M4 Sherman Tank - The American Deathtrap
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 17 ก.ย. 2011
- Doctrine
As the US approached entry in World War II, armored employment was doctrinally governed by FM 100-5 Operations (published May 1941, the month following selection of the M4 tank's final design). That FM stated that:
The armored division is organized primarily to perform missions that require great mobility and firepower. It is given decisive missions. It is capable of engaging in all forms of combat, but its primary role is in offensive operations against hostile rear areas.[10]
In other words, the M4 was envisioned to primarily fill the role of a cruiser tank - although the US Army did not use that doctrinal term. The M4 was not primarily intended as an infantry support tank; in fact, FM 100-5 specifically stated the opposite. It placed tanks in the "striking echelon" of the armored division, and placed the infantry in the "support echelon". Neither was the M4 primarily intended for tank versus tank action. Doctrinally, anti-tank engagements were the primary role of tank destroyers. The field manual covering the use of the Sherman (FM 17-33, "The Tank Battalion, Light and Medium" of September 1942) devoted one page of text and four diagrams to tank versus tank action (out of 142 pages).[11] This early armored doctrine was heavily influenced by the sweeping initial successes of the German blitzkrieg tactics. Unfortunately, by the time M4s reached combat in significant numbers, battlefield demands for infantry support and tank versus tank action far outnumbered the occasional opportunities for cruiser tanks.
Although envisioned primarily as a cruiser-type tank, US doctrine did also contemplate the M4's use in other roles. Unlike some other nations, which had separate medium tank designs tailored specifically for anti-tank roles (e.g., the German PzKw III) and support roles (the PzKw IV), the US intended the M4 to fulfill all roles. Although not optimized for tank versus tank engagements or infantry support, the M4 was capable of performing these missions to varying degrees. In the Pacific Theater, the Sherman was used chiefly against Japanese infantry and fortifications; in their rare encounters with lighter Japanese tanks with weaker armor and guns, the Shermans were vastly superior.
The doctrine of the time had Shermans as a sort of infantry tank. All anti-tank work was supposed to be done by tank-destroyer crews. Speed was essential in order to bring the tank-destroyers from the rear to destroy incoming tanks. Thankfully, for Sherman crews, this doctrine was not entirely used as it would create a small window of time of weakness in the armored battalion until tank destroyers moved to the front. Obviously this would make it harder for an armored force to achieve a breakthrough, a main objective of armor, if the enemy had tanks. It would also be easier for an opposing armored force to achieve a breakthrough against an American tank battalion which would not have all of its anti-tank assets at the front during the beginning of any attack - ยานยนต์และพาหนะ
![[안방1열 직캠4K] 베이비몬스터 치키타 'FOREVER' (BABYMONSTER CHIQUITA FanCam) @SBS Inkigayo 2404707](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Tn3bGHiBWkg/mqdefault.jpg)
"the Sherman tank was somewhere between the light tank and the heavy tank" its called a medium tank
And this the exact moment in which everyone should stop watching this vid. Second one is referencing "Death Traps" - a book written by a guy who worked with damaged and destroyed M4's. Of course he thought they're shit if he only saw damaged or destroyed ones.
they are shit if he literally saw thousands destroyed, look at numbers
@@papameowmeow8236 What numbers? Those official, declassified ones from 50's saying that M4 was, not counting Churchill, the safest tank of the war with like 1,5 casuality (which includes both dead and wounded) per destroyed tank? Even less for later models with better armor, second hatch in turret and wet stowage?
Like it or not, M4 was an amazing tank. Easy to repair, reliable (read a bit about the tests it had to go through to be accepted by the army), good armour - front was only few cm thiner than Tiger, and good enough firepower - even short barell 75mm from earlier versions was capable of taking out Panthers and Tigers at short distances, which were standard fighting range in Italy and Normandy.
This book was and its myth were debunked ages ago. He saw thousands because it was his job! It's like oncologist saying that everyone has cancer, because he sees cancer patients all day.
@@oumajgad6805 I think that the main reason the Sherman looks bad is that the German tanks just had more firepower. If the Sherman had a similar gun as the panther it could probably punch through well. The Sherman just wasn't produced as a tank killer.
@@alwayssunnyinsuncity4736 It wasnt build for that role, but still was competent at this. Frontline troops basicaly said "meh" when they were told they're getting long barrell 76mm version. They were still killing Panthers and Tigers. Later it was proven to be not enough hence the 76mm + HVAP ammo which was unfortunately in short supply. Fortunately so were Tigers.
My grandfather was a tank Gunner during WW2, he was killed in the winter of 1944, we're not exactly sure where (Belgium or Germany) because his records were destroyed in a fire where the records were held. He was twenty four years old, and left a wife and three children. His brother, my great uncle, was killed in Italy nine days later, he was twenty. Their last surviving brother was sent home from the Pacific after they were killed, he's will be ninety seven on December second.
My wife lost all of her grandfather's records in that same fire. You couldn't have got me in one of these Sherman death traps I take my chance with my GI shirt. Thank your family for the sacrifice
@@brt-jn7kg Agreed, that's exactly what they were, death traps.
Deep story.
@@brt-jn7kg And what exactly did your family gain from that sacrifice ??????????????
@@brt-jn7kg The _M4_ was considerably more survivable to be in than being infantry...
0:35 "The Sherman Tank' weight class was somewhere between a light tank which was small and a heavy tank was a monster"
.....so a medium tank then
@@steffenjespersen247
What are you even talking about? Medium tank term were already a thing during the interwar period which is after the Great War and before WW2.
Steffen Jespersen bruh
If you need more words for your essay
Medium doesn't really make sense as a class anyways if you think logically so it makes sense they wouldn't immediately jump to it. You could describe a tank as relatively light or heavy but you would never say "Yeah I weighed that tank and it was... medium"
@@nohbodhi1120 you can already know if its a medium tank if it has an average speed,weight and armor by comparing it to a heavy or light tank if its the middle of it so its medium
The video: "the Sherman's invincibility is a myth"
A WW2 veteran: "this entire video is a myth and nothing is invincible"
?? Who ever said the Sherman is invincible?? Obviously no tank is invincible but some were more so than others.
@Ronnie Boswell I don't know, guy. The WWII soldiers must have had a reason they nicknamed the Sherman "the Zippo".
I could believe if it was the Germans with Tiger 2 beside him are telling that because that thing have some thick armour but M4 Sherman?The tank frontal armour have only like half of the Matilda frontal armour.
gerald mahle the nickname refers to the Flamethrower variant of the Sherman, not the Shermans in general. Shermans had a 99% crew survivability rate, wet ammo storage also helped a lot with preventing fires.
@@Bustin_cider00 No, it doesn''t. That's what the Germans called them because they ran on gasoline - German tanks ran on diesel, which was far less combustible - and, as a result, often burst into flames. They sucked but there were lots of them. That's why the Shermans were so successful.
Back when the History channel actually made shows about historical things.
+Josh E I actually learn more about history watching Pawn Stars than most shows.
Shame this is mostly all bullshit.
Hmm, Sherman gets hit once: 3 crew dead, 1 crippled for life, 1 survived. Panther gets hit 3 times: 4 crew survived, 1 unaccounted for. Yep definitely bullsh#t. I get that we could not have better tanks because we had to ship them overseas, but the only thing that is bullsh#t here is what those tank crews had to work with. Typical American tactics: we have a tank that's completely inferior to what its going up against, so lets just produce thousands of them and screw the guys who have to drive them. At least the British knew enough to put a f#cking 17 pounder on the d#mn thing instead of just shipping out death traps to their men.
From 1 video that doesn't exactly show the whole picture of the war. Now i can't rember the numbers off the top my head but i think US army studies during and early post war stated crew losses per knocked out Sherman was 1 dead 2-3 wounded (later 1-2 when they sorted out ammo flash issues) hardly the figures from the Sherman panther fight.
The real picture (in my opinion) is "our factories kicked your factories' asses"...all the things that made the Sherman so-so were a consequence of it being a product per se..."shippable" and "bridgeable" etc. They had hundreds, we had thousands. Same with half-tracks too...they had 100's of SdKfz 251 and we had 10's of thousands of M3/M16 etc. etc.
A Sherman tanker had a 3 percent mortality rate while infantry had an 18 percent mortality rate. Bomber crews over Germany had a mortality rate between 35 and 40 percent. All things considered, I'd rather be in a tank.
@DB Cooper, they never had a chance to bail. Then a lot of times once they hit the ground or were near ground the Nazis gunned them down
People say the Sherman sucks but it was one of the most survivable tanks in the war 🤷♂️
ohh screw being in a bomber, that would of been truly awful.
Like Chiftain (a guy from WOT documentaries) show up, sherman was very easy to escape from but 3% means that majority of them was from long range and enemy infantry couldn't suppress tank crew. It looks like tank amour was made form wrong metal alloy, making weaker than in German counterparts with the same thickness. There was a story on DH when British sherman tank was hit by 88, project penetrate get through and get out with out exploding
@DB Cooper British Bomber Command aircrew had an overall mortality rate of about 18%. The USAAF 8th Air Force (bombers) had a similar rate. That's WW2, European Operations. Both British and American bombers dropped about 1 million tons of bombs, each for the war. American bombers had lower payloads so 8th Air Force flew more sorties than Bomber Command. 18% was higher than ANY other Allied WW2 combatants. Neither Brit or American aircrew had anything like 50% killed.
As Chieftain (an armor historian and tank commander himself) explains: Despite what they show in movies like Fury, there were only 3 instances of American tanks taking on a German Tiger. The first time the Sherman's won. The second time the Pershing lost. And the third time the Tigers were being loaded onto railway cars - so it wasn't really a fair fight.
That was the 3 recorded instances of American armor fighting German heavy tanks. Not bad considering the Sherman was a medium tank!
very much so
we all know that every fight americans had not been victors is a unfair fight. the british feel the same.
The Pershing was actually a draw. The Tiger's shell ricochet and destroyed the cannon's barrel, but then the Tiger got stuck on some rubble while moving to flank the Pershing and was stuck in such a way that it couldn't shoot it.
Both tanks were abandoned.
Context, it was from Harry Yeide who found the records in the archives for western europe and this was post Normandy. Shermans had encountered and killed Tigers seperately in Italy and North Africa but they were so rarely encountered because so few were ever built.
when the video cites "Death traps" you've got a problem
T Major it was a bbq for panthers and tigers can’t deny that.
@@russianfirepower5338 Well no crap, the germans had stationary positions, the stationary army is going to do more damage than an advancing army.
T Major yes I’m aware of that, but that’s not my point, the German panthers were superior in nearly every way (not going to bring up the tiger anymore since the western front saw more panthers then tigers, plus it isn’t really correct to compare heavy tanks to medium ones)
@@russianfirepower5338 Their guns and some armor was superior, they didn't have the same range, break down rate, crew survivability, turret rotation, repair ability, or pretty much anything else. The tiger and pather were bigger but bulkier, not to mention not that many were made compared to the sherman. If the sherman was on the defensive it would have the same success shooting tigers as tigers did shooting shermans. The point being, tigers were able to shoot shermans when they wanted to since they were on the defensive and would have better cover, while the shermans would be more open to attack because they were the ones advancing.
@@russianfirepower5338 Calling the Panther a medium tank is a joke. The thing weighed as much as a heavy tank, suffered from all the same mechanical issues of German heavy tanks, and was specifically made for killing tanks. And the Panther wasn’t “superior” to the Sherman. I’d rather be in a Sherman than a Panther 10 times out of 10 because it was the far more practical vehicle. That stumpy barrel that the Sherman has is there for a reason: infantry. The Sherman is supposed to be rolling up with a screen of infantry and its primary purpose most of the time was to bust open defensive positions and act as cover for the troops. If by chance a Sherman did encounter a tank it would have statistically been most likely to bump into a STuG or Pz IV which it was more than capable of engaging effectively. People label the Sherman as a bad tank because of *extremely* specific circumstances in which it would be absolutely trashed (Big open fields, entrenched big cat, ambush, etc) because the big kitties were indeed made to be tank killers, especially the Panther. If you stick a Panther in an urban environment then it’s at a severe disadvantage using a high velocity anti tank gun to try and take out infantry and machine gun nests while also being confined to such an enclosed area that if it were to bump into a Sherman the winner would be whoever could acquire the target first; which would usually be the Sherman. America had the luxury of sticking extremely high quality parts on to a rather cheap and mass produced vehicle which lead to it having fun little quirks like a gyroscopic stabilization to allow it to shoot accurately on the move, the ability to move the gun both vertically and horizontally at the same time, and a rather fast turret traverse rate. If you’re wondering, none of the German tanks had this kind of tech in it. But you know what? You are right. If a Sherman and a Panther were stuck staring directly at each other without any cover or support the Panther would always win because it would be in its element. Unfortunately for the Panther its happy place rarely occurred in reality and more often than not the Sherman was the superior tank in that it was a jack of all trades and able to succeed in situations that the Panther is just completely unsuited for. The metric of a good tank isn’t if it is able to kill more tanks and take more hits than its competitors; the metric of a good tank is whether or not it continually succeeds in the role which it was designed to fulfill and emerges victorious time after time across a wide variety of situations.
My grandfather was in a Sherman through North Africa, Italy, and finally through France,Belgium, into Germany. At the kitchen table one morning, I noticed his forearm bleeding. I mentioned it, he looked down, and pulled a metal splinter out of his arm and threw it into the ashtray. His body was riddled with Schrapnell from being the only survivor of 5 of these fine machines blown to pieces with him inside. He was offered stateside duty after the 2nd time of being knocked out, but refused saying” I’ll go home when we all go home”. They don’t build them like him anymore
Wow that's amazing. I also am amazed how often US tank crews survived a hit and went back into action later. By contrast, Japanese tanks I've read did not have many escape hatches since the tank designers foolishly assumed the JP tank crew would be on a kamikaze mission and were expected to die in their machines.
John Doran j
Sorry was not meant to comment typo will try to delete
John Doran
Truth.
guts. Just pure guts. I salute your Grandfather.
“Sherman tanks. Known for their speed and agility...”
* shows m10 *
Well the M10 based on the M4 sherman.
@@Mandred85 it's still not a sherman lol
Mandred85 pretty sure the M10 was based on the M3 lee.
Lol had to make a whole other video to show the canon risen.
T-34 :D
The chieftain taking about the myths of US tanks:
Hey it's only a StuH lll,
Hey Joe, we don't need you and your buddy
I love that man
Yeah we all remember that lol Oh it's only a sturmgeshutz hey Joe we don't need u and ur buddy
I love how everyone actually researched on tanks rips this video apart in their own content.
If you want to know more, watch Chieftain's video on the Sherman.
Yeah this is really badly researched. Citing death traps as an accurate representation of the tanks fighting ability as well? Not a good piece.
@@biscuit715 Its about what tanks earlier were known for, it totally affects fighting ability if you get fire in side which means you have to abandon tank.
@@AndyP998 Sherman set on fire less than it's contemporaries and American tank crews were some of the safest of the war. Deathtraps is biased towards cooked Shermans because those were the ones that were taken back to the repair shop the most, a lot of other forms of battle damage either resulted in the tank just being abandoned or repaired in the field. The American tanks were very well built and had tons of spare parts so often they could just fix the tank without having to send it back to the garage.
@@biscuit715 But we were not ever talking about their abilities on repair shop, just in fields were they were being fired at.
@@AndyP998 That's my point. Sherman set on fire less than it's counterparts. Deathtraps, and thus this video, exaggerates the number of Shermans that burnt out.
My dad was a Sherman tanker trained at camp Cambell. He entered the war with 7th Army, southern invasion of France, during Operation Dragoon a couple of months after Normandy. He said it was a shocker during the first gunfights with nazi tanks. He said they placed good hits on them but their shells didn't do any damage just bounce off. If you were lucky to survive long enough you started to learn the enemy tanks weaknesses and devise tactics to kill them.
He told me their (enemy's) gun was accurate and deadly at range so you had to establish diversions while other Shermans would sneak or rush up behind them to put a cap in their rear where the engine was located and armor the lightest. He said their turret traversed slowly so speed and timing was important. If you were unable to get behind them you fired into their tracks on the side which immobilized it allowing you to get behind it for the kill shot. He also talked about the crew's always gathering things to attach to the outside of their tanks to enhance the armor and counter the panzerfoust anti tank weapon that were so plentiful.
I would always try to picture in my mind what it would be like in a Sherman to face off with an enemy tank and watch your hits bounce off their frontal armor while their telephone pole of a cannon lines up on you for the shot. INSANE!!!
Hell just to think about it makes you want to shit yourself, geeze. Having room to maneuver was important but to travel through town on roads sometimes barely wide enough for a tank was a killer.
He was the only survivor of his crew when he got hit during the battle for Munchin Glaudback on the Julick river. He had a shrapnel wound to the side of his head and spent several months of hospitalization in Holland. Of course before being completely healed went into some intense training for the Rhine crossing. The crossing was another scary experience where he came close to not making it.
Bottom line as he explained in the argument whose tanks were better, once you learned how to properly fight with the weapon given you the outcome took a drastic change. God bless them they were all so brave.
Brave does not adequately describe the men that fought in that war. There are no words that could describe these guys. Allied forces used sheer numbers to overcome the Germans. The men that fought knew it... And went anyway. Sheer grit. There are brave men fighting today there is no doubt . But there will never be any like these men or the men of WW EVER again.
The Soviets used sheer numbers, not the U.S. or Britain. Our tanks were very effective against the German armor. Don't believe the myths about the Sherman being a cardboard box of a tank.
"I would always try to picture in my mind what it would be like in a Sherman to face off with an enemy tank and watch your hits bounce off their frontal armor while their telephone pole of a cannon lines up on you for the shot. INSANE!!!"
That only happened with Panthers and the occasional Tigers, which were extremely rare. The main German tank, and hence the one most encountered, was the Panzer, and the Sherman was very much a match against the Panzer. It had superior armor protection to the Panzer and its gun could very much penetrate the Panzer.
Thank you for Sharing that.
@@WheelsRCool Swallow your pride Kyle, its physics. Sherman designers were not at the same level as Germans. Just swallow your pride.
i saw a former german tank officer say on a documentary that the tiger tank was slow, not agile, drank fuel, broke down every 100 kilometers and was made in small quantities. he said the sherman was fast, agile, broke down very little and was made in very large quantities. that was his analysis. he apparently favored the sherman "presence" vs the tiger "absence". shermans were very reliable and much more present on the battlefields. it's obvious that one on one it was overmatched vs a tiger and i hate it for the sherman tank crews that lost their lives or were wounded in encounters of this type. i am very thankful and appreciative of all U.S. veterans and their service.
Well when a country the size of a united states, state, takes on fifty such states assembled into a country, russia, and all of Europe. There is only so much a tiny piece of land can do against such a numbers game lol. But yes, a salute to all of the fallen.
You mean every country that fought in the war to free us of the Germans 👀👀
@@James-bc1jk since i'm a U.S citizen and the Sherman was a U.S. design, i'm speaking in the context that i have a presence in. it's essentially understood that i'm thankful and appreciative of all of the Allied forces who fought against the enemy.
Not a tiger 1
@@mohamedsewilam4134 tiger 1 had it's own deficiencies just like every other tank does. it had durability issues for quite a while when first available. compared to the tiger 2 it had a slower revolving turret, less effective main gun and vertical armor that was thinner. the panther was arguably the best all-around german tank during WW2.
I feel like this documentary doesn’t appreciate the logistics involved with the design of the tank. The German tanks had to work well in Europe, and later in the war they had to defend Germany, and had a limited pool to draw crews from compared to United States having to have a tank that could fight in multiple theatres that spend different continents, climates, and biomes, while also being able to be easily transferred. Maybe it wasn’t a Tiger and was a Goliath on the battlefield in the European theatre, but in that, we had many many more davids that could sling a rock. Also, they were decades ahead of the Japanese Tanks in development. It was the perfect tank for any one situation, but it was the perfect tank for us to take into many situations at the time.
The "documentary" is absolute bullcrap like the other bullcrap you see on TV
Zaprozhan you are correct. The Germans in that war spent a lot of time trying to achieve perfections, instead of trying to win it. Let’s talk about the the work they put into showing propaganda, and making they’re military seem like a mechanized power house causing the allies to ramp up production of tanks only to discover that most of their supply lines rely on actual horse drawn carriages. I’m pretty sure Patton made some kind of statement about it when he saw them retreating using horse drawn wagons to move the wounded.
@@MrZpeppers Ok, your take isn't much better :D. You can't say they spent a lot of time trying to maintain perfection when their heavy tank destroyer Elephant would get set on fire every time it tried climbing a hill
Nyan Arthur 😂😂😂😂 what I was getting at was they were wasting their resources on trying to make a tank they couldn’t make instead of making something that would work.
@@MrZpeppers Well, they did what they could. Because of limited resources, they couldn't just build thousands of T-34's equivalents like russians did. When they built their vehicle, they had to make it count, so they built many heavier vehicles like Tiger/ Panther (they built 6+ thousand Panthers) Heavier vehicles bring all kinds of reliability issues and the Germans never had time to resolve those problems, because they rushed their tanks into the battle as quickly as they could, often with poorly trained crew. They were in a desperate situation and had to work with that they had.
They were reliable, easy to maintain, stopped burning as soon as wet ammo stowage was introduced and provided great protection with the M4A3E2 Variant.
Amen. This was not a bad tank. Sensationalist material here. Also, the speed meant they could drive circles around german tanks.
Couldn't stand up to the Tiger tank
@@chicagolugan Production figures - Tiger I 1300, M4 49,000. I fancy those odds.
@@chicagolugan It literally could. A 76mm could put a round clean through the frontal plate of a Tiger 1 from a considerable distance away.
@@chicagolugan you don’t know shit about tanks haha
The history channel before pawn stars. Good times.
You're so right. I never watch the History Channel anymore as it's become a sad joke.
Hey even pawn stars is good.
But "How sex changed the world" is ridiculous
yeah . now history channels are now simulators and no real footage
Too true!
Amen to that brother I absolutely hate that show
What i find strange in this report or in others... you only hear about panther, tigers. The Backbone of the German Army were the (Assaultguns) Stug, or the Panzer III, IV. The Tigers and Panthers did not have the Numbers, to be mentioned so often. Also, most of the Tanks in the Blitzkrieg Time (Early in the War) were Panzer IIs oder IIIs.
@Private Account not true. Once wet storage was introduced the casualty rate dropped dramatically. See "the Chieftan" on TH-cam
@Private Account ok wehraboo
True, would be nice to see some pz IV and III 's
The Panther was actually nore prevalent than the Panzer IV after Normandy, and next to no Panzer IIIs were in front line service after 1943.
A historian did some digging a few years ago and out of all the actual times that Tigers were claimed to have been encountered in the war in Europe by US forces, Tigers were only actually ever encountered 3 times
The first time the Shermans won
The second time the Pershing lost
and the third the tigers were being loaded onto trains so it was a one sided battle
Finally other people that think the M4 Sherman is great and that "Death Traps" is one of the worst books to ever exist
The Chieftain would agree with you.....at least on the tank..no idea what he thinks about the book
@@leeshackelford7517 i realized it doesnt mean he is correct in what he tells tho but I agree with you
The Sherman was not great (it was very adequate under the circumstances for it's purpose) but I will agree Death Traps is indeed one of the worst books ever authored.
We live together in pride brothers
@@hoodoo2001 Damn why? I figured it was simply the one guys personal experience with the Sherman's, why was it so bad?
"Best job I ever had"
Romie All for a dollar a day. Can’t beat that right boys? (My apologies to Brad if I misquoted him.)
I HAD THE BEST TANK DRIVER NOW I HAVE YOU. "THE MACHINE"
... but no mention of the Firefly?
Remembered me of Fury
@@jrs89lxzamora88 "Fighting, fking, drinking Machine!"
Had a great uncle who was a tank gunner in World War II, and this video clip mirrors very closely the things he used to tell me when I was growing up.
Out of all his tales, probably the most eye-opening story he had was his recollection of a particular battle where his tank was playing a game of cat and mouse with some German tanks in a treeline. He said that he and his crew were parked on the reverse slope of a small knoll and every minute or so he would tell the driver to crest the hill so he could reengage a Tiger that he had singled out from the group. Always, he said, making sure to stagger their timing so the enemy couldn't predict when they would emerge from cover and shoot again. He told me that after doing this maybe three times, he began to suspect that his sights were somehow off since he was positive that he was placing them on the target but nothing seemed to be happening.
"It was about that time," he went on to say, "that I noticed a small tree a few yards to the left of the Tiger. I thought, well the next time I crest this hill, I'll just take a shot at that tree and see what happens. That'll tell me if I've been missing all this time." Just like he planned, he took aim and fired on the tree sitting next to the Tiger he had been shooting at.
He said the tree immediately vanished in a cloud of dust and smoke. His rounds had been on target the whole time. They were simply bouncing off the Tiger's heavy armor plate. It's been almost 30 years since he told me that story, and I still remember it almost verbatim.
"At that point I knew we were in big trouble. I yelled at the driver to get us the hell out of there. The Sherman just couldn't stand up to the tanks the Germans had. They had much better guns and much better protection than we did. All we had in our favor was speed, which didn't matter a damn most of the time."
Awesome story, thanks for sharing. Yes, what those guys went through was simply unreal. From what I have read about the US Shermans vs the German Tigers, your uncle's account fits everything I've read. I always love hearing first-hand accounts about the war from soldiers. Both my grandfathers served as well.
Void304 that was not really true. The Sherman’s with the 75mm were able to fight and beat panzers,I,II,III,and even VI. Then when they saw the tiger the 75mm couldn’t pierce the tiger armor unless they came from behind. But they added the longer 76mm gun which could pierce tiger armor. And the 17 pounder Sherman.
Hm pretty unlucky to encounter a tiger
@@Its-Av3rage assuming his grandfather was in one of those long barreled Shermans. From the looks of it, he was in the infantry support M4. How else could the Sherman be bouncing off all the time. Regardless of the gun, Sherman was still pretty shit in tank warfare. It was simply a game of luck for them.
It's dat Boi you didn’t read my comment or you just didn’t get what I was saying
.
My great grandfather served in ww2 as a tank driver instructor and fought in the Philippines he seen more shit then I could imagine I'm so proud to have know him and call him grandpa RIP Grandpa Conlley...... He died last year
Billy Bob Amen to your last statement. Today’s generation will never understand what your Dad’s generation went through. That’s why the WW2 generation is the greatest generation to ever live. If it weren’t for people like your Dad we might all be speaking German now. God Bless them all
Salute to your grandfather.
Rest in Peace brave tanker
My grandfather was a bomber pilot during WW2. He was my favorite person. My biggest regret in life was that he passed before I was old enough to really understand what he went through doing his part to help our wonderful country save the world. I'd give anything to be able to have a beer with him and just talk about his experience. Kids today just don't understand that we all owe our very existence to that generation. God bless America.
Respect and a big thank you to all your guys relatives that fought for the greater good they are so humble but truly are heros in my eyes
“The Sherman is a death trap”
Sherman:
Stares in 2nd highest survival rate of the war
@@shelloriser2400 *laughs in crew still survives*
@@shelloriser2400 *laughts in 37mm gun of M8 that destroyed Tiger II,*
@@gabrielborawski6739 do you that never happended that is british propaganda
@@traktori2888 im sure
@@gabrielborawski6739 the 37mm gun can't pen the rear of the tiger 2
"I play war thunder"
Same and did you know that the M4 had the exact same frontal armor thickness of a Tiger because the sherman had it sloped.
The thing that made the tiger so good was just its gun and plus bigcats(tiger, panther, tiger ll)were so rare that the Americans only encountered 3 tigers from Normandy to the Rhine
Same but when I verse a Sherman the shot I shoot at it feels like a smoke round
Konrad Orzechowski you said it!
same
when i use the tiger og cant penetrate the sherman front hull its so hard and they hit my tiger it blows already
The footage at the end is amazing. You almost never get to actually see both sides fighting each other with bullets and shells from one side impacting the other. It’s always just people in a trench or behind a tree shooting at something we can’t see.
Most of the footage is from areas where it's a bit safer to operate a camera, I would guess.
Watching impacts up close on your side, or poking your head out to watch their side seems like a dangerous proposition
It was the Battle of Cologne Cathedral
@@gamedo4269 seemed to be the ruhr pocket to me
So much of the combat was over distances of 1km or so . You really didn't know what you shot. Til you saw smoke.
That's the famous battle with a Panther tank in Cologne.
I live near Cologne, you can clearly see the cathedral, called "Kölner Dom".
The Sherman was made the way it was because everything made in America had to get to Europe or England. Most cranes at the docks had a weight limit of about 50 tons, so the tanks could not be more than 50 tons, or they could not be loaded on ships. They did not have roll on/roll off ships like we do today. The Sherman did not roll onto the battlefield for the first time as an obsolete tank. In 1942, the Sherman was well protected against German tanks. However, the later German designs were much better armed and armored. Tank on tank battles were not very common on the Western front, so the Sherman was designed to take on infantry and soft or lightly armored vehicles. Later designs included more effective guns. The early 76mm M4 gun produced in 1943 was inaccurately rated as being able to penetrate the frontal armor of a Tiger I. This was wrong, but the gun had already been placed into production.
Also a big problem was the shortage of AP ammo.
The 76mm was rated to penetrate the front of a Tiger I and to do so from over 1500m away with standard APHEC shells.
The US Army doctrine called for tank destroyers to fight enemy tanks.
US tank destroyers killed more German tanks than Sherman tanks.
Yes, it probably was the best tank of the war. There were some shortcomings with early variants and the gun was inadequate at Overlord, but it had a huge survivability, good maneuverability, ergonomics, reliability, fought in every theater, had a huge number of variants and was modernized and used until much after ww2 by Israel
@@novkorova2774 It was, as it usually is, the logistical factors that made the sherman a war winner. Not to say it didnt have merits in its own right, it did, and in its weight class its probably the best tank of the war. For what the US needed though it was dang near perfect.
When you look at the actual numbers, the Sherman was the safest tank used in WW2.
For every 10 Shermans destroyed, 1 crewman was killed. Part of that was good design, every crew member had a hatch, making easy and quick exit from the vehicle. By the way, the planning for WW2 was excellent. The Sherman was designed to go 600 miles before an overhaul was needed. The average Sherman drove 612 miles in WW2.
@@Izi_Is_Dizzy watch the chieftans video on the myths of american armor
Garbage. The "actual numbers" are quoted in this video, and they are appalling.
@@karlp8484 Ummm, you are forgeting that we had to SHIP these FRICKERS on ships, couldn't be bigger, and not designed to be face to face with panzers. What bullshit this is, but great drama for those that don't know.
Yes, it probably was the best tank of the war. There were some shortcomings with early variants and the gun was inadequate at Overlord, but it had a huge survivability, good maneuverability, ergonomics, reliability, fought in every theater, had a huge number of variants and was modernized and used until much after ww2 by Israel
*finishes video and scrolls down to the comments grabbing my popcorn
damn, back when bravery didnt matter, you just did shit cause it had to be done. much respect for the older generations for making us accoustomed to relative peace and prosperity
Peace and prosperity for the Germans, not the Americans. Let's not forget that 7 million Germans and 19 million Russians died on the Eastern Front.
@@archiecoolsdown5854: Not for the Americans?, whats wrong with you, I'm British and I can tell you the Americans were incredible during the war, the Germans STARTED WW2, the Russians were incredible also but they started out on the Germans side.Learn your history before you comment
@@RonWylie-gk5lc there was a skirmish in Berlin in 1929 between the Communists and the Socialist. According to Ian Kershaw 400 ppl died.
Two similar and tyrannical philosophies in competition to see who would rule the world one day. Fortunately, neither attained theirs goals then, or today.
There was as much cowardice as there was bravery, if not far more during WW2. It's probably what lead to the war happening in the first place. The people who I think are the most simultaneously inspiring and disturbing were the American Volunteers, who, long before America entered the war, did things like fighting for China against the Japanese in the Flying Tigers, or joined the Abraham Lincoln Brigade to fight in Spain, or the RAF and other British armed forces.
Charles T. Cooney tech sergeant died in the battle of
the bulge in WWII. He was a Sherman tank commander in Spearhead, fifth armored division.This
post is in memory of him, as he was a sole surviving son
who wasn't required to serve but did,another hero
produced by the greatest generation.
Spearhead was 3rd Armor Division, not 5th.
Correct,my mistake, thank you and apologies to all for any confusion.I think I was in the fifth Army at Leonard Wood before I went to VN 69-70, always get that wrong.
Larry H. Do you by any chance know any of the Spearhead guys?
J Sull you wouldn’t have the freedom to say that without these men.
@@prestonwhite4129 The hell he wouldn't! STFU with your jingoistic BS propaganda statements that attempt to turn a generation's wholesale slaughter of millions of people into some kind of bizzare heroic crusade for freedom or some shit. Nobody was trying to take our "freedom" away from is in WW2, young patriotard. The "enemy" had no plans whatsoever of invading the United States proper and denying us our freedom of speech.
On the contrary, during WW2 our very own president denied Americans freedom of speech. FDR imprisoned many many Americans for YEARS solely an account of their speech. And by imprisoning so many Americans he was able to threaten and intimidate thousands and thousands more Americans into surrendering their freedom of speech.
So, GET YOUR FUCKING FACTS STRAIGHT before you decide to regurgitate tired old LIES that attempt to depict WW2 as some kind of honorable fight......because it wasn't. Try thinking for yourself and questioning all the BS "official history" your teachers feed you. Do your own research instead.
Saw on another video explaining that there was a very low percent chance to meet a German tank head to head. That's why when asked if they wanted to retrofit the 75 with a 76, most opted to keep the 75 howitzer, because it had a more practical use in theater
I think a quote was like, "A bigger gun? For what?"
the 75 was not a howitzer it was a medium velocity gun. The 105mm was a howitzer
Yeah they lost like 6000 SHerman tanks to... infantry I guess
@@donaldhysa4836 my guess is most were lost to artillery and anti tank guns....
@@howardwhite1507 And what makes you guess that?
My uncle was a TC in WWII. During the Huertgen Forest battle his tank was shot out from under him (I think it was a M24 or other light tank). He then found and got in a knocked out Sherman and found a US armor officer hiding inside. He yelled at him to get out and my uncle was able to then traverse the turret, load a round and take out the German tank that got his tank and crew. He said if you want to take out a German tank, you had to hit it in the idler. There was no other way. He was MIA for 8 days in the Huertgen and found nearly dead frozen in the snow. This is the only story he ever shared with me. His experience was not good and left him reluctant to talk about the war or the military. I went on to become a TC for 20 plus years (M60s and various M1s).
US tankers were instructed to shoot low at the tracks and road wheels to disabled the German tanks because their crews were trained to abandon a tank once it couldn't move.
If only they had Brad Pitt back in 1944 the war would've been over much quicker.
+William Broo Rare? Well encountering one in itself was rare... Fury was the only survivor of the 4 M4s.
+Alica Ljungberg Brad Pitt would lost his balls.
+Nathan Peterson in several ocasions, not even 4 M4s could take out a Tiger, sometimes not even with 10 M4s they could destroy a single Tiger headon
fantasx portugal I just want to note I was using the film as a plain example. However many seem to treat this kind of situation as if Michael Wittman, Otto Carius, Knispel, Peiper, or so on were in command. Most weren't (obviously). There are reported cases where even a lone M8 Greyhound armored car won against a Tiger (near St. Vith, Battle of the Bulge). The 3* times US tankers encountered Tigers, the Sherman won twice (3rd was a Pershing).
*(There are truthfully well over 30, however historians stick to 3 due to them believing there being "a lack of information")
Yup those Sherman would tear through SS battalions
As an armchair military expert, I'm obliged to point out the grievous error at 0:55 That's General Omar Bradley, not General Patton.
The truth means nothing to the "History channel".
Fred Kruse thanks for pointing that out!
I stopped the video exactly then. I refuse to watch pablum.
...details.
Wow i didn't catch that
Perfectly adequate medium tank equipped with an inadequate gun. Nobody takes on a heavy tank head on in a medium tank. Ambush or follow from a safe distance until the panther ran out of fuel! "Stop with the negative waves man!"
lol
While the 75mm was caliber was inferior, ammunition wise it made the 75mm completely superior. Most tank on tank action occurred as you said when one side flanked another. If all else fails the M4 crews could do one of two things, they could batter the tank into submission with HE (high explosive) rounds or burn it with white phosphorous. Burning tanks with white phosphorus actually became standard operating procedure in some armored units.
Can’t tell if that was an insult or a compliment, I will take it as a compliment.
Ethan Quarles neither I think, just a reference to a character in the film Kelly's heroes who was a Sherman captain and Proto- hippie. He was much troubled by those he accused of emitting de negative waves!
Yeah I realized that when it finally clicked that was from Kelly’s heroes because it was a great film and I need to go on a little nostalgia trip.
Wow. That’s some extraordinary footage at the end. Thanks!
Thankfully all 5 crew members at the end made it out. No one deserves to suffocate, burn, and die inside a tank.
NoJokes11B one didnt get out before the second shot hit...regretfully
Really? Which guy? Was it the gunner?
Yes, the gunner is seen partially exiting the turret hatch before the second shell from the Pershing strikes the Panther
Damn that's terrible
At 11:56, correct me if Im wrong but is that the the door to the turret hatch or the part of the gunner hanging out? Ive wondered this for a while now but im leaning towards it being the hatch door. Anyone know?
I also have a friend whose dad was with the Canadian 1st Armored division ~ Ontario Tanks, and he drove a Sherman throughout the Italian campaign. He told us that during the Battle of the Liri Valley, one of the Shermans he drove got hit in the turret by what they thought was a PaK 88 mm anti-tank gun and the only thing that saved him and the gunner was that the PaK 88 (that's 8.8 cm) was so close, rather than turning the tank into the usual "fireball", it ripped the turret off their tank and threw it about 50 feet. He was still able to drive it so he just took it as far as he could and he and the gunner got out. When he looked at what was left, all he found of the rest of his crew was the bottom half of their bodies. The other half of the three killed crew were never found and were likely vaporized by the power of the PaK anti-tank 88 mm. He was back in another Sherman two days later and said he never stopped moving unless he absolutely had to. When he finally returned home, it was almost 12 years before he could even sleep in a bed.
If an anti-tank gun could do that to a Sherman, can you even imagine what a Tiger would do?
Holy shit that is a terrifying thing to experience, can't imagine the fear.
Holy shit. That’s pure insanity... I couldn’t even begin to imagine what went through his mind trying to process that
Same gun - an 88 mm.
Tiger actually had a less powerful gun than the Pak or earlier flak versions. Not saying that would have worked out any better for them. War is cruel.
Mike Preston-Engel
All Kwk 'panzer cannons' [or should I say, 'Kampf wagon Kanone'] usually had rounds with less charge to drive the AP missile.
Eg, the PzIVH/J were fitted with L48 Kwk40 75mm cannons but the towed Pak40 [Panzer Abwehr Kanone] was slightly shorter at L46 calibres yet had a much longer range. The reason for this was that panzer crews rarely spotted [well, realistically 'engaged'] enemies at distances over 600m from inside a panzer so it was much more efficient to make 75mm rounds with LESS charge, thus, a shorter cartridge so that the Kwk40 rounds didn't take up as much space INSIDE a panzer.
Most panzers were expected to carry about 112 rounds - 60-70 AP rounds and a few tungsten or specialised variants and about 40-50 HE rounds.
Since the standard Pak40 75mm round was quite long, the Kwk40 round was designed to keep weight down and volume of ammunition high for the panzer crews. This did not affect the efficiency of the panzers or crews in any way and allowed them to engage enemies for longer periods without the constant need for an already extended logistics train. Now while the same argument can be made for the towed Pak40, it has to be considered that Paks were not as mobile as panzers so the longer round for the Paks could be stored in situ and since the rounds had more charge they could and were often used as support artillery [the Soviet towed 76mm cannons were also used in this dual manner] due to the added range. Even though the Pak40 had L46 calibres compared to the Kwk40's L48 on the PzIVH/J, Hetzer and Stug, the added length of the 75mm round was longer than the Kwk40's and so this gave them an added 'punch' when used in an Anti-tank role or as supplementary artillery.
Tiger Ace Michael Wittmann once asked whether it would not be fair for a panzer crew to mark an enemy Anti-Tank gun destroyed as 2 'kills' on their panzer's gun barrels as they were certainly a more deadly threat with their ability to ambush armour in almost any conditions due to their almost non-existent 'silhouette' and the added difficulty in destroying an A-Tk gun AND its crew. A single A-Tk gun crew could STILL be effective with a single injured crewman [there are MANY instances of Axis and Allied A-Tk gun crews with a single remaining crewman managing to destroy as many as 4-5 tanks alone... eg, Sgt Baskerfield of the Brit 1.Airborne Div. at Oosterbeek, with a broken arm and the entire gun crew dead, managed to manhandle a 57mm A-Tk gun and destroying/disabling 4 PzIVJs before being killed - note: the gun may have been a 17 pounder as the Brit Airborne DID drop them with the Airborne troops].
Nevertheless, the Germans found the shorter Kwk rounds for panzers to not suffer any loss of destructive power due to the lesser amount of 'charge' propelling the AP missile
The tank was actually quite good, it just was on the offensive and the defensive side always has an advantage. And big cat tanks were rare, they weren't common like many people say.
This has to be one of the sources to blame for the Sherman's undeserving bad reputation! This tank was no disaster, but one of the greatest machines to be produced in history, and served American and its allies well throughout all theaters of war. It's crazy to read the positive light cast on the Sherman in actual reports from the front in contrast to this tragedy of a video.
Yes, it probably was the best tank of the war. There were some shortcomings with early variants and the gun was inadequate at Overlord, but it had a huge survivability, good maneuverability, ergonomics, reliability, fought in every theater, had a huge number of variants and was modernized and used until much after ww2 by Israel.
I ain't no Disaster but it also ain't the greatest either but yea calling it disaster is a Exaggeration
Rommel once said: "A Tiger can destroy 10 Sherman tanks, but the Americans have 11". Indeed building as many as you can payed off.
+E. Camilo
Erwin Rommel never once said that.
Rommel did say something like that, yes. However, history is written by hollywood and the US Govt.
+Armesis P
No he hasn't. What are you ranting about?
Yep What defeated the German was America's industrial might. We built 50,000 Sermans. The Germans didn't have half that. Plus Briton and Rrance fielded quite a few tanks
E. Camilo I doubt you would have been so smug if you were in Tank number 8
Dad commanded a Sherman through the Liri Valley. Troop Sgt, 3rd troop, C Squadron LdSh(RC). He said he was more worried about the SP and towed AT guns than the tanks. Harder to see, hit, and faster firing. Tiger and Panthers weren't met in as big as numbers as legend would have you believe. (He only met one Panther in combat, and bounced a few rds off until one of the troop's gunners hit the turret ring glancing off the gun mantlet.) They were better in armament, and armour, but less reliable, and rare. Mark III, IV, and Sp's were the most often found opponents. The Mark III had less effective gun, and armour. The Mark IV, had a basically equal gun and armour, (until the later long barrel 75's.) The SP's had lower silhouettes, usually more effective guns, and better armour. The Sherman was the best tank the allies had at the time. It had to be shipped to war zone. It had to fit on railway cars, and also had to be light enough for standard dock cranes at the time to lift. Because of the width constraint for railway cartage, the turret ring wouldn't fit any of the more powerful guns available. The Sherman's drawbacks were it's height, barely adequate gun, and petrol engine. It's armour was as thick as you'd find on the Mark III and IV's,(at least until the Mark IV Ausf. H.) Dad's biggest criticisms of the Sherman were mainly it's height, (especially in Italy,) and it's suspension, (that knocked the hell out of the kidneys crossing the Italian countryside.)
Noticed in previous comments someone mentioned the M26 Pershing. The Pershing wasn't available when the Sherman hit the battlefield. Also with it's higher cost to make, transport, and just the extra shipping space needed, there wouldn't have been enough to go around, unlike the Sherman.
I think the German tanks were mostly gasoline engine driven as well; the T-34 was a diesel.
talking about german tanks but using "Mk" infront of them smh
Yea Petey, You're dead on. My Dad and Grandpa always talked about the 88s. Fierce gun against armor
Pershing's reached the front line's in January '45.
But they didn't mention the #8 Sherman. Thicker armor, long barreled, high-velocity 76mm main gun. These Sherman's could kill the panther's & tiger's.
Nor the M36 "Jackson" tank destroyer, an improved M10 with a 90mm main gun. Deadly!
Belton Cooper’s influence was strong here. SMH...
Chieftain save us again.
Thank you wolf daddy
Someone with some actual facts.
And in the making of Fury. That movie, the book and this program was filled with unsubstantiated events, historical inaccuracies and downright falsehoods.
The footage at the end is priceless.
The Sherman tank Commander who lost his leg did in fact die from bleeding out before further medical attention could be done for him.
Horrible Destiny.
Good riddance.
@@fabiana7157 ok neonazi
bullshit
Battle of Cologne. The Pershing who got payback for this was led by Clarence Smoyer and the Eagle 7 crew
My great grandfather lied about his age (he was 42) and served at Torbuk with the AIF where they used captured Italian tanks to fight off the Germans, later he was doing tank recovery, being a mechanic by trade, and apparently used to say that most of the time the first job was to hose the crew out then patch the tank back up. I think they were mainly Matilda tanks and Grants then.
3:04 Panther Loader: Yeet!
Zit emptyzz.
that is such a dead meme
@@shawngillen3994 that what makes it even greater.
@@napalmenthusiast4423 nah
@@shawngillen3994 yes...
The germans were on the defencive so obviously when the german fires from a concealed position, he can take as much time as he wants while the allies are having a significantly emotional event.
Most shooting by German tanks even from ambushes was snap shooting as the gunner only had hs main sight so if he was turret down hiding only the commander can see anything so ye had to find the target after the tank broke cover to engage
@@TheBlitzsmurf that is true
Good reference
Well it is true that compared to a Tiger first or second generation, the Sherman is outclassed. But I think the US high command had a lot of problems to deal with, when they were choosing the right tank for the European campaign. Logistics were a main problem- they could not as easily transport a heavy Tigerlike tank across the ocean. That is why I think, they decided to invest in a medium class vehicle like the Sherman. Also, we must not forget that those high quality German tanks were pretty hard to produce in large numbers.
That and the fact that a heavy tank brings its own negatives and limitations. A heavy tank is not just a Better Medium Tank, which seems to be the thinking of many.
The state of technology in WWII would not support a heavy tank as a main force tank. It was a special purpose weapon. Some of the "most awesome-est" German heavy tanks were barely mobile (and very expensive) pill boxes.
John Steel German heavy tanks were not slow, tiger was just a bit slower than sherman.
The most industrialised and the most undisturbed participant of war couldn't think of how to bring a heavier vehicle to France?
Seems to me they just made a wrong decision based on a wrong doctrine.
Yes, on paper they were fairly fast. Until they broke. And often could not be recovered. And there were usually no parts to fix them anyway.
If it were a war of specifications though, they might have won.
In the real world of 1944, trying to use heavy tanks as your main force was a horrible idea. Technology of the time would not support it.
Well, just think about it- even with modern technology and logistics it would be extremely difficult to transport Tigerlike heavy tanks across the ocean, let alone maintain them on mainland Europe.
Brian Williams was there and can confirm this story having too been shot at by panzer tanks
@HarvOnyx You're new to tank history, aren't you?
@HarvOnyx A lot of times "newbs" or "nubs" confuse the PANTHER with PANZER... one of the reasons for the assumption you are a newb. Reason was in error, though the idea of you being a nub wasn't completely wrong. ;)
@stanley hoffman I guess you were one of the Nazis. The propaganda never stops does it.
They'd have you believe that they were flat out toe to toe with Tigers from dawn till dusk. They weren't.
Are you kidding.
Over 85% of the US Army tanks in the Second World War were M4 tanks.
Sunny Island yes, but more often that not they were fighting infantry. Tank on tank combat made up for a small amount of armoured conflict in WW2.
@@infinitydott
When those tank versus tank encounters did occur, all that is in this documentary reveals holds true.
And so also does everything I reiterated, having paid attention what the documentary explains.
Sunny Island The sherman 75mm was perfectly adequate to take on the Panzer IV, and the 76mm could knock out a Tiger I from the front.
American Tankers, "Tigers? Those aren't real. German propaganda."
1:03
Of course he Selected the Sherman. We didn’t have any practical heavy tanks developed by 1942 and the Sherman is vastly superior to the M3 Lee.
The heavy tank is an impractical choice for war in Europe. Poor reliability isn’t good when your fighting a war on the opposite side of the globe.
Not to mention a tank over 40 tons couldn’t be easily shipped since cranes at the time typically had a max weight of 40 tons.
I mean we managed to get a couple Pershings to Europe.
I was not expecting that at the end but that was well explained and I like the piece by piece arrows
Sherman’s are medium support tanks. They are not tank killers they are supposed to be a flexible all purpose tank. If you think the Germans had invincible tanks, sorry to tell you they had engine problems all the time
So I guess no one knew they would have to fight german armor with their own. Besides, there's more that one way to cook the Tiger - air bombing, AT field guns, nades, bazookas - you name it. The problem was that muricans wanted to make it quick, I think. Army can fight as long as it has supplies coming. Unification of armor units would ensure there'd always be enough spare parts.
The tanks that made Germany infamous on the battle field (Tingers and Panthers) weren’t introduced until late 1944-45. So yeah the didn’t expect the Sherman M4 do go toe to toe with a Tiger or Panther. Remember the war horse of Nazi Germany was actually the Panzer IV which was less powerful but more dependable than its Tiger and Panther successors. And as soon as the Sherman encountered these powerful German tanks they were outfitted with more powerful guns I.e 105mm and the 76mm gums which were so successfull against the German Tigers that German high command prioritized the killing of these tanks.
Logan Smith, actually Tigers (the iconic ones) were first used against soviets in august 1942nd, 2 years before the D-day. And there were lots of Panther at the Battle of Kursk in 43rd. Perhaps you were thinking about Kenig Tiger (II), the latest one of Panzers Germany developed by 1943 and first used in 1944.
Besides, the M4s had the 105mm gun from the start, infantry support ones. Those were only useful to fire HE shells due to short barrel and shitty ballistics. Or HEAT, from very close range.
The 76mm and 17-pounders were indeed adequate guns, wont argue with that.
Logan Smith on paper the panzer 4 that went against the M4 was still a challenge
tightg111 never said it wasn’t but it wasn’t a Tiger
If anyting the only person that has the authority to call a tank a death trap is the machine gunner in a T-34 because the only way to get out during a fire is through a small hole in the ground.
The sherman on the other hand had the highest survivability then any other tank in the war.
@@MrBALL-wv2vy
Tiger commanders had no more problems getting out than Sherman commanders.
Myth. The Sherman didn't have a higher survival rate than Tigers, Panthers, Churchills, IS-2s.
@@lyndoncmp5751 Actually - those tanks were horrible for crew survivability. And one of the reason why even the Panthers and Tigers fared worse and worse as time went on. Kill a Tiger or a Panther and the entire crew died. On the other hand for every two Sherman's that were killed 1 crewman was either killed or injured badly enough to be returned to the US.
This meant that Germany lost expierence tank crews and had to replace them with inexperienced crews. A US tank crew changed their underwear and waited a couple of days for the replacement tank to arrive. So as the war went on US tank crews got better and German tank crews got worse.
@@MrBALL-wv2vy yes
@@lyndoncmp5751 but the crew did
My wife's Dad served as a Gunner in WW2 in a Canadian Tank group, no idea what type of tank it was. He spoke of the battles, the tanks being destroyed in battle, his lost friends, he was lucky to come back.
Up to the day he passed away not too many years back, he would not fire any weapon, he drank because there was not any help for his terrible memories. I have respect for all of the free world Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Women.
What would they think of the world they fought to save, today? They would be ashamed of us.
Thanks for sharing. As for your last sentence, I think you sure have got that right!
Statistically he was likely in a Sherman.
My point on the Sherman after arguing in the comments for way too long because this is the boring thing I do.
The Sherman was a good tank for all round fighting capable vehicle.
When it first saw service in Africa, it was a very capable tank, it out matched everythink it came across. It has better Amour than any German medium tank of the time, a decent M3 cannon with an excellent HE round and ok AP and APHE and was manoverable enough to get around quick enough. Now yes a Panzer could pen it, as could Tigers, Panthers and other TDs but it could kill Panzer 4s and most TDs and I'll get to the heavier tanks in a moment. And by 1943 to increase survivability spring hatches were fitted to increase crew surviveablity and their engines were changed to decrease the chance of it catching alight, as well as wet ammo storage to decrease the chance of an ammunition fire (let alone the ammunition would often spark and crackle before detonating giving the crew more time to escape).
Next the fact that Sherman's were fielded EVERYWHERE including (during and post war) Russia, Africa, France, Germany, Italy, the Islands of Japan and the Pacific, the Jungles of South East Asia, the middle East and Eastern Europe. No vehicle has served on this many fronts, the closest would be the Matlida 2(another excellent design).
Now the fun bit, the Tiger, Panthers and TDs.
Yes by 1944 when the Sherman's came across Panthers and Tigers the regular M3 75mm gun was out matched, however Britain had equipped 1/4 of its Sherman's with 17 pounders, a great gun. And America had equipped themselves with long barreled 76mm guns also capable if killing Panthers and Tigers, so now they could kill each other just Sherman's were more reliable, lighter, easier to escape and more numerous. So Sherman's weren't bad tanks, they performed well everywhere and could kill everythink with upgrades (except King Tigers but nothing could except Russian D25T 122mm guns) and they had the highest crew survivablility and 80%of all damaged Shermans were returned to combat where as a Tiger or Panther would have to be abandoned.
Also the "perfect tank" dream is a trap. The germans spent so much time and resources researching and producing the perfect tank. And they did manage to build tanks that were objectively the most powerful. But they couldn't be mass produced because of their complexity, they were slow, prone to failure and could be destroyed just like anynother tank by mines, artillery, planes etc. The Americans and the Russians realised that the truly superior tanks were the "good enough" tanks that had advantages in manufacturing and transportation.
Im literally In that exact situation on the tank poor subbreddit and I'm trying to say what you just said but it's 3 in the god damn morning
Help me lol
The point is that prior to the invasion of This many the Allies KNEW about the Tiger and Panther and even the long gunned Panzer 4. From their experiences in North Africa and Italy. Despite this, they elected not to push production on the longer gunned Sherman with better penetrating power and when they did go to it, they cut off a foot from its barrel length. This reduced its penetrating power from 104mm to 93 mm....still not enough to take a Tiger or Panther on head on. The only saving grace was the production of the HVAP round which increased penetrating power on the long gunned Sherman to 153mm. Unfortunately, only a few thousand rounds were ever made and the M126 Pershing wss placed in service far too late to have any impact on the war.
The failure of the Sherman was one of the factors that led to the development the M1 tank. The experience of WWII caused tank officers involved in its development to neveyo be ubdergunned or underarmored again.
Top Bloke exactly u see in my opinion each class of tank and upgrade versions of those tanks have there own personalities there are things there good at and other things not so much
the Sherman is a good example of this it was great for speed, light weight transportation, easy to fix, easy to escape , and later versions a powerful gun like stated here they had shit for armor, extremely flammable gas, and early versions had a weak gun
know take the tiger for example
fantastic armor, fantastic gun, non extreme flammable gas, and powerful engine BUT the transmission broke alot, where slow, harder to fix, only 1,347 where built, and more harder to transport
@@williamridenour4845 They dealt with tigers in Italy with the Sherman and didn't have much problems. They had problems in Normandy because it was very good terrain for tanks. Hell even after the war they tallied up panther and Sherman engagements and saw that in 2/3s of engagement, these being the Shermans on the defensive, the panther had a kill to loss ratio of 1:5 and not the 5:1 that many non historians claim. Also you do not need to penetrate a tank to destroy it. In Italy the 75mm Sherman clubbed tiger tanks to death with HE. Metal spallings are not a fun thing to take through the head. Do also consider what wins wars. WW2 was not a war of tanks, it was won and fought with logistics and men, not tanks. German had to lose 2 world wars to get a clue on that one.
The Sherman was undoubtedly the right tank for the Americans during World War 2.
Nobody ever thought of shermans as invincible. But they excelled in most aspects, including the ones mentioned.
Reliability is extremely important when you're sending 50000 tanks to two wildly different theatres on opposite sides of the world.
Also US tank crews had some of the best survival rates of the war. Half their tank crews casualties were men shot while outside their vehicles.
Fun fact of every 200 Panthers sent to the front lines 80 of them would break down befor they could get there.
"we don't need a heavy tank" yea this wasn't said it was more or less like: how the bloody hell are we gonna get this to the other side of the sea. There where heavy tanks
Ships existed
@@taistelusammakko5088 yes but there where no cranes that could lift it onto the ships
@@taistelusammakko5088 They didnt have drive on loading like they do now. Back then you needed tanks that could be easily transported by rail and ships.
You can always dismantle and re-build
@ALEX HUANG but you can tho
My father was a tank commander in a sherman in france, he was hit by a bazooker and hed to escape, in doing so and trying to get the driver out he was hit by a tracer in the his thigh and the driver in the face he lost his nose. They both survived.
Proberly a Panzerfaust, a real genius piece of engineering, not like the King Tiger.
Panzertrek. German bazooka.
were they able to fix his nose somehow?
That's crazy man
You should be thankful he was in a Sherman. Had he been in German or Russian armor he’d be dead.
It's not uncommon for soldiers to feel like they are losing even while they are winning. My Grandpa would tell stories about the war and you would swear he was describing a war we lost. Battles we lost...Clearly there weren't enough of these superior German tanks to make a difference anyway. It was a good decision because it worked.
+Joe Bussa
How were they superior to begin with?
Well it's a myth that US soldiers were better fighters than the Germans who were a lot more battle hardened. Numbers on both fronts won the war.
+Phillipe Som
What?
Borka Dump Roughly speaking, Germans were winning with quality, western Allies with quantity.
+DDelete013
Based on what?
the Sherman was also an amazing and capable tank in the Pacific theater as Japanese tanks were not the best.
It was much better suited to the Pacific. Didn't need the specs it needed against Germany.
And then there is one Type 89 tank that miraculously hit the shell in the US M4 Sherman barrel and explode the gun.
Japanese industrial power, a funny joke to tell your friends. The only reason they did so well against us was their unbreakable will. However when it comes to nothing but industrial power, that does little good, that's why the naval battles were massacres.
The Japanese were surely wishing they researched tanks after we rolled in.
.
I cant believe people call the sherman a death trap just because it couldnt magically deflect every shell fired at it
Muh tiger best tonk
A driving tin can. Will you drive in it?
Engineering disasters? These were engineered to suit a specific purpose and did it well. Most of the whining about Shermans that brewed up after being hit started occurring after the war. Shame on these commentators.
I agree. One-sided piece of crap documentary.
Another thing is that Shermans were easily replaced (the tanks and their crews) this documentary doesn’t know that the purpose of the Sherman was to have a DECENT tank that America could mass produce, not the worlds best tank that would be extremely complicated and hard to mass produce. (And death traps is a crap book)
Shermans are easy to maintain, use and repair.. how is this an engineering nightmare where this is a heaven for any engineers?
I bet an engineer will puke when they were assigned to keep Ferdinand Porsche tank destroyer running in a "usual conditions"
Nogi Sonoko should be a engineering and logistics marvel tanks built in the US parts easily replaced. They did it in the mud while the Germans had to tow it to a railway and send it back to the factory.
@@dustyak79
Yes exactly.
My grandfather was a Sherman tank driver/gunner after D-day. He was in a Firefly (the up gunned Commonwealth version of the Jumbo with the British QF 17 lb gun) and said that he could take out German heavy tanks at 1000 yards. That said, the German 88 mounted on the Tiger I/II could take a Sherman out at 2000. The Sherman was never designed to take on heavy tanks, that was the role of the "tank destroyer" in US military doctrine. Also, when the Sherman was first introduced in North Africa in late '42, it could easily take out the Panzer III and IV which was what the German Army was equipped with at the time. The Panther didn't make its debut until the Battle of Kursk in '43, and there were less than 2000 Tigers built over the course of the war.
IIRC, the average tank engagement range in Western Europe was 750 yards or less, making the German heavy tanks' standoff range irrelevant most of the time.
At these ranges and fighting medium tanks, a Pak 40 would suffice and this is essentially what the Sherman's 76mm gun was.
The logistics just weren't there to field a tank with protection against the bigger German guns. In fact, I'd say that it was simply beyond the state of the art at that time. Any tank heavy enough to shrug off those hits (not to mention panzerfausts) would have been a barely mobile pillbox, unsuited for a march to Germany.
I think we could have had better guns sooner though. Improved mountings of the 17pdr. More 90mms with good ammo. We were caught off guard when meeting the Panther on its terms. Woulda, coulda, shoulda...it's easy in hindsight.
It was about 500 yards but that was better than the point-blank fail of the early Sherman 75mm.
Re: "IIRC, the average tank engagement range in Western Europe was 750 yards or less, making the German heavy tanks' standoff range irrelevant most of the time." That's incorrect and I think you'll see why: standoff distance would have been irrelevant if the penetration power of the Sherman's main gun was as potent as that of the German 75mm and 88mm guns, but it wasn't. The early variants of Sherman with the short-barreled M2 gun could fire at point-blank range into a Tiger I's or Panther's frontal armor and not get a penetration. In that context, 750 yards of additional range in favor of the German tank is an enormous advantage. In essence, the Tiger or Panther (or Mk. IV Special with its high-velocity 75mm gun) could obtain penetrations at all practical combat ranges, whereas the Shermans often could not even at point-blank range. Bear in mind that for the optic and gunnery technology of the day, 750 yards was a pretty sizeable distance. In the open country of North Africa and the Russian steppes, German 88mm and 75mm gun crews had attained killed over well over a kilometer, but those conditions were atypical in western Europe. There, a 750-1000 meter shot was a long one. Allied tankers and their leaders learned quickly, though, how to exploit their advantages and the disadvantages of the enemy. Self-propelled guns were mixed with advancing tanks and TDs to provide plunging fire onto German armor. The GIs quickly learned that German tankers hated being under heavy artillery and/or heavy bombing. Not hard to see why.... a nearby 500- or 1000-lb. bomb could literally overturn a tank or send it - or its turret - flying through the air. That was one of the lessons of the Falaise Gap rout. Allied gun crews also learned that German crews could sometimes be induced to bail out of their tank by using WP rounds - white phosphorus incendiaries. Hits near the ventilation system would cause the interior of the crew compartment to be flooded with smoke, and the crew would sometimes abandon the tank. Shermans and TDs were equipped with field telephones for enabling the infantry to speak to the commander of a buttoned-up tank from the safety of shelter behind the tank (the phone was installed at the rear of the tank or TD). USAAF tactical air forces were netted into the armored forces radio net, so men on the ground could call in air strikes when needed. few Panzertruppen wanted to face rocket-armed 'Jabos (fighter-bombers) so many would retreat when those showed up. Turns out there are a lot of ways to knock out a tank - and the Allied forces knew them all by war's end.
"The early variants of Sherman with the short-barreled M2 gun..."
Too bad Allied guns never progressed beyond these earliest versions... People seem to forget that when the Sherman hit the battlefield there were no Tigers or Panthers. The U.S. would not encounter them in any significant way until about 2 YEARS later.
"...could fire at point-blank range into a Tiger I's or Panther's frontal armor and not get a penetration."
And too bad they were only allowed to shoot German heavy tanks in the frontal armor. That is a big part of the advantage of closer ranges and greater numbers. The ability to flank the opposition and shoot him in the side.
See Tiger 221 for example. Penetrated and destroyed by an early M4A1 75mm tank.
For that matter, the fixation with armor penetration really misses the fact that many tanks are knocked out without ever being penetrated.
"...(or Mk. IV Special with its high-velocity 75mm gun) could obtain penetrations at all practical combat ranges, whereas the Shermans often could not even at point-blank range."
No Pz IV was ever invulnerable to the Sherman. When the Sherman entered combat, there were about two dozen Mk IV Specials in N. Africa. That's what made them special.
No one is saying that the Sherman became equal in every way to the Tiger and Panther but it is undeniable that their superiority is much increased at longer ranges. For all its frontal armor, the Panther had sides armored only slightly better than a Sherman and numerically, the Panther is the only German heavy tank which could be considered a viable main force tank.
My understanding is that tactical air strikes were not statistically effective against heavy tanks themselves, but generally tore up their support trains rendering them useless.
There's one thing about the Firefly which I remember reading somewhere.
After adding the 17pounder gun, the boom it caused was so loud and the gun smoke from the barrel so thick, that the British decided to attach just a single Firefly to any tank battalion. Firefly firing would scare the shit out of friendly crews, obscure their vision and provoke shit-ton of return fire.
amazing footage at the end there
Brilliant footage
Some facts for the discussion...
German WW2 Tanks
Light tanks
Panzer I (3,970)Panzer II (3,996)Panzer 35(t) (Czechoslovakian design, 722 annexed + 219 produced)
Medium tanks
Panzer 38(t) (Czechoslovakian design, 1,168 total)Panzer III (5,774)Panzer IV (8,800)Panzer V "Panther" (5,984)
Heavy tanks (Less than 2000 total heavy tanks produced)
Tiger I (1,355)Tiger II a.k.a. "King Tiger" or "Royal Tiger" (490)
Soviet WW2 Tanks
Light tanks
T-26 (11,218 pre-war)T-50 (65)T-60 (5,839)T-70 (8,226)T-80 (75)BT-7 (8,060 pre-war)
Medium tanks
T-28 (503 pre-war)T-34 (1,225 pre-war)
T-34-76 (33,805)T-34-85 (21,048)
T-44 (965)
Heavy tanks
T-35 (61 pre-war)SMK (experimental)KV (Kliment Voroshilov) (508 pre-war)
KV-1 (Kliment Voroshilov 1) (3,015)KV-1S (Kliment Voroshilov 1S) (1,232)KV-85 (Kliment Voroshilov 85) (130)KV-2 (Kliment Voroshilov 2) (334)
U.S. WW2 Tanks
Light tanks
Light Tank M2
M2A1 (10)M2A2 (239)M2A3 (72)M2A4 (375)
Light Tank M3/M5 (22,743) (General Stuart and unofficially Honey in British service)Light Tank M22 (830) (Locust in British service, name adopted by America)Light Tank M24 (4,731) (General Chaffee in British service, name adopted by America)
Medium tanks
Medium Tank M3 (7,533) (General Lee American tanks purchased by the British under lend-lease.Medium Tank M4 (58,000) (General Sherman bought by British from U.S. under lend lease)Medium Tank M2 (112, used for training only)
Heavy tanks
Heavy Tank M26 Pershing (1,436)
Largest Tank Battle: Kursk between soviet union and germany involved roughly 6,000 tanks.
I never knew there was so many Tank experts in the World!!!! :O
madzangels tank liers. Those are not experts. Do not belive them
Many are youth who desperately want to connect. Have patience.
Talking about thier fathers experiences u jack asses. What do u have to add that u know so much
madzangels lindybeige viewers mostly
Knew u were a dope
I'm glad I experienced world of tanks it has HP to keep me alive for awhile very helpful
I play Warthunder and when I ammo rack some someone I have a"BLAST"
4 of the 5 crew had spring loaded hatches
@Niko yeah and I also heard that the Churchill tank was very survivable but unsure
@Niko the front hatches sometimes didnt open at all so the left them open. Great if an HE hits the turret above your head. You in a tank and still die like you were standing in a field
The Sherman wasn't that bad at all. Don't forget it also fought in the Pacific! The Sherman tank was built to fight the light German Panzers. When the Sherman tank was in production they didn't know about the Tiger tank.
On the other hand, the Sherman tank in the Pacific did a good job in the jungles, because it was light and fast, plus it could easily destroy Japenese tanks.
***** It was a pile of shit. Muscles over brains. Sherman against our Tiger and Panther. Only mass and numbers.
Your government has been fuckung you in the ass till this very day.
Babba Gum Allied airpower, ranging over the battlefield at will, wiped out vast numbers of German troops and equipment. It therefore really wasn't important to have a dominant tank. The Americans got one late in the war (the M-26), but by that point the Germans were surrendering in droves.
Babba Gum we mainly had a doctrine early to midwar where we viewed tanks as infantry support. Shermans can pen Panzer IVs and anything below it. But it's short barreled 75mm (which was effect with HE rounds because it was mainly developed as INFANTRY SUPPORT) couldn't pen the front of the panther or anything heavier.
A 100 girls can bring down 1 man :-)
A pussy army brought us down.
You fell for your own propaganda. We were defeated ONLY because of greater numbers. All your equipment was copied from ours and always a decade behind. There was no tactic with the US Army. For a 100 years all over the world they come, they bomb everything to ashes, the troops come in and get their asses kicked (Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc.) and more bomber come. These days your drones kill thousands of people aroung the world.
And yes. It still matters to me and to us. I tell you the reason. 50.000 boots on our ground and occupation law still in force. We are after 70 years still an occupied country. We had enough my friend. Can't you understand?
What is the difference betwenn the US and Russia?
Russia went home!
My Grandad copped the shrapnel from an exploding tank and was sent home.
He became a civilian postman in London. Nan used to wear a long slim fitting red coat like a post box and Grandad would say “be careful bending over in front of me coz I might post something” 😂😂😂
What a character lol, he must have 'posted' something at one time or you couldnt have written this
Brilliant, love it.
😂😂😂
🤣
Well mate,you know "the mail Must get threw"
50K tanks produced, shipped by rail to ports, loaded on ships, sailed to UK then unloaded and the whole process done again to bring them to mainland. All the gas, the shells... This is an engineering and logistical masterpiece.
Hey a tank got shot ! Wow. Guys died in their tanks. Yeah thats war.
The footage of the panther being killed is of tank gunner Clarence Smoyer destroying the panther in the city of Cologne. You can read about this famous tank battle and his amazing story in a book called Spearhead by Adam Makos it is my favorite book ever, last year I actually met this man and it was an amazing experience he is truly a hero and even destroyed other German tanks as well
My uncle Robert was killed during the Battle of the Bulge in a Tank, first week in January, he was with the 4th Armored, buried in Luxembourg.
Salute.
My father was hit on January 4th by a German machine gun while running a message during the Battle of the Bulge. That took him out of the war. Amazingly he made it home alive but had many operations on his left side.
Where did they get this nonsense about General Patton decided that the "Sherman" was going to be the tank of US Forces? General Patton was only a two star general at the time the British received the first 800 "Shermans" for the battle of El Alemein. Two star generals in the field aren't the men making decisions about what tanks to use. Those decisions were made by 3 or 4 star generals stateside.
Ike covered for him. He would have been sacked if he hadn't been the best pursuit general the US had. He was kept for the endgame and to some extend his "disgrace" was part of a disinformation operation. Germans expected him to lead the main force on D-Day and his phantom army was poised for a landing at Calais.
THERE WERENT 3 OR 4 STAR GENERALS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE WAR,,,THEY WERE PROMOTED AFTER BATTLES
@@mikecimerian6913 ?
The War Department and Ordnance made the decisions over final tank designs that were to be produced. Both did listen to the opinions of the armor commanders and tankers over what was desired and what wasn't.
So glad to see that it is not just iPhone video takers who lose the subject during a shaky video, but an old school 8mm videographer.
Sherman was one of the best tanks ever made and the most survivable of the war statistically.
@@NoCommentDE Another myth. lol
@@MrBoxen no it's not
@@howmanyshermanpertiger How is it not?
I can see the thought patterns of the side doing the "invasion" and the need to quickly move lighter, faster tanks as opposed to a dug in force trying to prevent it. It's always sad whenever I have to remember this war. It's been a long time ago.
Unreasonably hard on the Sherman which was designed for efficient production in numbers, reliability and versatility. An invaluable swiss army knife pushing forward in numbers, doing all manner of work knocking out the usual defenses infantry get slaughtered by, from machine gun nests, dug in units and buildings with snipers.
Tons of these Sherman tanks were available, and joe bloggs infantryman would by relieved vs having to attack unacompanied. The Sherman was like arming 20 people with swiss army knives. The tiger and panthers were like arming 1 guy with a great sword, and the other 19 with nothing. The 20 men with swiss army knives lose a few to the great sword then mince their way through the remaining 19 Germans.
I don't feel there was a misrepresentation about the positive traits the Sherman brought into play. But the main point here made was "it was the right tank for the wrong battle" pointing out the Sherman disadvantages in fighting German armor over flat distant terrain that apparantely happened more often in the European theatre. Here the Sherman was in a disadvantage, where no reliability and versatilitiy could win but only through sheer numbers. And this the Sherman did but at the cost of many crews, which was also pointed out. But Americans also had much more favourable tanks as well. One was the mentioned Pershing but also the eisy eight.
@@tiktok000VS000ushi about 1400 us tankers (that includes deaths outside of the tanks) died out of about 5000 us tanks (mostly shermans) destroyed, calling the shermans death traps is hardly justified. First 30 min of'Chieftain about tanks from poland to iraq' on youtube for more info. a bit rambly but has several good points for why the sherman is much better than it's reputation
the link to casualty report
apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a438106 DOT pdf
or search for 'adjutant generals report of battle casualties 1941 to 1946
the shermans that fought in the jungle of the pacific, in the snow in russia (lend lease to ussr), in the north african desert and in terrains in europe where all pretty much the same build (there were ofcourse different models that were general changes but not specialized changes for the theatre of war). the us did have to cross an ocean after all, a problem which the germans did not have and the shermans could use the standard bridges of the pioneers which the pershing couldn't use.
And they had upgunned and uparmored versions as well. The Jumbo, Firefly. Very effective. Better than the German stuff that broke down.
@@tiktok000VS000ushi The problem with that belief is that Shermans didn't really have a disadvantage against the majority of German armor. They had no problem destroying Panzer III's or IV's which made up the majority of the German armor. Panthers and Tigers were a rare sight and didn't show up until mid-1944. On top of that the 75mm Shermans could defeat Panther's (most common heavy tank) at side angles just fine. The 76mm Shermans could penetrate Panther's at all angles and Tiger's at side angles unless HVAP was available in which case all angles.
The point being is that the Sherman was one of the best tanks in the European theater as is it was good at speed, reliability, and firepower. Only the Panther had better mobility with it's slightly wider tracks and torque. But even those like the Tiger broke down regularly. PzIV's did the brunt of the fighting and those were easily destroyed.
@@sonny2499 The sherman was very much an American tank. Speed , reliability, mass produced, assembly line, cheap and good enough.
The Sherman was the safest place to be in WW2 combat.
Sherman tanks safe lol the germans nick named them Tommy Cookers the allies nick named them ronsons because one hit off a panther or a tiger tank at upto 2000mtr away would blow like a furness the germans had far superior weapons alot of German artillery and tanks were taken out by the RAF's tyfoons and bombers check out ferlez pocket a very gruesome event
@@carlkimmer5662 Ronson's weren't even a thing until after WW2. Everyone used Zippos back then. See? Another stupid myth being shared still.
Ronson and ronsonol fuel was found July 20 1898 it was started in Newark new Jersey Louis Vincent aronson FACT
@@carlkimmer5662 Yes, Ronson existed, but it wasn't popularized until after WW2. There is no documentation of them being called Ronson's either until, again, after WW2. Shermans being called Ronsons in WW2 is word of mouth myth.
@@BungieStudios I know zippo black was the choice lighter 42 45 but even on wikipedia the germans called the Sherman Tommy Cookers 1 good hit off a 75 or 88 it would brew up the allies called them Ronsons may be it's just a British soldier term. Anyway forget the the Sherman that tiger tank with its 88 was the most dangerous of them all our brave boys had their hands full fighting them back especially in the hands of an ace
Great tank, useful info! We are engaged in the development of the tank project. Thanks!
Lots of idiotic comments here. The simple fact is that the Sherman was not designed for long range gunnery on the plains of Europe - something that the Tiger excelled at. It was fast and cheap to make, but suffered from a sub-par main gun, a gasoline engine, and armor which stood no chance against the Tiger's high velocity 88mm main gun. Yes, the Sherman was fine for engaging comparable medium and light tanks, but trying to stand up to German heavy tanks like the Tiger proved to be disastrous.
Steppes of Russia more rather, the average combat distance in Northern Europe was about 750m.
What's the problem with gasoline engines? That's all the Germans had for tanks!
Against the Tiger I though, not exactly. Typically the M4 was in fewer numbers in most Tiger on M4 engagments, but still prevailed with appreciable or non-existent losses. Like with the 504th Panzer Schwere-Abteilung Tiger tank battalion in Sicily and Italy. Then there are names like Joe Ekins and Dmitriy Loza, whose units have killed multiple Tigers with relative ease.
Sub-par main gun? Which gun?
even some of the late model IV series were serous customers. i think if memory serves the IV had a model of 75mmL tha was a terrific tank that matched the panther.
Leslie Doll The KwK 40 was a great gun, but performed adequately/unremarkably against the M4's angled armor. Its often noted for German Panzer and PaK gun crews that if you encounter an M4 at even the slightest angle, don't bother going for the frontal glacis. The slope of the M4's glacis heavily effected penetration.
That being said, the PanzerKampfwagen IV Ausf.G/H/J were capable, solid tanks.
The Sherman was not designed as an ant-tank weapon, but as an infantry support and break-through weapon. The tactical doctrine of the U.S. Army armored forces at that time was that tanks like the M4 didn't engage other tanks; they left that job to the anti-tank guns and tank destroyers of the Tank Destroyer force. The short-barreled M2 main gun which equipped early Shermans came about chiefly because the board of ordnance "experts" chosen to select the gun for the new tank was dominated in part by artillery officers, who were concerned that a purpose-built high-velocity anti-tank gun would not be sufficiently effective as an infantry support weapon and that its barrel life would be too short for sustained field use. Even so, when the Sherman made it into combat for the first time in North Africa with the British Eight Army against the Germans in late 1942, it generally fared well against the Panzer Is, IIs and IIIs it usually encountered. Although the Mk. IV was a tougher opponent, the up-gunned long-barreled 75mm Mk. IV "Special" was still not common, and the Tiger I was even more rare. However, by 1943, the tables were turning. The Germans had continuously-improved and up-gunned their armored forces, thanks to pressure for better equipment from the eastern front. The defects of the Sherman's armor and main gun began to manifest themselves in a serious way in the Sicilian and Italian campaigns, and by the time of Normandy, the M4 was out-classed by the latest German anti-tank gun and armored vehicle designs. Tiger Is were seen more-frequently than in the Mediterranean and North African campaigns, but that wasn't all - there were a few of the fearsome new Tiger IIs in France, and the tough and lethal new medium tank, the Panther. Improved Shermans with the much-touted 76mm gun were starting to see action, but the much-ballyhooed new "wonder weapon" proved unable to handle these thick-skinned new foes unless the Allied tankers were fortunate-enough to get in a shot or two through the thinner side or rear armor or jam the turret ring or break a track. The only tank guns in the Anglo-American inventory capable of penetrating these latest designs even somewhat reliably were the excellent British 17-pounder and the American 90mm M3 gun. If the Sherman was lackluster in combat against tanks, it proved to be a much-better weapon in the cavalry role of creating and then exploiting breakthroughs in enemy lines. Ironically, the much-criticized short-barreled M2 75mm so derided for its anti-armor performance proved to be an excellent infantry support weapon, especially firing its highly useful HE shells. Shermans, being much smaller and lighter than the largest German AFVs, proved much better suited to the demands of mobile warfare. Although the doctrine of TDs destroying enemy tanks and tanks defeating enemy troops didn't come to pass as imagined, at least not totally, U.S. commanders on the ground proved to be adept at improvising - and mixed their TDs in with armored units, to give the hard-pressed Shermans some punch with which to counter the Tigers and Panthers and all of the various models of TDs and SP guns. Perhaps the most-potent weapon in an American ground formation was the radio; with it any GI could call for artillery or an air strike against dug-in German armor or other tough-to-dislodge opposition. Once those heavy 155mm shells started falling, not many German tankers kept their zeal for combat - most retreated as fast as their vehicles could carry them. And no one wanted to fall prey to the hated 'Jabos - the swarms of British and American ground-attack aircraft which roamed the skies over Europe. No German tank, no German armored force - could stand up to the full weight of coordinated combined arms warfare. Standing up to the Shermans was one thing, but even the bravest Panzer crews felt terror when the Allied 500-lb. and 1000-lb. bombs started to fall, or the largest artillery pieces did a time-on-target.
let's be real. The Shermans had issues but we could build them. The Tigers and Panthers were expensive for the Germans to produce and impossible to replace.The M4 did better against Japanese tanks and bunkers
My Grandfather was member of one of the rare Wirbelwind's. He sayed that they used theyr guns more against rangers, army infantery and shermans then aircraft.
it must have been terrifying to be walking and suddenly 4 20mm's open up on you from a wirbelwind.
Looks like war thunder is realistic after all😂😂
Bravery only a few people have a concept of. Those brave soldiers deserve a lot of respect. We should never forget thier great sacrifices
This is so very very true! Thanks, Mr. Frankiewicz.
My Dad was a Sherman tanker...he said what he feared most was the 88. If they spotted a panther or tiger they would back off and call in artillery
He probably never saw a Tiger tank during the entire war. Only about 125 of them existed along the entire Western Front. I think there's only maybe 3 confirmed engagements between American Shermans and Tigers and Shermans won all 3 times.
@@lochnessmonster5149 THen why was everyone afraid of them?
@@donaldhysa4836 Maybe information from the eastern front caused rumors about it
@@donaldhysa4836 because of myths surrounding the tigers and german heavy tanks.
@@SenkaBandit Myth surrounding the Tiger tanks? In 1942-1944? As soon as the Tiger wet into service it became a myth?
That tank battle at the end was in Cologne, Germany in front of the Cologne cathedral. Filmed by a US cameraman. Can find lots of info about that fight online, a local German historian has a rather detailed web site about it.
Köln ?
If only The History Channel would involve historians. It might be a bit more accurate.
Historians get it wrong sometimes, and other times people who make these shows don't listen.
@@orion3253 There is plenty of the latter I believe. Yes.
This documentary primarily does not use historians; it bases it's documentary on 1st-hand eye witness Second World War combat Veterans testimony. (A ground soldier involved in the actual combat). This is the very same testimony historians themselves base their writing of history on.
This documentary is a Second World War Veteran combat eye-witness account; it is even what a bonafide genuine well-trained and accurately reporting journalist would rely on for the best and only trustworthy information regarding the matter in question.
Sunny Island Funny, there are actually three historians talking and only one tanker throughout the whole video. th-cam.com/video/TwIlrAosYiM/w-d-xo.html
Also they use the forbidden memoir “Death Traps” writing about events he was never apart of or never had first hand experiences. Also never listing the positives of the Sherman THATS RIGHT IM CALLING YOU OUT BELTON COOPER.
Less than 0.6 of a human was lost per destroyed sherman, far from a death trap, had great armour for its age, 60mm sloped at that angle will stop the odd round making it just as effective in armour as the tiger. Wet ammo stowage became a thing not too long after official production.
Interesting footage, there have been so many different concepts on both sides regarding agility, speed, armour, key role - and these changed from month to month, larger guns, thicker plates, even larger guns, even thicker plates... Look at the journey German panzers took, e.g. from the tiny Panzer I's to the King Tiger. But...at the end of the day, those who entered the steel beasts' bellies were screwed - like the poor chap with one leg shot off. We admire the technology today, go to tank museums to see revived pieces, often forgetting they symbollise humaity's most shameful side.
real footage and no simulators . best history channel ever
Yeah, "death traps" were realistic dispit statistics proveing the M4 was the most survivable out of every tank in the war.
Sherman tanks were the best tank for its job: overwhelming and destroying entrenched infantry. Tank on tank battle was rare, most of a tanks job was attacking fortified positions. It lacked in tank on tank battle obviously, but the Germans only had like 400 panzers. Compare that to the 50,000 Sherman made which were designed to destroyed entrenched positions and eliminate groups of infantry with shrapnel. If you show up to battle with a tank, and your opponent has no tank then you win. To fight tanks, the US military had tank destroyer teams kept on reserve - this was a great idea but unfortunately this plan didn’t hold up that well in battle. Regardless the strategy was a winning one.
Asher Garland YES, we had more tanks. That is mostly because about 90% of German tanks were too busy trying to defend the world against communism.
Michael D'Angelo nazi scum didn’t defend the world against anything. The western capitalist countries were smart enough to let the socialist countries kill each other.
Stop playing Call of Duty and read a fucking history book. Sherman tanks were trash.
Shermans is quantity over quality and panzers is quality over quantity
Do you call superior versatility, numbers, and reliability trash compared to the complete waste of time resources and money that is the Tiger, Panther, and Tiger 2.
The sherman was actually great. Most of the time, shermans would never encounter or fight with tigers. The chance of that happening was so small. It was fast reliable had a long range stable fast moving turret. And they were extremely effective as infantry support in urban environments. Obviously any army with stationary defensive positions would disproportionately win against an advancing attacking army.
That's a cope
Liked for the second half.
My old man was in a tank regiment with.... Keith Richards' old man!
Keith Richards snorted his old mans ashes up his nose
Really! do you play guitar too?
Surely Dad or Father ? anyway guitar better than shells.
4:26, that right there is an M4A2 Sherman tank. That barrel can easily penetrate the frontal armor of a Tiger. Sure, the Tiger could kill at farther distances, but that really it’s only advantage. In close-quarters combat, the Sherman was just as good a tank as anything the Germans had. And, in most cases, shells from the Pz. III or Pz. IV bounced right off the Sherman’s frontal armor. There’s this common misconception that the Tiger and Panther tanks had really thick armor that could not be penetrated by any gun the allies had. The truth is, the side armor of both the Tiger and Panther was paper thin. The Tiger’s frontal armor was 102 mm thick, and was a flat-faced piece of steel. M4A2’s, M10’s, M4AE3’s, and Sherman Firefly’s could easily punch through that. On top of that, the Tigers and Panthers were incredibly unreliable, breaking down more often then engaging enemy tanks, plus they were hard to repair. The tanks were underpowered and had a slow turret traverse, making them vulnerable to flanking attacks. Sherman’s on the other hand were very reliable, and easy to repair. They were fast, and had quick turret traverse times.
The tiger was not make for cqb
But you are right but it is just german enginering and plus that we got bombed all day
thanks for the info. but that right there isn't an m4a2. that's an m4a1 just with the 76mm gun turret.
there is no misconception. yes, the 76mm could penetrate the tiger's frontal hull armor if faced 0 degrees head on from a reasonable distance which almost never happened, and you would've had to be very precise with your shot. that 102mm becomes hell of alot more effective from even the slightest angle.
tiger and panther could just aim center mass from 2km and punch right through pretty much any part of the sherman unless it's a jumbo.
@@wisidiefin1329 true
Interesting vid. !.. we have a Sherman(moulded hull) here in a NZ museum.. Thanks from NZ 👍🇳🇿
Using the same fuel for most of the Army's equipment simplified logistics.