Hey everyone, Hank here. Thanks for the positive responses to the video! Just wanted to correct myself here! It is indeed the T23 turret on the tank, not the T28 as I said... (such a turret does not exist) simple verbal slip, probably from me saying "eight" so much in the video, and it got past us in editing. Sorry for anyone confused!
My Grandpa drove an M4A3, 12th Armored, 714th Tank Battalion. I still think about him every day. I learned so much from him, it's impossible to quantify.
@@sdcoinshooter that and if we get in trouble, the M1 can out run it opponent very easily while still firing even on the roughest Terrain the Sherman never have that advantage
Having driven M4s with both suspension types, the easy eight steers more easily because of the lower ground pressure due to the wider track. The tank floats much better on softer ground so turns easier. A common mistake drivers make is by not giving the engine more revs/power when making a turn. Technically what you are doing by pulling on a steering lever is to stop the side of the tank that the lever is on. You then drive the other side of the tank around the stationary/slower side. When you are making a turn the engine tends to lug/labor (especially in soft ground) The engine needs to be given more revs/power so to prevent lugging. This driving technique is relevant any older track laying vehicle. The larger turret is the model T23 turret which was specifically designed for the larger higher velocity 76mm gun. It was firstly used on hulls with the standard narrower track and then on the later wider easy eight suspension hulled M4s. It was also only used on the hulls with the larger front hatches. (Cast or welded hull)
@@coryhoggatt7691 I'm guessing that you did not have a neutral steer. I ran an old HD-5 track loader, the steering was the same way the tank was, only different was a straight up lever for clutch. It was 5 speed also. I was wondering if you pulled the steer level just a hair it would neutral steer. The HD-5 brake the track only.
My uncle drove one of these when he was in the service. Knowing how much I enjoyed learning about tanks and knowing I was a modeler, he gave me the Tech Manual he had while in the service. Thanks to Andy's Hobby Headquarters producing a 1/16 scale model of an Easy Eight, I'll have all the information I need. Thank you for the video and the information.
My grandfather was a tank commander during WW II with the 4th Armored Division. I got to go to a few reunions while he was alive. Those guys were a blast to hang out with.
Hank you said a lot and you spoke it well. Excellent presentation. Step it up and wear a period correct uniform with crew helmet. That would be very cool! Cheers.
I've been a Barber for about 32 years, and when I got my first job it was a shop in Tampa, Florida. It was me, 26 years old, and three WWII Veterans. At that time, WW II Vets were anywhere from 63 to 67, and our shop was popular, so every day those guys were in the shop. I got to know many of them. Theyd see the (War History) books i was reading, and say things like "Oh, I was in the Artillery on Corregidor," or "I did 25 missions in B-17s." One guy, I simply cant recall his name, was in the 70th Tank Battalion, (cant remember!) Division. I do recall his patch said "Spearhead" on it. Anyway, the guy had Tanked his way from North Africa to Germany, and during the Normandy fight, His Sherman had just struggled through a gap in one of those big hedges, and there, across a field and about 100 yards away, was a Tiger Tank. Being a seasoned crew, they immediately fired, and the A.P. Shell bounced off the Tiger, and went way up, "like a glowing hot tennis ball." He said "The crew of that Tiger must have been green, or kids, because when the first shell hit, the hatch opened and those guys piled out of the tank, and ran into some woods to the left." The Sherman fired 3 more times, with the same result-bounced off and away. "Then," he told me, "through the scope I saw a huge German Sgt, standing uo, gesturing and (probably) shouting. I can imagine what he said, because that crew came out, ran back and got back in the Tiger. We tried to back and turn, the Tiger fired, and the shell went right through our Sherman, wrecking our tank and taking my drivers head off." Crazy, right? He told me that was his 3rd Sherman destroyed. Incidentally, one of the cooks in his outfit wrote a book, which he loaned me, but its been since the 90s and I cant remember the name... Please excuse the long story, but ive have many, many from Veterans of II, Korea, Vietnam, and these videos are the only platform where I can share them, with people who might appreciate them.
This tank is marked as an Able Company tank, 191st Tank Battalion, 7th US Army. That means it was part of Task Force Sparks, receiving credit for the liberation of the Dachau concentration camp.
@@badcornflakes6374 The strange aspect of the liberation is that the tanks were not involved. They were unable to ford a river the Germans had blown the bridges over. Not wanting to wait for the engineers, soldiers from the 191st dismounted and joined the infantry across the river. Others stayed back with the tanks to await the engineers. The tanks themselves would arrive after the liberation. Nonetheless, because of the crews that crossed with the infantry, the entire battalion received credit.
Thank you, Tankn' Hank, for making our important military history so interesting, as well as FUN! Bravo!! The inside tour was absolutely fascinating! I've always wondered what the inside was like, but it's almost impossible to imagine what it was really like during a live battle. You did a great job of helping us to try, and to truly appreciate what these brave men went through. Thank you...
Thanks, Hank, and to the production crew as well, the people maintaining and restoring the displays. I see this final iteration of the M4, and think of the early versions, and the less powerful cannons, and just have to admire the intestinal fortitude of the men who manned them.
The tank is a weapon system, the commander and it's crew is the weapon that makes the tank deadly. In a tank crew every man is trained to every position on the tank. I used to be an M1A1 Abrams tank commander, every 6 months a company or troop if designated as Cavalry will have 3 cycles in a year. First is gunnery where crews first train on TCGST (Tank Crew Gunnery System Testing) before actual gunnery qualification meaning all crew members are tested on operation and maintaining all weapons systems on the tank, loading the main gun, bore sighting, misfire procedures on the main gun, coaxial, and .50 Caliber, and emergency procedures like evacuating the tank with wounded crew. Tank Gunnery is the actual qualification of each tank crew. Next is maintenance cycle in preparation for gunnery or maneuver cycle, but it's conducted all the time. Last is maneuver and live fire exercise which is going out to the field to do force on force with laser engagement systems using firing simulators on the main gun and blank ammunition on coaxial machineguns with laser transmitters. Using tactics and battle drills against another unit or attached to an infantry battalion. Live fire is maneuvering is proficiency in working within a platoon to company or troop level coordinating movement to engage targets in a simulated combat environment using live training ammunition for the main guns and real ball ammunition for the machineguns. This is what an average Armor or Armored Cavalry unit does during peace time to prepare. During WWII an Armored Division takes about a year to form and train before going to combat. The first US Armored units were deployed in the Mediterranean in 1942 which had training but no actual combat experience and to Italy in 1943 which replacements became combat veterans. Meanwhile Armored Divisions were being formed in the US from scratch with draftees and recruits going through basic training, tank school, forming into units, training and finally sent overseas. By 1944 after D-Day US Armored Divisions arrived in France and fought all over the European Theatre till 1945. Many new units became seasoned combat veteran units within months despite terrible losses in tanks and casualties, replacements were sent into combat with only state side training but with veteran unit and tank commanders. WWII really was a test for young men with good training but need combat experience in the crucible of combat.
This is cool as i worked at the M2 & M3 bradley factory for 13yrs, mostly supplying parts to the turret asmy line. We also made a lot of M113 variants, M270 MLRS, & P7 Amtrak. I got to fire a 76mm in an M18 hellcat tank destroyer. It later. Blew up very unfortunately
This is of course the M4A3E8 Sherman, I love every WWII era Shermans, but my absolute favorite is the M4A1E8 with fully cast upper hull also same HVSS suspension like the A3.
Outstanding Video....Especialy when you pronounced "Cupola" correctly...I think you're the 1st Dude I ever heard that did. hahahaha LOL My favorite 1 is...."Q-polo"
Another cool thing is everyone was cross trained, so if they lost someone, another could quickly take over. All of our veterans were so tough, and brave. Just imagine ww2 and being sent to work a tank or any other job for that matter.
You have to do a good video on my favorite Sherman (tho I do love the E8) the Sherman Jumbo the legendary E2. There's no good videos of the actual tank showing the exceptional armor (comparatively) and all other impressive goodies
The earlier shermans, with the narrower tracks, were designed that way for ease of shipping I believe (correct me if I'm wrong). Did the wider tracks of the "easy 8" present logistical problems ?
I think the easy 8 was the best Sherman in WWII for tank on tank. A better gun, wet ammo storage, spring loaded hatches to make it easier to get out of in a hurry. Much more refined then the T34.
Is that power traverse handle a replacement? I recall that normally a firing trigger for the main gun is mounted on the power traverse in later production Shermans.
A quick way to date a M-4 is to look at it's hull. If all it's lines are rounded it's cast. If they have sharp edges, they're welded. Turns out welded was the way to go. They stopped casting as soon as they could.
This isn't true, as the welded and cast versions of the Sherman were in production at the same time. It was all about producing in the highest numbers and not every manufacturer could weld or cast the hull fully. There were 76 mm armed versions with the wet stowage hull and HVSS of the M4A1 at the end of the war, just not as many
They only switched fully to welded hulls when they made the upgrade to the "Large Hatch" Variant of the UFP. prior to that the driver and co-drivers boxes were too time consuming to weld and were starting to be replaced by the M4 Composite shermans as a stop-gap, these composite shermans used a modified M4A1 Casting for the front-plate to minimise welding times and streamline production. it is only with this later improvement to the single piece front plate that welding truly took over.
@@Person4772 yeah, but they didn't fully switch to welded as the M4A1 W (large hatch) hulls were still being produced up to July '45, which is a month after any other variant apparently - the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/data/sherman_production.html
While that may be true, you also have to consider that the guns the Germans had were typically higher velocity, and could easily punch through that armor regardless.
@@Chopstorm. not true depends on range and angle of tank to shot rarely is it ever straight on , M4A4E8 was the best of Sherman line besides the Firefly that's why it was used in Korea aswell .
@@nighthawk8053 My point being, that the ~100mm on the Tiger was considered impressive because at the time the M4 was still using it's M3 75mm cannon, and the T-34 was still commonly using the 76mm F34. By 1944 when the M4A3 was hitting the field, the Panther with the KwK 42 was becoming more common, and virtually all PzIVs were equipped with the KwK 40 by this point. Both guns were more then capable of handling 100mm of armor at combat distances seen on the Western Front. I love the M4, and it's armor was very thick for a medium, but it can't really be compared to the Tigers armor that earned it's reputation in '42. The battlefield in 1944 was completely different.
@@Chopstorm. Yes it can't be compared fairly since it's a 32 ton medium,it's closest rival was probably the Panzer mk IV ,which they were both reliable medium tanks 👍
As long no one shoots from a higher ground at you. But angled armor has some benefits against ATGs. Because they are lower to the ground and have to somewhat shooting upwards if aimed at the center of the tank, which have higher chances to bounce the rounds.
I wish they could do a video on the British Firefly Sherman as well, and compare it to our E8. Especially since there has been a long standing argument about which gun was the better one, our American 76mm or the British 17lbdr, which was actually 76mm plus change. Both guns did well, but one had better armor penetration, while the other had better accuracy.
The 17 pounder was a superior anti tank weapon. It didn't need rare special ammo to make it highly effective, and it's accuracy was fine with its regular ammo. No British commanders complained about the effectiveness of the 17 pounder. Plenty of American commanders complained about the effectiveness of the 76mm including the commanding generals of the US 2nd and 6th Armored Divisions.
@@coachhannah2403 No American Sherman 76mm took out 3 Tigers or 5 Panthers like Fireflies did. I keep hearing how the flash blinded the gunner. In that case how did Joe Ekins take out 3 moving Tigers in quick succession at 800 yards distance.
@@lyndoncmp5751 - 17 pounder was a powerful weapon, on par with Panther's 75. Had accuracy problems, especially with APDS. However, we are talking firefly here. Germans targeted them first (as with the 76mm Shermans sporting muzzle breaks), and twisting the barrel to squinch the 17 into the Sherman turret made the loader's job a nightmare, especially with the extra length and weight of the rounds. Actual firing rate was very slow compared with the US 76. Useful, especially in ambush (US TD doctrine 😎), but not the wonder weapon history newbies proclaim it to be.
@@coachhannah2403 The 17 pounder only had accuracy issues with the Sabot round, not with its regular round, and it's regular round was powerful enough. As I said, Joe Ekins didnt have any problems hitting 3 Tigers in quick succession at 800 yards. No British armoured divisions reported disappointment with their Fireflies, unlike US 2nd and 6th Armored Divisions both of which reported disappointment with their Sherman 76mm. I never called the 17 pounder a wonder weapon but it was certainly the best anti tank gun fitted on any western allied tank in WW2. Can't really count the 90mm on the Pershing as that came too late to see much tank v tank action. The Firefly was there from D-Day. Cheers.
Regarding the drivers gauges, fuel electric, etc; are those Stewart Warner Gauges? Stewart - Warner r made radios and gauges for the US military during WW2. Excellent concise, well thought out narrative. Thank you!
The CLOSES I can get you is the M4A3 Large Hatch 75mm is the RU-vid "Battlefield Vegas Iwo Jima Sherman Tank." The only difference between the A2 & A3 is the Back Deck Grill and the A2 Engine was a twine Diesel vs the A3's Ford Gas V-8.... This A3 actually served on Iwo with the USMC... Hope this helps!
Ah, nice! Thank you!@@andyoertig2007 I was building the Italeri kit and needed some reference material, this one is pretty close to the A2. A bit more wood on the undercarriage on the A3 in the museum but close enough :-)
@@BigSkyBoomer I spent a combined 8 years on the M-60A3 and the M1A1 and you are correct. On the tank itself we called the track just that. The track. However, the phrase or word 'tread' was used a lot and was like the F Word. It had multiple definitions depending on context. It might refer to traction one day and track pads the next. I've even heard the name 'Treadhead' more than once.
You are 100% correct. I spent ample time around armored vehicles and if someone pointed at the ground and said 'What's that?' I'd say a 'tread mark'. The part's of the track that generally makes contact with the ground are called track pads. They are the black squarish blocks you see on most Western tanks and other armored vehicles. They save wear and tear on the track itself and on whatever surface you might be on. They are replaceable and disposable when circumstances dictate.
The issue with the name isn't just that it is 'unofficial', it's that it is inaccurate! As you refer to the 'experimental' designation, this wasn't for the tank but the suspension system, HVSS. As such, any tank with HVSS or 'E8' suspension could be an 'Easy 8', so a 75 mm or 105. The 'E2' you mention, the 'Jumbo', was the entirety of the E2 experiment. The E8 moniker mentions nothing of the 47 degree wet stowage hull, the T23 turret (yes T23, NOT T28!!) and the 76 mm gun, key aspects of the 76 W HVSS. The HVSS as well wasn't just on this version, with the 76 mm gun, and due to the extra weight. It was about improving cross-country performance with wider tracks that dissipated its weight better. As above, HVSS was available on other tanks without the 76 mm gun and that turret, and also there were plenty of 76 mm armed tanks, with the T23 turret and the 47 degree, wet stowage hull, on the VVSS. Also, the correct name is: M4A3 (76) W HVSS, not the order you placed it. And the armour on this tank wasn't 'thin' - yes it was only 2.5 inches/63 mm thick, but at 47 degrees from vertical it presented over 93 mm to the enemy, which is thicker than any other medium under 35 tons. Otherwise, this video was incredibly informative. If you come at us with incorrect info though, don't expect to be corrected!
To anyone who might know... Am I to understand that the main gun ammunition was actually laying in a compartment filled with chemically treated water, with the water in direct contact with the ammunition? I'd heard of "wet storage", but I'd always assumed that meant that the ammunition was in a jacketed rack and that the jacket was filled with water keeping it out of contact with the ammunition. If anyone could clarify this for me, I would appreciate it. Thanks.
No the rounds in each rack were surrounded by separate small containers of a mixture of water, ethylene glycol, and a rust inhibitor, known as "Ammudamp.''
My father in law was with an armored division in Belgium, where he was wounded. He stated that five shermans would be destroyed for every Panzer Tiger. The Sherman was a motorcycle equivalent of a tank, very low survivability. This doesn't count the German PAK anti tank gun attrition, ( high).and the German infantry carried Panzerfaust. My father in law, a Sgt in Belgium, was severely wounded and only survivor in his tank, spent a year at Mayo clinic in recovery. He survived until 1989
My uncle was a Sherman commander with the South Alberta Regiment. He fought from Normandy to Germany and the a gain in Korea. When studied by historians Sherman crews actually had a high survival rate. Not because they were well protected inside but because it was easy to bail out of the tank when necessary. There are quite a few videos on this topic. Search for ones by “The Chieftain” an Irishman a L/Col in the US army.
@@morstyrannis1951 yeah, it ALWAYS irks me to hear this rightfully assumed rumor constantly told about the Sherman. Such as, how thin it's armor was compared to the Panzers , when every German tank short of a Panther or Tiger had comparable thickness in armor as a Sherman. when you look at the data, it's clear that it's a case of Far more American Tanks vs the Germans and the fact that the Allies won, so we have a lot more Allied survivors retelling their experiences verses the Germans who were pretty much decimated, with little to none left to tell the tell of what they experienced.
i have a question regarding the 76mm … if the germans targeted 76 milimeter’s by their distinct Muzzle … and there are photos of M4A1’s with the 76mm, but it doesn’t have a muzzle, Just a longer cannon … why didn’t the US army Mass-produce the 76 on M4A1’s to save lives? since it doesn’t have a muzzle, it might take a little bit more time for the enemy to figure out it is the “gun that can actually take us out”
