I finally saved up enough to afford one of these computers, after years of playing on hand me down or cheap laptops I can finally play games at a framerate above 35 fps.
For an in depth overview of why the Sherman was the way it was, look to the Chieftains Hatch and his posted talks on the subject. Nicholas Moran and Steve Zaloga have done a wonderful job in clearing up many of the misconception and out right falsehoods regarding the Sherman tank.
@@TheKingDrew you can’t buy separate good graphics cards rn cuz all the miners took them, pre built PC can have 3080’s and 3090’s cuz they have extra and get the new ones
@Automeme Let's not forget that 4 foot tall Japanese lolis are able to reload a KV-2 in less than 3 seconds, or how one BT-42 crewed by Japanese schoolgirls we're able to easily defeat three M26 Pershings crewed by far more experienced tankers. That's some horrifying capabilities if you ask me Edit: typo
let's not forget that Sherman was just soo modifiable that you got tanks like Easy 8, M51 Supersherman and even freaking tractors and mining vehicles built on the chassis which yes there are tractors and mining vehicles built on Shermans still running to this very day
Thos concept can be applied to quite a few medium and even some heavy tanks too. The British Valentine or Churchill and Russian T-34 or German Pz.IV and III. All had several combat variants as well as quite a few non-combat vehicles. The M4 did have a lot of variations since it was such a numerous vehicle.
You could also say the Sherman was a "Jack of all trades, master of none" kind of tank, it performed in all areas it was put into adequately enough for army work.
Sherman was primarily designed to be infantry support, but it was capable of being rapid enough and its gun was decent enough that it could do other things if needed.
Another thing to consider about the M4's reputation for combustion: survivorship bias. The M4 had some of the highest rates of crew survivability. If an M4 was hit, it was really easy for the crew to get out. Compare that to Soviet and German tanks which did not make crew survivability a priority. The reason we hear about M4s bursting into flames is that more M4 crews managed to survive and make it home to relay the fact that their tank burst into flames. Whereas the crew of German and Soviet tanks which burst into flames just burned to death with their tanks. Commanders would thus write them off as MIA or KIA when they didn't report in or their destroyed tanks and burnt corpses were found, with no one to relay what exactly happened to the tank.
Funny. German diary of a tanker said that the Sherman ignited so fast that the crew couldn't go out in time. I take that as a more reliable source than the words of americans today... It was a bad tank for Europe.
@@Shadowhunterbgso where gonna use a single case of anecdotal evidence Over mutiple examples of reports and statistics from the men who used these tanks That seems a bit irrational
Per the Chieftain, the Sherman was fine slightly above average tank. The European theater had upguns available it chose not to land on Normandy with new unfamiliar equipment and logistics.
@@jsn1252 I could try to say that there was a better tank but it wasn't being fielded at the time since it was still a prototype. That of course being the Centurion mk1. It's all ww2 tank just like the is3. But your right the m4 especially the easy 6 and later easy 8 were likely the best mediums of the war.
@@jsn1252 especially unlike german machines even to this day, sherman was properly engineered. i mean ease of service, modularity, ease of maintenance and replacement of pmuch every component, ease of construction, spare part availability, not to mention crew comfort. Sherman is the tank designed to win wars. German machines were tanks designed for armchair generals to wank over on the internet.
@@Haddedam I like how the internet has done a 180 these days and now worships the American vehicles and calls German ones less than useless when 10 years ago it was the opposite. Either way you always end up being wrong the german vehicles with their faults were still extremely serviceable vehicles as shown by their combat history and tanks like the tiger performed their role (heavy breakthrough tank) exceptionally and their worst failings only appear once the tanks were put into situations they weren’t designed for (using breakthrough tanks as a medium tank)
@@Haddedam There was no internet back then , what are you on about ? Dude, the Germans conquered all of Poland , France , Yugoslavia , Russia nearly as far as Moscow , Libya (twice) ,.. All before the first Sherman tank ever left the factory. The Germans pioneered ergonomics in tanks,.and no Sherman tank ,or any other tank since , has ever had to match the endurance displayed by the tanks of Panzer group kleist in 1941. You guys should try reading some history before you start waxing lyrical . Sherman tank was Ok. At best. It wasn't a patch , isn't a patch actually , on a stug or a Pz3 in terms of mobility, not with that VVSS , and if you did happened to be in a fire fight with a Tiger tank then no amount of rationalization was going to make up for your 75mm gun.
as i understand it, what made the M4 a great over seas tank was how easy it was to repair and transport. Give a guy half n hour and he will tell you how much time he needs to fix a Sherman. Give a guy a half an hour and he will tell you IF he can fix a Tiger.
Most Shermans that were lost in the war were burnt out. Not that the Sherman was that easy to set on fire, just the maintenance crews and supply chain of spare parts were so good that Shermans that could be fixed were recovered from the battlefield and put back into working condition. Understates the number that were taken out in battle.
The 1/2 hour to repair standard is US Army doctrine. If a tank cannot be repaired in half an hour by the unit tank mechanics, it and it's crew are left behind and the location reported to battalion for battalion maintenance to collect and repair. If Battalion maintenance cannot repair it in four hours the tank and crew gets left behind and a replacement tank and crew is requisitioned. The tank and crew are picked up by depot maintenance who repair it and install any overdue upgrades. Then the tank and crew go to a replacement pool and are assigned to the next unit that requisitions a tank. Please note - what really happens is that a series of carefully rehearsed excuses are used to delay sending the damaged tank back until after the replacement tank arrives. Even a damaged tank is better than no tank and an unemployed tank crew can be used as a labor pool for all of the stuff that needs to be done but nobody has time to do.
@@colincampbell767 That must be crap for unit cohesion. I can see replacing a busted tank but wouldn't it be better for the unit to get back the crew they'd been working with? Just have a driver or flat bed deliver the replacement and assigning the old crew to man it.
yes, the sherman had some anti tank capability, later improved with the 76mm, but its most common thing it fought were entrched/fortified infantry position, in which case the 75mm and the 105mm shermans were loved, due to higher fragmentation on the HE shells
Fighting tanks are great and all but you're bound to meet up with infantry, logistic vehicles, fortifications and big metal birbs flying above you Also when you are being transported in a ship, other ships and submarines
I always bring this up in an argument, people don't realize every single engagement and battle is never the same, and will always have a random outcome, don't rely on statistics, and projectiles can do weird shit all the time. And they neglect that infantry is so relevant that they think that every battle in ww2 was fought only with tanks.
The greatest strength of the M4 type tank, was the US being able to transport them so effectively. The Chieftain, from Chieftain's Hatch, pointed out that the most important thing to be found on the M4, was the eyelets on each corner of the hull. It allowed for easy movement into and out of cargo ships.
The Sherman had two main strengths not found in any other tank: reliability and relative ease of maintenance. There is a video of men rebuilding a Sherman. The transmission was so well made, that when it was taken apart, you could see the quality and precision in which it was made.
@@lyndoncmp5751 I think he is referring to the fact it had both, being easy to take apart also means easy to come loose and fall apart. The Sherman tank could circumnavigate that through hood design.
@@patsmith8523 The Sherman was by no means unique and on fact British 2nd Army who used both Shermans and Cromwells reported that the Cromwell had a HIGHER reliability rate, especially during the fast 400km advance from the River Seine to Belgium. More Shermans dropped out with mechanical issues.
Interesting, since late war t-34s and IS's had fire protection on the fuel tanks, but only on the inside, so when it's penetrated and ignited it could burn externaly while tank is still safe for the crew and operative.
It’s a habit they got from knocking out T-34s, which were diesel fuelled and thus harder to catch fire when knocked out. Many Panzer crews retained the habit when fighting the Western Allies.
@@Rohilla313 It's not habit, it's standard practice. Everyone did it. If there is any chance of the enemy being able to recover their equipment, blow it up and deny it to them.
@@Chopstorm. It was pretty common by all armies cause you well and truely don't know if a tank is knocked out until it either catches on fire or explodes.
Historically it was great. People have no idea in general that tank vs tank was rare and it was not 1 vs 1 but a lot of other tanks, SPG and all the other elements of combined arms were participating. And it was not frontal engagement either ( the supposed forte of german tanks ). Usually both sides would maneuvre to get into the best spot to destroy the other. At which the Sherman was far better than the cats. And lastly, you dont need to penetrate the armor of the tank to disable it.
@@d.w.325 It was very common for tankers to bail out if hit by shells that did not penetrate. Simply because they were hit, they did not know were its comming from and they did not want to stay untill one penetrated. This case they are at a huge disatvantage so they bail out.
Not needing to pebetrade is a massive thing. Idk exactly how much, but many late war german tanks could be cracked open by just hitting the front plate with HE. Along with that, most Sherman's carried some white phosphorus smoke rounds, which could be shot directly onto things like panthers to not just blind them, but occasionally catch their engines on fire.
Dunno, mate. I would rather take a Sherman than any other tanks. That 0.4 crew casualty per destroyed Sherman is kinda low. While other nations is quite high. Hell, isn't the tiger Crew casualty per destroyed tiger at like 4.6?
Every single piece of equipment has issues. In the case of the Sherman, there was such a focus on making it versatile, on account of how many different environments America was fighting in, that it had to make major sacrifices in every area. The gun was just adequate, not great. The armor was about the same, as was mobility, visibility, and basically everything else but crew survivability. That wasn't because the Sherman was just better because Sherman, it was a doctrinal decision. They couldn't afford to throw men at the enemy like the Russians could on account of how long it took replacements to reach the front, so they needed to preserve the lives of the crews they had. In a land war, survivability would've been completely ignored in favor of larger numbers, just like the Russians did with the T-34
There is more to the casualty rate then the tanks themselves. If memory serves me right most Sherman tanks were destroyed by AT guns while most Tigers were destroyed by bombs and artillery.
@@nahuelleandroarroyo yes, my point was a tank crew was more likely to survive a hit from an AT gun than a bomb or artillery strike. The Sherman's crew survival rate would not have been so good if more were knocked out by heavy explosive charges.
I hate it when ppl call the Sherman bad with no info on it. It was a medium tank. it was designed to fight panzer 4s and such, not tigers and panthers. they point out issues that are completely bs, and I think you did a good job commending and criticizing the Sherman in this video.
Even then it could easily fight them people often ignore the massive concussion caused by he shots. There's a reason the 3rd armoured division didn't care about getting 76mma
It's a medium tank designed to ensure that no matter how many enemies were in battle, there were always more Sherman's with a plethora of spare parts waiting at logistical lines.
They expect to have the same experience playing a video game that's designed to be more or less balanced for everyone as a cheesy 60s war movie where the Americans wipe out the enemy several times over without losing a single man save for the tragic mentor figure that's doomed to die by the laws of Hollywood.
@@doozledorf7036 well I will say this. The Germans build some crazy shit and 90% of it is good but the Tigers just didn’t hit that mark which is good and bad. Great for us cause the US only had 3 combat encounters with them but it was bad cause the tank had so much potential but was so lethargic and rushed that it just didnt work
I spent over two decades on and around tanks. And I cannot wrap my brain around the idea of anybody having improperly stowed ammunition in their tank. Unless they were suicidal.
@@colincampbell767 Maybe you’ve exposed a reason without trying to. While you spent >20 years in armor, the vast majority of WWII allied Soldiers were draftees. You have wisdom based on experience & training. They found out the hard way. So in a way, you learned from them.
@@mikem6176 Safety regulations are written in blood. And as I used to tell the troops: "For every stupid rule - there's somebody who did something stupid."
Re: burn rates, there is also the premise that when fighting a defensive war as the Germans were, you wanted to make sure you shot something until it was un-usable. You weren't going to be able to push out and gain ground to ensure you could capture or destroy equipment later. You shot it until it burned so that the enemy couldn't recover it after the battle. This meant that the image of Shermans burning was likely everywhere, in any conflict where a Sherman was lost and would have contributed to this idea.
@@iansneddon2956 Yes. But a tank that burns is generally unrepairable. The heat destroys the temper of the metal, differential heating and cooling means that the turret ring is no longer perfectly round and just about everything inside the turret and hull is destroyed. Armor goes through a carefully calculated and controlled heating and cooling process to increase the 'toughness' of the metal. Heat it up and then allow it to cool at too slow a rate - and it's now ordinary steel that's useless as armor.
Something that many forget is the Sherman had the same front armor was the same slope and thickness as the T-34 which fanbois like to hold up as an example of a great tank. The tanks that the Sherman was designed to meet were the PZKW III & IV and not the PZKW V but it did well enough against them too.
Some say it was a death trap: It actually has one of (if not the) highest survival rates of any WWII tank. Some say it was the perfect tank that everyone should have used: No such thing exists.
People seem to overlook the fact that the internet has done a 180 and where they used to hate on all allied vehicles and praise the German ones now it is the opposite. And both ideas are wrong
Survival rates are skewed by frontline factors like not being completely surrounded on the defensive and having 100 others around to pull you out, and infinite supplies. When people say German rates were bad, as if to make a counter statement, they just completely ignore that then go on to say the T-34 with its awful conditions was god.
keep in mind that the Sherman was actually deployed by US Troops for the first time, on D-Day. There was a huge comeuppance, as they learned to use them. Also, the Hedgerows were disastrous, for the Sherman's, until the US Tanks were equipped with plows, for the Hedgerows. Then, the Tables began to turn. That per my Grandfather who landed in his Sherman , on the third Wave that Day. He led a tank Platoon, then a company, through D-Day. Eventually, he was in and out of Patton's HQ, as he was assigned to 20th Phantom Corps, for screen and point element recons.
@@markgreiser464 Sherman’s saw use in both North Africa and in Italy (and I think on the Eastern front by the soviets through lend lease) before the Americans took them to D-Day
@@lector-dogmatixsicarii1537 For the Sherman the reason they are skewed is because the tank would give the crew a chance to escape before it started concentrating on burning. Big spring loaded hatches that make it easy for a motivated person to get out the tank quickly are another important factor.
I read a good report on the myths of the Sherman. And on one section they mentioned the burn rate, and how the m4 was a lot easier to escape from or survive. The reason they got the reputation was crews lived to tell people. Where as in german tanks a lot less escaped to complain.
If you watch the footage of the Panther vs Sherman and Pershing from Cologne you'll see the Panther crew get out just as quickly as the Sherman crew, and more survived.
@@lyndoncmp5751 An exception does not disprove the rule...But then again you are Canadian. So you can't POSSIBLY concede anything to Americans. Typical
The Sherman also broke down really often. But the allieds had superior suply chaines and fixed the damaged tanks real quick. It was not better then any other tank.
For those who want a simpler version of this video it is: The Sherman is excellent at its job and class. Not as much when the Sherman does something else
The problem with what people think about the Sherman being a bad tank is that they are often getting their information indirectly from Belton Cooper, which for whatever ridiculous reason, History Channel had a habit using his book "Death Traps" as the only source (a book riddled with inconsistencies and is often ridiculed by WW2 historians). Nearly every History Channel WW2 special used Belton Cooper books as a reference if possible. In reality the Sherman had an very good crew survival rate (I think it was 97%, aka the complete opposite of a death trap, at least statistically speaking) and just as many (if not more) people liked the tank as much as hated it. The book "Death Traps" (and The History Channel) incorrectly influenced entire generations. With that said, I personally believe the Sherman was lacking in quite a few areas, but that is what you get when you need a mass produced, relatively modular tank which has to be shipped over an entire ocean (aka logistical issues). *You can't bring them back over the Atlantic to get them upgraded/repaired, everything needs to be done near the battle-space and parts all need to be interchangeable.* With those caveats, it did pretty damn good job imo.
@@Dreachon Incorrect. I've seen many WW2 historians refer to Belton Cooper and his book as "inaccurate" and "full of falsehoods". Mostly because, well, it is.
@@youraveragescotsman7119 By all means do post their names. Zaloga doesn't call it that, Yeide doesn't call it, even Moran knows better than to call it that.
@@Dreachon Certainly these expletives are not claimed by them. But unless I am mistaken all listed, as well as Estes and I believe Doyle don't regard Cooper as a reputable source and make statements with quite clear contradiction to the claims presented in _"Death Traps"._
@@peterson7082 With Cooper's book is is accepted within the better circles that a lot of his book is still solid as it presents quite a good insight to how allied troops feel. A lot of what Cooper said about the problems with the Sherman is seen again in Makos' book 'Spearhead' where again we can see tankers say that the Sherman isn't on par. However, and like pretty much every memoir, the book's content need to be treated with caution as well as something that a reader should always do is to verify things.
@@jsn1252 the t-34 did it’s job. Kill tanks and support infantry. If your tank is going to be killed anyways fast why give it parts to last forever. Make that shit cheap and have the crews repair them when needed.
Love to see when utter fools start shitting on m4 or t-34 or pz4 tanks. At the beginning of war there were only 2 reliable suitable fow ww2 tactics tanks - pz2 and pz3. At the end - only t-34 and m4. All panthers and tigers at 1942, 1943 and 1945 were garbage tanks with good guns. British had idea to give remains of Wehrmacht heavy tanks to BD but scrapped most leftovers instead. War needs functional tank to fulfill all roles. It was not supposed to live forever, it was supposed to die. T-34 and m4 managed to do it right. T-34 a bit more, m4 a bit less (in Europe). Funny but Germany had weak but reliable tanks when it peaked in power, but had least reliable but quite powerful when started losing. Same happened to France and Soviet Union (a bit other way round). Still theese videos are too short to be close to point.
Well, this all purpose medium tank designed to be produced and deployed quickly can't easily take down an incredibly complex, powerful, and heavy breakthrough tank designed specifically to destroy enemy armored vehicles, so it's basically the worst thing ever.
I miss the steel generals era it was so pure back then just chaos and good match making. I grinded all the way to the tiger 2 p then the game began to stray from its true glories.
From a technical and manufacturing perspective, the M4 Sherman was good enough and no more. And it got better as the US kept developing it, as usual. It’s because of this, it’s ease of repair and it’s sheer numbers were what made people call it the best tank on the battlefield.
@@lutscher7979 Guess the USSR employed the “build another when it breaks” tactic? Or overworked it’s mechanics to the breaking point. Probably both, tbh
‘Good enough’ - don’t sell it short. All tanks had bad mechanical issues at the time, particularly the rushed British tanks. The M3 and M4 were very reliable and easy to maintain with well thought out interchangeable components.
It was kinda bad from a engine performance standpoint and combat range. With most german tanks like panthers and tigers suffering carburator backfires and faulty drive trains. Except for the lack of mobility and range, when in defense, they were ok.
I absolutely disagree with the statement that the M4 was "good for lendlease but shouldn't have been the main tank" For everybody? No, that's stupid. For the US? Absolutely. Even when we take all the issues the M4 had into account, it still compares favorably to most other mainline tanks of the war. You could brink up Panther, but Panther started service in 1943(and as you know, it started off terribly) and didn't need to be ferried across the Atlantic. Lastly, I'd like to point out that if the 75 and 76mm guns on the M4 were as inadequate as some people like to claim neither would they have been anywhere near as successful as they were nor would have crews liked them - both were liked and both performed very well, including in penetrating tanks they were supposedly unable to. Notably, the 76 was less liked due to problems early on with ammunition and low explosive filler for HE shells(but these are standard teething problems). At the end of the day, the US produced some...what 50,000 M4s? On it's own side, it lost somewhere around 4,000-5,000 M4s. Something like 1,000 tankers died _in all of WW2_ between all tank platforms on all theaters, and like half died outside their vehicles doing something else. Compare that to any other nation in the war.
For an in depth overview of why the Sherman was the way it was, look to the Chieftains Hatch and his posted talks on the subject. Nicholas Moran and Steve Zaloga have done a wonderful job in clearing up many of the misconception and out right falsehoods regarding the Sherman tank.
Unless you're the HMS Campbelltown, I don't think anybody building that thing thought to themselves "you know, this destroyer would be really good for taking out a dry dock." Although that'd be funny
@@antoshq1985 those big bois were basically mobile camp fires xDD tho *if* they managed to not cath fire on every hill in existence, yea they were effective
I do remember reading a tanker journal in a Museum somewhere in Normandy, about the M4 being a very easy tank to repair. Basically the entire front end (gearbox and transmission) can be swapped in less than an hour without any cranes needed. This was also the case for many other components. It apparently was a damn easy tank to work on/with.
I can imagine the entire tank is based around being easy to repair and durability of parts like a single washer in the engine that would fail far before the rest and it had to be entirely replaced
They had to use a crane to remove and set the drive housing. Some used jib cranes mounted on the back of flatbed trucks. The Army had a practice of removing the engine and final drive after 200 hours of use for inspection/rebuilding and installing rebuilt units in their place. That ensured that the tanks stayed in good running order instead of running them until something seized up or sheared gears.
@@GreenStuffConsumer the shermans are kinda easy to use. But not as braindead as the tiger. But one thing is sure. If u play stabilizers for too long, ur performance on ww2 tanks drop significantly.
@@STRYKER_b14 I know the Sherman's dont let you get away with stuff. The armor is never reliable. The 75mm is a 50/50 kind of gun. The armor is the biggest joke in the game
The M4 Sherman was a very good versatile medium tank, a lot of people forget that tanks were used for much much more than just tank battles, the Sherman filled most roles very well for the entirety of the war, while German tiger tanks were beasts in battle against other tanks, they were far too specialized and used unique parts that made it very prone to breaking down, many tiger tanks were abandoned in the war because the crew couldn’t fix the them with the tools and parts on hand, they were also extremely heavy and got stuck in the mud a lot, but after the British firefly variant of the Sherman came out the tigers armor was no longer impenetrable and just became a liability for most units
In my opinion, what made the Sherman great was the logistics aspects. Most crews survived knocked out tanks, qnd tanks were easy to repair and maintain. Combat wise, it wasn't amazing, but wasn't awful. Perfectly serviceable is all you need for combat if you can field superior numbers and keep crews alive. Making a mistake wasn't fatal, even if you lost the tank. Green crews had more chances to become veterans and veteran crews can compensate for deficiencies. Combine this with ease of production and maintenance, and the ability to work in any theatre, and I'd argue that, as a primary tank, the M4 is very good. But that's just my opinion.
In world of tanks...I admittedly focus mainly on the german tank trees, but when I got to the howitzer MC, realizing the speed and mobility of the US medium tanks really got me hooked to eventually getting through the whole sherman line up. They're perfect for hit and run tactics, flanking operations and funny enough one of only a hand full of medium tanks to can outpace and outgun the majority of light tanks available.
When introduced, the M4/Sherman made half of the panzer force totally obsolete. (PII, PIII - and early PIV) The T34c did not have that impact. On that basis, alone, the M4 has to be deemed the most significant machine of its era. Good enough beat perfection.
The T-34 definitely had a similar effect on the panzer force. It's just that various factors (poor crew training, lack of experience, poor tactics, lackluster leadership, etc) prevented them from doing as well as the sherman until the issues were ironed out.
@@901Sherman Their production quality issues were never ironed out during the war. As for crew training, I've never read a Red Army account of ANY tankers receiving decent training. Instead, one is constantly reading about how the crew hopped in and had an hour to a day's training. And that was that. I tend to believe the boys that actually fought in the tanks over official accounts, historians -- and such. Now that they are on their death-beds, account after account has come out. They are not flattering for the rep of the Red Army or the T34c.
@@901Sherman Don't forget shit production and no logistical support. Or Radios. When you have to take boxes from farmers to use as seats in your tank, maybe its time to reconsider your production.
@@davidhimmelsbach557 Yeah. Beneath the Venere of Soviet propaganda, the T34 really seems to be a rather below average tank that looked good on paper but the Soviet Union had no realistic way to make work at the time.
M46* aka the real M26. Centron 3 fans: But muh bang on stabilizer, muh mad minute, muh APDS, muh tea maker...[Roman name to inflate self importance, virgin 13 power to weight, will rat on Challenger Lad, awkward trailer attachment to avoid being embarrassed by weak fuel tanks, massive suicide forward ammo-rack to compensate for small bullet, always playing intense Anglo screeching everyone hates, betrayed Comet, ricer exhaust tip cry for attention] M46 enjoyer: Named after Chad general, 18.4 power to weight, Shot variety, More caliber, bore evacuator, automatic gear box, air cooling [fans to dry glorious hair], assistant driver to hold massive balls [Korean mountainside downhill tank skiing meme], is friends with Sherman, designers and crew show off everything, chicken wire around head to block 5-virgin waves, Johnny always comes marching home [everyone likes this], shitty tractor muffler to confuse Soviet tanks.
It would've seen little action due to being too slow to keep up with the advancing forces. In 1945, the M26's were at the rear of the columns and only called up when needed. One was with the armor unit that helped capture the intact bridge over the Rhine at Remagan. The M4's took up positions then waited 25 minutes for their M26 to arrive and take a position to cover the M4's after they went towards the bridge. The M4's crossed the river on pontoon bridging soon afterwards while the M26 had to stay behind for 3 days until the Army engineers found a barge downstream to carry it across.
Outstanding presentation on the M4 Medium Tank. Well researched and a big salute to pointing out that German tanks had problems as well. It's just that not well known as the Germans suppressed such information and thus when the majority of history was written after the war such information was not widely available to most authors.
Its gone the other way now, with people totally exaggerating the flaws of German tanks, to the point you get people ridiculously claiming they were ineffective and useless.
I like this review of the M4, keeping the video realistic and historical and not german biased as well as mentioning it was not the american rambo super machine others like to think it is. As short as it is it's informative
The M4 Sherman is basically jack of all trades, master of none. But it's also worth noting that the Shermans engine was designed to be easily worked on by anyone who knew how to work on a car engine, making it easier for tank crews to do small repairs on the field.
It is actually a master of "some", highest crew survivability rate, one if not the most reliable tank of the War and probably the best platform for upgrades.
One could say the M4 "Sherman" and T-34 were inspirational to the Main Battle Tank idea even if they weren't considered MBTs they still filled all roles given to them by their respective nations.
Let me share a comment I once saw on a video "So we have to make a direct comparison between two different very Tanks even though a direct comparison is fairly pointless because of the soft factors that complicated the situation. The M4 Sherman was a mass produced tank that equipped loads of different units in various Armies as a fairly standard piece of equipment. Crew experience greatly varied and training was usually adequate though unexceptional. Most of the crews in service had limited training and experience. On the other hand the Tigers were concentrated into special units that served a particular purpose. The crews for Tigers were usually experienced combat veterans, Tiger drivers especially were very carefully selected and didn't get anywhere near a Tiger unless they were regarded as very competent. The heavy tank Battalions that Tigers were formed into are basically elite units because of the men in them as much as the tank. They want to compare tank to tank but one of the main factors in determining superiority was actually crew quality in training, experience, leadership and tactics and nothing to do with the actual quality of the tank design itself."
The short answer: No worse than contemporary mediums of similar size, configuration and deployment, being a good jack of all trades vehicle - good at a lot, yet master of none.
@@waffleman2370 Because it was _simple_ to repair. Transmission disintegrates? Take the tank back to the nearest command post, rip the front off and slap in a new one in a couple hours. Not like a Panther, where you either spend at _least_ six hours just getting the front plate off, or you have to take the tank all the way back to the factory _which might not exist anymore._
@@waffleman2370 Aye, my bad. Is... this the part where we go on a long-winded fight about how one tank was better, which results in the use of language better left behind last century?
I think the Sherman is a case of upgrades and modifications keeping it competitive for the current theatre and year, but people then tend to conflate all the upgrades into just the single M4 Sherman and thus overemphasise its usefulness. I personally think the M4 could serve as a baseline of what a medium tank should be and then compare other tanks to it.
Logistics: the M4 was the right weight and size to ship across the Atlantic on liberty ships. Logistics: The M4 was easy to recover and repair in the field, and spare parts were plentiful, leading to higher rates of operational tanks in units that used it. Logistics: The M4 was faster than tanks that could otherwise outperform it (and American units had plenty of artillery for such foes). Logistics: The M4 was mass-produced, allowing for lots of them to work with infantry units. Logistics: The M4 chassis was easy to adapt to more specialized roles. Comparing a Sherman to a Panther is like comparing a Toyota Corolla to a Lamborghini, and personally, I'd prefer the Toyota.
The Sherman tank. Probably one of my most favriote tanks, now I do love the Sherman’s espically the jumbo tanks, but I don’t think they were stupidly good. Was their short stop stabilizer pretty good? Yeah. Was their gun pretty good? Yeah. Was their armor pretty good? Eh not really. But it was a good tank, it did it’s job and killed alot of German tanks. I like it
The frontal armour on the Sherman was almost the same as a tiger 1 so it was pretty good. If your talking side armour even the Germans learned by panther all it did was add extra weight it didn't need. If you want heavy armour than you have the jumbo but still wasn't the best Sherman.
(War Thunder)Maybe out of topic but what's the opinions on the reworked hull aim, including features such as being able to move with all parts of the powertrain and even tracks destroyed?
The vast majority of if not all of the New Zealand M4 Shermans were powered by the famous Ford GAA, V8 18 litre 500hp engine that was incredibly reliable! My father was a Commander of one during Italy! As a New Zealander he was seriously proud of this tank! New Zealand didn't have to go into Lend Lease; we paid cash for all our equipment and we actually sent food free of charge to the Poms! Whinging Poms shafted us anyway in 1973. Our Dad only bought Fords until the day he died! My dad was very pleased to be in a M 4 Sherman as he though that all the British tanks were crap! In Italy he rated the German Panzer Mk 4 and the Stug and he was thankful that he never ran into a Panther or a Tiger!
My perception is that the logistical position the U.S. was in and the issue of maintaining supply lines over a sea, made a monolithic weapon like the M4 a good single option to mitigate those problems without sacrificing much combat capability.
Plenty of replacement parts were shipped over with each batch of new tanks. The US Army also provided plenty of mechanics, support vehicles, repair stations and repair depots close to the front lines to keep them in good running order.
Best Tank of WWII the M4 Sherman You could get it anywhere you needed a Tank. If you were shot you had a better chance at surviving than any thing else in the war. Except for the much heavier Churchill Massively modifiable for different roles Easy to repair for a Tank Easy to manufacture Best Tank of the War
Why cant people just agree that there is no best tank of WW2 because everyone had different needs and requirements, which is why we had such a wide variety of vehicles developed in the first place...except for the Bob Semple tank which obviously is the best, no competition.
Let's not forget the most important thing. It was an extremely easy tank to drive to anyone with no experience. The US knew most of its population didn't have experience with tanks but knew how to drive a car. So they made their tanks really easy to drive for anyone. While Germany made their tanks harder and harder to drive and delicate to drive. Hence the numerous transmission breakdowns. And that had a huge impact on a strategic point of view.
3:00 : a friend of my grandfather was parr of an antitank crew in ww2 and always told me how easy it was to fry an Sherman compared to other tanks the allies had. Its not that the Sherman cooked off every time, but compared to other tanks e.g Churchills or Valentines they did more often.
Churchill’s were supposed to be tanky (even for a tank) and I do t know much about the valentines but I feel like the amount of Valentine’s and Churchill’s would be in the same boat as tigers and panthers in the west due to the British adopting the Sherman.
@Automeme Which would make it the best. Produced in high numbers, did its job, had a high KD ratio and low crew death, lower than any other nation (in terms of percentage), easy to maintain and repair and could be transported and succeed basically anywhere. That makes it the best. On paper, maybe not, but in practice, by far the best.
@@cryamistellimek9184 i didn’t want to use google last night. Let me check rq. If I’m wrong I’m wrong. But I feel like the United States had better tanks by the 70’s
@@cryamistellimek9184 so there were two, the M4A3 and the M4A6, the site I’m getting this info from doesn’t say how many but it does say throes two were used.
People argue a lot over how good the M4 Sherman was but I think the M3 Lee is the one that gets massively overlooked for how big of an impact it had because people just look at it and dismiss it outright as some kind of dumb meme.
The Sherman caught fire so much because after the crew bailed after a bad hit the German tanks would keep shooting it till it would catch fire, it didn’t catch fire nearly as much as other German tanks
The one thing where the Sherman messed up that nobody talks about: The gunsight Us gunsights only had 1 range scale, meaning both their High Explosive and Armor piercing projectiles had to be fired at the same velocity. The is the reason why the 76mm gun had an HE shell with half the explosive filler of the 75mm. The Russians and Germans both had gunsights with 2 settings and fired their high explosive rounds at lower velocity, meaning they got both good anti infantry and anti-tank capability from their high velocity guns.
Sponsor: apexgamingpcs.com/pages/spookston
I finally saved up enough to afford one of these computers, after years of playing on hand me down or cheap laptops I can finally play games at a framerate above 35 fps.
Do they have a military discount? Or is it just your discount code?
For an in depth overview of why the Sherman was the way it was, look to the Chieftains Hatch and his posted talks on the subject. Nicholas Moran and Steve Zaloga have done a wonderful job in clearing up many of the misconception and out right falsehoods regarding the Sherman tank.
@@schwarze1305 don’t buy fro them build your own
@@TheKingDrew you can’t buy separate good graphics cards rn cuz all the miners took them, pre built PC can have 3080’s and 3090’s cuz they have extra and get the new ones
"Walking Machine gun nest" is a perfect way to describe the m2 medium
*rolling
like the engineer from TF2 said the solution to every problem is gun and if that don't work use more gun
99 likes you know what happens next
@@pvt.smasher6311 or the rdr1 quote "all you need is time and a gatling gun"
Especially the M2A2.
European theater: the Sherman tank ehh good medium did its job well but it had its flaws
Pacific theater: fear me for I am death’s incarnate
@@kaiserpanzer548 I’m pretty sure only bt 42s are capable of that
Until a young prodigy in the Centurion decides to roflstomp 1/3rd of the team singlehandedly
@Automeme Let's not forget that 4 foot tall Japanese lolis are able to reload a KV-2 in less than 3 seconds, or how one BT-42 crewed by Japanese schoolgirls we're able to easily defeat three M26 Pershings crewed by far more experienced tankers. That's some horrifying capabilities if you ask me
Edit: typo
@@m10tankdestroyer94 imagine being part of the allies in ww2, and you see a kv-2, captured by the japanese, firing 20 shots per minute.......
@AdBlock plus Nah, they're built different. They have crew skills of 5 slots combined.
"...it did what it was designed to do." Highest praise any tank can achieve.
Just like the T-34
@@pacivalmuller9333 Exactly i hate ppl who say the T34 or the Sherman were bad they did what they were made for
let's not forget that Sherman was just soo modifiable that you got tanks like Easy 8, M51 Supersherman and even freaking tractors and mining vehicles built on the chassis which yes there are tractors and mining vehicles built on Shermans still running to this very day
and the later m-50 were upgraded again by the IDF with 60mm HVMS gun and served with the Chilean army till late as 2003
I mean teh swedes have an apc on a Panzer 38t chasis
Thos concept can be applied to quite a few medium and even some heavy tanks too. The British Valentine or Churchill and Russian T-34 or German Pz.IV and III.
All had several combat variants as well as quite a few non-combat vehicles.
The M4 did have a lot of variations since it was such a numerous vehicle.
@@hungryhedgehog4201 We used the 38’s suspension for everything. I absolutely love it!
@@ZETH_27 none of those lasted not even a fraction as the Sherman
A good tank not meant for everything.
Finally, a rational human being.
You could also say the Sherman was a "Jack of all trades, master of none" kind of tank, it performed in all areas it was put into adequately enough for army work.
@@MegaRazorback In war you never know what enemy, what threat will show up on your doorstep. So it is best to prepare for everything well.
Sherman was primarily designed to be infantry support, but it was capable of being rapid enough and its gun was decent enough that it could do other things if needed.
Accurate, relevant, objective. Almost everything important about the tank covered very nicely under six minutes.Well done!
No one else like this comment,
ITS ALL COMING TOGETHER
@@CareraDrift Do you have someone who you deem more objective?
@@CareraDrift Yeah, is there a War Thunder channel that you think has more objective content in it?
Redeffect's also good, these two r very able reviewers.
@@adriansosis I’ll check it out, thanks.
Another thing to consider about the M4's reputation for combustion: survivorship bias.
The M4 had some of the highest rates of crew survivability. If an M4 was hit, it was really easy for the crew to get out.
Compare that to Soviet and German tanks which did not make crew survivability a priority.
The reason we hear about M4s bursting into flames is that more M4 crews managed to survive and make it home to relay the fact that their tank burst into flames. Whereas the crew of German and Soviet tanks which burst into flames just burned to death with their tanks. Commanders would thus write them off as MIA or KIA when they didn't report in or their destroyed tanks and burnt corpses were found, with no one to relay what exactly happened to the tank.
The USSR never had prioritised survivablity, only example of them doing so is The IS-7.
Yep that can be summed up in dead men tell no tales and the crew the M4 tended not to become dead men all that easily.
Funny. German diary of a tanker said that the Sherman ignited so fast that the crew couldn't go out in time. I take that as a more reliable source than the words of americans today... It was a bad tank for Europe.
@@Shadowhunterbgso where gonna use a single case of anecdotal evidence
Over mutiple examples of reports and statistics from the men who used these tanks
That seems a bit irrational
its a wehraboo, what do u expect@@dozergames2395
Per the Chieftain, the Sherman was fine slightly above average tank. The European theater had upguns available it chose not to land on Normandy with new unfamiliar equipment and logistics.
Calling it above average is doing it a disservice; there wasn't a better medium tank in the whole war.
@@jsn1252 I could try to say that there was a better tank but it wasn't being fielded at the time since it was still a prototype. That of course being the Centurion mk1. It's all ww2 tank just like the is3. But your right the m4 especially the easy 6 and later easy 8 were likely the best mediums of the war.
@@jsn1252 especially unlike german machines even to this day, sherman was properly engineered. i mean ease of service, modularity, ease of maintenance and replacement of pmuch every component, ease of construction, spare part availability, not to mention crew comfort. Sherman is the tank designed to win wars. German machines were tanks designed for armchair generals to wank over on the internet.
@@Haddedam I like how the internet has done a 180 these days and now worships the American vehicles and calls German ones less than useless when 10 years ago it was the opposite.
Either way you always end up being wrong the german vehicles with their faults were still extremely serviceable vehicles as shown by their combat history and tanks like the tiger performed their role (heavy breakthrough tank) exceptionally and their worst failings only appear once the tanks were put into situations they weren’t designed for (using breakthrough tanks as a medium tank)
@@Haddedam There was no internet back then , what are you on about ? Dude, the Germans conquered all of Poland , France , Yugoslavia , Russia nearly as far as Moscow , Libya (twice) ,.. All before the first Sherman tank ever left the factory. The Germans pioneered ergonomics in tanks,.and no Sherman tank ,or any other tank since , has ever had to match the endurance displayed by the tanks of Panzer group kleist in 1941. You guys should try reading some history before you start waxing lyrical . Sherman tank was Ok. At best. It wasn't a patch , isn't a patch actually , on a stug or a Pz3 in terms of mobility, not with that VVSS , and if you did happened to be in a fire fight with a Tiger tank then no amount of rationalization was going to make up for your 75mm gun.
"could easily fit a variety of roles" Considering how many variants of the Sherman was made, this is an understatement lol
Just ask the Israelis they made the best model!
@@Baldwin-iv445no
as i understand it, what made the M4 a great over seas tank was how easy it was to repair and transport. Give a guy half n hour and he will tell you how much time he needs to fix a Sherman. Give a guy a half an hour and he will tell you IF he can fix a Tiger.
Most Shermans that were lost in the war were burnt out. Not that the Sherman was that easy to set on fire, just the maintenance crews and supply chain of spare parts were so good that Shermans that could be fixed were recovered from the battlefield and put back into working condition. Understates the number that were taken out in battle.
And even more importantly - it was reliable.
The 1/2 hour to repair standard is US Army doctrine. If a tank cannot be repaired in half an hour by the unit tank mechanics, it and it's crew are left behind and the location reported to battalion for battalion maintenance to collect and repair. If Battalion maintenance cannot repair it in four hours the tank and crew gets left behind and a replacement tank and crew is requisitioned. The tank and crew are picked up by depot maintenance who repair it and install any overdue upgrades. Then the tank and crew go to a replacement pool and are assigned to the next unit that requisitions a tank.
Please note - what really happens is that a series of carefully rehearsed excuses are used to delay sending the damaged tank back until after the replacement tank arrives. Even a damaged tank is better than no tank and an unemployed tank crew can be used as a labor pool for all of the stuff that needs to be done but nobody has time to do.
@@colincampbell767 Nice description of it ^^
Thanks
@@colincampbell767 That must be crap for unit cohesion. I can see replacing a busted tank but wouldn't it be better for the unit to get back the crew they'd been working with? Just have a driver or flat bed deliver the replacement and assigning the old crew to man it.
Most people don’t realize that tanks are not the only threat out there
yes, the sherman had some anti tank capability, later improved with the 76mm, but its most common thing it fought were entrched/fortified infantry position, in which case the 75mm and the 105mm shermans were loved, due to higher fragmentation on the HE shells
Fighting tanks are great and all but you're bound to meet up with infantry, logistic vehicles, fortifications and big metal birbs flying above you
Also when you are being transported in a ship, other ships and submarines
Panzerfaust, Panzershrek, Bazooka, PIAT, and PTRS-41 go Brrrrrr.
@@batuarganda728 Ahh yes flying metal BIRBS a rare animal seen during the second world war
I always bring this up in an argument, people don't realize every single engagement and battle is never the same, and will always have a random outcome, don't rely on statistics, and projectiles can do weird shit all the time.
And they neglect that infantry is so relevant that they think that every battle in ww2 was fought only with tanks.
What did the British soldier say during WW2 after being offered a free ride by the American tankers?
“Sher-man.”
Proa’ Bri’ish innit bruv?
my humor after reading this: *WHAT THE F-*
Sher man...sher man...
OOOH SURE MAN
The greatest strength of the M4 type tank, was the US being able to transport them so effectively. The Chieftain, from Chieftain's Hatch, pointed out that the most important thing to be found on the M4, was the eyelets on each corner of the hull. It allowed for easy movement into and out of cargo ships.
Tiger players: Noooo you can’t bounce my 88mm that’s unfair
Jumbo players: haha 88 go boink
Tiger commander:”we didn’t even scratch them”
US army tested the Jumbo against the 90mm M1 AA gun. It did not pen. :D
Idk why but a short 75mm pen my hull
@Ivan Everybody's gangsta until the Jumbo aims to tiger's cupola
@@gergelykallai1351 maybe they were using semi armor piercing ammo
The Sherman had two main strengths not found in any other tank: reliability and relative ease of maintenance. There is a video of men rebuilding a Sherman. The transmission was so well made, that when it was taken apart, you could see the quality and precision in which it was made.
Lots of tanks could be repaired easily though. It wasn't unique to the Sherman.
@@lyndoncmp5751 The Sherman had a higher degree of reliability not commonly seen in other tanks. Despite its shortcomings.
@@lyndoncmp5751 I think he is referring to the fact it had both, being easy to take apart also means easy to come loose and fall apart. The Sherman tank could circumnavigate that through hood design.
@@usedtoberyanpoopnownormal8822
But lots of tanks could be repaired easily though. It wasn't unique to the Sherman.
@@patsmith8523
The Sherman was by no means unique and on fact British 2nd Army who used both Shermans and Cromwells reported that the Cromwell had a HIGHER reliability rate, especially during the fast 400km advance from the River Seine to Belgium. More Shermans dropped out with mechanical issues.
I dont think people realize on the western front the majority of tanks were panzer 4s and if you're somewhat lucky panthers. A tiger is extremely rare
So rare that you can count the encounters of Tigers vs Shermans on one hand.
Wouldnt consider running into a panther “lucky”
@@LowStuff And one of them didn't count because those Tigers were uncrewed and getting prepped for rail transport.
The Tiger II was even rarer still
@@LowStuff You need more hands to count reported tiger encounters.... But most of them were with the PzKpfw IV version.
By the way, German crews had the order to shoot vehicles until they were on fire, which is likely to be added.
Interesting, since late war t-34s and IS's had fire protection on the fuel tanks, but only on the inside, so when it's penetrated and ignited it could burn externaly while tank is still safe for the crew and operative.
It’s a habit they got from knocking out T-34s, which were diesel fuelled and thus harder to catch fire when knocked out. Many Panzer crews retained the habit when fighting the Western Allies.
@@Rohilla313 It's not habit, it's standard practice. Everyone did it. If there is any chance of the enemy being able to recover their equipment, blow it up and deny it to them.
@@Chopstorm. or wild Audio Murphy jumping on the MG and being a badass.
@@Chopstorm. It was pretty common by all armies cause you well and truely don't know if a tank is knocked out until it either catches on fire or explodes.
I like how the Sherman in the thumbnail is like
“Tf you say?”
Could we do one for a British tank, such as the Matilda II?
The Queen of the desert!
Armor of KV-1! ...with armament and engine of T-26:(
I loooove the Matilda, I love the multicolored camo too
@@nikolairostov3326 and the jungles
Churchill too
Historically it was great. People have no idea in general that tank vs tank was rare and it was not 1 vs 1 but a lot of other tanks, SPG and all the other elements of combined arms were participating. And it was not frontal engagement either ( the supposed forte of german tanks ). Usually both sides would maneuvre to get into the best spot to destroy the other. At which the Sherman was far better than the cats. And lastly, you dont need to penetrate the armor of the tank to disable it.
Exactly some would ditch with a hit to the engine
@@d.w.325 It was very common for tankers to bail out if hit by shells that did not penetrate. Simply because they were hit, they did not know were its comming from and they did not want to stay untill one penetrated. This case they are at a huge disatvantage so they bail out.
What do you mean you can't fully repair a jammed turret ring and a blown out gun barrel under enemy fire in 30 seconds???
@@user-njyzcip What ? War Thunder is not a realistic simulator game ?
Not needing to pebetrade is a massive thing. Idk exactly how much, but many late war german tanks could be cracked open by just hitting the front plate with HE. Along with that, most Sherman's carried some white phosphorus smoke rounds, which could be shot directly onto things like panthers to not just blind them, but occasionally catch their engines on fire.
Love the Sherman and all its variants
its*
@@user-njyzcip thank you
My favorite one would be either the jumbo or the super Sherman
@@user-njyzcip it's*
@@awfvil2717 there is the hero from 2003!
Dunno, mate. I would rather take a Sherman than any other tanks. That 0.4 crew casualty per destroyed Sherman is kinda low. While other nations is quite high. Hell, isn't the tiger Crew casualty per destroyed tiger at like 4.6?
Every single piece of equipment has issues. In the case of the Sherman, there was such a focus on making it versatile, on account of how many different environments America was fighting in, that it had to make major sacrifices in every area. The gun was just adequate, not great. The armor was about the same, as was mobility, visibility, and basically everything else but crew survivability. That wasn't because the Sherman was just better because Sherman, it was a doctrinal decision. They couldn't afford to throw men at the enemy like the Russians could on account of how long it took replacements to reach the front, so they needed to preserve the lives of the crews they had. In a land war, survivability would've been completely ignored in favor of larger numbers, just like the Russians did with the T-34
@@filmandfirearms the Soviets didn’t really just throw troops at the enemy as much as it’s shown, they did have bad casualties though.
There is more to the casualty rate then the tanks themselves. If memory serves me right most Sherman tanks were destroyed by AT guns while most Tigers were destroyed by bombs and artillery.
@@Matt85ism well, the Sherman was more often than not on the offensive, falling in an ambush or pushing into a killzone of a AT gun should be common.
@@nahuelleandroarroyo yes, my point was a tank crew was more likely to survive a hit from an AT gun than a bomb or artillery strike. The Sherman's crew survival rate would not have been so good if more were knocked out by heavy explosive charges.
I hate it when ppl call the Sherman bad with no info on it. It was a medium tank. it was designed to fight panzer 4s and such, not tigers and panthers. they point out issues that are completely bs, and I think you did a good job commending and criticizing the Sherman in this video.
Even then it could easily fight them people often ignore the massive concussion caused by he shots. There's a reason the 3rd armoured division didn't care about getting 76mma
Its a medium tank that everyone wants to behave like a immortal heavy tank.....
It's a medium tank designed to ensure that no matter how many enemies were in battle, there were always more Sherman's with a plethora of spare parts waiting at logistical lines.
Yeah, it's the main problem with the mfs who compare the Sherman to the Tiger. You're comparing a medium tank to a heavy tank what did you expect?!
They expect to have the same experience playing a video game that's designed to be more or less balanced for everyone as a cheesy 60s war movie where the Americans wipe out the enemy several times over without losing a single man save for the tragic mentor figure that's doomed to die by the laws of Hollywood.
@@Fishmanglitz I disagree, US tank fans are pretty realistic about their tank performance. It's the other nation's that are not (you know who)
@@doozledorf7036 well I will say this. The Germans build some crazy shit and 90% of it is good but the Tigers just didn’t hit that mark which is good and bad. Great for us cause the US only had 3 combat encounters with them but it was bad cause the tank had so much potential but was so lethargic and rushed that it just didnt work
Well when you overstack on ammo and leave unsecure ammo around, of course it's going to fucking blow up.
Just like at the naval battle of Jutland in 1916.
I spent over two decades on and around tanks. And I cannot wrap my brain around the idea of anybody having improperly stowed ammunition in their tank. Unless they were suicidal.
@@colincampbell767 Maybe you’ve exposed a reason without trying to. While you spent >20 years in armor, the vast majority of WWII allied Soldiers were draftees. You have wisdom based on experience & training. They found out the hard way. So in a way, you learned from them.
@@mikem6176 Safety regulations are written in blood. And as I used to tell the troops: "For every stupid rule - there's somebody who did something stupid."
Re: burn rates, there is also the premise that when fighting a defensive war as the Germans were, you wanted to make sure you shot something until it was un-usable. You weren't going to be able to push out and gain ground to ensure you could capture or destroy equipment later. You shot it until it burned so that the enemy couldn't recover it after the battle. This meant that the image of Shermans burning was likely everywhere, in any conflict where a Sherman was lost and would have contributed to this idea.
But a lot of tanks were recovered from the battlefield, repaired and put back into service.
@@iansneddon2956 Yes. But a tank that burns is generally unrepairable. The heat destroys the temper of the metal, differential heating and cooling means that the turret ring is no longer perfectly round and just about everything inside the turret and hull is destroyed.
Armor goes through a carefully calculated and controlled heating and cooling process to increase the 'toughness' of the metal. Heat it up and then allow it to cool at too slow a rate - and it's now ordinary steel that's useless as armor.
Good ol' Sherman, my personal favourite tank to hunt Leopard.
Leopard?
@@peepeepoopoo2535 i think he means panther or tiger
@@viper_7712 I think this chad of a tanker does take on leos with a sherman
@@peepeepoopoo2535 na if your a real chad you get in the bt 7 and side pen leopards
@@droneexpert4206 nah thats so basic. Be a real chad and go into 10.0 with the sherman 105 and lob heat lmao
Something that many forget is the Sherman had the same front armor was the same slope and thickness as the T-34 which fanbois like to hold up as an example of a great tank. The tanks that the Sherman was designed to meet were the PZKW III & IV and not the PZKW V but it did well enough against them too.
And on top of that it wasn't as brittle so it wouldn't kill its crew
@@planetmaker3472 The early Sherman's did tend to burn but once that was taken car of it was a solid tank.
@@thomasb1889 true
Spookston. The m4 sherman is my favourite tank of all times. So im happy you made a video about it
Some say it was a death trap: It actually has one of (if not the) highest survival rates of any WWII tank.
Some say it was the perfect tank that everyone should have used: No such thing exists.
People seem to overlook the fact that the internet has done a 180 and where they used to hate on all allied vehicles and praise the German ones now it is the opposite. And both ideas are wrong
Survival rates are skewed by frontline factors like not being completely surrounded on the defensive and having 100 others around to pull you out, and infinite supplies. When people say German rates were bad, as if to make a counter statement, they just completely ignore that then go on to say the T-34 with its awful conditions was god.
keep in mind that the Sherman was actually deployed by US Troops for the first time, on D-Day. There was a huge comeuppance, as they learned to use them. Also, the Hedgerows were disastrous, for the Sherman's, until the US Tanks were equipped with plows, for the Hedgerows. Then, the Tables began to turn. That per my Grandfather who landed in his Sherman , on the third Wave that Day. He led a tank Platoon, then a company, through D-Day. Eventually, he was in and out of Patton's HQ, as he was assigned to 20th Phantom Corps, for screen and point element recons.
@@markgreiser464 Sherman’s saw use in both North Africa and in Italy (and I think on the Eastern front by the soviets through lend lease) before the Americans took them to D-Day
@@lector-dogmatixsicarii1537 For the Sherman the reason they are skewed is because the tank would give the crew a chance to escape before it started concentrating on burning. Big spring loaded hatches that make it easy for a motivated person to get out the tank quickly are another important factor.
I read a good report on the myths of the Sherman. And on one section they mentioned the burn rate, and how the m4 was a lot easier to escape from or survive. The reason they got the reputation was crews lived to tell people. Where as in german tanks a lot less escaped to complain.
If you watch the footage of the Panther vs Sherman and Pershing from Cologne you'll see the Panther crew get out just as quickly as the Sherman crew, and more survived.
@@lyndoncmp5751 One example doesn't change anything.
@@lyndoncmp5751 An exception does not disprove the rule...But then again you are Canadian. So you can't POSSIBLY concede anything to Americans. Typical
America: hey do you want some tanks?
Allies: Sherman!
Sher,man
Don't call me Sherman
When I did read that title I was asking myself:
"The M4 Sherman was bad? What?"
In terms of reliability, probably the best tank of the entire war. Mostly because everything else kept breaking down.
The Sherman also broke down really often. But the allieds had superior suply chaines and fixed the damaged tanks real quick. It was not better then any other tank.
For those who want a simpler version of this video it is: The Sherman is excellent at its job and class. Not as much when the Sherman does something else
The problem with what people think about the Sherman being a bad tank is that they are often getting their information indirectly from Belton Cooper, which for whatever ridiculous reason, History Channel had a habit using his book "Death Traps" as the only source (a book riddled with inconsistencies and is often ridiculed by WW2 historians).
Nearly every History Channel WW2 special used Belton Cooper books as a reference if possible. In reality the Sherman had an very good crew survival rate (I think it was 97%, aka the complete opposite of a death trap, at least statistically speaking) and just as many (if not more) people liked the tank as much as hated it. The book "Death Traps" (and The History Channel) incorrectly influenced entire generations.
With that said, I personally believe the Sherman was lacking in quite a few areas, but that is what you get when you need a mass produced, relatively modular tank which has to be shipped over an entire ocean (aka logistical issues). *You can't bring them back over the Atlantic to get them upgraded/repaired, everything needs to be done near the battle-space and parts all need to be interchangeable.* With those caveats, it did pretty damn good job imo.
No WW2 historians ridicules Cooper's book, it's the Sherman fanboys who are doing that.
@@Dreachon
Incorrect. I've seen many WW2 historians refer to Belton Cooper and his book as "inaccurate" and "full of falsehoods". Mostly because, well, it is.
@@youraveragescotsman7119 By all means do post their names.
Zaloga doesn't call it that, Yeide doesn't call it, even Moran knows better than to call it that.
@@Dreachon Certainly these expletives are not claimed by them. But unless I am mistaken all listed, as well as Estes and I believe Doyle don't regard Cooper as a reputable source and make statements with quite clear contradiction to the claims presented in _"Death Traps"._
@@peterson7082 With Cooper's book is is accepted within the better circles that a lot of his book is still solid as it presents quite a good insight to how allied troops feel.
A lot of what Cooper said about the problems with the Sherman is seen again in Makos' book 'Spearhead' where again we can see tankers say that the Sherman isn't on par.
However, and like pretty much every memoir, the book's content need to be treated with caution as well as something that a reader should always do is to verify things.
"It did what it was built to do. " And that made it a good tank. Some people seriously play too much video games to understand that sentence.
Should do one about the T-34, Cromwell and Comet
since we're doing mediums, add the pz4 as well
T-34: Hot garbage that improved to merely garbage by the war's end.
@@jsn1252 T-34: A clever early war design plagued by reliability and curious cost cutting measures.
@@jsn1252 the t-34 did it’s job. Kill tanks and support infantry. If your tank is going to be killed anyways fast why give it parts to last forever. Make that shit cheap and have the crews repair them when needed.
Love to see when utter fools start shitting on m4 or t-34 or pz4 tanks. At the beginning of war there were only 2 reliable suitable fow ww2 tactics tanks - pz2 and pz3. At the end - only t-34 and m4. All panthers and tigers at 1942, 1943 and 1945 were garbage tanks with good guns. British had idea to give remains of Wehrmacht heavy tanks to BD but scrapped most leftovers instead. War needs functional tank to fulfill all roles. It was not supposed to live forever, it was supposed to die. T-34 and m4 managed to do it right. T-34 a bit more, m4 a bit less (in Europe). Funny but Germany had weak but reliable tanks when it peaked in power, but had least reliable but quite powerful when started losing. Same happened to France and Soviet Union (a bit other way round). Still theese videos are too short to be close to point.
"It did what is was supposed to do" I could say the exact same for every single one of your videos
Except for the panther
@@monticore1626 tru
@@monticore1626 why?
Well, this all purpose medium tank designed to be produced and deployed quickly can't easily take down an incredibly complex, powerful, and heavy breakthrough tank designed specifically to destroy enemy armored vehicles, so it's basically the worst thing ever.
Also, Germany actually WON WWII btw.
/s
@@doozledorf7036 i can tell that this is bait
@@ZakoZeWackoand/or Wehraboo momento
Once you get past the D-Day learning curve, the Sherman proves to be a competent Tank. Very reliable. My Grandfather was in them from D-Day forward.
I feel that the Panzer IV and Sherman are very similar to each other, especially their development history
Same role, same effectiveness
I don’t know how common it was, but in my great grandpa said in his regiment every tank would carry as many extra shells as possible
Spook got to the level where i still watch him even tho don't play wt anymore..
I miss the steel generals era it was so pure back then just chaos and good match making. I grinded all the way to the tiger 2 p then the game began to stray from its true glories.
From a technical and manufacturing perspective, the M4 Sherman was good enough and no more. And it got better as the US kept developing it, as usual. It’s because of this, it’s ease of repair and it’s sheer numbers were what made people call it the best tank on the battlefield.
It's the same with the T-34 it was good enough for battle and easy to mass produce
@@magicelf7559 yea, but the T-34 had way more frequent reliability problems, because of poor quality treatments and ways it got build
@@lutscher7979 Which was ignored as tank would not survive for long on battlefield anyway.
@@lutscher7979 Guess the USSR employed the “build another when it breaks” tactic? Or overworked it’s mechanics to the breaking point. Probably both, tbh
‘Good enough’ - don’t sell it short. All tanks had bad mechanical issues at the time, particularly the rushed British tanks. The M3 and M4 were very reliable and easy to maintain with well thought out interchangeable components.
Ah, German mains got upset when you did the "how bad was the tiger" video so you had to do it with the sherman lol
It was kinda bad from a engine performance standpoint and combat range. With most german tanks like panthers and tigers suffering carburator backfires and faulty drive trains. Except for the lack of mobility and range, when in defense, they were ok.
Wheraboos*
maybe its just for the sake of fairness?
@@yournotgully life aint fair
@@Just_A_Random_Desk but aspects of life can be fair
Loving this channel it actually talks about the flaws of war thunder and im learning more about tanks!
Summary of the M4 Sherman:
>Cue heavy Russian accent
"Not pretyy, but it gets job done!"
U.S. southern accent would be better
I absolutely disagree with the statement that the M4 was "good for lendlease but shouldn't have been the main tank" For everybody? No, that's stupid. For the US? Absolutely.
Even when we take all the issues the M4 had into account, it still compares favorably to most other mainline tanks of the war. You could brink up Panther, but Panther started service in 1943(and as you know, it started off terribly) and didn't need to be ferried across the Atlantic.
Lastly, I'd like to point out that if the 75 and 76mm guns on the M4 were as inadequate as some people like to claim neither would they have been anywhere near as successful as they were nor would have crews liked them - both were liked and both performed very well, including in penetrating tanks they were supposedly unable to. Notably, the 76 was less liked due to problems early on with ammunition and low explosive filler for HE shells(but these are standard teething problems).
At the end of the day, the US produced some...what 50,000 M4s? On it's own side, it lost somewhere around 4,000-5,000 M4s. Something like 1,000 tankers died _in all of WW2_ between all tank platforms on all theaters, and like half died outside their vehicles doing something else. Compare that to any other nation in the war.
"how bad the M4 sherman"
me with a puma who got killed by its machine gun turret : *VERY GOOD TANK MAN*
Tiger and Tiger II: No one can defeat us!
M4 Sherman and its many variants: Are you sure about that?
For an in depth overview of why the Sherman was the way it was, look to the Chieftains Hatch and his posted talks on the subject. Nicholas Moran and Steve Zaloga have done a wonderful job in clearing up many of the misconception and out right falsehoods regarding the Sherman tank.
A pair of charlatans . Steve Zaloga , in particular , is a hack. Moran ,.. a WOT employee and a sell out.
@@andrewwoodhead3141
And your evidence of this is?
@@andrewwoodhead3141 someone doesn’t like the fact that the Sherman did well
"It did what it was built to do. "
Universal quote for all machines
Unless you're the HMS Campbelltown, I don't think anybody building that thing thought to themselves "you know, this destroyer would be really good for taking out a dry dock." Although that'd be funny
@@ragingassassin6659 I finally understand what you meant by that omg..
Except the TOG II
@@antoshq1985 those big bois were basically mobile camp fires xDD
tho *if* they managed to not cath fire on every hill in existence, yea they were effective
@@antoshq1985 what do you expect, they're the product of someone getting too cocky and building an entire battalion before anyone even said anything
I do remember reading a tanker journal in a Museum somewhere in Normandy, about the M4 being a very easy tank to repair.
Basically the entire front end (gearbox and transmission) can be swapped in less than an hour without any cranes needed. This was also the case for many other components. It apparently was a damn easy tank to work on/with.
I can imagine the entire tank is based around being easy to repair and durability of parts like a single washer in the engine that would fail far before the rest and it had to be entirely replaced
They had to use a crane to remove and set the drive housing. Some used jib cranes mounted on the back of flatbed trucks. The Army had a practice of removing the engine and final drive after 200 hours of use for inspection/rebuilding and installing rebuilt units in their place. That ensured that the tanks stayed in good running order instead of running them until something seized up or sheared gears.
I'm sure the sherman was a perfectly fine tank irl but ingame the sherman makes me regret all of my hours ingame
They have a very specific playstyle and it might not be for everybody
@@emilbt7588 I believe it. I've been playing since 2016 and I've never had luck good with the sherman series.
@@GreenStuffConsumer the shermans are kinda easy to use. But not as braindead as the tiger.
But one thing is sure. If u play stabilizers for too long, ur performance on ww2 tanks drop significantly.
@@STRYKER_b14 I know the Sherman's dont let you get away with stuff. The armor is never reliable. The 75mm is a 50/50 kind of gun. The armor is the biggest joke in the game
The first Sherman in the tech tree is really good, and then it gradually gets worse and worse as the BR keeps going up with no meaningful improvements
The M4 Sherman was a very good versatile medium tank, a lot of people forget that tanks were used for much much more than just tank battles, the Sherman filled most roles very well for the entirety of the war, while German tiger tanks were beasts in battle against other tanks, they were far too specialized and used unique parts that made it very prone to breaking down, many tiger tanks were abandoned in the war because the crew couldn’t fix the them with the tools and parts on hand, they were also extremely heavy and got stuck in the mud a lot, but after the British firefly variant of the Sherman came out the tigers armor was no longer impenetrable and just became a liability for most units
How bad was the Sherman? Not. Personally I think it was the best tank of world war 2
I feel very uncomfortable with that pfp
In my opinion, what made the Sherman great was the logistics aspects. Most crews survived knocked out tanks, qnd tanks were easy to repair and maintain. Combat wise, it wasn't amazing, but wasn't awful. Perfectly serviceable is all you need for combat if you can field superior numbers and keep crews alive. Making a mistake wasn't fatal, even if you lost the tank. Green crews had more chances to become veterans and veteran crews can compensate for deficiencies. Combine this with ease of production and maintenance, and the ability to work in any theatre, and I'd argue that, as a primary tank, the M4 is very good. But that's just my opinion.
In world of tanks...I admittedly focus mainly on the german tank trees, but when I got to the howitzer MC, realizing the speed and mobility of the US medium tanks really got me hooked to eventually getting through the whole sherman line up. They're perfect for hit and run tactics, flanking operations and funny enough one of only a hand full of medium tanks to can outpace and outgun the majority of light tanks available.
Head gear! US tankers wore a tanker helmet. British tankers wore berets. Guess who’s tankers had fewer head injuries.
berets look cooler though
When introduced, the M4/Sherman made half of the panzer force totally obsolete. (PII, PIII - and early PIV)
The T34c did not have that impact.
On that basis, alone, the M4 has to be deemed the most significant machine of its era. Good enough beat perfection.
The T-34 definitely had a similar effect on the panzer force. It's just that various factors (poor crew training, lack of experience, poor tactics, lackluster leadership, etc) prevented them from doing as well as the sherman until the issues were ironed out.
@@901Sherman Their production quality issues were never ironed out during the war. As for crew training, I've never read a Red Army account of ANY tankers receiving decent training. Instead, one is constantly reading about how the crew hopped in and had an hour to a day's training. And that was that. I tend to believe the boys that actually fought in the tanks over official accounts, historians -- and such. Now that they are on their death-beds, account after account has come out. They are not flattering for the rep of the Red Army or the T34c.
@@901Sherman Don't forget shit production and no logistical support. Or Radios.
When you have to take boxes from farmers to use as seats in your tank, maybe its time to reconsider your production.
@@davidhimmelsbach557 Yeah. Beneath the Venere of Soviet propaganda, the T34 really seems to be a rather below average tank that looked good on paper but the Soviet Union had no realistic way to make work at the time.
I’d love to see one on the M26, as well as how it would have performed if it were deployed earlier in the war.
The m26 wasn't ready or well received in 1945 and the M4 was still extremely present in Korea
M46* aka the real M26.
Centron 3 fans: But muh bang on stabilizer, muh mad minute, muh APDS, muh tea maker...[Roman name to inflate self importance, virgin 13 power to weight, will rat on Challenger Lad, awkward trailer attachment to avoid being embarrassed by weak fuel tanks, massive suicide forward ammo-rack to compensate for small bullet, always playing intense Anglo screeching everyone hates, betrayed Comet, ricer exhaust tip cry for attention]
M46 enjoyer: Named after Chad general, 18.4 power to weight, Shot variety, More caliber, bore evacuator, automatic gear box, air cooling [fans to dry glorious hair], assistant driver to hold massive balls [Korean mountainside downhill tank skiing meme], is friends with Sherman, designers and crew show off everything, chicken wire around head to block 5-virgin waves, Johnny always comes marching home [everyone likes this], shitty tractor muffler to confuse Soviet tanks.
It would've seen little action due to being too slow to keep up with the advancing forces. In 1945, the M26's were at the rear of the columns and only called up when needed. One was with the armor unit that helped capture the intact bridge over the Rhine at Remagan. The M4's took up positions then waited 25 minutes for their M26 to arrive and take a position to cover the M4's after they went towards the bridge. The M4's crossed the river on pontoon bridging soon afterwards while the M26 had to stay behind for 3 days until the Army engineers found a barge downstream to carry it across.
Outstanding presentation on the M4 Medium Tank. Well researched and a big salute to pointing out that German tanks had problems as well. It's just that not well known as the Germans suppressed such information and thus when the majority of history was written after the war such information was not widely available to most authors.
Its gone the other way now, with people totally exaggerating the flaws of German tanks, to the point you get people ridiculously claiming they were ineffective and useless.
>bad
>Sherman
Excuse me?
I like this review of the M4, keeping the video realistic and historical and not german biased as well as mentioning it was not the american rambo super machine others like to think it is. As short as it is it's informative
Day 2 of asking for a “if War thunder’s yak38 was historical” vid :)
That's a miracle tank for pulling off that jump at 2:15
And having a functional crew afterwards. No seatbelts, no airbags and nothing but steel to absorb the impact of your face hitting it.
historically accurate episode on the British Warrior IFV?
The M4 Sherman is basically jack of all trades, master of none. But it's also worth noting that the Shermans engine was designed to be easily worked on by anyone who knew how to work on a car engine, making it easier for tank crews to do small repairs on the field.
It is actually a master of "some", highest crew survivability rate, one if not the most reliable tank of the War and probably the best platform for upgrades.
Am I wrong or is the M4 kinda the Proto-MBT? Good speed good gun good armor and ability to do almost everything.
One could say the M4 "Sherman" and T-34 were inspirational to the Main Battle Tank idea even if they weren't considered MBTs they still filled all roles given to them by their respective nations.
I think the Centurion is generally considered the first/pre-mbt.
@@rockboy3970 Alternatively the Renault FT ^^
Let me share a comment I once saw on a video
"So we have to make a direct comparison between two different very Tanks even though a direct comparison is fairly pointless because of the soft factors that complicated the situation.
The M4 Sherman was a mass produced tank that equipped loads of different units in various Armies as a fairly standard piece of equipment. Crew experience greatly varied and training was usually adequate though unexceptional. Most of the crews in service had limited training and experience.
On the other hand the Tigers were concentrated into special units that served a particular purpose. The crews for Tigers were usually experienced combat veterans, Tiger drivers especially were very carefully selected and didn't get anywhere near a Tiger unless they were regarded as very competent. The heavy tank Battalions that Tigers were formed into are basically elite units because of the men in them as much as the tank.
They want to compare tank to tank but one of the main factors in determining superiority was actually crew quality in training, experience, leadership and tactics and nothing to do with the actual quality of the tank design itself."
And, ironically, the *single* engagement that american shermans had with a tiger? They won with less losses.
The short answer: No worse than contemporary mediums of similar size, configuration and deployment, being a good jack of all trades vehicle - good at a lot, yet master of none.
Master of being repaired
@@waffleman2370 Because it was _simple_ to repair. Transmission disintegrates? Take the tank back to the nearest command post, rip the front off and slap in a new one in a couple hours. Not like a Panther, where you either spend at _least_ six hours just getting the front plate off, or you have to take the tank all the way back to the factory _which might not exist anymore._
@@GoredonTheDestroyer My comment wasn't making fun of the Sherman, I was simply making a joke about how easy and quick it was to fix a Sherman
@@waffleman2370 Aye, my bad.
Is... this the part where we go on a long-winded fight about how one tank was better, which results in the use of language better left behind last century?
@@GoredonTheDestroyer No I think its the part were we make fun of those people or stop responding
That final part is the most important one: It did what it was designed to do.
a little while when i was playing Ussr in my t-34 i got hit directly by an artillery shell and i bounced it
S T A L I N I U M
you see comrade, you not need to run from artillery, let comrade Stalin guide enemy shell away from you
@@vucko9201 yes
I think the Sherman is a case of upgrades and modifications keeping it competitive for the current theatre and year, but people then tend to conflate all the upgrades into just the single M4 Sherman and thus overemphasise its usefulness. I personally think the M4 could serve as a baseline of what a medium tank should be and then compare other tanks to it.
The Sherman is better is than the Tiger
@@glurberdurberman-cs4pd the tiger tank
@@glurberdurberman-cs4pd all of them
Logistics: the M4 was the right weight and size to ship across the Atlantic on liberty ships.
Logistics: The M4 was easy to recover and repair in the field, and spare parts were plentiful, leading to higher rates of operational tanks in units that used it.
Logistics: The M4 was faster than tanks that could otherwise outperform it (and American units had plenty of artillery for such foes).
Logistics: The M4 was mass-produced, allowing for lots of them to work with infantry units.
Logistics: The M4 chassis was easy to adapt to more specialized roles.
Comparing a Sherman to a Panther is like comparing a Toyota Corolla to a Lamborghini, and personally, I'd prefer the Toyota.
Imagine complaining about m4 being bad in war thunder
The Sherman tank. Probably one of my most favriote tanks, now I do love the Sherman’s espically the jumbo tanks, but I don’t think they were stupidly good. Was their short stop stabilizer pretty good? Yeah. Was their gun pretty good? Yeah. Was their armor pretty good? Eh not really. But it was a good tank, it did it’s job and killed alot of German tanks. I like it
The frontal armour on the Sherman was almost the same as a tiger 1 so it was pretty good. If your talking side armour even the Germans learned by panther all it did was add extra weight it didn't need. If you want heavy armour than you have the jumbo but still wasn't the best Sherman.
(War Thunder)Maybe out of topic but what's the opinions on the reworked hull aim, including features such as being able to move with all parts of the powertrain and even tracks destroyed?
The vast majority of if not all of the New Zealand M4 Shermans were powered by the famous Ford GAA, V8 18 litre 500hp engine that was incredibly reliable! My father was a Commander of one during Italy! As a New Zealander he was seriously proud of this tank! New Zealand didn't have to go into Lend Lease; we paid cash for all our equipment and we actually sent food free of charge to the Poms! Whinging Poms shafted us anyway in 1973.
Our Dad only bought Fords until the day he died! My dad was very pleased to be in a M 4 Sherman as he though that all the British tanks were crap!
In Italy he rated the German Panzer Mk 4 and the Stug and he was thankful that he never ran into a Panther or a Tiger!
New Zealand units had quite an outstanding number of _M4A1's_ meaning they also had the Continental _R-975C3_ "(Wright) Whirlwind" radial engine.
People hate the Sherman but the Sherman was the most survivable tank of the entire war due to its safety feature one book ruined its reputation
My perception is that the logistical position the U.S. was in and the issue of maintaining supply lines over a sea, made a monolithic weapon like the M4 a good single option to mitigate those problems without sacrificing much combat capability.
Plenty of replacement parts were shipped over with each batch of new tanks. The US Army also provided plenty of mechanics, support vehicles, repair stations and repair depots close to the front lines to keep them in good running order.
Best Tank of WWII the M4 Sherman
You could get it anywhere you needed a Tank.
If you were shot you had a better chance at surviving than any thing else in the war. Except for the much heavier Churchill
Massively modifiable for different roles
Easy to repair for a Tank
Easy to manufacture
Best Tank of the War
Why cant people just agree that there is no best tank of WW2 because everyone had different needs and requirements, which is why we had such a wide variety of vehicles developed in the first place...except for the Bob Semple tank which obviously is the best, no competition.
Let's not forget the most important thing.
It was an extremely easy tank to drive to anyone with no experience.
The US knew most of its population didn't have experience with tanks but knew how to drive a car. So they made their tanks really easy to drive for anyone.
While Germany made their tanks harder and harder to drive and delicate to drive. Hence the numerous transmission breakdowns.
And that had a huge impact on a strategic point of view.
3:00 : a friend of my grandfather was parr of an antitank crew in ww2 and always told me how easy it was to fry an Sherman compared to other tanks the allies had.
Its not that the Sherman cooked off every time, but compared to other tanks e.g Churchills or Valentines they did more often.
Churchill’s were supposed to be tanky (even for a tank) and I do t know much about the valentines but I feel like the amount of Valentine’s and Churchill’s would be in the same boat as tigers and panthers in the west due to the British adopting the Sherman.
More he said she said. You sure you didn't read that in "DEATHRAPS"? lol
Great assessment of the medium M4. The M4 was exactly what it needed to be. The best all around tank of WW2.
In conclusion : the M4 Sherman is the best tank of WW2
@Automeme Which would make it the best. Produced in high numbers, did its job, had a high KD ratio and low crew death, lower than any other nation (in terms of percentage), easy to maintain and repair and could be transported and succeed basically anywhere.
That makes it the best. On paper, maybe not, but in practice, by far the best.
I don't enjoy playing Sherman tanks too much in games, but I respect how useful it was in the second world war
How bad was the M4 Sherman?
Well no, but actually perhaps.
"We ran out of 88mm ammo ,the Americans never ran out of Shermans "
A captured German in charge of an anti tank battery .
No German ever said that. That feeling was held by multiple people certainly, but that quote is fictitious
the shermans "badness" was in the minus range
The Sherman was so bad it still trucking by Vietnam
@@cryamistellimek9184 I believe you mean Korea. Without google I believe it was decommissioned in the 50’s
@@engineersmith I think there were still a few variants of the Sherman kicking it in Vietnam.
@@cryamistellimek9184 i didn’t want to use google last night. Let me check rq. If I’m wrong I’m wrong. But I feel like the United States had better tanks by the 70’s
@@cryamistellimek9184 so there were two, the M4A3 and the M4A6, the site I’m getting this info from doesn’t say how many but it does say throes two were used.
People argue a lot over how good the M4 Sherman was but I think the M3 Lee is the one that gets massively overlooked for how big of an impact it had because people just look at it and dismiss it outright as some kind of dumb meme.
The M3 allowed the Army to find ways to improve the powertrain, suspension and tracks for the M4.
Sherman gets a lot of unfair flak. :/
Would love to see a series on British tank development. Crusader, Cromwell, Comet and Centurion.
Bring back armored legacy please
The Sherman caught fire so much because after the crew bailed after a bad hit the German tanks would keep shooting it till it would catch fire, it didn’t catch fire nearly as much as other German tanks
How Bad Was The M4 Sherman?
Well, not that bad it seems.
The one thing where the Sherman messed up that nobody talks about: The gunsight
Us gunsights only had 1 range scale, meaning both their High Explosive and Armor piercing projectiles had to be fired at the same velocity. The is the reason why the 76mm gun had an HE shell with half the explosive filler of the 75mm. The Russians and Germans both had gunsights with 2 settings and fired their high explosive rounds at lower velocity, meaning they got both good anti infantry and anti-tank capability from their high velocity guns.