While I have nothing against either Queen or U2, they do seem a little inappropriate for this type of video; just the raw sound of the Sherman Tank would have been far better!
@@f-15TheFkingEagle No it was not lol, the panzer 4 compares nothing in comparison when it comes to the versatility of the Sherman for a multitude of reasons. Just because both of them are medium tanks with around the same dimensions and armament does not mean they were equal adversaries.
@@tiznaeshnishto2584 True. The Sherman was in EVERY theater of the war. It served in the West, N. Africa, Italy, S. France, the eastern front, China, the Indo-Pacific and the greater Pacific Campaign. No other tank can really claim that. The closest is the Grant/Lee. Even after WW2, it still served for a long time in active service, with the Shermans being proved the equal or better of T34s in the Korean War. The Sherman in the M50 version was in service until 1999. With Israel, it was able to take on T54/55/62 tanks. While being obsolete at the time, it was so adaptable, that it they could keep the hull while easily replacing the motor, drive train, turret, gun and fire control to keep up with the times. While not ever the "greatest" tank, it has been a icon of what an adaptable tank can do.
Hit the mute button. Otherwise its a good video. A suggestion to the maker, why not look up some of the Big Band music of the 30s and 40s, you can find some really good big beat songs that all world war 2 buffs can recognize and it will be educational to new WW 2 buffs, too.
_"Hit the mute button."_ But I wanted to hear the engine of that tank! With music or muted that video not really makes sense at least for some people, you know.
thanks to it's controlled Differential when turning it takes some speed and power out of one track and speeds up the other one causing no loss in power and at 6:52 it turned that corner as smooth as silk with almost no loss in speed just like a road car. A Clutch brake t-34 wouldn't even dream of going around a corner like that.
@@kyleminks6374cop: uh...sir...you realize you just blew through that stop sign, right? Driver: Son, you realize I'm in a TANK? Cop: Yes, sir. Have a nice day sir.
"The engine has been modified by our mechanical genius Moriarty here." "Hey, babe!" "It's the fastest thing in the European theatre of operations forwards or backwards. See, we like to think we can get out of trouble quicker'n we got into it." - Oddball.
The Sherman was a great tank, with 4 engine possibilities. Most popular was a 7cylinder radial engine. Then a Ford 1000cu/in V-8 (cut down V-12 that was for aircraft, but the government didn't need it. So Ford made a V-8 out of it). Then is the Chrysler 5-6cylinder gas engines attached to a bull gear. Then is this particular one-2-GM 6-71 Diesels in tandem. Sherman was easy to use other engines since the engine was in the rear and the transmission was in the front with a driveshaft going through the entire tank. If you know 6-71's, you can plainly hear the sound in the video.
Exactly right. At first I thought I heard a V8 but the big Ford V8 didn't sound like that. But if you listen closely, you can hear those two-strokes screaming.
It was a DEATH TRAP! We just produced 10s of thousands of them Had crews to burn, literally…. Jerry built about 9000 Pzkw.s of all models, 1939-1945… Ivan built many more T-34s than all other combatants combined. The BEST tank of The War. I pissed on a riveted M4, at the Rock Island Arsenal museum. Something my uncles would have approved… THEY were in France, and then Belgium… summer and then later, 1944… ONE froze his feet... I paid attention to them, when they DID talk... Kiddies!
The sherman was a piece of shit... I have no idea why you think it was such a great tank unless you're talking about how easy they were to maintain (that's if they weren't already blown up beyond repair).
mschaffle easy to maintain, fast to manufacture, overwhelmed the nazi's tiger tanks. 50,000 of them were produced, overwhelming 1300 of the tigers. good for personnel support.
35 MPH in a Sherman? that is pretty crazy. ^_^ The tracks appeared to hold up well too. I'm assuming they are modified as I don't think they bothered with rubber pads back in the day. the barrel condom is a nice touch too. ;)
The steering of this tank looks amazingly smooth. Very nice compared to so many surviving tanks. Great work! I was surprised to see the original transmission and steering set up.
Early M4 versions did have the Continental radial, but there were versions with GM diesels and Chrysler gas engines.. The US had to source power plants from a number of suppliers to keep the flow of them headed across the ocean. There are also a number of different hulls depending on where they were built and the intended powerplant.
The Sherman was a good tank at the beginning of the war. It could easily take out Mark 3's and 4's and Fiats. That was the vast majority of the Axis armour that Sherman crews encountered up through the end of 1943. US/UK used their armour for infantry support not so much to engage in anti-tank combat. The Allies had overwhelming air supriority for that. The uber-menschen on this board make it sound like no German armour was ever destroyed in combat. They got Napalmed. - And ref. Arrancourt.
the Shermans used these engines:caterpiller D-200A(RD-1820)radial; chyslerA-57(multi-bank);continental or Wright R-975-EC2 or C-1; continental or wright R-975 -C-4; ford GAA-lll v-8 ;and GM 6046D twin 6-71 diesels(2- 6 cylinder diesels with superchargers). the ford and gm engines were well liked by their crews....reliable and easier to work on than the rest.
@Tyco200 Make no mistake, I was at a tank museum in Aberdeen Maryland, they had an example of nearly every tank sitting in field. The German "Panther" tank appeared to be the meanest on the lot. A Sherman looked like a beer can in comparison. The Panther had large scoops of armor blown away from what looked like an ice cream scoop about 5 inches deep. The Sherman was inferior in many ways, but quantity has a quality all it's own.
6:55 "Honest officer! I didn't see the stop sign!" " Also I didn't see your cruiser! I'm sure a good body shop can take that dent out of the roof real easy".
For all of you hating on American tanks and claiming Russia God. During the battle of Kursk 70% of all the tanks used by the Russians in this battle where American and British tanks aka Shermans etc. Also 92% of all artillery, trucks, transports etc. where American made Studebaker trucks sent to Russia via ships.
smacdiesel Seeing Bletchley Park all restored in "The Imitation Game" was worth the ticket cost, alone. To see a "Bombe" actually running, ditto… 3 AND 4 rotor (Shark) Enigmas lit up and running. Alan Touring, a hero like Fermi and Oppenheimer….getting just recognition... Treated so shabby, after The War. SHOULD have garnered a VC. IMHO J.C.
Billy Bob those t-34 were the true deathtrap dumbass the m4 had the highest survival rate of the war and the Russian enjoyed and had the tanks since the us lend leased them those 90000 tanks were shit and wouldn't last the Soviets long if they only used them. They lost around 70000-80000 of those things.
The Sherman's armour was just fine compared to the Panzer III and IV, its only the Tigers and Panthers where it becomes less effective. The early Shermans had terrible guns, but the later ones with the longer barrelled gun were fine. The Sherman was also one of the most reliable tanks of the war (only a few tanks like the GMC engined Valentine could beat it) and one of the most maintenance friendly. Being able to keep a tank going and get it back into action quickly is far more important than people would have you believe. The Panther may have outarmoured and out gunnned the Sherman, but the thing had a pitiful reliability rate, was horrendous to maintain and was less comfortable for the crew. The outcome of the war proves that the Sherman was adequate for the job. Sure, it could have had more armour and a better gun, but it did not need it to do the job. You are not correct about lend lease either. Over 4000 Shermans were sent to the USSR under lend lease (7000 tanks in total) and Britain sent over 5000 tanks as well. They even received some T26s for testing purposes.
@Valkmir I know which side won the war and Sherman tanks were part of the reason why. There were still many Sherman tanks operating at the end of the war and for many years after, it was the Axis tanks that "failed".
Must have been cool blasting down the Autobahn in 1945 in a 15 mile long line of Shermans, half tracks, armored cars and trucks with a few M26 Pershings.
Imagine gliding down the road listening to your favorite tune and then shitting yourself when you look in the rear view mirror and see a Sherman tank tailgating you doing 88 😂
As much as I appreciate Queen.... it's way to loud for the kind of vid this is, plus the other music is just pitiful... Where be that Continental radial gargle!
great video, great tank. It did a great job in WW2. I climbed into one at Monte Cassino cemetery as a child, and could not believe how couped up it was inside - but I still get excited thinking about it today as then.
I wouldn't slate the American tank production too much, the Sherman may have been outclassed in armour and fire power by late war German vehicles, but it was easy to build and relatively reliable, which turned out to have been more important in the end. Although, the British versions with 17pdrs actually had a fighting chance against panthers etc! In the end numbers one it, as a German tank commander once said, 'it takes 5 of your Shermans for one of our tanks, but there always seem to be 6'.
Met a guy who drove his Sherman at speed across Italy to get to the city of Trieste before the Russians. They beat them to the city and then had a Mexican standoff at a bridge with the Kiwi manned Shermans facing down the T34s, Russians kept out. He said that they did have rubber on the tracks to make it easier on the road, gave them grip and protected the tracks somewhat, but he admitted that towards the end of their run the tracks were throwing them off they were taking such a beating. He passed in 1980s, proud of what he did, hard case alright!
@@brutalnyas5639 they were designe as a anti-infantry tank but revealed itself to be the best tank a country could wish for to win a war of autritionike ww2
Het blijft heerlijk om te zien! It's still great to see this video! Our reenacting group uses a sherman as well. (M4A3) AND I'M STILL IN LOVE WITH THEM!!!!
Absolutely awesome sound, must be a killer sound inside as that radial is running that fast, and excellent steering too, now there is a man who can take corners without lifting kerb stones.. Great stuff.
The teen age boy in me likes the naked woman graphic on the front side of the tank. The old man in me likes the sound of the engine! The US has gotten so politically correct that 18 wheeler transports can't come on bases if they have the naked woman mud flaps on their trucks. Stupid.
The Military is THE most PC Organization in the Country thanks to Morons like Obama and the Liberal Fools who Elected him twice...Trump 2016.... or this Country is gone for good...
Harry Kuheim Exactly right and now we're putting women in combat units. Trump is my choice and although he wasn't my first choice I do believe that Trump cares about the country and wants to get it back on the right track. Obamanation and Hildabeast each have their own agenda. Hildabeast wants to be the pay to play POTUS, just like she was the pay to play Secretary of State with the corrupt Clinton Foundation aka the make the Clinton's rich Foundation.
I actually own a B17 flying fortress and an m3 halftrack and a 1941 willys jeep and a ton of firearms from ww2 still operational and I thank my grandfather for all of the guns he was a first class sergeant in the United States 75th rangers in ww2
Immaculate restoration! Nice job. I can't imagine how loud that must have been inside the 'cabin'. There was no way you were sneaking up on anyone in that. I'll bet enemy forces could hear that Detroit and know it was an American tank 10 km away. There's no mistaking that 2 stroke DD, 3 cylinders or 12.
This has the 6-71N "Twin Pack".. Two GM Diesel (aka Detroit Diesels after 1965) 6-71N's (counter rotating) driving through a single, common shaft, and mounted side by side on a "unit frame". 6-71, of course means 6 cylinders - 71 cubic inches per cylinder... or, 5" stroke (total, including exhaust valve opening & port uncovering) and a 4.25" bore. The 6-110's (1945 - 1965) had a 5" bore x 5.60" stroke.
2Stroke Diesel Power I think they made about 11,000 of the GM 6046D powered M4's. I'm no expert and have never seen one, but I believe the engine used a common block for both rotating assemblies and heads but those separate crankshafts were clutched together and drove a common jackshaft to the transmission.
Aaron Barker Hi Aaron... thanks for the reply... I'm No "expert" either, but I do know that up until GM Diesel (as it was branded until 1965 - then Detroit Diesel, thereafter) developed the V8's 12's etc.. that it was standard practice to utilize "multiple engine" packs in various configurations in order to meet horsepower demands in various applications.... and the M4's that I have seen "apart" for restoration that were GM powered, were all running 6-71 Twin Packs running in counter rotation setups driving though a common clutch & final drive.... and that is all I have to go by, myself... when it comes to tanks. : )
The British themselves named their tanks "Tommy Cookers" in the burning _desert_ as they cook inside their metal tanks. And the name was specific to the M4. The Germans did or at least did not in documents, call the M4 Tommy Cookers. And also, Tommy is for British, not Americans. American are referred to as Johnny
Funny thing about Shermans. They didn't have a high silhouette, they had a narrow silhouette. The tank was as tall as a Panzer IV, yet much narrower. Because the proportions are off, it makes the Sherman look much taller than it really is. So when compared to most contemporary tanks, the Sherman was actually a harder target to hit due to being so narrow.
Thanks for the close-up video of the track & suspension. It would have been cool to see the side view of the suspension when it was being loaded on the trailer. Looks like a blast to drive! Thanks for posting.
Love it when some say the U.S. was "late" to the war. The reason? Because in 1941, as in 1917, it wasn't our war to start with. We were pulled into both wars and more than held up out end of the log. By 1945 the U.S. had 65 divisions in Europe to the 18 fielded by the British. And the U.S. was carrying the load in the Pacific as well. Lend Lease, aircraft, trucks, tanks...by the thousands sent to Britain, Russia and the allies. Hundreds of thousand killed and wounded...and still never enough.
I think many people are unaware that the US decided to build large numbers of smaller, less armored tanks for the simple reason they had to be transported across the Atlantic Ocean. Say what you want about how great German tanks were, the Shermans did their job, they helped win the war.
@Zfk41 Actually it's a very well known fact that the Sherman was well built and reliable. Not only that, but actual numbers-wise, the Sherman was supposed to compete with the Panzer 3 and 4, NOT the 5 and 6. The Panther and Tiger are what caused us to build things like the M-18 Hellcat and M26 Pershing with their much more powerful guns. The issue with break downs was that Germany never really did make a lot of improvements because they didn't have the resources or manpower to do it.
Loved how they blew through the STOP sign at speed...I mean, who's gonna argue with a frickin' SHERMAN TANK, fer f*cks sake! Reminds me of a line from that old Humphrey Bogart film "Treasure of the Sierra Madre" -- "Stop Sign?....we don' need no steenking STOP SIGNS !!!"
Until I see one, I don’t believe that a T-34 could get up to this speed, the tracks probably wouldn’t resist and its archaic transmission would drain all the speed in every turn. But... glorious Soviet engineering, right? In any case, apart from the music, the video is still very enjoyable, it’s impressive that such an old machine still manages to run that well. I suspect a posible engine swap though. And, it can be either a M4A1 or a Grizzly, both are basically the same with some minor differences. I suspect this is an original M4A1 though.
Most people don't realize, this thing was the fastest armored vehicle going. Almost no one knows or realizes most of these things were equipped with radial aircraft engines. You only needed one sharp country boy that knew how to twiddle a few nuts and bolts and this thing was the rocket you see in this video. This left enemy tanks in the dust. Yea it took four of these to take out a tiger but the in the meantime you only had 2700 tiger ones and twos compared to 55 thousand Sherman's.
@Zfk41 Yeah that's true, the US Sherman wasn't great against tanks, but early tanks were built for different combat situations. The M4 was initially designed to support infantry and give them a base of fire. Similar to an IFV without the APC role. It was fast, maneuverable, and had a low velocity/weight armament and armor to support this. It was also well designed in that they were fast to produce/repair. The M4 wasn't a bad tank. The Germans just had a better approach to what a tank's role is.
@Zfk41 Germany aimed to fix these issues with their E-XX line. It was basically all of their previous designs unified into a single modular series of chassis and suspension. Conventional German tanks were all very specialized and complicated, and so very costly and time consuming to fix. Modular parts would have reduced both time and cost significantly. Sadly, the E-XX line was based on existing tank designs and would have been outdated by the time any were built.
A truthful statement, however there is a reason why this tank was never replaced, and that is because the allies never felt they needed a replacement, despite the heavy loses they took on the hands of the German tank crews. I guess the allies were simply too confident in their numbers. The Americans in particular didn't see the tank as a tank destroyer, they thought this machine was for infantry support and that the job of destroying tanks belonged to tank destroyers.
Bravo !! Pour la vidéo. Imaginez le monstre à l'époque combattre pour libérer notre belle France. Merci à vous de nous faire partager et de prouver que dans ces années la.on savait déjà travailler. Bien amicalement
@Zfk41 They would develop a basic prototype and push it into combat with little or no real testing. So yes, breakdowns in German tanks were VERY common and the numbers are not exaggerated at all. This is due to Germany's early modular concepts. For example the Tiger II broke down constantly due to the extra weight on the stock Tiger I frame and suspension. The only working Maus tank ever made broke down on its way to its first combat and never fought.
Good to see one of these tanks in action! My late Grandpa was a WWII tank Commander. His stateside tank had the big DOHC Ford V8 and the overseas tank had the crappy radial engine. he spoke of these diesels but he never drove one. Are they 2-stroke Detroits?
In the case of the A2s, yes. In the case of the A6, no. The A6 carried a Caterpillar D200A diesel radial (converted Curtiss-Wright 1820 Cyclone gasoline), which was even more massive than the A4's problematic Chrysler 5-bank.
@motownmaniax The M-36 was also a sherman chassis using the 90mm gun. The M--36b used the standard m4 chassis and the turret from the M-36.Showing tha Sherman could be upgunned and carry the 90mm .Postwar the Israilies got excellent use from up gunned and modernized Shermans.
The turn the tank takes around 6:50 could not be done by most tanks. This is why the Sherman was not as bad as people made it out to be. SURE- the Germans could penetrate it and it had difficulty penetrating the Germans. But the essence of Tank shootouts is that you have to get to the scene of the battle. The Germans had success in Normandy because they often lay in wait in the bocage "Box" countryside. It's worth remembering the story told by Mark Felton about how a Tiger and a Nashorn both enjoyed success against Pershings in Germany towards the end. So big guns and big armour is only half the story. The simple fact is that in the defensive war the hidden tank has the drop over the advancing tank. The Americans could have built Shermans with 90mm guns and 190mm armour. They would then have had to transport those tanks on ships and keep them reliable. As it was, the Sherman was a reliable tank- it needed servicing every 100 miles to guarantee reliability. German tanks couldn't do that. On the one occasion of 1944/1945 that the Germans were forced to drive their tanks to the scene of battle {Wacht Am Rhein/Battle of the Bulge} they suffered mechanical breakdown and fuel shortages. A Sherman could drive 20 miles and be effective when it got there. I don't dispute the effectiveness of the German 88 or the horrific losses of the Allied tank crews in Normandy in 1944. But you don't have to be perfect to be good and there is no guarantee that the Sherman would have been "Good" if she had been upgunned and uparmoured. She would have been produced in fewer numbers and not have had the advantages of mobility and speed that she did have in the Box countryside of Normandy. There are reports of Canadian Shermans being able to speed around and flank Panthers in France. It was a Sherman Firefly that eventually took out Wittmans Tiger. By 1945 the Allies had cracked it with the Comets and the Pershing. Of course, the war was over, but it might not had been over if only 20,000 Shermans had been produced with big guns and thicker armour. The Comets might have had an impact in 1945 but it says a lot that by 1945 they weren't needed. If Allied tank designers had made the same sort of mistakes the Germans had in 1944 then the Comet might had had an impact, for all the wrong reasons. Anyone can build a 70 tonne monster with a big gun. Not anybody can make 50,000 of them. As for the T-34, the Soviets might have built 50,000 but they damn near lost 50,000 of them. A lot of its success was against Panzer III, IV and Stugs. Even then it was not user-friendly, had shitty optics, needed a hammer to change gears and had no stealth. The Sherman was one of the tanks of the war for the reasons mentioned. Reliable, capable of mass production, ease of transport and capable of being upgunned. It suffered only because of the nature of war in Northern France in 1944. People forget its record in North Africa and Italy.
Well, first, the Americans made some 100+ Shermans as Tank Destroyers armed with 90mm Guns under designations M36B1. Second, they built the M4A3E2 Assault Tank, an Up-Armored Shermans that can withstand 88mm Rounds and there's a 76mm Guns versions existed. The M4A3E2 led the American Tankers to improvise the Armor of their Sherman Tanks by slapping (welding) more armor from wrecked tanks to the front, some at the sides and additional armor plating to the turret to increase survivability and morale.
The sherman was way more reliable than anything the germans built. It was a good machine. BUT it was not intented to fight against heavier german tanks. It was able to measure against Panze III and IV. For practical reasons (storage space in ships among others) it was decided to keep it in production til the end of the war.
@Greatherlorre The Shermans that fought in the Middle East were actually "Super Shermans" not Fireflies. They had modern reactive laminated armor(much like the M48 Patton and T62), full electronics suites, and 102mm French naval guns to replace the aging 75s and 76s. So while, yes, the Sherman did whoop the shit out of way newer tanks, it did so with basically double the capability they were built to have.
@chromesphere Depends on the Panzer. Sherman was better protected then the Panzer II and III, and it's protection and firepower were comparable to the up-gunned late-war Panzer IVs.
@Zfk41 Also, those repair statistics are not from the Allies, they are from German soldiers who lived in their tanks day and night and knew their machines exceptionally well. I have friends who actually served in the Pnazer V Panther and they will tell you the same. The tank's actual performance, armor, and firepower were spectacular, but they weren't reliable at all.
@SSUstufRudel that's right but this one is the fastest SHERMAN in europe, thanks to it's tracks aspecially supplied by staman nijverdal, the netherlands.
@Zfk41 I said PANZER not Tiger. And yes they did sacrifice themselves. They of course weren't told they were going to be sacrificed but there's NO chance a Panzer vs a Sherman would ever actually occur one on one. And when the P51s were flying above, the Germans already knew they would lose the war.
Nice video. I was, however, quite relieved to hear the music finally stop, only to be discouraged when it started again. Some of us simply want to hear these beautiful machines, and nothing more.
In the Italy campaign and D-day to V-E day the US alone lost a little over 7000 shermans as total none repairable they lost alot more but many where repaired. One example is the US 3rd armored division for example suffered a 600% tank loss ratio, for every tank they started with was knocked out 6 times.
