There is nothing better than watching true craftsmen excel at their craft and fully enjoy doing so. As an American , I want to point out to my fellow Yanks that D-Day and Market Garden were essentially Commonwealth operations with lots of US equipment.--Bob Bailey in Maine, USA
I have a question for you. Me and a couple of friends have a ongoing debate, and I was wondering if you could tell me what the absolute minimum number of crewman a Abrams needs to operate so I can settle that debate
Interesting series, but would be better if they spent more than 10 of the 50 minutes showing the restoration! Each episode spends more time talking about the Abrams and a history lesson on WW2.
I really wish these programs would stop citing "Deathtraps" as a viable source. The Ronson slogan wasn't a thing until postwar, so it was impossible to actually have been used. At the very least they attributed the issue to ammunition, which is partially correct, instead of fuel like they usually do. Improper ammunition stowage (especially by the Brits) was the most common reason for a Sherman to catch fire. When stowed properly, the Sherman would catch fire no more then a PZIV.
Well _Ronson_ was used in reference to the Sherman Crocodile flamethrower tank. However, concerning the M4 burning, you are correct, no primary evidence exists to promote that it was used during the war.
At the museum at the Rock Island, Illinois - is a Sherman knocked in world war 2. Israel attacked the USS Liberty, an AGR-5 which later was with ship Little Rock.
CrazyKitBuilder I know that reconstructing a tank is a laborious business. However, after several episodes of the series I've only seen that they finished the Hellcat. Only one...
Ok I understand that but as a tank scale model builder, the closeup shots and assembly details are invaluable even if the tank isn't finished on the show.
they had to repaint it, replace engine and make mud flaps i believe in like 2 weeks, if you got all the stuff it goes quick. especially if you have a TV show in which you film a year earlier and post it a year later.
It's actually easier with thick metal than thin but takes longer than a car due to size. Torch cutting and welding isn't difficult and is quite fun. Channels like I C Weld (he repairs heavy equipment often much larger than Sherman) show in detail how heavy equipment weld repairs and mods are done. Welding is very forgiving if the parts are aligned (in this case by turret ring, on cars by using windshields and door panel gaps, I've clipped cars) and easy to correct on thick stock.
"In 1941 Germany had the most advanced mechanized armor in the world" then proceeds to show a Tiger 2 that wasn't produced until 1944. Good job with the historical accuracy.
Great, informative video, with a lot of good information and details. I'm curious, will there be an English language version of this in the near future, or are we stuck with the ghetto version indefinitely?
These restorations are mostly by small groups of amateurs, with limited resources, and can take many years. No TV company can hang around for years, making a documentary.
that's weird, there's a German panther commander from WW2 claiming they called them that.th-cam.com/video/QFQhFTq45DU/w-d-xo.html i heard it was a myth too
Yes i've found it was first used as slogan in the 50's myself. But considering that was so long ago I can easily see how old memories would get muddled.
@@scottyfox6376 You are right, who knows maybe Ronson used the saying as a slogan because our own troops were calling them that. Possibly that is how they came up with the slogan in the first place.
Why do the makers of this series keep cutting away to speeded up scenes of road traffic, trains etc? Or zooming rapidly into small waves on the beach? Also, why the very short cuts and bongo drums going on the whole time? Must've been made for idiots. Certainly, by idiots.
The early Shermans had 1.7" not 1.25" armor, the slope gave over 3" equivalent, however, the shell size, velocity, and weight can overcome this. A 50mm is the limit, 75mm and 88mm would get through and penitrate the slope.
As far as my reading regarding the Sherman was initially the manual to operate the gun stabilization system was classified. So by far the majority of crews didn't actually use the system. 3rd Armored division used the system & the 753rd tank battalion in Italy were the exceptions.
If you guys didn't know the tanks that were built to swim but with high waves it ended up at the bottom of the ocean and to this day they are all still down there. I believe there were 29 on D day and out of 29 27 ended of going down.
So I watched this and the episode about the Panther... And I watch and I watch and I'm like "come on.... here is cooooomes, show it to us.... there it is... now it'll show it" and boom, end credits! Where the hell are the finished ones??? Why don't you sow us the results? Nice to see the whole process but the point is to show us the results of your work!
If you look up inside the chieftains hatch on the panther the tank he gives a tour of is that very panther that was being restored so you can see that one but the other tanks off this series not so much well maybe the Ferdinand because it was on loan to the tank museum in bovington England a few years back
Unless I'm wrong - please correct me the M4 wasn't designed to fight panzers at all - the US Army had tank destroyers to do that, the sherman was designed to provide support to infantry. As I understand it that was why it generally didn't do very well and the politics supporting this strategy led to the perishing being delayed to the point that it became irrelevant. In terms of catching fire - it probably was no worse than the Panzers but they were also petrol fueled and caught fire much more often than the Russian KVs and ISs. Improper ammuntion storage is all very well but there may well be a reason why that ammuntiion was being stored like that if storing it correctly made it too difficult to access (tank crews rarely do anything that they percieve will put them at a disadvantage or more likely to be killed). As mentioned the sherman was fantastically well designed for being produced rapidly and reliably working on the other side of an ocean.
+Tom Riley > *_"please correct me the M4 wasn't designed to fight panzers at all - the US Army had tank destroyers to do that, the sherman was designed to provide support to infantry."_* This is a commonly reiterated myth. U.S. Armored Force branch (apart of Army Ground Forces) viewed Medium Tanks as support to other units, armor, infantry, or likewise in making and exploiting breakthroughs in enemy lines. And to deal with enemy resistance accordingly. The _M4_ , being a medium tank, was not focused on any one particular need. Tanks Destroyer Branch viewed tank destroyers as an entirely defensive asset, supporting the other units in a manner best described as a failsafe. > *_"In terms of catching fire - it probably was no worse than the Panzers but they were also petrol fueled and caught fire much more often than the Russian KVs and IS"_* The _M4_ burned no more from any cause, and subsequently suffered catastrophic losses than any medium tank of the era. Panzerkampfwagen _V Panther_ and Panzerkampfwagen _IV_ mainly. T-34 burned considerably more because of ammunition stowage and the fact the fuel tanks and hydraulics were all within immediate, not just close, but immediate proximity.
Tom Riley Why do the US Army Soldiers needs a Tank Destroyer when fighting a German Panzer while one isn't present on the Battlefield? There are soldiers with AT Weapons and there are Tanks that will require support. There's no need one. And US Shermans don't burn often than the Soviet Tanks and Soviet Tanks are also not reliable and were prone to flames, the US M4's smoked more and never lits up instantly, that was thanks to Wet Storage. British Shermans on the other hand had more ammunition storage which it would likely caught on fire. And to correct your knowledge about the Sherman is also wrong. The Shermans did fought German Panzers from North Africa to Europe that did it's job with it's 75mm Guns and their 76.2mm M1 Guns with AP and APDS (HVAP) Rounds.
Engaging enemy tanks was in the manuals. There are many myths and misconceptions surrounding the use of Tanks and Tank Destroyers by the US. Tanks certain had to fight enemy tanks when they encountered them, the Tank Destroyers were supposed to sit back in reserve and wait until the Germans launched a concentrated armoured assault, which they rarely did so TD's, and as per the manual, were used at the discretion of the commanding officer, usually as a surrogate tanks, infantry support and artillery.
Where does the museum get the money to have a big shop and the salaries for these workers??!! They cannot be volunteers, restoring that many tanks. Just the shop building and all its expenses is an enormous cost!
don't get me wrong it looks like a good job on the repair but if it was done properly (ignore cost) you would have used preheat and post heat on that weld and then machined it true again. For the limited use it will get will be OK but I wouldn't sent it back into service!!
if you guys look carefully, you with see two ex-armor on side of each tanks hull, that is the detail be found on the Sherman Firefly, the version be modify by the UK with the 17-Pounder gun on turret replace for the normal 75/76-mm American gun
Although the hull was cast, the alloy material of high grades and purity, while they use A stainless steel wire, as that has allot of the same properties, like the contraction rate of expansion rate as the hull it self.. A bit of pre-heating, and you can mig weld all day long, and then to allow the structure to cool slowly and relax and stabilize...now, that takes the integrity away in the welded seam as per the required strength for armor... But, it is just a show piece.. I hope that helps..
Today most of this tank are still use in some or few Latin Americsn Nations like Paraguay Argentina Colombia Mexico Panama Bolivia and etc. But i think Paraguay and Argentina are using it as a training and defence Armoured Vehcle. Are rest of Other Latin American are still unknown. I just watch Jmantimes video.
Why are we watching two completely different documentaries spliced together and very little of the actual Sherman being completed. Is this just an editing exercise? I'm getting frustrated.
Three points: ! The Axis forces relied heavily up to the end of the war on Animal drawn logistics. 2 The DD Sherman was effective on D-Day, it was only on Utah and Omaha due to bad tactics that many were lost. 3 If Adolf Hitler was so concerned about the landing at Normandy, why did he not release reserves? Because he believed that the landings would be in the Pas De Calais area , helped by a careful Allied disinformation plan to feed his paranoia.
no hitler did not release them early on because he was sleeping and his aids were to afraid to wake him. They lost 1/3 of the dds due to bad wether causing the bilge pumps to fail as too much water was coming over the screens. Sorry but Utah had 27/28 make it ashore, Omaha 2/29, Gold 24/32, Juno 37/53, Sword 31/34 make it. The total out of 280 DD's, 121/176 made it, the remainder are due to direct landing onto beach from LCT's not offshore. "The varied outcomes on D Day reflect the harsh conditions of the sea. Clearly these were much worse on the western side of Normandy, resulting in the catastrophic losses at OMAHA, yet, on JUNO and SWORD the swell and winds were slightly less, resulting in the successful arrival, as planned, of over 70 DDs on the beaches." not only the axis, no european country could front mechanized transport in numbers, without the US neither could most of the allies.
No, but war is a fearsom enterprise and all tanks can die easily. Even Russian tankers quite liked their Sherman "Emchas". "Popular" history is usually wrong.
The tank was good(ish) but could have been much better. I'm sure that with a little more thought and transferred battlefield knowledge from their allies. The designers of the time could have produced a first class tank and still stayed within the design restrictions.
Why are they doing all that since it wont be in combat any more? Could have just used filler and made use of that hull instead of doing so much to swap over the other one (which they could have made an entirely different tank or some sort of an exhibition piece out of)
+Tristan van Dam The M256 is contracted by General Dynamics Land Systems, manufactured by Watervliet Arsenal, in New York. It is licensed to Egypt and produced by Military Factory 200 in Cairo for their M1A1's, and is also contracted by Hyundai Rotem as the "KM256", but has several different manufacturer. The XM256 prototype was a licensed Rheinmetall L/44 120mm. tank cannon, though production M256's are not, and of a completely different design that only shares commonality in ammunition.
Sherman first of all was a good tank with a good engine & was easy to produced by the thousands it's only relatively weakness I might say it was it's armor protection but it compensated from that with its very good 75 mm barrel gun it wreak havoc on the German tanks from a far distance with its armor piercing projectile Sherman hit the German tanks for very far distance before the enemy tank had a chance to come closed to it & that in my opinion was it's best protection the good gun now in this case this machine is rebuild so we can establish the historic connection of the machines & the weapons that the allies used at that historic moment which I considering as essential with all their strength & weakness as with that as well of the enemy that opposing us .
Make it easier by making a giant tub fill it with water then add some soda crystals then throw the tank in there and then add some electricity and boom there you go rust gone this is called electrolisis
There are abandoned Shermans that are complete all over Europe. Why rebuild ones that have been blasted and burned to hell? It would have been a hell of a lot cheaper to rebuild one that had little damage but was abandoned.
Because of the unique challenge! The M4 is relatively easy to acquire. But adding one to your collection by welding two together? I dare say that you'd be the only one with a tank like that.
So it was garbage but there were a lot of them so they won. Mass is not more important than armour and gun calibre if you are sitting in the thng. As I am hit and catch fire my last comforting thought would not be " at least there are lots more to take my place"
The 75mm gun did not have a high enough velocity to take out a main german tank unless at close range. The german 75mm shell had double the amount of propellent. The ammunition storage meant it blew up when it was hit. It could be destroyed by any equivalent german tank above a PZ111 at a greater range. You needed 4 to take out a Tiger tank asssuming you were prepared to loose 3......
+Stephen Kedge The 75mm. gun M3 was completely capable of defeating a later Panzerkampfwagen IV (i.e. the Ausf.G, Ausf.H, and Ausf.J) at the same combat range vice versa given the M4's considerable armor advantage head on. Neither typical tank's side armor makes any difference at any range at almost any angle. > *_"The ammunition storage meant it blew up when it was hit. It could be destroyed by any equivalent german tank above a PZ111 at a greater range. You needed 4 to take out a Tiger tank asssuming you were prepared to loose 3..."_* The M4 did not burn or suffer from the catastrophic detonations any more frequently than most German tanks. Later "wet-stowage" tanks had arguably the best rate of any recorded tank during the war. At an astounding 10%-15% rate every 3.89 penetrations.
Well clearly there was absolutely no problem then.....Absolutely fine to stick blokes in a Sherman when the other side had the Tiger V1...Clearly there was absolutely no need to panic and put a 17pounder on the Sherman by putting it sideways in the turret in a desperate attempt to up gun in the face of better German tanks. If the Sherman was so great why was the kill ratio of the Panther V 5 -1? If it came to a gun fight I would not be sitting the the Sherman.
+Stephen Kedge The Tiger was never a frequent threat at all as you make it out to be. Maybe in some cases on the Eastern Front the Panther had an average K:L ratio of 5:1. Though in the West it varied. In the case of the U.S. Third and Fourth Armored Divisions, of all 29 recorded engagements solely between M4's and Panther's, the M4 achieved a K:L ratio of 3:2... In what sense was "Firefly" desperate? It was solely meant to counter the anticipated number of Panthers in Normandy. Which "German tanks" do you refer to?
Maybe if the video showed the continuation of the actual restoration we could have seen it completed instead of just the hull being welded back together.
That Ronson line is a lie. So is the myth about them catching on fire more than any other tank. As well as a Sherman seeing Tigers, Panthers, etc that often on the Western Front. The Ronson ad campaign was from the mid-1950s, so that ain't true (WWII was over by 1945). A round has something called "propellant", and that stuff is flammable, gasoline might as well be water in comparison. And that tank you're fighting isn't dead until it's roaring in flames. Same as with their tanks, and you keep shooting them until that happens. And once you hit a stowed round, well there'll be roiling flames for sure. There were maybe two or three dozen of encounters with the German big boys total on the Western Front, the Germans (wisely) sent most of it to the Eastern Front; didn't help. And the Sherman was more than a match for the Panzer 1s, 2s, 3s, and 4s that were her #1 tank foes.
"Ronson received an exclusive patent, in 1926, for a new automatic style of lighter that worked with one hand, and in 1927 Ronson began marketed it as the Ronson De-Light Lighter with the slogan "A flip - and it's lit! Release - and it's out!"" From my research the ammo didnt catch fire, if ammo was hit the tank usually had its turret blown off and all crew killed. The allies at that stage (mostly American) identified all german tanks as tigers, in fact during d-day there were a total of 3-4 tigers, the rest being withheld due no one wanting to commit them without the fuhrers permission. There are plenty of stories of the sherman going up in flames, one account was from an english tank commander duelling with a tiger 1. He eventually rammed the tiger, his tank caught fire he then evacuated the tank, came across a firefly with no commander, took over the tank and in 3 shots killed the tiger. His tank was still burning. On the other side they came across a panther with no damage, on investigation they found the exhaust vents had been blocked by rubble and the engine burnt out. One other tit bit of information, the panthers had a problem (cant remember it though) all I remember is that they could burst into flame due to some sort of blockage which was a design flaw (apparently). Another was a tank commander in a sherman describing how he watched an 88 round pass under him from a frontal hit and blow out the engine.. He couldnt believe he lived. The british hated the sherman and thanked god for the comet. Also the sherman 76mm was a match for tigers, the US armour command though didnt want lots of different ammo types so they left them in england. The 76mm could take on a tiger from the front at 300 meters and kill it (apparently). Strange that the 75mm was useless against a tiger but the 76mm "yeah no problem".. The crews wanted them but backseat generals said no, too many logistical issues with ammo. Could have saved a lot of sherman crews if they had used them... if they could pen a tiger from the front at 300 meters then no german tank up to a tiger would be safe...
don't say the t-34 but really if you think about it 55000 t-34's of all types were made and 45000 were destroyed ya t-34 the tank of ww-2 more like target practice
no i said it wasnt THE tank of ww2. bot it wasnt from that war. and im not sure what was The all round best. but it wasnt that heap of shit. America sebt shermans to russia to help the east. the russians melted them down to make t34s because they were alot better. think about it 75mm could pen panzers first tank to have sloped armour. desiel engine didnt blow up like germans english and American tanks. easy cheap mass produced it was all round great. but 1 on 1 tiger could take em all out but it was slow hard to make expensive. but thats my opinion
No they did not... at all. The T-34 was not the first with sloped armor. All tanks since the beginning have sloped armor to some degree. The first tank to use "all-around" sloping armor wasn't even the T-34, it was the French FCM-36. All fuels can burn from the temperature at which a penetrating hit would create. In fact, due to the lack of interior space, bad fuses, and the sub-par metallurgy behind the armor (it was exceptionally brittle and spalled easily) led it to have an exponentially higher rates of burning up and cooking off. The Soviets didn't melt them down to make T-34s. Stalin and the Kremlin ordered them disarmed and converted to tractors or scrapped to minimize the effect the Lend-Lease program. They gave the M4s to their _elite_ units. The "Shock Corps" and the "Guards Tank Brigades". www.amazon.com/Commanding-Red-Armys-Sherman-Tanks/dp/0803229208 The M4 was arguably the best medium tank of the Second World War to see service.
What a idiotic reply. read a dam book you ignoramus. Soviets used M4A2 Shermans because they used 2 x GMC 6046 Diesel engines. The Soviets received 75mm and 76mm Shermans. Do a Google search for Soviet Shermans. Even Guards Armored Units used Shermans. Sherman burning had nothing to do with the type of fuel and had everything to do with where the ammo was stored. Once production switched to wet hull Sherman and ammo was moved to floor in water jacketed armored bins the fire problem all but disappeared. T-34's ammo was laying on floor with no other place to put it and rounds that penetrated T-34 and detonated inside often detonated the T-34. Sherman ammo was more likely to catch fire and burn but not explode due to the type of propellant used. T-34's ammo would just explode due to type of propellant used.
Why are the Brits so obsessed with this? Yes, we understand. Tank evolution is an international thing. Brits are using features on their tanks that the Germans, Americans, French, and dozens of other countries developed as well. Every tank is an amalgamation of hundreds of innovations with origins that span the globe. Quit acting like you own the bloody thing just because your country developed it's armor. The armor is only a fraction of the reason why the tank has been so successful.
I think it's because we have gone from being the leaders in aircraft and tank design back in the day to the followers, cobbling together other peoples designs due to poor funding etc etc. We need something to cling to,to kid ourselves we are still the best..
There is nothing better than watching true craftsmen excel at their craft and fully enjoy doing so. As an American , I want to point out to my fellow Yanks that D-Day and Market Garden were essentially Commonwealth operations with lots of US equipment.--Bob Bailey in Maine, USA
It's always nice to read a nice comment. Have you seen the Jeremy Clarkson documentary on the Victoria Cross
I've been looking for quite a while for the finished Sherman episode.
There isn't one.
I love the history but I was hoping to see the work done on the tank...thanks for posting
I don't care if this show never showed a finished restored tank. Love this show
I keep watching this .. 'Wedgie Wedgie !!!' .. 'Don't you break it !!!!!!!' .. it's so good !!!!!!!!!
One of the best History documentaries ever made. Please make more.
Cut and shut Sherman - best episode
Awesome job i really like this series of videos!! Top job gents
Factories always determine the outcome of a war!
What a dream job!!! Ive been building and restoring 60s Chrysler cars all my life, but would give that up to do this in a heartbeat!!!
Thank you restoring history as former tanker of m1a1 abarms I truly appreciate where we came from as far as tanks
I have a question for you. Me and a couple of friends have a ongoing debate, and I was wondering if you could tell me what the absolute minimum number of crewman a Abrams needs to operate so I can settle that debate
Is this program ever going to bother showing a finished tank? Just spent an hour watching them sand blast a tank and weld two peices together.
That's funny man, thanks for the heads up, you save me an hour of my life ... lol.
Q1q
Thinking the same thing right now. Just watched it and am like....So what does the finished product look like?
InstaBlaster
But why are you watching this then?
Interesting series, but would be better if they spent more than 10 of the 50 minutes showing the restoration! Each episode spends more time talking about the Abrams and a history lesson on WW2.
The Rish
I want to say that. Plot is disordered, bad Documentary movie.
American propaganda documentary making Merricans feel better about spending billions on defense when there is no wars to fight
Need some Kleenex to wipe your tears?
That was for Tom Tom..
It would be nice to see a follow up program or two to see what became of the tank rebuild
why do they focus on the Abrams so much? its about a ww2 tank not a modern day one.
It's to show the lessons learned about interchangeable component parts and the ability to upgrade existing equipment without having to start anew.
cause the m4 were not so great and was quietly useless agains german tank that's why
oh so pls mister expert in "tank" tell me more about this
+Peter David i think still usselus
He's right you know..
I've never seen a series like this before where they cry about being cold yet you don't see their breath in the air.
I do like that big jig. True heavy metal rock'n roll.
I had a grandpa who built Sherman Tanks, and a great-uncle who was killed fighting Nazis at the Battle of the Bulge during WW2. RIP to both of them.
Ronson.Lights Every time.
I really wish these programs would stop citing "Deathtraps" as a viable source. The Ronson slogan wasn't a thing until postwar, so it was impossible to actually have been used. At the very least they attributed the issue to ammunition, which is partially correct, instead of fuel like they usually do. Improper ammunition stowage (especially by the Brits) was the most common reason for a Sherman to catch fire. When stowed properly, the Sherman would catch fire no more then a PZIV.
Well _Ronson_ was used in reference to the Sherman Crocodile flamethrower tank. However, concerning the M4 burning, you are correct, no primary evidence exists to promote that it was used during the war.
Was that not Zippo instead of Ronson?
***** That's the M4A3R3. The Crocodile was _Ronson_.
I thought that was just the name of the flamethrower it (and several other tanks) used, not the name of the tank itself.
***** Indeed. Though based on several books, such as Fletcher's _Churchill Crocodile flamethrower_ it was applied to the tank directly as well.
At the museum at the Rock Island, Illinois - is a Sherman knocked in world war 2. Israel attacked the USS Liberty, an AGR-5 which later was with ship Little Rock.
I find somehow disappointing in this series that they don't finish the tanks...
CrazyKitBuilder I know that reconstructing a tank is a laborious business. However, after several episodes of the series I've only seen that they finished the Hellcat. Only one...
Ok I understand that but as a tank scale model builder, the closeup shots and assembly details are invaluable even if the tank isn't finished on the show.
they had to repaint it, replace engine and make mud flaps i believe in like 2 weeks, if you got all the stuff it goes quick. especially if you have a TV show in which you film a year earlier and post it a year later.
I wonder how this project is getting on in 2018?
Arthur Bravo Definitely! Thats why i dont watch them anymore! Because they never finish! I dont waste my time getting all interested!
So they did a cut and shunt job on a Sherman tank? That's pretty awesome.
Reminds me of an XR3i I owned back in the day.
It's actually easier with thick metal than thin but takes longer than a car due to size. Torch cutting and welding isn't difficult and is quite fun. Channels like I C Weld (he repairs heavy equipment often much larger than Sherman) show in detail how heavy equipment weld repairs and mods are done. Welding is very forgiving if the parts are aligned (in this case by turret ring, on cars by using windshields and door panel gaps, I've clipped cars) and easy to correct on thick stock.
Israeli Sherman DID NOT have a 90mm gun
it had a Hard Hitting 75mm and then the 105mm
it would be great to see rest of the restoration but maybe they didn't finish the tank. please tell if there is more coming.
"In 1941 Germany had the most advanced mechanized armor in the world" then proceeds to show a Tiger 2 that wasn't produced until 1944. Good job with the historical accuracy.
They are the best!!! After I got blown up, they put me back together again. So I went back to terminating humans. Have you seen Sarah Connor?
Great, informative video, with a lot of good information and details. I'm curious, will there be an English language version of this in the near future, or are we stuck with the ghetto version indefinitely?
I love Arnold's sense of humor xD
ChaosPotato definitely an interesting one. Lol
Was thinking the same thing! Evident by the scissors for "cut here"! [9:38]
I haven't actually seen them completely finish a restoration in 3 episodes.
These restorations are mostly by small groups of amateurs, with limited resources, and can take many years. No TV company can hang around for years, making a documentary.
The nickname of Ronson is a myth. The Ronson company slogan "lights every time" was not created till after the war.
that's weird, there's a German panther commander from WW2 claiming they called them that.th-cam.com/video/QFQhFTq45DU/w-d-xo.html i heard it was a myth too
@@tomdibernardo1699 Ya I saw that video recently as well. Really who knows what to believe these days anyway. Crazy world!
Yes i've found it was first used as slogan in the 50's myself. But considering that was so long ago I can easily see how old memories would get muddled.
@@scottyfox6376 You are right, who knows maybe Ronson used the saying as a slogan because our own troops were calling them that. Possibly that is how they came up with the slogan in the first place.
I cant believe I watched this for a whole 50 minutes without seeing the end product.
Welcome to the real world. Tank restorations take years if not decades.
New tanks probably have a/c and heaters. In 1941 no thing such existed. Those guys were tough.
British tanks have a hot water electric kettle. No BS.
Why do the makers of this series keep cutting away to speeded up scenes of road traffic, trains etc? Or zooming rapidly into small waves on the beach?
Also, why the very short cuts and bongo drums going on the whole time?
Must've been made for idiots. Certainly, by idiots.
Simon W i think it was made by the americans, so yeah... your statement is correct
bad American production values?
More easy peasy and less lemon 🍋 squeezy.
So, what do you do if the M1A2's electronic firing and aiming system fails? Is there a manual system for that? Just wondering.
The early Shermans had 1.7" not 1.25" armor, the slope gave over 3" equivalent, however, the shell size, velocity, and weight can overcome this. A 50mm is the limit, 75mm and 88mm would get through and penitrate the slope.
47:32 isn't that a french gun? I'm not sure though
In America they are all over the place as Gate Guardians, VFW and American Legions. Even a few in Canada. There is a famous Easy 8 in Sherbrooke, QC.
Fun fact: Bob has appeared in a few recent videos on the Bovington Tank Museum channel, working on tanks
I love me some shermans
As far as my reading regarding the Sherman was initially the manual to operate the gun stabilization system was classified. So by far the majority of crews didn't actually use the system. 3rd Armored division used the system & the 753rd tank battalion in Italy were the exceptions.
If you guys didn't know the tanks that were built to swim but with high waves it ended up at the bottom of the ocean and to this day they are all still down there. I believe there were 29 on D day and out of 29 27 ended of going down.
I love the Shoiman. The latter variants looked better.
Gotta love old Dave.
So I watched this and the episode about the Panther... And I watch and I watch and I'm like "come on.... here is cooooomes, show it to us.... there it is... now it'll show it" and boom, end credits! Where the hell are the finished ones??? Why don't you sow us the results? Nice to see the whole process but the point is to show us the results of your work!
things take time, big things take a lot of time, it took them what, 18 years to get the two shells? it will take about 5-8 more years after that.
If you look up inside the chieftains hatch on the panther the tank he gives a tour of is that very panther that was being restored so you can see that one but the other tanks off this series not so much well maybe the Ferdinand because it was on loan to the tank museum in bovington England a few years back
Unless I'm wrong - please correct me the M4 wasn't designed to fight panzers at all - the US Army had tank destroyers to do that, the sherman was designed to provide support to infantry. As I understand it that was why it generally didn't do very well and the politics supporting this strategy led to the perishing being delayed to the point that it became irrelevant. In terms of catching fire - it probably was no worse than the Panzers but they were also petrol fueled and caught fire much more often than the Russian KVs and ISs. Improper ammuntion storage is all very well but there may well be a reason why that ammuntiion was being stored like that if storing it correctly made it too difficult to access (tank crews rarely do anything that they percieve will put them at a disadvantage or more likely to be killed). As mentioned the sherman was fantastically well designed for being produced rapidly and reliably working on the other side of an ocean.
+Tom Riley
> *_"please correct me the M4 wasn't designed to fight panzers at all - the US Army had tank destroyers to do that, the sherman was designed to provide support to infantry."_*
This is a commonly reiterated myth. U.S. Armored Force branch (apart of Army Ground Forces) viewed Medium Tanks as support to other units, armor, infantry, or likewise in making and exploiting breakthroughs in enemy lines. And to deal with enemy resistance accordingly. The _M4_ , being a medium tank, was not focused on any one particular need. Tanks Destroyer Branch viewed tank destroyers as an entirely defensive asset, supporting the other units in a manner best described as a failsafe.
> *_"In terms of catching fire - it probably was no worse than the Panzers but they were also petrol fueled and caught fire much more often than the Russian KVs and IS"_*
The _M4_ burned no more from any cause, and subsequently suffered catastrophic losses than any medium tank of the era. Panzerkampfwagen _V Panther_ and Panzerkampfwagen _IV_ mainly. T-34 burned considerably more because of ammunition stowage and the fact the fuel tanks and hydraulics were all within immediate, not just close, but immediate proximity.
Tom Riley Why do the US Army Soldiers needs a Tank Destroyer when fighting a German Panzer while one isn't present on the Battlefield? There are soldiers with AT Weapons and there are Tanks that will require support. There's no need one.
And US Shermans don't burn often than the Soviet Tanks and Soviet Tanks are also not reliable and were prone to flames, the US M4's smoked more and never lits up instantly, that was thanks to Wet Storage. British Shermans on the other hand had more ammunition storage which it would likely caught on fire.
And to correct your knowledge about the Sherman is also wrong. The Shermans did fought German Panzers from North Africa to Europe that did it's job with it's 75mm Guns and their 76.2mm M1 Guns with AP and APDS (HVAP) Rounds.
Engaging enemy tanks was in the manuals. There are many myths and misconceptions surrounding the use of Tanks and Tank Destroyers by the US. Tanks certain had to fight enemy tanks when they encountered them, the Tank Destroyers were supposed to sit back in reserve and wait until the Germans launched a concentrated armoured assault, which they rarely did so TD's, and as per the manual, were used at the discretion of the commanding officer, usually as a surrogate tanks, infantry support and artillery.
Where does the museum get the money to have a big shop and the salaries for these workers??!! They cannot be volunteers, restoring that many tanks. Just the shop building and all its expenses is an enormous cost!
don't get me wrong it looks like a good job on the repair but if it was done properly (ignore cost) you would have used preheat and post heat on that weld and then machined it true again. For the limited use it will get will be OK but I wouldn't sent it back into service!!
Is that some of the guys from Easy company of the 101st airborne at 46:03?
18:08.....Why didn't they turn it on it's side?
That m4 is an M4A1 a M4A3E2 or a M4A3E8?
M4a1 rebuild to a m51 super sherman
At 18:25 it looks like a big trap to catch a very big animal....
if you guys look carefully, you with see two ex-armor on side of each tanks hull, that is the detail be found on the Sherman Firefly, the version be modify by the UK with the 17-Pounder gun on turret replace for the normal 75/76-mm American gun
How can you mig weld cast steel ? should be arc welding (stick)
Although the hull was cast, the alloy material of high grades and purity, while they use A stainless steel wire, as that has allot of the same properties, like the contraction rate of expansion rate as the hull it self.. A bit of pre-heating, and you can mig weld all day long, and then to allow the structure to cool slowly and relax and stabilize...now, that takes the integrity away in the welded seam as per the required strength for armor... But, it is just a show piece.. I hope that helps..
Love this show, it wasn't to long ago you had to pay to watch it on youtube? i guess you don't now
Today most of this tank are still use in some or few Latin Americsn Nations like Paraguay Argentina Colombia Mexico Panama Bolivia and etc. But i think Paraguay and Argentina are using it as a training and defence Armoured Vehcle. Are rest of Other Latin American are still unknown. I just watch Jmantimes video.
Thanks for the tip re "jmantimes" videos! Love anything WW2 - Wishing you Well. Cheers Vince
Seeing footage of a tank exploding, the crew never had a chance, just like on the Titan submersible. They never saw it coming
Why are we watching two completely different documentaries spliced together and very little of the actual Sherman being completed. Is this just an editing exercise? I'm getting frustrated.
Beauty of TH-cam is you can skip through the 'fill' and just watch the actual restoration.
Three points: ! The Axis forces relied heavily up to the end of the war on Animal drawn logistics. 2 The DD Sherman was effective on D-Day, it was only on Utah and Omaha due to bad tactics that many were lost. 3 If Adolf Hitler was so concerned about the landing at Normandy, why did he not release reserves? Because he believed that the landings would be in the Pas De Calais area , helped by a careful Allied disinformation plan to feed his paranoia.
no hitler did not release them early on because he was sleeping and his aids were to afraid to wake him.
They lost 1/3 of the dds due to bad wether causing the bilge pumps to fail as too much water was coming over the screens. Sorry but Utah had 27/28 make it ashore, Omaha 2/29, Gold 24/32, Juno 37/53, Sword 31/34 make it. The total out of 280 DD's, 121/176 made it, the remainder are due to direct landing onto beach from LCT's not offshore.
"The varied outcomes on D Day reflect the harsh conditions of the sea. Clearly these were much worse on the western side of Normandy, resulting in the catastrophic losses at OMAHA, yet, on JUNO and SWORD the swell and winds were slightly less, resulting in the successful arrival, as planned, of over 70 DDs on the beaches."
not only the axis, no european country could front mechanized transport in numbers, without the US neither could most of the allies.
use a pressure pot when painting or priming, better end product
37:24 that's a myth. That slogan did not exist at that time, and that's not even what the slogan was.
Wasn't a Sherman tank a rolling DEATH TRAP according to the crews who manned them?
No, but war is a fearsom enterprise and all tanks can die easily. Even Russian tankers quite liked their Sherman "Emchas". "Popular" history is usually wrong.
The tank was good(ish) but could have been much better. I'm sure that with a little more thought and transferred battlefield knowledge from their allies. The designers of the time could have produced a first class tank and still stayed within the design restrictions.
The _M4_ in terms of performance, despite lack of progress in improving armament, was an excellent tank all things considered.
Why are they doing all that since it wont be in combat any more? Could have just used filler and made use of that hull instead of doing so much to swap over the other one (which they could have made an entirely different tank or some sort of an exhibition piece out of)
The Canons of these Abraham tanks are manufactured in germany , they are the same canons as used in the Leopard 2 tanks
+Tristan van Dam
The M256 is contracted by General Dynamics Land Systems, manufactured by Watervliet Arsenal, in New York. It is licensed to Egypt and produced by Military Factory 200 in Cairo for their M1A1's, and is also contracted by Hyundai Rotem as the "KM256", but has several different manufacturer.
The XM256 prototype was a licensed Rheinmetall L/44 120mm. tank cannon, though production M256's are not, and of a completely different design that only shares commonality in ammunition.
The US and allies even made their own hedge cutters for the front of them.
Sherman first of all was a good tank with a good engine & was easy to produced by the thousands it's only relatively weakness I might say it was it's armor protection but it compensated from that with its very good 75 mm barrel gun it wreak havoc on the German tanks from a far distance with its armor piercing projectile Sherman hit the German tanks for very far distance before the enemy tank had a chance to come closed to it & that in my opinion was it's best protection the good gun now in this case this machine is rebuild so we can establish the historic connection of the machines & the weapons that the allies used at that historic moment which I considering as essential with all their strength & weakness as with that as well of the enemy that opposing us .
Less talking, more working ! I can google 75% of each part and i wanna see how they work!
m50 sherman had a french 75mm gun and the m51 supersherman had a 105mm gun
AMERICA WAS KNOWN FOR THIS KIND OF THING ALL THE WAY BACK TO BEFORE THE CIVIL WAR.
Best tank of WW2?
Maybe.
But it was the tank the Western Allies needed to win.
i wish they'd just show the tank being overhauled..........alot of fast forwarding
More than 36 tanks? Like...37?
I want them to throw together the broken ones.
Make it easier by making a giant tub fill it with water then add some soda crystals then throw the tank in there and then add some electricity and boom there you go rust gone this is called electrolisis
And how do you propose to pay for it?
Correction: Israel's super Shermans went from the 75mm to a 105mm gun designed by the French
They did a good job for being British
I quote the last episode everything after this is will be just child’s play (they where restoring a panther)
There are abandoned Shermans that are complete all over Europe. Why rebuild ones that have been blasted and burned to hell? It would have been a hell of a lot cheaper to rebuild one that had little damage but was abandoned.
Because of the unique challenge! The M4 is relatively easy to acquire. But adding one to your collection by welding two together? I dare say that you'd be the only one with a tank like that.
i dont think shipping would be 4.99 on a tank.
One of his shermans is a gizzley
I wonder if they would convert it to a Skink if someone gets the Skink Turret for them...
They talk about the Abrams because it's filler. Just like Wendy's putting beans in the chili.
Ooooi I onlylet I do of that l like that lliooolko
WHERE IS PART 2.?.?
Here's episode 2 - th-cam.com/video/ejq44cdeMO8/w-d-xo.html. For other episodes search - Tank Overhaul Questar.
M4s hav no curves on the top glasios and no curving on the left and right sides
Canadian 01 the early ones do there was more than just one model of the m4 design
So it was garbage but there were a lot of them so they won. Mass is not more important than armour and gun calibre if you are sitting in the thng. As I am hit and catch fire my last comforting thought would not be " at least there are lots more to take my place"
+Stepen Kedge
How was it garbage?
> *_"Mass is not more important than armour and gun calibre if you are sitting in the thng."_*
What?
The 75mm gun did not have a high enough velocity to take out a main german tank unless at close range. The german 75mm shell had double the amount of propellent. The ammunition storage meant it blew up when it was hit. It could be destroyed by any equivalent german tank above a PZ111 at a greater range. You needed 4 to take out a Tiger tank asssuming you were prepared to loose 3......
+Stephen Kedge
The 75mm. gun M3 was completely capable of defeating a later Panzerkampfwagen IV (i.e. the Ausf.G, Ausf.H, and Ausf.J) at the same combat range vice versa given the M4's considerable armor advantage head on. Neither typical tank's side armor makes any difference at any range at almost any angle.
> *_"The ammunition storage meant it blew up when it was hit. It could be destroyed by any equivalent german tank above a PZ111 at a greater range. You needed 4 to take out a Tiger tank asssuming you were prepared to loose 3..."_*
The M4 did not burn or suffer from the catastrophic detonations any more frequently than most German tanks. Later "wet-stowage" tanks had arguably the best rate of any recorded tank during the war. At an astounding 10%-15% rate every 3.89 penetrations.
Well clearly there was absolutely no problem then.....Absolutely fine to stick blokes in a Sherman when the other side had the Tiger V1...Clearly there was absolutely no need to panic and put a 17pounder on the Sherman by putting it sideways in the turret in a desperate attempt to up gun in the face of better German tanks. If the Sherman was so great why was the kill ratio of the Panther V 5 -1? If it came to a gun fight I would not be sitting the the Sherman.
+Stephen Kedge
The Tiger was never a frequent threat at all as you make it out to be.
Maybe in some cases on the Eastern Front the Panther had an average K:L ratio of 5:1. Though in the West it varied. In the case of the U.S. Third and Fourth Armored Divisions, of all 29 recorded engagements solely between M4's and Panther's, the M4 achieved a K:L ratio of 3:2...
In what sense was "Firefly" desperate? It was solely meant to counter the anticipated number of Panthers in Normandy.
Which "German tanks" do you refer to?
That guy could stand a little mustache trimming.
Maybe if the video showed the continuation of the actual restoration we could have seen it completed instead of just the hull being welded back together.
Correction it is a M4A1 or M4A3
they refered to the first two letters like most people
M4A1 has Curves in the front hull, the M4A3 has a flat 47 degrees front hull.
That Ronson line is a lie. So is the myth about them catching on fire more than any other tank. As well as a Sherman seeing Tigers, Panthers, etc that often on the Western Front.
The Ronson ad campaign was from the mid-1950s, so that ain't true (WWII was over by 1945).
A round has something called "propellant", and that stuff is flammable, gasoline might as well be water in comparison. And that tank you're fighting isn't dead until it's roaring in flames. Same as with their tanks, and you keep shooting them until that happens. And once you hit a stowed round, well there'll be roiling flames for sure.
There were maybe two or three dozen of encounters with the German big boys total on the Western Front, the Germans (wisely) sent most of it to the Eastern Front; didn't help. And the Sherman was more than a match for the Panzer 1s, 2s, 3s, and 4s that were her #1 tank foes.
"Ronson received an exclusive patent, in 1926, for a new automatic style of lighter that worked with one hand, and in 1927 Ronson began marketed it as the Ronson De-Light Lighter with the slogan "A flip - and it's lit! Release - and it's out!""
From my research the ammo didnt catch fire, if ammo was hit the tank usually had its turret blown off and all crew killed.
The allies at that stage (mostly American) identified all german tanks as tigers, in fact during d-day there were a total of 3-4 tigers, the rest being withheld due no one wanting to commit them without the fuhrers permission.
There are plenty of stories of the sherman going up in flames, one account was from an english tank commander duelling with a tiger 1. He eventually rammed the tiger, his tank caught fire he then evacuated the tank, came across a firefly with no commander, took over the tank and in 3 shots killed the tiger. His tank was still burning.
On the other side they came across a panther with no damage, on investigation they found the exhaust vents had been blocked by rubble and the engine burnt out.
One other tit bit of information, the panthers had a problem (cant remember it though) all I remember is that they could burst into flame due to some sort of blockage which was a design flaw (apparently).
Another was a tank commander in a sherman describing how he watched an 88 round pass under him from a frontal hit and blow out the engine.. He couldnt believe he lived.
The british hated the sherman and thanked god for the comet.
Also the sherman 76mm was a match for tigers, the US armour command though didnt want lots of different ammo types so they left them in england. The 76mm could take on a tiger from the front at 300 meters and kill it (apparently).
Strange that the 75mm was useless against a tiger but the 76mm "yeah no problem".. The crews wanted them but backseat generals said no, too many logistical issues with ammo. Could have saved a lot of sherman crews if they had used them...
if they could pen a tiger from the front at 300 meters then no german tank up to a tiger would be safe...
That is why The M26 Pershing was a masterpiece compared to The M4 Sherman.
stainshield it wasn’t, it was a really piss poor vehicle in the end and the Sherman was in service before it and after it
Pershing was to heavy for most bridges and was not as reliable as the sherman
its cool but its not The tank of ww2
don't say the t-34 but really if you think about it 55000 t-34's of all types were made and 45000 were destroyed ya t-34 the tank of ww-2 more like target practice
no i said it wasnt THE tank of ww2. bot it wasnt from that war. and im not sure what was The all round best. but it wasnt that heap of shit. America sebt shermans to russia to help the east. the russians melted them down to make t34s because they were alot better. think about it 75mm could pen panzers first tank to have sloped armour. desiel engine didnt blow up like germans english and American tanks. easy cheap mass produced it was all round great. but 1 on 1 tiger could take em all out but it was slow hard to make expensive. but thats my opinion
No they did not... at all.
The T-34 was not the first with sloped armor. All tanks since the beginning have sloped armor to some degree. The first tank to use "all-around" sloping armor wasn't even the T-34, it was the French FCM-36.
All fuels can burn from the temperature at which a penetrating hit would create. In fact, due to the lack of interior space, bad fuses, and the sub-par metallurgy behind the armor (it was exceptionally brittle and spalled easily) led it to have an exponentially higher rates of burning up and cooking off.
The Soviets didn't melt them down to make T-34s. Stalin and the Kremlin ordered them disarmed and converted to tractors or scrapped to minimize the effect the Lend-Lease program. They gave the M4s to their _elite_ units. The "Shock Corps" and the "Guards Tank Brigades".
www.amazon.com/Commanding-Red-Armys-Sherman-Tanks/dp/0803229208
The M4 was arguably the best medium tank of the Second World War to see service.
What a idiotic reply. read a dam book you ignoramus. Soviets used M4A2 Shermans because they used 2 x GMC 6046 Diesel engines. The Soviets received 75mm and 76mm Shermans. Do a Google search for Soviet Shermans. Even Guards Armored Units used Shermans. Sherman burning had nothing to do with the type of fuel and had everything to do with where the ammo was stored. Once production switched to wet hull Sherman and ammo was moved to floor in water jacketed armored bins the fire problem all but disappeared. T-34's ammo was laying on floor with no other place to put it and rounds that penetrated T-34 and detonated inside often detonated the T-34. Sherman ammo was more likely to catch fire and burn but not explode due to the type of propellant used. T-34's ammo would just explode due to type of propellant used.
It's like saying "common" or "classic". It was *THE* tank of WW2.
"On a tiny island in the south of England" ALL of England is a tiny island!
Compared to what?
Me big american man.
Lan Hikari :D
Lan Hikari they mean the Isle of Wight
My island is a fortress an unsinkable aircraft carrier moored of the shores of Europe
That’s no “M4 Sherman” the rusty “M4 Sherman” is in fact a “M4 Sherman V”
Eddie Camacho its an m4A1 early design sherman
Narrator sounds like Marcus from Detroit becoming human
Iraq has hundreds of them!
rad
with unexpected rough seas most of them didnt make it to the shore...... Or the american tank crews were non trained 16 year olds
that is the dumbest shit Ive heard seing that your picture is of a t34 a tank that had an average life of 30 minutes in battle
that will be british armor on the abrams
Well not exactly... We haven't used Chobham since the early batch A1s.
Why are the Brits so obsessed with this? Yes, we understand. Tank evolution is an international thing. Brits are using features on their tanks that the Germans, Americans, French, and dozens of other countries developed as well. Every tank is an amalgamation of hundreds of innovations with origins that span the globe. Quit acting like you own the bloody thing just because your country developed it's armor. The armor is only a fraction of the reason why the tank has been so successful.
I think it's because we have gone from being the leaders in aircraft and tank design back in the day to the followers, cobbling together other peoples designs due to poor funding etc etc. We need something to cling to,to kid ourselves we are still the best..