Chieftain had made a good point that I hadn't really thought about. It was very important for America to make a simple, yet reliable tank that could survive and operate far from its factory infrastructure. Was the Sherman the best tank? No. But it was the best tank to roll off the assembly lines that was easy to make and operate. Due to a lot of myths people seem to think that if a Tiger shot a single round 5 Shermans spontaneously combusted.
@@JohnnyJohnsonEsq I was born in the late 80s but it seems American production philosophy changed in the 90s. It went from reliable and dependable (from the 40s to the 80s) to cheap and replaceable (90s until the present). You can see it in car production through the years. Don't wanna go off on too much of a tangent though since that's a pretty deep rabbit hole.
I don't know if I would consider the Sherman to be a "simple" tank to make. It had a fully cast hull (at least the A1 did) which was considered to be complicated at the time. It also had a gyroscopic stabilizer, a unity site (something the Germans never really got memo on), the Chrysler multibank that was actually _five_ engines in one, etc. It was also exceptionally modular. It could use a multitude of different power packs, armor layouts, suspension systems, guns, turrets, extra equipment, etc. Things that were very easy for the US to do were things that no other nation could even dream of. It was a titan of industry. Germany was trying to get it's parts made in small mom and pop shops even at the start of the war, while the US had them rolling off complete in a single factory. "Simple" for the US was impossible for most other nations. Even the Germans. I don't think many other nations, _if any_ , would have been able to make the M4 to the same standard that the US did. Look at the Canadians as an example.
Not sue I agree the Sherman dud have a reputation for exploding the crews them selves have commented on this as well as the germans giving them nicknames maybe not 5 but defo 1
There's alot of misconceptions about the M4 Sherman tank mostly because of the book by Belton Y Cooper. Cooper was a soldier fighting in France with the 3rd Armored Division during World War Two. His book is based mostly on his personal experience but keep in mind his job was to recover and repair damaged tanks. So because he saw so many destroyed Sherman tanks he came to believe that the Sherman wasn't very good in combat against German tanks. I always wondered what he would think of the Panthers or Tigers if he had to repair them. Basically he would say they were unreliable and prone to malfunctioning. The M4 definitely had its disadvantages but was more reliable and efficient in combat compared to its German counterparts. Also the M4A3E8 was a major improvement and had a more capable 76 caliber main gun compared to the 75. The 75 had a better high explosive charge against German infantry which was much more common than enemy tanks as the war came to an end.
The Tiger, Panther and Panzer 3 and 4 tanks spalled inside killing and wounding the crew because of the inferior qualities of the armoured in the latter stage late 1942 to 1945, beside the Germans send 2300 Armoured vehicles into Normandy battle which 80 was Panther tanks, 45 was Tiger 1 and 2 tanks, Hitler Super tanks was not invincible, you could knock out a Tiger with a hit in between the Gun mantle ricochet a round jamming the 88 gun even with 57mm ATG the same with Panther Tank ricochet into the Ammo rack frontal settings it on fire, the sides and rear was the tank weak points even a white phosphorus round will set the engine on fire too.
The E8 variant of the M4 wasn't the 76mm gun, although they all had them. The E8 variant was something more important to maneuvering in combat. It was a stabilizer that allowed the turret to more accurately fire while moving. I believe the E6 variant was the first to have the 76mm. The E8 gave the 76mm a way to feasibly shoot while moving. The German tanks be they Tigers or Panthers needed to be stationary in order to make accurate shots. That being said, crews often preferred to have the 75mm guns. If they were getting ambushed, the 76mm stood out like a sore thumb and would usually be the priority target (excluding the lead tank to stop the column).
@@bjornsmith9431 On one side yeah the German tanks were not invincible, on the other you're acting as if this was Warthunder lmao, aiming a tank gun during that time was not as easy and gunners were not always in an engagement range in which they could aim at weak spots.
@@user-go1sl6rd7u who scared you ? The M4 Sherman has Gun stabilizer for the 75mm and 76mm tank guns during the War, the USSR T34 and K.V tanks was a real death trap, let me be frank here. The German tanks wasn't the Superman, they were make out to be there Tank Armies was made up of Czech, Soviet, British, Italian and French tanks, the first tank destroyed by the U.S airborne was German manned capture French S - 35, so much for Save Private Ryan Tiger Tanks scene reality it would be different, I was state facts here and my previous comments about German tanks weakness tactics, maneuver and terrain are the key to the success in the battlefield.
Most crews liked the 75mm gun better. Is was faster to load, more effective at fire support against soft targets and carried more ammo in the tank . I read Belton Coopers book.
Thoroughly loving your videos, Johnny! I had a relative who was a gunner on M36 Jacksons in WWII. He hip-shotted a Panther with the 90mm, and thought he was pretty damn cool. Then he found out the tank had been abandoned by its crew, because it had broken down. He said it was like getting a kiss from your sister.
The Sherman was designed to fit the role required by Armored Doctrine. Against the Panther and Tiger tanks it struggled. The Tiger was a limited role Breakthrough tank that rarely faced American armor. The Panther was an overreaction to the appearance of the T-34. It made for a great long range, tank destroyer but never actually replaced the older, Panzer IV in armored units. High velocity, Tungsten cored shot was available in late ‘44, but Tank Destroyer units had priority. By that late in the war, so few German tanks were encountered that it never became a priority for most Sherman units. The fact Israel was still using them in the Seventies is a testament to their sound design and engineering.
This is gonna be tricky to make another "Tanks in movies" video because I can't really think of any other tanks that were used a lot in movies and TV other than the T-34. Keep up the work!
Glad you addressed the Arm Chair Generals critique with Panzers retreating against Sherman’s in Band of Brothers. It’s also worth noting the Germans stopped where they did because they were afraid of a larger force even though they could have overrun the infantry lines.
A thing about Shermans getting destroyed by ambush tactics - that is part of the reason Shermans got some of the bad rep for a long time - despite that any tank is vulnerable to ambushes. One of the deciding factors in any tank engagement is who gets to shoot first. You see... later in WW II, in the most common tanks we could observe the situation of armour becoming inadequate. The most common vehicles, such as Sherman, StuG III, Panzer IV F2 and newer models, and T-34 could easily penetrate one another at average combat ranges. This made the advantage of first shot absolutely crucial. Now... What happened when Sherman got introduced? Allies started pushing Germans back. They were now on the offensive - they were the ones charging prepared positions - with distances pre-ranged, with lines of fire established. Sherman was a good tank for what it was - and one can argue that for its weight bracket, it absolutely the best - stabilised gun, co-axial and periscopic gunner's sight for hull down firing, versatile gun, decent enough visibility with most of the crew having proper rotating periscopes, surprisingly good frontal protection. It is kind of unfair to directly compare Sherman's performance against Tigers, which are proper heavy tanks or Panthers, which are "medium" tanks pretty much in name only. Also, a word on Sherman's ammo stowage - it was really no different than placement in Tiger and Panther, but allegedly some crews had a tendency of taking excessive amounts of ammo.
Shout out to Girls Und Panzer the sports anime, very funy and has some amazing 3d models and battles even if the plot is paper thin. Has alot of love and historical references
Explains why Girls und Panzer gets the details of the tanks more right than what ANY WWII film then and now would ever hope to achieve. On the opposite end of the spectrum, however, they somehow managed to both make even a CV-33 unpennable and capable of being sent FLYING despite the sheer weight of the tanks... and in all of this madness: not one soul gets so much as a concussion. The smartest character in Girls und Panzer is Helmet-Chan. The name should give out why...
One of the icon vehicle of ww2. People cannot pictures ww2 without M4 Sherman. It just that it was so "Universal" that it saw combat all across two major theatre. Yes it had it down flaw, but it easily get corrected, and from a hand of experience, well trained crew. It was very deadly and two variants, the Easy eight and firefly, makes the German tankers and AT gun worried. Even after 40 years since it introduction in ww2, it saw it last major fight with Israel as I-sherman or outside Israel as Super Sherman. Imagine if this Sherman is the one that face German tank, what the German will react with a Long Barrel 105mm gun Sherman with additional armor plate
Nice piece of work! I am a major "Shermanoholic" (one who loves the history and minutiae of the M4 series). Trivia: the Shermans in "Kelly's Heroes" were M4A3E4 models - a later WW2 Sherman with a 75mm gun that was rebuilt and re-equipped with a 76mm for Foreign Military Sales (FMS). These rebuilds went to Yugoslavia, Denmark, Lebanon, and Pakistan (some were rebuilt M4A1s). "A Bridge Too Far" gathered a lot of the running Shermans in Europe and still wanted more so some "tanks" are mockups on Land Rover chassis (held as background tanks). One of the best movies showing tanks, but featuring the WORST writing was 1951's "The Tanks Are Coming". It was filmed with old Shermans (mostly M4A3s) used for training at Ft. Knox and in California. One of the major stars of the clunky "Target Zero" was an M4A1E8 from the California Army National Guard. "Patton" did show a Sherman type - in the snowy highway near Bastogne a tank recovery vehicle (tank "tow truck") rolls by.
One random fun fact about the Sherman... Specifically regarding early war and maybe mid war, the Sherman's armor varied from great to complete garbage. This is due to the manufacturers. At the beginning of production, it was produced by car companies, the car companies terrible metal working, unskilled metal workers, and various other problems, this led to some pretty awful armor quality making the armor effectively ineffective against enemy rounds which it should have been effective against (Including the sloping factor). This was resolved by changing the manufacturing from car companies to railway / locomotive companies, or in simple terms, train companies, companies which had experience pumping out high grade steel and such.
I've actually never heard that, do you happen to have a source? It would make sense to me, but a quick Google search doesn't really show much beyond the standard myths about the tank.
T-34 (duh, all soviet tanks of that era ) had exatly the same problem, tho from diffrent resons. Early months of Barbarossa costed red army horribly, with like 20k tanks of all types lost in 1941 alone, and another 20k in 1942. All these vechicles had to replaced NOW, so quality, already lacking, just wasn't an option. Things improved later ( and especialy post war, in fact most T-34 running today are made after war's end ), but in mid war, ech. Gaps in welds, air pockets in plates, etc. You name it, they probably have it. Tho truth be told, Germans had quality problems too. With front eating a lot of manpower, replacing industrial workforce with excesive use of poory skilled and unviling slave labour, outright sabotage, and shortages of key materials, all wich resoulted in massive drop in equipment quality in later years of war.
@@ComissarYarrick Well the KV-1 and T-34 were actually pretty high quality in the first year of the war but the vast majority of tanks the Soviets had were very outdated lightly armored models and poorly used due to lack of radio equipment
I actually have a saved notepad doc that agrees with this. Poor crystalline structure created side hull plates of between 20mm and 44mm when they should have been nominally 38mm. They also had wildly fluctuating hardness levels.
Thanks so much for the very accurate video on the M4 Sherman! I hate seeing videos about it that just perpetuate the same myths over and over again, but you really did your homework! I do have a few things to add about the Sherman, but they aren't a criticism of the video as they wouldn't have fit and aren't necessary anyway: The Sherman was not a 'cheap' tank as many claim, but a sophisticated and expensive vehicle. They produced so many of them because every part of it was designed with mass manufacturing in mind, so that Shermans made efficient use of American industry. Contrary to popular belief, it had technological advantages against the Tiger and Panther: It's radio had significantly more range. It had a 'unity' sight for its gunner which was a wider field of view sight the gunner could use to find a target before switching to the zoomed in scope, which most German tanks didn't have, so the gunner was stuck looking through a zoomed in scope permanently. The commander had additional control over the turret and gun, so an engagement would go like this: the commander sees an enemy tank, and slews the turret to point in its general direction. Then the gunner sees it in his unity sight and aims the turret at it, then switches to the main scope to aim an accurate shot then fire. The German commanders just had to kick their gunner in the shoulder they wanted them to turn in, and hope they eventually found their target. In French testing post-war, the Sherman engaged targets significantly faster than the Panther, and whatever tank shoots first normally wins. It had a hydraulic stabilizer for the gun that let it fire on the move at slow speeds and shoot much faster after stopping. Its spring-loaded hatches and better crew ergonomics let its crew bail out extremely quickly. The Sherman in Europe was almost always caught in ambushes since it was almost always pushing into enemy territory, but despite that being often disastrous, it was probably the best tank in the world for that situation because it could return fire so quickly, and the crew survived more frequently than other tanks.
Excellent video - I, for one, was never happier to see a Sherman on screen than in the movie Life is beautiful (perfectly poignant and bittersweet). Also, top lolz at the "You know this one" movie reference. Cheers!
Another myth that the sherman's armor was very thin isn't quite true either since it's frontal armor had a nice slope to it and could deflect a lot of standard AT guns used in the majority of German units like in the stug But ultimately ordinance found that the winner of most engagements was the one who fired first the Sherman tank was probably the "best" tank of the war due to it's flexibility and being easy to highly mass produce without suffering too much in quality like the T34 did
30,000 more t34s were built by a noticeably less industrialized nation. The t34s issues were a lack of radio in the early days, and low crew training. There were shortcuts in production depending on the factory, but it was overall a suberb tank.
The Sherman had an unreal survivability rate, not to mention they shipped tons of spare parts over, so a Sherman could be towed, fixed up, and back in the fight the next day. It's why the Germans started double-tapping Shermans, basically hitting them over and over until they triggered an ammunition fire, to prevent ARV's taking them away and fixing them up. This is also partly why they had a reputation for "brewing up", combined with sub-par ammunition stowage. When the Sherman was introduced it was a war-winning tank. They were just too slow with the improvements, arriving too late, letting it fall behind. Being an entire ocean away and having to outfit three armies likely didn't help.
Another great video and commentary, Johnny. In my city, they are restoring a Sherman, the Holy Roller, one of only two to make it from Juno to the end of the war. The other is in Sherbrooke. In Owen Sound, a city north of me here is s an Easy 8 sitting outside. And I'm glad you used Humphrey Bogart's Sahara, one of my favourite movies. Cheers! from London.
My favorite too. So much so I went searching for the desert filming location. In 1996, I found it the badlands west of the Salton Sea (CA), west of the old Navy base. (Part of "Wake Island" was filmed at that base.) Found many artifacts. The foundation of the dome building, adobe bricks, was still there. Army soldiers used as 'extras' and the vehicles came from the 4th Armored Division, Camp Ibis (NW of Needles, CA), Desert Training Center.
I'm so glad you put a clip from Tank 1984 in the video where the Sheriff's department has set up a roadblock. I use that quote everytime I'm waiting for the bus. "Well! Where is this invading army we're supposed to stop"
Great post once again! 👌 As I understand it, tanks on the western front during WWII only occasionally went up against other tanks. They were mainly used against infantry, soft skin vehicles and buildings. The 75mm HE round that Sherman's used was very effective against these targets. Much more so than the 76mm gun on the Firefly variant, which had a great weapon against German armour, but had a less effective HE round. Panthers and Tigers were relatively rare vehicles after all, Allied crew mercifully only occasionally went up against these tanks, with their heavy armour. As you mentioned, the Sherman was a great vehicle when it came to transporting it to England and the Pacific. They had a relatively small footprint (for a tank of course!), so were easy to transport on ships and by rail. A complete contrast to Tigers, that needed special tracks when it was being moved around by rail.
@@ancaplanaoriginal5303 you are correct about that, whilst the two are roughly the same size caliber, they are different guns. Apologies, I made a mistake in this point, thanks for pointing this out.
I love the Sherman. It was very reliable and when it needed repair or maintenance it was relatively easy to do, unlike the German tanks which were over engineered and difficult to repair and as a result if they did break down or run out of petrol, they would be destroyed by their own crews.
Them being destroyed by their crews, only happened towards the end, because they were going to get over run anyway. Better to deny an enemy your equipment so they can't use it on you. Their are examples of bad German engineering but running out of petrol is not one, that's just bad logistics and an already losing war. Bad engineering is the Bismarck, or the Ferdinand tank destroyer, elephant, or designing the sturmtiger when you country has been on the retreat for a year, which is essential a naval cannon sized rocket artillery to bring down buildings... so wasted a tank hull. Reliable and simple soviet t34. Easily upgraded through out the war, and went toe to toe with even germanium most heavy tanks.
@@Robert53area Really most the later German armor had huge issues with being very difficult to repair and needing to be repaired far more often. This isn't just an logistical issue but really if you need to take a day to fix a small issue with the transmission because you have to take the front half of your tank apart instead of spending 10 minutes to fix it then you're going to have to destroy your own tanks far more often
Pros : Easy to Maintain Easy to repair Has tons of Parts Has tons of roles it can fit into it Has tons of available upgrades it can have Has a Short-stop stabilizer Has Wet-storage Has comfortable Crew compartment Can travel almost anywhere in the world Highest Crew survival rate compare to other nation's tanks aside from Churchill. Cons : "Armor somehow too thin against the Germans" Totally not because of the several counters of Germans unable to penetrate T-34's , Kv-1's and Churchills and specially Early Shermans that leads to the Germans having High penetration Anti-tank weaponry , if you put a Tiger 1 in-front of another Tiger 1 , they both can penetrate each other's armor and yet people say Tiger 1 is a good tank. "Tank too Tall" I don't see how this would ever be an issue , specially when you need a high place to see better which makes it a better tank for commands to look out from , sure it maybe easy to be spotted by the enemies but Tanks are not quiet and they travel with a company of tanks and troops , ain't going to hide them when US is on the Offensive while the Germans are on the Defensive side "Guns too Weak" Yet another false rumor about the guns doesn't work , High crew survival rate also makes the "Armor too thin" and "Gun too weak" rumor spread like wild fire which leads us to the Bad reputation of it which is just another thing in a War that could happen , 75mm aren't really that useful against Heavily armor but they were meant to support infantry to push the german bunkers and infantries while the 76mm fits the role of Anti-tank gun , even if that is said , 75mm can pen Tiger 1 from the front at a closer range definitely but at longer range naturally a 88mm long gun would be far superior Jack of all trade , master of none a standard WW2 Tank that imo is the BEST out of all tanks that people will argue about. With everything easy to maintain and repair/replace + crew often survive more than any other nation's , I cannot see how this tank get a terrible reputation aside from people being ignorant to history about it/design about it and those crews whom survived from it and spreading false rumor about how garbage it is and such. Survivor Bias you would say.
People often forget that tanks also had to fight infantry, lots and lots infantry. Speculation for my part but I think the overwhelming majority of tank engagement was tank vs infantry not tank vs tank.
@@LazyLifeIFreak I think the tank vs tank engagements that people tend to know was overshadowed by El Alamein and the Battle of Kursk. Maybe, I don't know
I agree with what u said, but why is a tank not a good tank if it could penetrate itself? Ik the Tiger had a lot of downsides but I don't understand how it's gun being able to penetrate its armor is a reason why the tank is bad?
@@jnik_3234 the Tiger had good firepower bur reliability is what it killed it... Well its one of the reasons and besides there are more allied tanks than Tigers which were around 2500 and against what like? 80k T34s with all variants and 50k Shermans and not to mention the allied strategic bombing made parts for the German's tanks scarce and the fact that most of their resources were dragged on and wasted on the Eastern Front in an attempt to stop the Russians by early 44
German heavy tanks had a number reliability issues mainly from the transmission, the time that it takes to make maintenance of the godawful roadwheel and tread design, faulty fuel lines which were prone to being caught on fire and of course the heavy consumption of fuel which the Germans were having trouble to maintain its oil reserves before the war even started
My brother thinks the Battle of the Bulge should be digitally redone so that historically accurate tanks are depicted. The movie was so bad, historically speaking, though, that President Eisenhower came out of retirement to denounce it. If you ask me, the entire movie should be remade.
Also in Fury. Brad's E8 don't relly need to go behind the tiger as its long 76mm gun can just penetrate the tiger's front armor. And it's bizarre that the tiger crew shot the rearmost sherman first.
Thats highly situational but yes that made no sense whatsoever. I could understand it in a urban/city environment where you cut off other tanks, infantry and so on. In a open field, on a open road, with more than 600+ meters of distance there is no reason to not only shoot the rear tank instead of the front but to move forward and lose your distance advantage to a 76mm long sherman who doesn't know that his gun can fucking go through its lower glacias and UFP beyond 800+ meters. To top it all off, the tiger doesn't turn its hull with its turret so it can shoot the obviously poorly trained crew.
@@MatalinoMSiraj I stand by what I say but...are we talking about the british sherman firefly with the 17 pound gun? Then yes. The standard sherman with the stock 75 mm gun could not penetrate the tiger 1 or king tiger from the front or sides. That's why they had to shoot the tiger from the rear...not so with the m26 to or the m36 td..the 90mm gun made all the difference...look it up. That also goes for the 76mm gun.
I love the mention of Kelly's Heroes (my favorite movie). I did know it was filmed in Yugoslavia, but I didn't know how they sourced the tanks. Very cool, thanks for including it.
When i hear the word „Tank“ this is the first Vehicle that comes to my mind! I saw a Sherman in the Panzermuseum Munster and it blew my mind! If you stand next to it, its really huge. I love this Tank! Great Job America 👌
Not sure why everyone jumps to Sherman vs tiger, if you're going to compare tanks compare the tanks with their actual counterpart. You wouldn't compare a Lee Enfield to an MG42 because while yes they're both firearms they fill completly different roles in their relevant armed forces. So compare Shermans to the other medium tanks of WWII. T34, Panzer IV, Crusaders, Cromwells or Panthers most of them went through a lot of retrofitting throughout the war and addressed their weaknesses. A t34/76 from 1941 was basically pieces of cobbled together steel without a big enough turret but a brilliant sloped armour idea but compare that to a 1945 T34/85 then you've got a tried and tested design built in a factory that's been making these for years. A M4A4E8 Sherman was a well designed and refined medium tank that outclassed late war Panzer IVs and was capable of taking on late war panthers. All the models that came before led to what was the product at the end of the war regardless of which country.
The Chieftain has some excellent videos about the Sherman and many of the negative myths surrounding it, overall it was a good, capable, reliable, easy to produce tank. Yes a Sherman could come of second best against a Tiger but if you use another analogy that’s like saying a Cruiser is no good because it comes off second best against a battleship.
Thanks for talking about the Sherman from a balanced perspective. The M4 was designed intelligently and also enjoyed several years of isolation from the war for unmolested development. It used the tried and tested engine and suspension from the M2 / M3 medium tanks. The transmission cover and suspension bogies were bolted on for easy replacement, the turrets were cast for faster manufacturing, and the hulls, welded and cast, were properly tempered and ballistically superior to German counterparts. The gyrostabilizer was sophisticated, the power traverse system was world class, the gun could knock out any tank when the Sherman hit the battlefield. Some things weren't great. The radial engine was absolute garbage in a tank and we couldn't wait to get rid of them for V8-powered M4A3s. The original periscope sights were terrible, and the mechanical linkage to the gun fell our of adjustment constantly. The original cast M4A1 had numerous small weak spots like viewports and bulges for crew hatches. There was only one turret hatch for 3 people. But the US was able to produce enough tanks and constantly update these features into better and better tanks. When the T23 medium tank was canceled, the standardized turret ring size of the M4 meant the T23 turret was used to upgun 76mm Shermans. The T-34-85 required the hull to be redesigned for a larger turret ring. The suspension system of the M4 was able to take the 7.5~ tons of additional armor for the M4A3E2 "Jumbo" with just a slight reduction in speed. The HVSS M4A3 could have its front armor *doubled* in the "Thunderbolt" style to make improvised Jumbos. By comparison the Panzer IV G/H/J model had maxed out the frontal armor at 80mm and suffered from front suspension damage during hard braking. Probably the only real criticism you can make is that armor branch was being fussy that the Firefly or 76mm-in-the-standard-turret weren't comfortable enough to institute, but then again, the actual field commanders did not want 76 Shermans until meeting the huge numbers of Panthers in France. But the Americans can and did just shove bigger guns onto the Sherman body, like the 90mm armed M36 and M36B1.
The thing is with a Sherman it did its job well (supporting infantry with its HE shells) and it was easy to ship, maintain, and repair, plus it could basically drive from normandy to Berlin without breaking down. It's poor armour was partly negated by the fact that it was rare to face tanks,you would more likely die from arty or mines.
You have the right general idea, but the M4 was a general purpose tank and its 75mm M3 gun could kill similar tanks, it did not specifically do infantry support. The armor was also much more ballistically sound than German medium tanks, particularly the welded-hull M4A3.
The Sherman actually had a main gun stabilized in the vertical axis. Unfortunately, the gunners were often not properly trained in the stabilization system's functions because of concerns over secrecy. But it worked well if used by a properly trained gunner.
8:19 "this thing only got like 4 inches of armor" that's the same thickness as the Tiger H1 UFP... And no, numerical superiority was not involved in tactics, numerical superiority was a default on all allied engagements, as the smallest american unit was 5 tanks, that means 5 tanks is the smallest armored unit you are gonna face. PD: Jesus, the amount of media with americans using Fireflys is ridiculous
If only that default applied in the Ardennes on the 16th of December, 1944. Tactics also refers to the arrangement and use of your numbers. Simply "having more" might be better referred to as a strategy rather than a tactic.
We won the war in Europe with for the most part, an inferior tank when it came to firepower. The German's did have heavier tanks with more powerful guns. But they were few in number and very difficult to maintain and they guzzled fuel like crazy. Most of the German armor consisted of the Panzer Mark IV with their version of the 75mm high velocity gun. The effective range was better than the Sherman's 75mm but a Sherman using tactics could knock out a Mark IV even with the low velocity 75mm canon. The British had a good fix with the 17 pounder anti tank gun fitted to the Sherman (Firefly). They could knock out Tigers and Panzer V's. The American's came out with the tank destroyers M36 Jackson and M18 both with high velocity guns that would penetrate Tiger I, Tiger II and Panzer V armor and a good stand off range. The M26 came late in the war and did destroy some German armor, but was to late to be a seriously effective tank. The big mistake the German's made was not sticking to one model and making adaptations to that model the way the allies did. The German's did not have the manufacturing capability of America. Regardless, they made the war difficult and costly for the allies. They could have made even more costly had they stuck to the one design and modified it as the battlefield demanded. The Panzer V was their best design in my opinion. They could have up gunned and modified the turret to fit the 88mm gun at a much lower cost in material and man power than trying to build heavier and slower tanks that had trouble getting across bridges and down narrow roads. The vast majority of Tiger I and II's were not destroyed by Sherman's of any variety. They were destroyed by Allied air power, P47's and P51's. and in many instances were just abandoned with mechanical problems or lack of fuel.
In terms of effective range- if we're comparing the _IV_ and _M4_ then they're about equal. > _*". The vast majority of Tiger I and II's were not destroyed by Sherman's of any variety. They were destroyed by Allied air power, P47's and P51's. and in many instances were just abandoned with mechanical problems or lack of fuel."*_| Actually this is a false notion. Fighter aircraft were ineffective at directly destroying tanks.
@@peterson7082 I did include that they were abandoned. "and in many instances were just abandoned with mechanical problems or lack of fuel." The other thing to remember is that in a lot of cases the after action reports were written up as destroying Tigers when that was not the case. For many allied crews, every tank behind a hedgerow or building was a Tiger.
My favorite WWII tank, so many variants such as the Sherman Firefly with the 17 pounder, DD variant, and the T34 Calliope with rockets. Another Japanese animation Sherman are in is besides Girls und Panzer is Strike Witches: Road to Berlin where the Calliope variant is mainly seen. But my favorite Sherman variant will always be the M4A3E8 Easy 8. It’s well balanced and takes the lessons form the war and the Easy 8 nickname rolls off the tongue.
Another great video!- Fully agree on the 'Sherman was the best all-round tank'. It wasn't the best tank killer, the best performing or best designed, it simply did the best job when all factors were combined. It trumped the Panzer III/IV, Tiger, Panther and T-34 series in that regard. I noticed you wrote "Life is Beautiful - 1977" but it should be 20 years later, "La vita é Bella (Life is beautiful) 1997"
When you used the clip from "To Hell and Back" l wish you had left in the rebuttal from the GI, when the commander said "only 4 inches of armor" the soldier reply's with "how thick do you think this GI shirt is". That in it's self makes the argument about armor all the way around.
Nicely done. The Sherman by far and away was the most effective tank ever built, and was nothing short of miraculously brilliant logistically, able to be offloaded at all global ports and loaded onto rail cars without modifying the tracks as was the case with many German tanks. The size, weight and versatility, as well as reliability and widely available parts is why in my book, the Sherman was hands down the best tank.
1:44 that is a m4a1 76 w not a m4 Sherman, it has a bigger gun and thicker armor and is actually based off of the m4a1 Sherman the Sherman produced before the m4 Sherman
Let's not forget that this tank waded in inflatable skirts to the shores in Normandy to aid in the invasion. Yes, not the heaviest or the strongest, but a war winner for sure.
a little add on, the E8 was NOT the 76mm version, it was the version with wide tracks and HVSS, the 76mm was mounted on tanks without the E8 designation, being called things like the M4A1 76(w), or M4A3 76(w)
I appreciate that clarification as I recognized that I may have caused some confusion after I uploaded this. So thanks for adding this info for everyone.
@@JohnnyJohnsonEsq no problem! I actually really liked the video, and was very happy you mentioned the Sherman myths. it was an amazing tank, and this was an amazing video!
a couple of quick notes, in the BoB scene, at 4.45, the British unit represented did not use the Shermans as shown, they were equipped with the A27 Cromwells as shown as well as the A30 Challenger, not shown. The Unit was A Sqn 15th/19th The Kings Royal Hussars, who were the armoured recce regt of the UKs 11th Armoured Division, temporarily attached to the 506 PIR. Also I have been, pre covid, involved in the restoration of and ex Israeli/SLA M50, belonging to Eden Camp in North Yorkshir,e in England. as an afternote, I served with the 15/19H, from 1974-86.
Technically Chile was also an exception as it's sherman tank is the M-60 which is essentially just the M-52 but was upgraded even more to house the 60mm cannon capable of firing apfsds. Making it essentially the most modernized and powerful of the sherman tanks.
Early Sherman types were nicknamed "Tommy Cookers", due to them being bought and used by the English who has not focused as much on their tanks in the interwar years. As you mentioned, the ammo rack was not very well defended in the earlier models, so they could explode if the tank was even hit from the front. This would of course turn the inside of the tank into a blast furnace, what thing we see in movies and games where a straight flame comes out from the top of the tank, killing the English crew inside. Hence, Tommy Cooker. WW2 humor was daaaaark, man.
The Sherman was around the same level of usefulness as the T-34, Pz. IV and Cromwell. The problem with it is just that germany, the soviet union and the UK often used it‘s medium tanks to support heavy tanks, infantry tanks or in general more powerful tanks like the Tiger, Churchill, KV-1 or T-34-85. America wasn‘t able to use it like that because it‘s only heavy tank, the T1 Heavy / M6 did never enter service
if you , or anyone else , wishes to see an amazing range of Sherman tank variants , including dozer and 155 mm self-propelled gun versions , I HIGHLY recommend you visit Yad La Shiryon , Israel's memorial to the IDF tank corps , and tank museum at Latrun , Central Israel , where you can also view a Stug 3 , M3 Lee and Grant tanks , and several captured Russian tanks ( the list goes on and on )
post war tests showed that the reason why the wet storage worked was not because of the water but because the ammo was low in the hull instead of all across the tank which reduced hits to ammo. The armored box also stopped shrapnel.
Remember, in January 1942 we had zero Sherman’s, only the M3s. In less than 4 years, the US developed and produced hundreds of thousands of tanks. And whether or not you like it, the M4 was good enough to do the job and stay in service until the 1990s. Get over it.
The Sherman effective(Not actual but calculating slope) frontal armor of 3.6 to 3.7 inches was better than any Axis tank in 1942 and 1943 and was comparable to the tigers 4inches of frontal armor. The only German tanks(no spgs or TD) on par with or better than the Sherman seen in large numbers were Panzer 4 G, H, and J and the Panthers
Actually logs and sandbags helped a lot in protecting against high calibre rounds and explosive projectiles. Our infantry support vehicles uses wood boards and other indigenous protections against RPG during our fight against ISIS here in my country the Philippines and it actually did saved lives.
All things considered the best tank of ww2. We used them up until 1971 war, even having a version which had the D52 76mm gun from Soviet PT 76 tank. Read about Battle of Asal Utter where they outperformed Pakistani M47 Pattons in combat.
It’s interesting to think how much different the reception of Fury (the movie) would be if Fury (the vehicle) had been built off of a 75 Sherman like perhaps a Grizzly. Many scenes would make much more sense as well as beefing up the “triumphant underdog” qualities of the movie. I do understand that they likely selected an E8 Sherman due to it simply being much more “muscly” in appearance, and thus more visually impressive on screen but they had some very rare assets at their disposal and a lot of very respected extras filling the background. They came so close to making the average armored vehicle buff’s dream movie but just went a **liiitle** too Hollywood and tipped the scale.
You missed the Warner Brothers 1951 "The Tanks are Coming" which features numerous M4's of various models. It also features a M26 Pershing. It covers the 3rd Armored Division actions from the Normandy breakout to the Siegfried line. From a story by Sam Fuller it naturally has a character named Lemchek. Check out, available on DVD by demand.
You can't really talk about Shermans as a single tank, the 1942 M4 is a lot different than the 1945 E8 version. I'd say the E8 version was the best tank of the war.
Johnny, cool video! in "What did you do in the war daddy? "(1966) we see a US Army Sherman and a German (conversion) Sherman.But why are some called Pressed Steel or Fisher Sherman's...? is that the factory or something?
I am curious, what other tanks besides the well known ones like the Sherman, the T-34 and Tiger 1 were featured in movies.....I was wondering if any featured the M26 Pershing tanks....
Therapist: Wide Sherman isn’t real, it can’t hurt you
*W I D E* Sherman: 4:36
Sherman but a little bit well fed
*Cue to the Wide Hitman song*
Wide body street class Sherman tuner
The proposed T14 was basically a W I D E Sherman.
W I D E
Chieftain had made a good point that I hadn't really thought about. It was very important for America to make a simple, yet reliable tank that could survive and operate far from its factory infrastructure. Was the Sherman the best tank? No. But it was the best tank to roll off the assembly lines that was easy to make and operate.
Due to a lot of myths people seem to think that if a Tiger shot a single round 5 Shermans spontaneously combusted.
Bingo. Tiger 1 is a cool tank but Id like to see the Germans figure out a way to ship a 1000 tiger 1s to Asia and service them all lol
@@JohnnyJohnsonEsq I was born in the late 80s but it seems American production philosophy changed in the 90s. It went from reliable and dependable (from the 40s to the 80s) to cheap and replaceable (90s until the present). You can see it in car production through the years. Don't wanna go off on too much of a tangent though since that's a pretty deep rabbit hole.
I don't know if I would consider the Sherman to be a "simple" tank to make. It had a fully cast hull (at least the A1 did) which was considered to be complicated at the time. It also had a gyroscopic stabilizer, a unity site (something the Germans never really got memo on), the Chrysler multibank that was actually _five_ engines in one, etc. It was also exceptionally modular. It could use a multitude of different power packs, armor layouts, suspension systems, guns, turrets, extra equipment, etc.
Things that were very easy for the US to do were things that no other nation could even dream of. It was a titan of industry. Germany was trying to get it's parts made in small mom and pop shops even at the start of the war, while the US had them rolling off complete in a single factory. "Simple" for the US was impossible for most other nations. Even the Germans. I don't think many other nations, _if any_ , would have been able to make the M4 to the same standard that the US did. Look at the Canadians as an example.
Not sue I agree the Sherman dud have a reputation for exploding the crews them selves have commented on this as well as the germans giving them nicknames maybe not 5 but defo 1
@@garethjames1300 if you're referring to the "death trap" myth, only the early shermans were known for that
There's alot of misconceptions about the M4 Sherman tank mostly because of the book by Belton Y Cooper. Cooper was a soldier fighting in France with the 3rd Armored Division during World War Two. His book is based mostly on his personal experience but keep in mind his job was to recover and repair damaged tanks. So because he saw so many destroyed Sherman tanks he came to believe that the Sherman wasn't very good in combat against German tanks. I always wondered what he would think of the Panthers or Tigers if he had to repair them. Basically he would say they were unreliable and prone to malfunctioning. The M4 definitely had its disadvantages but was more reliable and efficient in combat compared to its German counterparts. Also the M4A3E8 was a major improvement and had a more capable 76 caliber main gun compared to the 75. The 75 had a better high explosive charge against German infantry which was much more common than enemy tanks as the war came to an end.
The Tiger, Panther and Panzer 3 and 4 tanks spalled inside killing and wounding the crew because of the inferior qualities of the armoured in the latter stage late 1942 to 1945, beside the Germans send 2300 Armoured vehicles into Normandy battle which 80 was Panther tanks, 45 was Tiger 1 and 2 tanks, Hitler Super tanks was not invincible, you could knock out a Tiger with a hit in between the Gun mantle ricochet a round jamming the 88 gun even with 57mm ATG the same with Panther Tank ricochet into the Ammo rack frontal settings it on fire, the sides and rear was the tank weak points even a white phosphorus round will set the engine on fire too.
The E8 variant of the M4 wasn't the 76mm gun, although they all had them. The E8 variant was something more important to maneuvering in combat. It was a stabilizer that allowed the turret to more accurately fire while moving. I believe the E6 variant was the first to have the 76mm. The E8 gave the 76mm a way to feasibly shoot while moving. The German tanks be they Tigers or Panthers needed to be stationary in order to make accurate shots. That being said, crews often preferred to have the 75mm guns. If they were getting ambushed, the 76mm stood out like a sore thumb and would usually be the priority target (excluding the lead tank to stop the column).
@@bjornsmith9431 On one side yeah the German tanks were not invincible, on the other you're acting as if this was Warthunder lmao, aiming a tank gun during that time was not as easy and gunners were not always in an engagement range in which they could aim at weak spots.
@@user-go1sl6rd7u who scared you ? The M4 Sherman has Gun stabilizer for the 75mm and 76mm tank guns during the War, the USSR T34 and K.V tanks was a real death trap, let me be frank here. The German tanks wasn't the Superman, they were make out to be there Tank Armies was made up of Czech, Soviet, British, Italian and French tanks, the first tank destroyed by the U.S airborne was German manned capture French S - 35, so much for Save Private Ryan Tiger Tanks scene reality it would be different, I was state facts here and my previous comments about German tanks weakness tactics, maneuver and terrain are the key to the success in the battlefield.
Most crews liked the 75mm gun better. Is was faster to load, more effective at fire support against soft targets and carried more ammo in the tank . I read Belton Coopers book.
Thoroughly loving your videos, Johnny! I had a relative who was a gunner on M36 Jacksons in WWII. He hip-shotted a Panther with the 90mm, and thought he was pretty damn cool. Then he found out the tank had been abandoned by its crew, because it had broken down. He said it was like getting a kiss from your sister.
Very cool! Thanks and thanks for sharing some family history 🙏
M36 was still an ass kicker. Ask your relative if it's true that the troops nicknamed it " Slugger".
The Sherman was designed to fit the role required by Armored Doctrine. Against the Panther and Tiger tanks it struggled.
The Tiger was a limited role Breakthrough tank that rarely faced American armor. The Panther was an overreaction to the appearance of the T-34. It made for a great long range, tank destroyer but never actually replaced the older, Panzer IV in armored units.
High velocity, Tungsten cored shot was available in late ‘44, but Tank Destroyer units had priority. By that late in the war, so few German tanks were encountered that it never became a priority for most Sherman units.
The fact Israel was still using them in the Seventies is a testament to their sound design and engineering.
It actually didn't struggle against Tiger and Panther tanks. In almost every engagement, the Sherman had few casualties.
@@panzerlite8108not to mention the Sherman having a 3.6:1 kill ratio over the Panther.
@@Akaeru Yeah. I've gotten a lot of flak for telling people that the Sherman was actually better than most German Tanks including the Big Cats.
This is gonna be tricky to make another "Tanks in movies" video because I can't really think of any other tanks that were used a lot in movies and TV other than the T-34. Keep up the work!
Im pretty sure theres a lot of T-55s or T-62s
T34 forsure. I'll probably lump tank destroyers together. Should be able to do a half track video but yes lol not a ton of footage to work with lol
@@JohnnyJohnsonEsq there’s always modern tanks too
@@JohnnyJohnsonEsq Could do a Panzers in film covering Panzer 1-4, Panther and Tiger 1,2?
World War 1 tanks perhaps? In my head I'm only thinking Battlefield 1 single player and Indiana Jones but im hoping there's more
Glad you addressed the Arm Chair Generals critique with Panzers retreating against Sherman’s in Band of Brothers. It’s also worth noting the Germans stopped where they did because they were afraid of a larger force even though they could have overrun the infantry lines.
A thing about Shermans getting destroyed by ambush tactics - that is part of the reason Shermans got some of the bad rep for a long time - despite that any tank is vulnerable to ambushes.
One of the deciding factors in any tank engagement is who gets to shoot first.
You see... later in WW II, in the most common tanks we could observe the situation of armour becoming inadequate.
The most common vehicles, such as Sherman, StuG III, Panzer IV F2 and newer models, and T-34 could easily penetrate one another at average combat ranges.
This made the advantage of first shot absolutely crucial.
Now... What happened when Sherman got introduced? Allies started pushing Germans back. They were now on the offensive - they were the ones charging prepared positions - with distances pre-ranged, with lines of fire established.
Sherman was a good tank for what it was - and one can argue that for its weight bracket, it absolutely the best - stabilised gun, co-axial and periscopic gunner's sight for hull down firing, versatile gun, decent enough visibility with most of the crew having proper rotating periscopes, surprisingly good frontal protection.
It is kind of unfair to directly compare Sherman's performance against Tigers, which are proper heavy tanks or Panthers, which are "medium" tanks pretty much in name only.
Also, a word on Sherman's ammo stowage - it was really no different than placement in Tiger and Panther, but allegedly some crews had a tendency of taking excessive amounts of ammo.
Shout out to Girls Und Panzer the sports anime, very funy and has some amazing 3d models and battles even if the plot is paper thin. Has alot of love and historical references
LOL, nothing says feminine beauty like Sensha-dō!
Fun note about Gurls Und Panzer: The Chieftain himself helped work on the accuracy of the tanks.
Explains why Girls und Panzer gets the details of the tanks more right than what ANY WWII film then and now would ever hope to achieve. On the opposite end of the spectrum, however, they somehow managed to both make even a CV-33 unpennable and capable of being sent FLYING despite the sheer weight of the tanks... and in all of this madness: not one soul gets so much as a concussion.
The smartest character in Girls und Panzer is Helmet-Chan. The name should give out why...
One of, if not, my favorite tank. I love using all of its variants on War Thunder or any other WW2 game with tanks on it
I'll say it again and again it's so good to see Girls und panzer featuring in these tank videos
One of the icon vehicle of ww2. People cannot pictures ww2 without M4 Sherman. It just that it was so "Universal" that it saw combat all across two major theatre. Yes it had it down flaw, but it easily get corrected, and from a hand of experience, well trained crew. It was very deadly and two variants, the Easy eight and firefly, makes the German tankers and AT gun worried. Even after 40 years since it introduction in ww2, it saw it last major fight with Israel as I-sherman or outside Israel as Super Sherman. Imagine if this Sherman is the one that face German tank, what the German will react with a Long Barrel 105mm gun Sherman with additional armor plate
Nice piece of work! I am a major "Shermanoholic" (one who loves the history and minutiae of the M4 series). Trivia: the Shermans in "Kelly's Heroes" were M4A3E4 models - a later WW2 Sherman with a 75mm gun that was rebuilt and re-equipped with a 76mm for Foreign Military Sales (FMS). These rebuilds went to Yugoslavia, Denmark, Lebanon, and Pakistan (some were rebuilt M4A1s). "A Bridge Too Far" gathered a lot of the running Shermans in Europe and still wanted more so some "tanks" are mockups on Land Rover chassis (held as background tanks). One of the best movies showing tanks, but featuring the WORST writing was 1951's "The Tanks Are Coming". It was filmed with old Shermans (mostly M4A3s) used for training at Ft. Knox and in California. One of the major stars of the clunky "Target Zero" was an M4A1E8 from the California Army National Guard. "Patton" did show a Sherman type - in the snowy highway near Bastogne a tank recovery vehicle (tank "tow truck") rolls by.
Also, don't forget the Fred Ropkey's M4A3 was seen in Chicago near the end of "The Blues Brothers"!
Ah man I knew I forgot a couple! Thanks so much for the added information 🙏
dis meks meh happi
Sherman was probably the best all around tank in the war
One random fun fact about the Sherman...
Specifically regarding early war and maybe mid war, the Sherman's armor varied from great to complete garbage. This is due to the manufacturers. At the beginning of production, it was produced by car companies, the car companies terrible metal working, unskilled metal workers, and various other problems, this led to some pretty awful armor quality making the armor effectively ineffective against enemy rounds which it should have been effective against (Including the sloping factor).
This was resolved by changing the manufacturing from car companies to railway / locomotive companies, or in simple terms, train companies, companies which had experience pumping out high grade steel and such.
That's right! Thank you so much for adding this I don't always have the time to give these important details 🙏
I've actually never heard that, do you happen to have a source? It would make sense to me, but a quick Google search doesn't really show much beyond the standard myths about the tank.
T-34 (duh, all soviet tanks of that era ) had exatly the same problem, tho from diffrent resons. Early months of Barbarossa costed red army horribly, with like 20k tanks of all types lost in 1941 alone, and another 20k in 1942. All these vechicles had to replaced NOW, so quality, already lacking, just wasn't an option. Things improved later ( and especialy post war, in fact most T-34 running today are made after war's end ), but in mid war, ech. Gaps in welds, air pockets in plates, etc. You name it, they probably have it.
Tho truth be told, Germans had quality problems too. With front eating a lot of manpower, replacing industrial workforce with excesive use of poory skilled and unviling slave labour, outright sabotage, and shortages of key materials, all wich resoulted in massive drop in equipment quality in later years of war.
@@ComissarYarrick Well the KV-1 and T-34 were actually pretty high quality in the first year of the war but the vast majority of tanks the Soviets had were very outdated lightly armored models and poorly used due to lack of radio equipment
I actually have a saved notepad doc that agrees with this. Poor crystalline structure created side hull plates of between 20mm and 44mm when they should have been nominally 38mm.
They also had wildly fluctuating hardness levels.
Thanks for showing scenes from Tank.
Thanks so much for the very accurate video on the M4 Sherman!
I hate seeing videos about it that just perpetuate the same myths over and over again, but you really did your homework!
I do have a few things to add about the Sherman, but they aren't a criticism of the video as they wouldn't have fit and aren't necessary anyway:
The Sherman was not a 'cheap' tank as many claim, but a sophisticated and expensive vehicle. They produced so many of them because every part of it was designed with mass manufacturing in mind, so that Shermans made efficient use of American industry.
Contrary to popular belief, it had technological advantages against the Tiger and Panther:
It's radio had significantly more range.
It had a 'unity' sight for its gunner which was a wider field of view sight the gunner could use to find a target before switching to the zoomed in scope, which most German tanks didn't have, so the gunner was stuck looking through a zoomed in scope permanently.
The commander had additional control over the turret and gun, so an engagement would go like this: the commander sees an enemy tank, and slews the turret to point in its general direction. Then the gunner sees it in his unity sight and aims the turret at it, then switches to the main scope to aim an accurate shot then fire. The German commanders just had to kick their gunner in the shoulder they wanted them to turn in, and hope they eventually found their target. In French testing post-war, the Sherman engaged targets significantly faster than the Panther, and whatever tank shoots first normally wins.
It had a hydraulic stabilizer for the gun that let it fire on the move at slow speeds and shoot much faster after stopping.
Its spring-loaded hatches and better crew ergonomics let its crew bail out extremely quickly.
The Sherman in Europe was almost always caught in ambushes since it was almost always pushing into enemy territory, but despite that being often disastrous, it was probably the best tank in the world for that situation because it could return fire so quickly, and the crew survived more frequently than other tanks.
Excellent video - I, for one, was never happier to see a Sherman on screen than in the movie Life is beautiful (perfectly poignant and bittersweet). Also, top lolz at the "You know this one" movie reference. Cheers!
Another myth that the sherman's armor was very thin isn't quite true either since it's frontal armor had a nice slope to it and could deflect a lot of standard AT guns used in the majority of German units like in the stug
But ultimately ordinance found that the winner of most engagements was the one who fired first
the Sherman tank was probably the "best" tank of the war due to it's flexibility and being easy to highly mass produce without suffering too much in quality like the T34 did
30,000 more t34s were built by a noticeably less industrialized nation. The t34s issues were a lack of radio in the early days, and low crew training. There were shortcuts in production depending on the factory, but it was overall a suberb tank.
@@aaronpaul9188 i agree
The Sherman had an unreal survivability rate, not to mention they shipped tons of spare parts over, so a Sherman could be towed, fixed up, and back in the fight the next day. It's why the Germans started double-tapping Shermans, basically hitting them over and over until they triggered an ammunition fire, to prevent ARV's taking them away and fixing them up. This is also partly why they had a reputation for "brewing up", combined with sub-par ammunition stowage.
When the Sherman was introduced it was a war-winning tank. They were just too slow with the improvements, arriving too late, letting it fall behind. Being an entire ocean away and having to outfit three armies likely didn't help.
Another great video and commentary, Johnny. In my city, they are restoring a Sherman, the Holy Roller, one of only two to make it from Juno to the end of the war. The other is in Sherbrooke. In Owen Sound, a city north of me here is s an Easy 8 sitting outside. And I'm glad you used Humphrey Bogart's Sahara, one of my favourite movies. Cheers! from London.
My favorite too. So much so I went searching for the desert filming location. In 1996, I found it the badlands west of the Salton Sea (CA), west of the old Navy base. (Part of "Wake Island" was filmed at that base.) Found many artifacts. The foundation of the dome building, adobe bricks, was still there. Army soldiers used as 'extras' and the vehicles came from the 4th Armored Division, Camp Ibis (NW of Needles, CA), Desert Training Center.
Who else here loved Girls und Panzer?
I sure as hell do!
Haha my man Kyle not afraid to admit it's good fun!
@@JohnnyJohnsonEsq
My man
tis quite a gem
SAUNDERS!
Only good high school anime
I'm so glad you put a clip from Tank 1984 in the video where the Sheriff's department has set up a roadblock. I use that quote everytime I'm waiting for the bus. "Well! Where is this invading army we're supposed to stop"
Great post once again! 👌
As I understand it, tanks on the western front during WWII only occasionally went up against other tanks. They were mainly used against infantry, soft skin vehicles and buildings. The 75mm HE round that Sherman's used was very effective against these targets. Much more so than the 76mm gun on the Firefly variant, which had a great weapon against German armour, but had a less effective HE round.
Panthers and Tigers were relatively rare vehicles after all, Allied crew mercifully only occasionally went up against these tanks, with their heavy armour.
As you mentioned, the Sherman was a great vehicle when it came to transporting it to England and the Pacific. They had a relatively small footprint (for a tank of course!), so were easy to transport on ships and by rail. A complete contrast to Tigers, that needed special tracks when it was being moved around by rail.
Exactly. Not overly fair when people compare this tank head to head with a tiger. Too rare a creature 🐯🐅
You are confusing 2 vehicles. The Sherman firefly armed with the 17pdr and the 76mm sherman are two different vehicles.
@@ancaplanaoriginal5303 you are correct about that, whilst the two are roughly the same size caliber, they are different guns. Apologies, I made a mistake in this point, thanks for pointing this out.
I love the Sherman. It was very reliable and when it needed repair or maintenance it was relatively easy to do, unlike the German tanks which were over engineered and difficult to repair and as a result if they did break down or run out of petrol, they would be destroyed by their own crews.
Them being destroyed by their crews, only happened towards the end, because they were going to get over run anyway. Better to deny an enemy your equipment so they can't use it on you.
Their are examples of bad German engineering but running out of petrol is not one, that's just bad logistics and an already losing war.
Bad engineering is the Bismarck, or the Ferdinand tank destroyer, elephant, or designing the sturmtiger when you country has been on the retreat for a year, which is essential a naval cannon sized rocket artillery to bring down buildings... so wasted a tank hull.
Reliable and simple soviet t34. Easily upgraded through out the war, and went toe to toe with even germanium most heavy tanks.
@@Robert53area Really most the later German armor had huge issues with being very difficult to repair and needing to be repaired far more often. This isn't just an logistical issue but really if you need to take a day to fix a small issue with the transmission because you have to take the front half of your tank apart instead of spending 10 minutes to fix it then you're going to have to destroy your own tanks far more often
these videos are awesome they could be twice as long and I would still enjoy every second
Thank you so much!
Pros :
Easy to Maintain
Easy to repair
Has tons of Parts
Has tons of roles it can fit into it
Has tons of available upgrades it can have
Has a Short-stop stabilizer
Has Wet-storage
Has comfortable Crew compartment
Can travel almost anywhere in the world
Highest Crew survival rate compare to other nation's tanks aside from Churchill.
Cons :
"Armor somehow too thin against the Germans"
Totally not because of the several counters of Germans unable to penetrate T-34's , Kv-1's and Churchills and specially Early Shermans that leads to the Germans having High penetration Anti-tank weaponry , if you put a Tiger 1 in-front of another Tiger 1 , they both can penetrate each other's armor and yet people say Tiger 1 is a good tank.
"Tank too Tall"
I don't see how this would ever be an issue , specially when you need a high place to see better which makes it a better tank for commands to look out from , sure it maybe easy to be spotted by the enemies but Tanks are not quiet and they travel with a company of tanks and troops , ain't going to hide them when US is on the Offensive while the Germans are on the Defensive side
"Guns too Weak"
Yet another false rumor about the guns doesn't work , High crew survival rate also makes the "Armor too thin" and "Gun too weak" rumor spread like wild fire which leads us to the Bad reputation of it which is just another thing in a War that could happen , 75mm aren't really that useful against Heavily armor but they were meant to support infantry to push the german bunkers and infantries while the 76mm fits the role of Anti-tank gun , even if that is said , 75mm can pen Tiger 1 from the front at a closer range definitely but at longer range naturally a 88mm long gun would be far superior
Jack of all trade , master of none
a standard WW2 Tank that imo is the BEST out of all tanks that people will argue about.
With everything easy to maintain and repair/replace + crew often survive more than any other nation's , I cannot see how this tank get a terrible reputation aside from people being ignorant to history about it/design about it and those crews whom survived from it and spreading false rumor about how garbage it is and such. Survivor Bias you would say.
People often forget that tanks also had to fight infantry, lots and lots infantry. Speculation for my part but I think the overwhelming majority of tank engagement was tank vs infantry not tank vs tank.
@@LazyLifeIFreak I think the tank vs tank engagements that people tend to know was overshadowed by El Alamein and the Battle of Kursk. Maybe, I don't know
I agree with what u said, but why is a tank not a good tank if it could penetrate itself? Ik the Tiger had a lot of downsides but I don't understand how it's gun being able to penetrate its armor is a reason why the tank is bad?
@@jnik_3234 the Tiger had good firepower bur reliability is what it killed it... Well its one of the reasons and besides there are more allied tanks than Tigers which were around 2500 and against what like? 80k T34s with all variants and 50k Shermans and not to mention the allied strategic bombing made parts for the German's tanks scarce and the fact that most of their resources were dragged on and wasted on the Eastern Front in an attempt to stop the Russians by early 44
German heavy tanks had a number reliability issues mainly from the transmission, the time that it takes to make maintenance of the godawful roadwheel and tread design, faulty fuel lines which were prone to being caught on fire and of course the heavy consumption of fuel which the Germans were having trouble to maintain its oil reserves before the war even started
My brother thinks the Battle of the Bulge should be digitally redone so that historically accurate tanks are depicted. The movie was so bad, historically speaking, though, that President Eisenhower came out of retirement to denounce it. If you ask me, the entire movie should be remade.
Haha I forget about that. Eisenhower did hate this movie!
@@JohnnyJohnsonEsq So did Hasso von Manteuffel, who said the only thing accurate in it was the title.
Also in Fury. Brad's E8 don't relly need to go behind the tiger as its long 76mm gun can just penetrate the tiger's front armor.
And it's bizarre that the tiger crew shot the rearmost sherman first.
Thats highly situational but yes that made no sense whatsoever. I could understand it in a urban/city environment where you cut off other tanks, infantry and so on. In a open field, on a open road, with more than 600+ meters of distance there is no reason to not only shoot the rear tank instead of the front but to move forward and lose your distance advantage to a 76mm long sherman who doesn't know that his gun can fucking go through its lower glacias and UFP beyond 800+ meters. To top it all off, the tiger doesn't turn its hull with its turret so it can shoot the obviously poorly trained crew.
It could NOT penetrate frontal armor of tiger 1 or 2 ..WHERE ARE YOU GUYS GETTING THIS CRAP?
@@charlessedlacek5754 At 600 metres the 76mm could, as stated in Tiger 1 Heavy Tank 1942-45, but not 800+.
@@charlessedlacek5754 bro it can. The 76mm of the sherman can pen up to 130mms of armor at closer ranges even. And the tiger was not angled lmao
@@MatalinoMSiraj I stand by what I say but...are we talking about the british sherman firefly with the 17 pound gun? Then yes. The standard sherman with the stock 75 mm gun could not penetrate the tiger 1 or king tiger from the front or sides. That's why they had to shoot the tiger from the rear...not so with the m26 to or the m36 td..the 90mm gun made all the difference...look it up. That also goes for the 76mm gun.
I love the mention of Kelly's Heroes (my favorite movie). I did know it was filmed in Yugoslavia, but I didn't know how they sourced the tanks. Very cool, thanks for including it.
When i hear the word „Tank“ this is the first Vehicle that comes to my mind!
I saw a Sherman in the Panzermuseum Munster and it blew my mind! If you stand next to it, its really huge.
I love this Tank! Great Job America 👌
Not sure why everyone jumps to Sherman vs tiger, if you're going to compare tanks compare the tanks with their actual counterpart. You wouldn't compare a Lee Enfield to an MG42 because while yes they're both firearms they fill completly different roles in their relevant armed forces. So compare Shermans to the other medium tanks of WWII. T34, Panzer IV, Crusaders, Cromwells or Panthers most of them went through a lot of retrofitting throughout the war and addressed their weaknesses. A t34/76 from 1941 was basically pieces of cobbled together steel without a big enough turret but a brilliant sloped armour idea but compare that to a 1945 T34/85 then you've got a tried and tested design built in a factory that's been making these for years. A M4A4E8 Sherman was a well designed and refined medium tank that outclassed late war Panzer IVs and was capable of taking on late war panthers. All the models that came before led to what was the product at the end of the war regardless of which country.
Great vid Johnny. Such an iconic vehicle
I don't have a dream car. I want a Sherman tank.
Gotta love the Girls and Panzer footage
The Chieftain has some excellent videos about the Sherman and many of the negative myths surrounding it, overall it was a good, capable, reliable, easy to produce tank. Yes a Sherman could come of second best against a Tiger but if you use another analogy that’s like saying a Cruiser is no good because it comes off second best against a battleship.
Thanks for talking about the Sherman from a balanced perspective.
The M4 was designed intelligently and also enjoyed several years of isolation from the war for unmolested development. It used the tried and tested engine and suspension from the M2 / M3 medium tanks. The transmission cover and suspension bogies were bolted on for easy replacement, the turrets were cast for faster manufacturing, and the hulls, welded and cast, were properly tempered and ballistically superior to German counterparts. The gyrostabilizer was sophisticated, the power traverse system was world class, the gun could knock out any tank when the Sherman hit the battlefield.
Some things weren't great. The radial engine was absolute garbage in a tank and we couldn't wait to get rid of them for V8-powered M4A3s. The original periscope sights were terrible, and the mechanical linkage to the gun fell our of adjustment constantly. The original cast M4A1 had numerous small weak spots like viewports and bulges for crew hatches. There was only one turret hatch for 3 people. But the US was able to produce enough tanks and constantly update these features into better and better tanks.
When the T23 medium tank was canceled, the standardized turret ring size of the M4 meant the T23 turret was used to upgun 76mm Shermans. The T-34-85 required the hull to be redesigned for a larger turret ring.
The suspension system of the M4 was able to take the 7.5~ tons of additional armor for the M4A3E2 "Jumbo" with just a slight reduction in speed. The HVSS M4A3 could have its front armor *doubled* in the "Thunderbolt" style to make improvised Jumbos. By comparison the Panzer IV G/H/J model had maxed out the frontal armor at 80mm and suffered from front suspension damage during hard braking.
Probably the only real criticism you can make is that armor branch was being fussy that the Firefly or 76mm-in-the-standard-turret weren't comfortable enough to institute, but then again, the actual field commanders did not want 76 Shermans until meeting the huge numbers of Panthers in France.
But the Americans can and did just shove bigger guns onto the Sherman body, like the 90mm armed M36 and M36B1.
The thing is with a Sherman it did its job well (supporting infantry with its HE shells) and it was easy to ship, maintain, and repair, plus it could basically drive from normandy to Berlin without breaking down. It's poor armour was partly negated by the fact that it was rare to face tanks,you would more likely die from arty or mines.
You have the right general idea, but the M4 was a general purpose tank and its 75mm M3 gun could kill similar tanks, it did not specifically do infantry support. The armor was also much more ballistically sound than German medium tanks, particularly the welded-hull M4A3.
Another excellent post Johnny, very cool...nice editing and segues 👍👍
Thanks Tim 🙏
That’s the first time I’ve heard the transport aspect mentioned as being *extremely important.*
There was a *long* logistical tail with U.S. stuff.
The Sherman actually had a main gun stabilized in the vertical axis. Unfortunately, the gunners were often not properly trained in the stabilization system's functions because of concerns over secrecy. But it worked well if used by a properly trained gunner.
8:19 "this thing only got like 4 inches of armor"
that's the same thickness as the Tiger H1 UFP...
And no, numerical superiority was not involved in tactics, numerical superiority was a default on all allied engagements, as the smallest american unit was 5 tanks, that means 5 tanks is the smallest armored unit you are gonna face.
PD:
Jesus, the amount of media with americans using Fireflys is ridiculous
If only that default applied in the Ardennes on the 16th of December, 1944. Tactics also refers to the arrangement and use of your numbers. Simply "having more" might be better referred to as a strategy rather than a tactic.
We won the war in Europe with for the most part, an inferior tank when it came to firepower. The German's did have heavier tanks with more powerful guns. But they were few in number and very difficult to maintain and they guzzled fuel like crazy. Most of the German armor consisted of the Panzer Mark IV with their version of the 75mm high velocity gun. The effective range was better than the Sherman's 75mm but a Sherman using tactics could knock out a Mark IV even with the low velocity 75mm canon. The British had a good fix with the 17 pounder anti tank gun fitted to the Sherman (Firefly). They could knock out Tigers and Panzer V's. The American's came out with the tank destroyers M36 Jackson and M18 both with high velocity guns that would penetrate Tiger I, Tiger II and Panzer V armor and a good stand off range. The M26 came late in the war and did destroy some German armor, but was to late to be a seriously effective tank. The big mistake the German's made was not sticking to one model and making adaptations to that model the way the allies did. The German's did not have the manufacturing capability of America. Regardless, they made the war difficult and costly for the allies. They could have made even more costly had they stuck to the one design and modified it as the battlefield demanded. The Panzer V was their best design in my opinion. They could have up gunned and modified the turret to fit the 88mm gun at a much lower cost in material and man power than trying to build heavier and slower tanks that had trouble getting across bridges and down narrow roads. The vast majority of Tiger I and II's were not destroyed by Sherman's of any variety. They were destroyed by Allied air power, P47's and P51's. and in many instances were just abandoned with mechanical problems or lack of fuel.
In terms of effective range- if we're comparing the _IV_ and _M4_ then they're about equal.
> _*". The vast majority of Tiger I and II's were not destroyed by Sherman's of any variety. They were destroyed by Allied air power, P47's and P51's. and in many instances were just abandoned with mechanical problems or lack of fuel."*_|
Actually this is a false notion. Fighter aircraft were ineffective at directly destroying tanks.
@@peterson7082 I did include that they were abandoned. "and in many instances were just abandoned with mechanical problems or lack of fuel." The other thing to remember is that in a lot of cases the after action reports were written up as destroying Tigers when that was not the case. For many allied crews, every tank behind a hedgerow or building was a Tiger.
not gonna lie bro... the sovjets single handedly won the war in europe. The Allies have only cleaned up the remains.
My favorite WWII tank, so many variants such as the Sherman Firefly with the 17 pounder, DD variant, and the T34 Calliope with rockets. Another Japanese animation Sherman are in is besides Girls und Panzer is Strike Witches: Road to Berlin where the Calliope variant is mainly seen. But my favorite Sherman variant will always be the M4A3E8 Easy 8. It’s well balanced and takes the lessons form the war and the Easy 8 nickname rolls off the tongue.
I'll have to check out Strike Witches. Thanks for the recommendation 🙏
@@JohnnyJohnsonEsq Yeah no problem. Series is a bit niche but I really enjoy the WWII technology used and all the historical references in it.
Another amazing and very informative video. Don't stop posting these videos cause they do very much make my day
Thanks so much 🙏
I love that it's Oddball's Sherman towing out the shuttle in that episode of Cowboy Bebop!
My man
Another great video!- Fully agree on the 'Sherman was the best all-round tank'. It wasn't the best tank killer, the best performing or best designed, it simply did the best job when all factors were combined. It trumped the Panzer III/IV, Tiger, Panther and T-34 series in that regard.
I noticed you wrote "Life is Beautiful - 1977" but it should be 20 years later, "La vita é Bella (Life is beautiful) 1997"
Oops! lil typo on my part :)
When you used the clip from "To Hell and Back" l wish you had left in the rebuttal from the GI, when the commander said "only 4 inches of armor" the soldier reply's with "how thick do you think this GI shirt is". That in it's self makes the argument about armor all the way around.
Great tanks.
Tanks for the video, take care, and all the best.
Nicely done. The Sherman by far and away was the most effective tank ever built, and was nothing short of miraculously brilliant logistically, able to be offloaded at all global ports and loaded onto rail cars without modifying the tracks as was the case with many German tanks. The size, weight and versatility, as well as reliability and widely available parts is why in my book, the Sherman was hands down the best tank.
Great video!
Thanks so much!
The Americans really loved using the letter "M" for their equipment. M1 Garande. The M1 carbine, the M14, the M16, and of course, the M4 Sherman.
It makes sence since it stands for "Model"
Kelly’s Heroes is the most realistic WWII combat film ever made.
Sahara Tank from 1995 is in a Museum in Ottawa Canada.
I liked Belushi's remake better than the 1943 original.
Too bad “The Big Red One” couldn’t source any of those Syrian Panzer IV’s
Those Panzer IV's were destroyed in their entirety by Israeli Shermans.
I saw one still in service in a Kuwaiti motorpool in 2004 when I was there!
Incredibly entertaining to have gritty war films and anime girls in the same video analysis of the M4 Sherman
I like a good mix haha
Girls und Panzer did their homework on interior shots.
1:44 that is a m4a1 76 w not a m4 Sherman, it has a bigger gun and thicker armor and is actually based off of the m4a1 Sherman the Sherman produced before the m4 Sherman
Let's not forget that this tank waded in inflatable skirts to the shores in Normandy to aid in the invasion.
Yes, not the heaviest or the strongest, but a war winner for sure.
The DD in Band of Brothers is actually a Canadian built Grizzly (the tracks/running gear are a dead giveaway)
a little add on, the E8 was NOT the 76mm version, it was the version with wide tracks and HVSS, the 76mm was mounted on tanks without the E8 designation, being called things like the M4A1 76(w), or M4A3 76(w)
I appreciate that clarification as I recognized that I may have caused some confusion after I uploaded this. So thanks for adding this info for everyone.
@@JohnnyJohnsonEsq no problem! I actually really liked the video, and was very happy you mentioned the Sherman myths. it was an amazing tank, and this was an amazing video!
@@TheQueer23 Thanks so much! Really appreciate it :)
And before I forget - good video!
Later in the war. You ran up on a Sherman. He had 60 friends with him .
a couple of quick notes, in the BoB scene, at 4.45, the British unit represented did not use the Shermans as shown, they were equipped with the A27 Cromwells as shown as well as the A30 Challenger, not shown. The Unit was A Sqn 15th/19th The Kings Royal Hussars, who were the armoured recce regt of the UKs 11th Armoured Division, temporarily attached to the 506 PIR. Also I have been, pre covid, involved in the restoration of and ex Israeli/SLA M50, belonging to Eden Camp in North Yorkshir,e in England. as an afternote, I served with the 15/19H, from 1974-86.
Super helpful additional information! Thanks so much. Jealous of your project and work. That's proper commitment to the history community 👏 🙏
Plus I'm pretty sure their portrayal in BoB wasn't accurate either.
Technically Chile was also an exception as it's sherman tank is the M-60 which is essentially just the M-52 but was upgraded even more to house the 60mm cannon capable of firing apfsds. Making it essentially the most modernized and powerful of the sherman tanks.
Ah, I see you're a man of culture as well.
8:40 last three tanks in column are wooden mockup Shermans on wheels build for the movie.
Early Sherman types were nicknamed "Tommy Cookers", due to them being bought and used by the English who has not focused as much on their tanks in the interwar years. As you mentioned, the ammo rack was not very well defended in the earlier models, so they could explode if the tank was even hit from the front.
This would of course turn the inside of the tank into a blast furnace, what thing we see in movies and games where a straight flame comes out from the top of the tank, killing the English crew inside. Hence, Tommy Cooker.
WW2 humor was daaaaark, man.
The Sherman was around the same level of usefulness as the T-34, Pz. IV and Cromwell. The problem with it is just that germany, the soviet union and the UK often used it‘s medium tanks to support heavy tanks, infantry tanks or in general more powerful tanks like the Tiger, Churchill, KV-1 or T-34-85. America wasn‘t able to use it like that because it‘s only heavy tank, the T1 Heavy / M6 did never enter service
Sahara and its Jim Belushi remake are two favorites of mine.
if you , or anyone else , wishes to see an amazing range of Sherman tank variants , including dozer and 155 mm self-propelled gun versions , I HIGHLY recommend you visit Yad La Shiryon , Israel's memorial to the IDF tank corps , and tank museum at Latrun , Central Israel , where you can also view a Stug 3 , M3 Lee and Grant tanks , and several captured Russian tanks ( the list goes on and on )
post war tests showed that the reason why the wet storage worked was not because of the water but because the ammo was low in the hull instead of all across the tank which reduced hits to ammo. The armored box also stopped shrapnel.
Remember, in January 1942 we had zero Sherman’s, only the M3s. In less than 4 years, the US developed and produced hundreds of thousands of tanks. And whether or not you like it, the M4 was good enough to do the job and stay in service until the 1990s. Get over it.
The M51 is basically a Sherman on steroids
Awesome classic military history tank
I fucking love the M4 Sherman
There’s also the M4A3E8 with an M24 suspension in Mothra 1961
i love it like 5:35 is just labeled “You Know This One”
I'm still waiting for your philippine war movies keep up the good work. Also sherman power
Might take me awhile but definitely on my list
Would love to see a video on the 88mm gun. If the Sherman was the best all round tank of WW2 then the 88mm had to be the best all round weapon.
Would make for a great video idea.
I like the Captain America shot at the end. 😂🇺🇲
The Sherman effective(Not actual but calculating slope) frontal armor of 3.6 to 3.7 inches was better than any Axis tank in 1942 and 1943 and was comparable to the tigers 4inches of frontal armor. The only German tanks(no spgs or TD) on par with or better than the Sherman seen in large numbers were Panzer 4 G, H, and J and the Panthers
Well done bro 👍👍👍 next KV-1 movies 🍿🍿🍿
Actually logs and sandbags helped a lot in protecting against high calibre rounds and explosive projectiles. Our infantry support vehicles uses wood boards and other indigenous protections against RPG during our fight against ISIS here in my country the Philippines and it actually did saved lives.
The firefly with a 17 pounder gun could pop most panzers.
Johnny Johnson is the equivalent of Ahoy combine with IMFDB.
4.20 "it crushed Italian tank designs" not that thats a high bar
Haha I shouldn't have picked on them poor Italian tanks hey
All things considered the best tank of ww2. We used them up until 1971 war, even having a version which had the D52 76mm gun from Soviet PT 76 tank. Read about Battle of Asal Utter where they outperformed Pakistani M47 Pattons in combat.
It’s interesting to think how much different the reception of Fury (the movie) would be if Fury (the vehicle) had been built off of a 75 Sherman like perhaps a Grizzly. Many scenes would make much more sense as well as beefing up the “triumphant underdog” qualities of the movie. I do understand that they likely selected an E8 Sherman due to it simply being much more “muscly” in appearance, and thus more visually impressive on screen but they had some very rare assets at their disposal and a lot of very respected extras filling the background. They came so close to making the average armored vehicle buff’s dream movie but just went a **liiitle** too Hollywood and tipped the scale.
Seeing GuP is such a treat in this vid aha~
You missed the Warner Brothers 1951 "The Tanks are Coming" which features numerous M4's of various models. It also features a M26 Pershing. It covers the 3rd Armored Division actions from the Normandy breakout to the Siegfried line. From a story by Sam Fuller it naturally has a character named Lemchek. Check out, available on DVD by demand.
Was it a good tank? No. It was the best tank of the war and the numbers prove it.
My grandpa was in a sherman m4 on Utah beach
You can't really talk about Shermans as a single tank, the 1942 M4 is a lot different than the 1945 E8 version. I'd say the E8 version was the best tank of the war.
M4 is my favourite tank
Even on the gup series
I love your channel
Thanks man! 🙏
Sweet
Johnny, cool video! in "What did you do in the war daddy? "(1966) we see a US Army Sherman and a German (conversion) Sherman.But why are some called Pressed Steel or Fisher Sherman's...? is that the factory or something?
Good movies Johnny
I am curious, what other tanks besides the well known ones like the Sherman, the T-34 and Tiger 1 were featured in movies.....I was wondering if any featured the M26 Pershing tanks....
5:37 that is an accurate movie title