Check out Historic Mail and give the gift of history ! Go to historicmail.com/Armchair and use Discount Code ARMCHAIR10 to get 10% off on all orders Sign up for Armchair History TV today! armchairhistory.tv/ Promo code: ARMCHAIRHISTORY for 50% OFF Merchandise available at store.armchairhistory.tv/ Check out the new Armchair History TV Mobile App too! apps.apple.com/us/app/armchair-history-tv/id1514643375 play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=tv.uscreen.armchairhistorytv Discord: discord.gg/zY5jzKp Twitter: twitter.com/ArmchairHist
Americans dealing with other allies during the second world wars “You get a Sherman and you get a Sherman and you also get a Sherman. Everyone gets a Sherman.”
My dad was a tank commander with his M1A2 SEP V2 for about 10 years, he loved his steel (and uranium) beast. He has drawings of it and pictures of him and his crew all over his man cave, he tells me how much he misses it a lot even though he had seen quite a lot of terrible things when he was deployed to Bosnia as a peacekeeper. The bond he formed with his crew was unbreakable and still is. I will be following in his footsteps as a M1A2 Abrams crewmen soon.
"I will be following in his footsteps as a M1A2 Abrams crewman soon." I'm sorry to say this, but depending on where you live you may be put into a different tank, or an Abrams-X. It depends on when the AbramsX will be made. However, I do have to give you a like for this sentence.
the fact that the Abrams can use more than one type of fuel (even marine Diesel), is lowkey one of its biggest strengths in a everday combat situations. meaning in a real conventional war, fuel will be alot easier to come by.
I wonder if anyone has ever wargamed a US tank unit just deep penetrating behind enemy lines and topping off on enemy fuel reserves? Probably too risky to ever really do, but that's the fun of war game exercsises, you get to test out the improbably.
What I find funny about American tanks is that in most videos about them, you don’t hear about their tanks being at so many faults, like their engines having very many breakdowns, fires, and whatnot. They didn’t need some crazy large prototype tank to teach them that bigger isn’t better. They almost had the perfect tank-engineering mindset, “Not too big, not too small” and their main cannons really weren’t all that bad. Really is cool to think abt
In terms of firepower, US tanks were (and are) always on the cutting edge. Thought it should be said that in the Cold War, they did fall behind in terms of protection compared to the Soviets. The M60 was meant to have a sillicate composite array in the hull that would’ve massively increased its protection against chemical rounds. However despite being approved for service, concerns about availability centers of manufacture (only one plant in New Jersey) and the brittleness of the armor (decreasing effectiveness against successive hits) lead to it being left out of all production variants. That said though, the M60 was never a bad tank in its time. It’s just that it should be said that it took the US (and NATO in general) a while to incorporate composite armors compared to the Soviets.
WW2 American guns are quite lacking. The 75mm M3 was good for its time; but it slowly dropped off in anti tank combat as it was of low velocity and little penetration. The HVAP M39 round was a higher penetration round than the standardized M72 among 75mm guns, but it too was quickly phased out by the war. I don’t believe that German guns are match better for the time that the M3 was in North Africa, as the Germans had 20mm, 50mm(which was a bit better than the M3 in tank combat, but not by much), and the low velocity German 75mm. The Allies of course also had higher performance anti tank guns like the 76mm M1, and the 17 pounder, but these guns as well as the German 88 were only found on tank destroyer chassis like the M10. Overall, I think that the American guns weren’t to good for the war, as they were meant for multi role combat, where they would serve as infantry support cannons and anti tank guns.
@@FBI-eq4wn true, although my claim is that earlier in the war the 75 was the armament for shermans. I don't believe that all german tanks are better than the allied ones, but the 17 pounder or the 90 mil was probably equivalent to the tiger's flak 88.
It never surprised me that the Americans fell in love with tank technology, the way that they did. From the dawn of the automotive industry, Americans have just always seemed to be in love with constantly building "bigger and better machines," even if they weren't needed. It's an American addiction, that persists to this day, to be honest.
Correction on the M4A1 Sherman. The US still had the MG cult in their mind at the time when they started to produce the very early M4A1 Sherman’s. They had a total of 4 .30 cals and 1 .50 cal on the roof. 3 of the .30 cals were in the hull and 2 were manned by the driver himself while the other was manned by the assistant driver and the 4th one was a coax in the turret. A very wonderful example is the M4A1 at Bovington where its named Michael
For those that love the M-26, some of the greatest tank battle footage you can find is the Panther Duel of Cologne where an M-26 and a Panther hunted each-other through the ruins and the M-26 Ended up penetrating the panther. Great historical footage and an awesome tank for the history tank nerds!
@@m1a1abramstank49 Cry as much as you want over what I called it. Find me better footage of a whole battle in WW2 Between two powerhouse tanks fighting it out in an urban environment recorded so close you can see the crew members bailing as another shell hits.
Skipped over my favorite WWII tank, the M24 Chaffee :( I served as an officer in a Tank Company in the 1st Armored Division and we had M1A2 Abrams, but in WWII, my Company was equipped with the M24 Chaffee. In fact I was promoted to Captain in front of a WWII M24 Chaffee. Would've loved to see that tank in the video.
@@SergamingPlayz Has nothing to do with being lazy, Americans were simply not interested in naming their tanks. They preferred to give it nicknames depending on their roles
19:12 Hold up! The 120mm gun has added with the M1A1, not the M1A2. The M1 and M1IP Abrams were equipped with the 105mm gun. But the M1A1, which started rolling out of the factory in 1985, was equipped with the 120mm gun. The M1A2 improved the armor and added an independent thermal sight for the commander.
I was on M-1IPs, M-1A1s, M-1A2s, and M-1A1Hs for 13 years and you are correct. They messed up a lot of facts about the M-1 family. Lycoming originally produced the engine and it was replaced with a more efficient engine by Honeywell in the M-1A1 SA and A2 SEPs. The M256 Rheinmetall 120mm replaced the M68 105mm gun on the M1-A1 series of tanks. The main differences in the A2 series from the A1s were the CITV like you stated, digital controls and interfaces, incorporated GPS navigation and some early BlueForce tracking stuff, and the commanders weapon station was removed in place of a free mount M2. I personally hated the A2. It was very buggy. I went to war in the M-1A1H (heavy) in 1991 and I'd put it against any tank out there.
@@The_Syndicalist_Gamer not that I know of since the A2 just inherited the upgraded internal armor package. I think all additional armor augmentations have been external and geared toward RPG standoff and IED defense for tanks in a limited operating environment.
@@trailmix2062 I know you're probably comparing this animation with those Disney animated shows, but let me tell you, digital art is so much harder than regular art. Even if you can paint like Picasso on a canvas, that skill will translate extremely poorly on to digital hardware and the limitation of current technology puts a heavy strain to an already difficult task. And most animated episode in an animated show takes 2 years at the very least to make, and this only takes a few months at most. I know people have their own taste but I don't think you have any idea how much of a pain it is to animate a moving tank treads at such high resolution. Heck at low resolution, it's still an enormous pain.
Normally nations' most popular tanks are from WW2. The Tiger/Panther, the T-34 etc. While the Sherman is well known, the M1 Abrams might be the most widely known tank in the world.
@@golucid745 exactly, I am very fond of cold war soviet tanks, especially the T 55, t 64, t 72 and the early t 80. They sure have weaknesses but come on, cold war american designs are way too chonk for my tastes
@@sturgeon.vibess4354 They’re pretty recognizable by their dome turrets and square plates of armor slapped on. Dome turret still gives that defensive capability, but that didn’t stop China from following the US’s run of a slightly more boxy turret in the end, ditching the dome.
14:00 You can see one of the surviving M-26's from the battle of Remagen in the Wright WW2 Museum located in Wolfeboro, New Hampshire (USA). The tank can still be driven and if you are lucky enough, sit in the crew compartment. Along with the display, you can see how large the shells the 90mm cannon uses. They also have a few other tanks, and combat vehicles at the museum with many other things. It's a cool place to go to if you get the chance.
"it will not include tank destroyers and self propelled guns..." NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO "....they will be included in another episode" YES YES YES YES YES YES
How I felt too lmao, the Hellcat is awesome. When I lived in Ft.Polk Louisiana, there was a tank memorial. One of them was a Hellcat, it's a beauty for sure. I think the others were a jumbo Sherman, a Pershing, a M48 and a Walker Bulldog
Tiger: "Haha what a puny little peashooter!" M4 Sherman: "what if I add one, JUST ONE, millimeter to my gun diameter?" Tiger: "NO NOT THE 76! NOT THE 76!!!!!" *target penetrated* (edit) The replies to this comment were mostly made by philosophers…
It's more about the larger brass "more propellant, better propellant" then the 1mm barrel bore size upgrade. Usually referred to as a high velocity cannon.
For those confused. It essentially is a 357 magnum vs 38 special situation. Where the gun platform is re-engineered to withstand higher pressures to get better velocities. But they change the round just enough so no one shoves higher pressure ammo in an older lower pressure platform.
It’s funny how the US didn’t name the newer Stuart as “M4” when their classifications are confusing enough. There are hundreds of “M1” that aren’t Garands. Fun fact: the Pattons have a modernised “SLEP” variant to be near par with modern tanks.
I don't think any Patton has modernization upgrades today. Maybe you're thinking about the M60 modernizations? And even then it is not even near on par with modern tanks. They may have better guns and much better FCS but it's still a 1960s tank. Any modern munition would blow it to hell
It's not confusing if you use the whole designation. "Rifle M1" and "Main Battle Tank M1" are easy to differentiate. Just like the Half Track M3, Medium Tank M3, Light Tank M3, Rocket Launcher M3, Gun Motor Carriage M3 .... and all the other M3s that I'm sure there were. No more confusing than there being a Spitfire Mk I, Hurricane Mk I, Wellington Mk I and Lancaster Mk I.
There are no Pattons in service with the United States, the SLEP is just proposal and prototype, even then its not even close to being on par with todays tanks because its still ultimately an original M60 inside.
I really love the animations! It looks 2d but 3D, the way you added those little features and chose the style of the tanks is amazing! This reminds me of war thunder, I still cant get over how much work went into this, it’s such an amazing look of art.
I had a grandfather who built sherman tanks during WW2, and I had a great uncle who was killed fighting evil Nazis at the Battle of the Bulge when he was only 18 years old. RIP
@@b.andrei84 Hahahahahahah very good joke I wonder who started WW2 then Poles, Czechs? How the hell can you defend your country when you started the war!?
@@aka-red3946 you still can't blame the average soldier for what their commanding officer and especially political leader of their respective nation did Most of the German soldiers fight for their nation, not necessarily for the Nazi cause
@@aka-red3946 most germans didnt even want to fight they were just ordinary people they were just so controlled by propeganda and strict restrictions by the nazi goverment so not the people but the goverment is who to blame
4:58 Tank commander: Sir how can we combat infantry without losing our tanks? US Army: Put machine guns on the tanks. Tank Commander: But where? US Army: *Everywhere.*
@@CrayonEater255 I remember an old joke of a WW2 GI carrying an M3, riding in an M3, in a column led by an M3 while an M3 scouts ahead ( Grease gun, half track, Lee, Stuart in that order)
After doing evolution of British, Italian, Japanese tanks you should do evolution of aircraft> Anyway ty and your team for the content cant wait for "Fire & Maneuver"
@@dirckthedork-knight1201 100% on the small arms and other weapons. And maybe even an evolution of countries about origins or their borders. Have a good weekend.
I mean there's a lot that he's skipping over. For example, there is the issue with the US army naming everything with a big gun a TD during WWII. I mean, M10 and M36 chassis are basically modified M4 chassis and the TD turrets are drop in compatible with the M4, but if you stick an M36's turret on an M4 (giving it a monster 90mm gun) it becomes an M36b1. So there were things that were basically M4s going around Europe with 90 mm guns, but nobody seems to acknowledge that because of weird naming conventions. What's up with that? Also, there's the M41, which seems to pop up frequently in footage of US allies who are either too cheap or too untrustworthy to sell an MBT to (or were dealing with active communist insurgencies and needed something armored with a gun on it). This lack of focus on the low end of the US tank market gives a pretty skewed view on the use of American hardware. That said, it's a lot to cover.
Hmm can't decide if the tanker at 16:00 is a drugged up nam' tanker or a Buffalo Soldiers reference... Or maybe I have just become obsessed with finding eastereggs and references in these videos :D
@@robbieaulia6462 if it's not long enough, they could probably make a video on several nations that also don't have long enough/many-enough tanks to do a full length video on.
An M4 isn't an "Easy 8" (E8) if it doesn't have HVSS suspension. It is a massive misconception, one that was perpetuated by ground crews even during the war. The E8 did not come standard though with a 76, or the wet stowage that was effectively standard with that gun. The HVSS suspension, and that alone is what makes an M4 an E8. Not all M4A3E8's had a 76. Some did, some didn't. The name for an M4 with a 76 (and wet stowage) was "E6"/Easy 6. Refer to Nicholas Moran's excellent video, where he goes into way more detail than I ever could; ruclips.net/video/z9Iirk8Q4Xw/видео.html
@@AC-hj9tv that sounds like some very questionable service, yes. The whole calling E6 "Easy Six/6", E8 "Easy Eight/8", had nothing to do with the smoothness of the ride, or anything to do with the word easy. Easy was just the letter E in the US military's phonetic alphabet during the war, identical to how the letter E in the NATO phonetic alphabet is echo.
"For instance, how am I gonna stop some big mean Mother Hubbard from tearing me a structurally superfluous new behind? The answer, use a gun. And if that don't work? Use more gun." - Probably the guy who developed the M3 Lee
Just to make some things clear. The M1A2 Sep V4 is no longer the newest model of Abrams tank. The Sep V4 variant is being replaced by the M1E3 variant, which is assumed to take on the designation of M1A3 later down the line. Just wanted to make that clear. Edit: I forgot to add this earlier, but the M551 Sheridan does have a replacement in the works now. It has been dubbed the M10 booker.
And in my opinion the most versatile and battle oriented vehicle in history need an Artillery use a calliope launcher the m4 105 or an m105 spg need a tank destroyer use the m4a2e8 76 or the VC firefly need a minesweeper use the chain crab crawler need an urban assault vehicle use the m4 jumbo Sherman
@@joshmay2884 just trying to narrow it down the chapters if you will, big branch air force, chapter one bombers, chapter two fighters chapter three scouts, etc.
An interesting “dead end” in the Abrams development is the Abrams, TTB. This is an Abrams with the crew all in an armored compartment and the gun is remotely fired and has an auto loader. Crew visibility was though cameras around the tank. This was ,I think ,around two decades before the T14 Armata which has a similar layout. The Shermans also had an interesting life outside of US service, which the Israeli modified ones.
The TTB Abrams also had increased armor Along with a 140mm gun that would have had an extremely high penetration somewhere in the realm of over 750mm at close range outperforming even current modern ammo, and with modern ammo made for it could make that pen go even higher
@@Doomsgate The one with a 140mm is the CATTB and the THUMPER that is basically the cost-effective version, not the TTB, they're dif tanks. The 140mm shells are almost twice as long as most 120mm's, with over 800mm of penetration at 3km and 900mm at point blank. The CATTB is also the heaviest Abrams, at 70 tons stock, and would probably reach 75 tons with all the combat stuff, and addons. The stock turret armor is also the strongest of all Abrams and it has 50 inches (or 1270MMs) of armor on the front of the turret and 40 inches of armor (1016 MMs)on the side of the turret.
Error at 4:10. Tanks in the 30's were incapable to shoot and move at the same time. Gyroscopic stabilizers were introduce by the allies only in mid 40's
Not too shabby! Only thing I felt that was missed is the M24 Chaffee, it was a light tank as well which served with my great grandfathers armored division along with the M5 Stuart.
I am loving this series. they and the infazntry equivalents are amazing if he ever does the British vehicles. I truly hope he covers the brilliant 'Hobart's funnies' and the AVRE type vehicles (as he game props to the sappers in the uniforms vid)
My dad was an Abrams driver in the late 90s. He can assure you, the top speed can be over 55 mph. All you need is a nice hill and an enthusiastic tank commander
Fun "fact" (im remembering off hand) about the MBT-70 Program, The USA developed this program with the Germans, the original design was not adooted by the USA who would further develop their tank program into a (very similar) tank known as the M1A1 Abhrams, instead the Germans would adopt the result of this program, known later on as the Leopard. (which itself is still kind of a developmental offshoot)
One thing you forgot to mention about the Pershing was the fact it was actually designated as a heavy tank to boost crew moral as it was only comparative to the Panther V medium tank. After the war ended the Pershing was re-designated as a medium tank
I find it really ironic that the US never really saw fit to make heavies for the longest time, and then ended up making one of the most effective ones ever
US had factories setup that could pump out the Sherman quickly and was much easier to transport by sea then a heavy tank at that time. US could overwhelm the enemy with thousands more of a decent medium instead of trying to convert mass production factories in the midst of a war. The factory conversion would be to time consuming for a mass produced heavy tank.
@@scripe1957 After upgrades. The Germans called the early Shermans Tommy cookers because they tended to burn up and explode after a hit to the unfortunate position of the fuel tanks.
@@ShaithMaster it wasn't necessarily the fuel tanks but more so the location and technique of ammo storage. That is why the US developed wet storage capabilities.
@@ShaithMaster They also had the same, if not lower burn rates than their contemporaries at the time like Panzer IVs and T34s. In fact, the Sherman was the only tank to get the wet stowage ammunition upgrade, effectively reducing burn rate chances to zero. T34 and Panzer Iv burn rates remained high.
An amazing video, and I know they can't cover every tank however I does make me a little sad they skipped the M41, M47, M48, M1IP, and M1A1. Still though, I'm loving the series either way!
The M1A2 did not introduce the M256 120mm, the M1A1 did. The M256 was always planned to be fitted on the Abrams as well, but it wasn't ready so they used the M68.
Hi, thanks for the video, I like that you try and show the different philosophies behind the development of tanks of different countries as well as the continuity of their evolution. Would you be interested in doing a tank evolution video on France, as they were pioneers in the modern tank as well?
Important tanks left out; m24 chaffee light tank, t34, t32, t26e1, and m103 heavy tanks. Also strange how the stabilisers on the Sherman is not mentioned
Excellent video. It would be nice to see more variants of this type of series. The evolution of Japanese Uniforms would be really interesting to watch.
it’s funny to hear you talk about the rock island arsenal because that’s where my uncle actually works. they closed it off to the public around 9/11 but i know what he’s told me that they’ve made ant iud armor plating for the undersides of humvees and then i remember another time him telling me they were producing ambulances. i haven’t heard much else about what they have going on but just a random tidbit
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
Check out Historic Mail and give the gift of history ! Go to historicmail.com/Armchair and use Discount Code ARMCHAIR10 to get 10% off on all orders
Sign up for Armchair History TV today! armchairhistory.tv/
Promo code: ARMCHAIRHISTORY for 50% OFF
Merchandise available at store.armchairhistory.tv/
Check out the new Armchair History TV Mobile App too!
apps.apple.com/us/app/armchair-history-tv/id1514643375
play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=tv.uscreen.armchairhistorytv
Discord: discord.gg/zY5jzKp
Twitter: twitter.com/ArmchairHist
A
Attack the d point
@@r_aig no the d point
Can u do the evolution of french uniforms
Ppqqq
Americans dealing with other allies during the second world wars
“You get a Sherman and you get a Sherman and you also get a Sherman. Everyone gets a Sherman.”
DO YOU MEAN OUR. SHERMAN
@@TubaLord123 only if you buy it *CAPITALISM INTENSIFIES*
@@fluffymyato3334 😐
Dealing tanks to your allies? Yeah there is definitely gonna be a tax for that
*laughs in 50,000 units produced*
Allies: “Hey America, can I get a couple of tanks”
America: “Sherman”
Nice
W O T B PANTOUF GANG
Boo-urns!
Holy mother of birds that’s the best dam joke I have ever heard.
I feel like I’ve heard this joke before...
My dad was a tank commander with his M1A2 SEP V2 for about 10 years, he loved his steel (and uranium) beast. He has drawings of it and pictures of him and his crew all over his man cave, he tells me how much he misses it a lot even though he had seen quite a lot of terrible things when he was deployed to Bosnia as a peacekeeper. The bond he formed with his crew was unbreakable and still is. I will be following in his footsteps as a M1A2 Abrams crewmen soon.
Yessir
My dad was also on an M1A2 as a commander, and he was also in Bosnia. What coincidence!
@@wieldylattice3015 Maybe You Have The Same Dad!
@@The_Syndicalist_Gamer Nah he was never in a Sep
"I will be following in his footsteps as a M1A2 Abrams crewman soon."
I'm sorry to say this, but depending on where you live you may be put into a different tank, or an Abrams-X. It depends on when the AbramsX will be made.
However, I do have to give you a like for this sentence.
the fact that the Abrams can use more than one type of fuel (even marine Diesel), is lowkey one of its biggest strengths in a everday combat situations. meaning in a real conventional war, fuel will be alot easier to come by.
One time in Germany. We used kerosene in one of our tanks to see if it would still work. The engine started up without a problem.
I wonder if anyone has ever wargamed a US tank unit just deep penetrating behind enemy lines and topping off on enemy fuel reserves?
Probably too risky to ever really do, but that's the fun of war game exercsises, you get to test out the improbably.
Chieftain: WhY i cAn't mY MulTi fuEl eNginE wORk?!?!?!
Abrams: _[kekw]_
Technically it can run on alcohol, I believe like 90% or higher.
Most diesel engines will run on various diesel fuels including kerosene.
Ww2 American tanks in a nutshell:
Same tank *Bigger Gun*
Big gun = big boom
@@CrayonEater255 big boom = big win 😁
If gun don't work, add more gun.
Actually the opposite they really liked those 75 mil
@Simon Colby It ain't just big gun, it's more gun
What I find funny about American tanks is that in most videos about them, you don’t hear about their tanks being at so many faults, like their engines having very many breakdowns, fires, and whatnot. They didn’t need some crazy large prototype tank to teach them that bigger isn’t better. They almost had the perfect tank-engineering mindset, “Not too big, not too small” and their main cannons really weren’t all that bad. Really is cool to think abt
In terms of firepower, US tanks were (and are) always on the cutting edge. Thought it should be said that in the Cold War, they did fall behind in terms of protection compared to the Soviets. The M60 was meant to have a sillicate composite array in the hull that would’ve massively increased its protection against chemical rounds. However despite being approved for service, concerns about availability centers of manufacture (only one plant in New Jersey) and the brittleness of the armor (decreasing effectiveness against successive hits) lead to it being left out of all production variants. That said though, the M60 was never a bad tank in its time. It’s just that it should be said that it took the US (and NATO in general) a while to incorporate composite armors compared to the Soviets.
WW2 American guns are quite lacking. The 75mm M3 was good for its time; but it slowly dropped off in anti tank combat as it was of low velocity and little penetration. The HVAP M39 round was a higher penetration round than the standardized M72 among 75mm guns, but it too was quickly phased out by the war. I don’t believe that German guns are match better for the time that the M3 was in North Africa, as the Germans had 20mm, 50mm(which was a bit better than the M3 in tank combat, but not by much), and the low velocity German 75mm. The Allies of course also had higher performance anti tank guns like the 76mm M1, and the 17 pounder, but these guns as well as the German 88 were only found on tank destroyer chassis like the M10. Overall, I think that the American guns weren’t to good for the war, as they were meant for multi role combat, where they would serve as infantry support cannons and anti tank guns.
@FMKeb The Sherman's were actually equipped with 76s as well not just the tank destroyers.
@@FBI-eq4wn true, although my claim is that earlier in the war the 75 was the armament for shermans. I don't believe that all german tanks are better than the allied ones, but the 17 pounder or the 90 mil was probably equivalent to the tiger's flak 88.
@FMKeb oh sorry, yea I'd agree the American 75m was without a doubt a weaker cannon compared to its German counterparts
"What does the M stand for in all your armaments?"
*MERICAN*
merican-16 rifle
*MERICA*
Murica
What does is actually stand for
@@flyweightenthusiast model.
It never surprised me that the Americans fell in love with tank technology, the way that they did. From the dawn of the automotive industry, Americans have just always seemed to be in love with constantly building "bigger and better machines," even if they weren't needed. It's an American addiction, that persists to this day, to be honest.
Progress is the real religion of America
@@MarvinT0606 sometimes in the wrong directions too such as obesity obesity
They're basically the Imperial Fist's irl
What you need to understand about America in a nutshell: "Bigger is better, and more is MORE." And we're fine with that!
@@nunyabidniz2868 Indeed
Correction on the M4A1 Sherman. The US still had the MG cult in their mind at the time when they started to produce the very early M4A1 Sherman’s. They had a total of 4 .30 cals and 1 .50 cal on the roof. 3 of the .30 cals were in the hull and 2 were manned by the driver himself while the other was manned by the assistant driver and the 4th one was a coax in the turret. A very wonderful example is the M4A1 at Bovington where its named Michael
The U.S.: Praise our god, the machine gun
Proceeds to put what can be described as to many 50 cals on the M6, T29, T30, and T34
The cult of the machine gun was a hell of a time for tanks
Two words: MTLS-1G14
@@lukemutschler9652 DEAR GOD I LOVE IT!
For those that love the M-26, some of the greatest tank battle footage you can find is the Panther Duel of Cologne where an M-26 and a Panther hunted each-other through the ruins and the M-26 Ended up penetrating the panther. Great historical footage and an awesome tank for the history tank nerds!
That sounds amazing, do you have a link?
@@ShaithMaster Yessir
ruclips.net/video/NBI9d0-IfEM/видео.html
@@ShaithMaster Just to give a heads up, don’t consider everything ‘Greatest Tank Battles’ as a reliable source
Ah yes, the mighty T26e4 Eagle 7 Pershing in Cologne
@@m1a1abramstank49 Cry as much as you want over what I called it. Find me better footage of a whole battle in WW2 Between two powerhouse tanks fighting it out in an urban environment recorded so close you can see the crew members bailing as another shell hits.
Skipped over my favorite WWII tank, the M24 Chaffee :( I served as an officer in a Tank Company in the 1st Armored Division and we had M1A2 Abrams, but in WWII, my Company was equipped with the M24 Chaffee. In fact I was promoted to Captain in front of a WWII M24 Chaffee. Would've loved to see that tank in the video.
It is also your profile pic
America in WW1: Hey Britain, can we get some of your tanks?
America in WW2: Hey Britain, I have Sherman tanks if you want them.
The British gave it its now famous name. The US name was just M4.
We were just paying them back yknow
@@Mree17 didn't the Brits give American weapons names? I'm pretty sure mustang was from the Brits, Americans just called it p51
@@A.i.r_K probably, i think usa is lazy to name their planes and tanks.
@@SergamingPlayz Has nothing to do with being lazy, Americans were simply not interested in naming their tanks. They preferred to give it nicknames depending on their roles
Imagine dropping an Abrams tank on to ww1 trenches...
Its speed alone would make jaws drop
they better be wearing brown pants then...
I believe brown and WET pants
I believe dropping an Abrams onto the trenches might cause collapse of said trenches. How heavy are the M1A3s?
@@Reepicheep-1 72 tons. And that’s precisely the plan- roll over a trench short enough, pivot steer and bury the enemy in their own hole.
@@Reepicheep-1 perfect for clearing out enemy trenches 😈
19:12 Hold up! The 120mm gun has added with the M1A1, not the M1A2. The M1 and M1IP Abrams were equipped with the 105mm gun. But the M1A1, which started rolling out of the factory in 1985, was equipped with the 120mm gun. The M1A2 improved the armor and added an independent thermal sight for the commander.
I was on M-1IPs, M-1A1s, M-1A2s, and M-1A1Hs for 13 years and you are correct. They messed up a lot of facts about the M-1 family. Lycoming originally produced the engine and it was replaced with a more efficient engine by Honeywell in the M-1A1 SA and A2 SEPs. The M256 Rheinmetall 120mm replaced the M68 105mm gun on the M1-A1 series of tanks. The main differences in the A2 series from the A1s were the CITV like you stated, digital controls and interfaces, incorporated GPS navigation and some early BlueForce tracking stuff, and the commanders weapon station was removed in place of a free mount M2. I personally hated the A2. It was very buggy. I went to war in the M-1A1H (heavy) in 1991 and I'd put it against any tank out there.
@@rlbrooksssg Is There An M1A2-H?
@@The_Syndicalist_Gamer not that I know of since the A2 just inherited the upgraded internal armor package. I think all additional armor augmentations have been external and geared toward RPG standoff and IED defense for tanks in a limited operating environment.
@@rlbrooksssg In English, Please?
@@The_Syndicalist_Gamer Not that I know of. I've only heard of the SEP variant for the A2.
The animation is just insane
The lighting is, not animation
Not really
@@trailmix2062 I know you're probably comparing this animation with those Disney animated shows, but let me tell you, digital art is so much harder than regular art. Even if you can paint like Picasso on a canvas, that skill will translate extremely poorly on to digital hardware and the limitation of current technology puts a heavy strain to an already difficult task. And most animated episode in an animated show takes 2 years at the very least to make, and this only takes a few months at most. I know people have their own taste but I don't think you have any idea how much of a pain it is to animate a moving tank treads at such high resolution. Heck at low resolution, it's still an enormous pain.
Years of animating that’s why
Normally nations' most popular tanks are from WW2. The Tiger/Panther, the T-34 etc. While the Sherman is well known, the M1 Abrams might be the most widely known tank in the world.
Actually kind of a shame for the other nations, tanks during the Cold War and many today are so interesting yet underrated compared to WW2 tanks.
Probably the Russian T54/55 or T72 designs tbh
The Leopard tank is in Europe well known but M1 Abrams and Russian tanks are the mostly known
@@golucid745 exactly, I am very fond of cold war soviet tanks, especially the T 55, t 64, t 72 and the early t 80. They sure have weaknesses but come on, cold war american designs are way too chonk for my tastes
@@sturgeon.vibess4354 They’re pretty recognizable by their dome turrets and square plates of armor slapped on.
Dome turret still gives that defensive capability, but that didn’t stop China from following the US’s run of a slightly more boxy turret in the end, ditching the dome.
New Zealand’s tank evolution on the other hand, is just one massive growth spurt.
B O B S E M P L E
A tank so powerful that the Japanese didn’t even consider to invade New Zealand when they heard of it.
I must have accidentally joined the imperial guard because im starting to see you everywhere
Also bob semple single handedly won ww2
The Bob Semple is better than the Armata, Leopard, Abrams or any modern MBTs.
Let alone it can singlehandedly win any types of wars.
To armchair historian: can you do the evolution of British tanks
He probably will
@Der Königstiger PUT IT IN SIDEWAYS
German tanks
@@easypete3630 the radio won't fit!
@@JoMiMi_h CUT A HOLE IN THE BACK AND HAVE IT STICK OUT THE BACK
14:00 You can see one of the surviving M-26's from the battle of Remagen in the Wright WW2 Museum located in Wolfeboro, New Hampshire (USA). The tank can still be driven and if you are lucky enough, sit in the crew compartment. Along with the display, you can see how large the shells the 90mm cannon uses. They also have a few other tanks, and combat vehicles at the museum with many other things. It's a cool place to go to if you get the chance.
"it will not include tank destroyers and self propelled guns..."
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
"....they will be included in another episode"
YES YES YES YES YES YES
How I felt too lmao, the Hellcat is awesome. When I lived in Ft.Polk Louisiana, there was a tank memorial. One of them was a Hellcat, it's a beauty for sure. I think the others were a jumbo Sherman, a Pershing, a M48 and a Walker Bulldog
I love the Abrams design... sexiest tank ever IMO.
That sexy turret tho
This is my come...
Ive always loved the ugly hulk of steel that is the m60 myself
@@Brobobobobobobo
They are all beautiful tanks. but the Abrams has a special place in my heart. the M4 Sherman is second on my list.
Tiger: "Haha what a puny little peashooter!"
M4 Sherman: "what if I add one, JUST ONE, millimeter to my gun diameter?"
Tiger: "NO NOT THE 76! NOT THE 76!!!!!"
*target penetrated*
(edit) The replies to this comment were mostly made by philosophers…
incredible
It's more about the larger brass "more propellant, better propellant" then the 1mm barrel bore size upgrade. Usually referred to as a high velocity cannon.
For those confused. It essentially is a 357 magnum vs 38 special situation. Where the gun platform is re-engineered to withstand higher pressures to get better velocities. But they change the round just enough so no one shoves higher pressure ammo in an older lower pressure platform.
EveryTiger Gangsta until 41 Shermans came up
@@herrdoctor2895 more like until the US air force came
It’s funny how the US didn’t name the newer Stuart as “M4” when their classifications are confusing enough. There are hundreds of “M1” that aren’t Garands.
Fun fact: the Pattons have a modernised “SLEP” variant to be near par with modern tanks.
I don't think any Patton has modernization upgrades today. Maybe you're thinking about the M60 modernizations? And even then it is not even near on par with modern tanks. They may have better guns and much better FCS but it's still a 1960s tank. Any modern munition would blow it to hell
It's not confusing if you use the whole designation. "Rifle M1" and "Main Battle Tank M1" are easy to differentiate. Just like the Half Track M3, Medium Tank M3, Light Tank M3, Rocket Launcher M3, Gun Motor Carriage M3 .... and all the other M3s that I'm sure there were. No more confusing than there being a Spitfire Mk I, Hurricane Mk I, Wellington Mk I and Lancaster Mk I.
There are no Pattons in service with the United States, the SLEP is just proposal and prototype, even then its not even close to being on par with todays tanks because its still ultimately an original M60 inside.
I think the M just means it was adopted as standard. Why it's not S, I don't know.
@@fredkruse9444 M for Model.
I really love the animations! It looks 2d but 3D, the way you added those little features and chose the style of the tanks is amazing! This reminds me of war thunder, I still cant get over how much work went into this, it’s such an amazing look of art.
I had a grandfather who built sherman tanks during WW2, and I had a great uncle who was killed fighting evil Nazis at the Battle of the Bulge when he was only 18 years old. RIP
Soldiers, ordinary people are not to blame. The leaders are to blame. Hitler is to blame, not ordinary people!
They just fought to defend their country and their lives
@@b.andrei84 Hahahahahahah very good joke I wonder who started WW2 then Poles, Czechs? How the hell can you defend your country when you started the war!?
@@aka-red3946 you still can't blame the average soldier for what their commanding officer and especially political leader of their respective nation did
Most of the German soldiers fight for their nation, not necessarily for the Nazi cause
@@aka-red3946 most germans didnt even want to fight they were just ordinary people they were just so controlled by propeganda and strict restrictions by the nazi goverment so not the people but the goverment is who to blame
4:58
Tank commander: Sir how can we combat infantry without losing our tanks?
US Army: Put machine guns on the tanks.
Tank Commander: But where?
US Army: *Everywhere.*
8:37
The M5 is looking hella thicc 🥵
😳
Awh yeah.. 🥴🥴
GYAAAAT
Abrams is such a beautiful MBT
And yet Americans cannot figure out what to name their tank except M1
@@bilalwaheed1125 yeah it’s always M1 something
@@CrayonEater255 I remember an old joke of a WW2 GI carrying an M3, riding in an M3, in a column led by an M3 while an M3 scouts ahead
( Grease gun, half track, Lee, Stuart in that order)
@@bilalwaheed1125 is there a need to make our boom boom cars more complicated?
@@iamaloafofbread8926 yeah. New tech is always cool. But I cannot stand the damn naming system the yanks use
After doing evolution of British, Italian, Japanese tanks you should do evolution of aircraft>
Anyway ty and your team for the content cant wait for "Fire & Maneuver"
An episode on French tanks (from FT-17 to Leclerc) would also be interesting.
I support this fully
A similar series on the evolution of small arms wouod also be interasting
@@dirckthedork-knight1201 100% on the small arms and other weapons.
And maybe even an evolution of countries about origins or their borders. Have a good weekend.
@@NEWMAN2000-c6d yes!
This is the way!
I love shermans and patrons but the Abrams is just perfect in every way, love it so much
"How many machine gun you wanna have?"
Early American medium tank designer: *"yes"*
*m o r e*
excellent video as usual, just missing the M24 Chaffee and the M48 Patton.
and the M41 Walker bulldog
@@doucettealexander98
M41 is a TD, he will talk about it on another video
@@NEWMAN2000-c6d no m41 was a light tank it only had a 75mm gun which was weak for a tank in the 1950s (which was when the tank went into service)
@@potatosinnato1767
exactly, I had confused with the M18 hellcat, thanks for the correction;)
@@NEWMAN2000-c6d np we all mix up our tanks from time to time
4:57 Manufacturer: how many mashineguns you want? Us: yes💀💀🦅🦅🦅🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
As someone that's near Rock Island, going to the Arsenal is amazing, they have artwork and pictures of their work on American tanks.
Skipping over the M48 in particular is a mistake as its extremely influential on the M60s development.
*Sad M48 noises*
M48 is criminally underrated
@@tntproductions1996 *even sadder M47 noises*
@@iplayzgames8241 depressed m46 noises
I mean there's a lot that he's skipping over. For example, there is the issue with the US army naming everything with a big gun a TD during WWII. I mean, M10 and M36
chassis are basically modified M4 chassis and the TD turrets are drop in compatible with the M4, but if you stick an M36's turret on an M4 (giving it a monster 90mm gun) it becomes an M36b1. So there were things that were basically M4s going around Europe with 90 mm guns, but nobody seems to acknowledge that because of weird naming conventions. What's up with that?
Also, there's the M41, which seems to pop up frequently in footage of US allies who are either too cheap or too untrustworthy to sell an MBT to (or were dealing with active communist insurgencies and needed something armored with a gun on it). This lack of focus on the low end of the US tank market gives a pretty skewed view on the use of American hardware.
That said, it's a lot to cover.
Hmm can't decide if the tanker at 16:00 is a drugged up nam' tanker or a Buffalo Soldiers reference... Or maybe I have just become obsessed with finding eastereggs and references in these videos :D
I'd love to see Swedish tanks featured, apparently there are some really interesting gems to be found especially amongst lightly armoured vehicles
Let's just hope they can make a long enough script to justify making a video about it.
🌪️ ⬛️⬜️⬛️⬜️⬛️⬜️⬛️⬜️⬛️⬜️⬛️⬜️⬛️⬜️⬛️⬜️⬛️⬜️⬛️⬜️⬛️⬜️⬛️⬜️⬛️⬜️⬛️⬜️⬛️⬜️⬛️⬜️⬛️⬜️⬛️⬜️⬛️⬜️⬛️⬜️⬛️⬜️⬛️⬜️⬛️⬜️⬛️⬜️⬛️⬜️⬛️⬜️⬛️⬜️⬛️⬜️⬛️⬜️⬛️⬜️⬛️⬜️⬛️⬜️⬛️⬜️⬛️⬜️⬛️⬜️⬛️⬜️⬛️⬜️⬛️⬜️⬛️⬜️⬛️⬜️⬛️⬜️⬛️⬜️⬛️⬜️
CUE THE TOOB! :D 152mm recoilless rifle.
@@robbieaulia6462 if it's not long enough, they could probably make a video on several nations that also don't have long enough/many-enough tanks to do a full length video on.
I would love to see a video on some of their... more bizarre vehicles.
Americans in ww2 to their allies be like: "Can I offer you nice Sherman in this trying time?"
Allies:how about you FUCKING HELP US IN INSTEAD???
@@justanewviewerboi.8262 US: “Lol k” **spearheads Operation Avalanche and Overlord, repels Watch on the Rhine**
@@justanewviewerboi.8262 the United States literally saved the Soviet Union with the Studebaker and Willy’s
@@patriotictoast8539 oh cool
@@justanewviewerboi.8262 supplying resources isn't helping?
2:23 Ah yes, the M26E1 ‘Pershing’ which I’m guessing was named after him
An M4 isn't an "Easy 8" (E8) if it doesn't have HVSS suspension. It is a massive misconception, one that was perpetuated by ground crews even during the war. The E8 did not come standard though with a 76, or the wet stowage that was effectively standard with that gun. The HVSS suspension, and that alone is what makes an M4 an E8. Not all M4A3E8's had a 76. Some did, some didn't. The name for an M4 with a 76 (and wet stowage) was "E6"/Easy 6. Refer to Nicholas Moran's excellent video, where he goes into way more detail than I ever could; ruclips.net/video/z9Iirk8Q4Xw/видео.html
Correct. The E8 only refers to the Suspenion. Nothing else.
Some guy w questionable military service told me it was bc the dudes were "easy going". Damn. What a cringelord
@@AC-hj9tv that sounds like some very questionable service, yes. The whole calling E6 "Easy Six/6", E8 "Easy Eight/8", had nothing to do with the smoothness of the ride, or anything to do with the word easy. Easy was just the letter E in the US military's phonetic alphabet during the war, identical to how the letter E in the NATO phonetic alphabet is echo.
@@whatarenames oh okay. Cool. Thank you
I just retired from the American Army. I was a tanker... This video is amazing
No M24 Chaffee was odd.
Whoa
To armchair: 15:38 I can’t help but notice that the M60 you used looks more like the M48A2 C than a M60.
Armchair historian: makes videos on German, Russian and American tanks.
Me: oh yeah it is all coming together.
"For instance, how am I gonna stop some big mean Mother Hubbard from tearing me a structurally superfluous new behind? The answer, use a gun. And if that don't work? Use more gun."
- Probably the guy who developed the M3 Lee
Correction: m2 medium
Makes sense ngl, also kudos for the TF2 reference
Lolol
Just to make some things clear. The M1A2 Sep V4 is no longer the newest model of Abrams tank. The Sep V4 variant is being replaced by the M1E3 variant, which is assumed to take on the designation of M1A3 later down the line. Just wanted to make that clear.
Edit: I forgot to add this earlier, but the M551 Sheridan does have a replacement in the works now. It has been dubbed the M10 booker.
Sherman:
Sherman Jumbo: but ate 1 too many cheeseburger
The sherman: quantity with Enough quality
And in my opinion the most versatile and battle oriented vehicle in history need an Artillery use a calliope launcher the m4 105 or an m105 spg need a tank destroyer use the m4a2e8 76 or the VC firefly need a minesweeper use the chain crab crawler need an urban assault vehicle use the m4 jumbo Sherman
Wait what, M3A4 Stuarts is evolving into a M5 Stuarts?!?
.
..
…
M3A4 Stuarts evolved into a M5 Stuarts!
This has to be one of my favourite series of yours. Thank you so much for teaching me so much about one of my favourite military vehicles.
Not bad, now do a evolution of helicopters in the u.s. military!!
Yup
what about the evolution of u.s. aircraft? maybe that for all the countries done so far
@@joshmay2884 just trying to narrow it down the chapters if you will, big branch air force, chapter one bombers, chapter two fighters chapter three scouts, etc.
@@54032Zepol that is actually better
A small correction in the minute 4:00, the M2A1 had as its main armament a .50 cal M2HB Heavy Machine Gun, aside from that, good vid!
An interesting “dead end” in the Abrams development is the Abrams, TTB. This is an Abrams with the crew all in an armored compartment and the gun is remotely fired and has an auto loader. Crew visibility was though cameras around the tank. This was ,I think ,around two decades before the T14 Armata which has a similar layout.
The Shermans also had an interesting life outside of US service, which the Israeli modified ones.
The TTB Abrams also had increased armor Along with a 140mm gun that would have had an extremely high penetration somewhere in the realm of over 750mm at close range outperforming even current modern ammo, and with modern ammo made for it could make that pen go even higher
@@Doomsgate thanks for the info. It's a lot more interesting tank than I thought.
@@Doomsgate The one with a 140mm is the CATTB and the THUMPER that is basically the cost-effective version, not the TTB, they're dif tanks.
The 140mm shells are almost twice as long as most 120mm's, with over 800mm of penetration at 3km and 900mm at point blank.
The CATTB is also the heaviest Abrams, at 70 tons stock, and would probably reach 75 tons with all the combat stuff, and addons.
The stock turret armor is also the strongest of all Abrams and it has 50 inches (or 1270MMs) of armor on the front of the turret and 40 inches of armor (1016 MMs)on the side of the turret.
@@UnknownMemoryOfTheDistantStar Jesus if that was ever in warthunder it would just be nearly invincible
@@Doomsgate I wonder what the abrams x will be like 120mm Apache 30mm gun blowout panels and new gen thermals
My favorite tank will always be the FT-17, such a cute looking death machine
I love the L3/33
@@How23497
🤢
R35 and Ue57: u forgor us :(
I like m22
@@lockys_marter same it cute
Error at 4:10. Tanks in the 30's were incapable to shoot and move at the same time. Gyroscopic stabilizers were introduce by the allies only in mid 40's
I’ve been waiting all my life for this
A similar series covering the evolution of aircraft would be interasting
Not too shabby! Only thing I felt that was missed is the M24 Chaffee, it was a light tank as well which served with my great grandfathers armored division along with the M5 Stuart.
I was in a tank battalion and got to see them Abrams do a gunnery, just a couple of tanks rolling up the hill shooting stuff up. Pretty cool.
How did it feel driving a tank? I would expect cramped and sweaty
@@jessesmith6824 Hah, wait till you drive a l3
I am loving this series. they and the infazntry equivalents are amazing if he ever does the British vehicles. I truly hope he covers the brilliant 'Hobart's funnies' and the AVRE type vehicles (as he game props to the sappers in the uniforms vid)
An Churchill
The animation was splendid great job Armchair Historian
Έλληνας είναι ο animator
@@armaholic5949 ναι το είδα στο credits ότι έχει πολλά ελληνικά ονόματα
did he really say layopot instaed of leopard? 18:35
If only I could grind to top tier this fast. Ahh Abrams, such a cool tank
Get a Leopard 2a6 or a T-80B or something similar. They're better.
@@MH-OKW eh I have given up on grinding on war thunder.
I always thought the Leopard and Abrams looked similar. I had no idea that the two countries had worked together on tanks in the past.
Yeah, it was at that time called the MBTX. And from that platform after they ended their joint venture project, the Abrams and the Leopards were born.
1:10 I just recognized that song as *the Washington post march* by Philip Sousa
18:55
_"Draw me like one of your French Tanks..."_
This is underated comment
Im really looking forward to future episodes about “tank variants“ (Tank Destroyers, SPGs, etc)
Whooooo Finaly! I've been waiting for this for sooooo long! Really really good video!
Cortana [inside the MC's head]: Thanks for the tank. He never gets me anything.
Sgt. Johnson: Oh, I know what the ladies like
Ah nice, a man of culture. Remember Reach"
This comment would be better without the Cortana part. Imo.
Johnson domes the Chief with a thrown Sherman
tank beats everything
Now that we got a video about American tanks, a video about the evolution of British tanks is all but inevitable
The general trend ask the Germans in what we could fix
American tanks are like when you keep your sane build from the start of the game but just get a better weapon
"Separate Tank Destroyer" vid needs to end with Apaches carrying Hellfires and rocket pods.
My dad was an Abrams driver in the late 90s. He can assure you, the top speed can be over 55 mph. All you need is a nice hill and an enthusiastic tank commander
Or possibly disable the governor. The speed was intentionally reduced to prevent the tank from destroying its own tracks.
Who needs tracks , when you have wheels?!
Is it true the US decided not to use the m6 because the tank itself took two spots on ships that could’ve been filled by two Sherman’s?
not only that, in fact there are worse reasons why they didn't adopt it
Cool series. Hopefully in the future there will be evolution on navies.
15:52 Uh, the M60 was never used in Vietnam.
Fun "fact" (im remembering off hand) about the MBT-70 Program, The USA developed this program with the Germans, the original design was not adooted by the USA who would further develop their tank program into a (very similar) tank known as the M1A1 Abhrams, instead the Germans would adopt the result of this program, known later on as the Leopard. (which itself is still kind of a developmental offshoot)
i’ve been waiting 84 years for this
I've been waiting since September, 1942 for this
@@m10tankdestroyer94 *laughs in april 6, 1917*
@@falangistinapanzeriii5286 Looks like somebody had plenty of Totem of Undying too
@@m10tankdestroyer94 i just snort g fuel and protein powder
With the yanks done the times coming for blighty, should be a fun one, we’re either really good, or really ruddy poor at it
Crap, Google translate doesn't do tea to cheeseburger
How did you forget to mention the M48 before the M60? It was pretty interesting and cool-er because of the round hull.
Bruh he really skipped over the M24, M41, M47, And the damn M48
Excellent visuals, glad you included the interesting specifications as well.
960hp in WW2 is kind of insane. Passenger vehicles in 1930 only produced about 24HP.
14:35 why does the m46 have the same blueprint model as the m26? Very information video regardless though!
_M46's_ were rebuilt (not necessarily converted given how much was chaged out) _M26's._
One thing you forgot to mention about the Pershing was the fact it was actually designated as a heavy tank to boost crew moral as it was only comparative to the Panther V medium tank. After the war ended the Pershing was re-designated as a medium tank
Bro what
@@AC-hj9tv it IS true
I find it really ironic that the US never really saw fit to make heavies for the longest time, and then ended up making one of the most effective ones ever
US had factories setup that could pump out the Sherman quickly and was much easier to transport by sea then a heavy tank at that time. US could overwhelm the enemy with thousands more of a decent medium instead of trying to convert mass production factories in the midst of a war. The factory conversion would be to time consuming for a mass produced heavy tank.
@@iancostigan5047 and just too add on. shermans had one of the highest crew surviveabilty rates above most tanks in ww2
@@scripe1957 After upgrades. The Germans called the early Shermans Tommy cookers because they tended to burn up and explode after a hit to the unfortunate position of the fuel tanks.
@@ShaithMaster it wasn't necessarily the fuel tanks but more so the location and technique of ammo storage. That is why the US developed wet storage capabilities.
@@ShaithMaster They also had the same, if not lower burn rates than their contemporaries at the time like Panzer IVs and T34s. In fact, the Sherman was the only tank to get the wet stowage ammunition upgrade, effectively reducing burn rate chances to zero. T34 and Panzer Iv burn rates remained high.
An amazing video, and I know they can't cover every tank however I does make me a little sad they skipped the M41, M47, M48, M1IP, and M1A1. Still though, I'm loving the series either way!
and the m24 chaffee either
The M1A2 did not introduce the M256 120mm, the M1A1 did. The M256 was always planned to be fitted on the Abrams as well, but it wasn't ready so they used the M68.
Video starts at 2:07. You are welcome.
At 16:07 the guy driving the tank look like he’s crazy
True 😂
Am sorry but 7:25 how the m4a1 had a crew of 4 members
Hey armchair historian, I would love to see an episode next on the evolution of the american military aircraft (WW1 and beyond)
historic mail is such a cool sponsor and I really appreciate seeing something like that rather than mobile games etc.
oi Gaijin, you could support this guy for some evolution thingies.
Hi, thanks for the video, I like that you try and show the different philosophies behind the development of tanks of different countries as well as the continuity of their evolution.
Would you be interested in doing a tank evolution video on France, as they were pioneers in the modern tank as well?
Important tanks left out; m24 chaffee light tank, t34, t32, t26e1, and m103 heavy tanks. Also strange how the stabilisers on the Sherman is not mentioned
Excellent video. It would be nice to see more variants of this type of series. The evolution of Japanese Uniforms would be really interesting to watch.
Tanks are the best thing to happen to my country. Because we get to design a vehicle around a gun. 🇺🇸
This is the way.
it’s funny to hear you talk about the rock island arsenal because that’s where my uncle actually works. they closed it off to the public around 9/11 but i know what he’s told me that they’ve made ant iud armor plating for the undersides of humvees and then i remember another time him telling me they were producing ambulances. i haven’t heard much else about what they have going on but just a random tidbit