There is nothing better than watching true craftsmen excel at their craft and fully enjoy doing so. As an American , I want to point out to my fellow Yanks that D-Day and Market Garden were essentially Commonwealth operations with lots of US equipment.--Bob Bailey in Maine, USA
I have a question for you. Me and a couple of friends have a ongoing debate, and I was wondering if you could tell me what the absolute minimum number of crewman a Abrams needs to operate so I can settle that debate
At the museum at the Rock Island, Illinois - is a Sherman knocked in world war 2. Israel attacked the USS Liberty, an AGR-5 which later was with ship Little Rock.
Interesting series, but would be better if they spent more than 10 of the 50 minutes showing the restoration! Each episode spends more time talking about the Abrams and a history lesson on WW2.
I really wish these programs would stop citing "Deathtraps" as a viable source. The Ronson slogan wasn't a thing until postwar, so it was impossible to actually have been used. At the very least they attributed the issue to ammunition, which is partially correct, instead of fuel like they usually do. Improper ammunition stowage (especially by the Brits) was the most common reason for a Sherman to catch fire. When stowed properly, the Sherman would catch fire no more then a PZIV.
Well _Ronson_ was used in reference to the Sherman Crocodile flamethrower tank. However, concerning the M4 burning, you are correct, no primary evidence exists to promote that it was used during the war.
CrazyKitBuilder I know that reconstructing a tank is a laborious business. However, after several episodes of the series I've only seen that they finished the Hellcat. Only one...
Ok I understand that but as a tank scale model builder, the closeup shots and assembly details are invaluable even if the tank isn't finished on the show.
they had to repaint it, replace engine and make mud flaps i believe in like 2 weeks, if you got all the stuff it goes quick. especially if you have a TV show in which you film a year earlier and post it a year later.
Great, informative video, with a lot of good information and details. I'm curious, will there be an English language version of this in the near future, or are we stuck with the ghetto version indefinitely?
It's actually easier with thick metal than thin but takes longer than a car due to size. Torch cutting and welding isn't difficult and is quite fun. Channels like I C Weld (he repairs heavy equipment often much larger than Sherman) show in detail how heavy equipment weld repairs and mods are done. Welding is very forgiving if the parts are aligned (in this case by turret ring, on cars by using windshields and door panel gaps, I've clipped cars) and easy to correct on thick stock.
These restorations are mostly by small groups of amateurs, with limited resources, and can take many years. No TV company can hang around for years, making a documentary.
"In 1941 Germany had the most advanced mechanized armor in the world" then proceeds to show a Tiger 2 that wasn't produced until 1944. Good job with the historical accuracy.
As far as my reading regarding the Sherman was initially the manual to operate the gun stabilization system was classified. So by far the majority of crews didn't actually use the system. 3rd Armored division used the system & the 753rd tank battalion in Italy were the exceptions.
The early Shermans had 1.7" not 1.25" armor, the slope gave over 3" equivalent, however, the shell size, velocity, and weight can overcome this. A 50mm is the limit, 75mm and 88mm would get through and penitrate the slope.
If you guys didn't know the tanks that were built to swim but with high waves it ended up at the bottom of the ocean and to this day they are all still down there. I believe there were 29 on D day and out of 29 27 ended of going down.
So I watched this and the episode about the Panther... And I watch and I watch and I'm like "come on.... here is cooooomes, show it to us.... there it is... now it'll show it" and boom, end credits! Where the hell are the finished ones??? Why don't you sow us the results? Nice to see the whole process but the point is to show us the results of your work!
If you look up inside the chieftains hatch on the panther the tank he gives a tour of is that very panther that was being restored so you can see that one but the other tanks off this series not so much well maybe the Ferdinand because it was on loan to the tank museum in bovington England a few years back
that's weird, there's a German panther commander from WW2 claiming they called them that.ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-QFQhFTq45DU.html i heard it was a myth too
Yes i've found it was first used as slogan in the 50's myself. But considering that was so long ago I can easily see how old memories would get muddled.
@@scottyfox6376 You are right, who knows maybe Ronson used the saying as a slogan because our own troops were calling them that. Possibly that is how they came up with the slogan in the first place.
Where does the museum get the money to have a big shop and the salaries for these workers??!! They cannot be volunteers, restoring that many tanks. Just the shop building and all its expenses is an enormous cost!
don't get me wrong it looks like a good job on the repair but if it was done properly (ignore cost) you would have used preheat and post heat on that weld and then machined it true again. For the limited use it will get will be OK but I wouldn't sent it back into service!!
Unless I'm wrong - please correct me the M4 wasn't designed to fight panzers at all - the US Army had tank destroyers to do that, the sherman was designed to provide support to infantry. As I understand it that was why it generally didn't do very well and the politics supporting this strategy led to the perishing being delayed to the point that it became irrelevant. In terms of catching fire - it probably was no worse than the Panzers but they were also petrol fueled and caught fire much more often than the Russian KVs and ISs. Improper ammuntion storage is all very well but there may well be a reason why that ammuntiion was being stored like that if storing it correctly made it too difficult to access (tank crews rarely do anything that they percieve will put them at a disadvantage or more likely to be killed). As mentioned the sherman was fantastically well designed for being produced rapidly and reliably working on the other side of an ocean.
+Tom Riley > *_"please correct me the M4 wasn't designed to fight panzers at all - the US Army had tank destroyers to do that, the sherman was designed to provide support to infantry."_* This is a commonly reiterated myth. U.S. Armored Force branch (apart of Army Ground Forces) viewed Medium Tanks as support to other units, armor, infantry, or likewise in making and exploiting breakthroughs in enemy lines. And to deal with enemy resistance accordingly. The _M4_ , being a medium tank, was not focused on any one particular need. Tanks Destroyer Branch viewed tank destroyers as an entirely defensive asset, supporting the other units in a manner best described as a failsafe. > *_"In terms of catching fire - it probably was no worse than the Panzers but they were also petrol fueled and caught fire much more often than the Russian KVs and IS"_* The _M4_ burned no more from any cause, and subsequently suffered catastrophic losses than any medium tank of the era. Panzerkampfwagen _V Panther_ and Panzerkampfwagen _IV_ mainly. T-34 burned considerably more because of ammunition stowage and the fact the fuel tanks and hydraulics were all within immediate, not just close, but immediate proximity.
Tom Riley Why do the US Army Soldiers needs a Tank Destroyer when fighting a German Panzer while one isn't present on the Battlefield? There are soldiers with AT Weapons and there are Tanks that will require support. There's no need one. And US Shermans don't burn often than the Soviet Tanks and Soviet Tanks are also not reliable and were prone to flames, the US M4's smoked more and never lits up instantly, that was thanks to Wet Storage. British Shermans on the other hand had more ammunition storage which it would likely caught on fire. And to correct your knowledge about the Sherman is also wrong. The Shermans did fought German Panzers from North Africa to Europe that did it's job with it's 75mm Guns and their 76.2mm M1 Guns with AP and APDS (HVAP) Rounds.
Engaging enemy tanks was in the manuals. There are many myths and misconceptions surrounding the use of Tanks and Tank Destroyers by the US. Tanks certain had to fight enemy tanks when they encountered them, the Tank Destroyers were supposed to sit back in reserve and wait until the Germans launched a concentrated armoured assault, which they rarely did so TD's, and as per the manual, were used at the discretion of the commanding officer, usually as a surrogate tanks, infantry support and artillery.
if you guys look carefully, you with see two ex-armor on side of each tanks hull, that is the detail be found on the Sherman Firefly, the version be modify by the UK with the 17-Pounder gun on turret replace for the normal 75/76-mm American gun
Although the hull was cast, the alloy material of high grades and purity, while they use A stainless steel wire, as that has allot of the same properties, like the contraction rate of expansion rate as the hull it self.. A bit of pre-heating, and you can mig weld all day long, and then to allow the structure to cool slowly and relax and stabilize...now, that takes the integrity away in the welded seam as per the required strength for armor... But, it is just a show piece.. I hope that helps..
Why are we watching two completely different documentaries spliced together and very little of the actual Sherman being completed. Is this just an editing exercise? I'm getting frustrated.
Why do the makers of this series keep cutting away to speeded up scenes of road traffic, trains etc? Or zooming rapidly into small waves on the beach? Also, why the very short cuts and bongo drums going on the whole time? Must've been made for idiots. Certainly, by idiots.
Sherman first of all was a good tank with a good engine & was easy to produced by the thousands it's only relatively weakness I might say it was it's armor protection but it compensated from that with its very good 75 mm barrel gun it wreak havoc on the German tanks from a far distance with its armor piercing projectile Sherman hit the German tanks for very far distance before the enemy tank had a chance to come closed to it & that in my opinion was it's best protection the good gun now in this case this machine is rebuild so we can establish the historic connection of the machines & the weapons that the allies used at that historic moment which I considering as essential with all their strength & weakness as with that as well of the enemy that opposing us .
Today most of this tank are still use in some or few Latin Americsn Nations like Paraguay Argentina Colombia Mexico Panama Bolivia and etc. But i think Paraguay and Argentina are using it as a training and defence Armoured Vehcle. Are rest of Other Latin American are still unknown. I just watch Jmantimes video.
Three points: ! The Axis forces relied heavily up to the end of the war on Animal drawn logistics. 2 The DD Sherman was effective on D-Day, it was only on Utah and Omaha due to bad tactics that many were lost. 3 If Adolf Hitler was so concerned about the landing at Normandy, why did he not release reserves? Because he believed that the landings would be in the Pas De Calais area , helped by a careful Allied disinformation plan to feed his paranoia.
no hitler did not release them early on because he was sleeping and his aids were to afraid to wake him. They lost 1/3 of the dds due to bad wether causing the bilge pumps to fail as too much water was coming over the screens. Sorry but Utah had 27/28 make it ashore, Omaha 2/29, Gold 24/32, Juno 37/53, Sword 31/34 make it. The total out of 280 DD's, 121/176 made it, the remainder are due to direct landing onto beach from LCT's not offshore. "The varied outcomes on D Day reflect the harsh conditions of the sea. Clearly these were much worse on the western side of Normandy, resulting in the catastrophic losses at OMAHA, yet, on JUNO and SWORD the swell and winds were slightly less, resulting in the successful arrival, as planned, of over 70 DDs on the beaches." not only the axis, no european country could front mechanized transport in numbers, without the US neither could most of the allies.
The tank was good(ish) but could have been much better. I'm sure that with a little more thought and transferred battlefield knowledge from their allies. The designers of the time could have produced a first class tank and still stayed within the design restrictions.
+Tristan van Dam The M256 is contracted by General Dynamics Land Systems, manufactured by Watervliet Arsenal, in New York. It is licensed to Egypt and produced by Military Factory 200 in Cairo for their M1A1's, and is also contracted by Hyundai Rotem as the "KM256", but has several different manufacturer. The XM256 prototype was a licensed Rheinmetall L/44 120mm. tank cannon, though production M256's are not, and of a completely different design that only shares commonality in ammunition.
Why are they doing all that since it wont be in combat any more? Could have just used filler and made use of that hull instead of doing so much to swap over the other one (which they could have made an entirely different tank or some sort of an exhibition piece out of)
No, but war is a fearsom enterprise and all tanks can die easily. Even Russian tankers quite liked their Sherman "Emchas". "Popular" history is usually wrong.
Maybe if the video showed the continuation of the actual restoration we could have seen it completed instead of just the hull being welded back together.
Make it easier by making a giant tub fill it with water then add some soda crystals then throw the tank in there and then add some electricity and boom there you go rust gone this is called electrolisis
There are abandoned Shermans that are complete all over Europe. Why rebuild ones that have been blasted and burned to hell? It would have been a hell of a lot cheaper to rebuild one that had little damage but was abandoned.
Because of the unique challenge! The M4 is relatively easy to acquire. But adding one to your collection by welding two together? I dare say that you'd be the only one with a tank like that.
P47 Thunderbolt except its a very good medium tank and the best medium tank of the war. It continued on after the war successfully until the 80s. Nothing else can say that.
@@kcimb can't disagree with that . But trying to make a point . Even tough I had an uncle that got blown up in one of those things. They buried the crew 2 to a box .
That Ronson line is a lie. So is the myth about them catching on fire more than any other tank. As well as a Sherman seeing Tigers, Panthers, etc that often on the Western Front. The Ronson ad campaign was from the mid-1950s, so that ain't true (WWII was over by 1945). A round has something called "propellant", and that stuff is flammable, gasoline might as well be water in comparison. And that tank you're fighting isn't dead until it's roaring in flames. Same as with their tanks, and you keep shooting them until that happens. And once you hit a stowed round, well there'll be roiling flames for sure. There were maybe two or three dozen of encounters with the German big boys total on the Western Front, the Germans (wisely) sent most of it to the Eastern Front; didn't help. And the Sherman was more than a match for the Panzer 1s, 2s, 3s, and 4s that were her #1 tank foes.
"Ronson received an exclusive patent, in 1926, for a new automatic style of lighter that worked with one hand, and in 1927 Ronson began marketed it as the Ronson De-Light Lighter with the slogan "A flip - and it's lit! Release - and it's out!"" From my research the ammo didnt catch fire, if ammo was hit the tank usually had its turret blown off and all crew killed. The allies at that stage (mostly American) identified all german tanks as tigers, in fact during d-day there were a total of 3-4 tigers, the rest being withheld due no one wanting to commit them without the fuhrers permission. There are plenty of stories of the sherman going up in flames, one account was from an english tank commander duelling with a tiger 1. He eventually rammed the tiger, his tank caught fire he then evacuated the tank, came across a firefly with no commander, took over the tank and in 3 shots killed the tiger. His tank was still burning. On the other side they came across a panther with no damage, on investigation they found the exhaust vents had been blocked by rubble and the engine burnt out. One other tit bit of information, the panthers had a problem (cant remember it though) all I remember is that they could burst into flame due to some sort of blockage which was a design flaw (apparently). Another was a tank commander in a sherman describing how he watched an 88 round pass under him from a frontal hit and blow out the engine.. He couldnt believe he lived. The british hated the sherman and thanked god for the comet. Also the sherman 76mm was a match for tigers, the US armour command though didnt want lots of different ammo types so they left them in england. The 76mm could take on a tiger from the front at 300 meters and kill it (apparently). Strange that the 75mm was useless against a tiger but the 76mm "yeah no problem".. The crews wanted them but backseat generals said no, too many logistical issues with ammo. Could have saved a lot of sherman crews if they had used them... if they could pen a tiger from the front at 300 meters then no german tank up to a tiger would be safe...