Nahuel DL-43 - When Argentina Made Their Own BETTER M4 Sherman 

Considering that most other South American nations lack any serious armored warfare capabilities back in 1944, if they produced a suficient number of those, they would be enough to support any possible operations of the Agentinian Army. Even Brazil had mostly Stuart Ligth Tanks and armored cars at the time, but obtained some Shermans pretty soon after the war. Maybe a video on the TAM (Tanque Argentino Mediano) next?

please for the love of hearing... audio balance your voice over.. you sound like youre yelling into a 1970s cassette recorder..

it looks like a lame light tank similar to the Japan Empires, Argentina needs to remember,with their support of the damn Nazis, they're entire nation could have been melted down with Americans Mass bombing, land hungry Brazilians , Uruguay, Chileans, these Proto nazis along with their Evita would have had absolutely zero chance 😆😆it could still happen 2024😂😂😂😂😂

Actually though lmao. My jaw dropped when I heard the effective thickness of the UFP XD

Wouldn't that just be a Jumbo? Armored like a Tiger but is still a Sherman.

@@megakirbo4250 Jumbo still had a normal Sherman's side armor. The Argentine one's sides are 50mil thicker.

What a ignorant OP. Front armour of Panther(80mm at 55° = ~ 140mm LOS armour), ya ignorant burger. King Tiger front was 150mm at 50° = ~ 233mm Line Of Sight armour.

well when you dont have any tanks to fight , a short 75mm makes lots of sense.

Still hope for some rich guy to fund a replica made using the blueprints from the archives.

If im not mistaken there were like... 3 In the whole history of the continent And all of them on the Chaco War

@@jacaredosvudu1638 Fueron 24 tanques 38T de Perú, comprados a Checoslovaquia, entraron en combate en la guerra contra Ecuador, su papel fue determinante.

I have an argentine flag decal with the face on the sun replaced with a boykisser face, imma build this thing and slap the decal on the glacis

real

​@@belthesheep3550 oh dios ☠

my first thought when i saw this thing lmao

Cada fábrica hacia lo que podía lo mejor posible .

Love the enthusiasm my friend

@@ThommyofThenn i love my fatherland, thats it

Like Emanuel?

@@eyo8766 Pretty much, just like Emanuel, yeah (Like Emanuel, not "Emmanuel", There's a slight difference in pronunciation worth noting; The first accentuates the last E, the other accentuates the A)

Same, i love our Nahuel but it's kinda sad that it isnt known as much as other tanks

Seguramente lo pensaron un motero oun mega cañon con tripulación descubierta , eso conociendo los mandos argentinos

I remember a few years ago a modelling aficionado made the rounds on the Internet with a "What if" Super Nahuel boasting an enlarged turret and reinforced suspension to house a long 88. That would be hilarious to see. Essentially a Baby King Tiger.

I think your thinking of World of Tanks. They like paper tanks way more then War Thunder...

no with a SOVIET 115mm you know cause "muh balance"

@@garrettdemoss9465 no its pretty even with the fake tanks and the imaginary stats.. only because gajin has more vehicles..

E-100 moment: (i bet scrapping this thing costed more then whatever british sold the steel for)

Argentina follows cartoon logic, there's a new wacky event every single week making us easily forgetful.

Thank the liberals for that, the infamous coup d' Etat that threw Peron out cancelled many if not most of the projects and weakened the Industry.

Argentina has always been welcoming to immigrants from everywhere, before during and after WW2... case in point the engineer that was in charge of the Nahuel tank had Italian heritage...

Strange it didn't end up looking ljke a Panther knock-off .

@@bobjohnston9154 I believe this was designed in the midst of WW2 not after the design of the Panther.

Did german engineers design any obscure weapon for Argentina after ww2?

@@titanime3830 nope

Yeah, and then americans begin selling shermans at scrap metal prices to literally everyone.

Yep, they jumped around with designs irl. The curved-hull Shermans you mention were classified as the M4A1, which has a cast-steel hull and the Continental R975 engine, used by US troops. The cast-steel armor is a mixed bag, where pound-for-pound it isn't as good as rolled armor plates due to uncontrolled metal crystal structures and the possibility of air pockets, and making cast armor is a bit more complicated, as it needs large specialized manufacturing facilities and processes. But the upside is that welders can do other important things instead. The M4 Sherman family of tanks was designed with the idea that a bunch of different companies would have a bunch of different toolsets, skillsets, and available engines, that any single design would be un-manufacturable by at least half of the industry available. By creating a large number of designs, many different companies within the U.S. and Canada were able to participate and produce whatever they could with the tools and skills they had available at the time. Single-model simplicity was traded for a reduced manufacturing-bring-up-time, while maintaining quality, interchangability, shippability, the benefit of an existing supporting industry, and modularity. The flat-side armor Shermans were all of the other designs, which all had welded rolled-steel armor. The base-model M4 (Continental R975 engine, used by the USA), M4A2 (General Motors Twin G41 Engine, lend-leased to the Soviets), M4A3 (Ford GAA V8 Engine, preferred by the US forces because it was considered the most reliable one), M4A4 (Chrysler A57 Multibank engine, lend-leased to the British), and the M4A6 (Caterpillar D200A, short production run and none entered service). US Troops over time would try to avoid using the M4A1 because it would get penetrated and killed more often than the other variants when placed in the same situations. The M4A3 was the US's favorite, which it alone would be produced with the E2 upgrade, post-war called "Jumbo", by welding on additional armor plates at the factory, a custom final drive cover, no front lights, and a track-extension modification called "grousers" to the tracks to decrease ground pressure. There was also the M4A3E8, aka Easy Eight, being the upgrade with the Horizontal Volute Suspension System (HVSS) which dramatically widened the tracks so the tank would sink less on soft ground, and improved the suspension system to be smoother, handle more weight, and more easily replace individual wheels. The E8 also had field-expedient upgrades to the armor by welding on Sherman or Panther plates. This made some of the E8 variants almost as armored as the E2 variants. In all, the designs would have the following available packages (HVSS aka E8): wide tracks and new suspension ; (W): centrally-located Wet ammunition stowage, with a thicker front 47-degree armor for bigger driver hatches, which this combo would dramatically increase survivability of the crew; (75): 75mm M3 medium velocity multi-purpose gun (76): 76mm M1A1 or M1A2 high velocity anti-tank gun ; (105): 105mm M4 howitzer. There are more upgrades in the later variants that would improve small things like better spring loaded hatches, a hatch for the loader, better cupolas, etc. In terms of the "Best", it would definitely be something with HVSS and Wet Stowage, and then whatever engine your mechanic is most familiar with, and slap on some field armor from Shermans or early Panthers. Avoid adding on concrete, wood, and scrap metal, these are useless. I would say that if you were mostly facing infantry or fortifications, the 75 or 105 would be great, with the 105 having significantly more explosives in its shell, but with a longer reload time, fewer stored ammunition, and more shell arcing drop due to its slower muzzle velocity. The 76 is great if you're going up against enemy tanks, but against infantry and fortifications, the explosives in the 76's High Explosive shells are something like 60% that of the 75mm, with a slightly slower reload time than the 75, so the 75 still remains very relevant. Which is to say, none of this is particularly relevant to War Thunder, and I don't even play War Thunder. You just had a great question that I felt like answering as thoroughly as I could.

@@fruitlessdog6304 now this is what im talking about. I've only read the top two paragraphs so far but I had to stop and thank you for replying first. Appreciate it and especially in U.S. as it is Memorial day.

One thing you have to remember is that multiple types of Sherman were being manufactured simultaneously, with the core models (M4, M4A1, M4A2, M4A3, and M4A4, plus the very rare M4A6) all being considered roughly equivalent rather than there being a linear progression. Which of those core models was being made at a given factory was based on what production methods that factory was best-suited to, rather than on which model was the "best". Though ultimately the M4A3 ended up being the preferred model.

@@fruitlessdog6304 its funny how M4 is the 3rd variant of the Sherman, M4A1 is the 1st and M4A2 were 2nd

@@blackmark7165 But wait, there is more. Like canadian with their RAM with confusing predessor/prototype/brother by father status.

also Pulqui II *Inhale AAAAAAAA

@@niol_vserio or every single epic Brazilian projects during the cold war

@@niol_vserio Pulqui II should've been added to the German tech tree years ago, way back during the heyday of the Sabres. Just to give Germany something unique and actually designed by Germans.

I was thinking that exact same thought!

i thought that too.. that it was a mock up and not a real tank..

El pampa es el Alphajet del coto, pero el Pucará sí sería épico.

@@MrBao-yt7bk que sea similar no lo hace idéntico, y tampoco se ha escuchado que sea un mal vehículo, cuánto menos para entrenamiento

@@gustavogaltieri29 Nunca dije que fuera idéntico, ojalá fuera idéntico sería un avión bastante más capaz. Es un avión que zafa el pampa, el tema es que con lo que cuesta producirlos y el tiempo que toman en comparación a opciones más capaces son una garcha. Ojalá FMA se tomara en serio las cosas en lugar de coronarse de Gloria por ensamblar 2 aviones por año.

there is no t-34 in it

It is a very obscure national tank because it never had serious production. The same with several planes and rockets.

either you are very young, or living under a rock 😁

Osorio it's a Brasilian tank, both Argentina and Brazil have a decently rich afv development history.

Indeed there is a way

​@@Tankenstein do you the wae?

have you made any settings guides?​@@Tankenstein

The same guys that the u.s and the u.r.s.s invited lol. Anyone who wanted to advance their aéreo-spacial industry invited them.

nah, the design follow whatever the technology could accomplish at the time.

Bad what about you brother

Im doing good i just got summer vacation hbu brother what makes you feel bad ???? ​@@ThommyofThenn

@@ThommyofThenn he is good nothing special

@@SP4RT4N87 Ok great well tell him hi for me

Are you Fred Spart the marxist from hackney? Or just his half bot brother?

Nahuel it's just a popular and beautiful name here. Not different from calling a vehicle katyusha.

Can't find the picture but it was probably an Indian film , they made couple mock up Shermans for a movie and they ended up looking more like the Nahuel.

@@rocket_sensha4337 I can't imagine what Indian film from that period that I would have seen, though. Thanks for the conjecture anyway.

It was still better for that time. And we achieved that tank without an industry, like the US has. That's what matters.

Argentina couldn't participate in the war because they couldn't have even moved a soul across the Atlantic or Pacific. You watched better countries have a war on a scale that Argentina couldn't even comprehend logistically. Aregentina stayed neutral for most of it and actually ended up aiding the axis powers and contributed nothing to the allies. They were a hub for axis spies and actually bought weapons form Germany because they were afraid, they might have to fight Allied aligned Brazil. I think the tank that was updated countless times and actually helped win the largest war in human history was actually the "better" tank. Absolutely scoffs in Firefly (thanks UK.)

@@The_Crozius Wrong. Argentina never bought weapons from Germany, they tried one or two times but that was impossible due to diplomacy and logistics (you mentioned the ocean yourself). Argentina never intended to fight overseas, we were fearing an invasion from Brazil (backed by the US) and we had literally no armored vehicles to defend ourselves in that case, so that's why that tank was built. Brazil could have received American tanks, however, what they had was infinitely inferior to the Nahuel (I am talking about WW1 tanks like the F17), tankettes, and a few Grant tanks. In an hypotetical south american theatre, in enough numbers, the Nahuel would have been supreme against south american countries.

@@stirpsromana You bring up fair points. However maybe Brazil would look to straight up conquest, where America wouldn't. I'm sitting here seeing your points, but you are arguing a hypothetical "1v1 me bro" versus a tank that actually was made en mass and made a mark on history. You are now saying all the DL-43 had to face was some old tanks / armored cars Brazil had HYPOTHTICALLY. A panzer 3 could defeat the armored cars and tanks you mentioned. The DL-43 tank didn't matter at all in the scope of reality and wasn't better than the Sherman because it literally didn't do anything. The concept was inferior to later m4s in a single year. That is NOTHING on the scope of history. That shouldn't be hard to grasp.

@@stirpsromana Argentina made 12 Nahuel that didn't do anything when the US made roughly 45,000 M4 variants from the first ones to the latest ones and other countries even put their own twist on their lend lease vehicles later and you would say the Nahuel is better? Do you grasp how ignorant that sounds?

Argentina hasn’t done any better, under a right-wing government.

@@johnnyflores5954 The peak of Argentina quality of life, military power and industry was literally between 1930-1955 (Most of them military dictatorships). I would even extend that to 1982 until the defeat in Malvinas war (even if I don't agree with every government after 1955). When liberal democracies came, this country became the joke it is today.

um no there is nothing of the T-34 in this tank..

@@ripvanwinkle2002 I was talking about the general styling of it

It did make service... 06:26 Short but it did.

because it was over run with free replacements with cheap parts.. in the same way the iphone you over pay for, is made by slave labor in china, even though thats not better. ITS CHEAPER. capiche' skippy?

in what way, was was more armor and a gun used for task not better? or are you daft and think the Argentines in the 1940s needed tank vs tank capability? to fight whom? what south American "tiger" tank was this gonna face? none, is the answer... it was gonna shoot at guerillas and rebels same as always.. and it was perfect for that..

@@ripvanwinkle2002 Well, I agree with your assessment of the threat situation. Here's where I differ. If, as you say, it wasn't going to face anything but guerillas and rebels, then wouldn't that make the thick armor unnecessary extra weight? If they were able to lighten the tank a bit, and remove excess weaponry (3 MGs in the hull really isn't needed) then it would've been easier to put into production. It also wouldn't be as front heavy. The main gun is a pre-ww1 relic, with improvised AP shells. It doesn't compare favorably to the M3 75mm. To be fair, was it supposed to face real tanks? Probably not. Still when making statements "this is better than Sherman" you have to be mindful of how you judge the vehicle and by which requirements. I'm sure the Sherman has an edge over the Nahuel in crew ergonomics, fire control and other soft factors like that as well. So I'm not saying the Nahuel was bad, just that the M4 Sherman in all it's various iterations is overall a more refined and well balanced tank. I think the title "better Sherman" overplays the supposed advantage, so it's essentially clickbait.

@@Apollo_1641 um no i said it wasnt going to face tanks thats wy it didnt need an HV tank gun i NEVER said rebels and guerillas had NO anti tank weapons you made a HUGE leap there and then filled in with words i never said.. if youre genuinely ignorant of all this, then im curious why you made such a confidant post..

@@ripvanwinkle2002 So you think rebels and guerillas would have had anti tank weapons that could penetrate a Sherman but not the Nahuel?

@@Apollo_1641 are you intentionally stupid? they would have whatever they had and more armor vs anything is better dude take the friggn L

define "cheap"

@@ripvanwinkle2002 according to one article in 1957 a fraternity bought an M4 Sherman for $600 (about $7,000 today).

that steaming pile of "s" sunk many state of the art ships... just saying

@@el_Contra it didnt... it was from France not Argentina.. please tell what INDIGENOUS Agentine weapons prevailed? ffs the main rifle was just the metric version of the ones the British were using the "Battleship" Belgrano was an ex CRUISER from the US navy.. No offense but the Agentines were dumb AF to pick that fight..

@@ripvanwinkle2002 he said "anything and everything", he did not say made there...