The reputation of the Sherman has improved a lot in recent years, I'm glad that History Channel trash about it being the worst tank ever is being replaced by more accurate, nuanced analysis.
Well, it couldn't get any worse could it. Deisgned fro manufacturing and transportation, not for battle. But never mind, one can always train new crews.
@@davesherry5384 That's the thing though...they didn't have to. Look at survival rates of crews, the crews FAR more often survived the M4's destruction when compared to crews of other tanks.
@@captin3149 Problem is that there is no accurate survival percentage for American tanks, nor is there any of tanks from other nations to allow for a comparision to be made.
You’re correct Americans have the Luxury of Superior Efficiency compared to Everybody else Better K/D, Better Logistics, Better Everything, ETC Countless other Luxuries Making America’s Life Easier Historically: Despite how Horrible These Context Are Americans use Raw Wealth and Vanity to Afford Their numerous Qualities of life Almost like They have The Largest Economy in History Just come’s with The Territory Literally ”…” “I Am Not Explaining American Vanity and Russian Communism to that other Guy”
Early T-34/76s, poor/no training, 2 man turret, one radio per company (12-15 tanks), poor optics, poor situational awareness, where the first to shoot usually survives. Tactics, overwhelm with numbers, forget tactics like combined arms. The Nazis managed a far greater kill/loss ratio in the east to the west. But it was about production. Nazis made ~50k AFVs of all types. That's the total of all Pz1-6, armoured cars, assault guns, SPGs, etc. The Soviets made 55k T-34s, the West made 50k Shermans, obviously not including all the other AFVs they made.
Yes, that's about right . A lot of people argue that it was all about production but that simply isn't true . Crew training and skill retention was far more important.
The sherman isn't actually 30 tons it's slightly over. It's also one of the heaviest tanks of its class. Something which becomes obvious when you look at its ground pressure.
@@Dreachon They were capable of it, obviously, as they sent over the ~45 ton Pershing. But they would need to invest in improving a lot of port facilities etc in order to facilitate it being sent over in such numbers and they needed to be able to get them over and deployed ASAP. The fact is, they got all of what was needed in a package that could generally be handled by existing infrastructure and that was the best case scenario.
@@88porpoise I am not even talking about the Pershing, just look at the locomotives. Thousands of these were shipped. Following D-Day the allies brought locomotives ashore on the beaches. Churchill mk VII and Crocodiles were brought ashore as well and these tanks are a fair bit heavier than a Sherman. Plus the US had their own 50 ton tank in the form of the M6 and this was also planend to be brought overseas inintially before it got cancelled. And later the US comes with even heavier vehicles like the T28, T29, T30, T32 and T34. The crane argument makes little sense.
@@Dreachon How many of those things required specialized infrastructure? How many of those had tens of thousands of units delivered? The question isn't "can it be done" the questions are 1) "how much time, effort, and resources would it take" and 2) "how much extra capability do we get for all that extra time, effort, and resources"? What advantage would a 40 ton Sherman have delivered in 1942? What is the cost of delaying the delivery of Shermans?
Most university education and research is done in English, which obviously isn’t native to the majority of people, and Bernhard has two degrees. If anything it’s unimpressive that some people only speak one language.
I think the M5A1 Stuart is the most-underrated U.S.-made tank. It was the perfect AFV to take to the Pacific Islands where it could kill literally any weapon that the Japanese Army and Navy ground forces fielded. The M5A1 was also a fantastic recon vehicle in Europe, and it had enough fire-power to shoot its way out of trouble. Nearly 9,000 were made which shows how useful it was. Monty even used a turretless M5 as his command vehicle. The M24 Chaffee was even better, but the M5 was available when the Allies needed a fast, reliable, and strong light tank.
To emphasize -- its only a matter for amateur historians -- but that most people don't understand how light tanks were used in WWII, and where. In particular, they don't realize the importance of ground reconnaissance in an era without cheap drones and digital communications like we are seeing in Ukraine, today. The M5A1 was crucial for that role in Europe and for supporting infantry in the Pacific island campaigns. The M5A1 was even faster than the Sherman, so it could get out of trouble faster and survive. No, it couldn't defeat a Tiger or a Panther on an open battlefield, one-on-one fight, but that wasn't it's role.
It’s a fantastic recon vehicle in ETO because the UK canned production of medium and heavy Armored Cars because they felt the turning radius was too high for the narrow roads and towns in ETO compared to North Africa.
The common conception of tank warfare is of tank Vs tank, while in fact the tank's job is to destroy strong points and machine gun positions so that the infantry could advance. The Sherman's 75mm high explosive shell was very good at this, bursting into more fragments than even the 105mm round and hence being a more effective anti-personnel weapon, which was by far it's most important function.
Spot on. It is almost rock scissors paper, with armour defeating infantry, infantry defeating guns, and guns defeating armour. Far more complex and muddled than that, but each branch does have its advantages and vulnerabilities.
General George Patton had an interesting take on the correct application of the tank; _"The tank's purpose is to bring machine-guns to bear on the enemy's unprotected rear, using speed and surprise"._ Also having a versatile main gun to break through strongpoints on the way doesn't hurt either.
I recall one of the early praises for the Sherman, from British 8th Army tankers using them against the Afrika Korps. They were particularly pleased with the Sherman's HE round which allowed their tanks to engage enemy 88mm Flak guns at a longer range than they could with British tanks (using 2 pounder or 6 pounder guns). Shows what the British tankers saw as their primary threat. A very good tank for North Africa in 1942.
@@BlacktailDefensePatton was a cavalry man who had limited experience with the WW1 Renault light tank. His ideas about the role of a tank echoes the exploitation role of cavalry which also informed the British "Cruiser" doctrine.
The M4 has become much loved in recent years, much due to you guys, the Chieftan, and the other smaller channels. When I was a kid, I remember thinking it was shit.
The Sherman had to be shipped around the world so of course it was not the biggest tank possible. I feel the initial error was not using a 57mm Six Pounder anti tank gun. Presumably the British could not manufacture enough and US won’t use other people’s weapons no matter how good they are.
People nowadays only consider 1 on 1 head on engagements with say a Panther or King Tiger but forget that quantity, operational availability and mechanical reliability ended up being more important in an industrialized war.
@@davidelliott5843 Despite having good armor penetration characteristics at close ranges, the 57mm had bad high explosive round performance (an important quality for a primarily infantry tank like the Sherman) The HE shell of the 75mm was very powerful for it's caliber.
@@davidelliott5843 The US does use a number of foreign weapons, but Congress is paid by the arms manufacturers, so foreign weapons have to be really, really amazing feats of engineering to make it into the US arsenal. There is also the problem with incorporating foreign designs into the production chain. The Packard made a lot of serious improvements to the Merlin, before it started rolling off their assembly lines. It would have been quicker and easier to use GM's Allison engine, had the USAAF specified the use of a 2-stage supercharger, BEFORE the War. From what I've read, the US didn't put 20mm cannon in their aircraft, because the .50 cal MG was more effective or easier to design around, but because the American manufactured version of the Hispano cannon was not reliable. The English made version of the weapon an end to a lot of Nazi aggression.
Part of that though i think can be drawn to that the brits didnt build an outstanding vehicle until the end of the war, which was centurion, by which time it was too late. Churchill was good just it was a behemoth but still not very ergonomic for the crew nor was maintenance as easy as Sherman.
Russian crews liked them too, but you'll only get that from memoirs because the official Soviet/Russian stance is to minimize the value of US and UK vehicles.
@@strykerk992 Agree. I liked the firefly, what it could do. Also the other platforms it was used for later on, especially by the Israelis. But my favourite of all, centurion.
At one of my first jobs, a co-worker was a tanker in a Sherman in Africa (at least he only talked about serving in Africa) and he would go on about the stabilized gun and what a great tank it was. Only when the Internet came about did I hear that the Sherman was not so great. Armchair debaters vs. First Hand accounts - I think the guys that served hold more sway.
Unfortunately so many armchairs take Belton cooper as truth. Cooper served in 3rd armoured the spear head division the guys who fought the heaviest defended position so in his mind that means Sherman bad.
@@GG-si7fw That's the result of the engineers taking their time to make sure it could operate anywhere. The germans only cared about having them run in Europe, the US was fighting across 3 different continents/environments and needed to make sure they would work.
@@battleoid2411 and not to mention US Geography is like that. Scorching heat of the South -west , Tropical in the Gulf states and Hawaii, Dense Forest in the North East near the lakes and Appalachians , High and Snowy Rockies to the Northwest , Alaska as a Chilling zone and The Great Midwest as a Flatland similar to those Europe. Sherman was destined to be a success because it was made and tested in a Country that had all these elements together . only China , India and to an extent Australia had such geographical conditions.
The Sherman was better in North Africa because Operation Torch was earlier in the war when both German and British Armor was not yet as evolved as they both would become in another year or two. In some respects, German armor and British evolved faster, but note their factories were closer to the European battlefield than say Detroit, for example. The Firefly Sherman had a high velocity gun before the American designers recognized how much more effective such a gun could be against newer German tanks.
Nick Moran said it best. The Sherman was the best tank for the US Army Doctrine in 1940. He did not say it was the best tank overall, but it was the perfect fit for the American military strategy.
Tell that to the died Sherman tank crew against a tiger tank in WWII. The Sherman tank in the early stages of WWII was under gun and under armor. They did not improve the gun until the late stages of WWII to a 76mm gun. Many tank crews lost their lives because it was a poor tank.
@@patrickinlow470 There were precisely THREE engagements between US tanks and Tigers in Europe in WW2. Yes, THREE. Of those, the Shermans won two - one of which was a cheat because the tigers were caught entraining - and the Pershings lost one. The Sherman's kill ratio against Panthers was 3.67 to 1 Tell THAT to the German crews killed by Shermans.
@@patrickinlow470 words mean things....it was meant for infantry support according to doctrine. Tell that king tiger crew they were screwed by a failed transmission at 100 km.....that thing never had to be hauled across an ocean. Your comment says the Sherman sucks because it wasn't an Abrams in WW2.
@@patrickinlow470 I'm amazed you can try to say this with the above video. What tank deployed anywhere in mid 1942 had more than an L/40 75 mm gun and more than 93 mm equivalent frontal armour? There wasn't a single vehicle. Only when the Tiger was partially deployed in early 1943 was the Sherman 'bested' by any measure on paper but in very few numbers it was insignificant. Cut to the 1944 battlefield and the Sherman was still on-balance as good as any medium under 35 tons. NOT EVERY GERMAN TANK WAS A FRIGGIN TIGER! 🙈
Someone made a good argument for the M2 medium being criminally underrated. It was under gunned, under armoured, had too many machine guns, and never saw active service. But it's chassis and running gear were kept as the basis for the M3 and M4 mediums.
It's the opposite of criminally underrated. It would have been criminal to put troops onto the battlefield with those. Picking off some good parts and recycling them is appreciating them for what it's worth. In this case, the M4 is pretty much the right pick.
The M2 was a failed design, sure the chassis was decent but everything else was terrible. Even the M3 which was a rapidly put together stop gap was vastly more effective, and it was meant to be a temporary solution until the the M4s could go into full production
@@partygrove5321 When you double the crew inside the tank in order to man all of them, resulting in so little room they can barely operate the main gun and fight effectively. Plus, a single well place machine gun can cover just as much area as 6 can on a tank.
I love how someone put it I forget who but “The American M2 Medium was less a tank, and more a mobile pill box, with enough machine guns to arm an entire nation”
Too right. Best book I found on that WWII armor maintenance issue in ETO was "Death Traps" by Belton Cooper, his memoir as an OrdO in the 3rd Armored Div (heavy). Lotsa details.
The main reason Russia has done so bad in Ukraine ( for now that is) is logistics providing only a couple or more men for maintenance is simply not enough but the missiles launched by jets will change any recent advances Ukraine has achieved. I’m so proud of Ukraine but someone needs to initiate a sit down immediately hate to say it but a win for Ukraine will not do Europe as a whole or the USA any good whatsoever. As for the Sherman it was a great way to bury 5 bodies at once to many lives were lost and the army knew from its very first interactions with the enemy that it was severely underpowered not until the boots on the ground started complaining calling up command or going back to base and bringing out the M18 among others. I dislike when people try and change history if the Sherman was so great why were they putting bigger or more powerful guns on it 75-76mm which they say could take out a tiger from the front muzzle velocity was close to Germans 88. Yet increased again to the 90mm which my grandfather bounced and rode under in a bigger tank than the Sherman. All though speed to get out of harms way when you see a enemy tank pointing your way was a great thing the width of the tracks got it stuck continuously and as patten pointed out gasoline engines is not a good thing when being shelled
The statistic that most impressed me about the M4 Sherman was the comparison of knockout hits to fatalities....I believe it was .6 fatalities per serious hit. The superior design on the hatches gave the crew a faster egress thus saving many lives.
Most overlooked might arguably be the Stewart. It did a lot in the Pacific theater that we never hear about. I don't really know how it was regarded at the time by the GIs, but it might be worth considering for this.
Yeah, I just posted about the Stuart as well. It served well on both Pacific and European theaters, and given that nearly 9,000 were made, it has to be one of the best light tanks of the War.
@@princeofcupspoc9073 - When you play historian, you have to think about what was happening when a particular system was in the line, and what was expected of it. The M5A1 was being used in the Pacific, Germany, and Italy in to 1945. The 37 mm would defeat any Japanese tank up through Okinawa, and it would knock out any German vehicle besides a tank. Let's say you come across a 150 mm Hummel SPG. A 37 mm will knock it out, and now the infantry can advance. You come up to a machine gun in a pillbox, the Stuart can come up and silence it. If you find a Panther or Tiger, you stay under cover and alert your commander. Light tanks were very useful in WWII.
The allies loved any tank in WW2 in the Pacific.. Why because the Japanese didn't have armor to any notable degree and they didn't have anti-tank guns capable of taking about any of them out because they didn't develop them. They didn't believe that a military force could use tanks on islands successfully so why develop a weapon to fight against them.
@@rodshoaf the idea that they didn't believe a tank could be used on an island shows how little they understood their enemy. The US doesn't go anywhere without motorized vehicles. I mean look at Mars, first thing we do is put a freaking vehicle on it! 😂
I would have to argue that today the M3 Mediums are the most under-rated today. It was definitely flawed, but it was a solid tank for the time and I basically never see anything not disparaging about it. The Sherman has so much unwarranted criticism, but also has an absurd amount of praise at times so it is kind of offsetting itself.
Better to use the tank you have than to wait for the tank to want. I think it did well for holding the line and as a stop gap until other vehicles could fill in. I doubt the troops that had to use it would've rather reclassed as riflemen. I also have a real soft spot for it as well.
@@l.a.wright6912 The Sherry's fought in every war and on all fronts. A Great uncle and his cousins still lie in France/Belgium 1914-18 KSLI and several Sherry's are lying in Europe and Asia 1939-45, several more Sherry's were in Korea as well but came back KSLI/DLI. The M3 was very useful no doubt but the 88's were their bane not tank guns.
Agreed. It seems the Lee/Grants have a pretty poor reputation today, but they don't deserve it. Not that they were great war winning tanks, but for the time they were pretty good all things considered. The US had to throw a tank together in a hurry and they made one that was combat effective and probably about as effective as anything else being fielded at the time.
How much tank on tank combat really took place on the western front inn1944-45? I know that such duals are popular on TV, but even when considering the Battle of the Bulge, tank on tank duals were relatively rare. As always it was the infantry and artillery that really dominated. I have read where commanders actually preferred the 75 mm Sherman’s to the 76mm versions because they were more effective in most situations due to their superior HE rounds. I have also read that the percentage of HE rounds over AT rounds increased steadily over the course of the war, as in general there was little need for the AT rounds. Rather ironically, the M4 was generally used in exactly the way it’s M2 medium ancestor was designed to act: as mobile artillery support for advancing infantry units. As an aside, it is rather fascinating that by 1944 the US infantry divisions often had more armored vehicles than the German armored divisions did. The brilliant compromise that the m4 represented made that possible.
Was it him who had the cool sunglasses on one of his vids? Think he was talking about Israeli sherman or centurion tank at the time. Anyway it was a really good vid.
"Amateurs talk about tactics, but professionals study logistics." The Sherman is a “logistical” win. Mass produced, transferable worldwide, and capable. Perfect? Nope, but it’s still a winner.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a Sherman could have major repairs in the field, where as equivalent German tanks needed to be shipped back to the factory.
@@johnbrinsmead3316 Any field repair you do on a Sherman you could also do on any other tank. The kind of repairs that gets a tank send back to the factory are usually the ones way outside the field of scope what a field workshop can do as you're looking at heavily structural damage to the hull. Which often means a rebuild or scrapping it.
Regarding Rommel noticing that every American vehicle had the same headlight: that wasn't optimisation for industrial war. A couple of years earlier the US government had mandated that headlight design for all vehicles for road safety reasons, and the designers of military vehicles just went with the headlight that they had. Being a standard part was just a bonus. "Technology Connections" channel has a video about the headlight.
I wish all modern American cars had standard headlights. Probably LED, but forget about expensive streamlined custom plastic enclosures on the outside. That can be separate. Just give us standard headlights again. What a mess.
Yep. The U.S Government sticking their nose where it don't belong. Like their minimum wage laws. Those fubar lighting regulations lasted into the 1980s in America resulting in thousands of deaths from poor lighting, while the rest of the world had already gone to the Quartz/Halogen headlight decades earlier.
Interesting comment that the US didn't have enough variety of tanks to pick from. Also the M-4 as underrated surprised me, but I have never paid much attention to ground war, and have only become aware of the M-4's reputation (good and bad) from the Chieftain over the last year or two, and in that light it's a good choice.
The Americans didn't have much in the way of armor when WWII in Europe commenced, and were panicked when France fell in 1940. Actually a bit of a miracle, in that work accelerated around rearmament and design work on the Sherman and then the Sherman was introduced in 1942, in sufficient numbers to aid Montgomery in the Fall with the Battle of El Alamein (wikipedia cites 252 M4 Sherman medium tanks).
The US was almost out of the tank game pre war. It did basically a tiny pre entry practice run (M2 light and M2 Medium), a stop gap mainly for the British (M3 light and M3 Medium) and one main production (M5 light and M4 Medium) for each of light and Medium tanks. Its actually crazy to think but the US had 9 different classes of destroyer in the same time period it had 3 different types of Medium tank.
I don't think the word "enough" was actually in there, if anything they were saying that the limited range of American tanks during WWII was mainly an advantage.
@@jic1 What doe you mean by "limited range?" ...Given the Sherman had a range of about 100 to 150 miles that seemed largely validated by events following Operation Cobra and the breakout from Normandy. The Panther had a range of what? 160 miles? Panzer IV maybe 150 to something short of 200 on paper? About 120 for the Tiger I and Tiger II? I seem to recall that the Sherman was a step up in reliability compared to a number of those German tanks, implying that the real range was not so bad, or even more than adequate for operations. Now the T-34 seem to have pretty good operational range on paper, on roads, of 200 miles. Otherwise, I suspect off road, cross countryside kind of range stats may be a bit of an art to really determine and compare (that is under combat conditions) ...
I'd have nominated the Stuart. Nobody ever talks about it because it's a light tank but it went everywhere and it distinguished itself in every theatre.
I would have picked the Grant/Lee as the most underrated. It really did a good job considering that it was thrown into production but it had pretty good armor, had a pretty good gun, and was very reliable. The British liked the fact that it just bloody worked. When you went to start it started. That is not something that they could say about the British tanks at that time.
The battle at Gazala really shows just how fantastic the M3 was for the British. It was a good tank and doubly so considering how early in the war it was made. I think a lot of people just categorize it in the same box as the silly early theories in tank design from the interwar/early-war periods like singly crewed turrets and multi-turret designs. They see the two guns and assume it must have been as bad in function as something like the T-35.
Still think that the M3 Lee/Grant is tragically overlooked. It was always meant to be a stop-gap but it provided the basic mechanics of the M4 until the turret technology was ready, served well in North Africa as a gun tank, and then continued to give good service as an SPG, effectively, in Italy and the far East until the end of the war. It also forked into several useful paths - SPG, Ram, ARV. M4 does get some love these days, as it now has champions such as Zaloga, who are getting over the 'Death Trap' narrative, so it's not as underrated as it used to be. M3 was never meant to be a star player, but it did a good job wherever it was used.
I immediately went to the M4 platform as the most underrated for many of the points made, particularly regarding the economic and industrial planning on behalf of the U.S. vis a vis war production and weapons systems. Turning your AFV and Air production over to the auto industry means you get standardization and easily integrated improvements. A designer doesn't have to worry about the lighting kits when making improvements to the platform. Good, versatile design with the production line and field mechs in mind. This is why the last Sherman platform wasn't retired until 1999.
Interesting that the one interaction I've had with a tank crew member was a gunner of a Sherman saying they were bad tanks and towing the "Tommy cooker" line. It's interesting that these myths permeated into veteran's beliefs. I think average people don't appreciate how horrible war is. Maybe a veteran sees 100 burnt German tanks but if his best mate gets brewed up in a Sherman his opinion of that vehicle will be tainted for life. It's also likely a tanker would personally have to deal with the recovery of a friendly tank and or casualties whereas enemy armour might not have a such a visceral imprint. Also worth considering that allied nations had many surviving tank crews who could share such thoughts, Germany had comparatively few by war's end. Underrated tank: M10.
Sometimes you see that with automobiles. Someone will own a car that has never-ending maintenance issues and doesn't run right in extreme temperatures. Then you'll have someone else who owns the same model of car and has never had trouble with it and it always runs perfectly fine. So you might have one person who crews a tank in very adverse conditions where the battlefield terrain or tactical situation is seriously working against the tank's capabilities. And then you have another person crewing the same type of tank who gets into rough situations, but never anything that the tank can't handle.
I think its also a bit of survivor bias, where a lot of the American crews lived to complain about their tanks being knocked out, while the Germans, Russians, etc just died when their tanks got hit.
If I have my facts straight, over 50,000 M4 Shermans were produced during WWII. You have a solid, versatile, and modular tank, and the industrial capacity to churn out an eye-watering number of them to replace losses and ensure numerical superiority.
They could swim (DD), shoot fire (Sherman Crocodile,) mount rocket batteries (T-34 calliope,) clear minefields (fail tank,) be used as a bulldozer. I think there was another as an armor recovery vehicle, I also think there was one with a 105 mm gun, but I can't recall what it's called at the moment. We used the track body for SP howitzers. We shipped them all over the world. The Japanese didn't have a tank that could match it, and we put them on coral islands. Logistics.
Nice interview. I recall the interviews with German tankers on the History Channel back in the day and they were quite dismissive of the Sherman. Don’t jump on your keyboards I know that is not valid historical data. The TV shows wanted interviews that supported their own biases so they likely skewed those interviews. However, information like that makes it easier to understand why there was a negative view of the M4 tank.
@ Chiller - Re: "Nice interview. I recall the interviews with German tankers on the History Channel back in the day and they were quite dismissive of the Sherman." It is an oversimplification to be sure, but it is also essentially correct to say that the Allies won the war using largely weapons of the 1930s, while the Germans lost it using weapons of the 1950s. To further complicate things, the Germans were very advanced in some ways, i.e., jet fighters, guided missiles, etc. but relatively primitive in others.... the bulk of their army was horse-drawn and not motorized. Re: "Don’t jump on your keyboards I know that is not valid historical data. The TV shows wanted interviews that supported their own biases so they likely skewed those interviews." Sure it is valid data. It just has to be put into its proper context. That's the job of the professional historian, to assign weight, reliability and significance to that data. Specifically, German personnel who were there were eye-witnesses, or in historical lingo, primary sources. Primary sources tend to be prized in historical research, since they were there literally, and not withstanding their limited perspective in some cases, that counts for a great deal. If I was making the program in question and had the time, money and resources to do it, I'd find a dissenting view, perhaps someone who liked the Sherman, and then use the pro-and-con viewpoints as a means of examining the strengths and weaknesses of the platform itself. The real difficulty in such a comparison is to determine whose view was correct, most of the time. Since you can't speak to every man who used the tank, there's a judgment call to be made. All historians, regardless of their specialty or field, that even if one works very hard to collect information about the past, only a small sliver of it can be made accessible. Completeness isn't possible. Which means the historian is attempting to draw conclusions based upon incomplete and fragmentary data. Since WWII is still fairly recent, and record-keeping was pretty good - this problem isn't as bad as people who study what happened two thousand years ago.... but it is still there, without question.
M4 was THE best all-around tank of WW2 Mass production Shippable, transportable, bridges Repairable reliable crew comfort Good targeting and visibility Enough armor Survivability of crew Common parts (airplane engine, fuel, weapons, etc.) Defeated the T-34 handily in Korean War
That last line is HUGE in the Sherman's reputation. When it met the T-34, it was definitely the superior tank in the vast majority of situations. The funniest thing I've read about the T-34 though is what happened after the British brought their HUGE new Centurion heavy tanks to Korea, those examples that Shermans or Pattons hadn't taken out got completely blasted to scrap metal (one encounter was described as a single shot "dismantling"). The one thing the T-34 had going for it is that it was easy to produce and perhaps a decent gun. That's about it.
That's what a war winning weapon looks like. It fought overseas from the sands of N Africa, the bocage of France, the steppes in Ukraine, the jungles in the Pacific all the way into Germany.
It’s not so much a tank triangle of speed, armor, and firepower, but more or less a a web of factors all connected and dependent on each other. When I started really learning this from archives and armchair historians, I really felt my lack of knowledge for warfare overall and how convoluted it is. Of course which makes us all thirst for that knowledge so much more 😅 I love these chats, especially how free and podcastist they are.
When the Sherman first came on line, it was the most heavily armed and armored tank. Only when the Germans up gunned and up armored their Panzer Mk-4 was the Sherman matched. The Tiger and Panther outclassed the Sherman but they were too few in number
He left out the M-24 Chaffee. It did arrive very late in the war, like the M-26 Pershing, but it was a great little light tank. Decent gun, rather fast, more ergonomic for the crews. It was outclassed in Korea, but it was great for it's intended role.
M-24 is so underrated that he did not even mention it. Same firepower as M-4, same/just better speed and near equal survival rate. Also the design was used as the base for US tanks going forwards all the way to the epic M1 Abrams. O and civilian cars having automatic transmission is thanks to it.
The Chaffee was a light tank with , for the time, a big gun for a light tank. It's problems came from being used as a medium tank. Like the AMX 13 in Israeli service they can come unstuck when they are misused like that; I say misused but sometimes it happens from necessity in the moment. As a light tanks and used as such it was a great little tank.
OK, I've heard the "supply lines can only support a small number of types argument." And it falls flatly on its face. The US supported how many different types of ammo in the ETO? Here's the list: AT guns - 37mm, 57mm, 3 inch. Field guns - 57mm recoil-less, 75mm M1897, 4.5inch, 155mm howitzer, 155mm gun, 8inch gun. Howizters - 75m pack, 105mm howitzer, 105mm pack, 155mm howitzer, 8inch howitzer, 240mm howitzer. Not to mention rockets, naval guns, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. There is NO supply problem to change guns on the Sherman. A 1897 WWI era French field gun is still a 1897 WWI era French field gun. It was the French military consultants who convinced the brass that their gun is the best in the world for all tasks. The soldiers on the front lines were saying something completely different.
I sometimes don't think the M8 Greyhound gets enough attention at times as a great armoured recon car. Different discussion for another time but it made me think of other underated vehicles in WW2. Similar to the PBYs used in both the Atlantic and Pacific.
The M3/M5A1 Stuart was the most underrated US tank. Despite being a prewar design it was used throughout the war in various roles. After the war it was given away as foreign aide.
Stuart variants are also still in service today in South America. They're heavily modified and many have 90mm low recoil guns (the french ones). I can't conclusively determine if Shermans or Chaffees are still in service. The last Chaffees would have likely been the NM-116s that the Norwegians used till the 90s or early 00s until they were replaced by Leopard 2s.
Maritime cranage regularly handled colossally heavy items weighing in some cases hundreds of tons, all of the 1940 era advanced nations exported steam locomotives, huge turbines, transformers, cracking towers etc and had no problem at all throwing M26's around so the crane limitation excuse doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It's true that 1944 continental ports that fell into allied hands were heavily damaged but shipping and assembling heavy dock cranes is not a difficult proposition given the circumstances.
Well the US did have a program to upgun the Sherman in 1942 with the 76mm but until the T23 turret they weren't satisfied with how it affected the fightability/crew's effectivness
Hey Princeofcrap.... Chrysler had nothing to do with it. They had.more Tham enough war time procurement contracts to keep them healthy. You sound like a freaking anti capitalist.... anti "the ones who won the war". Hahaha!
Most underrated advantage of the M4: the optics. Specifically giving the gunner a wider angle view scope to go with the aiming scope. Gave them a vast advantage in getting on target Also yes, it's high, but less of it's mass is high up. Panthers outright loom, in person.
Every Crewmember of a Sherman had his own 360 degred movable periscope, and even in the early versions with the small hatch the sherman was easy to evacuate. the later versions with big hull hatches and 2 hatches in turret together with the wet storage were even better
The auto stabilization was also significant, as was the fast turret traverse. The Sherman looks taller due to a smaller hull it is in fact not as tall as aome of the enemy armour it faced.
Don't let 'Perfection' be the enemy of the 'Good Enough'. The Sherman was Good Enough; maybe even a touch better. Decent weapons, insanely reliable and if it takes a hit, your chances of getting out alive are surprisingly good. My favorite tank of the war.
I agree with those who say the M3 was really under appreciated. Would the soldiers rather have walked? It was a stopgap for sure, but it did help prevent the North African Front from being overrun.
The same phenomenon is going on with the comparison of the Red army and the western allies, the detractors who are fond of pointing out how Russia basically won. the war single-handedly fail to take the logistical situation into account, as well as the amount of military aid the west gave to Russia, providing her with everything from uniforms, boots, ammunition, planes, tanks, trucks, fuel and small arms. the west had to fight on multiple fronts, the Russians had just one basic front, and one basic enemy, they did not have to waste any steel on ships, strategic air assets, nor landing craft and the like. they were fighting for their homes and with great passion that only someone fighting for mother and country could muster.
If it wasn't for lend lease to the Russians they wouldn't have been able to go on the offensive. All their trucks came from the USA over 400,000 of them by Wars end Without them they would have been stuck to the rail lines.
Again, I don’t think the actual Sherman crewman was thinking about how easy his tank was to mass produce, how it was at the correct weight to be loaded by a crane, easy to repair or reliable. The Sherman was certainly “good enough” to win the war, but that doesn’t mean anything to those who had to fight in it.
Sure it did. Their tanks got damaged they were able to jump in a new tank or theirs got fixed fast. Besides, crews are going to gripe, they are soldiers after all, but the strategic value of a tank is what War is all about. A fighting machine. The British, Canadians, and US tankers knew they were WINNING. In reality, they were not getting shot at every day.
@louislopez55 - Yes, well-said! Both perspectives are valid - the big-picture at the strategic level, and the experiences of the individual men and crews who used the tanks. The logistical and other war-winning aspects of the M4 at the big-picture level would have been cold comfort to a crewman whose Sherman had just been knocked-out by a German anti-tank gun at some lonely crossroad somewhere. He just knows that the armor didn't stop the decisive shot from knocking out his tank. The job historians do is an important one, putting things into perspective and weaving the individual stories of the soldiers into a coherent whole. That said, a historian must never allow himself to lose the human element of the story being told, that real people took part in those events and some suffered greatly as a result. As with so many things, the truth about the relative merits and drawbacks of the M4 series tank probably lies someplace in between the extremes of those who extol the tank's virtues to the exclusion of anything else and those who see nothing but its faults.
He left out the M24 Chaffee tank which was a great light tank design that served well after the war. It just came along too late in the war (late '44 when first front line units got one) to have much impact.
He said forget some of those smaller little things like the Locus (7.5 tons and less than a 1000 built), not necessary lighter vehicles. He is the one that brought up the Stewart which the larger Chaffee replaced. The M-24 wasn't fully replaced in US until the 1960 after seeing action in Korea and lasted much longer for other countries, including several NATO ones such as the French who used them in Vietnam and Africa. I think the Greeks kept a few up to the end of the 1980's, but they tended to keep old stuff around instead of buying newer. On the other hand, the Locus and the various tank destroyers were niche vehicles and the Locus didn't last long after the war. The tank destroyers did last a while in the 3rd world due to the numbers produced, but no one fought with them after the 50's period, and only because they didn't have enough real tanks at the time.
More than 30 years ago, I interviewed a WWII who was in a "bastard tank battalion" for an oral history class I was taking. Basically, the Army realized it needed more tank crews and so it pulled men from other branches and impressed them into service in tanks after some rudimentary training. My vet was an assistant driver. His tank met a sad end, ambushed by a German tank. If I remember correctly, he said one anti-tank round went through the front of the turret and out the other side fortunately without exploding. A second round between the driver and the assistant driver ultimately made it to the engine, setting the tank on fire. At this point, the tank crew abandoned the tank. My vet was largely unscathed. The driver was seriously injured but still alive. (My vet did not know what became of the wounded driver.) The rest of the crew was still alive as well. At the time, I thought this fit in nicely with all the negative generalizations of the Sherman. The recent more positive reevaluation of the Sherman by people like the Chieftain, however, has changed my perspective. The fact that my vet's tank crew survived the destruction of their tank is actually a tribute to the design of the Sherman and reflects the "big picture" I missed so long ago.
At a veterans park in Georgia I snuck in through the bottom escape hatch in the bottom of a Sherman. All the other hatches were spot welded but I knew the escape hatch was there because I was a skinny teen WW2 nerd. It was so cool to be inside this historic machine.
Albert Speer wrote that he was impressed with aspects of the Sherman tank. It has been noted that Germans made few if any changes to the Sherman tank when using captured vehicles because of it's reliability and internal ergonomics. The weight of the Sherman was dictated not only by shipping requirements but also bridging equipment. As the Chieftain said, "It's not who has the best tank, it's who has the best tank that shows up.
@@usamwhambam That would be a cavalry general named Nathan Bedford Forrest. Acclaimed a genius in tactics by both sides, and ironically defeated by General W.T. Sherman.
And if course, the Sherman had capacity for continual improvement; 17pounder, 76mm. This was one of the main tests for any military equipment, aircraft, tanks, etc in WWll.
One Year Earlier 1943 , If The American Arsenals Where Set Up To Manufacture The British 17 Pounder 🇬🇧 Installed On New Mfg Sherman's For " Tank On Tank Battles , More Allied lives Would Of Been Saved ! 🇺🇲 Ox And Bucks !
@@l.a.wright6912 with flag signals instead of radios and one man turrets in some cases. The Sherman was an incredible overmatch for the Japanese tanks, with Guns that couldn't penetrate it's frontal armour.
@@Slayer_Jesse the Japanese Army knew their tanks were obsolete, just the Navy and to a lesser extent the Airforce ruled R&D and distribution of resources. They bought a Tiger off the Germans for evaluation, Dr. Mark Felton did an excellent piece on his channel about it.
Japanese created own tank force with limits of the roads, bridges, and ports in SE Asia, especially China in mind. Think the 30 ton limit , but its actually like 10 tons...
How often did tank on tank combat really take place? Yes, when it happened the M4 often didn’t do very well, but after action reports indicate that the US forces actually preferred the 75mm versions because tank to tank combat was rare, and the 75 was more effective against non-armored targets. By the end of the war US tanks were carrying only a few AT rounds, the HE rounds were almost exclusively utilized.
The M3 Lee/Grant and the M18 Hellcat. One was too early for the Americans to give it much credit. It was beloved by British forces while panned by Americans. The M18 was too late, but an insane marvel for the time. An tank limited mostly by doctrine. Both underrated to oblivion.
The point about standardization is a huge one, and it's something that I always have trouble understanding in the USA because the army does such a good job of standardizing on tanks, guns, etc., but the other branches really do not- especially on planes. In most of the air branches at any given time you have 2-3 variants being produced for reasonably similar roles at the same time: USAAF:: Fighters: Early: P40, P39, P38 Late: P51, P47, P38 Medium bombers: B25, B26 Heavy bombers: B17, B24, later B29 USN/MC Early they do a good job of keeping one type each, but then late in the war you have both F6Fs and F4Us produced at the same time, and you also still have F4F production going
Different roles, the changing face of war and ongoing development. The P40 was designed as a low altitude fighter ground attack plane and could not fight at altitude like they did in Europe. The P51 was the long ranged high Altitude escort fighter. The P47 was a stopgap and was too expensive, but became a master at the ground attack game later in the war. You could produce almost 2 Mustangs for every P47. The P38 was a long ranged interceptor and even more expensive than the P47. In my opinion when it came to the top fighters used in by the Allies ranked by best 1) Mustang 2) Spitfire 3/4) Hellcat and Corsair both were exceptional 5) P47 6) Hurricane early in the war / Typhoon~Tempest later. I could go on.. but back then the idea of a multi-role plane like the F18 or F16 didn't really exist until the UK came out with the Mosquito. (which really doesn't count as a fighter and could not dogfight since it was made from wood) It was more a fast attack bomber/recon plane.
@@rodshoaf yes, this is true, but I think especially things like the P39 and P40 overlap is interesting since they are both performance-limited at altitude- acknowledging that by 1942/43 a large proportion of production of both was going to lend-lease. Likewise, the B25 and B26 are reasonably similar in capabilities to my knowledge. And- the F6F and F4U certainly overlap substantially. The F6F is probably where I would see the most overlapping use of the two given its better early carrier performance, but the F4U does have the speed benefit. It is just interesting that there are so many pairs of planes like this that are not really *that* different in capability. I'd even put the B24 and B17 up there too- they both have strengths/weaknesses, but there isn't a clear 'superior' option between them.
@@juvandy If you look at production numbers.. the B17 was phased out pretty much by the B24 by 1944. And many units in Europe were replaced the Fortress with the Liberator. The Generals in charge of the European Theatre decided to use the B-24 since the B29 came so late in the war and it was winding down by early 1945, Where as the B29 had the combination of range, high altitude performance, speed, and bomb load the B24 didn't and was quite effective against the mostly undamaged Japanese nation. They were also concerned about the quality of German high altitude performance... They didn't want what happened to the B17 earlier in the war to happen to the most expensive plane the world had ever seen to that point. America could not afford those types of losses. In Europe the leaders saw mostly already bombed cities.. In Japan that wasn't the case because since until the B29 came out it really wasn't in range.
Patton told the designers that the Sherman was good enough. And it was more or less, when combined in quantity with air power. Yes American railroads would not accommodate the T34 and ships would not allow stuff over 30 tons, and maybe bridges and stuff in Europe. Sometimes as Stalin says, "quantity" has a quality all its own. Good enough is good enough and that was the Sherman. Not perfect . America did not have time for perfect.
Excellent discussion. Thank you for sharing. Coincidentally I'm just back home from Panzer Day at the Tank Museum. Very enjoyable and well run as ever :-) Saw David Willey up near the cafe after the main show but was too embarrassed to walk up and thank him for his great contribution to keeping this fabulous place running and for keeping me sane during lock down in 2020 with his fabulous tank chats. Thank you to BOTH of you for all the enthusiasm you bring and stimulate.
Heavily modified Israeli Shermans were destroying T-55s in 1967....albeit it was packing a modified 105mm French tank gun and powered by a Cummins diesel.
Imo if these tanks were used correctly, the M5 Stuart and the M18 Hellcats are one of the most underrated US tanks in WWII, M18s really cooked the German tank formations from the flanks in Arracourt and in the Ardennes, if the crew are well trained and utilize the tank well, it could be a potent tank killer with utilizing it's speed and hard hitting 76mm gun. The Stuart however is great recon and light asset, with the canister shot from its 37mm gun made the tank true infantry hunter, speed and mobility in the early part of Normandy campaign showed, if used correctly, how the Stuart should funtion as light tank, granted in the attempt to breakout out of the Bocages, they needed that bocage cutters to really excel at its role and protect the flanks of the Shermans and hunt down hiding German AT assets
Sherman: designed to take on Panzers from 1939/40, does well against them…takes on tanks designed after it was designed, does well despite smaller guns and weaker armor. the key is numbers and tactics, which they were able to be brought out in large amounts and utilized to great effect mitigating the drawbacks.
One defense of the Germans in ww2 and their plethora of weapons models is they needed so much stuff they had to “modify “ captured stuff (and old stuff), because they just didn’t have enough stuff. The complications from that are obvious. BUT ALSO THE GERMANS SEEMED TO TINKER WITH A DESIGN RATHER Then standardize it.
The biggest selling point for the Sherman was as was said, it was designed to be shipped and operate around the world. And to give credit the people in charge thought through the most important basics. It needed to be shippable, so tonnage limits. It needed to be fully field serviceable. They were not coming back to the factory any time soon. They needed to be fixable out in the wild. They needed to be mechanically dependable. And in perhaps the most brilliant production decision, they needed to be tightly standardized. No production line changes or upgrades. Every tank from a given batch was exactly the same. Parts fully interchangeable. Limited changes between batches/versions. When you look at many of the other tanks of the war, you realize how rare such a forward thinking thought process this was. Especially for 1939-40 America.
"The M4 Sherman didn't have enough armor! So what if it could be shipped around the world?! The Tiger is superior in firepower and armor. At least it could survive getting to the battlefield." "Funny you mention that, because getting to the battlefield is usually about as far as it got before it broke down or was shot to pieces by the multitudes more Sherman and T-34 tanks." (Albeit a bad generalization and breakdowns were much more known among the Panthers, but still. An example of thinking about tank-on-tank engagements versus thinking of a war.) That said, part of me has always liked the M3 Lee despite it being... well... less than ideal... because of how goofy it looked and because it had so many guns on the thing. I mean, there's even technically a turret on top of the turret (MG cupola on the 37mm turret). It's like a wedding cake of turrets.
Perhaps the German penchant for experimentation and optimization could be justified to some extent. After all, they were trying to maximize the impact of their limited number of troops compared to the nations arrayed against them. It may still have been counterproductive, ultimately, but since they weren't going to be able to match their adversaries in production, the logical approach would be to look for qualitative superiority.
Very truthful video! The Sherman series were in fact better than T-34s and Panzer IVs in many aspects. They were as reliable and mass-produced as T-34s and - at the same time - possessed many high technology features and a very good level of crew comfortability like late war German tanks. These elements were something that both Soviets and Germans could not put altogether onto a single vehicle - but somehow the American engineers managed to do it. As for the safety level, Shermans were - at first - not anywhere more prone to catch fire after being penetration than any other gasoline running medium tanks of the same period. However, after the introduction of wet stowage very late in the war, they were - without a doubt - the most safe tank of their time.
@@kieranh2005 until the T-35 85 the ergonomics of the T-34 were poor with the two man turret scheme. But going into 1944 the Soviets honed a pretty good tank, and got the manufacturing maturity a little more strengthened.
It should be noted that the introduction of wet ammo stowage alone wasn't the only thing that improved survivability. having the ammunition being stored in the bottom of the hull alone massively increased its survivability since the ammunition would almost never be hit after that change.
I think the M3 Lee and M3/M5 Stuart qualifies as underrated since they were the first Lend-Lease US tanks before the M4 Sherman. Both were crucial and well liked by both the British and Soviets (albeit less enthusiasm for the Lee by the Soviets)
@@CplBurdenR, US Division TO&E for WW2, makes it hard to compare since the US was big on attachments. For example, until 1946, the 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment was not organic to the 101st Airborne Division; it was attached. The M12 Battalions, there were only four, were attached to divisions from Corps assets pools. Also, as most people would know, the M7s and M12s had a common basis chassis the M3, later M7s used the M4 Chassis, and the replacement for the M12, due to 155mm cannon shortages, the M40 used a newer gun as well as the M4 chassis.
@@ThumperE23 This is true. Arguably having some specialised assets that could be attached or detached as required was the way to go, rather than trying to pack everything into every division as standard.
Some people have put their entire ego behind the German big cats, clearly being the best. So they're not going to look at reason. Same reason that people were convinced that tanks were rendered ineffective due to ATGM on the modern combat field. Tanks will get destroyed, when they're in the line of fire. Shermans got knocked out a bunch, simply because they were on the front lines slugging it out.
@@SlavicCelery individually the Germans’ tanks might have been better but tanks aren’t used individually. I always thought if I was a WW2 tanker I’d want to command a captured German Panther in an American armoured unit. (Disregard friendly fire in my fantasy)
@@dalel3608 Well, I can't argue American petro type products. They were stellar. What I can argue is inexperienced drivers. They took already short lifespan components and made them shorter. So, once again, pretty fruitless if you're on a pushing offensive.
Sorry mate, I can't agree to a new gun in the M4 Medium. I'm with Nick on this one, better ammunition, better AP ammunition would have been more important as a first step. The 75mm was a pretty good gun and it was a pretty damned good tank. If it just had better AP ammunition, earlier.... we'd be having a very different discussion. Ammunition first, gun second. 76mm was a very good anti-tank gun. Which is half the problem, they lost some good HE potential there. That and I really like the periscope sight. Again, thanks Nick for pointing this out, I really like being able to see without being seen. Especially when it's on a two-way range.
The only problem with the 75mm and 76mm guns was the length they were short so the effective range on them was limited to German guns at the time. However the guns were useful and adequate for the jobs the tanks provided.
@@sheyrd7778 The M4 had range enough to do its job. More than enough in the bocage. Even the 'short' 75mm. And again to quote the Chieftain. Range doesn't matter if you can't hit the target. Sure, some of the German guns could reach out to 2km, maybe even had the penetration. Doesn't matter if you can't hit them.
M4 was in fact very highly valued in Red Army (downplayed in cold war propaganda..). It is very close in armour, armament, weight and mobility to T34-76. Russian formed special battalions of M4. It could be mixed in the same regiment with T34 if not for the fuel - diesel for T34, gas for M4. The main problem with M4, it came to battlefield a bit late. In 1944 Tiger and Panther made 76 mm obsolete and Russian already switched to 85 mm, T34-85. M4 Firefly was a great improvement but alas made only in small numbers :(
Actually, Shermans arrived in the USSR in 1943. There's photos of white-camouflaged Shermans on the Leningrad front in winter 1943 right before the turn of 1944. The Soviets also valued the Sherman due to it's quieter engine and rubber soled treads compared to the T-34, whose engine as noisy as heck and all-metal treads that clanged incessantly and could be heard coming from literally miles away. The Sherman, especially when it was running in low RPM mode was quiet enough for the Soviets to bring it along for surprise night assaults.
@@classifiedad1 Yes, sorry. Not sure how I forgot it. Grouping into separate regiments was then most likely due to incompatibility of ammunition although was M4A2 had 76 mm gun later on. Or may be to simplify service logistics.
@@olegfedorov3225 The American 76mm and Russian 76mm were incompatible, and frankly incomparable. The Russian 76mm was a lot closer in shell mass and velocity to the American 75mm, both being tank cannons which had a velocity of ~600-700 m/s and a shell weight of about 6-7kg. Their performance in combat was comparable. The US 76mm had more muzzle velocity because it had a longer barrel and more powder, giving it 100 m/s more velocity, nearly identical velocity to the Russian 85mm. It is more comparable to later models of the German Pak 40 7.5 cm cannon than the Russian 85mm. The closest equivalent to the Russian 85mm the US had was the 90mm cannon, both which had comparable performance to the shorter German 88mm cannons. Sherman tank's machine guns were of different caliber and type to T-34 machine guns. The former were Browning .30 caliber (7.62mm) guns fed with belts while the latter were Degtyaryov 7.62mm guns fed by pan-like magazines. Caliber again was very similar, but the US round used a longer, straighter "rimless" round while the Russian round was a little shorter and had a large extractor rim that stuck out from the sides. Getting shot by either round was equally unpleasant and most likely lethal. That being said, grouping the tanks into separate regiments makes sense since a T-34 regiment only needs to train for and maintain T-34s, while a Sherman regiment only needs to train for and maintain Shermans. They're both very similar in abilities, though the Sherman was considered more reliable and comfortable to fight in where the T-34 was less likely to flip over and had a lower profile.
The Firefly wasn't a great improvement, though. It had a poor rate of fire, plus much lower ergonomics. Also had an issue with its muzzle brake + sabot rounds, resulting in a loss of accuracy at range. So, while a Firefly was useful to have, it wasn't what you wanted in masse. It was a specialist tank you mixed in with the rest, but one with a benefit of having a lower impact on logistics, thanks to using the same chassis. Overall, the Firefly is probably the most overrated version of the Sherman. Not saying it is bad, mind you, just that people play up the gun for its greater penetrative power, without looking at the cost of said gun.
The idea of being able to remove the gun carriage from the tracked vehicle carrying it was later used with the Lance Missile during the Cold War. I served as a section chief in a Lance Missile firing platoon stationed in West Germany. The Lance primarily was designed to be carried in a tracked vehicle which was an open top derivative of the M-113 APC. With the Lance Missile launch cradle installed the vehicle became the M-752 SPL ( Self Propelled Launcher ) . If the SPL broke down we would use a hoist to remove the launch cradle from the bed of the SPL. Then we would use the Mobility Kit , which consisted of two wheels and a tow bar, to convert to a towed launcher we called the LZL ( Launcher Zero Length ). So I can see how making a gun carriage removable from it's tracked vehicle and convert to towed artillery when needed. It could also be done if local bridges would not support the weight of the self propelled artillery.
Yeah I agree that the sherman is both the most underrated and overrated tank of the 2nd world War. Especially due to the sheer number of myths surrounding it. Granted I wouldn't call it good enough it's certainly has a vast amount of failures. But it's certainly not the absolute worst tank of the war. However it is really unfair to attribute the Sherman's production to its design much of the bulk of it should be attributed to the core advantages the us had in the field. Things like early implementation of the assembly line, not getting constantly bombed, and us logistics play a much larger role in why they could produce vehicles in such high numbers.
@@l.a.wright6912 Yes, this is always a baffling thing that peopel doesn't seem to understand the simple fact that mass production of something often has little to do with the design of an object but rather the industrial muscle that is behind it. Or that people say something as silly it was cheap to produce, it's a tank, they ain't cheap at all.
@@Dreachon mass production is entirely a design issue. The thing makes mass production work is tens of thousands of components being produced in parallel. If you don’t design your war machine to be built that way then it can’t be mass produced. Which is why when the US got the Merlin engine for the Mustang it had to be re-engineered for mass production. Which also resulted the engine working better than the non mass produced version.
@@SlavicCelery Yes but here come the thing that people get flatout wrong. It isn't mass produced because it is cheap, it gets cheap because something gets mass produced. Even then price of a Sherman during WWII was about 50.000 USD, that is expensive for those days.
I'd have to go with the Stuart: tiny little thing, looks archaic on a WW2 battlefield, but went where you wanted to go and did what you wanted it to do. A Sherman was a tank: you Expected it to protect you, and Criticzed it when it didn't. The Stuart... She was a Honey...
What amazes me about the Sherman is how US tank development when WW2 started was honestly pitiful--they had very little, and it was closer to WW1 standards than WW2 standards. Yet within couple of years, they develop a tank that is reliable, cheap to produce and maintain, highly versatile, has lots of room to grow and made into variants, easy to ship across the biggest oceans in the world and then travel across deserts, jungles, forests, or beaches, and has a pretty good crew survivability rate. In fact, the crew survivability rate would have been a lot higher if the tank crews/leadership hadn't prioritized carrying even more ammo over safer ammo storage. The one thing that really held the Sherman back was the lack of development on a more advanced armor-piercing shell that could utilize the existing 75mm gun and still be highly effective against more armored tanks. The US had the technology and knowledge, but they just didn't develop it until the war was almost over. Indeed, the underestimation of how heavily armored enemy tanks would rapidly become seems to have been a systemic flaw in the US Army at the time, as the M1 Bazooka quickly became too underpowered to be reliably effective against most enemy tanks from safe distances; the Super Bazooka wouldn't be made or see widespread issue until the Korean War, where the regular Bazooka was so woefully inadequate that it was getting tons of Americans killed. While the US still managed perfectly fine against heavier German armor in Europe by effective utilization of combined arms tactics, flanking maneuvers, and ambush tactics, this over-reliance would come back to bite them in the Korean War, where Allied forces lacked the kind of all-rounded and well-supplied superiority of aircraft, artillery, armor, and infantry.
remember....in many facets of the world...it is better to have your resources such as cash, steel, fuel, and the like reserved for when they are needed instead of investing them into what you THINK you need and instead build what you KNOW you need once the real need arises. Having our tank regiments nearly non-existent pre WWII was actually a good and wise move. What good would it have been to have 10,000 tanks pre-war that were ill suited to the task at hand because they were built to a standard we "thought" they would need to be. Wait for the distinct need to arise THEN build
The Shermans out performed the Perrys in Korea. In terms of armor piercing shells, the standard 75mm was not the strongest. But the vast majority of ammo isn't spent on armor. The best AP ammo of that era didn't come out until the end of the war, APDS. The Canadians made a much superior round to the ineffectual 17'lber APDS, as the English round struggled with consistent separation of the sabot, which led to flyers and inaccuracy.
Len Deighton pointed out, when the US tanks were off loaded in Africa. The British mechanics were stunned. Every part was packaged, with grease, and basically ready to install. All the parts fit perfectly. Where as British tanks because they were more handbuilt. The tolerances weren't great. So they had to sort of file and work on their equipment to get it to work. There's benefits to standardization. Lots of replacement parts. The Sherman wasn't the best tank. But very few could do the many jobs they asked it to do.
Always thought it was odd T-34 had such a good rep and the Sherman such a bad one. The Sherman compared to T-34 had comparable firepower mobility and protection. In addition it was extremely reliable, more comfortable and had many aspects far superior to T34 like optics, suspension etc. The Russians praised the Sherman very highly having received many from the lend lease program. Both were quite comparable to Panzer IV and the later up gunned Shermans could go head to head with Tiger and Panther. I think a lot of it comes down to the Americans being more sensitive to casualties. We don't have as many surviving stories of how many German and Russian crews were killed. Sometimes the tendency is to focus on one's own side. They saw their own losses more than enemy losses. Some of it may also been the effect even so many years on of German propaganda about vehicles like the Tiger.
So, Pershings were 45-50 tons. If 30 tons was so "good a weight limit" 1:13 for us from 40 thru 44, what changed that allowed a 45± ton tank in 45? Did we put it super strong cranes over xmass 44? Did we decide, that since the war was almost over that we didn't need as many tanks, so we could just use two cranes and load up only half as many?
@@paulbabcock2428 Nope, it's just a piece of 90's and 00's pop history that still keeps getting repeated by people. In reality most large harbours had cranes that could lift far more than 30 ton, and quickly on the Liberty ships also got a 50 ton crane installed for their number 2 hold.
![ลองสั่งของจากแอพ temu ถูกจริงหรอ?? [โกงไหมครับ ep.88 ] | DOM](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RTcZSQTiDZw/mqdefault.jpg)
The reputation of the Sherman has improved a lot in recent years, I'm glad that History Channel trash about it being the worst tank ever is being replaced by more accurate, nuanced analysis.
Well, it couldn't get any worse could it. Deisgned fro manufacturing and transportation, not for battle. But never mind, one can always train new crews.
@@davesherry5384 That's the thing though...they didn't have to. Look at survival rates of crews, the crews FAR more often survived the M4's destruction when compared to crews of other tanks.
@@captin3149 Problem is that there is no accurate survival percentage for American tanks, nor is there any of tanks from other nations to allow for a comparision to be made.
@@davesherry5384 The Sherman had one of the highest crew survival rates of any tank of the war.
Revisionist History is a VERY DANGEROUS THING!
The Allied crews complained about the Sherman because they could. The Russian crews didn’t complain about the T34 because they couldn’t.
Where is your data for that comment....love to read it.
You’re correct
Americans have the Luxury of Superior Efficiency compared to Everybody else
Better K/D, Better Logistics, Better Everything, ETC
Countless other Luxuries Making America’s Life Easier
Historically: Despite how Horrible These Context Are
Americans use Raw Wealth and Vanity to Afford Their numerous Qualities of life
Almost like They have The Largest Economy in History
Just come’s with The Territory
Literally
”…”
“I Am Not Explaining American Vanity and Russian Communism to that other Guy”
@@ishitunot5152it’s survivorship bias
Early T-34/76s, poor/no training, 2 man turret, one radio per company (12-15 tanks), poor optics, poor situational awareness, where the first to shoot usually survives. Tactics, overwhelm with numbers, forget tactics like combined arms. The Nazis managed a far greater kill/loss ratio in the east to the west. But it was about production. Nazis made ~50k AFVs of all types. That's the total of all Pz1-6, armoured cars, assault guns, SPGs, etc. The Soviets made 55k T-34s, the West made 50k Shermans, obviously not including all the other AFVs they made.
Yes, that's about right . A lot of people argue that it was all about production but that simply isn't true . Crew training and skill retention was far more important.
The 30 ton weight limit is always overlooked by the Sherman's detractors. There is zero point in building a tank you can't ship to the battlefield.
The US was perfectly capable of transporting heavier stuff across the ocean.
The sherman isn't actually 30 tons it's slightly over.
It's also one of the heaviest tanks of its class. Something which becomes obvious when you look at its ground pressure.
@@Dreachon They were capable of it, obviously, as they sent over the ~45 ton Pershing. But they would need to invest in improving a lot of port facilities etc in order to facilitate it being sent over in such numbers and they needed to be able to get them over and deployed ASAP.
The fact is, they got all of what was needed in a package that could generally be handled by existing infrastructure and that was the best case scenario.
@@88porpoise I am not even talking about the Pershing, just look at the locomotives. Thousands of these were shipped.
Following D-Day the allies brought locomotives ashore on the beaches.
Churchill mk VII and Crocodiles were brought ashore as well and these tanks are a fair bit heavier than a Sherman.
Plus the US had their own 50 ton tank in the form of the M6 and this was also planend to be brought overseas inintially before it got cancelled.
And later the US comes with even heavier vehicles like the T28, T29, T30, T32 and T34.
The crane argument makes little sense.
@@Dreachon How many of those things required specialized infrastructure? How many of those had tens of thousands of units delivered?
The question isn't "can it be done" the questions are 1) "how much time, effort, and resources would it take" and 2) "how much extra capability do we get for all that extra time, effort, and resources"?
What advantage would a 40 ton Sherman have delivered in 1942? What is the cost of delaying the delivery of Shermans?
it is admirable how Bernhard can talk at an academic level about these things, considering that English is not his native language. Great work!!!
Thank you!
Noooo, never!!!!!Leave our Bernie alone, or he might get the huff and.... not want to do anymore vids..... 😜😜😜😜Lol.
Most university education and research is done in English, which obviously isn’t native to the majority of people, and Bernhard has two degrees. If anything it’s unimpressive that some people only speak one language.
I think the M5A1 Stuart is the most-underrated U.S.-made tank. It was the perfect AFV to take to the Pacific Islands where it could kill literally any weapon that the Japanese Army and Navy ground forces fielded. The M5A1 was also a fantastic recon vehicle in Europe, and it had enough fire-power to shoot its way out of trouble. Nearly 9,000 were made which shows how useful it was. Monty even used a turretless M5 as his command vehicle. The M24 Chaffee was even better, but the M5 was available when the Allies needed a fast, reliable, and strong light tank.
IIRC the Brits quite liked the Stuart, or the Honey as we called it, for its reliability and ease of maintenance compared to the Crusader.
Bob Crisp, a British tanker, said that the M3 Stuart was a great tank in battle. It was fast, light, and reliable.
To emphasize -- its only a matter for amateur historians -- but that most people don't understand how light tanks were used in WWII, and where. In particular, they don't realize the importance of ground reconnaissance in an era without cheap drones and digital communications like we are seeing in Ukraine, today. The M5A1 was crucial for that role in Europe and for supporting infantry in the Pacific island campaigns. The M5A1 was even faster than the Sherman, so it could get out of trouble faster and survive. No, it couldn't defeat a Tiger or a Panther on an open battlefield, one-on-one fight, but that wasn't it's role.
Actually the chaffee wasn't well liked as troops started getting ideas about fighting with the 75mm gun when they were there as recon troops.
It’s a fantastic recon vehicle in ETO because the UK canned production of medium and heavy Armored Cars because they felt the turning radius was too high for the narrow roads and towns in ETO compared to North Africa.
The common conception of tank warfare is of tank Vs tank, while in fact the tank's job is to destroy strong points and machine gun positions so that the infantry could advance. The Sherman's 75mm high explosive shell was very good at this, bursting into more fragments than even the 105mm round and hence being a more effective anti-personnel weapon, which was by far it's most important function.
Spot on. It is almost rock scissors paper, with armour defeating infantry, infantry defeating guns, and guns defeating armour.
Far more complex and muddled than that, but each branch does have its advantages and vulnerabilities.
General George Patton had an interesting take on the correct application of the tank; _"The tank's purpose is to bring machine-guns to bear on the enemy's unprotected rear, using speed and surprise"._
Also having a versatile main gun to break through strongpoints on the way doesn't hurt either.
Thankful you posted this. The 75mm gun was superior to the 76 and other high velocity guns for 90+% of all engagements
I recall one of the early praises for the Sherman, from British 8th Army tankers using them against the Afrika Korps. They were particularly pleased with the Sherman's HE round which allowed their tanks to engage enemy 88mm Flak guns at a longer range than they could with British tanks (using 2 pounder or 6 pounder guns).
Shows what the British tankers saw as their primary threat. A very good tank for North Africa in 1942.
@@BlacktailDefensePatton was a cavalry man who had limited experience with the WW1 Renault light tank. His ideas about the role of a tank echoes the exploitation role of cavalry which also informed the British "Cruiser" doctrine.
The M4 has become much loved in recent years, much due to you guys, the Chieftan, and the other smaller channels. When I was a kid, I remember thinking it was shit.
The ease of access to the Sherman for the crew is a major plus point, it passes the 'Oh my God the tank is on fire' test with flying colours.
The Sherman had to be shipped around the world so of course it was not the biggest tank possible. I feel the initial error was not using a 57mm Six Pounder anti tank gun. Presumably the British could not manufacture enough and US won’t use other people’s weapons no matter how good they are.
People nowadays only consider 1 on 1 head on engagements with say a Panther or King Tiger but forget that quantity, operational availability and mechanical reliability ended up being more important in an industrialized war.
@@davidelliott5843 Despite having good armor penetration characteristics at close ranges, the 57mm had bad high explosive round performance (an important quality for a primarily infantry tank like the Sherman) The HE shell of the 75mm was very powerful for it's caliber.
@@davidelliott5843 The US does use a number of foreign weapons, but Congress is paid by the arms manufacturers, so foreign weapons have to be really, really amazing feats of engineering to make it into the US arsenal. There is also the problem with incorporating foreign designs into the production chain. The Packard made a lot of serious improvements to the Merlin, before it started rolling off their assembly lines. It would have been quicker and easier to use GM's Allison engine, had the USAAF specified the use of a 2-stage supercharger, BEFORE the War. From what I've read, the US didn't put 20mm cannon in their aircraft, because the .50 cal MG was more effective or easier to design around, but because the American manufactured version of the Hispano cannon was not reliable. The English made version of the weapon an end to a lot of Nazi aggression.
Reading the views of Brit Sherman crews and maintenance teams, they were largely fond of the Sherman and loved the Firefly.
Part of that though i think can be drawn to that the brits didnt build an outstanding vehicle until the end of the war, which was centurion, by which time it was too late. Churchill was good just it was a behemoth but still not very ergonomic for the crew nor was maintenance as easy as Sherman.
Russian crews liked them too, but you'll only get that from memoirs because the official Soviet/Russian stance is to minimize the value of US and UK vehicles.
@@HereComeMrCee-Jay Soviet operators also loved the Deuce n 1/2 trucks.
@@HereComeMrCee-Jay They would remove the Made in the USA labels from everything that was sent if they could... I know they tried!
@@strykerk992 Agree. I liked the firefly, what it could do. Also the other platforms it was used for later on, especially by the Israelis. But my favourite of all, centurion.
At one of my first jobs, a co-worker was a tanker in a Sherman in Africa (at least he only talked about serving in Africa) and he would go on about the stabilized gun and what a great tank it was. Only when the Internet came about did I hear that the Sherman was not so great. Armchair debaters vs. First Hand accounts - I think the guys that served hold more sway.
Unfortunately so many armchairs take Belton cooper as truth. Cooper served in 3rd armoured the spear head division the guys who fought the heaviest defended position so in his mind that means Sherman bad.
What I never heard of like the German tanks, the Sherman's didn't overheat in Africa or had problems like starting in the cold of winter.
@@GG-si7fw That's the result of the engineers taking their time to make sure it could operate anywhere. The germans only cared about having them run in Europe, the US was fighting across 3 different continents/environments and needed to make sure they would work.
@@battleoid2411 and not to mention US Geography is like that. Scorching heat of the South -west , Tropical in the Gulf states and Hawaii, Dense Forest in the North East near the lakes and Appalachians , High and Snowy Rockies to the Northwest , Alaska as a Chilling zone and The Great Midwest as a Flatland similar to those Europe. Sherman was destined to be a success because it was made and tested in a Country that had all these elements together . only China , India and to an extent Australia had such geographical conditions.
The Sherman was better in North Africa because Operation Torch was earlier in the war when both German and British Armor was not yet as evolved as they both would become in another year or two. In some respects, German armor and British evolved faster, but note their factories were closer to the European battlefield than say Detroit, for example. The Firefly Sherman had a high velocity gun before the American designers recognized how much more effective such a gun could be against newer German tanks.
Nick Moran said it best. The Sherman was the best tank for the US Army Doctrine in 1940. He did not say it was the best tank overall, but it was the perfect fit for the American military strategy.
Oh, he goes further than that. And he's right to do so; the Easy 8 Sherman was probably the best tank of the war.
Tell that to the died Sherman tank crew against a tiger tank in WWII. The Sherman tank in the early stages of WWII was under gun and under armor. They did not improve the gun until the late stages of WWII to a 76mm gun. Many tank crews lost their lives because it was a poor tank.
@@patrickinlow470 There were precisely THREE engagements between US tanks and Tigers in Europe in WW2. Yes, THREE. Of those, the Shermans won two - one of which was a cheat because the tigers were caught entraining - and the Pershings lost one. The Sherman's kill ratio against Panthers was 3.67 to 1
Tell THAT to the German crews killed by Shermans.
@@patrickinlow470 words mean things....it was meant for infantry support according to doctrine.
Tell that king tiger crew they were screwed by a failed transmission at 100 km.....that thing never had to be hauled across an ocean.
Your comment says the Sherman sucks because it wasn't an Abrams in WW2.
@@patrickinlow470 I'm amazed you can try to say this with the above video. What tank deployed anywhere in mid 1942 had more than an L/40 75 mm gun and more than 93 mm equivalent frontal armour? There wasn't a single vehicle. Only when the Tiger was partially deployed in early 1943 was the Sherman 'bested' by any measure on paper but in very few numbers it was insignificant. Cut to the 1944 battlefield and the Sherman was still on-balance as good as any medium under 35 tons.
NOT EVERY GERMAN TANK WAS A FRIGGIN TIGER! 🙈
Someone made a good argument for the M2 medium being criminally underrated. It was under gunned, under armoured, had too many machine guns, and never saw active service. But it's chassis and running gear were kept as the basis for the M3 and M4 mediums.
It's the opposite of criminally underrated. It would have been criminal to put troops onto the battlefield with those. Picking off some good parts and recycling them is appreciating them for what it's worth. In this case, the M4 is pretty much the right pick.
The M2 was a failed design, sure the chassis was decent but everything else was terrible. Even the M3 which was a rapidly put together stop gap was vastly more effective, and it was meant to be a temporary solution until the the M4s could go into full production
How can you have too many machine guns?
@@partygrove5321 When you double the crew inside the tank in order to man all of them, resulting in so little room they can barely operate the main gun and fight effectively. Plus, a single well place machine gun can cover just as much area as 6 can on a tank.
I love how someone put it
I forget who but
“The American M2 Medium was less a tank, and more a mobile pill box, with enough machine guns to arm an entire nation”
Dad was in the Army Ordnance in the ETO, and he stated that the real battle was logistics and maintenance of equipment.
What's the quote? Wars are won and lost by the quartermaster before anyone even fires a shot. True today.
SImply put: if you cant get it or supplies for it (be it a weapon, vehicle or troops) to the battlefield....its useless.
Battles are won by soldiers, wars are won by logistics.
Too right. Best book I found on that WWII armor maintenance issue in ETO was "Death Traps" by Belton Cooper, his memoir as an OrdO in the 3rd Armored Div (heavy). Lotsa details.
The main reason Russia has done so bad in Ukraine ( for now that is) is logistics providing only a couple or more men for maintenance is simply not enough but the missiles launched by jets will change any recent advances Ukraine has achieved. I’m so proud of Ukraine but someone needs to initiate a sit down immediately hate to say it but a win for Ukraine will not do Europe as a whole or the USA any good whatsoever. As for the Sherman it was a great way to bury 5 bodies at once to many lives were lost and the army knew from its very first interactions with the enemy that it was severely underpowered not until the boots on the ground started complaining calling up command or going back to base and bringing out the M18 among others. I dislike when people try and change history if the Sherman was so great why were they putting bigger or more powerful guns on it 75-76mm which they say could take out a tiger from the front muzzle velocity was close to Germans 88. Yet increased again to the 90mm which my grandfather bounced and rode under in a bigger tank than the Sherman. All though speed to get out of harms way when you see a enemy tank pointing your way was a great thing the width of the tracks got it stuck continuously and as patten pointed out gasoline engines is not a good thing when being shelled
The statistic that most impressed me about the M4 Sherman was the comparison of knockout hits to fatalities....I believe it was .6 fatalities per serious hit. The superior design on the hatches gave the crew a faster egress thus saving many lives.
Most overlooked might arguably be the Stewart. It did a lot in the Pacific theater that we never hear about. I don't really know how it was regarded at the time by the GIs, but it might be worth considering for this.
Yeah, I just posted about the Stuart as well. It served well on both Pacific and European theaters, and given that nearly 9,000 were made, it has to be one of the best light tanks of the War.
I have a soft spot for the M8, a M5 light with a 75mm pack howitzer. The 37mm was pretty pointless.
@@princeofcupspoc9073 - When you play historian, you have to think about what was happening when a particular system was in the line, and what was expected of it. The M5A1 was being used in the Pacific, Germany, and Italy in to 1945. The 37 mm would defeat any Japanese tank up through Okinawa, and it would knock out any German vehicle besides a tank. Let's say you come across a 150 mm Hummel SPG. A 37 mm will knock it out, and now the infantry can advance. You come up to a machine gun in a pillbox, the Stuart can come up and silence it. If you find a Panther or Tiger, you stay under cover and alert your commander. Light tanks were very useful in WWII.
The allies loved any tank in WW2 in the Pacific.. Why because the Japanese didn't have armor to any notable degree and they didn't have anti-tank guns capable of taking about any of them out because they didn't develop them. They didn't believe that a military force could use tanks on islands successfully so why develop a weapon to fight against them.
@@rodshoaf the idea that they didn't believe a tank could be used on an island shows how little they understood their enemy. The US doesn't go anywhere without motorized vehicles. I mean look at Mars, first thing we do is put a freaking vehicle on it! 😂
I would have to argue that today the M3 Mediums are the most under-rated today.
It was definitely flawed, but it was a solid tank for the time and I basically never see anything not disparaging about it.
The Sherman has so much unwarranted criticism, but also has an absurd amount of praise at times so it is kind of offsetting itself.
I agree entirely.
And the m3 unlike the sherry largely fought before the Germans put out longbarrel pz4s which made it significantly better.
I agree that the M3 Medium is way more under-rated
Better to use the tank you have than to wait for the tank to want. I think it did well for holding the line and as a stop gap until other vehicles could fill in. I doubt the troops that had to use it would've rather reclassed as riflemen. I also have a real soft spot for it as well.
@@l.a.wright6912 The Sherry's fought in every war and on all fronts. A Great uncle and his cousins still lie in France/Belgium 1914-18 KSLI and several Sherry's are lying in Europe and Asia 1939-45, several more Sherry's were in Korea as well but came back KSLI/DLI.
The M3 was very useful no doubt but the 88's were their bane not tank guns.
Agreed. It seems the Lee/Grants have a pretty poor reputation today, but they don't deserve it. Not that they were great war winning tanks, but for the time they were pretty good all things considered. The US had to throw a tank together in a hurry and they made one that was combat effective and probably about as effective as anything else being fielded at the time.
How much tank on tank combat really took place on the western front inn1944-45? I know that such duals are popular on TV, but even when considering the Battle of the Bulge, tank on tank duals were relatively rare. As always it was the infantry and artillery that really dominated. I have read where commanders actually preferred the 75 mm Sherman’s to the 76mm versions because they were more effective in most situations due to their superior HE rounds. I have also read that the percentage of HE rounds over AT rounds increased steadily over the course of the war, as in general there was little need for the AT rounds.
Rather ironically, the M4 was generally used in exactly the way it’s M2 medium ancestor was designed to act: as mobile artillery support for advancing infantry units.
As an aside, it is rather fascinating that by 1944 the US infantry divisions often had more armored vehicles than the German armored divisions did. The brilliant compromise that the m4 represented made that possible.
this series with David is so good, i hope theres even more on the way!
Pure Gold
GEEESE! *clenches fist*
Was it him who had the cool sunglasses on one of his vids? Think he was talking about Israeli sherman or centurion tank at the time. Anyway it was a really good vid.
"Amateurs talk about tactics, but professionals study logistics."
The Sherman is a “logistical” win. Mass produced, transferable worldwide, and capable. Perfect? Nope, but it’s still a winner.
Show me another WW2 medium tank that matches up to the M4 in the terms above. Both the T-34 and Pz4 are outclassed.
One single Division had 1600 destroyed winners within 5 month after D-Day.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a Sherman could have major repairs in the field, where as equivalent German tanks needed to be shipped back to the factory.
@@johnbrinsmead3316 Any field repair you do on a Sherman you could also do on any other tank.
The kind of repairs that gets a tank send back to the factory are usually the ones way outside the field of scope what a field workshop can do as you're looking at heavily structural damage to the hull.
Which often means a rebuild or scrapping it.
🤦♂
Regarding Rommel noticing that every American vehicle had the same headlight: that wasn't optimisation for industrial war. A couple of years earlier the US government had mandated that headlight design for all vehicles for road safety reasons, and the designers of military vehicles just went with the headlight that they had. Being a standard part was just a bonus.
"Technology Connections" channel has a video about the headlight.
I wish all modern American cars had standard headlights. Probably LED, but forget about expensive streamlined custom plastic enclosures on the outside. That can be separate. Just give us standard headlights again. What a mess.
Yep. The U.S Government sticking their nose where it don't belong. Like their minimum wage laws. Those fubar lighting regulations lasted into the 1980s in America resulting in thousands of deaths from poor lighting, while the rest of the world had already gone to the Quartz/Halogen headlight decades earlier.
@@garywheeler7039
Hopefully less of those super bright ones that dazzle other drivers.
Interesting comment that the US didn't have enough variety of tanks to pick from. Also the M-4 as underrated surprised me, but I have never paid much attention to ground war, and have only become aware of the M-4's reputation (good and bad) from the Chieftain over the last year or two, and in that light it's a good choice.
The Americans didn't have much in the way of armor when WWII in Europe commenced, and were panicked when France fell in 1940. Actually a bit of a miracle, in that work accelerated around rearmament and design work on the Sherman and then the Sherman was introduced in 1942, in sufficient numbers to aid Montgomery in the Fall with the Battle of El Alamein (wikipedia cites 252 M4 Sherman medium tanks).
The US was almost out of the tank game pre war. It did basically a tiny pre entry practice run (M2 light and M2 Medium), a stop gap mainly for the British (M3 light and M3 Medium) and one main production (M5 light and M4 Medium) for each of light and Medium tanks. Its actually crazy to think but the US had 9 different classes of destroyer in the same time period it had 3 different types of Medium tank.
@@DoddyIshamel Less crazy when you note that some of those destroyers were older than tanks. Or at least a different kind of crazy.
I don't think the word "enough" was actually in there, if anything they were saying that the limited range of American tanks during WWII was mainly an advantage.
@@jic1 What doe you mean by "limited range?" ...Given the Sherman had a range of about 100 to 150 miles that seemed largely validated by events following Operation Cobra and the breakout from Normandy.
The Panther had a range of what? 160 miles? Panzer IV maybe 150 to something short of 200 on paper? About 120 for the Tiger I and Tiger II? I seem to recall that the Sherman was a step up in reliability compared to a number of those German tanks, implying that the real range was not so bad, or even more than adequate for operations.
Now the T-34 seem to have pretty good operational range on paper, on roads, of 200 miles.
Otherwise, I suspect off road, cross countryside kind of range stats may be a bit of an art to really determine and compare (that is under combat conditions) ...
I'd have nominated the Stuart. Nobody ever talks about it because it's a light tank but it went everywhere and it distinguished itself in every theatre.
I would have picked the Grant/Lee as the most underrated. It really did a good job considering that it was thrown into production but it had pretty good armor, had a pretty good gun, and was very reliable. The British liked the fact that it just bloody worked. When you went to start it started. That is not something that they could say about the British tanks at that time.
The battle at Gazala really shows just how fantastic the M3 was for the British. It was a good tank and doubly so considering how early in the war it was made.
I think a lot of people just categorize it in the same box as the silly early theories in tank design from the interwar/early-war periods like singly crewed turrets and multi-turret designs. They see the two guns and assume it must have been as bad in function as something like the T-35.
Still think that the M3 Lee/Grant is tragically overlooked. It was always meant to be a stop-gap but it provided the basic mechanics of the M4 until the turret technology was ready, served well in North Africa as a gun tank, and then continued to give good service as an SPG, effectively, in Italy and the far East until the end of the war.
It also forked into several useful paths - SPG, Ram, ARV.
M4 does get some love these days, as it now has champions such as Zaloga, who are getting over the 'Death Trap' narrative, so it's not as underrated as it used to be. M3 was never meant to be a star player, but it did a good job wherever it was used.
I immediately went to the M4 platform as the most underrated for many of the points made, particularly regarding the economic and industrial planning on behalf of the U.S. vis a vis war production and weapons systems. Turning your AFV and Air production over to the auto industry means you get standardization and easily integrated improvements. A designer doesn't have to worry about the lighting kits when making improvements to the platform. Good, versatile design with the production line and field mechs in mind. This is why the last Sherman platform wasn't retired until 1999.
Interesting that the one interaction I've had with a tank crew member was a gunner of a Sherman saying they were bad tanks and towing the "Tommy cooker" line. It's interesting that these myths permeated into veteran's beliefs.
I think average people don't appreciate how horrible war is. Maybe a veteran sees 100 burnt German tanks but if his best mate gets brewed up in a Sherman his opinion of that vehicle will be tainted for life. It's also likely a tanker would personally have to deal with the recovery of a friendly tank and or casualties whereas enemy armour might not have a such a visceral imprint. Also worth considering that allied nations had many surviving tank crews who could share such thoughts, Germany had comparatively few by war's end.
Underrated tank: M10.
Sometimes you see that with automobiles. Someone will own a car that has never-ending maintenance issues and doesn't run right in extreme temperatures. Then you'll have someone else who owns the same model of car and has never had trouble with it and it always runs perfectly fine.
So you might have one person who crews a tank in very adverse conditions where the battlefield terrain or tactical situation is seriously working against the tank's capabilities. And then you have another person crewing the same type of tank who gets into rough situations, but never anything that the tank can't handle.
I think its also a bit of survivor bias, where a lot of the American crews lived to complain about their tanks being knocked out, while the Germans, Russians, etc just died when their tanks got hit.
If I have my facts straight, over 50,000 M4 Shermans were produced during WWII.
You have a solid, versatile, and modular tank, and the industrial capacity to churn out an eye-watering number of them to replace losses and ensure numerical superiority.
They could swim (DD), shoot fire (Sherman Crocodile,) mount rocket batteries (T-34 calliope,) clear minefields (fail tank,) be used as a bulldozer. I think there was another as an armor recovery vehicle, I also think there was one with a 105 mm gun, but I can't recall what it's called at the moment.
We used the track body for SP howitzers.
We shipped them all over the world. The Japanese didn't have a tank that could match it, and we put them on coral islands.
Logistics.
The USA didn't do quality vs quantity then. Do both. Fight a tiger with a dozen wolves.
Nice interview. I recall the interviews with German tankers on the History Channel back in the day and they were quite dismissive of the Sherman. Don’t jump on your keyboards I know that is not valid historical data. The TV shows wanted interviews that supported their own biases so they likely skewed those interviews. However, information like that makes it easier to understand why there was a negative view of the M4 tank.
@ Chiller - Re: "Nice interview. I recall the interviews with German tankers on the History Channel back in the day and they were quite dismissive of the Sherman."
It is an oversimplification to be sure, but it is also essentially correct to say that the Allies won the war using largely weapons of the 1930s, while the Germans lost it using weapons of the 1950s. To further complicate things, the Germans were very advanced in some ways, i.e., jet fighters, guided missiles, etc. but relatively primitive in others.... the bulk of their army was horse-drawn and not motorized.
Re: "Don’t jump on your keyboards I know that is not valid historical data. The TV shows wanted interviews that supported their own biases so they likely skewed those interviews."
Sure it is valid data. It just has to be put into its proper context. That's the job of the professional historian, to assign weight, reliability and significance to that data. Specifically, German personnel who were there were eye-witnesses, or in historical lingo, primary sources. Primary sources tend to be prized in historical research, since they were there literally, and not withstanding their limited perspective in some cases, that counts for a great deal.
If I was making the program in question and had the time, money and resources to do it, I'd find a dissenting view, perhaps someone who liked the Sherman, and then use the pro-and-con viewpoints as a means of examining the strengths and weaknesses of the platform itself.
The real difficulty in such a comparison is to determine whose view was correct, most of the time. Since you can't speak to every man who used the tank, there's a judgment call to be made. All historians, regardless of their specialty or field, that even if one works very hard to collect information about the past, only a small sliver of it can be made accessible. Completeness isn't possible. Which means the historian is attempting to draw conclusions based upon incomplete and fragmentary data. Since WWII is still fairly recent, and record-keeping was pretty good - this problem isn't as bad as people who study what happened two thousand years ago.... but it is still there, without question.
M4 was THE best all-around tank of WW2
Mass production
Shippable, transportable, bridges
Repairable
reliable
crew comfort
Good targeting and visibility
Enough armor
Survivability of crew
Common parts (airplane engine, fuel, weapons, etc.)
Defeated the T-34 handily in Korean War
Let's also not forget that in DD form it literally floated on its own to the shores of Normandy.
You forgot that you did not need to stop the tank to transverse the turret and shoot. If needed you can fire while moving.
That last line is HUGE in the Sherman's reputation. When it met the T-34, it was definitely the superior tank in the vast majority of situations. The funniest thing I've read about the T-34 though is what happened after the British brought their HUGE new Centurion heavy tanks to Korea, those examples that Shermans or Pattons hadn't taken out got completely blasted to scrap metal (one encounter was described as a single shot "dismantling"). The one thing the T-34 had going for it is that it was easy to produce and perhaps a decent gun. That's about it.
That's what a war winning weapon looks like. It fought overseas from the sands of N Africa, the bocage of France, the steppes in Ukraine, the jungles in the Pacific all the way into Germany.
My question about the t34 was it manned by trained soldiers or farmers given the tank by russia
David is an extremely good guest to have on the channel. Very knowledgeable and well spoken looking forward to more videos with him
It’s not so much a tank triangle of speed, armor, and firepower, but more or less a a web of factors all connected and dependent on each other. When I started really learning this from archives and armchair historians, I really felt my lack of knowledge for warfare overall and how convoluted it is. Of course which makes us all thirst for that knowledge so much more 😅 I love these chats, especially how free and podcastist they are.
When the Sherman first came on line, it was the most heavily armed and armored tank. Only when the Germans up gunned and up armored their Panzer Mk-4 was the Sherman matched. The Tiger and Panther outclassed the Sherman but they were too few in number
He left out the M-24 Chaffee. It did arrive very late in the war, like the M-26 Pershing, but it was a great little light tank. Decent gun, rather fast, more ergonomic for the crews. It was outclassed in Korea, but it was great for it's intended role.
M-24 is so underrated that he did not even mention it. Same firepower as M-4, same/just better speed and near equal survival rate. Also the design was used as the base for US tanks going forwards all the way to the epic M1 Abrams. O and civilian cars having automatic transmission is thanks to it.
The Chaffee was a light tank with , for the time, a big gun for a light tank. It's problems came from being used as a medium tank. Like the AMX 13 in Israeli service they can come unstuck when they are misused like that; I say misused but sometimes it happens from necessity in the moment. As a light tanks and used as such it was a great little tank.
OK, I've heard the "supply lines can only support a small number of types argument." And it falls flatly on its face. The US supported how many different types of ammo in the ETO? Here's the list: AT guns - 37mm, 57mm, 3 inch. Field guns - 57mm recoil-less, 75mm M1897, 4.5inch, 155mm howitzer, 155mm gun, 8inch gun. Howizters - 75m pack, 105mm howitzer, 105mm pack, 155mm howitzer, 8inch howitzer, 240mm howitzer. Not to mention rockets, naval guns, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. There is NO supply problem to change guns on the Sherman. A 1897 WWI era French field gun is still a 1897 WWI era French field gun. It was the French military consultants who convinced the brass that their gun is the best in the world for all tasks. The soldiers on the front lines were saying something completely different.
I sometimes don't think the M8 Greyhound gets enough attention at times as a great armoured recon car. Different discussion for another time but it made me think of other underated vehicles in WW2. Similar to the PBYs used in both the Atlantic and Pacific.
Didn't a greyhound destroy a king tiger? I know one US scout vehicle destroyed one of the heaviest German armor. Maybe a tiger?
In that vein, what about the A-10? No not the Warthog.
That museum has better tanks then my country
Nah you'll have plenty a Russian tanks soon enough
The M3/M5A1 Stuart was the most underrated US tank. Despite being a prewar design it was used throughout the war in various roles. After the war it was given away as foreign aide.
Stuart variants are also still in service today in South America. They're heavily modified and many have 90mm low recoil guns (the french ones). I can't conclusively determine if Shermans or Chaffees are still in service. The last Chaffees would have likely been the NM-116s that the Norwegians used till the 90s or early 00s until they were replaced by Leopard 2s.
@@AnotherWorthlessMoron that’s certainly interesting.
they should have fitted a 57mm gun in the M5 when they upgraded it.
Maritime cranage regularly handled colossally heavy items weighing in some cases hundreds of tons, all of the 1940 era advanced nations exported steam locomotives, huge turbines, transformers, cracking towers etc and had no problem at all throwing M26's around so the crane limitation excuse doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
It's true that 1944 continental ports that fell into allied hands were heavily damaged but shipping and assembling heavy dock cranes is not a difficult proposition given the circumstances.
Well the US did have a program to upgun the Sherman in 1942 with the 76mm but until the T23 turret they weren't satisfied with how it affected the fightability/crew's effectivness
No, Chrysler didn't like any changes to their cash cow. Keep making the same design from their existing production lines yielded maximum profits.
@@princeofcupspoc9073 lol ok
Hey Princeofcrap.... Chrysler had nothing to do with it. They had.more Tham enough war time procurement contracts to keep them healthy. You sound like a freaking anti capitalist.... anti "the ones who won the war". Hahaha!
@@princeofcupspoc9073 and the Army would have yanked the contract bankrupting them…🙄
"and if you can find a better tank, buy it" PFC Lee Iacocca
Most underrated advantage of the M4: the optics. Specifically giving the gunner a wider angle view scope to go with the aiming scope. Gave them a vast advantage in getting on target
Also yes, it's high, but less of it's mass is high up. Panthers outright loom, in person.
Every Crewmember of a Sherman had his own 360 degred movable periscope, and even in the early versions with the small hatch the sherman was easy to evacuate. the later versions with big hull hatches and 2 hatches in turret together with the wet storage were even better
The auto stabilization was also significant, as was the fast turret traverse. The Sherman looks taller due to a smaller hull it is in fact not as tall as aome of the enemy armour it faced.
All that stuff only matters if you're an end user.
THe US had both a 155mm Howitzer and a 203mm Howitzer as an SP...
Don't let 'Perfection' be the enemy of the 'Good Enough'.
The Sherman was Good Enough; maybe even a touch better. Decent weapons, insanely reliable and if it takes a hit, your chances of getting out alive are surprisingly good. My favorite tank of the war.
Poor M-24, not even a mention. 😞
Much awaited much appreciated excellent insights as always.
Glad you enjoyed it!
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized Mythbusters tank edition, quality Friday evening viewing.
🍻
I agree with those who say the M3 was really under appreciated. Would the soldiers rather have walked? It was a stopgap for sure, but it did help prevent the North African Front from being overrun.
Gotta specify: M3 Light "Stuart" or M3 Medium "Grant/Lee"? 😉 (gotta love those military designations!)
@@sketchesofpayne going through the comments, i think it's safe to say the answer is "yes. both"
American's complained about the Sherman because... we're Americans! 😅
The same phenomenon is going on with the comparison of the Red army and the western allies, the detractors who are fond of pointing out how Russia basically won. the war single-handedly fail to take the logistical situation into account, as well as the amount of military aid the west gave to Russia, providing her with everything from uniforms, boots, ammunition, planes, tanks, trucks, fuel and small arms. the west had to fight on multiple fronts, the Russians had just one basic front, and one basic enemy, they did not have to waste any steel on ships, strategic air assets, nor landing craft and the like. they were fighting for their homes and with great passion that only someone fighting for mother and country could muster.
If it wasn't for lend lease to the Russians they wouldn't have been able to go on the offensive.
All their trucks came from the USA over 400,000 of them by Wars end
Without them they would have been stuck to the rail lines.
Again, I don’t think the actual Sherman crewman was thinking about how easy his tank was to mass produce, how it was at the correct weight to be loaded by a crane, easy to repair or reliable. The Sherman was certainly “good enough” to win the war, but that doesn’t mean anything to those who had to fight in it.
Ease of repair and reliability are highly desirable traits for any implement of war by its users.
Sure it did. Their tanks got damaged they were able to jump in a new tank or theirs got fixed fast. Besides, crews are going to gripe, they are soldiers after all, but the strategic value of a tank is what War is all about. A fighting machine. The British, Canadians, and US tankers knew they were WINNING. In reality, they were not getting shot at every day.
@louislopez55 - Yes, well-said! Both perspectives are valid - the big-picture at the strategic level, and the experiences of the individual men and crews who used the tanks. The logistical and other war-winning aspects of the M4 at the big-picture level would have been cold comfort to a crewman whose Sherman had just been knocked-out by a German anti-tank gun at some lonely crossroad somewhere. He just knows that the armor didn't stop the decisive shot from knocking out his tank.
The job historians do is an important one, putting things into perspective and weaving the individual stories of the soldiers into a coherent whole. That said, a historian must never allow himself to lose the human element of the story being told, that real people took part in those events and some suffered greatly as a result.
As with so many things, the truth about the relative merits and drawbacks of the M4 series tank probably lies someplace in between the extremes of those who extol the tank's virtues to the exclusion of anything else and those who see nothing but its faults.
He left out the M24 Chaffee tank which was a great light tank design that served well after the war. It just came along too late in the war (late '44 when first front line units got one) to have much impact.
He said he was going to ignore the lighter vehicles. M-18 and M-24 are included.
He said forget some of those smaller little things like the Locus (7.5 tons and less than a 1000 built), not necessary lighter vehicles. He is the one that brought up the Stewart which the larger Chaffee replaced. The M-24 wasn't fully replaced in US until the 1960 after seeing action in Korea and lasted much longer for other countries, including several NATO ones such as the French who used them in Vietnam and Africa. I think the Greeks kept a few up to the end of the 1980's, but they tended to keep old stuff around instead of buying newer. On the other hand, the Locus and the various tank destroyers were niche vehicles and the Locus didn't last long after the war. The tank destroyers did last a while in the 3rd world due to the numbers produced, but no one fought with them after the 50's period, and only because they didn't have enough real tanks at the time.
More than 30 years ago, I interviewed a WWII who was in a "bastard tank battalion" for an oral history class I was taking. Basically, the Army realized it needed more tank crews and so it pulled men from other branches and impressed them into service in tanks after some rudimentary training. My vet was an assistant driver. His tank met a sad end, ambushed by a German tank. If I remember correctly, he said one anti-tank round went through the front of the turret and out the other side fortunately without exploding. A second round between the driver and the assistant driver ultimately made it to the engine, setting the tank on fire. At this point, the tank crew abandoned the tank. My vet was largely unscathed. The driver was seriously injured but still alive. (My vet did not know what became of the wounded driver.) The rest of the crew was still alive as well. At the time, I thought this fit in nicely with all the negative generalizations of the Sherman. The recent more positive reevaluation of the Sherman by people like the Chieftain, however, has changed my perspective. The fact that my vet's tank crew survived the destruction of their tank is actually a tribute to the design of the Sherman and reflects the "big picture" I missed so long ago.
At a veterans park in Georgia I snuck in through the bottom escape hatch in the bottom of a Sherman. All the other hatches were spot welded but I knew the escape hatch was there because I was a skinny teen WW2 nerd. It was so cool to be inside this historic machine.
Albert Speer wrote that he was impressed with aspects of the Sherman tank. It has been noted that Germans made few if any changes to the Sherman tank when using captured vehicles because of it's reliability and internal ergonomics. The weight of the Sherman was dictated not only by shipping requirements but also bridging equipment. As the Chieftain said, "It's not who has the best tank, it's who has the best tank that shows up.
About the Sherman, there was a Confederate general who said, "Get there firstest with the mostest." That motto would fit the Sherman.
@@usamwhambam That would be a cavalry general named Nathan Bedford Forrest. Acclaimed a genius in tactics by both sides, and ironically defeated by General W.T. Sherman.
David Willey is a legend.
And if course, the Sherman had capacity for continual improvement; 17pounder, 76mm. This was one of the main tests for any military equipment, aircraft, tanks, etc in WWll.
It's great that TH-cam history guys team up.
One Year Earlier 1943 , If The American Arsenals Where Set Up To Manufacture The British 17 Pounder 🇬🇧 Installed On New Mfg Sherman's For " Tank On Tank Battles , More Allied lives Would Of Been Saved ! 🇺🇲 Ox And Bucks !
Well in the Pacific it was like a Tiger, totally interesting point of view I was recently introduced to.
Tbf that's because it's fighting tanks from the litteral 20s
@@l.a.wright6912 with flag signals instead of radios and one man turrets in some cases.
The Sherman was an incredible overmatch for the Japanese tanks, with Guns that couldn't penetrate it's frontal armour.
@@marcusott2973 Hell, even the Stuart was good enough against most Japanese tanks for the majority of the war.
@@Slayer_Jesse the Japanese Army knew their tanks were obsolete, just the Navy and to a lesser extent the Airforce ruled R&D and distribution of resources.
They bought a Tiger off the Germans for evaluation, Dr. Mark Felton did an excellent piece on his channel about it.
Japanese created own tank force with limits of the roads, bridges, and ports in SE Asia, especially China in mind. Think the 30 ton limit , but its actually like 10 tons...
How often did tank on tank combat really take place? Yes, when it happened the M4 often didn’t do very well, but after action reports indicate that the US forces actually preferred the 75mm versions because tank to tank combat was rare, and the 75 was more effective against non-armored targets. By the end of the war US tanks were carrying only a few AT rounds, the HE rounds were almost exclusively utilized.
People also tend to forget that tank on tank engagements were just one of the kinds of engagements these tanks faced.
The M3 Lee/Grant and the M18 Hellcat. One was too early for the Americans to give it much credit. It was beloved by British forces while panned by Americans. The M18 was too late, but an insane marvel for the time. An tank limited mostly by doctrine. Both underrated to oblivion.
The point about standardization is a huge one, and it's something that I always have trouble understanding in the USA because the army does such a good job of standardizing on tanks, guns, etc., but the other branches really do not- especially on planes. In most of the air branches at any given time you have 2-3 variants being produced for reasonably similar roles at the same time:
USAAF::
Fighters:
Early: P40, P39, P38
Late: P51, P47, P38
Medium bombers: B25, B26
Heavy bombers: B17, B24, later B29
USN/MC
Early they do a good job of keeping one type each, but then late in the war you have both F6Fs and F4Us produced at the same time, and you also still have F4F production going
Different roles, the changing face of war and ongoing development. The P40 was designed as a low altitude fighter ground attack plane and could not fight at altitude like they did in Europe. The P51 was the long ranged high Altitude escort fighter. The P47 was a stopgap and was too expensive, but became a master at the ground attack game later in the war. You could produce almost 2 Mustangs for every P47. The P38 was a long ranged interceptor and even more expensive than the P47.
In my opinion when it came to the top fighters used in by the Allies ranked by best
1) Mustang
2) Spitfire
3/4) Hellcat and Corsair both were exceptional
5) P47
6) Hurricane early in the war / Typhoon~Tempest later.
I could go on.. but back then the idea of a multi-role plane like the F18 or F16 didn't really exist until the UK came out with the Mosquito. (which really doesn't count as a fighter and could not dogfight since it was made from wood) It was more a fast attack bomber/recon plane.
@@rodshoaf yes, this is true, but I think especially things like the P39 and P40 overlap is interesting since they are both performance-limited at altitude- acknowledging that by 1942/43 a large proportion of production of both was going to lend-lease. Likewise, the B25 and B26 are reasonably similar in capabilities to my knowledge. And- the F6F and F4U certainly overlap substantially. The F6F is probably where I would see the most overlapping use of the two given its better early carrier performance, but the F4U does have the speed benefit. It is just interesting that there are so many pairs of planes like this that are not really *that* different in capability. I'd even put the B24 and B17 up there too- they both have strengths/weaknesses, but there isn't a clear 'superior' option between them.
@@juvandy If you look at production numbers.. the B17 was phased out pretty much by the B24 by 1944. And many units in Europe were replaced the Fortress with the Liberator.
The Generals in charge of the European Theatre decided to use the B-24 since the B29 came so late in the war and it was winding down by early 1945, Where as the B29 had the combination of range, high altitude performance, speed, and bomb load the B24 didn't and was quite effective against the mostly undamaged Japanese nation. They were also concerned about the quality of German high altitude performance... They didn't want what happened to the B17 earlier in the war to happen to the most expensive plane the world had ever seen to that point. America could not afford those types of losses.
In Europe the leaders saw mostly already bombed cities.. In Japan that wasn't the case because since until the B29 came out it really wasn't in range.
@@juvandy God the P39 is just so butt ugly lol
@@rodshoaf I've never heard it called ugly! I think it looks really cool/weird/sleek.
Patton told the designers that the Sherman was good enough. And it was more or less, when combined in quantity with air power. Yes American railroads would not accommodate the T34 and ships would not allow stuff over 30 tons, and maybe bridges and stuff in Europe. Sometimes as Stalin says, "quantity" has a quality all its own. Good enough is good enough and that was the Sherman. Not perfect . America did not have time for perfect.
Excellent discussion. Thank you for sharing.
Coincidentally I'm just back home from Panzer Day at the Tank Museum. Very enjoyable and well run as ever :-)
Saw David Willey up near the cafe after the main show but was too embarrassed to walk up and thank him for his great contribution to keeping this fabulous place running and for keeping me sane during lock down in 2020 with his fabulous tank chats. Thank you to BOTH of you for all the enthusiasm you bring and stimulate.
Heavily modified Israeli Shermans were destroying T-55s in 1967....albeit it was packing a modified 105mm French tank gun and powered by a Cummins diesel.
Awesome discussion! Too bad it's so short. I could listen (can't watch while working nearly as easily as listening) to an hour or so more.
Imo if these tanks were used correctly, the M5 Stuart and the M18 Hellcats are one of the most underrated US tanks in WWII, M18s really cooked the German tank formations from the flanks in Arracourt and in the Ardennes, if the crew are well trained and utilize the tank well, it could be a potent tank killer with utilizing it's speed and hard hitting 76mm gun. The Stuart however is great recon and light asset, with the canister shot from its 37mm gun made the tank true infantry hunter, speed and mobility in the early part of Normandy campaign showed, if used correctly, how the Stuart should funtion as light tank, granted in the attempt to breakout out of the Bocages, they needed that bocage cutters to really excel at its role and protect the flanks of the Shermans and hunt down hiding German AT assets
Sherman: designed to take on Panzers from 1939/40, does well against them…takes on tanks designed after it was designed, does well despite smaller guns and weaker armor. the key is numbers and tactics, which they were able to be brought out in large amounts and utilized to great effect mitigating the drawbacks.
Logistics and numbers are the biggest factors. Forget tactics.
One defense of the Germans in ww2 and their plethora of weapons models is they needed so much stuff they had to “modify “ captured stuff (and old stuff), because they just didn’t have enough stuff. The complications from that are obvious. BUT ALSO THE GERMANS SEEMED TO TINKER WITH A DESIGN RATHER Then standardize it.
I love listening to you guys, I learnt so much. Thank you. 😊
M3 Grant imo. Very important against Rommel in North Africa, when there were nothing else it did the job. A bit like a tank version of the P-40.
The biggest selling point for the Sherman was as was said, it was designed to be shipped and operate around the world. And to give credit the people in charge thought through the most important basics. It needed to be shippable, so tonnage limits. It needed to be fully field serviceable. They were not coming back to the factory any time soon. They needed to be fixable out in the wild. They needed to be mechanically dependable. And in perhaps the most brilliant production decision, they needed to be tightly standardized. No production line changes or upgrades. Every tank from a given batch was exactly the same. Parts fully interchangeable. Limited changes between batches/versions. When you look at many of the other tanks of the war, you realize how rare such a forward thinking thought process this was. Especially for 1939-40 America.
Besides the fact that we produced a' million' of them...
We kept that thought process thru the Abrams too.
"The M4 Sherman didn't have enough armor! So what if it could be shipped around the world?! The Tiger is superior in firepower and armor. At least it could survive getting to the battlefield."
"Funny you mention that, because getting to the battlefield is usually about as far as it got before it broke down or was shot to pieces by the multitudes more Sherman and T-34 tanks."
(Albeit a bad generalization and breakdowns were much more known among the Panthers, but still. An example of thinking about tank-on-tank engagements versus thinking of a war.)
That said, part of me has always liked the M3 Lee despite it being... well... less than ideal... because of how goofy it looked and because it had so many guns on the thing. I mean, there's even technically a turret on top of the turret (MG cupola on the 37mm turret). It's like a wedding cake of turrets.
The fact that the M4 is considered underrated is because of all the damage done by the History Channel.
Perhaps the German penchant for experimentation and optimization could be justified to some extent. After all, they were trying to maximize the impact of their limited number of troops compared to the nations arrayed against them. It may still have been counterproductive, ultimately, but since they weren't going to be able to match their adversaries in production, the logical approach would be to look for qualitative superiority.
Very truthful video! The Sherman series were in fact better than T-34s and Panzer IVs in many aspects. They were as reliable and mass-produced as T-34s and - at the same time - possessed many high technology features and a very good level of crew comfortability like late war German tanks. These elements were something that both Soviets and Germans could not put altogether onto a single vehicle - but somehow the American engineers managed to do it. As for the safety level, Shermans were - at first - not anywhere more prone to catch fire after being penetration than any other gasoline running medium tanks of the same period. However, after the introduction of wet stowage very late in the war, they were - without a doubt - the most safe tank of their time.
The early T34 was anything but reliable. The later ones were better.
@@kieranh2005 until the T-35 85 the ergonomics of the T-34 were poor with the two man turret scheme. But going into 1944 the Soviets honed a pretty good tank, and got the manufacturing maturity a little more strengthened.
It should be noted that the introduction of wet ammo stowage alone wasn't the only thing that improved survivability. having the ammunition being stored in the bottom of the hull alone massively increased its survivability since the ammunition would almost never be hit after that change.
@@SomeOne-pd6vm An improved turret too, to your point, that I believe also facilitated egress from the tank.
Dude you realize the engine on the early T-34 was toast at 125 miles. Thats insanely unreliable.
Anybody who has played warthunder knows that history channel can't be relied on for crap.. Or physics for that matter.
I would say the M8 "Scott" HMC is a tank that is underrated never gets talk about
Actually, thE M8 Scott was not a tank, it was an HMC, which stands for Howitzer Motor Carriage. In otherwords, it's a self-propelled artillery weapon.
not a tank.. its a self propelled gun
I think the M3 Lee and M3/M5 Stuart qualifies as underrated since they were the first Lend-Lease US tanks before the M4 Sherman. Both were crucial and well liked by both the British and Soviets (albeit less enthusiasm for the Lee by the Soviets)
The US did make the M12 with a 155mm on the M3, though not many.
I think 100 to be exact.
As his caption says, comparable vehicles but not organic organisation
@@CplBurdenR, US Division TO&E for WW2, makes it hard to compare since the US was big on attachments. For example, until 1946, the 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment was not organic to the 101st Airborne Division; it was attached. The M12 Battalions, there were only four, were attached to divisions from Corps assets pools. Also, as most people would know, the M7s and M12s had a common basis chassis the M3, later M7s used the M4 Chassis, and the replacement for the M12, due to 155mm cannon shortages, the M40 used a newer gun as well as the M4 chassis.
@@ThumperE23 This is true. Arguably having some specialised assets that could be attached or detached as required was the way to go, rather than trying to pack everything into every division as standard.
2.20 "factories paid for the original one by Britain" Source?
The whole point with the M4 was that it was reliable, easy to drive and service in the field and there was a lot of them. What's to argue - ?
Some people have put their entire ego behind the German big cats, clearly being the best. So they're not going to look at reason.
Same reason that people were convinced that tanks were rendered ineffective due to ATGM on the modern combat field. Tanks will get destroyed, when they're in the line of fire. Shermans got knocked out a bunch, simply because they were on the front lines slugging it out.
@@SlavicCelery individually the Germans’ tanks might have been better but tanks aren’t used individually. I always thought if I was a WW2 tanker I’d want to command a captured German Panther in an American armoured unit. (Disregard friendly fire in my fantasy)
@@Chiller01 Yeah, except the drivetrains in those... specifically the final drives, make commanding them a fruitless endeavor for the allies.
@@SlavicCelery Maybe with american tank lubricants the final drives would last longer... lol
@@dalel3608 Well, I can't argue American petro type products. They were stellar. What I can argue is inexperienced drivers. They took already short lifespan components and made them shorter.
So, once again, pretty fruitless if you're on a pushing offensive.
And then came the fighter plane that could kill tanks ...
No Chaffee? ;_;
That was my first thought when seeing this.
It barely saw action.
Certainly not underestimated by Bolt Action players.
"Industrial warfare"...is exactly what WW2 came down to.
Sorry mate, I can't agree to a new gun in the M4 Medium.
I'm with Nick on this one, better ammunition, better AP ammunition would have been more important as a first step. The 75mm was a pretty good gun and it was a pretty damned good tank. If it just had better AP ammunition, earlier.... we'd be having a very different discussion. Ammunition first, gun second.
76mm was a very good anti-tank gun. Which is half the problem, they lost some good HE potential there.
That and I really like the periscope sight. Again, thanks Nick for pointing this out, I really like being able to see without being seen. Especially when it's on a two-way range.
The only problem with the 75mm and 76mm guns was the length they were short so the effective range on them was limited to German guns at the time. However the guns were useful and adequate for the jobs the tanks provided.
@@sheyrd7778 The M4 had range enough to do its job. More than enough in the bocage. Even the 'short' 75mm.
And again to quote the Chieftain. Range doesn't matter if you can't hit the target. Sure, some of the German guns could reach out to 2km, maybe even had the penetration. Doesn't matter if you can't hit them.
' Underrated ' must be the most common word on you-tube.
M4 was in fact very highly valued in Red Army (downplayed in cold war propaganda..). It is very close in armour, armament, weight and mobility to T34-76. Russian formed special battalions of M4. It could be mixed in the same regiment with T34 if not for the fuel - diesel for T34, gas for M4. The main problem with M4, it came to battlefield a bit late. In 1944 Tiger and Panther made 76 mm obsolete and Russian already switched to 85 mm, T34-85. M4 Firefly was a great improvement but alas made only in small numbers :(
Actually, Shermans arrived in the USSR in 1943. There's photos of white-camouflaged Shermans on the Leningrad front in winter 1943 right before the turn of 1944. The Soviets also valued the Sherman due to it's quieter engine and rubber soled treads compared to the T-34, whose engine as noisy as heck and all-metal treads that clanged incessantly and could be heard coming from literally miles away. The Sherman, especially when it was running in low RPM mode was quiet enough for the Soviets to bring it along for surprise night assaults.
I know most of the Red Army Sherman tanks were M4A2 with the diesel engines, so diesel fuel was the main fuel for Shermans and T-34.
@@classifiedad1 Yes, sorry. Not sure how I forgot it. Grouping into separate regiments was then most likely due to incompatibility of ammunition although was M4A2 had 76 mm gun later on. Or may be to simplify service logistics.
@@olegfedorov3225 The American 76mm and Russian 76mm were incompatible, and frankly incomparable. The Russian 76mm was a lot closer in shell mass and velocity to the American 75mm, both being tank cannons which had a velocity of ~600-700 m/s and a shell weight of about 6-7kg. Their performance in combat was comparable.
The US 76mm had more muzzle velocity because it had a longer barrel and more powder, giving it 100 m/s more velocity, nearly identical velocity to the Russian 85mm. It is more comparable to later models of the German Pak 40 7.5 cm cannon than the Russian 85mm.
The closest equivalent to the Russian 85mm the US had was the 90mm cannon, both which had comparable performance to the shorter German 88mm cannons.
Sherman tank's machine guns were of different caliber and type to T-34 machine guns. The former were Browning .30 caliber (7.62mm) guns fed with belts while the latter were Degtyaryov 7.62mm guns fed by pan-like magazines. Caliber again was very similar, but the US round used a longer, straighter "rimless" round while the Russian round was a little shorter and had a large extractor rim that stuck out from the sides. Getting shot by either round was equally unpleasant and most likely lethal.
That being said, grouping the tanks into separate regiments makes sense since a T-34 regiment only needs to train for and maintain T-34s, while a Sherman regiment only needs to train for and maintain Shermans. They're both very similar in abilities, though the Sherman was considered more reliable and comfortable to fight in where the T-34 was less likely to flip over and had a lower profile.
The Firefly wasn't a great improvement, though. It had a poor rate of fire, plus much lower ergonomics. Also had an issue with its muzzle brake + sabot rounds, resulting in a loss of accuracy at range. So, while a Firefly was useful to have, it wasn't what you wanted in masse. It was a specialist tank you mixed in with the rest, but one with a benefit of having a lower impact on logistics, thanks to using the same chassis. Overall, the Firefly is probably the most overrated version of the Sherman. Not saying it is bad, mind you, just that people play up the gun for its greater penetrative power, without looking at the cost of said gun.
The idea of being able to remove the gun carriage from the tracked vehicle carrying it
was later used with the Lance Missile during the Cold War. I served as a section chief in
a Lance Missile firing platoon stationed in West Germany.
The Lance primarily was designed to be carried in a tracked vehicle which was an open top derivative
of the M-113 APC. With the Lance Missile launch cradle installed the vehicle became the
M-752 SPL ( Self Propelled Launcher ) .
If the SPL broke down we would use a hoist to remove the launch cradle from the bed of the SPL.
Then we would use the Mobility Kit , which consisted of two wheels and a tow bar, to convert
to a towed launcher we called the LZL ( Launcher Zero Length ).
So I can see how making a gun carriage removable from it's tracked vehicle and convert to
towed artillery when needed. It could also be done if local bridges would not support the
weight of the self propelled artillery.
Yeah I agree that the sherman is both the most underrated and overrated tank of the 2nd world War. Especially due to the sheer number of myths surrounding it.
Granted I wouldn't call it good enough it's certainly has a vast amount of failures. But it's certainly not the absolute worst tank of the war.
However it is really unfair to attribute the Sherman's production to its design much of the bulk of it should be attributed to the core advantages the us had in the field. Things like early implementation of the assembly line, not getting constantly bombed, and us logistics play a much larger role in why they could produce vehicles in such high numbers.
Tldr apmost any tank the us produced would have large numbers. Our manufacturing machine had a lot of advantages
@@l.a.wright6912 Yes, this is always a baffling thing that peopel doesn't seem to understand the simple fact that mass production of something often has little to do with the design of an object but rather the industrial muscle that is behind it.
Or that people say something as silly it was cheap to produce, it's a tank, they ain't cheap at all.
@@Dreachon When you scale the production to those levels, the cost per unit does drop down significantly.
@@Dreachon mass production is entirely a design issue. The thing makes mass production work is tens of thousands of components being produced in parallel. If you don’t design your war machine to be built that way then it can’t be mass produced.
Which is why when the US got the Merlin engine for the Mustang it had to be re-engineered for mass production. Which also resulted the engine working better than the non mass produced version.
@@SlavicCelery Yes but here come the thing that people get flatout wrong.
It isn't mass produced because it is cheap, it gets cheap because something gets mass produced.
Even then price of a Sherman during WWII was about 50.000 USD, that is expensive for those days.
I'd have to go with the Stuart: tiny little thing, looks archaic on a WW2 battlefield, but went where you wanted to go and did what you wanted it to do.
A Sherman was a tank: you Expected it to protect you, and Criticzed it when it didn't.
The Stuart... She was a Honey...
What amazes me about the Sherman is how US tank development when WW2 started was honestly pitiful--they had very little, and it was closer to WW1 standards than WW2 standards. Yet within couple of years, they develop a tank that is reliable, cheap to produce and maintain, highly versatile, has lots of room to grow and made into variants, easy to ship across the biggest oceans in the world and then travel across deserts, jungles, forests, or beaches, and has a pretty good crew survivability rate. In fact, the crew survivability rate would have been a lot higher if the tank crews/leadership hadn't prioritized carrying even more ammo over safer ammo storage.
The one thing that really held the Sherman back was the lack of development on a more advanced armor-piercing shell that could utilize the existing 75mm gun and still be highly effective against more armored tanks. The US had the technology and knowledge, but they just didn't develop it until the war was almost over. Indeed, the underestimation of how heavily armored enemy tanks would rapidly become seems to have been a systemic flaw in the US Army at the time, as the M1 Bazooka quickly became too underpowered to be reliably effective against most enemy tanks from safe distances; the Super Bazooka wouldn't be made or see widespread issue until the Korean War, where the regular Bazooka was so woefully inadequate that it was getting tons of Americans killed.
While the US still managed perfectly fine against heavier German armor in Europe by effective utilization of combined arms tactics, flanking maneuvers, and ambush tactics, this over-reliance would come back to bite them in the Korean War, where Allied forces lacked the kind of all-rounded and well-supplied superiority of aircraft, artillery, armor, and infantry.
remember....in many facets of the world...it is better to have your resources such as cash, steel, fuel, and the like reserved for when they are needed instead of investing them into what you THINK you need and instead build what you KNOW you need once the real need arises. Having our tank regiments nearly non-existent pre WWII was actually a good and wise move. What good would it have been to have 10,000 tanks pre-war that were ill suited to the task at hand because they were built to a standard we "thought" they would need to be. Wait for the distinct need to arise THEN build
The Shermans out performed the Perrys in Korea. In terms of armor piercing shells, the standard 75mm was not the strongest. But the vast majority of ammo isn't spent on armor. The best AP ammo of that era didn't come out until the end of the war, APDS. The Canadians made a much superior round to the ineffectual 17'lber APDS, as the English round struggled with consistent separation of the sabot, which led to flyers and inaccuracy.
The removable artillery canon doesn't even sound good on paper...
At the end of the day wars are not won by men, tanks or weapons.....as this video underscores indirectly....it is won by logistics and supply
I think the Chaffee is rather overlooked in the WW2 USA tanks.
Len Deighton pointed out, when the US tanks were off loaded in Africa. The British mechanics were stunned. Every part was packaged, with grease, and basically ready to install. All the parts fit perfectly. Where as British tanks because they were more handbuilt. The tolerances weren't great. So they had to sort of file and work on their equipment to get it to work. There's benefits to standardization. Lots of replacement parts. The Sherman wasn't the best tank. But very few could do the many jobs they asked it to do.
Listing American tanks, forgets about the M24 chaffee.....
I think we have a winner for the most overlooked....
I barely saw action.
M24 Chaffee. Even he didn't mentioned.
The price of Organic stuff in the Store is too costly .
Always thought it was odd T-34 had such a good rep and the Sherman such a bad one. The Sherman compared to T-34 had comparable firepower mobility and protection. In addition it was extremely reliable, more comfortable and had many aspects far superior to T34 like optics, suspension etc. The Russians praised the Sherman very highly having received many from the lend lease program. Both were quite comparable to Panzer IV and the later up gunned Shermans could go head to head with Tiger and Panther.
I think a lot of it comes down to the Americans being more sensitive to casualties. We don't have as many surviving stories of how many German and Russian crews were killed. Sometimes the tendency is to focus on one's own side. They saw their own losses more than enemy losses. Some of it may also been the effect even so many years on of German propaganda about vehicles like the Tiger.
Soviet fiction... They also removed Made in the USA labels from anything we sent them because they wanted the soldiers to think they were soviet made
So, Pershings were 45-50 tons. If 30 tons was so "good a weight limit" 1:13 for us from 40 thru 44, what changed that allowed a 45± ton tank in 45?
Did we put it super strong cranes over xmass 44? Did we decide, that since the war was almost over that we didn't need as many tanks, so we could just use two cranes and load up only half as many?
@@paulbabcock2428 Nope, it's just a piece of 90's and 00's pop history that still keeps getting repeated by people. In reality most large harbours had cranes that could lift far more than 30 ton, and quickly on the Liberty ships also got a 50 ton crane installed for their number 2 hold.