About M4 survivability; the father of a girl I knew in High School was a Sherman crew member during WWII. He landed at Normandy, and fought all the way into Germany in Shermans. He had 4 tanks shot out from under him, and only sustained minor scrapes and abrasions. He survived the war, got married, had two daughters, and died in bed at the age of 83.
Same story. Another gentleman I knew said he went through 6 tanks between Normandy and Belgium. Of course, he was wounded, but survived. He told a story where the Germans parked a Mk IV in the road with a Panther parked several yards behind it. When a column of Shermans came up the road the MkIV fired, missed, and then turned off the road, exposing the Panther. The Panther fired. The shot hit the first Sherman, passed completely through the tank, and bounced off the front armor on the second tank. The crew of the first tank bailed out as the rest of the Shermans frantically turned off the road. In the ensuing confused fight someone shot the Panther's suspension and its crew bailed out.
Here's one for you, Easter weekend of 1984 I was stationed in Germany and was invited by a German family to spend the weekend with them, the father had been a German tanker in the war. He was just tickled pink that I was on an armored vehicle crew, you'd have thought we were in some kind of exclusive club or something the way he kept pouring the Schnapps (I still have a hangover from that one). We were told not to bring up the war when talking with the German people because it was considered bad forum but at one point I felt comfortable enough to ask him one little question, and that's if it was true what I'd heard growing up about their tanks being so superior to ours, he literally balked at the idea and told me "I'll tell you what was superior and that was the number of American tanks, when there's one or two of you and ten to fifteen Sherman's come rolling over the hill it's only going to end one way and we knew it". He then told me about how him and his crew all made a deal with each other that if they made it far enough that they got back inside of Germany the first time it ran out of fuel or ammo they would abandon the tank and find some Allies to surrender to, and that's exactly what they did, they were left to guard something somewhere without enough fuel to escape after an initial engagement so they fled into the woods (they didn't want to be anywhere near it in case it wound up a target) and waited until some GI's came along and surrendered to them. Everytime I hear all the armchair historians on the internet talking about the Sherman crew's having "Panzerphobia" I make sure I tell them about the German tank crewman I met that was in the war that told me about how they had "Shermanphobia" just the same.
@@dukecraig2402 Nobody who is in a war wants to be in that war. Only the psychos who love to kill people and have no empathy even for themselves love to start wars. Sadly a lot of such people are now in the US and NATO high command.
@@pcuimac Do you think you're telling me something I don't already know? I was a soldier after all, and what does that have to do with my point about tank warfare in WW2 Europe not being as lopsided as all the non veteran video game playing armchair experts believe it was? Because you're preaching to the choir about that, like I said I was a soldier you know. There's a reason why that man treated me like I was a member of an exclusive club with him, because I am, I actually know what it's like to live in the hull of an armored vehicle, plus I was one of the men at that point that was standing between the Soviet military and him and his family appreciated that, the cold war may seem like a joke nowadays but it sure wasn't back then, that's the very reason why the Germans would take us into their homes during the holidays, unlike this latest generation of neo Nazi American bashing people in Germany, back then they appreciated why we were there and the fact that we were so far away from our families doing it.
Incidents of a single person don't mean anything. Stats show us that Shermans were safe, whilst there are many stories like this on different tanks. Oskin did have 6 tanks shot out under him... one taken out with an aerial bomb, and Oskin survived. Trying to get in or out from T-34 is a nightmare, especially for radio operator.
America got a very competent and reliable tank across oceans, along with fuel, ammo, crews, parts and support crews in numbers large enough to overwhelm and defeat the Germans, Italians and Japanese. That, ladies and gentlemen, is remarkable. Some would say miraculous.
You sir are correct. When I run into the argument about the Sherman being junk and not effective. Well, How far is Moscow to Berlin? It's less than 1,150 miles. It's 616 miles from Detroit to NYC then it what another 3000 nm to Europ and then you still have to drive the thing to where the fight is. The distances we had to go, the M-4 Sherman served the Army well.
That, specifically, is what separates a super power in the world from the other first world nations. It is also why the United States is the sole super power in the world. Heavy Lift is a strategic resource every bit as awe inspiring and game changing as carrier task forces and ICBMs.
@@ekscalybur except of course in 1939 the US was in the military running with powers such as Bolivia, Paraguay and Romania (tho Romania may have been ahead of us on the list of Army by size). And during the 20's and 30's (The Great Depression) the Army was certainly not showered with money for equipment to make up the numbers. Economically the US was a superpower in 1939. Militarily only the US Navy was in that class...the Army and the AAF was not. You cannot buy an army 'off the shelf'. The US 1941-1945 is the exception that proves the rule. The WW1 and post WW1 generation of officers (particularly staff officers) deserve a ton of credit. Effectively their work and reforms from 1919-1939 beat the Germans and Japanese in 1939-1945. Also the people running factories 3 shifts on the Home Front and buying tens of billions (1941 dollars) of War Bonds deserve a large slice of credit pie too.
@@witchking8497 The Great Depression forced Congress to slash slash the US Army's budget. FDR managed to keep their officers and noncoms on the government payroll by putting them in charge of the civilian programs like the Civilian Conservation Corps, Civil Air Patrol and Work Projects Administration. Those provided jobs for unemployed youths where they got whipped into shape, learned how to obey orders and learned valuable skills needed in a modern army and air force.
A completely unappreciated, but accidental advantage of Sherman mobility was the narrow profile. Even today in rural/small town Europe you will find these narrow stone bridges and narrow village streets that go back to donkey cart days. The Sherman was 8.5 feet in width and wasn't stopped by any of these narrow passages. The Panzer IV was 9.5 feet wide, the Panther was over 11 feet wide and usually in mixed columns with both types. Panzers might have to be re-routed around such narrow places, or have pioneers widen a narrow forest path that wouldn't even slow down a Sherman. This was a complete accident because the narrow width was designed around ship transportation, but it paid a dividend in mobility once in Europe.
My uncle drove an M4 while in the Army,fought in Sicily,Anzio,and through that part of the conflict.Lost one Sherman when it hit a mine,crew survived.Was issued another Sherman drove it through the rest of the war.He always said that even the German heavies could be taken by the Sherman,all that was needed was that the Sherman got behind the German and the Sherman had a good gunner,that could hit what he was shooting at.Uncle named one of his sons for the gunner on the tank he drove.He was there he survived,only wound he got was shrapnel when some one set off a booby trap real close to him..He carried a scar on his chin and some shrapnel in his left knee the rest of his life.
I've read that Tigers and Panthers often retreated once they started receiving fire from 75-gunned M4s because they knew it meant they were spotted and that American artillery and air-support was sure to be coming in soon. It was real war after all, not World of Tanks.
@@mpk6664 they aren't a threat to ground units specifically but they are very great spotters. That's why Germans moved in the night mostly. Fog of war is a serious problem and the one who had the eyes of the battlefield will have the advantage.
@@mpk6664 i mean even if the aircraft shot or bom doesn't destroy the tank overall, they always be something gonna broke from that shot or bom sharpnel or artilery sharpnel, if you damage the commander sight which is probaly would from the aircraft fire you will reduce the tank situational awarnes, and even if the bom from aircraft and artilery fire doesn't destroy the tank a close explosion probaly gonna destroy the tank track which is gonna disable the mobility of the tank, and render it useless because a tank that can't move is the same as a tank that loses its turret.
“Could be better” can be applied to virtually anything. The Thompson could be better, as could the Garand, and they were improved upon. So too was the Sherman, which soldiered on for decades after WWII.
3:14 When it comes down to it, EVERYTHING is designed for infantry support. Your goal is to either get that private with a rifle to a certain piece of real estate or keep that private with a rifle on a certain piece of real estate.
but there are several different approaches the american approach was infantry forward and Tank from the second row provides close support The German approach was the tank is forward and destroys everything, and the infantry hides behind the tank and advances Francis's approach was to spread the tanks along the line, so each unit has a tank behind them as support German approach, put a lot of tanks in a group (battalion / regiment) and overwhelm the defense with numbers Russian approach send a T-34 tank regiment/brigade to counterattack, whatever happens
From the engineering standpoint, while many specifics are good, the overall design of M4 is rubbish. M18 GMC is an example of a good design, eliminating M4's biggest facepalm-inducing design flaw.
@@lyndoncmp5751 _> Neither the Sherman, or the big German cats, were rubbish._ But they do have glaring design flaws that would make an engineering student insta-fail nowadays. The layout of the transmission alone.
@@Conserpov Such brilliant hindsight that's only 80 years too late. If only the Germans and the U.S. had your engineering acumen back then, they could have shortened the war.
@@Conserpov Everything had design flaws. The first production M18s had to be recalled in order to be fixed while the rest of the tanks were fixed in the field. Not to mention that the majority of M18 crews hated the thing. The M18 was put into production without any testing. The Sherman was a miraculous design at the time when Matilda's, Crusader's, M3 Lee's, and Panzer 3/4s were the only things on the battle field.
@@obelic71 it used to be known as the hitler channel before starting up ancient aliens. an awful lot of wehraboos got their knowledge there, my child self included
I love my German Big Cats, but while Germany attempted to create the “perfect” vehicle America and later allied countries created a reliable workhorse. You have to respect it
@@tyler_bt3326 well, MAN and Henschel seemed serious about producing a well engineered AVF (Panther, the Tigers). Porsche came off then, and in hindsight, as whacked out (see Ferdinand).
Get the job done in quantities needed. Moran in his other videos does a good job explaining how hard that is to do. "Best" on the proving grounds doesn't mean diddly if you cannot put it on the battlefield with the logistical capabilities you have. Whatever flaws the Sherman had were because of that and considering how long that chain was and how effective it proved, it was excellent. It was used everywhere by everybody effectively. It fit the bridges. It fit the landing ships. It fit the rail gauge. It was configured for all sorts of fuel types. It was reliable. If something did break spares were available and quick and easy to replace. It did all that and did the job well on the battlefield until the end of the war. Like I said earlier, that is extremely hard to do. Engineering vehicles is hard. PzIV and T-34 are it's only comparisons for WW2.
@@rwaitt14153 Perhaps Nick has plans to do a few videos on M4 field repairs and repair depots in the rear where they refurbished the engines and front drives. The M4's were reliable due to the Army having those swapped out after 150 hours or less run time to ensure those didn't break down during battle or while on the march. The radial and Ford V8 were good engines once Wright, Ford and Ordnance engineers worked out their initial bugs yet those still had problems that cropped up after being put to use so stayed busy designing improved components that were installed during rebuilding. The final drives also suffered from the driver abuse that screwed up the engines so were refurbished at the same time. The Chrysler A57 Multibank turned out to be the most reliable tank engine of the war due to the British reporting it could run 350 hours or more before requiring rebuilding.
Nice rundown. A few add ons. As for fires, discipline to keep the tanks clean and not carry extra unstowed ammunition was also a large part of reducing fires even in tanks without wet stowage. Now two accounts from Sherman veterans: I had the opportunity to have conversations with Major Jim Burt (MOH 3-66 Armor Burt's Knights) who commanded a tank company from Benning to Berlin. He loved Shermans and was not a fan of German armor for their lack of mobility and slow traverse. You can get similar views from a Russian perspective if you read "Commanding the Red Army's Sherman Tanks: The World War II Memoirs of Hero of the Soviet Union Dmitriy Loza"
German tankers had dark humor as well, quoting one German tanker from the book Spearhead, "One of ours is worth ten of yours, problem is you always bring eleven."
@hognoxious That's a bit of myth too. The early T-34s did have transmission problems but they were also being driven by drivers who had only an hour of training many times. They couldn't properly operate them well and got thrown directly into combat. Under those conditions I think any tank would have suffered. They were also constantly improved and I've not heard of breakdowns being much of a problem for their advances from 43 onward.
@@Bochi42 According to Russian sources, they lost half of all the T-34's they ever produced, and the christie suspension required a lot of maintenance and engine systems had a high rate of wear leading to a lot of breakdowns. They lacked good radios and the turret motor liked to eat itself. Such is the reality of Russian production during the war. The T-34 armor was poorly tempered, and was mostly of "soft steel". Its suspension design was also known for throwing or breaking its tracks because they were built too lightly and the pins bent over time of being knocked back in over and over. You'd think that such wide tracks would get good cross-country performance, but the T-34 christie suspension used weak springs for its weight, and was such a rough ride it could make 15mph if you were lucky. They also had pretty high crew death rates compared to, well, everyone due in part to the ergonomics and the giant driver door weak spot.
One of my first jobs many moons ago at a department store had a fellow that served in a Sherman in Africa. He would wax on about the stabalized main gun and how good it was. I was quite surprised to hear it was a POS! From people that never used it in anger!
There are numerous examples of interviews of people who did use it in anger who thought it was rubbish one reference which provides many of theses is The Great Sherman Tank Scandal by DeJohn
Regarding strategic mobility - the Sherman was at the upper limit of what the common cargo ships of the day could handle with their own cranes. Any heavier then specialist cranes would be needed which might not have been available at the given port limiting where the tanks could be unloaded or if it was might have greatly delayed the unloading of the tanks.
Another thing about the Sherman armor, it was softer than the face hardened German armor. That meant opposition AP rounds penetrated it easier, but there was less spalling. It may have been harder to penetrate face hardened German armor but when rounds did penetrate there was far more spalling than in the Sherman. It's part of why the Shermans were more survivable than some other tanks.
@@SlavicCelery Some Sherman's even had belly hatches. A friend of the family was a Sherman driver at Normandy and he escaped from his tank after it was hit through the belly hatch. The rest of the crew didn't make it.
Interesting about the belly hatch in the floor of the Sherman. Seems like a good idea to have another way to escape from the tank but I read somewhere that some crews secured it so it could not be opened because if there was a fire, an opened hatch in the floor caused a chimney-like effect allowing air to come into the tank from below and thus fanning the flames.
Marine Tankers in the island campaigns modified the belly hatches so that they could drop then pivot. Then they would drive over wounded marine infantry and pull them into the M4 and Med a vac them out.
I encountered one of these people couple of days ago called "Sir B" iirc, this guy is such a meathead and wouldn't listen to anyone to debunk his claim of how bad the Sherman is lol, I even gave him links for Chieftains videos regarding the Sherman and he continue to call me a kid and disregard any reply I made claiming that I'm not an expert and continued asking for one lol
@@AHappyCub Yeah, there are always some internet trolls who derive joy simply from arguing with others on the internet. Facts, logics, evidence means nothing to them, they just want to argue and believe they are winning.
Because it was constantly upgraded. If germany won ww2 they would probably keep updating panther for several years before designing a new tank. Even T-34/85s were in service long after war.
@@Averagedude2024 From what I read, main complaint is its strategic value and final drives. French weren't upgrading panthers, they just used ww2 models. Sherman's on the other hand were built in USA free from bombing and plenty of engineering, logistic and material support. Panthers were being built by necessity without time for testing and ironing out the issues. Germans were in a hurry, allies were not I imagine that after ww2 in peace times and without time and material constraints germany would upgrade Panther design considerably taking into consideration all the experiences from ww2 the same way sherman was. So 1948 Panther would be much more strategically capable than ww2 variant before moving onto more modern designs in 1950s.
@@Averagedude2024 NATO allowed the French Army to have 2 regiments of Panthers only for evaluation purposes until they ran out of ammunition and replacement parts. The Army wound up selling them to AMX who in turn gave those to tank museums when they ran out of parts.
Yes. Popular Knowledge is usually inaccurate. .. But history should try to get it right . Thanks for trying to give the M4 its due. I was thinking you might find this topic useful.. I suspect few tank enthusiast who have not been in the military, know that at least the US has and still uses padlocks, chains and cables to secure Tanks and other vehicles. Keys are another topic. I would be interested to know how the different nations of WW2 secured their tanks.
Thanks Chieftain for giving us the ammo of facts next time we are casually talking about the M4 Sherman accross the dinner table. What should our next topic for a 5 things video be?
I am one of those people who had always heard that tanks were used for a breakthrough and TD's fought other tanks. Infantry support by tanks was hardly ever mentioned except when people complained that the 75mm gun on the basic Sherman was not a real AT gun like the 88 on those million or so Tigers on the Western Front.
what bothered me more was the fact that even some famous museum curators are spreading this type of information to the public.. like for example British Bovington Tank Museum's Mr Willey...
Addendum: I was at the National Infantry Museum at Fort Benning today, and one of the displays noted that the Sherman was supposed to support the infantry. When the Armor museum there opens to the public, I wonder if they will acknowledge the infantry role of the Sherman.
Dark humor or lack there of and being in the Army.. Wooo such a person would be so lost in nearly every conversation when deployed. I mean that is what keeps you sane. You can not understate the importance of a demented sense of dark humor to keep you going. But it is interesting that the meaning of terms can get vary lost as the decades roll on.
Very well done! If memory serves, the M4 Sherman was designed & produced with the Panzer III & IV in mind, not the Tiger. Also, the M4 Sherman was initially produced as a tank for use by our allies (Britain, the Soviets, Australia, etc). The idea was to produce a tank for global use, and as others have noted, fast/easy deployment and efficient service/replacement.
Its amusing how some people praise the T-34 while being harshly criticical of the Sherman. In many ways, the examples of excellent features assigned to T-34s are shared by Shermans and the examples of design flaws assigned to Shermans are shared by T-34s.
Unlike T-34, Sherman has most basic layout-level egregious design flaws that today would make even a freshman engineering student facepalm. Lack of transfer case between the engine and the main shaft alone is indefensible.
A lot of these "discussions" about WW2 gear (tanks, planes) happen because a lot of people don't know what is involved in design and mass production. There is a bit of politics too. But at some point there has to be a decision that a certain level of tech is adequate, freeze the design and make compromises to allow mass production. You have to look years ahead. The 76mm didn't magically show up a few months because the Shermans met Panthers. It had been in the pipeline for years. Same for the Hellcat: It was not designed in 2 months specifically to counter the Zero after the Americans captured one in the Aleutians. As a matter of fact, all US aircraft that fought in WW2 were at least in the design stage when the war started. That includes the B-29.
Yes this phenomenon seems to have happened enough to be a noticeable pattern, not just in the US military. In addition, new systems designed specifically to face a certain enemy system would show up in numbers just in time to face a different system fielded by the enemy.
Top quality, interesting and informative content. As always. All armoured fighting vehicles exhibit some level of compromise between armour, mobility, firepower, weight, logistics, and cost of construction. Some get this balance better than others. The Sherman certainly wasn't a perfect tank. But it got an awful lot of things right. Thanks for so entertainingly getting this point across.
The original suspension system is great example of a the kind of trade of that need be thought about when designing a weapons system. Afterall it was easy to repair, as you could just pull of a damage bogie and stick on a new one without having to to dismant half the tank like on a lot of other tanks. And being on the outside without any armour protection it was likely to get damaged.
I'd imagine that the bogie system would be an advantage when on the offensive and tanks were likely to encounter mines. Seems like a much easier in the field fix than a torsion bar system. I could very well be wrong though.
Well, it was also a system we already had on the few tanks the US was producing before the M3 and M4. So instead of completely setting up a new production and design, they went with what they had.
@@uni4rm I'm just thinking more about why it was built how it was in general, not just on the Sherman. It was also used on the M2 and I think that was where it was developed for. But your right about the logistical side of it of course. edit I was wrong the bogie system was employed as far back as the M1 Combat car
"Tommy cooker" is the usual name for a stove in the British Army - in more modern times, the hexamine chemical stove, but in WW2 it could be as simple as a can of sand, soaked in fuel.
Again great video, thanks. One rematk on statistics. Although I tend to believe that M4 Sherman tank crues contrary to the statements in the film Fury, had a (far) better chamce of survival than infantry, proper statistics require more to win a bar battle on tommy cookers. Percentages of soldiers imployed, is one of the numbers you need.
3 года назад+1
Thanks a lot for thie video. I indeed found myself in an argument recently about the sherman and could not find the right video of yours to prove my point.
Off-road mobility is always going to be tricky on a tank due to weight and track. Compared to a CAT D9 at 60 ton you get deep grouser bars and wider pads. The biggest disadvantage for a tank though is going where you don’t know it is safe solid ground. I wouldn’t condemn any tank on mobility, by necessity it will be a bit icky :o)
thank you i have much respect for what you do... my grand pops was a WW2 vet and korean war vet and as a engineer corps he helped build alot of bridges.... i think i still have some pictures of them with my brother. perhaps the military museum might be interested in them.
When I see the chieftain in the thumb nail I think I'm clicking on his channel and then I get surprised that all the effort that is put into video production and realize he's hosting a video on a different channel.
I saw his talk on RUclips like I'm sure many many others did about the M4 Sherman and it's development. It seems to me that the M4 Sherman was the best overall medium tank during World War II even when put up against the T-34. Mostly due to its astonishing reliability, ease of manufacture, overall armament and armor effectiveness, and it's excellent mobility. It's my favorite tank and that trumps any other consideration 👍😁👌
You can always rely on the Chieftain to present a balanced discussion based on proven facts and not waffling with hypotheses as some other presenters do. 😁
@@calvingreene90 Just stop. Reality dictates over...whatever you think you are saying. Tank Destroyers sat back in support. Whether that was for infantry support or anti-tank action. This means they effectively had the same job as Shermans. Tank engagements were rare in the grand scheme of things. Tanks are expensive equipment, even in WW2, and you don't throw away a giant armored vehicle with an artillery and machine guns mounted in it because you see the enemy bring his, unless you can destroy his without much threat of loss to your own. Tank Destroyers did indeed engage and destroy enemy tanks. And so did tanks. And artillery, and infantry, and even some Naval ships. Strategically speaking, if you see the enemy, your purpose is to fight and defeat him by whatever means you have. Whatever equipment he happens to have at the time is less relevant to the overall strategy.
I have heard that the term Zippo was used by Americans in the Pacific to refer to the flamethrower very into the Sherman that was used against Japanese in caves and pill boxes.
I work for John Deere and apparently one of their jobs in the war was to repair vehicles. It was called the "John Deere Battalion". Apparently a lot of these tanks got back into service after being knocked out , although sometimes gruesomely where remains of the crew were ordered to be literally washed out of the interior.
A lot of people's viewpoints concerning tanks and other weapons is based on some fantasy they have glommed onto that makes them happy. Fantasies spread by endless poorly written books, documentaries, and online forums.
Bravo, Chieftain! Your knowledge and deployment of the facts against misconception and falsehood is comparable to an M4A1 76 going against a VW beetle armed with a pea shooter.
Interesting comment about tank crew casulties. A study of British Sherman and Cromwell crews killed and wounded in Europe showed that 50% of casulties occured outside the tank, with 22% being "whilst making tea"!
The Sherman was simply 'good enough' to get through the war and it was recognized that rather than playing around with massive upgrades to the platform, incremental upgrades would do nicely until a complete new generation of tank was fielded in the M26 Pershing. The Sherman could have been more aggressively upgraded with a larger turret and gun with minimal disruption to the M4 production lines.
Thankyou USA and all connected with sending the Sherman's to the battle of el Alamein..my dad's nextdoor neighbour was a tanker he was a loader....never the same after D-day stammer, loud noises,devoured, liked outdoors not being coupled up.
I always thought that the comparisons between the Sherman and Tiger were crazy and obvious reader/viewer bait. Sugar Ray Lenard was an excellent middle weight champion, but he would have been destroyed by heavyweight Larry Holmes. If you want a comparable matchup, look to the Mark IV Panzer.
I have read a report that stated the US tests showed the M4A2E4, the torsion bar suspension Sherman, did not show any appreciable improvements over the new HVSS suspension. This coupled with the T26E3/M26 Pershing coming online meant limited future service life for the M4. Thus these factors did not warrant retooling and interruption to M4 production for a vehicle that was supposed to be phased out in a couple of years anyways. Ironically the M26 was plagued with mechanical reliability and was retired from service in 1951. The M26's replacement was the M46 Patton which was essentially a highly upgraded M26 with new engine and a long list of upgraded parts. The M4 Sherman was retired in 1957.
Early WW2 German tanks actually had narrower tracks than the early Shermans. Not sure about the Mark IV Panzer tracks, but of course the T-34 had very wide tracks (24"?) which compared in width to the E8's, and the Tiger, Panther, and Royal Tiger. However, the greater weight of the German tanks limited the effectiveness of a wider track since their ground pressure was of course higher than the T-34 or the E8's!
"Infantry can't kill other infantry, that's what machine guns are for." The above is the same logic as saying a tank can't kill another tank, and that only tank destroyers were intended to do so.
Wet" stowage consisted of a system where the main gun rounds were moved to racks on the hull floor. The rounds in each rack were surrounded by separate small containers of a mixture of water, ethylene glycol, and a rust inhibitor, known as "Ammudamp." As /u/RobWithOneB said, the rounds aren't actually "wet," the rounds are just separated by the small liquid containers. When the ammunition rack was hit, the logic was that the liquid would spill out, quenching any fires, similar to flooding the magazine on a warship.
Your wrong about the black humor. In the army every soldier is issued a Black Humor 3rd Class at the end of AIT. Now REMF units can usually get theirs up to 2nd Class by the end of their first tour. Line units however can have theirs mastered before the end of their first duty assignment!
The British and Canadians suffered 2,000 tank losses during the Normandy Campaign tying down SS panzer units to free up the US to maneuver and breakout in its sectors. That’s a lot of tanks to wear down the Germans.
@@MagpieOz _A Survey of Tank Warfare in Europe from 6 June to 12 August 1944, Pg 19_ "On the British sectors it will be seen that between 1,200 and 1,300 German tanks were put out of action. During this period the Second Army lost 1,267 tanks from all causes (records of DDME Stats Second Army), and it is estimated that the Canadian losses were in the order of 300 tanks. The total losses of Allied tanks were only a little greater than the battle losses of the enemy, namely 1,600 as against 1250-a ratio of approximately 1.3-to-one." Some sources list the German losses as high at 1500, however, of the remnants of the 10 Panzer-equipped divisions that escaped back across the Seine, around ~100 tanks made it across and weren't destroyed or abandoned. In part, it's important to not conflate the British armor heavy tactics in Normandy for the doctrine of the entire Allied army; they purposefully 'burned' through tanks and planned on copious replacements to try and protect vital infantry manpower during the fighting. Such tactics paid with steel a price they didn't want to have to pay in blood, and remarkably did quite well in the exchange despite such planning.
Look you can study specs all you like and compare and deride but supply of them to front lines ,repair down time& supply of parts ,travel ,speed and proper deep training will out do any enemy . Ive seen so many cases of underclass vehicle out doing its superior . As it was the Panthers turret rotation and transmission was weaker than the Shermans and it had to face someone shifting quicker and getting closer to itself . Rommel had PZ IV , Tigers, 88mm Guns , MG 34's , ME109's in the Desert and still lost to speed of advance and greater supply
Thanks for the great info, grandad would have been happy to hear your comments👍 Like the M4A1 my middle name is Michael named in respect of my grandfather.
My uncle commanded a Sherman in Europe during WWII. He told me about an interesting tactic they used to deal with the more heavily armored German tanks. They would hide several Shermans on the other side of a steep rise directly in the path of the oncoming German tanks. Then they would sit there and wait. When the German tanks would come up and over the top of the rise it would momentarily expose their soft underbellies to the waiting Shermans. Then the Shermans would put a shot up through the lightly armored bottoms of the German tanks. He said this tactic was very effective and he destroyed several German tanks this way. Its an example of how you can overcome the technological shortcoming of your equipment by using innovative tactics.
You could argue that the technical advantage was on the Sherman side. Big gun and armor is one thing, but the M4 had better situational awareness thanks mainly to the turret mounted sight, and a gun stabilizer which no German tank had.
I have to question the Zippo vs. Ronson lighter debate. A good friend of the family was a Sherman tank commander from D-Day through the drive across France until his tank was hit and he was the only survivor of his crew. After he recovered he was assigned to 3rd Army staff. On more than one occasion he told me the troops called the M4s Ronson lighters. I never heard him use the word Zippo. You can argue this was simply a postwar retro memory, but I've see the term used in print a number of times in books written after WWII. I'm aware Zippo lighters were issued to GIs during WWII, but the Ronson lighters had been around much longer than Zippo and were hugely popular before the war. The terms Kleenex, Xerox, and Q-Tip remain part of everyday speech even though other well established brands have followed. Why would the term Ronson be any different?
@@aesop8694 Makes you wonder why we didn't standardize on the diesel variant. More range, less flame. My guess is the Army wanted to standardize on gasoline as their primary fuel instead of having to ship a lot of diesel as well.
@@Paladin1873 Apparently the engine that was used in the Sherman tank, was originally designed for aircraft, and thats why it ran on gasoline. (Just another piece of useless information that we may never have to use, but that's life.)
you forget to mention that sherman is also huge tank,i have picture of sherman standing by T55 , it is allmost like only shermans body is as tall as entire T55
The whole point of having a tank is to have one that runs drives and is easily repaired and reliable. Hence in my opinion the M4 Sherman is the best tank of World War Two. It did what it was designed to do and if the tank is on fire I think you will have a good chance of getting out. The Chieftain at 6 feet tall sure did!
About M4 survivability; the father of a girl I knew in High School was a Sherman crew member during WWII. He landed at Normandy, and fought all the way into Germany in Shermans. He had 4 tanks shot out from under him, and only sustained minor scrapes and abrasions. He survived the war, got married, had two daughters, and died in bed at the age of 83.
Same story. Another gentleman I knew said he went through 6 tanks between Normandy and Belgium. Of course, he was wounded, but survived. He told a story where the Germans parked a Mk IV in the road with a Panther parked several yards behind it. When a column of Shermans came up the road the MkIV fired, missed, and then turned off the road, exposing the Panther. The Panther fired. The shot hit the first Sherman, passed completely through the tank, and bounced off the front armor on the second tank. The crew of the first tank bailed out as the rest of the Shermans frantically turned off the road. In the ensuing confused fight someone shot the Panther's suspension and its crew bailed out.
Here's one for you, Easter weekend of 1984 I was stationed in Germany and was invited by a German family to spend the weekend with them, the father had been a German tanker in the war.
He was just tickled pink that I was on an armored vehicle crew, you'd have thought we were in some kind of exclusive club or something the way he kept pouring the Schnapps (I still have a hangover from that one).
We were told not to bring up the war when talking with the German people because it was considered bad forum but at one point I felt comfortable enough to ask him one little question, and that's if it was true what I'd heard growing up about their tanks being so superior to ours, he literally balked at the idea and told me "I'll tell you what was superior and that was the number of American tanks, when there's one or two of you and ten to fifteen Sherman's come rolling over the hill it's only going to end one way and we knew it".
He then told me about how him and his crew all made a deal with each other that if they made it far enough that they got back inside of Germany the first time it ran out of fuel or ammo they would abandon the tank and find some Allies to surrender to, and that's exactly what they did, they were left to guard something somewhere without enough fuel to escape after an initial engagement so they fled into the woods (they didn't want to be anywhere near it in case it wound up a target) and waited until some GI's came along and surrendered to them.
Everytime I hear all the armchair historians on the internet talking about the Sherman crew's having "Panzerphobia" I make sure I tell them about the German tank crewman I met that was in the war that told me about how they had "Shermanphobia" just the same.
@@dukecraig2402 Nobody who is in a war wants to be in that war. Only the psychos who love to kill people and have no empathy even for themselves love to start wars. Sadly a lot of such people are now in the US and NATO high command.
@@pcuimac
Do you think you're telling me something I don't already know? I was a soldier after all, and what does that have to do with my point about tank warfare in WW2 Europe not being as lopsided as all the non veteran video game playing armchair experts believe it was?
Because you're preaching to the choir about that, like I said I was a soldier you know.
There's a reason why that man treated me like I was a member of an exclusive club with him, because I am, I actually know what it's like to live in the hull of an armored vehicle, plus I was one of the men at that point that was standing between the Soviet military and him and his family appreciated that, the cold war may seem like a joke nowadays but it sure wasn't back then, that's the very reason why the Germans would take us into their homes during the holidays, unlike this latest generation of neo Nazi American bashing people in Germany, back then they appreciated why we were there and the fact that we were so far away from our families doing it.
Incidents of a single person don't mean anything. Stats show us that Shermans were safe, whilst there are many stories like this on different tanks. Oskin did have 6 tanks shot out under him... one taken out with an aerial bomb, and Oskin survived. Trying to get in or out from T-34 is a nightmare, especially for radio operator.
America got a very competent and reliable tank across oceans, along with fuel, ammo, crews, parts and support crews in numbers large enough to overwhelm and defeat the Germans, Italians and Japanese. That, ladies and gentlemen, is remarkable. Some would say miraculous.
and supplied it to all our major allies as well, except maybe the Chinese.
You sir are correct. When I run into the argument about the Sherman being junk and not effective. Well, How far is Moscow to Berlin? It's less than 1,150 miles. It's 616 miles from Detroit to NYC then it what another 3000 nm to Europ and then you still have to drive the thing to where the fight is. The distances we had to go, the M-4 Sherman served the Army well.
That, specifically, is what separates a super power in the world from the other first world nations. It is also why the United States is the sole super power in the world.
Heavy Lift is a strategic resource every bit as awe inspiring and game changing as carrier task forces and ICBMs.
@@ekscalybur except of course in 1939 the US was in the military running with powers such as Bolivia, Paraguay and Romania (tho Romania may have been ahead of us on the list of Army by size). And during the 20's and 30's (The Great Depression) the Army was certainly not showered with money for equipment to make up the numbers. Economically the US was a superpower in 1939. Militarily only the US Navy was in that class...the Army and the AAF was not. You cannot buy an army 'off the shelf'. The US 1941-1945 is the exception that proves the rule. The WW1 and post WW1 generation of officers (particularly staff officers) deserve a ton of credit. Effectively their work and reforms from 1919-1939 beat the Germans and Japanese in 1939-1945. Also the people running factories 3 shifts on the Home Front and buying tens of billions (1941 dollars) of War Bonds deserve a large slice of credit pie too.
@@witchking8497 The Great Depression forced Congress to slash slash the US Army's budget. FDR managed to keep their officers and noncoms on the government payroll by putting them in charge of the civilian programs like the Civilian Conservation Corps, Civil Air Patrol and Work Projects Administration. Those provided jobs for unemployed youths where they got whipped into shape, learned how to obey orders and learned valuable skills needed in a modern army and air force.
A completely unappreciated, but accidental advantage of Sherman mobility was the narrow profile. Even today in rural/small town Europe you will find these narrow stone bridges and narrow village streets that go back to donkey cart days. The Sherman was 8.5 feet in width and wasn't stopped by any of these narrow passages. The Panzer IV was 9.5 feet wide, the Panther was over 11 feet wide and usually in mixed columns with both types. Panzers might have to be re-routed around such narrow places, or have pioneers widen a narrow forest path that wouldn't even slow down a Sherman. This was a complete accident because the narrow width was designed around ship transportation, but it paid a dividend in mobility once in Europe.
My uncle drove an M4 while in the Army,fought in Sicily,Anzio,and through that part of the conflict.Lost one Sherman when it hit a mine,crew survived.Was issued another Sherman drove it through the rest of the war.He always said that even the German heavies could be taken by the Sherman,all that was needed was that the Sherman got behind the German and the Sherman had a good gunner,that could hit what he was shooting at.Uncle named one of his sons for the gunner on the tank he drove.He was there he survived,only wound he got was shrapnel when some one set off a booby trap real close to him..He carried a scar on his chin and some shrapnel in his left knee the rest of his life.
I've read that Tigers and Panthers often retreated once they started receiving fire from 75-gunned M4s because they knew it meant they were spotted and that American artillery and air-support was sure to be coming in soon. It was real war after all, not World of Tanks.
That seems very unlikely
German tank manuals said that aircraft shouldn't be of concern due to the inability to hit targets.
@@mpk6664 they aren't a threat to ground units specifically but they are very great spotters. That's why Germans moved in the night mostly. Fog of war is a serious problem and the one who had the eyes of the battlefield will have the advantage.
@@mpk6664 i mean even if the aircraft shot or bom doesn't destroy the tank overall, they always be something gonna broke from that shot or bom sharpnel or artilery sharpnel, if you damage the commander sight which is probaly would from the aircraft fire you will reduce the tank situational awarnes, and even if the bom from aircraft and artilery fire doesn't destroy the tank a close explosion probaly gonna destroy the tank track which is gonna disable the mobility of the tank, and render it useless because a tank that can't move is the same as a tank that loses its turret.
"Could be better" is not the same as "bad".
yes it is
“Could be better” can be applied to virtually anything. The Thompson could be better, as could the Garand, and they were improved upon. So too was the Sherman, which soldiered on for decades after WWII.
3:14 When it comes down to it, EVERYTHING is designed for infantry support. Your goal is to either get that private with a rifle to a certain piece of real estate or keep that private with a rifle on a certain piece of real estate.
That's why there are tank riders and APCs tanks alone are very vulnerable and can't hold ground.
but there are several different approaches
the american approach was
infantry forward and Tank from the second row provides close support
The German approach was the tank is forward and destroys everything, and the infantry hides behind the tank and advances
Francis's approach was to spread the tanks along the line, so each unit has a tank behind them as support
German approach, put a lot of tanks in a group (battalion / regiment) and overwhelm the defense with numbers
Russian approach
send a T-34 tank regiment/brigade to counterattack, whatever happens
Uhoh. Someone remarked they thought the Sherman was rubbish again. They are about to stand corrected in shame lol. Cheers Chieftain.
From the engineering standpoint, while many specifics are good, the overall design of M4 is rubbish.
M18 GMC is an example of a good design, eliminating M4's biggest facepalm-inducing design flaw.
Neither the Sherman, or the big German cats, were rubbish. Too many people making exaggerated claims on both sides of the debate.
@@lyndoncmp5751
_> Neither the Sherman, or the big German cats, were rubbish._
But they do have glaring design flaws that would make an engineering student insta-fail nowadays. The layout of the transmission alone.
@@Conserpov Such brilliant hindsight that's only 80 years too late. If only the Germans and the U.S. had your engineering acumen back then, they could have shortened the war.
@@Conserpov Everything had design flaws. The first production M18s had to be recalled in order to be fixed while the rest of the tanks were fixed in the field. Not to mention that the majority of M18 crews hated the thing.
The M18 was put into production without any testing.
The Sherman was a miraculous design at the time when Matilda's, Crusader's, M3 Lee's, and Panzer 3/4s were the only things on the battle field.
What did we tank enthusiasts do before the Chieftain started his channel?
Great job guy!
Books, arguements, and quoting that one old veteran from down the street.
quote the history channel
@@pnutz_2 OMG the M4 Sherman was designed by ancient Aliens 👽🛸
@@obelic71 it used to be known as the hitler channel before starting up ancient aliens. an awful lot of wehraboos got their knowledge there, my child self included
@@pnutz_2 the days of real History on the History channel are over.
Sadly enough there are still people watching and believing what they broadcast.
The M4 can be characterized as the “good platform that could be modified to get the job done.”
I love my German Big Cats, but while Germany attempted to create the “perfect” vehicle America and later allied countries created a reliable workhorse. You have to respect it
@@tyler_bt3326 well, MAN and Henschel seemed serious about producing a well engineered AVF (Panther, the Tigers). Porsche came off then, and in hindsight, as whacked out (see Ferdinand).
Get the job done in quantities needed. Moran in his other videos does a good job explaining how hard that is to do. "Best" on the proving grounds doesn't mean diddly if you cannot put it on the battlefield with the logistical capabilities you have. Whatever flaws the Sherman had were because of that and considering how long that chain was and how effective it proved, it was excellent. It was used everywhere by everybody effectively. It fit the bridges. It fit the landing ships. It fit the rail gauge. It was configured for all sorts of fuel types. It was reliable. If something did break spares were available and quick and easy to replace.
It did all that and did the job well on the battlefield until the end of the war. Like I said earlier, that is extremely hard to do. Engineering vehicles is hard. PzIV and T-34 are it's only comparisons for WW2.
@@rwaitt14153 Perhaps Nick has plans to do a few videos on M4 field repairs and repair depots in the rear where they refurbished the engines and front drives. The M4's were reliable due to the Army having those swapped out after 150 hours or less run time to ensure those didn't break down during battle or while on the march. The radial and Ford V8 were good engines once Wright, Ford and Ordnance engineers worked out their initial bugs yet those still had problems that cropped up after being put to use so stayed busy designing improved components that were installed during rebuilding. The final drives also suffered from the driver abuse that screwed up the engines so were refurbished at the same time. The Chrysler A57 Multibank turned out to be the most reliable tank engine of the war due to the British reporting it could run 350 hours or more before requiring rebuilding.
Nice rundown. A few add ons. As for fires, discipline to keep the tanks clean and not carry extra unstowed ammunition was also a large part of reducing fires even in tanks without wet stowage. Now two accounts from Sherman veterans: I had the opportunity to have conversations with Major Jim Burt (MOH 3-66 Armor Burt's Knights) who commanded a tank company from Benning to Berlin. He loved Shermans and was not a fan of German armor for their lack of mobility and slow traverse. You can get similar views from a Russian perspective if you read "Commanding the Red Army's Sherman Tanks: The World War II Memoirs of Hero of the Soviet Union Dmitriy Loza"
German tankers had dark humor as well, quoting one German tanker from the book Spearhead, "One of ours is worth ten of yours, problem is you always bring eleven."
@hognoxious truth is more German tanks were destroyed by there own crews than the enemy due to malfunctions
@hognoxious That's a bit of myth too. The early T-34s did have transmission problems but they were also being driven by drivers who had only an hour of training many times. They couldn't properly operate them well and got thrown directly into combat. Under those conditions I think any tank would have suffered. They were also constantly improved and I've not heard of breakdowns being much of a problem for their advances from 43 onward.
Russians: when they have two to one advantage, it feels like ten to one.
@@Bochi42 According to Russian sources, they lost half of all the T-34's they ever produced, and the christie suspension required a lot of maintenance and engine systems had a high rate of wear leading to a lot of breakdowns. They lacked good radios and the turret motor liked to eat itself. Such is the reality of Russian production during the war. The T-34 armor was poorly tempered, and was mostly of "soft steel". Its suspension design was also known for throwing or breaking its tracks because they were built too lightly and the pins bent over time of being knocked back in over and over. You'd think that such wide tracks would get good cross-country performance, but the T-34 christie suspension used weak springs for its weight, and was such a rough ride it could make 15mph if you were lucky. They also had pretty high crew death rates compared to, well, everyone due in part to the ergonomics and the giant driver door weak spot.
If Germany have a good sense of humor then why is that the only joke I see.
One of my first jobs many moons ago at a department store had a fellow that served in a Sherman in Africa. He would wax on about the stabalized main gun and how good it was. I was quite surprised to hear it was a POS! From people that never used it in anger!
There are numerous examples of interviews of people who did use it in anger who thought it was rubbish one reference which provides many of theses is The Great Sherman Tank Scandal by DeJohn
Regarding strategic mobility - the Sherman was at the upper limit of what the common cargo ships of the day could handle with their own cranes. Any heavier then specialist cranes would be needed which might not have been available at the given port limiting where the tanks could be unloaded or if it was might have greatly delayed the unloading of the tanks.
Another thing about the Sherman armor, it was softer than the face hardened German armor. That meant opposition AP rounds penetrated it easier, but there was less spalling. It may have been harder to penetrate face hardened German armor but when rounds did penetrate there was far more spalling than in the Sherman. It's part of why the Shermans were more survivable than some other tanks.
Well that and great ergos and decent escape hatches. Unless you're a firefly gunner. Then you may as well be in a T-34 (I know unpopular opinion)
@@SlavicCelery Some Sherman's even had belly hatches. A friend of the family was a Sherman driver at Normandy and he escaped from his tank after it was hit through the belly hatch. The rest of the crew didn't make it.
Interesting about the belly hatch in the floor of the Sherman. Seems like a good idea to have another way to escape from the tank but I read somewhere that some crews secured it so it could not be opened because if there was a fire, an opened hatch in the floor caused a chimney-like effect allowing air to come into the tank from below and thus fanning the flames.
Marine Tankers in the island campaigns modified the belly hatches so that they could drop then pivot. Then they would drive over wounded marine infantry and pull them into the M4 and Med a vac them out.
The M4A3R3 was nicknamed "Zippo" because it was a "flame tank" or flamethrower
Zippo, Ronson, Flaming tank etc refers to the fact that their motors being petrol driven made the tanks susceptible to catching fire.
@@aesop8694 German tanks were fueled by gasoline as well.
@@mikem6176 Thanks for that, yet it was the Sherman that was renown for catching fire.
@ Aesop on fire, but the crew has better chances of living. Unlike other tanks,---> T-34
thank you, informative
My grandpa (moms side, died 2009) drove and later commanded a sherman, guessing an e2 or e4, for the free french
Sherman as well as others needed a faster reverse speed.
Getting out of trouble as quickly as getting caught in it is a good thing.
Aaand...Nick takes another tilt at the M4 myth windmill. Great video, carry on. Your work is not in vain.
The always informative videos of The Chieftain are basically gold ammo for us to use against our "Internet Forum Enemies". LOL! Thank you very much!
I encountered one of these people couple of days ago called "Sir B" iirc, this guy is such a meathead and wouldn't listen to anyone to debunk his claim of how bad the Sherman is lol, I even gave him links for Chieftains videos regarding the Sherman and he continue to call me a kid and disregard any reply I made claiming that I'm not an expert and continued asking for one lol
@@AHappyCub Yeah, there are always some internet trolls who derive joy simply from arguing with others on the internet. Facts, logics, evidence means nothing to them, they just want to argue and believe they are winning.
Perfect! I can use this video to rebut silly misconceptions uttered during the inevitable Sherman tank argument we have at every Thanksgiving dinner.
Wow tank talk at Thanksgiving? Far more interesting than my family lol.
@@Bochi42 I would rather discuss religion or politics.
Thank you sir, us old Sherman fans need to keep the kids honest 🍀
Interesting that the 'inferior' M4 remained in service for so long after production stopped.
Because it was constantly upgraded. If germany won ww2 they would probably keep updating panther for several years before designing a new tank. Even T-34/85s were in service long after war.
@@ivvan497 knowing how many tanks Germany tried to produce, I bet they'd just keep on making new ones instead.
@@ivvan497 The french used them after ww2 and did not have kind things to say about the panther. Look at the 1947 french panther report
@@Averagedude2024 From what I read, main complaint is its strategic value and final drives. French weren't upgrading panthers, they just used ww2 models. Sherman's on the other hand were built in USA free from bombing and plenty of engineering, logistic and material support. Panthers were being built by necessity without time for testing and ironing out the issues. Germans were in a hurry, allies were not
I imagine that after ww2 in peace times and without time and material constraints germany would upgrade Panther design considerably taking into consideration all the experiences from ww2 the same way sherman was. So 1948 Panther would be much more strategically capable than ww2 variant before moving onto more modern designs in 1950s.
@@Averagedude2024 NATO allowed the French Army to have 2 regiments of Panthers only for evaluation purposes until they ran out of ammunition and replacement parts. The Army wound up selling them to AMX who in turn gave those to tank museums when they ran out of parts.
Yes. Popular Knowledge is usually inaccurate. .. But history should try to get it right . Thanks for trying to give the M4 its due. I was thinking you might find this topic useful.. I suspect few tank enthusiast who have not been in the military, know that at least the US has and still uses padlocks, chains and cables to secure Tanks and other vehicles. Keys are another topic. I would be interested to know how the different nations of WW2 secured their tanks.
Thanks Chieftain for giving us the ammo of facts next time we are casually talking about the M4 Sherman accross the dinner table. What should our next topic for a 5 things video be?
I'm pretty sure "the ammo of facts" doesn't mean anything.
I would love a Chieftain feature about American doctrine and practice of using smoke during WW2.
I am one of those people who had always heard that tanks were used for a breakthrough and TD's fought other tanks. Infantry support by tanks was hardly ever mentioned except when people complained that the 75mm gun on the basic Sherman was not a real AT gun like the 88 on those million or so Tigers on the Western Front.
what bothered me more was the fact that even some famous museum curators are spreading this type of information to the public.. like for example British Bovington Tank Museum's Mr Willey...
Addendum: I was at the National Infantry Museum at Fort Benning today, and one of the displays noted that the Sherman was supposed to support the infantry. When the Armor museum there opens to the public, I wonder if they will acknowledge the infantry role of the Sherman.
Dark humor or lack there of and being in the Army.. Wooo such a person would be so lost in nearly every conversation when deployed. I mean that is what keeps you sane. You can not understate the importance of a demented sense of dark humor to keep you going. But it is interesting that the meaning of terms can get vary lost as the decades roll on.
thank you, sherman was a good tank, with on top of all its qualities really good ergonomy thus crew effectivness.
Very well done! If memory serves, the M4 Sherman was designed & produced with the Panzer III & IV in mind, not the Tiger. Also, the M4 Sherman was initially produced as a tank for use by our allies (Britain, the Soviets, Australia, etc). The idea was to produce a tank for global use, and as others have noted, fast/easy deployment and efficient service/replacement.
Its amusing how some people praise the T-34 while being harshly criticical of the Sherman.
In many ways, the examples of excellent features assigned to T-34s are shared by Shermans and the examples of design flaws assigned to Shermans are shared by T-34s.
Unlike T-34, Sherman has most basic layout-level egregious design flaws that today would make even a freshman engineering student facepalm.
Lack of transfer case between the engine and the main shaft alone is indefensible.
The grass is always greener on the other side.
A lot of these "discussions" about WW2 gear (tanks, planes) happen because a lot of people don't know what is involved in design and mass production. There is a bit of politics too. But at some point there has to be a decision that a certain level of tech is adequate, freeze the design and make compromises to allow mass production. You have to look years ahead. The 76mm didn't magically show up a few months because the Shermans met Panthers. It had been in the pipeline for years. Same for the Hellcat: It was not designed in 2 months specifically to counter the Zero after the Americans captured one in the Aleutians. As a matter of fact, all US aircraft that fought in WW2 were at least in the design stage when the war started. That includes the B-29.
Yes this phenomenon seems to have happened enough to be a noticeable pattern, not just in the US military. In addition, new systems designed specifically to face a certain enemy system would show up in numbers just in time to face a different system fielded by the enemy.
Up to the last couple years I always heard the Stewart getting the Bronson and Tommy cooker nicknames. Now all the references point to the Sherman.
Top quality, interesting and informative content. As always.
All armoured fighting vehicles exhibit some level of compromise between armour, mobility, firepower, weight, logistics, and cost of construction. Some get this balance better than others. The Sherman certainly wasn't a perfect tank. But it got an awful lot of things right.
Thanks for so entertainingly getting this point across.
The original suspension system is great example of a the kind of trade of that need be thought about when designing a weapons system. Afterall it was easy to repair, as you could just pull of a damage bogie and stick on a new one without having to to dismant half the tank like on a lot of other tanks. And being on the outside without any armour protection it was likely to get damaged.
I'd imagine that the bogie system would be an advantage when on the offensive and tanks were likely to encounter mines. Seems like a much easier in the field fix than a torsion bar system. I could very well be wrong though.
Well, it was also a system we already had on the few tanks the US was producing before the M3 and M4. So instead of completely setting up a new production and design, they went with what they had.
@@uni4rm I'm just thinking more about why it was built how it was in general, not just on the Sherman. It was also used on the M2 and I think that was where it was developed for. But your right about the logistical side of it of course.
edit
I was wrong the bogie system was employed as far back as the M1 Combat car
"Tommy cooker" is the usual name for a stove in the British Army - in more modern times, the hexamine chemical stove, but in WW2 it could be as simple as a can of sand, soaked in fuel.
Also the nickname for a Sherman!
@@brucegoose2808 The point is where that nickname came from.... :-/
@Bruce goose the Sherman burned as much as any other tank, so stop acting like the Sherman was the only one that burned.
Again great video, thanks.
One rematk on statistics. Although I tend to believe that M4 Sherman tank crues contrary to the statements in the film Fury, had a (far) better chamce of survival than infantry, proper statistics require more to win a bar battle on tommy cookers.
Percentages of soldiers imployed, is one of the numbers you need.
Thanks a lot for thie video. I indeed found myself in an argument recently about the sherman and could not find the right video of yours to prove my point.
Very interesting information. I had not considered many of those factors detailed in this video. Wonderful stuff!
I thought I knew a little bit about WW2 tanks - but actually in truth I didn't - thanks for all of your excellent clarifications !
Off-road mobility is always going to be tricky on a tank due to weight and track. Compared to a CAT D9 at 60 ton you get deep grouser bars and wider pads. The biggest disadvantage for a tank though is going where you don’t know it is safe solid ground. I wouldn’t condemn any tank on mobility, by necessity it will be a bit icky :o)
Nothing short of divine intervention will dispell the myths about the M4. Even that may not work.
thats because where there is smoke there is fire and in this case most usually in a Tommy Cooker!
@@brucegoose2808 nah, it's usually just a wehraboo blowing smoke out his ass.
@@Skringly 😆 or someone trying to combat the Sherman Wehraboos 😉
@@Skringly or a fanboi scrolling and trolling with his right hand while having a sherman tank with his left!
In a sense, I'd like to see Chief run a tank on fire test with the seats filled since egressing on the lumpy tank is pretty fast
thank you i have much respect for what you do... my grand pops was a WW2 vet and korean war vet and as a engineer corps he helped build alot of bridges.... i think i still have some pictures of them with my brother. perhaps the military museum might be interested in them.
When I see the chieftain in the thumb nail I think I'm clicking on his channel and then I get surprised that all the effort that is put into video production and realize he's hosting a video on a different channel.
I felt a great disturbance, as if thousands of Wehrboos cried out in terror.
I really would love to know how people hear "infantry support" and don't twig killing enemy tanks falls under that umbrella.
Thank you for the info on the sherman,
I saw his talk on RUclips like I'm sure many many others did about the M4 Sherman and it's development. It seems to me that the M4 Sherman was the best overall medium tank during World War II even when put up against the T-34.
Mostly due to its astonishing reliability, ease of manufacture, overall armament and armor effectiveness, and it's excellent mobility.
It's my favorite tank and that trumps any other consideration 👍😁👌
You can always rely on the Chieftain to present a balanced discussion based on proven facts and not waffling with hypotheses as some other presenters do. 😁
Oh bugger. The forum is on fire.
There is a big difference between hunting tanks and fighting tanks when you stumble against them.
Doctrinal speaking, the tank destroyers did zero hunting.
@@ekscalybur
Doctrinally tank destroyers didn't do stalking tanks. They did hunt tanks.
@@calvingreene90 Just stop. Reality dictates over...whatever you think you are saying. Tank Destroyers sat back in support. Whether that was for infantry support or anti-tank action. This means they effectively had the same job as Shermans. Tank engagements were rare in the grand scheme of things. Tanks are expensive equipment, even in WW2, and you don't throw away a giant armored vehicle with an artillery and machine guns mounted in it because you see the enemy bring his, unless you can destroy his without much threat of loss to your own. Tank Destroyers did indeed engage and destroy enemy tanks. And so did tanks. And artillery, and infantry, and even some Naval ships. Strategically speaking, if you see the enemy, your purpose is to fight and defeat him by whatever means you have. Whatever equipment he happens to have at the time is less relevant to the overall strategy.
@@uni4rm
Hunting with beaters, hunting man eaters, or camping on game trails.
@@uni4rm I read that in the voice of the Chieftain himself.
Thank you! Ever so often i'm the only one defending the Sherman to all the 'experts'. Now i've got some new ammo!!
Greets from the Netherlands 🌷, T.
I have heard that the term Zippo was used by Americans in the Pacific to refer to the flamethrower very into the Sherman that was used against Japanese in caves and pill boxes.
I work for John Deere and apparently one of their jobs in the war was to repair vehicles. It was called the "John Deere Battalion". Apparently a lot of these tanks got back into service after being knocked out , although sometimes gruesomely where remains of the crew were ordered to be literally washed out of the interior.
he M4 is unbeatable when equipped with a standart Brad Pitt.that`s proven in a fair documentary!
Thank you, Sir! Geoff Who has learned much.
Being a tanker in the US Army during WWII was the safest place you could be. "Death Traps" my ass.
Being a tanker in Swedish or Swiss army was even safer.
A lot of people's viewpoints concerning tanks and other weapons is based on some fantasy they have glommed onto that makes them happy. Fantasies spread by endless poorly written books, documentaries, and online forums.
Direct to the point, succinct, well encapsulated, well edited. Very nice.
Bravo, Chieftain! Your knowledge and deployment of the facts against misconception and falsehood is comparable to an M4A1 76 going against a VW beetle armed with a pea shooter.
My recollection is that Armored Force KIA was only 1399, per the report by General Marshall.
Huzzah... St. Moran of Sherman!
Interesting comment about tank crew casulties. A study of British Sherman and Cromwell crews killed and wounded in Europe showed that 50% of casulties occured outside the tank, with 22% being "whilst making tea"!
The Sherman was simply 'good enough' to get through the war and it was recognized that rather than playing around with massive upgrades to the platform, incremental upgrades would do nicely until a complete new generation of tank was fielded in the M26 Pershing. The Sherman could have been more aggressively upgraded with a larger turret and gun with minimal disruption to the M4 production lines.
Thankyou USA and all connected with sending the Sherman's to the battle of el Alamein..my dad's nextdoor neighbour was a tanker he was a loader....never the same after D-day stammer, loud noises,devoured, liked outdoors not being coupled up.
Thanks to the British for the Air Bases, Merlin engines in our P51's and so many other things during WWII. We made a great team.
good clip - Sherman tank was the "Skoda Fabia" of the IIWW - not to expensive, not the best but it done it's job enough good and win the war :)
Short and too the point... Thanks!
Thank for your Service
A good summary. Many thanks!
Great stuff. Thank You.
I always thought that the comparisons between the Sherman and Tiger were crazy and obvious reader/viewer bait. Sugar Ray Lenard was an excellent middle weight champion, but he would have been destroyed by heavyweight Larry Holmes. If you want a comparable matchup, look to the Mark IV Panzer.
you rock, Chief!
I have read a report that stated the US tests showed the M4A2E4, the torsion bar suspension Sherman, did not show any appreciable improvements over the new HVSS suspension. This coupled with the T26E3/M26 Pershing coming online meant limited future service life for the M4. Thus these factors did not warrant retooling and interruption to M4 production for a vehicle that was supposed to be phased out in a couple of years anyways.
Ironically the M26 was plagued with mechanical reliability and was retired from service in 1951. The M26's replacement was the M46 Patton which was essentially a highly upgraded M26 with new engine and a long list of upgraded parts. The M4 Sherman was retired in 1957.
Early WW2 German tanks actually had narrower tracks than the early Shermans. Not sure about the Mark IV Panzer tracks, but of course the T-34 had very wide tracks (24"?) which compared in width to the E8's, and the Tiger, Panther, and Royal Tiger. However, the greater weight of the German tanks limited the effectiveness of a wider track since their ground pressure was of course higher than the T-34 or the E8's!
The late M4's with HVSS, , wet stowage and the 76mm gun, were likley the best all round tank by the end of the war.
Comet
@@gleggett3817 I climbed in and out of a Comet, i would not want to do it in an emergency. It had a lot of good features (a tad late)
@@gleggett3817 Comet and M4A3 HVSS duo though.......
"Infantry can't kill other infantry, that's what machine guns are for."
The above is the same logic as saying a tank can't kill another tank, and that only tank destroyers were intended to do so.
The American transport capability of men and materiel was a huge asset.
“They have the fuel to fly chocolate cake across the ocean.”
Wet" stowage consisted of a system where the main gun rounds were moved to racks on the hull floor. The rounds in each rack were surrounded by separate small containers of a mixture of water, ethylene glycol, and a rust inhibitor, known as "Ammudamp." As /u/RobWithOneB said, the rounds aren't actually "wet," the rounds are just separated by the small liquid containers. When the ammunition rack was hit, the logic was that the liquid would spill out, quenching any fires, similar to flooding the magazine on a warship.
Suitably dazzled. Thank you.
Your wrong about the black humor. In the army every soldier is issued a Black Humor 3rd Class at the end of AIT.
Now REMF units can usually get theirs up to 2nd Class by the end of their first tour. Line units however can have theirs mastered before the end of their first duty assignment!
Sherman a good tank that could be upgraded to become even better. Over all, it was a good tank.
The British and Canadians suffered 2,000 tank losses during the Normandy Campaign tying down SS panzer units to free up the US to maneuver and breakout in its sectors. That’s a lot of tanks to wear down the Germans.
Do you know how many the Germans lost? It was roughly the same but don't forget that only around half of the Allied tank losses were due to tanks,
@@MagpieOz _A Survey of Tank Warfare in Europe from 6 June to 12 August 1944, Pg 19_
"On the British sectors it will be seen that between 1,200 and 1,300 German tanks were put out of action. During this period the Second Army lost 1,267 tanks from all causes (records of DDME Stats Second Army), and it is estimated that the Canadian losses were in the order of 300 tanks.
The total losses of Allied tanks were only a little greater than the battle losses of the enemy, namely 1,600 as against 1250-a ratio of approximately 1.3-to-one." Some sources list the German losses as high at 1500, however, of the remnants of the 10 Panzer-equipped divisions that escaped back across the Seine, around ~100 tanks made it across and weren't destroyed or abandoned. In part, it's important to not conflate the British armor heavy tactics in Normandy for the doctrine of the entire Allied army; they purposefully 'burned' through tanks and planned on copious replacements to try and protect vital infantry manpower during the fighting. Such tactics paid with steel a price they didn't want to have to pay in blood, and remarkably did quite well in the exchange despite such planning.
Ronson was the biggest selling cigarette lighter in 1940s USA. Its advertising slogan was “lights first time every time.”
Look you can study specs all you like and compare and deride but supply of them to front lines ,repair down time& supply of parts ,travel ,speed and proper deep training will out do any enemy . Ive seen so many cases of underclass vehicle out doing its superior . As it was the Panthers turret rotation and transmission was weaker than the Shermans and it had to face someone shifting quicker and getting closer to itself . Rommel had PZ IV , Tigers, 88mm Guns , MG 34's , ME109's in the Desert and still lost to speed of advance and greater supply
Thanks for the great info, grandad would have been happy to hear your comments👍
Like the M4A1 my middle name is Michael named in respect of my grandfather.
I seem to recall reading that when the Israeli army rebuilt their Shermans they ran the hydrolic lines outside and they tended to burn less.
"...to dazzle your internet forum enemies..." Unless you have access to classified tank design data hahaha. Sorry, too soon?
Always great content and presentation
There we go, first link posted to another trite FB post!
My uncle commanded a Sherman in Europe during WWII. He told me about an interesting tactic they used to deal with the more heavily armored German tanks. They would hide several Shermans on the other side of a steep rise directly in the path of the oncoming German tanks. Then they would sit there and wait. When the German tanks would come up and over the top of the rise it would momentarily expose their soft underbellies to the waiting Shermans. Then the Shermans would put a shot up through the lightly armored bottoms of the German tanks. He said this tactic was very effective and he destroyed several German tanks this way. Its an example of how you can overcome the technological shortcoming of your equipment by using innovative tactics.
You could argue that the technical advantage was on the Sherman side. Big gun and armor is one thing, but the M4 had better situational awareness thanks mainly to the turret mounted sight, and a gun stabilizer which no German tank had.
That’s very interesting.
Happy haircut Nick, and thanks for some fact based common sense.
I have to question the Zippo vs. Ronson lighter debate. A good friend of the family was a Sherman tank commander from D-Day through the drive across France until his tank was hit and he was the only survivor of his crew. After he recovered he was assigned to 3rd Army staff. On more than one occasion he told me the troops called the M4s Ronson lighters. I never heard him use the word Zippo. You can argue this was simply a postwar retro memory, but I've see the term used in print a number of times in books written after WWII. I'm aware Zippo lighters were issued to GIs during WWII, but the Ronson lighters had been around much longer than Zippo and were hugely popular before the war. The terms Kleenex, Xerox, and Q-Tip remain part of everyday speech even though other well established brands have followed. Why would the term Ronson be any different?
Both Zippo and Ronson were apt names for the petrol engined Sherman tank.
@@aesop8694 Makes you wonder why we didn't standardize on the diesel variant. More range, less flame. My guess is the Army wanted to standardize on gasoline as their primary fuel instead of having to ship a lot of diesel as well.
@@Paladin1873 Apparently the engine that was used in the Sherman tank, was originally designed for aircraft, and thats why it ran on gasoline.
(Just another piece of useless information that we may never have to use, but that's life.)
Unfortunately one person's account is not good enough to make something true. German tanks also ran on Gasoline. What did he call German tanks?
you forget to mention that sherman is also huge tank,i have picture of sherman standing by T55 , it is allmost like only shermans body is as tall as entire T55
The Sherman is pretty tall, but western tanks tent to be taller.
It was designed to narrow and tall to be fit enough for train cars and ships. It was tall but not big as heavy tanks at least.
Very good lecture
Yaaaaaa... more Chieftain... 0~o never enough Chieftain... ^~^
I hope you send this to "That History Guy".
The whole point of having a tank is to have one that runs drives and is easily repaired and reliable. Hence in my opinion the M4 Sherman is the best tank of World War Two. It did what it was designed to do and if the tank is on fire I think you will have a good chance of getting out. The Chieftain at 6 feet tall sure did!
The biggest “problem” with the M4 is that it was a middleweight that was eventually put up against heavyweights.
It was actually more of a heavyweight compared to the German tanks in use when the Sherman was designed.
80% of German armour was lighter than Shermans. Panzer IVs, Stugs and Jagdpanzers were around ten tons lighter than late Shermans.
Very informative!