Tanks Chats #164 | M-50 Sherman | The Tank Museum 

David forgot to wear his super cool sunglasses 🕶 😎

Interesting chat. Why is it that you don't move the turrets on your tank days? :) Every time you see the tanks driving about, you never swing the turrets about.

@@amcconnell6730 minimise Wear and tare im guessing

very nice

It's beast, just like The Beast (1988)

@Mr Rodgers same can be said of the T34 (especially), Cromwells, Panzers, etc. See Lazer pig's video aptly titled the t34 is not as good as you think.

@Mr Rodgers That myths been disproved in the last decade by reviewing historical archives. Once the large hatch and sponsonless ammo Sherman's came out, the M4 had one of, if not the highest survival rates of any tank in WWII. Statistically a US tanker was more likely to die outside his tank than in it.

@@wyntr1903 Cromwells not so much, the issue fhe Cromwell had was it could drown the crew if the crew didn't shoot holes into the floor 🤣😂

@Mr Rodgers 3rd Armoured Division would disagree with you. Some crews got 3 or 4 vehicles because the crews survived to fight another day.

@Mr Rodgers Next time, please do your research before making bold statements. We're in the information age, (almost) everybody can/could fact check themselves. Cheers from the home of the overengineered Panzers ;)

Multinational effort? More like multinational business.

Don't forget that it also went for round 2 against the Pz 4 during the 6 day war.

@@korbell1089 Ate T55s for lunch it did

Normally I'd say that adding a bigger gun is the most Murican thing I can think of and I'm so proud of everyone, but the British did it first with the Sherman Firefly... I still love it though lol

@@korbell1089 pz4, stuG and a couple of jagdpanzer4s.

They are still in service with Chile using a very high velocity 60mm gun...80 years after they entered service...

@@rvail136 I think they've all been replaced by Leopards by now

@@rvail136 Till 2006 so not anymore

It looks great with the improved main gun & tracks/suspension. Also I noticed improved armour in front of the driver and coaxial.

There were a lot of them lying around, and if you don't have anything better then waste not want not.

@@Zorro9129 Just the fact that they still ran well with minimal work and were viable shows what a great tank it was.

After 1967 the M50 underwent many mods with totally different missions. Remove the turret put in a mortar, apc and engineering. They also swapped gas for diesel.

@@JohnRodriguesPhotographer The Israelis sure love upgrading old tanks back in the day. But not a surprise since they are constantly under threat of annihilation so they need every technological advantage they could get

When you're fighting Arabs it's pretty hard to be bad at combat.

The biggest reason for the effectiveness of the Israeli Shermans was the quality of their crews, The Tank Corps, along with the Airborne and Air Force, is the elite of the IDF and attracts some of the highest quality recruits. They are then put through rigorous training to produce some of the best tankers in the world. The Arabs, with the exception of the Jordaniians (Who inherited the standards of the British trained and officered Arab Legion) came nowhere close. As has been proven so many times in history, a well trained soldier, even armed with inferior weapons, will beat the ill trained one

@@colbeausabre8842 the circumstances also matter. Fighting in a foreign land for politics is a lot less motivating, compared to say fighting for the lives of the women&children right behind the frontlines. A modern day example is Ukraine. The terror strikes against civilian infrastructure, can be at least partially attributed to the, galvanizing of their entire society to resist the occupation & invasion.

Beausabre. See Ukraine.

@@colbeausabre8842 man....the fact has flown way over your head lol As we all know, yeah...you're correct, as crews must know how to properly utilize any and all available equipment. But the fact remains the same the m50-51 we're extremely CAPABLE and demonstrated their capability in devastating fashion. They did so in the hands of quality, qualified and driven crew's. 2 equal tanks facing off it is the crew and sheer luck which determines the victor, but the tank with an extremely accurate cannon with excellent penetration can sit back and snipe. The M50-51 gave the crews a huge advantage just as much as the crews were able to COMPLETELY squeeze everything out of the m50's capabilities

As a Sherman enjoyer, it is nice to see upgraded beyond its original capability Shermans like M-50, M-51, and Chilean M-60. But i think they upgraded the Shermans mostly because said nations cant afford more modern tank

@@darnit1944 It help[s not having to face an enemy with more modern tanks! The US always had to build tanks that could equal or out match Russian tanks.

What was the most challenging issue in bringing the Sherman up to spec? Beautifully restored tank. Props!

I agree, I did a very small amount of work on this vehicle at the very beginning of its restoration

It's still in service with Chile using a very high velocity 60mm gun (think that's the weapon).

Just the great numbers produced would make it popular around the world. But you are correct. They were well built with robust electrical wiring and reliable drive trains. They could operate anywhere around the world.

@@jollyjohnthepirate3168 it’s not just numbers & a horde of parts. As the Soviet-built T-34-85s lacked the same ultra-long service life, even with ample parts and simplicity. Which was partially due to the horrid crew conditions & terrible situational awareness; but mostly the stupidly over hardened armour plate(600 instead of the standard 300) which was known to spall even from smaller sachel charges.

The Panther, T-34, IS-2 saw service after WW2

@@insomniacbritgaming1632 From the 5 min I spent researching: Panther - 1954 T-34 - Some still in use (80+ years after introduction) 😳 IS-2 - 1990's? May still be in use in Cuba It's an interesting what-if to think about if the Axis had won WW2 and instead of tens of thousands of Shermans and T-34s left over, there were equally as many Panthers and Tigers. Would they have lasted as long? I doubt it.

I also grew up in Chester, Pa., and right down the road was Baldwin Locomotive, in Eddystone where that tank may have come from.The tank pictured may be an M4 dry, small hatch, with direct vision BLW 42-03, a hull that Baldwin produced, in the third quarter of 1942. The turret appears to be one of the D50878's without the pistol port.

Managed to see it running there the other month. Beautifully cared for machine

I know what you mean. I get a similar feeling from the leopard 1. Somua S35 one of the least - looks like a jelly mould

The Centurion is that tank for me.

False statement. The Bob Semple tank is the best looking tank.

@@nvelsen1975 I didn't say best looking tank, I said the most "tank" looking tank. The Bob Semple tank is the most Vintage Hipster Food Truck looking tank 😆

Centurion for me. Especially the later marks with the L7. 👍

The Chilean Sherman's were just standard M50's with Cummins diesel, delivered without armament. The 60mm HVMS (by this time the IMI and OTO projects had split and each developed their own gun and ammo) was installed because it was available and would fit without much bother, not because of any particular technical merits. It fired APFSDS-T and HE rounds. The manufacturer claimed the APFSDS-T would penetrate the front of a T-55 out to almost 2,000 meters. The L7 with equivalent ammo should do the same at 3,000 meters. Given the small size of the projectile I have no idea how lethal it would be at that range or how they were defining "penetration". 1,500 meters seems more reasonable against homogenous heavy armor. Only Chile bought the IMI gun. Nobody bought the OTO gun. The best retrofit for this gun IMHO was the M24 light tank, which the Chilean's did along with the Sherman purchase. The 75mm was long past its prime with ammunition aging and in decreasing supply. The only other option at the time was the French 90mm F1 which was becoming far from ideal as an anti-armor weapon by the 1980's. With the increasing armor levels of modern IFV's - where frontal protection against 30x165 APDS now seems to be the minimum standard - and with increasing desire to be able to fire a useful HE round I am surprised the 60mm has not seen renewed interest. The IFV market seems to have been the original target but the gun was about 3 decades early.

You should see the Israeli second upgrade, the M-51 with shortened French CN-105 F1 105mm used in the AMX-30 And the Chilean M60 with 60mm HVG firing APFSDS rounds. It's very cool

Darren. Both were in the video.

The French had a couple of battalions of Panthers after World War Twice - until they ran out of spare parts (for some odd reason, they were no longer being manufactured)

Watch Panther Paradox by Lazerpig. The French didn't just run out of spare parts, it was also the frequency of the need for repairs. A few decades ago I read a book on German armour. One historian pointed out that had the Germans launched the invasion of France with Panthers and Tigers the invasion would have failed. While awesome kit, few of them would of made all the way to the Meuse via the Ardennes without breaking down.

They were no longer being manufactured because the Japanese lost the war.

@@markwilliams2620 Good points. Both tanks had their strengths but the reliability wasn't there. You have to give credit to the French that even when they stopped using the Panthers they realized it was worth keeping the gun.

It's not really, though: different barrel length, shells and cartridges.

Nah they'll just add another 7 magachs lol

I was thinking the same thing before I read your comment lol

i was disappointed that they didn’t add the sherman with the 60mm hvms cannon. maybe someday.

It wasn't. There was much cutting and welding involved.

Just what I was thinking ... this is what an Anime tank would look like.

Apparently due to the development in cannon technology, the 75mm gun actually have smaller breech than the 17 pdr gun. So the crew ergonomic is not that bad

What Darren said. What really took up a lot of space inside was the much bigger ammunition rounds. Esp. the 105mm.

It was not much longer than the 76 M1 gun less than one meter and the breech was of similar size and so we're the cartridges even though bigger

I'm glad you spotted that. I was thinking of making that comment.

M4 Continental R-975 radial engine M4A1 Continental radial engine M4A2 Diesel-powered with General Motors Twin G-41 Engine M4A3 Ford GAA V-8 engine M4A4 Chrysler A57 multibank

@@princeofcupspoc9073 Thing is, the Israelis converted all their Shermans to the Continental radial, no matter what had originally powered them, before that was replaced by a Cummins V8 diesel

Its the same vehicle, this belongs to Eden Camp

No. But it didn't really matter. At this time HEAT was in widespread use and could defeat any thickness of armor because composite and reactive armor hadn't been developed yet. This is why they were successful with just putting a big honking gun on it. Because the original aircraft radial engine took up so much room, the big Continental diesels fit fine.