Sherman's greatest strengths were reliability and ease of maintenance. You can have large numbers of amazing tanks on paper but if you can't get them to the battlefield they're giant paperweights.
I would say an even greater asset was how easily it fit into the logistics train. Shipped everywhere, and very few new parts needed to be introduced to support it.
If the USA had started gearing up for WW2 when the Germans did the USA could have easily produced a tank that would be able to go toe to toe with Germanys best tanks. That and the USA had to ship all their tanks and supply's across an ocean patrolled by German U-boats.
I was hopeful that my father’s tank would make the list. He commanded an M4, 105. That 105mm gun was able to save him and his crew against a Panzer. “Lucile” as his Sherman was named, went through the Battle of the Bulge and the Battle for the bridge at Remagen with the 9th Armored Division.
@@rogerfox9028 True, but it did have a very effective 105mm HEAT round, when it was available. Also, it was a howitzer. If you could fire it in such a way to bring the round down on the enemy's top armor, the standard 105mm would destroy most tanks.
Post WW2 after action reports showed that in tank on tank incidents the tank that fired first won over 90% of the exchanges. The German tanks had the advantage of being more often on defence after Normandy. Their big offensive operations, Watch on the Rhine, and the lesser Operation North Wind both proved disastrous for German armour. The Sherman was a survivable tank that didn’t burn at any higher rate than German armour. You were safer being an American tanker than being a line infantryman.
The early models, especially before the introduction of wet stowage was very prone to catching fire. There was a reason the german africa corpse called them bronson lighters, wich had a slogan of "lighting on first try". But this improved with the later models and the aforenoted wet stowage.
@@haakonsteinsvaag According to Zaloga even before wet stowage, the M4 had a burn rate after first round penetration similar to Panzer IV and T34 and better than Tiger I and Panther that carried rounds in lateral sponsons.
@@haakonsteinsvaag , they were called lighters after the war due to the misconception of Shermans being a tank that lit on fire easily. We know this because the slogan “ lights first time every time “ was a slogan used in marketing after the second world war. Niall Moran, aka “ the chieftain “ has addressed this misconception and this is where I get this information from.
Finally a video given the M4 Sherman Medium Tanks some due. A video that points out that the M4 Sherman actually had sloped and not horizontal army is a first. The M4 Sherman was a swiss-army-knife of a tank good at basically anything. Its been given a bad reputation because of the post Normady landings where by that time the German military had experience fighting the Soviet Red Army, and had heavily upgraded their weapons and armor. Things like the Panther, Tigers and their variants were few in number, broke frequently and sometimes permanently, but this created an idea of "Invincible German Armor". The M4A3E2 Sherman "Jumbo" was a rare success at simply up-armoring vehicles without looking for a new design. With nearly doubled armor it was better armored than the Tiger 1 tank. The Sherman Firefly with a 17pounder Anti-tank Gun required some sacrifices to modify, but it was armed better than the majority of tanks at the time and with enough penetration to take out even King Tigers, the M4A3E8 was better than the early M4 Sherman in nearly all areas with a better armor sloping, better cannon, better suspension, and various internal improvements.
Finning Caterpillar (world's largest cat dealer) out of Vancouver Canada bought up scores of surplus shermans after the war and fitted them with heavy rock drilling equipment and called them "Tank Drills" they are still in use world wide but mostly in western Canada
The single most important aspect of the M4, is it could be delivered to Europe by ship from the USA. The M4 was also very easy to get out of when knocked out by enemy fire. Casualties among M4 crew were significantly lower than in other tanks, including the T34, Panther, Tiger and KV tanks. For every 76mm armed M4, there were many more 75mm armed M4's, even to the end of the war, because their primary use was against infantry and fortifications. The 75mm had a much more effective HP load than the 76mm did and the Germans had very few tanks compared to our numbers.
The Panther crew in the Cologne footage get out of their Panther just as quickly as the Sherman crew and more survived. Its a myth the Sherman was more survivable. Tigers literally shrugged off multiple 75mm and 76mm hits with no penetration and no damage to the crew.
@@lyndoncmp5751 The main reason for the high survivability of the Sherman was actually that the crews after a few disastrous weeks in Normandy learned to abandon their tank as soon they felt they were outgunned - often even without being hit. Source: Brains and bullets by Leo Murray.
TT TT, Wouldn't surprise me. I know of one case where 3 Tigers engaged over 20 Shermans in Italy. The Tigers knocked out around a dozen of the Shermans and the rest were abandoned by their crews.
He won't it's his MO.During Market Garden a real Field Marshall Walter Model ordered Tigers sent from the nearby Ruhr on rail.Unfortunately for them the allies had taken out a stretch of track and the tanks had to disembark 40 miles from Arnhem I believe it was like 3 of the 17 tanks made it. They broke down or ran out of gas and a sitting ducks for Tempests and Thunderbolts. And their turrent took a whole minute to revolve.Yes there were advantages but this belief where they were all over and game changer is horseshit. Plus anything much bigger than a Sherman was damn near impossible for cranes to lift into the hold of a ship. And when they could it was much fewer and took longer. So reality and logistics exist and logistics is where the so called Wehrmacht brain trust failed miserably unlike the Western allies.Though IMO the GI generals should have changed out the gun for the 17 pounder like the tommies did.Wouldn't effect mobility or weight to much and the gun could take out the later model Gerry tanks
Meh. The 17-pounder was a powerful gun all right, but a bit overkill for 99% of shots. Against almost every target the 76mm was just as good, was easier on the crew, more accurate, faster to reload, faster to fire, and safer for the crews if hit.
@@silgen it was a Canadian commander that went against orders and did it 1st in the field, once they saw it could be done and how well it worked they did a proper design and build
"1940-design M4 couldn't stand up to later-design Tiger." No Kidding! Nor should it be penalized for it. It WAS upgraded nonstop. People give it too much criticism.
It wasn't intended for tank battles, remember it was a light tank or medium tank. It was designed to support infantry for what we call soft targets. We had a separate tools to combat armored vehicles such as tanks.
The perception is that using petrol was the reason they burned and switching to diesel "saved" the Sherman. The reality was it was the ammunition stowage that was contributing to the fires. Most people don't realise that the vaunted German tanks also ran on petrol.
@@Romanov117 Not familiar with the CAS acronym. I think I suffer from acronym overload. (AO) So I don't know what you meanband can neither agree nor disagree with your statement.
@@sdcoinshooter basically what wet stowage is a tank filled with a non-flammable liquid, usually coolant, and the tank has spaces to store the ammo. The principal is that if an enemy round were to penetrate the tank and hit the stowage the round would puncture the tank then the rounds since the liquid is now soaking the rounds the likelihood of a fire is reduced due to unfavorably wet conditions for a fire to start, and if a fire does start there is a good chance for the liquid to put the fire out.
Totally agree with the list, especially #1. Contrary to what some "experts" claim, the Easy Eight was probably the best all round tank of WW2. Its 76mm gun was just as effective as the Firefly's 17-pdr, and its ammunition didn't suffer the accuracy problems. As for the claims of the tank's "high profile", it was actually the same as the Panther.
I did not know that about the “Easy 8s” height. Thank you. I have long since come to the conclusion the the “Easy 8” was the best all around tank of WW2 but all I ever hear is “the Tiger!”, “the Panther!”, “the King Tiger!”, and a host of Soviet tank designs.
GREAT TANK! used for everything and definitely helped win the war. It wiped out the t 34 in Korea and was a favorite of the Israelis and used until the 1980s to beat and destroy modern Russian tanks.
another reason why it was light armored and smaller size is shipping but these tanks kicked ass against Japanese Go tanks and the updated ones did fairly well in Korea
the sherman is actually quite large. standing as high as 9'9" tall. to give you an idea how big that is a tiger 2 tank is only 10'2" tall so we are talking about 7" in height difference at the shortest and 1'4" at the most. as opposed the most likely contemporaries (the cromwell, T-34, and panzer 4) all being around 8' tall.
@@peterson7082 8'10 inches was the panzer 4 about a foot of that or so was commander coupula so it was standing more like 7'10 to turret roof. as far as the mediums are concerned the sherman was a fairly tall tank comparable. and that's not including the m2 mounted on top of the sherman's turret which would have put it at something 11' tall (granted you can't shoot a mg to damage the tank but it can give it's position away).
@@signolias100 I think there is a miscommunication here. A 75mm. armed _M4_ with the original production or similar turret was from bottom of the tracks to the commander's cupola hatch was either 2.81m. (9'-2⅝") or 2.84m. (9'-3¾") depending on hatch. Or 2.97m. (9'-9") on 76mm. tanks. A late _IV_ be it _Ausf. H_ or _J_ was generally 2.68m. (8'-9½"). So 0.16m. (6¼") is the maximum difference between them and most 75mm. armed _M4's._ I don't disagree with your point though.
@@peterson7082 thus why i said that the sherman was between 9' and 9'9" in height as the sherman varied up to 9" depending on the model. the panzer IV 8'10" claim was most likely a rounded up height. though i would not be surprised if the panzer IV variants had some taller and some shorter than an average size. also i don't think the americans often hsed the additional hatch height as the height of the tank rather turret roof. . i could be wrong on that though.
In the matter of the Firefly, the British arms manufacturer were at first reluctant to retrofit the 17 pounder guns into the Shermans as it was harder to fit them into the tank turrets and the gun flashes would temporarily blind the gun loaders and drivers. One of the tricks that British and Canadian tank crews would do, is to wound an used tank tread around the upper hull of their Shermans to add additional protection against German tank shells. One other way way to send infantry forward to find out when German tanks and anti-weapons were located and radio that information back to their tank commanders.
@@redtobertshateshandles Motorcycles and other vehicles make a lot of noise which produces counter fire by the Enemy. Scouting parties by soldiers do not.
Irrespective of the type of tank one of the most common types of injuries were head injuries, especially amongst nations who didn’t issue tank helmets. If you have ever been in a tank you would think the designers deliberately made as many sharp corners as possible, not to mention heavy hatches etc. If anyone from the U.K. is old enough to remember the F1 commentator Murray Walker, he had a large scar on his forehead which come from his time in Sherman’s.
Also a major constraint on German tank design and production were material shortages, not just steel but rare metals and copper so they began to design out functionality like electric motors and cupola glass in later models.
Good down and dirty video. So many misconceptions about the Sherman (looking at you History Channel and Belton Copper) The Sherman was one of the best tanks of the war, everytime someone says it doesnt compare they compare it to a tank 15 to 20 tons heavier. Tanks are not measured by the caliber of the gun, the thickness of the armor or the speed it can travel. Tanks are measured by how well that weapon functions as a force multiplier to your forces and the Sherman was absolutely the best bang for the buck.
Exactly. The Sherman and the T34 won the tank war because they were simple, easy to operate, easy to produce, and used easily upgradeable weapon systems. Which is why by the end of the war you had Easy8 and Firefly Sherman's, as well as T34-85's mopping the floor with state of the art but ultimately unreliable German tanks like the Konigs tiger.
@@LARGO125 End of war Shermans and T-34's were really good tanks too, though. The T-34-85 tends to get maligned mostly because of anti-Soviet/pro-American rhetoric, but just because someone is your ideological enemy does not make them de facto incompetent. (There is likely some anti-US sentiment involved in the anti-Sherman sentiments too).
@@lyndoncmp5751 did you read what I wrote? I find it silly to compare one tank to another tank because tanks don’t fight one on one in a vacuum. Better to look at how much of a force multiplier that tank was to that nation’s fighting force as a way of gauging its worth.
@@lyndoncmp5751 The Panzer IV gets too little credit as well. By the end of the war it too had a much better gun and was rather improved and much less of a pain (or cost!) to build than Panthers or Tigers. There is a valid argument that they might have been better off sticking with the Panzer IV's, possibly using the Pz IV design and sloping the armor better but still sticking with the lighter tank.
The reason that they didn't do a complete up gunning of the Shermans was because over 70% of the main gun engagements remained softer targets (Infantry, strong points, etc.), which the original gun was quite capable of dealing with
The most versatile aspect of the M4 Sherman had nothing to do with the armaments, it was the chassis. Designed to be built using the factory tools of the day meant it could be produced rapidly and when mobilization occurred made in the same factories that produced ford and GMC trucks of the period. Drivetrain was stock powerplant and transmission assemblies, little of it being specialized. That meant most field repairs could use the same tools as the transport vehicles. Though I could imagine changing the plugs on the crazy 5x6cyl engine was a bit of a bear until it was replaced by the R975 radial.
British mechanics preferred the Sherman as well because you could swap the transmission, or turrets, engines between any other Sherman's. British tanks were all hand assembled which made each one a stand alone unit. Parts didn't swap
The M4 was a great tank and saved the allies during the desert war. My late dad served in that theatre and he always respected the Sherman’s due to their overall performance and the reliability in comparison to British tanks.
The Churchill’s had significant advantages over the Sherman’s in rough terrain - they could climb slopes that the neither the Sherman’s or any German tank could. They also had heavier armor.
@@matts1166 Churchill’s weren’t designed for Russia - but the Russians liked them better than the other alternative (taking on Panzers with rifles). British tanks were 40% of the Russian armoured forces in December 1941. (The Russians lost a LOT of tanks in 1941 (90%)).
There was a 105mm. armed Jumbo produced with HVSS wide track suspension. Fujimi make a 1:76 scale model kit of this vehicle. The frontal armour was 114mm. and it was expected to be used versus the German Siegfried Line forts & defences..
the e8 designation specifically denotes any sherman with the HVSS. the official name of the m4a3e8 is the m4a3 (75 or 76 depending on the mounted gun)w (if it had wet stowage) HVSS
@@thatgingerguy6666 incorrect easy6 (e6) refers to the 76mm gun change. Each "e" designation specifically denotes a specific modification. The "a" designation refers to the different engine/hull types. For example you could have an m4a2e8 which is an m4 with welded hull diesel engine 75mm gun and hvss. An m4a3e6 would be an m4 welded hull Ford gaa engine with the 76mm gun and vvss.
@@signolias100 No, E8 specifically refers to a Sherman with the HVSS suspension, which was used because of the heavier T23 turret with the 76mm gun, as well as wet stowage. E6 isn’t a real term that I’ve ever seen in my years of research into the Sherman, and if it is then please provide proof
@@thatgingerguy6666you didn't research enough as you are trying to use the experimental designations for the real designation. An m4a3e8 is any m4 with the Ford gaa v8 and hvss. Even a quick internet search for m4a3e6 will bring up the m4a3 (76)w vvss. you can also find m4a1 (76)w vvss or the m4a2 (76)w vvss all of those are experimental variants known as e6. An m4a3e8 can be either an m4a3 (75) hvss, an m4a3 (76)w hvss, or an m4a3 (105) hvss. Literally dude the experimental designations were never officially used so unless you can access the experimental research documents from the tank board you probably won't find anyone calling a 76mm Sherman an easy 6.
@@thatgingerguy6666 simple the tank board research documents on m4 Sherman upgrades which includes e2(thicker armor), e4(76mm m1a1 gun in standard Sherman turret), e6(t23 turret and 76mm m1a2 gun), e8 (hvss only), and e9 (unknown 76mm gun upgrade) variants. However you haven't shown your source either. Remember not all experimental variants were standardized thus lack of knowledge on them would be expected.
Decent video that misses the best feature of the Sherman: it was a logistics-friendly tank: +It could fit on a Liberty ship and get hoisted in and out by the cranes of such ships, which was essential for effective transatlantic transportation. +It could fit on standard railcars, which was important for moving the tanks to ports to load on those ships. +It was mechanically more reliable than any other major tank in the war, which yielded higher operational readiness rates +It was easy to maintain and repair in the field, so tanks could get put back in the fight quickly +It was highly survivable; 80% of its crews survived when the tank got knocked out, which is better than any other tank in the war, reducing crew replacement needs. +It was more comfortable than most tanks, reducing the need for breaks and crew rest. The video also makes some common points about the Sherman that lack context: -The Sherman was less great against Panthers and Tigers, but it wasn't meant to; Shermans spent most of their time working with infantry against enemy infantry. Panthers and Tigers weren't a common sight. -The Western Front, where Shermans saw the most action, also featured Germans in prepared defensive positions, which tended to favor the defender and somewhat inflated the performance statistics of their tanks. In the Battle of Arracourt, first-generation Shermans performed quite well against an attack by Panthers and Tigers. -Germans also rarely counted a tank as knocked out unless it was totally unrecoverable, which further inflated their statistics. Overall, the Sherman was the best tank of the war. It was excellent at everything it was designed to do, and ok to good at all the other tasks that the allies piled onto it.
The problem was that few of these were available when it really mattered - in Normandy. By the time of Villers-Bocage (13th June) only some 70-80 had landed in Normandy, and it wasn't untill the last days of July that the number reached 200.
@@TTTT-oc4eb Simple logistics, need and allocation. Only one Sherman FF per troop so by the end of July the total number of normal Shermans alone was over 1000 and by the time of VB 350-400 normal Shermans. Other tank types were in use as well.
Somewhere in these videos a person commented on how the M4's would fire smoke to blind the German tank crews. The common smoke shell is WP. WP is white phosphorus, an element that burns when exposed to oxygen. I read one account where the British fired WP at Germans tanks and set one on fire. Can't remember what the book was, but if that worked, you would think it would become a common tactic.
I didn't know about the Easy 8 Sherman. So that's News to me. I thought the 3rd best Sherman might have been the ones used in the Pacific as a flame thrower. They seemed to get the job done pretty quickly & I believe kept the crew and infantry safe too.
Bunk! In August of 1944 out side Paris firing test were conducted with the 76mm gun and the Bitish 17pounder,the targets were three captured panthers,the 76mm failed to penetrate the font plate of all three target panther at 500yds. However the 17pounder penetrated all three panther front plates. It was determined the 76mm AP rounds were in fact defective and it wasn't until 1945 that a suitable AP round was shipped to US forces, in Feb 1945 the commander of the 1st armored Div. reported only 13% of his 76mm armed M4s had received the new AP rounds!
You really have to take that test with a grain of salt. The Panther front plates varied in quality even from the factory, you can find many photos of Panthers with huge cracked front plates from the armor spalling and falling apart when hit. Second the rounds used for the 76mm were standard AP rounds not Tungsten HVAP rounds. The US looked at adopting the 17pdr but decided it wasnt worth it and any advantage was nil. The US has no problem adopting British weapons and equipment so it wasent a case of nationalism, it just didnt make sense to add another weapon on an already burdened supply system to solve a problem that really already has an answer. The m1a2 76mm while it has less penetration than the 17pdr could pen anything that the 17pdr would, Panthers and Tiger 1s (Hellcats did in Panthers on the regular) and they would both fail against tanks like the King Tiger. Additionally the US started fielding 90mm AT guns in the M36 which was both more accurate and better penetration than either the 76mm or 17pdr. Note I am referring to the 17pdr firing AP as the Sabot rounds were highly inaccurate.
Yes one of the panther had defective frontal plate, which was a indecater that the German steel production was suffering in quality. But the facts and results of test are a matter of record,
@@daffyduck7336 They are, but like I said take it with a grain of salt, it was a less than scientific approach and the results are that TD units who were more equipped with Tungsten HVAP ammo proved very effective against Panthers. Even Joachim Peiper said in a report that the M-10 (with a less effective 3in gun) was a far more effective TD than the Jagpanther or JagTiger. I think we get an idea that the grass is always greener on the other side.
Patrick Lewis How on earth would Peiper know about the effectiveness of Jadgtigers. None were ever in his unit and he never even served alongside any units who had them.
Both US 2nd and 6th Armored Divisions complained about the performance of the 76mm Sherman gun without the super rare HVAP ammunition. Even in spring 1945 expended HVAP ammunition was not readily replaced, according to Issac D White, commanding general of 2nd Armored, writing to Eisenhower after Operation Grenade.
we have one of this Easy Eight Sherman Tank on public display in downtown Vancouver. I did made a couple of videos about this iconic and historical tank
I didn't realize what effective weapons platforms the E8 models were. Sounds like we would have done well against the T34's had we ended up going at it against the Russian in '45 or '46
No need to speculate on that - the E8 Sherman was used against the T34/85 in the Korean War, where it proved superior. The armor, firepower and mobility of both tanks is roughly comparable, but the E8 is better in every other way.
The M4 with the Brit 17pounder went through Tigers and Panthers of all variants, the firefly was disguised as much as possible as it was a priority to knockout by the Germans.
thin (below 80mm vertical thickness) sloped frontal hull armor offer the most deflect power at 60 degrees , sherman frontal armor slope at 55 degrees . yes small numbers but huge different in deflect effectiveness
The Shermans and the British Cromwell tanks alway's had to be less that 40 tons weight to be able to use the prefabricated Bailey bridges we used. The British Churchill Flamethrowere were heavyweight assault tanks with more armour that a Tiger tank it was too heavy for prefabricated road Bridges. The Churchills always had to wait for a Railway Bridge to be repaired to be able to to cross the bridge to be used to gain access to the retreating German Front line.. Our English railways have always had a narrow guage which prevented us from producing tanks with large turrets until later in the war when Hitler declared war on the Americans one of our first priorities was to make large numbers of extra wide railway tank transporters. We also fitted many Firefly conversions to many of the American Tank Destroyers both we and the Canadians had allotted to us under lend lease. The American Tank Destroyers had a lower profile than any of the Shermans we used in Europe. These adapted Tank Destroyers were very popular with the British Tank crews proving to be an even more lethal combination than the Sherman Firefly...
Not strictly true. While Churchill tanks were a higher weight class than Shermans and Cromwells 40t, 35t and 30t respectively. The Churchill Bridgelayers would carry a 30' span class 40 bridge (as they had to be able to cross the bridge they carried) Bailey was not a prefabricated bridge but a sectional bridging system. Each part had to be portable (the load carrying 10'x5' side panels were a 6man lift). A 30' span of three single panels, cross transoms, lengthwise stringers and wooden decking would be a class 40 bridge. Any extra length span (between piers) would lower the weight class. To overcome this limitation the side panels could doubled; side by side(double single) or vertically (single double) or both (double double). The largest I saw was a triple triple spanning about 70' as railway viaduct in Italy.
You are nitpicking the English dictionary why seek such puerile and morbidy defined wordage on this non...issue to complicate the completely obvious..... The Bailey bridge was sectional when dismantled and a prefabricated assembly when it was built as it was built ... of assembled sections. The Bridge the Churchill carried for crossing minor rivers and streams was almost useless once it encountered the wide and deep rivers which were frequently encountered during the Allies advance across Western Europe.... @@denisrobertmay875
The Ford GAA V-8 could be supercharged to produce over 1000 Hp reliably and with reasonable time between overhaul. Only a heavier transmission might possibly be needed
No doubt - the E-8 with it's improved handling, ride, and off-road performance due to better suspension and wider.tracks, wet stowage for ammo, added armor and more powerful gun - after that it's the Firefly with the outstanding 17 pounder British gun.
Not true. The firefly needed crusader tanks to support it as the 17 pdr didn't have a h.e. round. It did not have a hull mg . The muzzle blast of the 17pdr would blind the gunner and the Manuel stateed the gunner should close there eyes when firing And when firing Sabo rounds it could not hit targets beyond 550 yards
Will Cullen Explain how Firefly gunners took out multiple Tigers and Panthers in single battles then if the muzzle flash blinded them? Joe Ekins took out 3 Tigers in quick succession at 800 yards. The 17 pounder was easily the best anti tank gun fitted to a Sherman. The 76mm was a disappointment without the super rare HVAP ammunition. The US 2nd and 6th Armored Divisions complained about the performance of the 76mm Shermans against German armour.
@@willcullen3743 Crusaders? Crusaders weren’t used after North Africa. Every firefly had 4 base Sherman’s to back it up, it was only used as a tank destroyer.
I have a never before published picture of a firefly taken on D-Day plus 7 by the Royal British Press. I bought it from a gentleman in Icand! Took a month to get to the States!
The (British Tank Commission named and ordered) M4 Sherman tank was just as big a deathtrap as the previous M3. Everyone building the tanks knew this and they created the Sherman "Jumbo" to deal with the problems.
"From late 1942, US tanks were required in increasing numbers to make up for the deficiencies of home-grown products." IWM Britain's Struggle To Build Effective Tanks During The Second World War Sherman Death Trap: Veterans vs Historians ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-4qavgSW121E.html&lc=Ugz4-hPUxY8p08ruSt94AaABAg
The Sherman tank series needed to be reliable and serviceable half a world away from where they were produced. It needed to be produced in mass quantities in the North American interior. Requiring shipment by existing railroads to coastal ports. The ports needed to be able load the tank onto ships which could carry them using existing equipment. Then offloaded at whatever port it was shipped too using local equipment. Shermans also needed to fit on a LST landing ship. It fought in every theater of the war. Africa, Western Europe, the Russian Steppes, Pacific islands, India, etc. After WW2 the Sherman served with local upgrades in armies worldwide seeing frontline wartime service into the 1970’s.
Interesting information as always guys! But it would be great,to do some features on Soviet Union tanks.....The American Sherman was a true workhorse,in its various forms,but,I still think, that the T-34(various forms)IS series(1 and 2) deserve a mention on your excellent channel! Am I wrong?
T-34 was a superior tank, overall, relative to Sherman. It was more easily scalable for more armor and bigger gun (T-34-85) and had much better power to weight ratio and performance. Soviets suffered from other defects - they had inferior optics, they didn't have radios in all tanks at first, they had slow rate of fire guns with lower velocity, they had inferior crew training, etc. All these things seem minor, but when they add up, they make a bigger impact than armor a gun, themselves.
@@peterson7082 Sherman's had to move within almost a point-blank range or shoot from the flank to kill Tigers or Panthers, while they had the luxury of snipping at Shermans from up to 1 km away.
Why is range is never mentioned here when talking about the Firefly, Easy 8, etc defeating certain enemy AFVs? That is a crucial aspect of tank.on tank warfare. Also... a few Postwar Israeli "Super Shermans" were shown here.
HI. YOUR LAST LINE : "AS THEY MADE THEIR WAY TO BERLIN" WHEN WAS THAT? 1946?? THE ONLY ALLIED TANKS IN BERLIN BEFORE MAY 8TH, 1945, WERE SOVIET T-34'S, AND JS-2'S!!
If aan American crew had their Sherman shot out from under them, as soon as the crew could make their way back to the supply depot, they'd draw a refurbished or new Sherman, replace wounded or killed crew, and be back in action, often in less than 24 hours. Germans, not to much. Parts and spare tanks just weren't available in the numbers the US tanks were.
@@828enigma6 - The vast U.S. logistical tail attached to an armored division, let alone a "heavy" armored division (2nd & 3rd Armored), was a hidden force multiplier for Anglo-American forces. I am speaking in particular of those men (with their equipment) charged with recovery and repair of battle-damaged tanks and other vehicles. It was a triumph of the Allied war effort that U.S. armored divisions, fighting thousands of miles from home, enjoyed an enormous bounty and cornucopia of spare parts, materials, supplies, ammo, and ample petroleum, oil and lubricants, and everything else needed to wage war.... far superior to the situation for Germany, fighting only a short distance from the homeland (if not in it). The Germans had very good mechanics, too, and skilled technicians in their workshops, but because the Allies were usually advancing, they often did not have the opportunity to recover and repair battle-damaged tanks and vehicles like the Allies did. Those vehicles were often captured or overrun before recovery could be made ... if it could be made, that is. The biggest shortage in the last six months of the war was trained tank crewmen who'd been to Fort Knox for tank school. The Allied high-command had gambled that the war in Europe would be over by Christmas, 1944-New Years 1945, but when that didn't happen, there were shortages of crew as losses mounted in the push into Germany proper. This put ordnance units on the spot, as they were the ones charged with finding and training replacements, insofar as this was possible. A lot of GIs had to do some "OJT" as tankers after being conscripted for that duty, and not having any training or experience in tanks. Trained crew are much harder to replace than lost tanks.
Not in anti tank capability it wasn't. The 76mm was a disappointment without the super rare HVAP ammunition and both 2nd and 6th Armored Divisions complained about its gun performance.
The Sherman is actually pretty cool. Most of them were faster than the Tiger 1 tank and if you were lucky enough to have a 76MM canon the Sherman could more than likely take down a Panther or Tiger 1
The 75mm could kill Panthers with easy with the 38mm side armour of panther and they only have 3 recorded encounters with tiger 1s which the Shermans won two and the Pershing lost the other so most American troops never saw a tiger 1 let alone an actual working one.
@@chadjustice8560 oh shit. That I actually didn’t know. Thats kinda strange though if we hardly ever encountered them why was everyone so terrified of them
The reason the M-26 and its variants didn't reach development that would enable it to reach Europe in '44 can be laid directly at the feet of a general who favored "tank destroyers over tanks and slow walked the development
The Firefly was the most effective Sherman variant as it deployed the British 17 pounder anti tank cannon , the most effective gun of this type with the exception of the German 88. Further, it was deployed from the Invasion of Normandy until the end of the War. The Germans were under direct orders to destroy this tank first before attacking other Allied tanks.
So, did we have a high-velocity 76mm that WAS NOT the British 17-pdr. I always thought we did when seeing Sherman gun barrels with an obviously different muzzle break than the roundish one so characteristic of the 17-pdr.
To be precise, the reason for the 90 degree rotation was so they could reload the gun. The gun itself did fit in the turret, but could not be reloaded without the rotation.
But it was the best tank killing Sherman variant and didn't need special ammo. No 76mm Sherman took out 3 Tigers or 5 Panthers like some Fireflies did.
@@lyndoncmp5751 TBF you can only kill what's put in front of you. The Brits had the overwhelming majority of panzer divisions to deal with in Normandy (which was the plan whilst the Americans built up/took Cherbourg etc) so the Americans mostly never got the chance. It has been suggested that US tanks faced single Tigers on 2 occasions according to combat records.
@@justwhenyouthought6119 The over whelming amount of Gerry tanks were taken out by the biggest aeriel bombing of the Normandy Campmaign.And also Naval Guns shelling 12 miles away offshore. The Lyndon Library would have you believe Monty and his tanks were waylaying the Wehrmacht....um,no
My favorite Sherman variant is the 76mm Jumbo, M4A3E8, in "War Thunder". Great armor, good mobility, good firepower. It's a pretty strong tank at 6.0BR.
Did the 17 pounder really use a "superior" propellant? It undoubtedly had more propellant and a longer barrel than the U.S. 76 mm. These two things alone would give it superior velocity than the 76. Did it also use an advanced propellant?
The "superiority of German tanks" is a MYTH. German tanks were typically over engineered with more moving parts than American tanks which means there's more stuff that can break and more parts needed for repairs. Their heavier tanks like Panthers and Tigers were especially prone to breakdowns / sinking into the mud due to their weight and the fact that the Germans used straight gears which broke easier vs American tanks which used curved gears, far less prone to breaking gear teeth. While Panthers did have thicker frontal armor, their side hull armor was about the same thickness as a Sherman but was also made out of inferior steel so there was clearly no German advantage there. Much of the myth of German superiority came from 1) upgunned Mark IV Panzers, Panthers and feared Tigers 2) experienced German tank crews vs green, rookie American tank crews in Normandy 3) as defenders, the Germans usually had the upper hand by being able to ambush Allied tank columns in perpendicular attacks where the Sherman's armor was thinner. As the war ground on, Allied tank crews figured out how to leverage the Sherman's strengths to exploit German weaknesses. Panthers had a decent road speed but were sluggish in acceleration and turret rotation rate as compared to the Sherman. Allied tankers used the Sherman's maneuverability at speed to great advantage against German tanks. While the terrain in western Europe favored the Germans because it was ideal for hidden ambush attacks, the great range of Panther and Tiger tank guns was less adventageous in comparrison to the wide open plains on the Eastern front. By September of 1944 Allied tankers were at the top of their game when the 4th Armored Division decimated over 200 German tanks in the battle of Arracourt to the loss of less than 30 of their own.
People need to STIP believing in Belton Cooper and his “ misinformation” ( he was deployed in a tank repair depot and never in actual combat!). Most allied tankers rarely ran into Tiger tanks ( very few of them in the ETO , even fewer that were actually functioning!) Panther tanks and mostly German rifled 75 mm and 88 mm did most of the damage against the Sherman tanks ( and British Cromwell, Comet tanks too) and often they ambushed the allied tanks from cover and concealment, Even German tank aces like Wittman, when caught in the open GOT STOMPED ( there are pieces of his “ fearsome “ Tiger tank still buried in a French farmers field off a major highway - it was blown to pieces by a British Sherman “Firefly”) similarly a Wreck of a King Tiger tank sits as a war monument in a Belgian Village - it got battered and wrecked in combat by “ lowly” 75mm armed sherman tanks in 1944 during the time of the battle of the Bulge. Even the Soviets had Sherman tanks (76mm) and secretly those crews preferred them over the T-34s for their reliability, comfort and the accuracy of their 76mm guns. Sherman tank crews had a better survival rate than German and even allied Soviet crews. The Chieftain Nick Moran has covered the issue of the “ inferior” Sherman tank In truth sadly many allied Shermans and their crews were lost in spearhead attacks , often against poorly reconned targets and without infantry support; when deployed with proper tactics and planning they proved just as deadly as their opposition (a Canadian squad of M4 Sherman’s ambushed and wrecked a large column of German Panzer 4s and Panthers during the Italian campaign and U.S. tankers mauled a German Armored force of Panthers and STUGs during the battle of Arracourt)
Spot on plus these tanks had to be sent 5000 miles to the front lines where the Germans rolled them out and used them within 300 miles from the plants.
@@lyndoncmp5751 For Russia that was mostly by rail. And for North Africa, sailing across the Med is rather easier than across the Pacific or Atlantic. Tigers were sent only one or two at a time and from the Southern tip of Italy, so at as narrow a point as they could manage. And the allies did not yet have air or naval superiority in the Med quite yet.
Yes they most certainly did even Rommel in his personal papers how Conningham's Air Corp and Cunningham's Navy had swept the skies and seas of the Med clear of supplies.Very little got thru to the AK
The E8 76mm had a mediocre anti tank gun without HVAP by 1944/45 STANDARDS. HVAP was rare and not readily replaced even in 1945. The Firefly was a more effective tank killer.
Once the British matilda's were obliterated by the 88mm gun in France, the Allies should have learned from that, they didnt. Like on the Eastern front, the 88 could kill any and every allied tank for almost all of the war, at any practical range. Unfortunately for German, vast numbers of 88's were tied up in Flak batteries defending germany, instead of being available to butcher allied tanks in even greater numbers. Lethality of the 88mm ironically improved when the Germans, deprived of Tungsten supplies started loading the AP rounds with Uranium. The best Sherman engine was the 2x6/71N diesels as supplied to the USSR in the lend lease version (4,000 units sent).
There’s a Sherman Tank that moved , and moved, and fired and fired and fired. The Sherman still remains as the best Tank in WWII. God road with every Sherman Crew.
Many US tankers weren’t enthused by Fireflies as the shorter barrel was better with high explosive rounds. British firefly crew would try paint to try to obscure the longer 17 pound barrel.
The Firefly was intended to counter German heavy tanks only and was essentially an antitank gun in a tank hull issued as a bodyguard to standard Shermans at a rate of one to 3 in a 4 tank troop. It was never intended to use HE frequently.
The us military evaluated the 17 pdr in the USA but for various reasons rejected it, but to say us tankers weren’t enthused is something I’ve never heard and seems unlikely as they wouldn’t have had much opportunity to come into direct contact with it. Also at the time of the initial landings in Europe the 17pdr was, despite the criticism that a lot of people level at it, the most powerful antitank gun in allied use. Most American Sherman’s were 75mm at that time and I’m quite sure that many crew men from knocked out Sherman’s would have welcomed the Firefly with open arms.
US tanks using this configuration would be M4A2 76 W HVSS, E8 or “easy 8” is ONLY a term used to describe the module that was HVSS in its EXPERIMENTAL stage.
In fairness when introduced it was equal if not superior to German panzers. By the time of the European invasion it was as you say a numerical thing, allied to commonality of parts keeping availability high. I’m still in awe of the shear amount of military equipment of all types the Americans produced in such a relatively short time.
