?" Mr. Nofi goes on in a later chapter to explain why choosing the M-4 Sherman was a war warning decision. It mostly had to do with the fact that we could ship a lot more Sherman's overseas than any of our larger tanks and also that the M-4 was an easier AFV to keep in service than the other vehicles. When you realize that well over half of the panzers on the Western Front were Pz-IV's or smaller vehicles, that means the majority of tank vs tank conflict in Western Europe were against tanks that the Shermans had a 50/50+ chance of winning and we had much, much, much more M-4's than the Germans had AFV's.
I imagine if we had switched over to T-25's or T-26's, we would have needed fewer tanks and they would have been knocked far less frequently.
@@mf5535 And been less combat capable (remember that the Armored Force had the M26 more or less forced down its throat due to its unresolved problems) as well as breaking down more often (the M26 was underpowered, which was why it was replaced in Korea by the M46, while the M4 kept going)
I think that Nick has pointed out that the number of authenticated Tiger encounters by US tanks can probably be counted on ghe fingers of one hand, The British weren't so lucky up around Caen....
2000 mile test? Cherbourg to Moscow is just about 2000 miles.
Great presentation, as always. Thank you for the detailed history lesson.
Excellent. Thanks for the re-creation.
This never gets old, I seen the first video and this one,
Loved them both.
Hail Chieftain, I managed to download the original version you mentioned with Hilary Doyle. A very informative history of the Sherman. I recently read a book by Belton Cooper on his time with 3d Armour Division Maintenance Division WW2. You have probably read it yourself. It changed the view of the Sherman being "Just" another tank from WW2, to a very cleverly thought out piece of engineering, that could be put back into the field often overnight. And despite their reputation for cooking up, not as many people died in them as people are led to believe.
I recently purchased a 1/16 scale Sherman Easy Eight from Andys Hobby HQ. He commissioned it in conjunction with Takom. Its a cracking kit and I think he still has some left. If that doesn't tickle your X-Acto knife nothing will. We could do with some of your model making videos as a lighter viewing. Kept me amused during Covid listening to the true Dub coming out as you searched the teeth of the carpet monster for dropped parts. I dont know how many bits I've found after the kit has been finished. I'm still missing a ships launch from my 1/350 Tirpitz .I think it passed through the dog and got relaunched. I enjoy the channel, always a good watch. And I'm in Dublin, we have the same surname.
Could be distant cousins, who knows, there ain't many of us about. 😀
Loved the Original (even though the bad audio quality sometimes), love this one too.
Thank you for your time, effort, ambition, heart-blood... you name it🖖☘
Saw both versions. Loved both! Thank you!
I really like how well made this video is.
This was fantastic,one of your best yet, would like to see you compile these scripts into book form and make yourself some cash but alas I know your a busy chap, anyhoo very well done sir
Excellent analysis - thank you for your valuable insights
On the subject of 'which came first, the chicken or the egg?' in a literal sense, my answer would be: First specify what a chicken actually is. Because the early versions probably meet any specification you can give, but don't look much like a chicken. In fact, many modern breeds of 'fancy' chicken don't look much like a chicken.
This was such a good talk I watched it twice.
I have spoken to veterans from foreign armies , one complained that America did not have a heavy tank during the start of the European campaign ... when I pointed out that the unloading cranes could usually handle 35 tons max he understood .
just watched , again and enjoyed, again!
I think a big thing to remember about the Sherman was America had not actually declared war on anybody when it was being designed and later rubber stamped. As far as the designer was concerned it was for the mountians of Machu Picchu. That explains the height of it. If your from a height allready and at distance, extra inchs get magnified on targets looking for cover below.
I really like the Sherman tank :)
I like the look of it, and even though it technically might not have been the "best" tank, it was a very good one and did its job well. And it was better than other tanks at the beginning of the war.
The Sherman didn't exist at the beginning of the war. In 1939, it hadn't even been conceived of yet. It didn't start development until America joined the war, and it didn't finish until 1942
@@filmandfirearms Right, let me rephrase that then - "early in the war."
I would say the fact that it's the most consistently used and most versatile as well as paramount reliability (as well as a shockingly low casualty rate) makes it the best all around tank of the war.
@sologamer3122
A British medical study reported that the Cromwell was safer after being hit, and few think of the Cromwell as a safe tank.
Apart from cranes in Australia, US army engineers also built bridges in England where stronger or wider ones were needed to move heavy equipment like tanks.
Ive been waiting for a New Q&A😁 Hello from Milford MI, I work in Warren. You've been hanging out nearby it looks like!!
I don't remember seeing that original video but somehow none of the points you made here were new to me. Either due to you covering them in previous Q&As or due to me watching the original and just forgetting about it. Regardless this was still well worth watching from start to finish. And when I say watch I mean listen to as I walked to a store and did some shopping.
Looking at the 1942 available equipment lists, there was still a lot of old stuff and new or old not in full production, still North Africa had to be done. There doctrine started to change faster than the FMs could workout the new equipment. Also, other branches were getting better equipment, most on wheels or tracks and they now all had radios.
I was wondering why this seemed familiar though it's new; i remember this from the recording of you presenting this to a group. Still a fantastic analysis of a complex situation.
Thank you for reposting this
Can we all just agree, that the picture with the M4, Pz4 and Panther, that you can also see the germans damn gun? In my opinion, you are missing the fact that the 75mm M4 had a very high rate of fire. That was a very good point too I think.
Superiority is one of my favourite SF short stories, and has the funniest final line.
I've heard many responses to why the U.S. stuck to the medium tank design. The best answer I've heard was common sense, rare for the U.S. Army. The leading Army Quartermaster of the day researched what was the most common weight limit internationally on cranes around the major docks. That's why a Sherman tank could be no bigger. Thanx.
What was the purpose of the barrel brace you see mount on front of the tank? You see it on 59:26 E8 intro.
It relieves the stress on the elevating mechanism as the tank is travelling around.
@@TheChieftainsHatch I assume this was feature was removed on MBTs as they are more likely to receive direct contact than self propelled guns which seems to retain this feature today?
Outstanding
Very interesting analysis. I was aware of the general gist of AFV development but this filled in the details. Info on the T-26 was especially informative.
Useless trivia: In the British Army, the 'tank destroyers', Archer, M-10, etc., were operated by the Royal Artillery as self-propelled anti-tank guns along side towed 17-pdr AT Guns.
Which raises the question, what if that had happened in the U.S. Army? One possibility is that they would have adopted a variant of the M12 equipped with a 105mm GUN that was both capable of direct fire antitank fire, as well as indirect fire. And before you say that could not have happened, let me point out that many of the early TD Battalions (in fact, possibly all of them) were organized from Antitank Batteries assigned to Artillery Regiments, and the majority of TD Battalion Officers were actually from the Field Artillery.
@@davidbriggs7365 Why would that have changed anything? Same people running things except for the very top
@@ROBERTN-ut2ilThe head of the Army Tank Destroyer Command, General Bruce (I forget his first name) was focused VERY strongly on speed, so much so that early TD's only carried a 37mm gun, and didn't have any armor whatsoever (look at the M6 TD which mounted a 37mm on the back of a 3/4 truck). Meaning that while it might have been able to get into position very quickly, they wouldn't be able to knock out shit. Place Artillery in charge, and the TD's would have had a "big" gun so that it could supplement the fire of more conventional Field Artillery units. In fact, since so many TD officers had come from Artillery that most TD Battalions (especially in the Mediterranean) spent some of their time providing indirect fire. The people at the top determine what the people in the field are going to be using.
And to correct something I said in my earlier comment, there were a few Infantry Antitank Battalions that were also assigned to Tank Destroyer Command.
Wow. Thanks for the great video!!
Having spent most of my career developing kit for the British army I can say with utter certainty that doctrine follows design.
Having read years of requirement specification and listened to "advice" from imbedded military "experts", the need for a new piece of equipment was invariably "just like what we already got, but better/faster/lighter/cheaper". How to use a new technology to fight in a different way seemed beyond them. I had multiple examples to draw on.
the german early war combination of Panzer III, IV and Stug III was pretty well thought out in terms of roles. three companies of Panzer III for anti-tank, one of Panzer IV with better HE, and Stug III in infantry divisions for assault.
Until 1941, both StuG III and Panzer III were not fielded in significant numbers. If you're refering to the 1941 OoB, there were usually (on paper !) 2 companies of Pz III and 1 company of Pz IV per battalion; each company still had one platoon of Pz II, mainly for recon purpose. Pz III production couldn't yet keep up with demand. Some Panzer divisions had 38(t) instead of Pz III until 1942.
StuGs were never issued to infantry divisions but held at corps level to reinforce an (infantry) assault. IIRC only some of the early Waffen-XX divisions hat organic batteries, but never full battalions until 1942. It was only from 1943 onwards that StuGs appeared in mech. divisions (not infantry !) as tank destroyers and/or as "Ersatz-Panzer".
From hindsight I think Pz III turned out surplus to requirements; you could have easily fitted a 3,7cm or 5cm gun in the already tried and tested Pz IV, thus only producing two versions on one chassis. Way better in terms of production and logistics. Both vehicles were about the same size, weight and armor and shared the same engine, but Pz III was a bit more expensive and complicated due to torsion bars and transmission.
It's amazing how the modern attack helicopter is to a tee exactly what the US wanted from the WWII tank destroyer.
Yeah, that's why TDs don't exist anymore. Helicopters filled 80% of the same roles, in addition to a whole bunch of other roles, and tanks could be forced into doing that last 20%
@@filmandfirearms I would submit that TD's still exist, they just grew rotors.
@@filmandfirearms TDs don't exist anymore. TOW armed HUMVEEs would beg to differ with you. th-cam.com/video/ttUzFOKXp2k/w-d-xo.html
@@Valorius Chieftain made this point years ago
@@ROBERTN-ut2il Yep, and it was a very astute point he made. The Tank destroyer just traded in it's tracks for rotors, and it's high velocity gun for missiles.
An important topic i couldnt seem to find much information online, US ammunition. To keep it simple could you talk about the 75mm ammo (M61, M72, M48, T45, and M89)
Seems slightly odd to listen to again, without the audience, but a clear and masterfull presentation.
One point early on, was the example of 40 odd days to collect enough tank carrying wagons in for a 1948 exercise.
In that exercise, they had to procure and transfer the wagons from various places scattered around the US,
get the wagons to the several bases possessing those tanks, and
then transport the tanks to the field site/s.
It would not have been the same as in the WW2 situation, as:
the specific [heavier] tanks were made in one [or a couple] of factories,
new specialized wagons would have been constructed beforehand for the transportation.
They would have been operated as train units, and the number of movements based on the port's ability to hold and load, as well as the shipping timetable.
I would assume that the factory and selected port were reasonably close, and given priority for the movement, transit time for the train would be in hours not days.
The 1948 example is something railroad systems are not especially good at,
while the second was, ie transporting large loads point A to point B for a period of time.
I like how in the T23 picture, even though it's the one in the foreground, you eye is automatically drawn to the M36, my dear beloved M36, behind it.
And I do like how the M36, despite being "The Unwanted CHild" went on to have the longest serving career in combat out of all the American TD's.
I don’t think anyone would put the BAR on the “best of” list but it didn’t matter in the long run as the M1 created enough base of fire that a poor LMG didn’t count as much.
Given that the US infantry did its best to double the number of BARs per squad by war's end, the Marine Corps was aiming for three, and the M1919A6 was developed, I'd say that the feeling was that the M1 was not proving to be sufficient on its own.
The UK was going the same route with it aiming to at least double up Brens per section (a section was slightly smaller than a US squad, so the midpoint of the US Army and Marine Corps automatic weapon complement) as well.
The M1 was capable of much faster emergency firepower, but the doctrine was aimed fire, and that closes the gap a bit between the M1 and No. 4, but the former is still going to be better in terms of quick follow up shots and reloads. One thing to note, though, the British section included an SMG as standard, the US Army squad did not.
@@wbertie2604 the BAR was still pretty much inferior to the BREN in just about every way. As an LMG is was frankly already being pushed into a role it wasn't designed for. The infantry wanted more simply because that's what they could get, not because they were especially thrilled with the design. Just about everyone who ever had to use one would agree the thing's all but useless on full auto.
@@petriew2018 The BAR was the worst squad automatic weapon of WW2 but was far from "useless" on full auto. It's actually very stable firing from the bipod and it's weight mitigates much of the recoil when firing from the shoulder or hip. Many GIs attest to that. If the BAR had any advantage over the BREN or MG42 it was the ability to deliver shoulder fired automatic fire more accurately and quickly than they could. It was an automatic rifle after all. It's 20 round magazine and lack of quick change barrel obviously make it come up short but to say it was "useless" in full auto is flat out wrong.
I remember Ian Hogg writing words to the effect of "Imagine a 30-06 Bren instead of a BAR" We'd probably still be using the 7.62mm version
Best Engineered Tank of the war. Durable, maintainable and combat worthy. Strategic, operational and tactical mobility. Available and mass produceable. And they did it quickly and on the fly!
Arguable. It has numerous tactical weaknesses that didnt need to exist, and some even impact its strategic usefulness. Like the ficked up diagonal power shaft that makes the whole tank a meter and a half taller and eight tons heavier than it has any right to be. The sherman does indeed have a laser focus on easy field maintenance, but considering no other tank does this, and few since have adopted sucha design, nor does this approach actually reduce the strategic logistical burden, it is very questionable how much of an impact this actually had.
The two primary strengths of the sherman are excellent crew survivability, and good frontal admour out of the box. The former is obvious the letter made it possible to keep fielding the otherwise obsolete vehicle without ridiculously heavy slat armour packages that would overload its transmission, like so many other designs from the late 30s suffered from
I agree that it’s not the ultimate design although it was more than adequate. It the best engineered given the severe time, logistical and industrial constraints.
Good One, Colonel. Very informative.
The argument about who should be in charge of the requirement is an interesting problem. IMHO it is a balance which is very much dependent on peace or wartime. User demands tend to be very much for an evolutionary approach, but this does not allow any improvement in capability as the opposition is doing the same thing. In order to make a step change in capability, there needs to be a revolutionary approach. But this can impact both logistics and tactics. Thus the revolutionary approach is more appropriate to peacetime. It is still a relevant approach and can lead to weapon systems such as the Harrier (AV8B) and the Osprey. During wartime, it is normal for troops to do their best to improve the weapon system. For example, hanging additional armour or whatever to improve survivability, leading to the Jumbo.
Do you suppose that you might find more comparable combat loss data for Sherman-equipped units from British and Canadian archives? All ranks were generally badged as armoured corps or cavalry/yeomanry from COs to troopers.
I was actually looking for that very video yesterday and was very confused on why I couldn't find it!