“The tank was originally invented to clear the way for the infantry in the teeth of machine gun fire. Now it is the infantry who will have to clear a way for the tanks.” Winston Churchill
@@randomclipsmilitary9056I need some of the copeiem you're on... Because Russia is doing so well in Ukraine now😂😂 how many days was this supposed to last... 2nd best army in the.. I mean 2nd best army in Ukraine 😂
@user-ot5uc4ep5v Its called modern warfare. You cant just send infantry with tanks in open area’s. Most of Ukraine is flat and Ukraine is only still holding since they are supported by more then 20 nations constantly sending money and equipment to Ukraine. As i said keep coping.
@@applepie1911e They didn't have the machinery to produce turret rings large enough to support the 75mm in quantity, so they made a tank with it in the hull to get it in the fight as fast as possible while designing the Sherman on the side with the plan of producing it as soon as they could produce it in numbers. It's also why the Lee had a riveted hull; America knew riveted hulls were dangerous but lacked enough experienced welders to create welded hulls for all of its tanks, so they waited until they built up enough manpower to switch to welded hulls.
They had a Sherman tank at a park in Nebraska back in the day. Someone forgot to weld shut the bottom hatch and someone had pried it open. As kids when we visited we found the hole and would go inside the tank to play it in it. It was a pretty cool experience.
I watched this in memory of my grandfather. He was a Sherman Tank driver in WW2. Battle of the Bulge veteran, 5 Bronze stars, and European/African/Middle Eastern service medals. He seldom told stories, but I do recall him talking about how lucky he was during Battle of the Bulge, to have refuge from the cold while in the tank. My parents have his Bronze Stars and his Sherman Tank field maintenance booklet displayed at their home. He passed away 5 years ago. Strong, gentle man. May he rest peacefully.
Also worth noting are the Sherman’s extensive use of rubber track pads. These help prevent the Sherman from tearing up paved roads which would have made roads impassable after a few tanks equipped with all steel tracks went over them.
Yeah it was one of the few tanks that when you called upon a company of tanks, that had good odds of showing up with an entire company of working tanks ready to attack.
and super easy to repair with lots of available parts (something that could not be said of the German counterparts). A knocked out Sherman was often back in action in a day or two.
One of the best things about the Sherman is that it was extremely versatile. Need a more powerful gun? Sure (76mm). Need a howitzer? Done, (105mm). Flamethrower? Easy. Want wider tracks? No problem. This thing was designed so well it could be upgraded in almost every way.
It was a great tank but Soviet sources all indicate they didn’t like it. This is likely politically motivated but still, not sure I ever read the Soviets saying something positive about it
I remember reading this secondhand account from quora where a guy posted a Russian BT-7, later lend lease M4 tanker, where apparently the soviets censored part of the letters tankers sent to their families if they praised US export tanks as having “padded seats, non cloudy sights and ports”,
I don't remember where, but I read something along the lines that the Soviet M4 Tankers had to guard their tanks because others might try to steal the leather and padding of the seats Meanwhile some T34s didn't even have seats or a proper turret basket
No not really. The sherman chassis was used in many other tanks. As was the Panzer 3 and 4 chassis. Panzer 4, Panzer 3, StuG 3, Jgpdz. 4, Jgdpz. 4/70, Ostwind, Wirbelwind, there were ammo supply tanks which were converted Pz. 4 chassis, Hummel, Bison, Möbelwagen (all artillery or AA, all Pz. 4 chassis), Sturmpanzer, Panzer 4 C as infantry support, Panzer 4 J/H as anti everything and many more. The german counterpart to the sherman was the Panzer 4 and it fulfilled just as many jobs, it was a Tank, Tank destroyer, Artillery, AA, Supply vehicle, howitzer, storm cannon and i think it's a safe bet to put early recovery vehicles in as well.
My paternal grandpa built Sherman tanks during WW2. I had a great uncle in the US Amy who was killed fighting Nazis at the Battle of the Bulge when he was only 18 years old. RIP to both of them. 🪦
More like slink like a slug. slowest tanks in the European theater outside of Italy. Turret traverse was pretty abysmal too but at least they could sting at all.
@@Ohmygodstfu2045 for sure. They're the best tank in the war for the road march. Comfortable, good suspension, easy to repair with tons of spare parts in the trucks at the back of the advance. Wouldn't exactly want to be in one during a tank duel but for 99% of your war, nice tank to work.
@@CharlesPossFirefly had manual traverse, Easy 8 had electrical turret hydraulics and stabilizers, they were also faster than most other vehicles present. They were pretty average regarding speed, faster than Churchills, Panthers, and Tigers.
@@CharlesPossthey were faster than the main british tanks about as fast as a pz3 faster than a tiger, faster than anything the japanese out out and faster than the itialians so idk what you’re saying
One of my favorite tactics when facing something with more firepower and armor is to fire smoke rounds at the enemy target and get closer/flank the target to get a more favorable shot. I think they actually did this in WW2.
@YoBoyNeptune That was an official Ally strategy for tiger engagement wasn't it? The sherman guns couldn't penetrate their armour so their goal was to disable their tracks and turret
Experience warfare like never before! Click the link and wishlist Men of War II on Steam, or sign up for the final open beta that begins on August 10th and concludes on August 14th: bit.ly/Men-of-War-II_Simple-History
Good overview and glad you addressed its undeserved poor reputation. I would add 3 aspects of the Sherman than made it successful: logistics, logistics, and logistics. They were made in the USA, but had to be transported to Europe and be able to traverse most European bridges. The reliability and simple design also simplified the parts supply train, meaning less had to be shipped over.
I think Chieftain looked up statistics-Sherman crews had a 97% survival rate. It was still high even after a direct hit thanks to the easy egress and hatches. He also stated the big thing people forget is that it had to be shipped across an ocean before even getting into combat and it's relative ease of shipping, simple design, ease of maintenance and reliability were the real war winning capabilities.
The key was the Shermans had spring assist hatches which allowed the crew to pop them open quickly. The Panzer hatches were much heavier and harder to open.
@@joshuabridle3182My Great-Uncle was hit in the head by a Sniper. Although I am not 100% sure if he was in the Tank at the time, or if he was outside it. It's documented the area he was killed at the time had a lot of Sniper activity, but crews still needed to get out of their Tanks to perform other tasks or duties and as such were hit. This was earlier in the morning. By the afternoon and evening, it was all battle. So who knows.
My father was a tank commander in a M4 Sherman in Italy, his tank was powered by the famous and most powerful Sherman Engine the mighty Ford GAA V8 which developed 550hp from its 18 Liter Alloy engine. My dad only drove a Ford Car/ Wagon for the rest of his life back here in New Zealand!
The Sherman is my favorite piece of armor in history. She's not just a tank, she's a heavily armored utility vehicle with a gun. She wasn't just built for warfare, she was built for transport, rescue operations, vehicle recovery, reconnaissance, and if she was damaged enough, a few half-effort "repairs" make her a fantastic decoy. A very powerful and efficient tool at a very good price $45,000 - $64,000 (equivalent to $608,000 - $880,000 in 2017) per unit. Compared to the modern day M1 Abrams at over $10 Million ($588,000 in 1945)
It's one of if not the best tank of WW2 and it was the best tank by far for what America needed. A reliable and easily fixable tank with decent firepower and survivability. They had to ship all the tanks over seas so needed to be light enough for the cranes to transport it and reliable with parts easily available because they are FAR from home.
That's the problem the US is having with the Abrams. Its a huge effort to ship them around the world, especially with conflict brewing in the Pacific. Thus they developed the lighter Booker to work in that capacity.
The M3 did have a rotating turret (1:21). It housed a 37mm canon as that was enough for most enemy tanks at the time (ie., Panzer 2s and 3s). The 75mm in the tank body was for anti-structure and personnel. The tank was fine for its day and, as @Ceege48 pointed out, was an interim solution until the Sherman arrived. One interesting bit of information was that the crews would use only baby grand pianos and not the full sized ones (7:57). The baby grand were easier to adjust after getting hit so it was the preferred choice. In a pinch, they could even use a bass guitar when available. Violens needed to be numerous so they were not a good option...☺
I met a German WW2 on a visit to Essen. He'd been a tank crewman and we got to talking about Shermans. He told me that the German nickname for them when the British first took them into action in North Africa was Tommy cookers. The tank would usually catch fire when hit due to being petrol engines rather than diesel and the crew often couldn't escape before being burnt to death. He only had respect for the Firefly version and only then because of the gun.
"The t34 had better armour cause muh slope" that was thinner and more brittle and made it incredibly cramped even the smaller NK had low chances of living upon being hit. Sherman generally survived fine and was rarely going against heavy armour so the 75mm he was plenty. And saved tons of infantry
@@thecoolnerdplaysvr5674 We can't really compare in general, SU had quite a bit of issue being invaded, so their tanks are all over the place in quality terms. But if I wanted a good tank, I will choose Sherman over T-34, I rather die comfortably.
@@thecoolnerdplaysvr5674 4 of the 5 crew had spring loaded hatches for the crew to escape if the tank was on fire. as oppose to those on the tiger that required the strength of thor. Ammunition was kept in wet storage, making it less likely to explode when hit, It was far more comfortable and spacious than the t34 whose crew would be constantly getting bashed around, so much so that they were exhausted by the time they got to battle.
@curtissp-40warhawk25 om the t34 yes. Due to the way they treated it. Basically they made it super hard. But it would turn brittle. Think punching glass. It could bounce it fairly easily sure. But enough force would shatter. Not pen. But cause it to shatter the armour causing everyone inside to get killed. Normal tank armour is softer. It bends a bit. Which helps absorb a penetrating shot.
From my point of view the Sherman was an excellent vehicle. The presentation did not mention the distances it covered from Normandy to Germany. It was easy to upgrade and one of the other innovations was the implementation of a water jacket for the tanks to minimise detonation from enemy strike. They had a while to study tank design and the Brits to test their builds but the tank was very good. Don't forget that the Panthers and Tigers were defensive weapons which gave them the advantage in combat.
Also sure while it may have lacked punch when dealing with Panthers and Tigers, the gun performed better versus most lighter vehicles and was considerably better versus infantry and anti tank guns.
I wonder why so many people, like this channel, continue to lie about the Sherman (like about how it had a low velocity gun)? What are these channels using for sources???
@@jerithilThe most produced German tank of WWII was the Panzer IV. The Sherman's 75 was extremely good at knocking out Panzer IVs. So why would you say it was considerably better against infantry and anti-tank guns?????
@@chaosXP3RT I was saying it was much better versus infantry compared to the 76mm or 17 pounder as it had more ammo capacity, a better HE shell and was handier/easier to reload then the other two.This is especially important as for the US in the European Theater only around 15% of the targets were enemy tanks.
It was the addition of wet storage for the ammo that stopped them cooking off. Not additional armour and ammo was stored in the turret throughout its entire service.
The majority of M4 losses were from 88mm field guns and not enemy tanks. The 88mm was cheap, easy to use, and could be used against both aircraft and tanks. Probably one of the best overall weapons of the war.
"hoped to be sufficient for future conflict" - not really. The American military knew that the M3 was a stopgap measure, something that let them field a 75mm gun in the present rater than having to wait for the M4 Sherman to be ready for war. Lastly, the 75mm wasn't just 'sufficient' for the anti-tank role vs the 76mm, but it was actually superior; when using HE shells, the 75mm proved far more effective because the lower velocity of the gun meant that you could build shells with thinner casings and more explosives inside. Even so, 75mm Shermans could penetrate the most common German armor systems - the StuG III and the Panzer IVs - from the front. It really is overstated because of video games and movies how often Tigers and Panthers showed up to fight Shermans and other Allied tanks on the Western Front, since most of the time they were shot up by the air forces or were encountered by infantry and destroyed by bazookas or other anti-tank weapons. But Tiger Terror was a very real thing, to the point that - there were only a handful confirmed encounters between Tigers and Shermans; most often it was due to tank crews misidentifying any Panzer as a 'Tiger' due to fog-of-war.
The 75mm wasn't superior to the 76mm for anti-tank role. Thinner casings with more explosives isn't what you need when fighting tanks - it's what you want vs infantry and bunkers.
The Sherman was a very solid platform for just about anything the army needed. The simple design allowed it to be modified heavily and made repairs easy. While a Tiger might’ve been a bigger threat, fixing a damaged Tiger I was very difficult, often requiring heavy equipment and dismantling a large amount of the tank to get to damaged parts. The Sherman was an excellent example of how US logistics in WWII were streamlined so significantly that parts, ammunition and anything else you could need were able to be brought where you needed it, when you needed it. This wasn’t the case for other forces like Germany, whose blitzkreig tactics often left their supply lines thin and vulnerable. The Sherman was an excellent vehicle for its intended role.
The true American tank. Not the best, but still very reliable. Myths still exist denouncing it, but not during its hayday, so the legacy still shines over them. God Bless America! And the brave souls who crewed these venerable engines of war!
@jakefirth2557 All I know is that the M4A3E8 is a late war upgrade to the 76mm Sherman and not a tank in it of itself. Like comparing an early Tiger 1 ausf E to a later one as Germany tended to make every few tanks slightly different with a different modification to some part of the tank, radio, transmission, whatever. So the "Easy 8" is just a Sherman 76mm but with an upgraded suspension and not a standalone tank.
@deepsouthgaming I was just making a joke at how many Shermans were lost, at least exaggerated, during the war. "Destroy a hundred Shermans, there's a hundred twenty more." But don't forget, T-34s can be dragged back and repaired behind the lines so many T-34s were recovered, repaired, and sent back into combat. That's why German kill counts aren't entirely accurate, many Tanks they "killed" were just knocked out and were recovered for repairs. Tanks aren't just repaired in the field, they can ve recovered and brought back to base for repairs where the spare parts are.
Don’t forget that the Sherman tank was designed to be fielded an entire ocean away from the factories that produced them. These machines needed to be beat on used and abused on a battlefield far away from a refit facility, repaired quickly and in the field. This combined with such a high crew survival rate is all the more reason why the Sherman deserves to be considered a huge success.
7:48 By far one of the best animations ever on this channel. The bed and the piano already got me, but when Patton came to scold the soldiers, I lost it. :D
The Sherman and the T-34 may have been on paper technically inferior to the German tanks but they were standardised, simple, mass produced on conveyor belt production lines and vastly more reliable
@@azimisyauqieabdulwahab9401only 1,347 Tiger I and 492 Tiger II tanks were produced. And those tanks were infamous for the breakdowns the tiger had an infamous terrible transmission.
@@kosrules1884 love when bring up the tigers as if they are better because they can beat a sherman. While a tiger can win you a battle, the Sherman can you win the war.
There was even eye witnesses by American soldiers serving in the Invasion of Iraq 2003 seeing abandoned M4 shermans still in working order. Some were taken as trophies and sent back to the states and restored
Thank you for the video. I like that the M-3 was originally named Lee but changed to Grant when given to the Brits in Lend/Lease. My Dad (741st Tk Bat) was in a Sherman from Omaha Easy Red, thru Paris and the Bulge, to Prague and he said the ammunition around him in the turret was a subject of great concern. He also lost a couple of TCs who had led with their heads above the turret rather than under the closed hatch.
Many years aga, as an Army 2nd Lieutenant in an armored battalion, I had extra duty as the partnership officer and spent time with a Bundeswehr Panzer battalion. While there, I spoke with two company commanders . One who was a former Wehrmacht Panzer officer and another who was former Waffen SS. Panzer officer. They had both trained on Mark V Panther tanks, a later on Mr Shermans. They both said the same thing. They would rather have the Sherman in an attack and the Panther in the defense.
@@christiandauz3742 Heck, the Allies wished they had M1 Abrams tanks, F35 fighter jets, and B-52 bombers -- not to mention a few modern, fully equipped, aircraft carriers. The point being that none of that stuff was available at the start of WW2 anymore than was an M4 Sherman, let alone a SuperSherman.
Excellent job setting the record straight. 2 things: The floor escape hatch was on the right hand side, just behind the assistant driver/bow gunner position. The M4 was very survivable due to its excellent hatch arrangement. Statistically, 4 of the 5 crewmen survived the initial knock out blow.
60.000 shermans so 80% means 12.000 Crews did not survive... The survivability is good if the Sherman survives the first hit... But thats unlikely with such thin armor
People always look at the hard factors of tanks, but don’t realize it’s the soft factors that make the tank good. The Soviets even loved the tank so much. When elite crews got it, provided detail of how great the tank was for a crew. Not to mention, the Sherman had the best survivability of any tank that’s to its spring powered hatches. The Sherman was the best tank of the war. It’s the F-series of tanks.
The M4, M4A1, M4A2 etc. designations aren't evolutions as used today but variants often developed and used simultaneously. The M4 was a welded hull model, the M4A1 a cast hull, M4A2 had a diesel engine, the M4A3 was a gasoline model with a Ford engine instead of the Continental in other models, M4A4 was had a longer hull to accomodate the Chrysler Multibank engine, the M4A6 had a diesel engine and some modification for use by the Marines etc..
When the 76mm main gun was added, it was found the Sherman could defeat the German Mk VI Tiger tanks frontal armor at 850 yards with standard ammunition. With the addition of the HVAP tank round, it was able to defeat the frontal armor of the Mk V Panther at 800 yards. However, I recommend a reading on the battle of Arracourt where the 4th Armored took out a Panzer Corps with standard 75mm armed Shermans. It appears that the story of pure numbers needed to kill German tanks was also horse manure. Using good tanking procedures worked just as well, along with combined arms warfare which the US Army was also very good at doing.
It also helped that most of the Germans defeated in that battle were green and poorly trained. The German tanks may have been superior to the American tanks, but they weren't so much better that the tanks could withstand being poorly used. The Germans failed to coordinate their attack, never coming enmass so as to overwhelm the American defenders. In addition, unit after unit, the Germans allowed the American tanks and tank destroyers to ambush them at point blank range. Better frontal armor doesn't count for much when you keep allowing yourself to be attacked from the side! So, while the Sherman was a darn good tank -- better in many ways that its opposition and not as good in a few -- the Sherman crews got the best out of their tanks. By that time in the war, the German crews could not get the best out of their tanks. The difference in crew performance was a larger factor in the American victory at Arracourt than the differences in equipment quality.
In the Canadian and British armies, the Sherman Firefly was used mainly as a command tank. By the time the First Canadian Army (which was a coalition comprised of Canadian, British, Polish, American and Free French units), had entered the Netherlands and cleared the Belgian port of Antwerp the armour war in northwestern Europe was more or less over. The last major tank battle happened in the Hochwald in northwestern Germany from early February to March 1945. Despite heavy losses, Canadian tank units prevailed.
The M4 Sherman was actually a very survivable Tank. The Armor was only 3 inches, but its 30-degree angle gave it protection actually superior to that of Tiger A's 4 inches of armor at 10-degrees (and only in some places), with about 4.5 inches of equivalent protection (Sherman) to 4.1 inches of equivalent protection (Tiger). The German guns were simply so high velocity, that there was literally nothing short of a Battleship that could deflect the fire. The German 8.8cm was designed as an Anti-Aircraft Gun and meant to knock Heavy Bombers flying at 15,000 feet out of the sky. No Tank would be able to stop that kind of fire in 1942-1945 at 1,500 yards. In addition, the US Army used a novel approach to its Armor. Rather than use Hardened Steel like the Germans, the US Army designed its Armor with Crew Survivability in mind. The Armor was designed to be proofed up to a certain point, which is why German 5cm guns failed to penetrate at any angle and early German 7.5cm guns larger than the 25 caliber Infantry Support Gun found on Panzer IV Ausf D, would actually bounce off Sherman's Frontal Armor initially. The US Army's approach would stop opposing ammunition at a point, reduce the dangers to the crew after that point, or if overwhelming, like a 8.8cm or 12.8cm round, let the round through in hopes it didn't hit anything important or the crew and if all went well, the exploding ballistic cap would be delayed long enough for the crew to get out before it exploded inside the Tank. Apparently went as well as could be expected as the US Army's Tank Causalities were actually very low, including being less than 5% of all fatalities. In fact, the US Army lost more Tankers in accidents and operational mishaps than in actual Tank vs Tank combat. One factor was surprising the introduction of a Tanker Helmet, which saved lives by preventing cracked skulls and broken necks, the real killers in Tank Operations in the Second World War shockingly enough. Even then, most US Tanker fatalities were caused by being outside of their Tanks or hitting mines, and the Germans LOVED doubling up their mines to the point the Churchill was known to have air beneath its tracks. Unfortunately, due to running into too many heavily armored Tanks from the Low Countries and France in 1940 to the Matilda IIs in North Africa along with later Churchill Mark IIIs to Soviet Tanks in the East from 1941 onward, the Germans were already working to keep ahead in terms of firepower and so the Germans increasingly went after much higher velocity guns and ammunition as a general rule, though, that did sacrifice their Anti-Personnel capabilities and German Tanks struggled to engage Infantry in the open due to not having effective Anti-Personnel ammunition as a result of thicker walled ammunition to survive the velocities they were being fired at. As for the 'Low Velocity' M3 75mm Gun, it actually wasn't Low Velocity. That was issue was actually the propellant and was not related to anything the Armored Forces, Army Ground Force, or the Army Research departments did. It was, like with the US Navy, an action of the US Army's own Bureau of Ordnance. They wanted to save costs on replacing the Gun Barrels and so directed that lower velocity ammunition, not LOW Velocity just LOWER velocity, was to be used. The US Army Bureau of Ordnance also never bothered to tell anyone that needed to know. So, when it was found out, Eisenhower demanded the proper ammunition be made and sent while General Marshall apparently blew his top and went Admiral King on his Bureau of Ordnance. That said, the M4 Sherman's 75mm was an ideal Infantry Killer. Very effective and had the second most effective Shrapnel spread of any Gun before the 105mm Howitzer. Even with corrected ammunition propellants finally achieving the maximum out of the 75mm M3, the gun remained excellent at killing Infantry in the open or in cover, especially after the introduction of highly specialized ammunition for clearing trenches and buildings, something that was not seen in Fury or any movie for that matter let alone games. As for taking on German Tanks, even with the lower velocity ammunition, the 75mm M3 could still surprise a Tiger at ranges out to 500 yards and could even, on occasion, put a round through the Frontal Armor of a Tiger out to 1,000 yards. Usually one round was enough, as the German Harden Steel would come apart and turn into Spalling killing or incapacitating the entire crew with a good hit or taking out at least three men in all. In addition, despite claims to the contrary, which is more grounded in myth to start with, German Tanks, Tank Destroyers, and Assault Guns had vulnerable flanks. So much weight was concentrated forward, the Germans had to thin armor or move things around internally to maintain balance and even then, the Germans had a higher wear out rate among the forward locomotive components than any other nation. If the AFVs survived that long given that Panther's Side Armor was so thin in places, Soviet 14.5mm Anti-Tank Rifles from before the war would penetrate, let alone the 75mm M3 Gun slamming into the broadside of the Panther. Tiger was little better with only 2 inches of armor on the Tail and Sides. Meaning that Sherman could kill Tiger at any range from 75% of the combat zones. And that was before corrected ammunition arrived. On that topic, the 76mm was always planned. The 3-inch gun had been successfully installed. According to RnD, but Armored Force said no it wasn't. Yeah, the gun was in. But it wasn't a very good fit and complicated crew operations so severely it was rejected. The 76mm was available in June 1944 but was intentionally left behind because the typical encounter for a M4 Sherman wasn't a German Tank, but German Infantry in a defensive position somewhere. And if not German Infantry, then a German Tank Destroyer with a Fixed Gun and thin side armor, if any armor like on the Marder III which had only Splinter Shields. When more Panthers were encountered, it was found that information on what was to be encountered had been off due to a miscalculation by both American and British Intelligence. They thought that Panther was going to be a Limited Production Heavy Tank, not a Mass Production Medium Tank. When that was found, it was pointless to bring in the 76mm Shermans as not long after, the Allies managed the Normandy Breakout and the Panther was notoriously a poor distance performer. Expectations were once again going to be Infantry, Tank Destroyers, and the odd Panzer IV. Still, the 76mm Shermans were prepared to be inserted into US Tank formations as a backstop guarantee. Then there is the Gun Stabilizer. Again, blame US Army Bureau of Ordnance. Like the US Navy's Bureau of Ordnance with the Navy's Torpedoes, the US Army Bureau of Ordnance hid the few manuals for the Gun Stabilizer considering it so advanced as to be a Classified Top Secret secret. Not even top commanders in the Field, like Patton and Bradley, let alone others like Ike and Hodges among others, especially Commanders in the Divisions in the field even knew the system existed. Eventually it was discovered and figured out. One Division even wrote their own manuals for it which they shared with other units and by 1945 most experienced Tankers knew of the system and how it worked. Marshall had another profanity filled word with US Army Bureau of Ordnance and so the official manuals were finally released, after being updated with input from the field and improvements made once understood and it was a surprisingly easy to understand system once the crews knew about it and how to maintain operate it.
@@christiandauz3742Not sure about China. Even the original M4 models were more than enough for Japanese tanks. The Japanese simply didn't have that many natural resources and didn't need anything heavier than a light tank until the US got involved.
@FLJBeliever1776 The Shermans armour was not 3 inches it was 2 inches (50.8mm) on early varients and 2.5 inches (63.5mm) on later varients. Early varients were sloped at 56° and late varients at 47° both have an effective thickness of 3.5 inches (90mm). The tiger is closer to 4 inches (101mm) So no the frontal armour of the Sherman is not superior to the Tiger but yes it is closer than people think. However, based on US, UK and Canadian studies 50% of allied tanks were knocked out by a shot through the side armour. So we can assume that in combat it is likely you are facing fire in a 180° arc. A Sherman only has 38mm side armour while a tiger has 80mm wich gives the Tiger a definite edge. You may say “but the Sherman had applique armour!” that boosted a very limited part of the hull from 38mm to 63mm, studies on the effectiveness of the applique say that not once did it hold up to enemy fire. You then may say “it only a 20mm difference the Tiger side armour was probably just as useless” but you have to remember you average German gun (a 75mm) can penetrate 132mm of armour at 90° from 500m whereas your m3 75mm on the Sherman can penetrate about 90mm at 90° from 500 yards (457m). So it can still go through the side armour but average engament range was actually 800 yards (731m) and the sherman would have to fire directly from the side so that the 80mm isn't at an angle. Are you implying face hardened armour wasnt safe? “designed to be proofed up to a certain point” yeah that how literally every tank development goes. Reading further ahead…wow you are badly misinformed. No the high velocity German guns didn't struggle to engage infantry. They simply lowered the amount of powder inside the HE shell and a lower velocity was achieved, something the US could never figure out and resulted in the failure of the 76mm. I won't speak on the development of the 75mm m3 More weird incorrect information about the Tigers armour and what could penetrate it. A 75mm m3 was not going through 101mm at 1000 yards. No a single shot from a 75mm did not kill the entire Tiger crew, the armour was face hardened not the entire plate so it wouldn't behave much differently to other tanks when penetrated. Panthers were still relatively common along with the pz iv after Normandy
German 75s are diffrent, their barrel lenghts are longer and they use diffrent shell types and diffrent designs for the said shells that lean more to the AT role not Infanty Support
I love men of war, and it’s launch day is on my birthday. Don’t forget it has a gem editor where you can create and design your own battlefield and build your own armies! 😀
Love to see comments not hating on the M4 and is getting it's reputation back. Thanks to independent RUclips Tank content Creators especially Major Moran the Chieftain.
I always read about the Sherman's inferiority to German armor, but the point that's never brought up is that the Sherman was a medium tank 32 tons as opposed to the panther and tiger which were almost twice the weight. Sherman's problem was its low velocity gun . The Firefly version proved that. Also overlooked is that it was easy to maintain and easy to restore after being knocked out. The M-26 Pershing should have been brought out a lot sooner
Let's start with the first part, a Sherman had almost as much frontal armour as a tiger 1 so it would be fine against most things outside the 88mm. Second the 75mm killed anything and everything outside of tiger 2 so the 75mm was just fine. The firefly proved that yes the 17 pounder was the better gun no argument but it had terrible accuracy especially in the Sherman and was the worst of the sherman variants. The Pershing couldn't have came any faster and the united states knew about the failures of panther at kursk so they didn't want to do that and add a different ammo type and more training. When Korea starts the Pershing is the main tank but is quickly withdrew with issues and were replaced by shermans and some m48s but the sherman saw more tank engagements in Korea than the other two. The Sherman was a better tank than the Pershing.
My grandfather was a Sherman tank Commander in WW2 and was one of the few tanks that ended up making it to the beach at Normandy during D-Day. He fought in France and Belgium before his tank got destroyed. He ended up with multiple purple hearts and bronze stars. Outside of what our grandmother told us. He didn't really say much about what happened over there.
What historians don't mention is the stench of burning or rotting corpses. The Nazis used horses for freight hauling throughout the war and those slaughtered animals lay on the roadsides for days or weeks before removal. Those odors mixed with the smell of burning buildings and vehicles made for some sickening smells.
The M3 75mm gun was weak against heavy armor but its high explosive round was excellent in troop support, which is the main role of a medium tank. A few M10s and or Fireflies mixed in could do the job of antitank suppression.
@@MasterMind75427 It can be found from numerous sources, though numbers I've found put it closer to 70% than 80% for the Sherman. The numbers I'm finding for soviet tanks paint a more confusing picture though with 30%-50% fatalities being the more average number?
as far as i'm aware, it did what it was designed to do admirably, if not exceptionally, well. seems people expect it to go one-on-one with a tiger, and when it can't they label it a failure. in other words, i don't think most people have very realistic expectations.
@briandstephmoore4910 Yes, the other countries would have a harder time without the resource and such from the Americans, but making it sound like it was the "biggest main reason" for winning the war is a bit egotistical on your side bud. Cause America wasn't the only one doing a lot during that time period.
@@grandpadreadnought8870I mean the US economy supplied the UK and Europe, Australia and the Western Pacific, Russia, and then had enough resources for their own major air bombing and campaigns followed by their own major invasion of Europe while at the same time defeating, assaulting, and invading Japanese held islands and destroying their fleets, with the war being thousands of miles from both shores of the US. US economy is the only winner of WW2, and without it the Allies don't win. Axis doesn't win either though, they had atrocious logistics.
American doctrine at the time called for tank destroyers to combat German tanks. An argument can be made that the Sherman was the best tank of the war. It was easy to maintain, had good gas mileage, and was an amazing breakthrough tank. Once a column of Shermans was past the front line it they wouldn't encounter anything more armored than a truck anyways.
I wouldn’t say the 75 was woefully inadequate. 75 Sherman’s only really had to get to the sides on these bug cats to destroy them. With its hvap rounds both tigers and panthers were vulnerable from the front. Shermans did rack up impressive positive kds against both panthers and tigers
Of all the variants the M4A3E8 76 was my favorite. There were more serving in Korea than M26 Pershings because they were more reliable and easy to maintain and the crew loved them
1:30 No the main gun was the top mounted 37mm, the 75mm was mainly a howitzer designed to mainly shoot HE rounds to support the infantry, not as an anti tank gun, although it could be used to do such tasks. 9:15 and the firefly, cause the gun had to be mounted sideways making using the gyrostabiliser impossible 11:02 this is a common myth
My father was a tank platoon commander during the Battle of Okinawa, in the 713th TBT. According to the unit’s “actual “after action” report, written in 1945, their Sherman’s had their 75mm guns replaced with “modified RONSON flame throwers.” These tanks were capable of firing streams of napalm up to 100 yards. They were exceptionally effective when used against enemy soldiers in caves and pillboxes. These Sherman’s were on occasion referred to as Ronsons and Zippos because of their firepower, not because they burned when hit.
The T6 was the heavy tank prototype version and not a Sherman. It was later put into production as the M6. However, shipping concerns led the U.S. to concentrate on the M4 Sherman until late in the war. In January 1945, approximately 100 T/M26 Pershings were sent to Europe for combat testing.
Reliability and ease of repair are always the most important aspects. The abilities of your tank are irrelevant if you are constantly broken down and waiting for specialized repairs
The most amazing facts about the Sherman are the production time and cost of it.The later variants like the easy 8 are from my perspective the most efficient tanks of the war. if you play mowas 2 and come across some heavy german armor then dont forget the sherman zippo works like a charm against the big kitty´s :)
Мой дед воевал на Шермане который был поставлен по Ленд Лизу в СССР, отзывался всегда об этом танке положительно, основные минусы его он обозначал так-Слишком высокий силуэт и очень требователен к качеству топлива.
I always considered tank crews one of the bravest soldiers in war (after submarine crews) despite the fact that they are protected by heavy armor. The SU lost most of their tanks but they just kept going and going. It must be a terrifying thought that everyone at the enemy lines is going to hunt YOU the second they see your tank. Other tanks, infantry with anti-tank weapons, 88s, hostile citizens, Hitler's grandma, everyone. You are not just a soldier anymore, you are the primary target. It's even worse now that guided anti-tank weapons exist and the enemy can blast you from like 3 miles away. Tank service sucks, Russians are learning it the hard way nowadays.
new Zealand Army landed in Italy- 1943 with 360 Sherman tanks, when war ended in may 1945, they had only 50 left. Dad told me somewhere in Italy someone took out a New Zealand Sherman tank column. - at first they assummed it was a whole lot off germens that did it, but later on they took prisoner a German with a Panzer- fuast - bazzooker.- and he bragged too them all that it was Him who destroyed all those kiwi Shermans with his bazooker panzer- faust. Dad said he looked like a perfect Aryan race German with white hair and square jaw.''
@Simple History, You left out a detail worthy of being included: The aircraft engine that powered the Sherman had a limited life before rebuild. In the 1940s lubricants, engine rings, bearings, valves, value seats and seals were primitive compared to today. The engine was scheduled to be completely rebuilt after ***175 hours*** of engine operation. Rebuilding the engine required a clean, complete machine shop and trained machinists. Most often those weren't found anywhere near a combat zone, the entire engine was pulled out and replaced with a brand new engine shipped from the states. Engines didn't last very long, it was easier to replace than rebuild. You can find references for the engine hours replacement in the original 1940s technical manuals.
In the Sherman Firefly , the crew was actually reduced to 4 , because the area where the co-driver sat , was used for extra ( 17 pounder QF main gun) ammunition storage , and the place where the .3 cal machine gun had been was " capped "over with a patch
@@christiandauz3742 The Polish army would have faced off against the Panzer 3 at the beginning of the war, so even a tank , or even an anti-tank crew armed with a 40 or 50 mm main gun would have been enough to " stop" most German tanks
We had to cram them onto boats and wanted to cross bridges. The constraints were made up for by mass production without interruption by aerial bombardment.
The Sherman was one of the most survivable tanks of the war. 85% of crewmen stayed alive and effective when their Sherman got knocked out. Compare that with the T-34, in which about 87% died when their tanks got knocked out.
While I love my countries Cromwell tank, I can't deny that the Sherman was probably the best tank of the war, with the T-34 as a close second. When you see the features that made it easy to maintain, repair and keep in the field, such as the modular suspension that could be easily replaced, the mind boggles at what German engineers were thinking with those overly complex big cats, especially when their cities and factories were being blown to bits by "Bomber" Harris.
I would argue that the m3 lee’s main gun is actually the 37mm in the turret, the low velocity would normally be used for static enemy positions. The 37mm in the turret would be the anti-tank gun on this tank.
One thing that no one can deny is that the M4 and T-34 were the most useful tanks of the war for the simple fact of being easily manufactured and repairable German tanks were much better built, but why would you want a perfect tank if it will be destroyed anyway?
The concept of ‘perfection’ itself is paradoxical. It means the thing is so good that you simply cannot improve it any further, and it’s so great it simply doesn’t need any improvement or upgrades, but German tanks are anything but perfect.
German tanks suffered from the fact that they all seemed to have some sort of reliability issue, and even when working great they didn’t have enough numbers. America hit the right spot with quality and quantity, while Russia had too low quality.
A WWII Sherman commander told me that while the commander could be vulnerable to small arms fire, the commander was often the only survivor when the tank was hit. If he had out he would be forcefull ejected when the tank was hit. He also said that the worst hit could be to the transmission because it produced a lot of shrapnel inside the tank.
People that believe the US didn't care the solider life and mass produce Sherman instead of some super tank, let me tell you, you are stupid. It is really simple, because the main fighting force is always the infantary, so you would rather have small amount of super tank, which can't be avaliable to the infantry everytime? Or a a decent tanks (which btw as mentioned can already kill most of the tank from Axis) that avaliable and in dozen every time?
The Sherman was equipped with a bottom hatch because if it flipped it was prone to rest on the nose/top of the turret which would completely trap the crew without it and it would second as a water drain for when they would need to have all the left over ground beef sprayed out.
I feel like I should point out that the 75mm M3 Gun was actually a really well liked gun and was generally preferred by allied crews over the 76. Not only that, but at the time of its creation, it was a pretty good AT gun, too. The Sherman was a great Tank. there's really no two ways about it.
“The tank was originally invented to clear the way for the infantry in the teeth of machine gun fire. Now it is the infantry who will have to clear a way for the tanks.” Winston Churchill
The Russians had to learn that lesson to hard way in Ukraine.😂
@@randomclipsmilitary9056I wish I could be dumb and simple minded like you. Life would be so much easier 😢
@@randomclipsmilitary9056I need some of the copeiem you're on...
Because Russia is doing so well in Ukraine now😂😂 how many days was this supposed to last...
2nd best army in the.. I mean 2nd best army in Ukraine 😂
@user-ot5uc4ep5v Its called modern warfare. You cant just send infantry with tanks in open area’s. Most of Ukraine is flat and Ukraine is only still holding since they are supported by more then 20 nations constantly sending money and equipment to Ukraine. As i said keep coping.
@@randomclipsmilitary9056 you "sound" a bit butthurt.... in Portugal we say to people that are butthurt: CHORA MAIS!!
The M3 was not made in the hopes to be sufficient. It was made as a stop-gap. Made to be good enough until they could get the M4 out and going.
Was going to say...
Giving it a hull mounted gun was pretty dumb
@@applepie1911eIt's the best they have in 1941. They needed a 75mm equipped tank in the North African campaign immediately.
@@applepie1911e They didn't have the machinery to produce turret rings large enough to support the 75mm in quantity, so they made a tank with it in the hull to get it in the fight as fast as possible while designing the Sherman on the side with the plan of producing it as soon as they could produce it in numbers. It's also why the Lee had a riveted hull; America knew riveted hulls were dangerous but lacked enough experienced welders to create welded hulls for all of its tanks, so they waited until they built up enough manpower to switch to welded hulls.
yeah, the M3 was designed as a temporary solution until the M4 was ready to be deployed.
They had a Sherman tank at a park in Nebraska back in the day. Someone forgot to weld shut the bottom hatch and someone had pried it open. As kids when we visited we found the hole and would go inside the tank to play it in it. It was a pretty cool experience.
I'll bet
That's awesome lol
God! I bet.
I watched this in memory of my grandfather. He was a Sherman Tank driver in WW2. Battle of the Bulge veteran, 5 Bronze stars, and European/African/Middle Eastern service medals. He seldom told stories, but I do recall him talking about how lucky he was during Battle of the Bulge, to have refuge from the cold while in the tank. My parents have his Bronze Stars and his Sherman Tank field maintenance booklet displayed at their home. He passed away 5 years ago. Strong, gentle man. May he rest peacefully.
Tanks for sharing
@@JTA1961 Amazing.
@@JTA1961I saw what you did there. Nevertheless salute to your grandfather for his service 🫡
Puts a human touch to the video. Thanks.
keep his history and awards in your family forever. be proud of this man and teach younger generations in your family about him. god bless
Allies: “Yo America, can we have some tanks?”
America: “Sherman”
I’m stealing this
😂😂
👍
kek
Yet on the battlefield, comparing Sherman to Tiger, I would have felt much safer in a Tiger.
Also worth noting are the Sherman’s extensive use of rubber track pads. These help prevent the Sherman from tearing up paved roads which would have made roads impassable after a few tanks equipped with all steel tracks went over them.
Gotta love me some rubber
@@dj11o9eralso CONDOMS!
But with the rubber tracks some Sherman's would roll over. To fix this issue steel tracks were fitted.
there's even a website dedicated to identifying as many Sherman track pad patterns as it could
Nice bit of info
Reliable, survivable, plentiful, transportable, and mobile. It ended up a great fit for the US Army doctrine of the time.
Yeah it was one of the few tanks that when you called upon a company of tanks, that had good odds of showing up with an entire company of working tanks ready to attack.
A logistically lower strain tank for a military that could handle plenty of strain. Germany got that backwards
and super easy to repair with lots of available parts (something that could not be said of the German counterparts). A knocked out Sherman was often back in action in a day or two.
You are correct sir!!
One of the best things about the Sherman is that it was extremely versatile. Need a more powerful gun? Sure (76mm). Need a howitzer? Done, (105mm). Flamethrower? Easy. Want wider tracks? No problem. This thing was designed so well it could be upgraded in almost every way.
Which is the hallmark of being a MBT long before the slogan was even adopted.
It's no wonder the tank lived long enough & eventually retired in the '70s
Wanna make it float? Done! Is that a minefield? Get the chainsweep drum
inadequate armor? J U M B O. inadequate armor AND gun? may I introduce the 76mm J U M B O. need more pen still? M4 90mm has entered the chat*
*slaps ERA on sherman*
Sherman was good enough for most of the war, and the real best part was how often crews would survive.
@@jakefirth2557 Yeah, T34s had a lot of issues, one of many being so cramped all the crew had difficulty getting out in case of a fire.
@jakefirth2557 Belton Cooper is one of them
@@brennanleadbetter9708 belton cooper wasnt even a crewman, he was a mechanic lol
It was a great tank but Soviet sources all indicate they didn’t like it.
This is likely politically motivated but still, not sure I ever read the Soviets saying something positive about it
@@bingobongo1615tbf its the soviets. They made the blasted T-34
So much freedom in one simple tank
Literally. Such freedom allowed so many variants being created from the original design.
It will never defeat ONE SEMPLE TANK
@@averagejoe112I agree, the Semple tank is the best tank in history!!😂
@@averagejoe112Bob Semple MBT when
M4 Sherman was one good tank, even Soviet tankers that operated it liked it better than the t34
I remember reading this secondhand account from quora where a guy posted a Russian BT-7, later lend lease M4 tanker, where apparently the soviets censored part of the letters tankers sent to their families if they praised US export tanks as having “padded seats, non cloudy sights and ports”,
Because USSR made tanks only for number of them , but not for comfort for crew.
Yep and that shows how dumb they are. How great you fighting while you can barely breathe and move while being almost cooked alive.
I don't remember where, but I read something along the lines that the Soviet M4 Tankers had to guard their tanks because others might try to steal the leather and padding of the seats
Meanwhile some T34s didn't even have seats or a proper turret basket
@@GoBoryaschya_moBa_ye_cBoboda that only applies to the ww2 period.
After the war things change for the better.
The Sherman was literally the Swiss Army knife of tanks, just look at all the jobs it could do.
No not really.
The sherman chassis was used in many other tanks.
As was the Panzer 3 and 4 chassis.
Panzer 4, Panzer 3, StuG 3, Jgpdz. 4, Jgdpz. 4/70, Ostwind, Wirbelwind, there were ammo supply tanks which were converted Pz. 4 chassis, Hummel, Bison, Möbelwagen (all artillery or AA, all Pz. 4 chassis), Sturmpanzer, Panzer 4 C as infantry support, Panzer 4 J/H as anti everything and many more.
The german counterpart to the sherman was the Panzer 4 and it fulfilled just as many jobs, it was a Tank, Tank destroyer, Artillery, AA, Supply vehicle, howitzer, storm cannon and i think it's a safe bet to put early recovery vehicles in as well.
@ikat_tracer True, that’s because the Pz. IV was Germany’s workhorse.
@@brennanleadbetter9708thats the pz 3
@@thesupreme8062the workhorse of the German army was literally just horses lmao.
@thesupreme8062 technically both are
My paternal grandpa built Sherman tanks during WW2. I had a great uncle in the US Amy who was killed fighting Nazis at the Battle of the Bulge when he was only 18 years old. RIP to both of them. 🪦
L great uncle, W Nazis glad he died
We should have let the Soviets and Germany grind each other down even more before even joining the war. Or at least before D-Day.
Brothers killing brothers for the lies of satans followers. what a tragedy
@@Nemesistyxthey lost, also the Nazis were pretty awful guy's.
Germans, not nazis. Remember that.
The Sherman Fireflies and Easy 8s were the definition of "float like a butterfly, sting like a bee."
More like slink like a slug. slowest tanks in the European theater outside of Italy. Turret traverse was pretty abysmal too but at least they could sting at all.
@@CharlesPossAt least they could be repaired on the field if they broke down.
@@Ohmygodstfu2045 for sure. They're the best tank in the war for the road march. Comfortable, good suspension, easy to repair with tons of spare parts in the trucks at the back of the advance. Wouldn't exactly want to be in one during a tank duel but for 99% of your war, nice tank to work.
@@CharlesPossFirefly had manual traverse, Easy 8 had electrical turret hydraulics and stabilizers, they were also faster than most other vehicles present. They were pretty average regarding speed, faster than Churchills, Panthers, and Tigers.
@@CharlesPossthey were faster than the main british tanks about as fast as a pz3 faster than a tiger, faster than anything the japanese out out and faster than the itialians so idk what you’re saying
One of my favorite tactics when facing something with more firepower and armor is to fire smoke rounds at the enemy target and get closer/flank the target to get a more favorable shot. I think they actually did this in WW2.
Yes.
But you can still "disable" Tigers without even piercing their armour incase you choose to not use smoke, not sure about panthers etc.
In war thunder I like to shoot their gun barrel and .50 cal their tracks so I can go around the side
@YoBoyNeptune That was an official Ally strategy for tiger engagement wasn't it? The sherman guns couldn't penetrate their armour so their goal was to disable their tracks and turret
@@toastedt140 from my understanding yes it was but do your own research rather than take it for word from me.
@@toastedt140 there were plenty of ways to kill a tiger even before the M4 had the 76mm gun
Makes me think of Fury and how the crew operated the Sherman’s, Such an iconic tank
Experience warfare like never before! Click the link and wishlist Men of War II on Steam, or sign up for the final open beta that begins on August 10th and concludes on August 14th: bit.ly/Men-of-War-II_Simple-History
Can you talk about the Sherman jumbo/ M4A3E2
Talk about the Sri Lankan Civil War which include the JVP troubles, Indian Invasion, Coup in Maldives in 1988
Talk about the indigenous weopons and tactics the Tamil Tigers used during the Sri Lankan Civil War
Make the panzer 2 version pls
thank you very much
Good overview and glad you addressed its undeserved poor reputation. I would add 3 aspects of the Sherman than made it successful: logistics, logistics, and logistics. They were made in the USA, but had to be transported to Europe and be able to traverse most European bridges. The reliability and simple design also simplified the parts supply train, meaning less had to be shipped over.
Amateurs talk strategy, pros talk logistics
I think Chieftain looked up statistics-Sherman crews had a 97% survival rate. It was still high even after a direct hit thanks to the easy egress and hatches. He also stated the big thing people forget is that it had to be shipped across an ocean before even getting into combat and it's relative ease of shipping, simple design, ease of maintenance and reliability were the real war winning capabilities.
The key was the Shermans had spring assist hatches which allowed the crew to pop them open quickly. The Panzer hatches were much heavier and harder to open.
Chieftain was great! Even still out of that 3 percent 70 percent allegedly was because of head injuries inside the tank
@@joshuabridle3182My Great-Uncle was hit in the head by a Sniper. Although I am not 100% sure if he was in the Tank at the time, or if he was outside it. It's documented the area he was killed at the time had a lot of Sniper activity, but crews still needed to get out of their Tanks to perform other tasks or duties and as such were hit. This was earlier in the morning. By the afternoon and evening, it was all battle. So who knows.
My father was a tank commander in a M4 Sherman in Italy, his tank was powered by the famous and most powerful Sherman Engine the mighty Ford GAA V8 which developed 550hp from its 18 Liter Alloy engine.
My dad only drove a Ford Car/ Wagon for the rest of his life back here in New Zealand!
The Sherman is my favorite piece of armor in history. She's not just a tank, she's a heavily armored utility vehicle with a gun. She wasn't just built for warfare, she was built for transport, rescue operations, vehicle recovery, reconnaissance, and if she was damaged enough, a few half-effort "repairs" make her a fantastic decoy.
A very powerful and efficient tool at a very good price $45,000 - $64,000 (equivalent to $608,000 - $880,000 in 2017) per unit.
Compared to the modern day M1 Abrams at over $10 Million ($588,000 in 1945)
It's one of if not the best tank of WW2 and it was the best tank by far for what America needed. A reliable and easily fixable tank with decent firepower and survivability. They had to ship all the tanks over seas so needed to be light enough for the cranes to transport it and reliable with parts easily available because they are FAR from home.
That's the problem the US is having with the Abrams. Its a huge effort to ship them around the world, especially with conflict brewing in the Pacific. Thus they developed the lighter Booker to work in that capacity.
The M3 did have a rotating turret (1:21). It housed a 37mm canon as that was enough for most enemy tanks at the time (ie., Panzer 2s and 3s). The 75mm in the tank body was for anti-structure and personnel. The tank was fine for its day and, as @Ceege48 pointed out, was an interim solution until the Sherman arrived.
One interesting bit of information was that the crews would use only baby grand pianos and not the full sized ones (7:57). The baby grand were easier to adjust after getting hit so it was the preferred choice. In a pinch, they could even use a bass guitar when available. Violens needed to be numerous so they were not a good option...☺
I met a German WW2 on a visit to Essen. He'd been a tank crewman and we got to talking about Shermans. He told me that the German nickname for them when the British first took them into action in North Africa was Tommy cookers. The tank would usually catch fire when hit due to being petrol engines rather than diesel and the crew often couldn't escape before being burnt to death. He only had respect for the Firefly version and only then because of the gun.
Over the years the Sherman had been slandered as a deathtrap, much of this damage done by the book that shall not be named! Justice for my boi.
"The t34 had better armour cause muh slope" that was thinner and more brittle and made it incredibly cramped even the smaller NK had low chances of living upon being hit.
Sherman generally survived fine and was rarely going against heavy armour so the 75mm he was plenty. And saved tons of infantry
@@thecoolnerdplaysvr5674
We can't really compare in general, SU had quite a bit of issue being invaded, so their tanks are all over the place in quality terms.
But if I wanted a good tank, I will choose Sherman over T-34, I rather die comfortably.
@@thecoolnerdplaysvr5674 4 of the 5 crew had spring loaded hatches for the crew to escape if the tank was on fire. as oppose to those on the tiger that required the strength of thor.
Ammunition was kept in wet storage, making it less likely to explode when hit, It was far more comfortable and spacious than the t34 whose crew would be constantly getting bashed around, so much so that they were exhausted by the time they got to battle.
@@thecoolnerdplaysvr5674 wasn't there a possibility that even if the shell bounced the inside armor would shatter and still send shrapnel?
@curtissp-40warhawk25 om the t34 yes. Due to the way they treated it. Basically they made it super hard. But it would turn brittle. Think punching glass. It could bounce it fairly easily sure. But enough force would shatter. Not pen. But cause it to shatter the armour causing everyone inside to get killed.
Normal tank armour is softer. It bends a bit. Which helps absorb a penetrating shot.
From my point of view the Sherman was an excellent vehicle. The presentation did not mention the distances it covered from Normandy to Germany. It was easy to upgrade and one of the other innovations was the implementation of a water jacket for the tanks to minimise detonation from enemy strike. They had a while to study tank design and the Brits to test their builds but the tank was very good. Don't forget that the Panthers and Tigers were defensive weapons which gave them the advantage in combat.
The 75mm M3 gun wasn't low-velocity. It was a general-purpose, medium-velocity gun
Also sure while it may have lacked punch when dealing with Panthers and Tigers, the gun performed better versus most lighter vehicles and was considerably better versus infantry and anti tank guns.
Anything not fast enough to pierce a Panther is slow in my book /jk
I wonder why so many people, like this channel, continue to lie about the Sherman (like about how it had a low velocity gun)? What are these channels using for sources???
@@jerithilThe most produced German tank of WWII was the Panzer IV. The Sherman's 75 was extremely good at knocking out Panzer IVs. So why would you say it was considerably better against infantry and anti-tank guns?????
@@chaosXP3RT I was saying it was much better versus infantry compared to the 76mm or 17 pounder as it had more ammo capacity, a better HE shell and was handier/easier to reload then the other two.This is especially important as for the US in the European Theater only around 15% of the targets were enemy tanks.
It was the addition of wet storage for the ammo that stopped them cooking off. Not additional armour and ammo was stored in the turret throughout its entire service.
0:16 it really takes a whole village to operate one tank
The majority of M4 losses were from 88mm field guns and not enemy tanks. The 88mm was cheap, easy to use, and could be used against both aircraft and tanks. Probably one of the best overall weapons of the war.
"hoped to be sufficient for future conflict" - not really. The American military knew that the M3 was a stopgap measure, something that let them field a 75mm gun in the present rater than having to wait for the M4 Sherman to be ready for war.
Lastly, the 75mm wasn't just 'sufficient' for the anti-tank role vs the 76mm, but it was actually superior; when using HE shells, the 75mm proved far more effective because the lower velocity of the gun meant that you could build shells with thinner casings and more explosives inside.
Even so, 75mm Shermans could penetrate the most common German armor systems - the StuG III and the Panzer IVs - from the front. It really is overstated because of video games and movies how often Tigers and Panthers showed up to fight Shermans and other Allied tanks on the Western Front, since most of the time they were shot up by the air forces or were encountered by infantry and destroyed by bazookas or other anti-tank weapons.
But Tiger Terror was a very real thing, to the point that - there were only a handful confirmed encounters between Tigers and Shermans; most often it was due to tank crews misidentifying any Panzer as a 'Tiger' due to fog-of-war.
The 75mm wasn't superior to the 76mm for anti-tank role. Thinner casings with more explosives isn't what you need when fighting tanks - it's what you want vs infantry and bunkers.
The Sherman was a very solid platform for just about anything the army needed. The simple design allowed it to be modified heavily and made repairs easy. While a Tiger might’ve been a bigger threat, fixing a damaged Tiger I was very difficult, often requiring heavy equipment and dismantling a large amount of the tank to get to damaged parts. The Sherman was an excellent example of how US logistics in WWII were streamlined so significantly that parts, ammunition and anything else you could need were able to be brought where you needed it, when you needed it. This wasn’t the case for other forces like Germany, whose blitzkreig tactics often left their supply lines thin and vulnerable.
The Sherman was an excellent vehicle for its intended role.
The true American tank. Not the best, but still very reliable. Myths still exist denouncing it, but not during its hayday, so the legacy still shines over them.
God Bless America! And the brave souls who crewed these venerable engines of war!
I’d say it was one of the best tanks, can’t think of anything that is a better overall vehicle.
@@nickellison2785 The "Easy 8" Sherman. Or maybe 2 Shermans.
@jakefirth2557 All I know is that the M4A3E8 is a late war upgrade to the 76mm Sherman and not a tank in it of itself. Like comparing an early Tiger 1 ausf E to a later one as Germany tended to make every few tanks slightly different with a different modification to some part of the tank, radio, transmission, whatever. So the "Easy 8" is just a Sherman 76mm but with an upgraded suspension and not a standalone tank.
@@dogwoodhillbilly And probably the second highest casualty rate behind the T-34 as well.
@deepsouthgaming I was just making a joke at how many Shermans were lost, at least exaggerated, during the war. "Destroy a hundred Shermans, there's a hundred twenty more."
But don't forget, T-34s can be dragged back and repaired behind the lines so many T-34s were recovered, repaired, and sent back into combat. That's why German kill counts aren't entirely accurate, many Tanks they "killed" were just knocked out and were recovered for repairs. Tanks aren't just repaired in the field, they can ve recovered and brought back to base for repairs where the spare parts are.
Don’t forget that the Sherman tank was designed to be fielded an entire ocean away from the factories that produced them. These machines needed to be beat on used and abused on a battlefield far away from a refit facility, repaired quickly and in the field. This combined with such a high crew survival rate is all the more reason why the Sherman deserves to be considered a huge success.
Soviet tank crew: No way, There's a comfortable tank like a hotel?
Landless: SHER,MAN
7:48 By far one of the best animations ever on this channel. The bed and the piano already got me, but when Patton came to scold the soldiers, I lost it. :D
They forgot the kitchen sink.
The Sherman and the T-34 may have been on paper technically inferior to the German tanks but they were standardised, simple, mass produced on conveyor belt production lines and vastly more reliable
Except the T-34 was made terribly, and hence was awful. The Sherman, however, was certainly one of, if not the best tank of the war.
Tigers
@@azimisyauqieabdulwahab9401only 1,347 Tiger I and 492 Tiger II tanks were produced. And those tanks were infamous for the breakdowns the tiger had an infamous terrible transmission.
@kosrules1884 “Hanz ze transmission broke again for the fifth time today”
@@kosrules1884 love when bring up the tigers as if they are better because they can beat a sherman. While a tiger can win you a battle, the Sherman can you win the war.
7:49 The goofiest scene done so far in this channel’s run 😂😂
There was even eye witnesses by American soldiers serving in the Invasion of Iraq 2003 seeing abandoned M4 shermans still in working order. Some were taken as trophies and sent back to the states and restored
Thank you for the video. I like that the M-3 was originally named Lee but changed to Grant when given to the Brits in Lend/Lease. My Dad (741st Tk Bat) was in a Sherman from Omaha Easy Red, thru Paris and the Bulge, to Prague and he said the ammunition around him in the turret was a subject of great concern. He also lost a couple of TCs who had led with their heads above the turret rather than under the closed hatch.
Many years aga, as an Army 2nd Lieutenant in an armored battalion, I had extra duty as the partnership officer and spent time with a Bundeswehr Panzer battalion. While there, I spoke with two company commanders . One who was a former Wehrmacht Panzer officer and another who was former Waffen SS. Panzer officer. They had both trained on Mark V Panther tanks, a later on Mr Shermans. They both said the same thing. They would rather have the Sherman in an attack and the Panther in the defense.
The Allies wished they had SuperShermans at the start of WW2
@@christiandauz3742 Heck, the Allies wished they had M1 Abrams tanks, F35 fighter jets, and B-52 bombers -- not to mention a few modern, fully equipped, aircraft carriers. The point being that none of that stuff was available at the start of WW2 anymore than was an M4 Sherman, let alone a SuperSherman.
Excellent job setting the record straight. 2 things: The floor escape hatch was on the right hand side, just behind the assistant driver/bow gunner position. The M4 was very survivable due to its excellent hatch arrangement. Statistically, 4 of the 5 crewmen survived the initial knock out blow.
“Limited armor decreased survivability”
(Looks at the 80% survival rate of Sherman crews)
Not by much it seems.
Because the sherman was a infantry support tank it wasnt designed to fight tanks if it did the numbers wouldn't be higher losses
60.000 shermans so 80% means 12.000 Crews did not survive... The survivability is good if the Sherman survives the first hit... But thats unlikely with such thin armor
@@LeroxYT 60,000 Shermans were hit during the war?
@@flyingsquirrell6953 no but instead of playing around you should rather get my point below that 🤔
Also most of the Shermans were sold to the UK plus losses crossing the ocean
People always look at the hard factors of tanks, but don’t realize it’s the soft factors that make the tank good. The Soviets even loved the tank so much. When elite crews got it, provided detail of how great the tank was for a crew. Not to mention, the Sherman had the best survivability of any tank that’s to its spring powered hatches.
The Sherman was the best tank of the war. It’s the F-series of tanks.
The m4 was a good tank and doesn’t deserve the slander
The M4, M4A1, M4A2 etc. designations aren't evolutions as used today but variants often developed and used simultaneously. The M4 was a welded hull model, the M4A1 a cast hull, M4A2 had a diesel engine, the M4A3 was a gasoline model with a Ford engine instead of the Continental in other models, M4A4 was had a longer hull to accomodate the Chrysler Multibank engine, the M4A6 had a diesel engine and some modification for use by the Marines etc..
When the 76mm main gun was added, it was found the Sherman could defeat the German Mk VI Tiger tanks frontal armor at 850 yards with standard ammunition. With the addition of the HVAP tank round, it was able to defeat the frontal armor of the Mk V Panther at 800 yards. However, I recommend a reading on the battle of Arracourt where the 4th Armored took out a Panzer Corps with standard 75mm armed Shermans. It appears that the story of pure numbers needed to kill German tanks was also horse manure. Using good tanking procedures worked just as well, along with combined arms warfare which the US Army was also very good at doing.
It also helped that most of the Germans defeated in that battle were green and poorly trained. The German tanks may have been superior to the American tanks, but they weren't so much better that the tanks could withstand being poorly used. The Germans failed to coordinate their attack, never coming enmass so as to overwhelm the American defenders. In addition, unit after unit, the Germans allowed the American tanks and tank destroyers to ambush them at point blank range. Better frontal armor doesn't count for much when you keep allowing yourself to be attacked from the side!
So, while the Sherman was a darn good tank -- better in many ways that its opposition and not as good in a few -- the Sherman crews got the best out of their tanks. By that time in the war, the German crews could not get the best out of their tanks. The difference in crew performance was a larger factor in the American victory at Arracourt than the differences in equipment quality.
They Wehrmacht tank crews in this encounter were barrel scrapings.
Very good misinformation. HVAP would not go through the upper glacier of a panther neither could a 17 pounder
In the Canadian and British armies, the Sherman Firefly was used mainly as a command tank. By the time the First Canadian Army (which was a coalition comprised of Canadian, British, Polish, American and Free French units), had entered the Netherlands and cleared the Belgian port of Antwerp the armour war in northwestern Europe was more or less over. The last major tank battle happened in the Hochwald in northwestern Germany from early February to March 1945. Despite heavy losses, Canadian tank units prevailed.
The M4 Sherman was actually a very survivable Tank. The Armor was only 3 inches, but its 30-degree angle gave it protection actually superior to that of Tiger A's 4 inches of armor at 10-degrees (and only in some places), with about 4.5 inches of equivalent protection (Sherman) to 4.1 inches of equivalent protection (Tiger). The German guns were simply so high velocity, that there was literally nothing short of a Battleship that could deflect the fire. The German 8.8cm was designed as an Anti-Aircraft Gun and meant to knock Heavy Bombers flying at 15,000 feet out of the sky. No Tank would be able to stop that kind of fire in 1942-1945 at 1,500 yards.
In addition, the US Army used a novel approach to its Armor. Rather than use Hardened Steel like the Germans, the US Army designed its Armor with Crew Survivability in mind. The Armor was designed to be proofed up to a certain point, which is why German 5cm guns failed to penetrate at any angle and early German 7.5cm guns larger than the 25 caliber Infantry Support Gun found on Panzer IV Ausf D, would actually bounce off Sherman's Frontal Armor initially.
The US Army's approach would stop opposing ammunition at a point, reduce the dangers to the crew after that point, or if overwhelming, like a 8.8cm or 12.8cm round, let the round through in hopes it didn't hit anything important or the crew and if all went well, the exploding ballistic cap would be delayed long enough for the crew to get out before it exploded inside the Tank.
Apparently went as well as could be expected as the US Army's Tank Causalities were actually very low, including being less than 5% of all fatalities. In fact, the US Army lost more Tankers in accidents and operational mishaps than in actual Tank vs Tank combat. One factor was surprising the introduction of a Tanker Helmet, which saved lives by preventing cracked skulls and broken necks, the real killers in Tank Operations in the Second World War shockingly enough. Even then, most US Tanker fatalities were caused by being outside of their Tanks or hitting mines, and the Germans LOVED doubling up their mines to the point the Churchill was known to have air beneath its tracks.
Unfortunately, due to running into too many heavily armored Tanks from the Low Countries and France in 1940 to the Matilda IIs in North Africa along with later Churchill Mark IIIs to Soviet Tanks in the East from 1941 onward, the Germans were already working to keep ahead in terms of firepower and so the Germans increasingly went after much higher velocity guns and ammunition as a general rule, though, that did sacrifice their Anti-Personnel capabilities and German Tanks struggled to engage Infantry in the open due to not having effective Anti-Personnel ammunition as a result of thicker walled ammunition to survive the velocities they were being fired at.
As for the 'Low Velocity' M3 75mm Gun, it actually wasn't Low Velocity. That was issue was actually the propellant and was not related to anything the Armored Forces, Army Ground Force, or the Army Research departments did. It was, like with the US Navy, an action of the US Army's own Bureau of Ordnance. They wanted to save costs on replacing the Gun Barrels and so directed that lower velocity ammunition, not LOW Velocity just LOWER velocity, was to be used.
The US Army Bureau of Ordnance also never bothered to tell anyone that needed to know. So, when it was found out, Eisenhower demanded the proper ammunition be made and sent while General Marshall apparently blew his top and went Admiral King on his Bureau of Ordnance.
That said, the M4 Sherman's 75mm was an ideal Infantry Killer. Very effective and had the second most effective Shrapnel spread of any Gun before the 105mm Howitzer. Even with corrected ammunition propellants finally achieving the maximum out of the 75mm M3, the gun remained excellent at killing Infantry in the open or in cover, especially after the introduction of highly specialized ammunition for clearing trenches and buildings, something that was not seen in Fury or any movie for that matter let alone games.
As for taking on German Tanks, even with the lower velocity ammunition, the 75mm M3 could still surprise a Tiger at ranges out to 500 yards and could even, on occasion, put a round through the Frontal Armor of a Tiger out to 1,000 yards. Usually one round was enough, as the German Harden Steel would come apart and turn into Spalling killing or incapacitating the entire crew with a good hit or taking out at least three men in all.
In addition, despite claims to the contrary, which is more grounded in myth to start with, German Tanks, Tank Destroyers, and Assault Guns had vulnerable flanks. So much weight was concentrated forward, the Germans had to thin armor or move things around internally to maintain balance and even then, the Germans had a higher wear out rate among the forward locomotive components than any other nation. If the AFVs survived that long given that Panther's Side Armor was so thin in places, Soviet 14.5mm Anti-Tank Rifles from before the war would penetrate, let alone the 75mm M3 Gun slamming into the broadside of the Panther. Tiger was little better with only 2 inches of armor on the Tail and Sides. Meaning that Sherman could kill Tiger at any range from 75% of the combat zones. And that was before corrected ammunition arrived.
On that topic, the 76mm was always planned. The 3-inch gun had been successfully installed. According to RnD, but Armored Force said no it wasn't. Yeah, the gun was in. But it wasn't a very good fit and complicated crew operations so severely it was rejected.
The 76mm was available in June 1944 but was intentionally left behind because the typical encounter for a M4 Sherman wasn't a German Tank, but German Infantry in a defensive position somewhere. And if not German Infantry, then a German Tank Destroyer with a Fixed Gun and thin side armor, if any armor like on the Marder III which had only Splinter Shields.
When more Panthers were encountered, it was found that information on what was to be encountered had been off due to a miscalculation by both American and British Intelligence. They thought that Panther was going to be a Limited Production Heavy Tank, not a Mass Production Medium Tank. When that was found, it was pointless to bring in the 76mm Shermans as not long after, the Allies managed the Normandy Breakout and the Panther was notoriously a poor distance performer. Expectations were once again going to be Infantry, Tank Destroyers, and the odd Panzer IV.
Still, the 76mm Shermans were prepared to be inserted into US Tank formations as a backstop guarantee.
Then there is the Gun Stabilizer. Again, blame US Army Bureau of Ordnance. Like the US Navy's Bureau of Ordnance with the Navy's Torpedoes, the US Army Bureau of Ordnance hid the few manuals for the Gun Stabilizer considering it so advanced as to be a Classified Top Secret secret. Not even top commanders in the Field, like Patton and Bradley, let alone others like Ike and Hodges among others, especially Commanders in the Divisions in the field even knew the system existed. Eventually it was discovered and figured out. One Division even wrote their own manuals for it which they shared with other units and by 1945 most experienced Tankers knew of the system and how it worked.
Marshall had another profanity filled word with US Army Bureau of Ordnance and so the official manuals were finally released, after being updated with input from the field and improvements made once understood and it was a surprisingly easy to understand system once the crews knew about it and how to maintain operate it.
The Allies, especially Poland and China, wished they had Sherman Fireflies at the start of WW2
@@christiandauz3742Not sure about China. Even the original M4 models were more than enough for Japanese tanks. The Japanese simply didn't have that many natural resources and didn't need anything heavier than a light tank until the US got involved.
@FLJBeliever1776 The Shermans armour was not 3 inches it was 2 inches (50.8mm) on early varients and 2.5 inches (63.5mm) on later varients. Early varients were sloped at 56° and late varients at 47° both have an effective thickness of 3.5 inches (90mm). The tiger is closer to 4 inches (101mm) So no the frontal armour of the Sherman is not superior to the Tiger but yes it is closer than people think. However, based on US, UK and Canadian studies 50% of allied tanks were knocked out by a shot through the side armour. So we can assume that in combat it is likely you are facing fire in a 180° arc. A Sherman only has 38mm side armour while a tiger has 80mm wich gives the Tiger a definite edge. You may say “but the Sherman had applique armour!” that boosted a very limited part of the hull from 38mm to 63mm, studies on the effectiveness of the applique say that not once did it hold up to enemy fire. You then may say “it only a 20mm difference the Tiger side armour was probably just as useless” but you have to remember you average German gun (a 75mm) can penetrate 132mm of armour at 90° from 500m whereas your m3 75mm on the Sherman can penetrate about 90mm at 90° from 500 yards (457m). So it can still go through the side armour but average engament range was actually 800 yards (731m) and the sherman would have to fire directly from the side so that the 80mm isn't at an angle.
Are you implying face hardened armour wasnt safe? “designed to be proofed up to a certain point” yeah that how literally every tank development goes.
Reading further ahead…wow you are badly misinformed.
No the high velocity German guns didn't struggle to engage infantry. They simply lowered the amount of powder inside the HE shell and a lower velocity was achieved, something the US could never figure out and resulted in the failure of the 76mm.
I won't speak on the development of the 75mm m3
More weird incorrect information about the Tigers armour and what could penetrate it. A 75mm m3 was not going through 101mm at 1000 yards. No a single shot from a 75mm did not kill the entire Tiger crew, the armour was face hardened not the entire plate so it wouldn't behave much differently to other tanks when penetrated.
Panthers were still relatively common along with the pz iv after Normandy
The Germans did have their own 75mm cannons for many of their tanks, including the Panthers.
German 75s are diffrent, their barrel lenghts are longer and they use diffrent shell types and diffrent designs for the said shells that lean more to the AT role not Infanty Support
Yes but they very in velocity a lot
Okay?
@@sapiensiski he meant that the 75 on the german tanks have more faster velocity due to having a longer barrel and better shells
Short barreled 75s for the panzer 4 but long barreled ones for the panther and jagd panzer 4.
I love men of war, and it’s launch day is on my birthday. Don’t forget it has a gem editor where you can create and design your own battlefield and build your own armies! 😀
Love to see comments not hating on the M4 and is getting it's reputation back.
Thanks to independent RUclips Tank content Creators especially Major Moran the Chieftain.
I always read about the Sherman's inferiority to German armor, but the point that's never brought up is that the Sherman was a medium tank 32 tons as opposed to the panther and tiger which were almost twice the weight. Sherman's problem was its low velocity gun . The Firefly version proved that. Also overlooked is that it was easy to maintain and easy to restore after being knocked out. The M-26 Pershing should have been brought out a lot sooner
Let's start with the first part, a Sherman had almost as much frontal armour as a tiger 1 so it would be fine against most things outside the 88mm. Second the 75mm killed anything and everything outside of tiger 2 so the 75mm was just fine. The firefly proved that yes the 17 pounder was the better gun no argument but it had terrible accuracy especially in the Sherman and was the worst of the sherman variants. The Pershing couldn't have came any faster and the united states knew about the failures of panther at kursk so they didn't want to do that and add a different ammo type and more training. When Korea starts the Pershing is the main tank but is quickly withdrew with issues and were replaced by shermans and some m48s but the sherman saw more tank engagements in Korea than the other two. The Sherman was a better tank than the Pershing.
My grandfather was a Sherman tank Commander in WW2 and was one of the few tanks that ended up making it to the beach at Normandy during D-Day. He fought in France and Belgium before his tank got destroyed. He ended up with multiple purple hearts and bronze stars. Outside of what our grandmother told us. He didn't really say much about what happened over there.
What historians don't mention is the stench of burning or rotting corpses. The Nazis used horses for freight hauling throughout the war and those slaughtered animals lay on the roadsides for days or weeks before removal. Those odors mixed with the smell of burning buildings and vehicles made for some sickening smells.
easy enough for a city boy to drive and simple enough for a farm boy to fix
The M3 75mm gun was weak against heavy armor but its high explosive round was excellent in troop support, which is the main role of a medium tank. A few M10s and or Fireflies mixed in could do the job of antitank suppression.
Fun fact: the survivability rate of a penetrated M4 Sherman was 80%, the T-34s was 15%.
More like false fact
@@MasterMind75427 how so?
@@gsyt2356 Do you have source to support your claims? Because 80% survability after penetration seems way off
@@MasterMind75427that's what she said...
@@MasterMind75427 It can be found from numerous sources, though numbers I've found put it closer to 70% than 80% for the Sherman. The numbers I'm finding for soviet tanks paint a more confusing picture though with 30%-50% fatalities being the more average number?
as far as i'm aware, it did what it was designed to do admirably, if not exceptionally, well. seems people expect it to go one-on-one with a tiger, and when it can't they label it a failure. in other words, i don't think most people have very realistic expectations.
“I was saving the planet from an Axis of Darkness, while you were back home opening National Parks! Yes!” Winston Churchill
Yal would of lost without lend lease from America. Real life lol
@briandstephmoore4910 Yes, the other countries would have a harder time without the resource and such from the Americans, but making it sound like it was the "biggest main reason" for winning the war is a bit egotistical on your side bud. Cause America wasn't the only one doing a lot during that time period.
@@grandpadreadnought8870I mean the US economy supplied the UK and Europe, Australia and the Western Pacific, Russia, and then had enough resources for their own major air bombing and campaigns followed by their own major invasion of Europe while at the same time defeating, assaulting, and invading Japanese held islands and destroying their fleets, with the war being thousands of miles from both shores of the US.
US economy is the only winner of WW2, and without it the Allies don't win.
Axis doesn't win either though, they had atrocious logistics.
"Listening to you, took everything I had left. After your raps, I am become Deaf"
-Robby J Oppenheimer
@@averagejoe112 I have become deaf, the destroyer of worlds. - Barbenheimer
The real benefit of the Sherman was it was good enough for most situations and was able to be quickly manufactured in large numbers.
Well the proof in the pudding is simple. Did it get the job done? A resounding yes is all we have to consider
Hands down the best tank made during WW2
American doctrine at the time called for tank destroyers to combat German tanks. An argument can be made that the Sherman was the best tank of the war. It was easy to maintain, had good gas mileage, and was an amazing breakthrough tank. Once a column of Shermans was past the front line it they wouldn't encounter anything more armored than a truck anyways.
I wouldn’t say the 75 was woefully inadequate. 75 Sherman’s only really had to get to the sides on these bug cats to destroy them. With its hvap rounds both tigers and panthers were vulnerable from the front. Shermans did rack up impressive positive kds against both panthers and tigers
haha funny HE got kablooey and give Tiger crew concussion :D
@@NokotanFanCentral when in doubt HE the thing
After the development of 'wet storage'.
The M4 had the highest crew survival rate of any tank in WW2.
The indepth detail on the thumbnail is superb
Of all the variants the M4A3E8 76 was my favorite. There were more serving in Korea than M26 Pershings because they were more reliable and easy to maintain and the crew loved them
But the M3 grant was one of the main tanks used after Britain pushed italy to retreat countering the Panzer III's and IV's.
1:30
No the main gun was the top mounted 37mm, the 75mm was mainly a howitzer designed to mainly shoot HE rounds to support the infantry, not as an anti tank gun, although it could be used to do such tasks.
9:15 and the firefly, cause the gun had to be mounted sideways making using the gyrostabiliser impossible
11:02 this is a common myth
The tanks that liberated Europe!
My father was a tank platoon commander during the Battle of Okinawa, in the 713th TBT. According to the unit’s “actual “after action” report, written in 1945, their Sherman’s had their 75mm guns replaced with “modified RONSON flame throwers.” These tanks were capable of firing streams of napalm up to 100 yards. They were exceptionally effective when used against enemy soldiers in caves and pillboxes. These Sherman’s were on occasion referred to as Ronsons and Zippos because of their firepower, not because they burned when hit.
One Thing that Simple History forget to mention about the Sherman is the Prototype Sherman Medium Tank T6
The T6 was the heavy tank prototype version and not a Sherman. It was later put into production as the M6. However, shipping concerns led the U.S. to concentrate on the M4 Sherman until late in the war. In January 1945, approximately 100 T/M26 Pershings were sent to Europe for combat testing.
Reliability and ease of repair are always the most important aspects. The abilities of your tank are irrelevant if you are constantly broken down and waiting for specialized repairs
The workhorse of the US army armored divisions in ww2
I love the M4 Sherman! My favorite US tank of World War II!
1:23 “M3 Lee didn’t have a rotating torrent” torrent sitting on top of it: am I a joke to you. 😂
The most amazing facts about the Sherman are the production time and cost of it.The later variants like the easy 8 are from my perspective the most efficient tanks of the war. if you play mowas 2 and come across some heavy german armor then dont forget the sherman zippo works like a charm against the big kitty´s :)
the sherman was actually the most crew survivable of the war.
One of the most important aspects of the M4 was how it could be easily transported.
Can you guys the history of guerrilla warfare tactics?
Мой дед воевал на Шермане который был поставлен по Ленд Лизу в СССР, отзывался всегда об этом танке положительно, основные минусы его он обозначал так-Слишком высокий силуэт и очень требователен к качеству топлива.
I always considered tank crews one of the bravest soldiers in war (after submarine crews) despite the fact that they are protected by heavy armor. The SU lost most of their tanks but they just kept going and going. It must be a terrifying thought that everyone at the enemy lines is going to hunt YOU the second they see your tank. Other tanks, infantry with anti-tank weapons, 88s, hostile citizens, Hitler's grandma, everyone. You are not just a soldier anymore, you are the primary target.
It's even worse now that guided anti-tank weapons exist and the enemy can blast you from like 3 miles away. Tank service sucks, Russians are learning it the hard way nowadays.
True that, tanker's and the silent service.
One can hide with no chance of recovery, the other is a sitting duck.
new Zealand Army landed in Italy- 1943 with 360 Sherman tanks, when war ended in may 1945, they had only 50 left. Dad told me somewhere in Italy someone took out a New Zealand Sherman tank column. - at first they assummed it was a whole lot off germens that did it, but later on they took prisoner a German with a Panzer- fuast - bazzooker.- and he bragged too them all that it was Him who destroyed all those kiwi Shermans with his bazooker panzer- faust. Dad said he looked like a perfect Aryan race German with white hair and square jaw.''
@Simple History, You left out a detail worthy of being included: The aircraft engine that powered the Sherman had a limited life before rebuild. In the 1940s lubricants, engine rings, bearings, valves, value seats and seals were primitive compared to today. The engine was scheduled to be completely rebuilt after ***175 hours*** of engine operation. Rebuilding the engine required a clean, complete machine shop and trained machinists. Most often those weren't found anywhere near a combat zone, the entire engine was pulled out and replaced with a brand new engine shipped from the states. Engines didn't last very long, it was easier to replace than rebuild. You can find references for the engine hours replacement in the original 1940s technical manuals.
The British perfected it adding their 17 pounder gun. The Firefly
My favorite is the Jumbo Sherman, that thing is a beast!
This tank is the definition of strength in numbers.
**russians**
And strength of quality and reliability
That's the T-34
In the Sherman Firefly , the crew was actually reduced to 4 , because the area where the co-driver sat , was used for extra ( 17 pounder QF main gun) ammunition storage , and the place where the .3 cal machine gun had been was " capped "over with a patch
Poland and China wished they had Sherman Fireflies at the start of WW2
@@christiandauz3742 The Polish army would have faced off against the Panzer 3 at the beginning of the war, so even a tank , or even an anti-tank crew armed with a 40 or 50 mm main gun would have been enough to " stop" most German tanks
Awesome content man. Wish I could patronize it. By now can only like subscribe etc.
Cheers from Poland man.
We had to cram them onto boats and wanted to cross bridges. The constraints were made up for by mass production without interruption by aerial bombardment.
The Sherman was one of the most survivable tanks of the war. 85% of crewmen stayed alive and effective when their Sherman got knocked out. Compare that with the T-34, in which about 87% died when their tanks got knocked out.
While I love my countries Cromwell tank, I can't deny that the Sherman was probably the best tank of the war, with the T-34 as a close second. When you see the features that made it easy to maintain, repair and keep in the field, such as the modular suspension that could be easily replaced, the mind boggles at what German engineers were thinking with those overly complex big cats, especially when their cities and factories were being blown to bits by "Bomber" Harris.
M4 Sherman would be spectacular for zombie apocalypse
0:21 fistpumping was an incredibly important part of ww1 tank-combat.
"M4 is clearly a death trap. Like a Ronson burner, lights up once and burns everytime." - Belton Cooper
Belton Cooper's source: *TRUST ME :^)*
I would argue that the m3 lee’s main gun is actually the 37mm in the turret, the low velocity would normally be used for static enemy positions. The 37mm in the turret would be the anti-tank gun on this tank.
One thing that no one can deny is that the M4 and T-34 were the most useful tanks of the war for the simple fact of being easily manufactured and repairable
German tanks were much better built, but why would you want a perfect tank if it will be destroyed anyway?
The concept of ‘perfection’ itself is paradoxical. It means the thing is so good that you simply cannot improve it any further, and it’s so great it simply doesn’t need any improvement or upgrades, but German tanks are anything but perfect.
German tanks suffered from the fact that they all seemed to have some sort of reliability issue, and even when working great they didn’t have enough numbers. America hit the right spot with quality and quantity, while Russia had too low quality.
@@NoFlyZone31Not really T-34 had good enough quality and was good enough to the problems it faced
@germangecko7328 It's interesting they still occasionally find german tanks abandoned during the war. Lot of transmission issues iirc
@@romeu4119T-34 absolutely did not have good quality, it was awful in battle.
A WWII Sherman commander told me that while the commander could be vulnerable to small arms fire, the commander was often the only survivor when the tank was hit. If he had out he would be forcefull ejected when the tank was hit. He also said that the worst hit could be to the transmission because it produced a lot of shrapnel inside the tank.
People that believe the US didn't care the solider life and mass produce Sherman instead of some super tank, let me tell you, you are stupid. It is really simple, because the main fighting force is always the infantary, so you would rather have small amount of super tank, which can't be avaliable to the infantry everytime? Or a a decent tanks (which btw as mentioned can already kill most of the tank from Axis) that avaliable and in dozen every time?
The Sherman was equipped with a bottom hatch because if it flipped it was prone to rest on the nose/top of the turret which would completely trap the crew without it and it would second as a water drain for when they would need to have all the left over ground beef sprayed out.
“Don’t worry, the US will give you a pass. Just change your poster to ‘Keep calm and kiss my cousin’s a**!’” Theodore Roosevelt
I feel like I should point out that the 75mm M3 Gun was actually a really well liked gun and was generally preferred by allied crews over the 76. Not only that, but at the time of its creation, it was a pretty good AT gun, too. The Sherman was a great Tank. there's really no two ways about it.