Redemption: How US Shermans Defeated Formidable Panther Tanks during Battle of Mairy 

Actually not sending out reconnaissance - and infantry will do fine - is horrible tactics. So is the assumption "and then we win". The German generals in charge were experience in how Russians react. Those tank heavy counter offensives make sense against untrained cannon fodder. But that made the Germans tactically sloppy. They thought they could just show up and win. But what's their Plan B? Where is the co-ordination to secure flanks to support those deep penetrations or to isolate and destroy American units? There was none.

There were other serious issues which more than negated the supposed superiority of the German "Big Cats", which were designed for combat on the Eastern Front against the SOVIETS anyway. Lack of fuel, poor to non-existent training, inexperienced officers, often selected more for their "National Socialist Ardor" than any demonstrated military skills, especially with the panzers, non-existent aerial recon and air cover, and poor coordination with infantry and artillery, something that officers like Creighton Abrams were far better at. This is also what was repeated in Korea exactly six year later, in the desperate battles in August-September of 1950 along the Naktong river, wherein the DPRK made its final push to crush the UN's "Pusan Perimeter" and thus win the war they'd started two months earlier. Although there were some M26 Pershings that had been landed at Pusan, they largely didn't yet participate, partly due to lack of spare parts, and also partly because their engines tended to badly overheat in the hot Korean summer sun, especially when they tried, usually in VAIN, to negotiate the difficult terrain. The M4A3E8 "Easy Eight" had a lot less trouble, and though supposedly outclassed by the DPRK's Soviet-supplied T-34/85s, utterly PASTED them in several lopsided tank battles. As in France six years prior, it was training, experience, leadership, doctrine, logistics, and ability to cooperate with supporting infantry, artillery, and air cover that made the difference.

Air power made all the difference in the western front. The US Controlling the air meant that the Germans ability attack and reinforce was non existant. The P-51 and P-47 ruled the skies of Northern France

I would agree with you that the Sherman was an excellent Infantry support tank. The later post-1944 tanks had good protection. However it was very poor in tank v tank situations as ti was badly outgunned and the early models had poor protection and layout. Americans have never made a good high velocity anti-tank gun to mount in their tanks. Also US tanks were inferior to British and German tanks. As they did not use regenerative steering and transmission. They still used the old track-brake method from WW1. US tanks were reliable but far from the peak of design in the 1940s.

As typical even today. Most tanks designed and built were based NOT on the actual needs of the men crewing these tanks. But by the bean counters and those looking for the cheapest way to make a profit! And it wasn't just with the American tanks, every country, including Germany too, were always worried about the cost, quickness of producing, quantity (not quality!), and using the cheapest parts. Remember the US had the 76mm ready to go years earlier! But didn't want to retool entire assembly lines, etc. Yes the 75mm had a better HE shell. But with more development, perhaps the 76mm could have had a better one too? And so much more we could list. So sad greed is always in the way!

@@r32rocky There had been no significant tank development in the US from 1920 to 1939. The US began tank development with the M2 in 1939. Progress was slow until the British placed the orders and funded production lines in 1940-41. The M3 Grant at Baldwin and M4 Sherman at Lima. It was February 1942 the US cancelled British contracts and expanded tank production setting up more production lines and using different engines. Tanks would be built for both US Army and Lend-Lease. Considering the Sherman's history it is remarkable how well it turned out. But a world beating design it was not, by Soviet and German standards it was obsolete when it entered service.

The Sherman's were medium tanks going against Heavys, Mediums and Small recon tanks. Only Heavys did it have hard time with.

@@billballbuster7186 False! The M4 was not obsolete by German and Soviet standards. When in entered service in 1942 it was the best tank in North Africa. As to what the Soviet soldiers thought of the M4 read "Commanding the Red Army's Emcha's" by Dmitry Loza. In Korea the M4s wrecked the T34-85. The M4 was upgraded throughout the war.

Its unfair to compare an M4 shermans with panthers and Tiger 1 and 2 firepower and say that M4 is weak or obsolete.. People tends to forget that, 75mm M4 shermans were build as medium tank- Infantry support as its main doctrine. not to slug it out with enemy tanks. Unlike panthers and tigers that were solely design to blast enemy tank first, then supports the infantry assault.. Thats why in early ww2.. we didnt see as many u.s various tank models other than their light tanks M3-M5 stuarts and medium tank M4 shermans Unlike the brits,soviet union and germans.. As british has cruiser tanks, infantry tanks and heavy tanks.. like valentine,matilda and churchill to name a few..and soviet union has T34-76mm and later 85mm, KV1s and I.S tanks...they are all different models with their own various types and main doctrine is to blast enemy tanks! But u.s still stick with one M3-M5 37mm-47mm model light tank and one 75mm M4 medium tank model with various types and then upgraded some into the famous M4E2 JUMBO 76MM "FURY"😅 Thats it,thats all u.s had... All througj the war Untill near the end,where M26 pershing starts to enter the battle..

@@zadzad4353 The M4 (I refuse to honor the war criminal William Tecumseh Sherman by naming that fine medium tank after him) medium tank, was, when designed, more than able to taken on the best of the German armor (Panzer IIIs with even the L60 5 cm KwK 39, and Panzer IVs with the 7.5 cm L24 weapon) with its M3 75 mm gun. The M4 gave a good account of itself at the Second Battle of El Alamein with Monty's Eighth Army in Oct-Nov of 1942. That this vehicle could take different engines, and later, more potent armament, or different types as self-propelled assault guns/howitzers and tank destroyers were based on its chassis, was a testament to its versatility. Plus, the M4 lent itself to interchangeability and mass production, one of the many ways that the US "Arsenal of Democracy" could more than adequately provision not only its military, but also stock its ALLIES (UK, USSR, and France) with thousands of these armored beasts. Even as the US Army moved on to bigger and "badder" AFVs, the M4 still proved its worth, not only in service with many US Allies, well into the 1970s, as the IDF showed how well they lent themselves to upgrades and modernization, but even in continued service with the US Army. M4A3E8 "Easy Eight" tanks were the most effective UN tank during the Korean War, better able to handle Korea's rugged, hilly terrain, and quite able to take on the T-34/85s of the DPRK and the PLA. Indeed, during the critical battles along the Naktong River in August and September of 1950, where the DPRK attacks on the Pusan Perimeter were beaten back, the "Easy Eights" utterly pasted the DPRK armor, although the lopsided battle losses could be better attributed to factors of superiority in logistics, training, leadership, doctrine, and combined arms support, especially air power and even naval gunfire, rather than any inherent technical merits.

Monty didn't just waltz" into Antwerp. He made his way there then the Canadians paid the Butchers bill in clearing both sides of the estuary/canal that ran to Antwerp. Check your map, it is not an open to the sea site, like Cherbourg. And it was trashed, took some time to repair it to be a workable seaport. The American "Brain Trust" that loved the Sherman, should have been charged with "Dereliction of Duty". The reasons they loved the Sherman, were: 1. EASY to make; 2.Easy to repair; 3. Easy to maintain. But talk top the men that had to use them, and those men called the Sherman, "A rolling death trap" with only the British 17 pounder(Firefly) could take on a Tiger head on and win. The pitiful 75 mm "popgun" and even the 76mm couldn't take out a Panther(Too good of sloped Armor) head on. Side and rear shots were what killed a Panther. Either Tiger (I or King, armor too thick) were made for the Russian Steppes, Long range shots were the normal, even T-34 had to do side or rear shots on those two tanks. It's always easy for "Desk borne Warriors" to look at maps and draw up Grand Schemes of action, that are absolutely, and completely asinine, and have no touch with reality. The other thing that everyone over looks is that "Combined Operations" were a BRAND NEW DEVELOPMENT, that many of the "OLD STOOGY OFFICIER Corps did not want to use. Even until 1943 Tanks were seen as "adjunct to the Infantry assault", especially by the British. Not until the Allies started using Combat Commands that were mixtures of INF/Armor/Arty did they get it right.

Glad you enjoyed it

The major flaw with the Panther(and Tigers) were they were given underpowered engines, that drank gas like crazy. It was almost criminal action by the stupid, straight-jacketed minded, entrenched American "Leadership" before they decided to FINALLY provide a 90mm gun and thicker Armor(M-26) Pershing. In April 1945, too little, too late. It was criminal because so many brave Americans(and others) DID NOT HAVE TO DIE due to those STUPID KNUCKLEHEADS!!!

The Panther ended up, thanks to "design creep", being a much larger and heavier counter to the vehicle that spurred its development, the Soviet T-34. Like most German resources, most of them were used on the Eastern Front. The "West Wall" had to make to with a motley assortment of whatever mauled and refitting panzer units had on hand, which at times even included pre-war light tanks. Quite a few self-propelled guns and tank destroyers were improvised out of otherwise obsolete German tanks and captured enemy armor. Most, if not all, were limited-traverse fixed-mount guns, which still did OK in the defensive role, but proved not so good for furtive offensives, like at Mortain or the Bulge.

When you are in the attack mode, how can the Shermans move around for side and rear end shots? Head on, the Shermans didn't have enough frontal armor, why else would the Divisions each come up own plans and action of adding on extra Armor/Sandbags (also against Panzerschreck(Bazooka 88mm) and Panzerfaust(RPGs) weapons. The T-26 was GRUDGINGLY developed with a 90MM maingun, and more Armor in 1945, only about 50 or so were actually deployed, "Because they were TOO EXPENSIVE", and actual argument by a paper-pusher in the Pentagon, sitting on his fat A$$( bet his Son didn't serve in in a Line Unit).

@@user-so5ib7su6v well, you really should consider the overall picture. but first, a funny story. a german officer said, after the war, "our heavy tanks could take on 10 of your shermans. problem is, you always had ELEVEN shermans for each of our tanks." context: the americans knew perfectly well that they were always going to need to SHIP many thousands of their tanks across the OCEAN. for this reason alone, the decision to stick with ONE type of MEDIUM tank was correct. then they made sure that it would be completely RELIABLE, and then they MASS produced it. it was the correct decision, even though any individual tank crew would have preferred a "better" tank. (except you might want to ask the german crews who had to destroy their own tanks when the engines broke.)

@@user-so5ib7su6v A lot more to it than your ill-informed rant. The T-26 "heavy" tank, later the M26 Pershing, was delayed in shipment overseas because the Army didn't want it; deeming it too heave and not necessary. Subsequent experience in Korea, with the M4A3E8 "Easy Eight" medium tanks racking up far more kills of DPRK T-34/85s than the M26/M46 heavies, which largely were relegated to an artillery support role, indicated the Army was CORRECT.

Both the Panther and the Tiger began as projects to produce the next generation of German tanks well before the Soviet T-34 was encountered. The Tiger was originally intended as a heavy "break-through" vehicle, much akin to the French Char B1 and the Soviet KV-1. The Panther was intended to be an all-purpose main battle tank in the 30-ton weight range, but "design creep" and Hitler's insistence that it take the fairly large 7.5 cm L70 KwK 42 (originally intended for the Tiger), as well as thicker frontal hull and turret armor led to its fairly large size for a "medium" tank and 45-ton weight. Indeed, its combination of firepower, protection, and speed lead many to consider it the first "Main Battle Tank", although that role had yet to be defined. While the sloped armor of the Mark V Panther (later just Pzkpfw Panther) indeed incorporated the lessons from the T-34, and its gun enabled it to out-punch virtually anything the Allies and/or Soviets fielded, this type was plagued with design defects and production flaws that never were entirely cured by war's end. The Tiger earned a reputation well beyond its true capabilities which the Panzerwaffe was quite aware of. It's initial debut near Leningrad (now St. Petersburg) didn't go well, and showed the problems of fielding a heavy tank in uncertain terrain in the offensive role. It did better at Kursk in July 1943, though it was proved vulnerable to the Soviet version of "Pak front". But on defense, its decent mobility for such a heavy vehicle and awesome firepower made it the tank killer it was feared to be, if PROPERLY used. The Tiger's greatest drawback was its COST, some 800 DM per vehicle, about three times the estimated cost of a Panther, and four times that of an M4 or T-34. The Tiger was never intended to be anything but a special, limited-role heavy tank, with its name lending credence to the observation that what it did to the MORALE of its opponents far outweighed its true usefulness on the battlefield.

@@selfdo That's an informative and interesting summary. !!

And terrible final drives!

@selfdo The Tiger had a very good record and was effective overall. It couldn't alter the course of the war however. The war was already being lost. It's knock out ratio was an incredible 12:1. By far the best of any tank in WW2. You mentioned its debut at Kursk but that was the fault of the commander, sending a handful of Tigers forward in a swamp. Any tank would have got bogged down there. The next Tiger usage of note (Tebourba in Tunisia at the beginning of December 1942) was a one sided hammering for allied tanks. Same with its next use on the Eastern Front in January 1943. The Tiger battalions hit the ground running and made a considerable impact right away. Famously they continued to have a significant impact out of all proportion to the numbers deployed. In Normandy during Operation Totalize the Tiger had a 10:1 knock out ratio against Shermans. The Tiger's reputation was well deserved and based on reality. When the Tiger first appeared it was by far the best armed and armoured tank in the world.....and it proved it numerous times. It literally took months before any allied tank knocked the first one out. The Tiger scared the allies so much that they desperately tried to come up with counter measures and even designed new tanks such as the Centurion. The Tiger was extremely well liked by it's crews. None of them have said a bad word about it to my knowledge, reading all the available memoirs. It's overall operational average rate was actually similar to the Panzer IV, at 65-70% which was very good for a WW2 heavy tank. Was it an invulnerable super tank? No. But neither was it overrated. It's record speaks for itself. Sources: Tom Jentz, Germanys Tiger Tanks and Tiger I and II Combat Tactics. Wolfgang Schneider, Tigers in Combat Volume I and II. Christopher Wilbeck, Sledgehammers The Strengths and Flaws of Tiger Tank Battalions in World War Two.

​@ricardosoto5770 Tiger didn't have terrible final drives. The Panther had final drive issues, but the Tiger didn't.

Just pay for premium then. It costs very little and supports the people who create the content.

As opposed to?

Yep, and we don't seem to have learned a single lesson since then.

The Tds mentioned were Jagdpanzer IVs with the Panther's 75mm L70 gun

Arracourt showed that experience and training will overcome respective technical merits, EVERY TIME.

Did you ask him why Germany lost the war if their equipment was so superior?

@andreasaunders197 , They couldn't keep up with our economy!! Je would never had admitted that!

@@andreasaunders197 The best tank in the world is nothing but an expensive, heavy ROAD BLOCK if it's broken down or out of fuel. The TYPICAL fate of German armor in 1944-1945, as their logistics and inability to fend off the "Dreaded Jabos" led to maintenance and supply problems. Never mind that the German methods of over-design tends to make their panzers a bunch of finnicky beasts to maintain.

@@selfdo Interesting to see that 11 months after Normandy, Germany was signing the surrender documents. Nothing they produced could stop the US/Russian advance.

Interesting to see that 11 months after Normandy, the Germans were signing surrender documents. Nothing they could produce could stop the US/Russian advance. If they'd held out a few more months, Berlin would've been nuked instead of Hiroshima.

Best tank of WWII? Humbug. What are you smoking? The only thing Shermans had going for them is that they were a helluva lot of them -- plus when the British adaptation produced "the Firefly". (Oh, yeah, and the "remaining ones" could retreat fast!)

​@fredrichenning1367 I've provided facts. Please point out anything that I've stated that is factually incorrect. The Germans never stood a chance. Shermans were also a lot more reliable. The French used Panthers briefly after WW2 and realized how trash these things were. Why do you think that Shermans continued to be used for decades after WW2?

@@user-ys3wf7bl4k - You made comments -- I see no "facts" nor sources. Tell your "facts" to the guys back at base who had to wash the brains, blood and guts out of all the Shermans before trying to patch the holes the the armor. I did NOT say the Panthers were superior, I said the Shermans were sitting ducks. Big difference. Don't ask me why anybody would be using crappy Shermans after WWII. I am not sure I even believe it. Where are your sources to these facts?

​@fredrichenning1367 Steven Zaloga is a tank and amored warfare expert who has authored numerous books. Look him up. The Chieftain is also a prominent tank expert on RU-vid who highly regards the Sherman, but not so much the Panther. You only react emotionally. If you're relying on Belton Cooper's "Death Traps" as a source, you're misinformed. He has been thoroughly debunked. Cooper was a REMF who never saw combat. He couldn't give any first hand accounts of action. He only cleaned up the tanks after the guys who did the actual fighting. The Sherman actually had one of the best crew survival rates of any WW2 tank -- especially after wet storage was introduced.

As another (opposing) source stated "Also, surviving Shermans would be sold to many other nations after the war. These were often upgraded even further by their new owners. That fact is wielded like a cudgel by those who support the Sherman as the better tank." Guess it is down to what POV drum one is beating. The real fact is that Shermans were simply made faster than the Germans could turn them into bloody scrap.

It was fought mostly at night. No air support. American troops hardly needed air support to beat the Germans, but war isn't fair and you bet your butt the Americans used every shred of artillery and tac air they could bring to the show to reduce casualties.

Sherman with a T34 calliope rocket launcher.

My father was also in the 712th, although not in Quentin's company. On a tour of the Bulge, I saw the location where Quentin was killed. I am very sorry for your loss.

@@KayeAckermann-xm2xh Really? by any chance, do you have any photos of the area?

80% of what Britain used was it's own stuff. Britain even supplied the Commonwealth forces and sent thousands of tanks and planes to the USSR. America received Reverse Lend Lease from Britain, from supplying the Americans troops ships like the Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth to get their army across the Atlantic, to building them bases and hospitals and supplying them with flour to make their bread etc. It wasn't just America supplying everyone.

Why do you think the official name of the Warthog is Thunderbolt II?

We darn near did. The first flight of the A1 Skyraider was March 1945. Had it been ready for D-Day places like the Falaise gap would have been a triple nightmare for the German. Hours of loiter time and the ability to carry as much ordinance as a B17 along with total air superiority would have been devastating for retreating German columns.

Glad you enjoyed it!

And they got clocked just about every time they tried it on the Western Front. German generals constantly underestimated US capabilities in the West, largely as a result of deliberate misinformation from their own intelligence and PR groups in order to keep morale up. Even after the war, several German commanders persisted in the belief that Americans couldn't fight at night, even though that was badly disproven many times. This battle being a perfect case in point.

US Tanks actually had a positive kill ratio against the panther in the ETO. US tanks worked in platoons of 5, so the 3 Shermans to take out a panther was nonsense. Combat analysis showed that in the ETO the tank that shot first generally won the engagement. The Sherman could get on target faster than a Panther or Tiger. German tanks were not 'greatly outnumbered in Normandy until weeks after the initial landing. The Russian major offensive that continued all the way to Berlin was Operation Bagration against Army group centre, it was not just after Stalingrad, there were several offensives after Stalingrad by both German and Soviet forces. Germany was also still using Mk III tanks, and large numbers of SPG's including Stug's which was the most produced AFV by the Axis forces.

The "we will need X number of Shermans for Tiggers on Panthers" story is a myth. As stated, Shermans fought in platoons of 5. Whether they were going up against a single StuG, 5 Panthers or a couple of MG42's, they went in with 5. Germans had local superiority in numbers on plenty of occasions in Normandy, it all came down to tactics and getting your assets into the right position.

A tank is nothing without a good crew

@@brennanleadbetter9708 IDF tank general Israel Tal is quoted as saying that before the 1967 war, they could have swapped equipment with their Arab opponents and the outcome would have been the same.

Roughly 50% of Shermans ended up with 76mm guns. When they were originally introduced they were the most heavily gunned medium in the war. Of the ~7,100 Shermans knocked out in the ETO, German tanks were responsible for a bit under 15% of them, so call it roughly 1,000-1,100 Shermans knocked out by German tanks. German tanks weren't even close to the main threat to Shermans, which is exactly why many of the US veteran armored forces preferred the short, quick firing, faster on target 75mm gun. There were hundreds of 76mm equipped Shermans left in Britain on D-Day simply because nobody wanted them.

@@warsyn3838 Yup, US tankers were way more likely to encounter grenadiers carrying panzerfausts/panzershreks supported by PAK 40s and 88's than the big cats. They did upgun later versions of the Sherman, but they always kept the older 75mm gun tanks around for fights with infantry.

@@warsyn3838 Exactly right. Only 10% of German units were armored, so many units preferred the 75mm howitzer with its superior High Explosive anti-personnel fragmentation guns.

You know what!? I am more curious about what Americans have established in terms of value and cultural notions throughout the world rather than how much of the bodies they sowed in the process. But I guess that's something which they prefer to hide as a snake its legs and disguise with the glitter of their petty democracy and pyrrhic heroic tales.

In just this engagement or for the entire war?

Yea, we get it. You say the same thing every time this channel produces a video about Arracourt or adjacent battles in the Lorraine lol

@@redaug4212 No, Americans generally don't get it, the price of victory was very very high for the Americans in NW Europe. But what you complaining about I generate a lot of comments and thats good for you right?

@@billballbuster7186 It certainly exposes how much value you place on the real or imagined opinions of Americans.

@@redaug4212 Americans tend lack the introspection gene, which gives them a false reality on historical topics. I love to debate this. I should mention im from So-Cal.

I guess that's the cost of letting Montgomery get the ammo and fuel that Patton should have gotten the first time he was at Metz. He was a cavalry commander, after all. Movement, not siege, was his game. Or the cost of getting involved in a war that really didn't concern the US. Hitler was inspired to copy the British Empire and never really had a big attack on the US. There really seems to be some Brits who were bitter the US didn't get directly involved sooner when it was really their war.

You are joking right, or was it the best tank because it was American lol

It certainly became a monster with the 17 pounder gun

@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- Yeh. its amazing how many American fan-boys are detached from reality reading these comments. The Sherman Firefly was the only Sherman able to take on German Heavies on equal terms. But then the Americans were never involved in any large tank battles, so not talking from experience!

It was best for the Americans since it was easy to maintain, simple to use, can be manufactured in large numbers, and was easier to transport overseas.

@@brennanleadbetter9708 Yes that is the usual spiel, from armchair experts reading the propaganda. But in reality it was a death trap for its crews. No serving tankers actually liked it. hence the nickname 'Ronson'

Now I'm LMAO at you. Just showing American arrogance and stupidity. We DID NOT have the best equipment necessarily, just lots more of it. The American "Leadership" had decided not to try have a better tank, "just lots more of them, with more Artillery". They were enamored of the Sherman, because it was easy to make, and maintain. The "Leadership" just didn't care about casualty rates, "the price of war". The 2 main Generals in charge of Tank development BLOCKED improvements in Armor till finally someone bitched to Roosevelt, and he lite fires under the correct asse$. In April 1945 a 90MM, more armored tank M-26 Pershing finally showed up in Europe for the American Armor Divisions, in pitiful numbers.

Much of what Belton Cooper (1917 - 2007) wrote about was proven FALSE, the man was not a good researcher, if not an outright FRAUD. FWIW, he never served with any armor unit, he was a maintenance officer, NOT a tanker. His assertions about the M26 Pershing being a better general-purpose tank than the M4 were ridiculous, and proven utterly WRONG in Korea as well as Germany. Nor were the majority of M4 losses attributable to the "Big Cats" at all, as there were comparatively few engagements with them, regardless of what one reads in comic books or sees in WWII-themed movies. Even the more common Mark IV tank, which was overall the equal of the M4 (inferior armor and mobility, better firepower of the main weapon) was not the "Sherman killer" either. M4s met their ends thanks mostly to German tank destroyers and/or towed anti-tank guns, or kids wielding Panzerfausts and Panzerschreks. The Pershing was no less vulnerable to them. In Korea, in 1950, the "Easy Eight" M4s were the ones that destroyed the DPRK T-34/85 in lopsided fashion, while the Pershings suffered from overheating and breakdowns in the hot Korean summer. The M26s were typically employed as self-propelled artillery rather than to engage Communist tanks, which, after the battles along the Naktong River, the "death ride" of the DPRK armor at the time, and Inchon, there were FEW to engage anyway. The M26s many deficiencies spurred the US Army to correct its most glaring defect, it's underpowered Ford GAA engine (which the "Easy Eight" also used), with a Continental V-12 air-cooled engine that cranked out 810 ponies. While this engine solved the power-to-weight ratio issue, it made for an even THIRSTIER vehicle. This version was dubbed the "Patton", but was intended to be replaced by an all-new design which would become the M48, also "Patton". However, troubles in developing the entire new series of tanks led to an improvisation of the turret of a rejected design being plopped on the existing M26/M46 chassis; resulting in the M47 "Patton". This was intended as an interim design, but over 8,000 of them were built in 1952 to 1954, not bad for an "improvisation"! The M47 served with the front-line US Army tank units for only a few years before being replaced by the M48 (which itself would soon be replaced by the M60 which was derived from it), it "cascaded" down to US Army Reserve and/or National Guard units until in turn it was replaced by M48s. Many M47s were sold to allies and/or neutrals via Foreign Military Sales, some, like with the Spaniards or the Turks, were upgraded with modern communication and fire-control equipment, diesel engines, and up-gunned to the NATO 105 mm tank gun. However, many M47s went straight from Chrysler's Delaware tank plant to the storage depots, and quite a few ended up being expended as targets in "like-new" condition, a sad fate for such a unique tank.

​@selfdo The Panther was more common than the Panzer IV after D-Day. The Panther was the most common German tank in the last year of the war. There were 1,837 Panthers deployed to the western front from June 1944 to May 1945, which was more than the 1,666 Panzer IVs deployed to the western front.

Incorrect. Belton Cooper (RIP) wrote his book with a heavy dose of "confirmation bias." All he saw in the repair depot was shot up Sherman tanks with the remains of American boys scattered inside. What a truly awful thing to have to see and it would certainly have an impact on a young man. Unfortunately Cooper completely fabricated parts of his book, including saying the reason we didn't get the M26 Pershing in time is because General Patton didn't want it. Complete horsehockey. Patton had absolutely no influence over tank development or deployment. He just worked with what the Army supplied him. Facts: During the ENTIRE war 1,589 US tank crewmen died in ALL THEATERS in ALL TANK TYPES. That means M4's M3 Lees, M5A1, M3 light tanks and so on. That number also includs crewmen killed while OUTSIDE their tanks. So that means surprise mortar and artillery attacks while sitting around having a cup of Joe, getting strafed by the odd Stuka, snipers staying behind in a town waiting for the tank crews to "unbutton," all kinds of ways to die in war. The M4 was continually upgraded more than any other tank in the war and by 1944-45 was a mean fighting machine in the form of the M4A3E8. So much so it went on to fight in the Korean war and served across the world into the 1970's. Not too shabby for an "obsolete" tank eh?

Found the wehraboo😅

It was the best tank of thexwar better than the t34

​@@davidpadilla9613There was no best tank of the war. Each country had different requirements and parameters. The Sherman wouldn't have done well in the German Army.