The M4 was designed to be an infantry support Tank. It was designed before WW2 and Patton wanted a reliable medium tank that could roll at higher speeds. The Germans started building heavier tanks when the Panzer 4 was being outclassed by the Russian T34, so they went to work on heavy tanks with bigger guns and a longer range. The Germans could not build tanks as fast as Chrysler so they lost the manufacturing game. The Tiger Tanks were a significant improvement, but they could be knocked out by artillery or air power.
Also Shermans are on the upper limit of weight the standard army pontoon can take (Or so I'm told) which is important when you expect to be on the advance
The one thing that has just dawned on me is that during WW2 the Allies used numbers to overcome the German technology advantage but in the 70's NATO's idea was the other way around "we will win by tech". Weird.
Because tech clearly wins vs Russia in operational terms. The Germans showed it during WWII. It took combined US and USSR resources to crush them. Some "obviously not Russians" are learning it to this day in very unfun ways.
"It embraced instead the notion that tanks do not fight other tanks" Huh? The 75mm was chosen because it offered a good mix of AT and general purpose attributes. The 76mm was put in the M4 Sherman as early as April '42. "tank destroyers" The TD branch was explicitly defensive in nature. On the offensive, anything *except* a TD was supposed to kill enemy tanks. Quoting FM 17-33, page 37 "Attacking tanks frequently encounter hostile tank units unexpectedly. At other times they may be required to attack hostile tanks deliberately in order to break up an attack or a counterattack". Tank doctrine involved killing other tanks. Overall, a good presentation.
Reliability of an M4 tank does not protect you from an 88 shell impacting you. Its all relative, tell all the thousands of dead tank crew how great the Sherman was. It never kept up or was ever updated apart from the Fire Fly version, which was just the gun. Transport these lecturers back to 1944, put them in a Sherman and tell them they will be facing off over 1000 yards with a Tiger Tank, then let them riff about how great it is. Or give them a choice between being in battle with either a Sherman or a Pershing.......bet you any money you want, they dont take the Sherman. And yes, the M4 was a good tank, reliable ect......but if you have to sacrifice 5 or more just to take out 1 Tiger tank,.....not worth it to your men.
Odd, seems to me most ammo in WW2 tanks were not high in the turret but were lower inside the hull, even if still in the turret technically. More I watched of this lecture, the more I think the speaker is full of it.
With all respect I have heard many actual Sherman crews, equally putting down the sherman and this is from the US, Cdn, and British armies. I am not going to dismiss what these veterans say because of this guy's opinion based on the opinion of a few sherman users. I agree the sherman was a good tank when 1st introduced but quickly German tanks started to have a strong edge against it. That said tank on tank is not what takes out most tanks, it is artillery and infantry and mines that take out most tanks. Sherman had it's strengths but don't ignore it's weaknesses. It was easy to get out of, had a respectable DP gun, was reliable and was made in large numbers. Weaknesses it had problems facing German tanks with heavier armour and better guns. Long as you did not have to fight one on one with those superior tanks the sherman was great! I will agree with the speaker that tactics is extremely important. Even Rommel who was seen as a great panzer commander, relied on artillery gun lines as much as he did on his tanks. Attack, lure, destroy, then attack again.
The only Sherman crewman I've known puts the tank down. His perspective isn't wrong, just different. I suspect Sherman's manufactured after mid-44 got significantly better leading to a design that would go on to target T-34'85s in Korea and T-54/55 in Israel 1967. I wonder if they saw combat in the Suez crisis?
Problem is there are as many users who praise the vehicle as those who detract from it. My Uncle was one of those who sang its praises, but then he survived two M4's being shot out from under him, and in neither occasion did he lose a crewman. In fact the only casualties his crew suffered while equipped with M4's were sustained when they were OUTSIDE the tank, usually a result of a mortar or artillery strike on their lagaar, or one guy who fell through the floor of a house he was exploring while looking for a handy place to take a dump! He was not so full of praise for the Crusaders he had been in during the North Africa campaign though, he lost more than one mate when one of those things were hit and the crew had to bail, the drivers were especially likely to be trapped inside. Problem with veteran memoirs is that while they are historically valuable, this does *not* make them historically accurate. There is always a fair bit of bias in them, hardly surprising considering the circumstances. It is why veteran memoirs are generally considered unreliable unless they are corroborated by other sources less prone to bias. That is not to denigrate the veterans, just to point out that memory is an imperfect thing, even for the best of us, we re-write our memories all the time, without even realising we do it.
@@alganhar1 -- Yes!! Usually publishers know that a good story sells more books. Publishers, being professionals, also know the elements which tend to make a good story. We learn what elements can be changed easily for turning a story into a "good" story. [TLDR Warning, rest just dives deeper in this paragraph's point. Alganhar1 already gets the point] Memoirs are a dime a dozen. Editors & publishers will drive memoir writers into making a more emotionally triggering, gripping, or interesting story, but do so at the cost of accurate historical _TRUTH._ They will do so any day of the week, and twice on Sunday, as that act is in their nature as determined by the market. That can be fine, but we as an audience looking for received wisdom need to be aware of the publishing system's inherent shortcomings and tendency towards bias. After all, we can learn lessons the lessons of history, or just better illustrate these lessons from a story even if the story used is not a perfect precise record of the time & place being used as the settings. We as readers, need to first understand that there ARE limitations to the conclusions and reliability drawn from a text.
WW2 outclassed? The Armored branch performed excellently in Europe, and beat the snot out of the Germans. Look at the battle of Arracourt, the largest armored engagement by US forces until the Bulge. The Americans did *very* well.
Dr. Cameron is human and make mistakes. The US Army is terrible at recording keeping and since he researched Armor Branch history probably missed the Ordnance Branch records showing the M4 Sherman was being developed as a tank killer. He also was inaccurate on the doctrine on the Tank Destroyer Force, they killed tanks but were purely defensive formations. Again as I stated he is human and makes mistakes, he could easily have done a two hour lecture on one part of Armor Branch in WW2.
Ahhh, we must acknowledge Dr. Cameron is using vague terms and those terms do not preclude an interpretation consistent with your own. I believe what he means by his wording that tank divisions were for exploitation, not fighting tanks, is that the US Army did not intentionally match armored divisions against known enemy armored forces to destroy them outright. Instead, tank divisions simply engaged tanks as they found them while performing their primary mission of exploiting breaches of the enemy line achieved by the infantry divisions. Still, vague and simplistic descriptions are unhelpful when trying to educate people who are not blessed with a lot of schema on the subject. That said, I agree also that the subject is a bit too ambitious for the time and so critical details are getting left out for the sake of brevity.
@@genericpersonx333 -- yes, you gotta cut slack to public speakers discussing professionally researched and specialized topics. Unless he's on the professional lecture circuit giving the exact same speech every day for a living, then you can't expect him to guest lecture doing this talk once or rarely to be able to communicate his specialized research perfectly in a speech for two hours.
![fellow fellow - พรุ่งนี้ไม่มีใครรู้ feat. INK WARUNTORN [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QP6JyjYx_W0/mqdefault.jpg)
![ร้อยพ่อพันแม่ - WanMai [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XY2pNYASEbg/mqdefault.jpg)
the best summarize of tank history ! thank for sharing this speech.
Fantastic presentation.
The M4 was designed to be an infantry support Tank. It was designed before WW2 and Patton wanted a reliable medium tank that could roll at higher speeds. The Germans started building heavier tanks when the Panzer 4 was being outclassed by the Russian T34, so they went to work on heavy tanks with bigger guns and a longer range. The Germans could not build tanks as fast as Chrysler so they lost the manufacturing game. The Tiger Tanks were a significant improvement, but they could be knocked out by artillery or air power.
Also Shermans are on the upper limit of weight the standard army pontoon can take (Or so I'm told) which is important when you expect to be on the advance
Did you guys perchance record the other talk that weekend, by Mr Yeide?
The_Chieftain It was a great program. I even got talk to Mr. Yeide before hand. I don’t think the recording is around yet.
The one thing that has just dawned on me is that during WW2 the Allies used numbers to overcome the German technology advantage but in the 70's NATO's idea was the other way around "we will win by tech". Weird.
Because tech clearly wins vs Russia in operational terms. The Germans showed it during WWII. It took combined US and USSR resources to crush them. Some "obviously not Russians" are learning it to this day in very unfun ways.
"It embraced instead the notion that tanks do not fight other tanks"
Huh? The 75mm was chosen because it offered a good mix of AT and general purpose attributes. The 76mm was put in the M4 Sherman as early as April '42.
"tank destroyers"
The TD branch was explicitly defensive in nature. On the offensive, anything *except* a TD was supposed to kill enemy tanks. Quoting FM 17-33, page 37 "Attacking tanks frequently encounter hostile tank units unexpectedly. At other times they may be required to attack hostile tanks deliberately in order to break up an attack or a counterattack". Tank doctrine involved killing other tanks.
Overall, a good presentation.
In fairness, he did qualify it by saying it's not -optimized- for tank-on-tank combat. That's not an unreasonable perspective.
Eyerakis???
Reliability of an M4 tank does not protect you from an 88 shell impacting you. Its all relative, tell all the thousands of dead tank crew how great the Sherman was. It never kept up or was ever updated apart from the Fire Fly version, which was just the gun. Transport these lecturers back to 1944, put them in a Sherman and tell them they will be facing off over 1000 yards with a Tiger Tank, then let them riff about how great it is. Or give them a choice between being in battle with either a Sherman or a Pershing.......bet you any money you want, they dont take the Sherman. And yes, the M4 was a good tank, reliable ect......but if you have to sacrifice 5 or more just to take out 1 Tiger tank,.....not worth it to your men.
Who dressed this man? lol
Probably had to borrow a shirt.
Odd, seems to me most ammo in WW2 tanks were not high in the turret but were lower inside the hull, even if still in the turret technically. More I watched of this lecture, the more I think the speaker is full of it.
With all respect I have heard many actual Sherman crews, equally putting down the sherman and this is from the US, Cdn, and British armies. I am not going to dismiss what these veterans say because of this guy's opinion based on the opinion of a few sherman users. I agree the sherman was a good tank when 1st introduced but quickly German tanks started to have a strong edge against it. That said tank on tank is not what takes out most tanks, it is artillery and infantry and mines that take out most tanks. Sherman had it's strengths but don't ignore it's weaknesses. It was easy to get out of, had a respectable DP gun, was reliable and was made in large numbers. Weaknesses it had problems facing German tanks with heavier armour and better guns. Long as you did not have to fight one on one with those superior tanks the sherman was great! I will agree with the speaker that tactics is extremely important. Even Rommel who was seen as a great panzer commander, relied on artillery gun lines as much as he did on his tanks. Attack, lure, destroy, then attack again.
The only Sherman crewman I've known puts the tank down. His perspective isn't wrong, just different. I suspect Sherman's manufactured after mid-44 got significantly better leading to a design that would go on to target T-34'85s in Korea and T-54/55 in Israel 1967.
I wonder if they saw combat in the Suez crisis?
Problem is there are as many users who praise the vehicle as those who detract from it. My Uncle was one of those who sang its praises, but then he survived two M4's being shot out from under him, and in neither occasion did he lose a crewman. In fact the only casualties his crew suffered while equipped with M4's were sustained when they were OUTSIDE the tank, usually a result of a mortar or artillery strike on their lagaar, or one guy who fell through the floor of a house he was exploring while looking for a handy place to take a dump!
He was not so full of praise for the Crusaders he had been in during the North Africa campaign though, he lost more than one mate when one of those things were hit and the crew had to bail, the drivers were especially likely to be trapped inside.
Problem with veteran memoirs is that while they are historically valuable, this does *not* make them historically accurate. There is always a fair bit of bias in them, hardly surprising considering the circumstances. It is why veteran memoirs are generally considered unreliable unless they are corroborated by other sources less prone to bias. That is not to denigrate the veterans, just to point out that memory is an imperfect thing, even for the best of us, we re-write our memories all the time, without even realising we do it.
@@alganhar1 _"But then he survived two M4's being shot out from under him..."_
*THAT'S PRETTY HARD TO ARGUE AGAINST!!*
@@alganhar1 -- Yes!! Usually publishers know that a good story sells more books. Publishers, being professionals, also know the elements which tend to make a good story. We learn what elements can be changed easily for turning a story into a "good" story. [TLDR Warning, rest just dives deeper in this paragraph's point. Alganhar1 already gets the point]
Memoirs are a dime a dozen. Editors & publishers will drive memoir writers into making a more emotionally triggering, gripping, or interesting story, but do so at the cost of accurate historical _TRUTH._ They will do so any day of the week, and twice on Sunday, as that act is in their nature as determined by the market. That can be fine, but we as an audience looking for received wisdom need to be aware of the publishing system's inherent shortcomings and tendency towards bias.
After all, we can learn lessons the lessons of history, or just better illustrate these lessons from a story even if the story used is not a perfect precise record of the time & place being used as the settings. We as readers, need to first understand that there ARE limitations to the conclusions and reliability drawn from a text.
History of US Armor, WW1, not much, WW2, outclassed, Korea, a little bit, Vietnam 🇻🇳, jungle tankage, Gulf War part 1,we actually achieved superiority
WW2 outclassed? The Armored branch performed excellently in Europe, and beat the snot out of the Germans. Look at the battle of Arracourt, the largest armored engagement by US forces until the Bulge. The Americans did *very* well.
You should read into subject yourself.
Dr. Cameron is human and make mistakes. The US Army is terrible at recording keeping and since he researched Armor Branch history probably missed the Ordnance Branch records showing the M4 Sherman was being developed as a tank killer. He also was inaccurate on the doctrine on the Tank Destroyer Force, they killed tanks but were purely defensive formations. Again as I stated he is human and makes mistakes, he could easily have done a two hour lecture on one part of Armor Branch in WW2.
Ahhh, we must acknowledge Dr. Cameron is using vague terms and those terms do not preclude an interpretation consistent with your own. I believe what he means by his wording that tank divisions were for exploitation, not fighting tanks, is that the US Army did not intentionally match armored divisions against known enemy armored forces to destroy them outright. Instead, tank divisions simply engaged tanks as they found them while performing their primary mission of exploiting breaches of the enemy line achieved by the infantry divisions.
Still, vague and simplistic descriptions are unhelpful when trying to educate people who are not blessed with a lot of schema on the subject. That said, I agree also that the subject is a bit too ambitious for the time and so critical details are getting left out for the sake of brevity.
@@genericpersonx333 -- yes, you gotta cut slack to public speakers discussing professionally researched and specialized topics.
Unless he's on the professional lecture circuit giving the exact same speech every day for a living, then you can't expect him to guest lecture doing this talk once or rarely to be able to communicate his specialized research perfectly in a speech for two hours.