Probably more than you ever needed to know about the E2's capabilities and limitations, using material from the Archives. Patreon link: / the_chieftain
You don't understand the military purpose of an ambush. It is an offensive patrol sent to cause casualties, and is usually the smaller force. There is nothing defensive about them.
@Luke L. Lefties are pro gun. "Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary." It's liberals who're scared of guns, because they're still trying to pretend that we live in the post-prejudice paradise that was promised but never delivered.
I doubt if you will come back and read this, but much thanks for the in-depth explanation of the oddball Jumbo Sherman. In its small way, the Jumbo was a model of how the UK and the USA won the war. Something now that just works is so much better than something someday for twice the money. The Jumbo gave the infantry a reasonably improved tank for their job, no real maintenance problems (or at least no new ones). It could have been done the German way, a wonderful tank and then let the troops in the field debug the thing. The jumbo could be slapped back together from parts already at the repair depots and sent back. At one point on the Eastern front more than half of the German tanks were parked for lack of spare parts and qualified mechanics (see TIK about this).
Pretty sure I saw one of these at the Ft Benning motorpool when I delivered a M3 Stuart replica to the museum. You get some crazy looks pulling a tank down the interstate behind a Suburban! I even had a WW2 vet come up to me at a gas station and ask "how in the world are you pulling that and how is it not crushing the trailer?!" He was shocked when I told him to look under it and it was just a shell. He couldn't tell it was a replica from 10 feet away, mission accomplished! And yes, the goal was eventually to make replicas of Tiger I and other rare tanks that are not on display in the US.
@@hanfpeter7585 we made this replica years before the replica of frankentiger and was made in conjunction with the US Army. As far as I know this was the first full scale replica based on molds where you could see all the detail in welds and such. The tiger replica was the 2nd replica that I know of and the original for that is here in the US somewhere now in a personal collection. It is a shame that germany and the US have such dumb, restrictive laws on collecting retired armored vehicles.
During the filming of "A Bridge Too Far" in the Netherlands, they also extensively used Sherman-shell carts. Not for the stunt shots of course but from a bit of a distance they looked genuine. Thanks for reinforcing the 'authentic look' of replica tanks. Of course, the 'Shermans' in that movie had their own engine and were extremely nimble and maneuverable because they were mostly made out of glass fibre.
www.gainesvilletimes.com/news/students-build-replica-of-wwii-tank/ here is a link to an article about the replica, I need to dig up some better pictures of it. The pizza delivery guy looked at us like we were crazy! To be fair there was the replica tank in pieces, a M29 Weasel that needs new tracks, 2 AK47 including one with an 80 round drum, and what appeared to be a couple dozen M2 Browning .50 cal and M1919A4 .30 cal. It was a lot of fun! Molding the suspension was definitely the hardest part.
When I was a kid I worked at the Museum in Cornwall, England where all those old vehicles from “a bridge too far” were kept. The old boy who owned the museum (I think it was called lamamva, something like that), he’d build them all from landrover parts. There was the German armoured cars, THAT halftrack , one of those Shermans built on a landrover, a panzer 4 I’ve never seen on film also on a ladrover , and alot of trucks from the Indiana Jonnes movies. He had some genuine pieces too, a BIG mercedes, a Zundapp (crazy German war bike, big as a tiger tank and with a drive shaft to the rear wheel AND the sidecar wheel). Bloody amazing. Only down side was the music , it was on a loop and there were only three songs.
The M4's top reverse speed was only 5 to 6 mph since it used the first gear which was a granny gear that was only used to get a heavy tow moving from a dead stop. Otherwise, the M4 driver used 2nd gear to get the tank moving after being stopped.
The comment about keeping the M4 designation so as to keeping it from looking like a new vehicle is spot on. When I first became an officer (after being enlisted for a few years) we still had the M551 Sheridan. This was officially called an armored (armoured for my friends across the pond and down under!) reconnaissance/airborne assault vehicle. In reality it was a light tank but the Army was afraid that Congress wouldn't fund the development of two tanks (At the time, the MBT70 was under development also). Many times such games are played not just for funding reasons, but also for political reasons, to include inter-service issues as well as issues within the same branch but amongst different departments.
@@ToddSauve LOL. Sorry about missing those up north. Also missing those down under. Wait, can I claim that across the pond also includes those in the British Empire, and by extension those up north?! : )
Like calling the P38 a pursuit interceptor because they really wanted to build a 2 engined fighter. Or the "F" 117, which was anything but. Same old dance to different tunes...
yeoldebiggetee wow I bet your real fun at parties dude...Your not funny. Only 700 Mtls were made and they were primarily used as scout tanks by the marine corp and none of them ever saw action. I’m sure if the US had made more the British would have taken anything they could have got.
The true irony here is that us Brits took American tanks as they were ready to go in the numbers necessary for armoured warfare, but the Americans refused Hobart's funnies and suffered greatly on the beaches in 1944 as a result. TLDR: Experienced nation does what is necessary, newb nation snubs that experience as it "knows better" due to its teenage level of understanding and promptly gets wrecked.
In the battle for Metz my dad was up against a pill box and his Gunner was freaking out. Dad pulled him out of the seat and cited the gun himself. He put a 75 Round right through the slot killing the Germans in the bunker. Dad was an expert gunner in the M4 and M3. He could work that 75 like there was no tomorrow.
The gunner usually replaced the commander when he went down with the loader taking over the gunner's position and the bow gunner taking over as the loader.
@@billwilson3609 yeah usually that's what happens but in this case the Gunner just was freaking out because they were taking a lot of fire at Metz. Everybody has a breaking point, well most people. There are some people who just react do it needs to be done and then get the shakes afterwards. My dad never talked about the shakes but I've seen him react to situations over the years when he was alive, I would bet real money he was one of those people that got the shakes afterwards.
Question to RU-vid: Seeing how I’m subscribed to this channel, why is this video in my “recommended” list, but not in my “subscriptions” list? I’m getting real sick of YT doing this ^
Same here. It didn't show up in my subscriptions. I only found out about it thanks to a bot on a Discord server that sends out a notification for Chieftain uploads.
I just noticed this as well. Not only did it not show up under my subs 11 hrs ago when it was published, it only just now turned up in my recommended options. Going to turn on notifications and see what happens.
Can you make a video on the American use of the 105mm gun in Ww2 and how it fared in combat? I’ve never seen much information on it before hearing you talk about it.
the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/manufacturer/m4_105mm/m4_105mm.html That's a decent link, at least shows that the gun lasted for several years which shows that it worked. It was mostly deployed against fortifications and defensive positions, but it could be fired at enemy armor or vehicles if nothing else was available to reasonable effect. HE from a 105 would damage an enemy tank's gun, immobilize it, or seriously concuss the crew in the tank from how much explosive force has just hit them.
The M4's with 105mm howitzers were made to replace the M3 105mm gun motor carriages that had open tops so were dangerous to use when assaulting enemy positions head-on. The HEAT round it shot was for self-defense against enemy armor but it's standard HE round packed quite a wallop so was often used against tank road wheels and treads to disable them. The Army did use their 155mm howitzers on M3 and M4 chassis as bunker busters. Those were set where the German AT guns couldn't be trained on them and fired their 155's like rifles at the gun openings or the concrete walls protecting their exit doors. General Patton was the first to use them that way and said one or two well placed shots made the gun crews evacuate their positions in record time.
@MERCENARYREVY The M4 users liked the short barrel 75 and 105 because those enabled the turret to rotate 360 degrees in smaller spaces and be pointed to one side while driving down narrow streets.
Army Ground Forces: Well Armored Board I've made it, despite your prototypes. Armored Board: Ah, AGF. Welcome. I hope you're prepared for an unforgettable Heavy Tank. Army Ground Forces: Yeah. Armored Board: [Looks at T-26] Oh, egads! My Heavy Tank is ruined. But what if I were to up-armor the Sherman and disguise it as an Assault Tank? Delightfully devilish, AB. Ah- Army Ground Forces: Armored Board! Armored Board: AGF, I was just- uh, just testing out the T26. Staying ahead of the Germans. Interested? Army Ground Forces: Why is there smoke coming out of the tank, AB? Armored Board: Uh- Oh. That isn't smoke. It's steam. Steam from the steamed 90mm Gun its carrying. Mmm. 90 mil. Armored Board: AGF, I hope you're ready for mouthwatering Assaults Tanks. Army Ground Forces: I thought we're getting Heavies? Armored Board: D'oh, no. I said Assaults Tanks. That's what I call Heavies. Army Ground Forces: You call Heavies "Assault Tanks"? Armored Board: Yes. It's a doctrinal need. Army Ground Forces: Uh-huh. Uh, what doctrine? AB:- Uh, US Army. AGF: Really? Well, I wrote the Doctrine, and I've never heard anyone use the phrase "Assaults Tanks". AB: Oh, not in the US. No. It's a British expression. AGF: I see. You know, these Assaults Tanks are quite similar to the Shermans we have. AB: Oh, no. Patented armor protection. New US designs. AGF: For Assaults Tanks. AB: Yes. AGF: Yes. And you call them Assaults Tanks despite the fact that they are obviously mediums. AB: Ye- You know, the- One thing I should- - Excuse me for one second. AGF: Of course. AB: Well, that was wonderful. A good time was had by all. I'm pooped. AGF: Yes. I should be- Good Lord! What is happening in there? [All the reports of the T26] AB: - British 17pdrs. AGF: Uh- British 17pdrs? At this time of year at this time of day in this part of the country localized entirely within the testing ground? AB: -Yes. AGF: May I use it? AB: No. US Forces: Hey we're getting slaughtered out here! AB: No, troops. It's just you badly using TDs. AGF: Well, AB, you are an odd fellow but I must say you make a good Tank.
I can’t explain why , but this specific topic covered in this presentation is my all time favorite . Chieftain has absolutely mastered this niche of historic study and presentation . Top that off with Chieftain being a combat vet / scholar , this channel is a buffet line of awesome !
Cobra King was a monument tank on our BN grounds when I was a PL in 1-37AR in Vilseck, GE in the 90’s. She needed some TLC back then. I was happy to hear she was brought home for rest and refit.
57mm of the Six Pounder sounds a bit small but was very high velocity using a huge propellant cartridge. However tanks were used more for infantry support and bigger shells carry a bigger bangs. I guess the issue was that trying to do everything in one package often does nothing very well.
16:02 literally made me laugh out loud. They genuinely shot the bejeezus out of it. Also, I'd never seen shells lodged in like that in real life. Guess it actually happens!
This channel in one of few that I actually have notifications on, also recently got the 'oh bugger the tank is on fire' t-shirt and i love it, keep up the nice work my guy.
Even after WG neutered the Jumbo in 5.5 I knew I couldn’t give it up. @derp kv2 - You can always get them to restore your Jumbo if you’ve got the Gold. I got my T-150 back and haven’t regretted that.
Nice! I've been looking forward to your take on the Jumbo. By the way, is it just me or is your mic just a bit "blown out" at times in this one, especially early on?
I have no idea what this channel means for wargaming since I'm not into computer games, but in my opinion this is one of the most important channels for scale modelers. Excellent reference and a lot of knowledge on armoured vehicles. Thanks a lot.
Excellent talk, as usual! Allow me to echo others in saying how much I appreciate your use of original documents and other original sources, which sets your research apart. It was great meeting you at Tankfest, and I wish you much success, both in your military career and your work for Wargaming!
As with the overwhelming majority of your videos, I enjoyed watching it. Came for the tank lore, stayed for the use of primary sources and the dry humour...
A fascinating presentation of a weapon system that can best be described as, _“Good enough for Government work.”_ This is not a disparaging remark considering the system was created/fielded during war time.
Interestingly the phrase “Good enough for Government work.” originally described something that was of the highest worksmanship and quality, and over time somehow inverted to mean something crude or expedient
@Oppai Man It's not our lack of pride in what we make, It's our lack of faith in the government. Not that we don't want to make the best, it's that the government can't be bothered to pay for decent stuff.
@@shingshongshamalama They minimize cost to the point of damage, and squeeze every last dime out of anything they can. They constantly are in debt, and still throw money at pointless efforts instead of actually helping people.
@@epion660 Yeah that's what happens when you put conservatives in charge who hate government on principle and want to dismantle the institutions of democracy to enable their rich business pals to exploit the public even more. Seriously, you never bothered to notice that it's the same people enacting these policies that constantly rant about how evil the gubmint is?
i am officially a tank geek. I blame The_Chieftain. while sitting here trying not to be an armchair warrior. i could not find any of his well thought out observations to disagree with. spot on as usual!
@@tomdibernardo1699 problem for the tiger is they rarely fought Sherman's well I know of at least two instances one were the Sherman won well so I've been told anyways idk about both circumstances that were "documented" so since the MBT/medium tank was the Panzer IV with some being the up armoured/upguned 7,5 cm kwk 40 (that's the designation right?) I think the Sherman stands a better chance, even still being at a disadvantage; it comes to who shoots first the 76.2 mm and 7,5 cm isn't that big of a gap. Poor 75mm & 105mm howitzer Sherman's.
@@deutscheuberlegenheit7452 i agree there were only two accounts, it wasn't the tiger or the 76mm sherman i was talking about. it was the poor 75's the later pz4 variants had a much better gun then the Sherman 75 performance wise. lets be honest there's not much their armor could effectively defend against.it was as you say a shoot first to win situation. now if they did have jumbos in number they would out class most German medium tanks/TD's, at least in being a mobile pill box
@@tomdibernardo1699 yup but the jumbo had the same problem as the tiger low numbers which is a shame saying that it's my favorite Sherman variant. I'm going on a different topic of what if's but image the jumbo with the HVSS suspension.. so basicly the one uparmuored easy 8 "Thunderbolt"
Well made lecture and info on the jumbo, top notch on the details and the limited info on the reasons why the 75mm was selected for the jumbo and not a larger gun
You spooked the hell out of me on Colombus Day weekend at the American Heritage Museum while I was chatting about the Jumbo we have. Part of me really hopes I wasn't saying something *so wrong* it spawned a 24 minute video that I'm definitely am going to use as a refresher!
I was blessed to see the one at Ft Benning and get Rob's tour explaining the evolution of the M4 from the T5, M3, M4, T23, and back to the M4 to the final Easy-8 Version
The best weapon against large fortifications turned out to be the Barnes Wallis Tallboy and Grand Slam bombs. Clearly not so handy if a particularly tough bunker is found but no worries for big stuff like the Pas De Calais Cupola.
US Army armor commanders didn't want a heavy tank that required it's own specially trained mechanics, specially equipped repair shops and supply of parts that couldn't be used on their M3's and M4's but accepted the Jumbo since it was only an up armored M4. The sole purpose of the Jumbo was to be the lead tank when conducting assaults to draw enemy AT and tank fire in order to reveal their positions. Some did get shot up. I recall seeing photos of a few Franken Jumbos that had the less armored tranny noses and early M4 turrets, which were interchangeable between all production runs.
What about track tension? The other stuff is interesting but it is track tension that matters.... unless we can take it as per the earlier model. Love the show.
Very interesting video as usual, but could we have a follow up video on the combat history of the Jumbo. I know a Jumbo led the 4th Armoured to the relief of Bastogne but what did the other Jumbos do ? Also someone should do a video about one of the most outstanding combat commanders of WW2,the original CO of 4th Armoured ,John " Tiger " Wood.
The issues of the pill boxes on the seigfried line was solved by a howitzer set horizontal to the ground and boresighted on the pill box. Covered in "citizen soldiers" by stephen ambrose.
I got a saved photo of a 155 gun motor carriage being used that way. The pic shows the gun in recoil with the shell exploding on a hillside about a mile or so off in the distance.
@The_Chieftain Yesterday, during our city's liberaton day +75 years, I saw the HVSS suspension of the Dutch Army props department's M4 Sherman. It seems like the suspension and thus weels cannot travel a lot vertically. Could you talk suspension, -travel, effects of terrain and the sorts somewhere in the future, plz? Hopefully this question is good enough to throw on the "interesting stuff to ramble on about" - pile. Thanks for your very well presented and formatted info pieces over the last couple of years. I am aware that today there are 131k of us and only 1 of you, so this may pass you by or get unanswered. I just want to send a question your way that can hopefully inspire you to talk about something not usually asked and which may lead to a new point of view and a well viewed video.
@The_Chieftain Excellent and informative video as always. I also have a question though sir, with a little context beforehand: From watching some of your other videos and from past study I've noticed that the Americans and consequently the British seem to have struggled throughout the war to develop and field vehicles with (and I feel silly not remembering if its the right term but..) higher caliber guns. Granted some of it may have had to do with a perceived lack of need for heavier guns on their tanks and other vehicles for part of the war, which may have discouraged really determined efforts R&D wise to produce the like, but it also seemed that even when they finally determined there was a need the process was still filled with delays and failed experiments. So, getting to the question (sorry): The Russians on the other hand fielded a much broader variety of vehicles with heavier guns over the course of the war - T34-85, KV 85, ISU-100 and 120, and so on. Was it the case that the American R&D folks just paid no attention to the Russian army's developments or there wasn't a back and forth in terms of communicating what each side was working on or had put into production? I know that the Americans obviously held in some cases vastly different standards from the Russians in terms of what they wanted out of their vehicles, but it seems like they could have at least have learned some things with regard to turret development for tanks with larger guns (as this seemed to be a problem that gave the Americans a lot of grief at various points) etc that could have sped up R&D time needed to develop and field tanks and tank destroyers with larger guns (once they decided this was necessary - though it sounded like the British came to this realization earlier than the Americans but really had to wait until the Americans developed and produced equipment for them because of British manufacturing limitations).
207 Brinell is pretty soft (roughly 16 Rockwell C). At work we generally work with stuff closer to the 40s and 50s HRC. I take it that was since harder steel is indeed more brittle and therefore more likely to shatter and fracture from hits, that softer metal is more desirable for armor applications. This is something I'd love to see in more depth! Great video as always!
So sad! Way tooo soft, they annealed it to prevent Spalding and cracking. A better solution would have been to add alloys to make it tougher or flame harden the outside surfaces. America with our resources could have had the best Tank Armor of the war but instead we had the softest.
the jumbo sherman is my ALL TIME favorite tank. it somehow looks better than a normal sherman...... and in almost every game its in (even red orchestra 1 from 2006)..... its armor is TROLL AS HELL! . i once had a fight with a tiger 1 (in red orchestra 1, a DAMN realistic game)..... i was hull down, but the tiger was angled to me we proceeded to bounce ROUND AFTER round off each others turrets..... with me getting a lucky shot in after he turned his turret to shoot one of my friends. . this did not destroy him, and only killed 1 crew member, and made his engine smoke. im sure we were both yelling on the radio for support..... but we were on the edge of the 160 square KM map, so it took a while. eventually, we both got low on ammo...... and were just starring at each other....both madder than hell. . finally, a sherman showed up...... the tiger turned to engage him and i put a 2nd 755mm round into his turret, which hit some ammo, and blew his ass up he was NOT happy..... i know this.... because of his "all chat" messages that followed
I would suggest perhaps another avenue of inquiry with regards to the choice of gun (75mm, rather than the 76mm or 105mm). As you noted, the “Assault Tank” does not really have a US Army FM and was developed in part to satisfy British requirements (essentially, to supplement their infantry tank production). So wouldn’t it be likely that the decision to stick to the 75mm - aside from weight savings - was also driven by ammunition availability for the British Army? The Brits had 75mm tank ammo for many tanks by 1944, but they had no 105mm artillery and only a few tank units in Italy got the 76mm. I think this may be very similar to the case of the 76 Shermans which ended up with the Soviets. Because the US Army initially didn’t think they needed them, a lot of 76 Shermans went to Russia (50% of the Soviet total) and they went into action relatively early with the Red Army. Its a case of “rejected” (initially) American tank that ended up having another user. In this case, the Brits may have decided to cancel the order (or never really placed it; with Barnes not being fully transparent about its delayed development state), at which point the US found itself with 250 tanks that they ended up using for themselves. So the Jumbo may actually be a “British” tank, which they rejected and the Americans ended up using.
chris younts like the T-14, its about supplementing British production numbers rather than being about any technical stat superiority. The Brits by and large preferred to use their own tanks, but they simply couldn’t produce enough reliable tanks so they were forced to use the Sherman.
The whole medium tank gun, heavy armour, low speed and good mobility across the countryside does sound like an infantry tank. Especially given that it was supposed to support the infantry. Is the t14 really an American pert to the Churchill's?
On theory "could" it depends bcs the 88 is one of the most powerfull guns fielded im ww2, but i'd rather be in an e2 than any other sherman against German guns
@@TheStormtrooper00 I think we are talking about the short 88, the L/56... The L/71 could punch through the Jumbo from anywhere below 2 km, I believe, no sources though.
PinkNight The L/71 were limited productions and were seen used by Tiger-II's. But regardless, the Jumbo can survive the L/71 below 2km's, shells penetration performance degrades at ranges.
For those wondering, .11 mils at 1000 yards is a bit less than 4 inches. A minute of angle at 1000 yards is 10 inches. Even if we assume the 76mm dispersion to be distance from center/aimpoint, rather than farthest distance between two impacts, the 76mm M1 qualifies as sub-MOA.
By this time of the war the Germans were using a grid pattern type of strategy where they'd make a big box and drive forward - one after another. Meanwhile Sherman's and anti-tank armor took up positions on the flanks behind hills and such. The German's suffered horrible losses that way all across Western Europe.
Okay I am slow. I was watching this video but had to put it on pause while I took a call, when I came back I actually started looking at the video before I unpaused it and almost died laughing! On one side is an Abrams and the other side is a Bradley but in the center is the Black Knight!! You go Chieftain!
so overloading a medium tank in a environment (hedge rows) and mud was counter productive without offsetting ground pressure with wider track surface/ until later on*, negating advantages over German counter parts the m4 originally had which was agility, while still lacking the necessary upgrade of the main gun, then throw into the mix a self serving general acting upon his personal business interest pushing a tank that would never enter the theatre in effective numbers, there is always a compromise, a triangle, speed-armor-gun. The Chieftain is a detail monster, beyond adequately detail orientated.
Hey, Chieftain, another good video. Your idea regarding using AP against bunkers is very interesting. For what it is worth, Bill Slim’s 14th Army used their 75mm Shermans and Grants as bunker busters using what Slim describes in “Defeat into Victory” as solid shot, which I read as AP. They used to winch the tanks up hills till they were in range of the bunkers and put solid shot through the firing slits till whoever was firing from inside stopped. So at least one army used AP as anti fortification, even if it was 75mm (obviously there were no 76mm Shermans in 14th army). So it seems best British general of the war agrees with you.
I believe is that they also used APBC because once it hits the cement wall, the force will send shrapnels to the other side that might heavily injure or kill the defending infantry.
