Thanks to Chieftain for taking the time to help us with fixing this video! No one does tanks better than him. Check out his channel here: www.youtube.com/@TheChieftainsHatch
If they had outstanding commitment to quality, they would have done their responsibility in the first video, not only when people call out their mistakes.
@@TimZandbergenWere all human and we all make mistakes, These guys do a mammoth task in work and research, all mistakes happen. It's better to address them, fix them, and tell people you were wrong and make it right.
The fact that you and your team were willing to take down an old episode in the name of due diligence and commitment to quality is, frankly, inspiring. Thank you for all your work!
Might have wanted to point out that the Allies had heavy tank losses, especially to mines (if memory serves 25% of write offs were to mines, but due to high survivability of the crews they quickly jumped into new Tanks. It was amazing how the Allies were able to get such massive numbers of armor and vehicles across the channel especially without a good port until Antwerp was opened but very late in the war. It was the abilityto build logistic vehicles in massive numbers in terms of ships and specialized carriers and trucks, as well as armor recovery vehicles, that created the Allied Western Front juggernaut.
It's so refreshing to see content creation where mistakes are rectified. It's easy to get things mixed up now and then, especially with the sheer length and volume of a channel like this. So many others would just let it slide or make a note on the original if that. Props to you guys for the reupload and production quality here!
@@WorldWarTwo since there’s a film about Pattons Panthers(761st tank battalion) I was wondering if you make a special mention of that battalion other black combat units from the USA because I believe they deserve more recognition.
There is one advantage of the 75mm gunned Sherman M-4 that is seldom recognized. It had a short gun barrel which allowed the tank to move more easily through thick forest and built up areas. This maneuverability gave its crews the ability to move onto the opposition's flanks to get those good shots against their tanks.
Good thing the Germans were totally ignorant and inept at warfare, and never realised this astounding truth every World of Tanks player knows and tailor their tactics accordingly! It's just a historical fact that allied tankers were overjoyed at being forced into armored knife-fights because of their hopelessly inferior range... If they were lucky. You've only got one life chum - this shit is not a videogame, and war is about more than logistics.
Another reason the 75 was preferred was easy/faster loading. This is why the IS-2's sucked compared to IS-1s, in my opinion. The 85 on the IS-1 could put more rounds down the range faster with an adequate round for most jobs, just as the 75 sherman could.
Strongpoint : "I am a strongpoint ! Nothing can change me." Petard : *launch 13kg of explosive* Not-so-strong-point : "Understandable, have a great day."
A school friend's dad served in Normandy and witnessed petard mortars being fired at German bunkers. Apparently, the blast they created was phenomenal, and I remember him telling us about the crew of one bunker surrendering because even though none of them were injured or killed by the first shot, they were so shaken by it that they simply didn't want to be on the receiving end of another !
The tank combat in the Western front is so underrated. During the Battle ‘Operation Epsom’, the British had a concentration of Panzers facing them that was only second to the Battle of Kursk. Seven and a half armoured divisions inc 3x SS and the Panzer Lehr *on a front of just 62 miles* compared to over 600 miles on the Eastern front.
Absolutely true! There were more tanks per square mile between Caen and Bayeux during the Battle for Normandy than at Kursk. People just don't realize how grim that fighting was. The heaviest, most concentrated tank warfare of WW2!
Bravo to the team for taking the feedback onboard and producing a great video. Very few channels would've done this; this is why you're one of the best channels on RUclips! Bravo! 👏
Mr. Moran (the Chieftain) has a great presentation about why the Sherman was the best tank in Europe that's highly recommended. Like many I was skeptical at first but he makes a great argument for the Sherman when you take ALL factors into consideration.
All writers, even the great ones, need an editor. You just happen to have an entire fanbase. So glad you were able to fix this, with the help of the Chieftain, so that we could enjoy it without the occasional wince. This won't stop the Sherman-haters, but it puts its status in 1944 in balanced, accurate context. Which is what you do best. On to Berlin!
What a great channel, new to it. WWII buff myself, 30 years old and show my kids these videos to inform them as well as entertain. Theyre into it lol Tanks alot
Have a copy of the game Panzer Leader from 1974 and almost all the vehicles in this video are represented in there by counters. Values assigned to each tank are somewhat abstract to simplify the game, but represent attack, defense, speed, and range. I can see correlation between those values and attributes in this and other videos such as firepower, armour, engines, and crew quality
Remember, no one makes a perfect plan. But WW2 in real time comes pretty darn close. Also, war is hell! So my grateful tks 2 Indy, and everyone else connected 2 the Time Ghost Army. Merry Christmas 2 everyone, and a happy, and safe New Year.😊
Thank you Chieftain for combing through the script to assure its accuracy! And thank you Indy and the whole Time Ghost team for putting these programs out for us to consume! We enjoy your efforts a great deal! 👌😏💖
Excellent compilation thank you,I knew about the the 75s/76s but the order theywere used and different purposes with different loads is explained very clearly.Also was sketchy on the Cromwell and it's place in the fray made sense to use that with the flame thrower as the thick armor would have protected the crew from certain incineration with a direct hit.These units still needed the faster Shermans(Fire Fly for protection)
When Indy talks about the pros and cons of both 75mm and 76mm within 4:00 - 4:25, I just remember that Sherman in the first Company of Heroes game. The M4 Sherman tank there has the 75mm as a default main gun and you can upgrade it to M1A1C 76mm if you want it. The 75mm has a blast radius which can decimate infantry and weapons support teams but it has an okay damage to heavy-armored vehicles. This is where the 76mm is needed. Once you upgraded it with 76mm, its armor penetration increases but it has a lesser damage to infantry though it has a different way to counter infantry units like it has a .50 Cal M2HB Browning Heavy Machine Gun.
Indy, the Ferdinand was never deployed in fighting on the North West European front. The survivors from the Eastern front, post Kursk, saw some action in Italy as mobile blockhouses, and I believe a few ended their days in Hungary. Not nit picking of course!
Well you can definitely tell Chieftan's fingerprints all over this script. Its more or less a rehash of several of his talks, and contains many more obscure technical details about tank improvements than the Eastern Front one. (Especially the Sherman part, which is longer than the discussion about all the other American tanks combined) I really don't like how the modern speakers have started lumping the Panther and Tiger together and calling them rare. Tigers were rare, Panthers were as common as Panzer IVs, and a Plurality by the time of the Battle of the Bulge. Zaloga also notes that the 76mm was seen as a disappointment by Tank Crews, as it had a weaker HE round, no smoke round, and still couldn't punch through the front of a Panther at combat ranges, with a group from 3rd Armored outright refusing the upgrade initially despite seeing more tank on tank action than just about anyone. Regardless, Allied Tankers consistently overcame their opposing counterparts through better use of combined arms and superior numbers. For the Gemans, Panzer Brigades weren't the answer in the West. Commonwealth and American forces has far more anti tank weaponry spread among their divisions and could whittle down the counter attacks far more effectively than the Soviets. Training was also a major issue for the Germans. Allied tankers noted the decreasing quality of German tankers, and how routinely they began making mistakes. German armor designed for the eastern front suffered heavily in the west, where the terrain forced combat to be at much shorter ranges, and eliminating the Germans primary advantage. Finally, the endurance on these tanks just wasn't there. Germany had kept production high by basically eliminating spare part production, and German tanks were notoriously difficult to repair in the field. Often German armored assaults would create fantastically lopsided local breakthroughs against the Allies only to be enveloped and abandoned a week later. The ideal weapon for video games and selling books, late war german tanks were fantastic at winning the battle only to lose the war.
An excellent comment, thank you for adding this. I am also dismayed about the frequent downplaying of Panther's deployment (numerically speaking) in particular. I wonder if this is related to the common fixation to call it a "heavy tank" and in this way also lump it with the Tigers
@@Maus5000 In my opinion, the reasons the Panther remains such a controversial German Tank is because weight wise it is a Heavy Tank, but the Germans tried to use it the same way you would a Medium Tank. This in turn means that people tend to call it whichever one bests suits their argument at the time.
The closing statement is... Interesting. It poses the old question that every person who has ever studied the 2nd World War in depth will encounter, 'Quantity over Quality' and so on. But what makes a difference isn't whether one is producing Shermans and the other Panthers. The distinction between the Western Allies and Germany is one of industrial capacity and overall industrial self-sufficiency. The US and Britain, combined, excluding the colonies, have multiple times the industrial capabilities of Germany, both by virtue of protected manufacturing facilities (protected from bombings), more modern production machinery (the German industrial machine has been rolling out war materiell for 6 years now and even further back considering the rapid re-armarment, while the US had the capability to modernize its factories, free from that strain) and a bigger manpower pool of specialized workers. The US could be producing bloody Maus and would still outproduce the Germans in raw numbers. The only thing 'balancing the scales' a bit is the fact that the US has to maintain a massiver production chain over the Atlantic, under threat from U-Boats (even reduced). But still, the idea that there is any chance that the Germans had a low-cost viable solution that could've equaled Allied numbers, and they chose to ignore it in favor of bigger tanks is an illusion.
I would have added one thing: You mention that the main weakness of American armor in Normandy was the inexperience of the crews, by the time the Allies are approaching Germany this is no longer the case. At the Battle of Arracourt in September of 1944 experienced American forces are turning the tables on well equipped but inexperienced German Panzer formations.
@@lyndoncmp5751 Arracourt was a perfect example of what well trained Sherman tank crews could do against a superior armored force(it was no "anomaly", the U.S. 4th Armored Division trained for years before landing in Normandy). And why did they get "next to nowhere"? Fuel and supplies were diverted elsewhere, so the Third Army had to halt it's advance(kinda hard to go anywhere without fuel, eh?). This halt gave the Germans time to dig in and reinforce the First Army and Fifth Panzer Army. Not to mention the exceptionally rainy weather hampering offensive operations. Then after Metz was captured, the Americans came up against the Siegfried Line.
I wasn’t really paying attention, just playing RUclips in the background. When you got to talking about Sherman guns, I was thinking “hey it sounds like they’re using the Chieftain as a source” As it so happens lol. Just classic Chieftain Sherman talking points.
Kinda knew you would do this and im really glad. This channel isnt *just* youtube, its education - with a commitment to academic rigour even some academics on youtube don't reach. As i said in the initial community post, i would love to see an analysis of the errors made and why. This isnt because i feel you as a channel have anything to answer for or correct, but because its a fadcinating opportunity to learn about the traps and mistakes that can exist in research (especially when youre a generalist or youre approaching a specific discipline or subject as an expert in another where greater expertise exists). If you were to do this, I'd love it, and I'd imagine we would see no reference to who specifically was doing the research or the workings of the channel aside from regarding research. Id also completely understand if a video like that- "how honest historians make mistakes" might present too much of a minfield or be viewed outside the scope of the channel. In terms of honesty and rigour, this video is enough - id just like to see this analysis as an interesting discussion and an opportunity to educate.
just wondering, but in the war against humanity series quite it was said that the strategic bombing did not have effect. but now it is claim that tank production got hampered by bombing. great episode, as always
Ofc it was for "propaganda"...and propaganda should look "impressive". Im surprised they found a place in germany, to that date, to place them all in a open field and dont get bombed by air^^@@Julius_Hardware
Thanks for a great video. Am surprised the Firefly was not mentioned more. It was an up-gunned terror of a tank that blinded it's own crew temporarily if they didn't blink while firing it and set fire to many hedges and undergrowth in front of it while firing.
I would suggest that the claims of unreliability of the German tanks is not an issue of design and manufacture, but of a lack of supply and maintenance available to keep them running as well as say, late war British tanks, which I would suggest they are on par with. Also, being on the defensive, tanks that would otherwise be recoverable could not be. (Yes, the Panther was rushed, and that first impression at Kursk was never erased, though it should have been.) People complain about the final drives and transmissions on late war German tanks for good reason, but tank crews report that in good hands, they would hold up for as long as any other tank's. Good hands became harder to find as the war went on, of course... If the Germans were able to maintain any sort of air cover on the Western Front, the story would be very different, even with fuel shortages. Of course, fuel shortages meant no air cover or pilot training, blah blah blah.... American tanks are exceptional, as they are made in peaceful mega-assembly line factories, where any part can be switched out with any other like part (something no other nation could claim). This, along with the lengthy and thorough development of the Sherman (and related tanks) made it a masterpiece for the job it was intended for (and it would have been much better if it didn't have to fit onto railroad cars and jammed into holds of ships via crane). The Pershing was not given the luxury of rigorous testing and long development and so was very much like the Panther. In time, it would prove to be an excellent design. In time...
It's worth mentioning that a hallmark of a properly reliable tank is ease of use. If it takes very experienced personnel for a tank to be serviceable, it's not quite "reliable" in a logistical sense. Turnover rates will be heightened as a result of this. Tanks like T-34 and Sherman, although not impeccable reliability-wise (they were serviceable for the time barring manufacturing defects), could be safely and reliably operated by inexperienced personnel, which is an important distinction
Interesting. Stephen Ambrose wrote about German tanks and vehicles with fixable problems being abandoned. While those farm boys and mechanics in the U.S. Army were fixing anything they could get their hands on. The implication I got from Ambrose was that American mechanics were more ambitious. It's easier to be be more ambitious when you've got spare parts, a lot of fuel and vehicles for towing. And yeah, we are more ambitious... I think you could also say that German engineers were top shelf, but terrific or even more engineers can't create molybdenum.
"Right." The sounded a lot like the Chieftain, except for the Irish accent. I love his scripts, his dry humour -- "Make Strong Points -- not so strong points".
Can not give you numbers for after D Day, however 17,000 M4's were Lend Leased from late 1942 (almost as many as the US Army received). Over 7,000 light tanks Lend Leased from late 1941. Hyperwar Lend Lease shipments Churchills built 5,640 approx. starting 1942 wiki Cromwell first fielded D Day No. built 4,016 wiki
7th Armoured division had 350 tanks which were all Cromwells except 36 Sherman Fireflys and often employed a one firefly providing overwatch for three Cromwell formation. 8th Armoured Brigade used about 130 tanks of various models as infantry support vehicles such as Hobarts Funnies. Guards Armoured Division had 343 tanks initially Crusaders but mostly converted to Shermans just before D-Day 31st Armoured Brigade used mostly Churchills and Churchill Crocodiles
@@AndrewBlacker-t1d Find something better to do then (did I use the right version 💩 head?) going through the comments section and being a detestable wanker.
A couple pieces of interesting Panzer minutia for the coming Bulge fighting and the last part of 1944 in general The Bulge fighting will see the deployment of a small number of Jagdpanzer 38 "Hetzer" with their main guns replaced with flame throwers. Hitler personally approved construction of 20-30. They will not prove effective and this will be their only deployment I am aware of Also in the offensive Tiger Ausf B will for the first time be used with a substantially new track. The Tiger B's first track design was composed of alternating "shoe" and "connecting" links. The original connecting link was composed of multiple different parts hinged off the same pin(s) and was propelled by an 18 tooth sprocket. This arrangement proved prone to uneven premature wear on the sprocket wheel, and common failure of the flimsy connecting links. The second track design merged this connecting link into one large solid unit, and removed every other sprocket tooth, bringing it down to 9. This track was acceptable, but soon we will see the introduction of the improved type. This new design will discard the alternating links idea, and simplify it down to a single link and pin. The 18 tooth sprocket will return, at first in its original form for the field trials in the upcoming offensive, and in 1945 in a new form with wider tooth bases. November saw Krupp present a far reaching series of proposals to the Reichs office of armored vehicle design to re-arm the panzers i na variety of ways. These included : fitting the PzKpfw IV turret to the JgPz 38 "Hetzer" chassis, fitting the PzKpfw IV hull with a new improved design of Panther turret, making a tank destroyer on the Panther chassis with a 12,8cm gun in a rear casemate similar to a Ferdinand/Elefant but with sloped armor, re-arming the Tiger B with a 10,5cm gun, and re-arming the Jagdtiger with a 12,8cm gun with a longer barrel. Virtually all of these proposals were thrown out immediately. The German school of armored vehicle design is out of touch with the situation on the ground and led by independent actors pulling in different, often self-serving directions. Such is the Third Reich
I agree Tiger II were gas guzzler and was prey to shots into its flanks. But the German heavy and super heavy tanks were useless as they couldnt cross bridges due to their heavy weight.
I knew a successful hellcat tanker. One of the few stories i got out of him.. besides what a hotrod it was, was that the engine intake was inside the cab. Meaning, in winter on their way into Germany, running the engine turned the crew into popsicles despite the hot engine 😅
I find it hilarious that people somehow think that the decision to make a mediocre tank that you can make a gazillion of means that your military skill is somehow inferior to the side that makes infinitely fewer really advanced tanks. Logistics is a military skill.
A bit late to the game here, but... hey, gotta love a crew dedicated to the truth. Good on 'em, truly. Hol' up.... Where is the Aral Sea? Some of the Great Lakes region looks like they're missinf, too.
They mentioned in a previous video that, when creating the map, the layer with all the bodies of water accidentally got shifted westward, so all the lakes and rivers are in the wrong position 😅
if anyone is wondering why "wolverine" and "slugger"/"Jackson" weren't mentioned, it's because the US army did not officially designate names for the vehicles until post-war and what you commonly hear ever came from the manufacturers or pet names from the proving grounds. There is contention about where the general names came from as well.
Most of the General names (the British did not officially use "General" in their naming) were officially recognized by US Army Ordnance in November of 1944 in an order directing personnel to use the names when speaking to the media.
@MurderousEagle As far as US Army Ordnance was concerned, yes. That said, that only applied to Ordnance, the rest of the Army was not subject to their declaration
A dramatic improvement in quality of the presentation. I seem to remember reading in Wikipedia that Wet Stowage was issued as a field modification kit. However, I've not seen any reference to the kit being fitted in the field. The Firefly (and the 17 pounder) had problems with sloped armour. There is a glacis plate in a German museum (Munster?) with marks from 5 hits by a 17 pounder. The problem is probably overfilling of gunpowder. As far as the 76mm gun is concerned, it was plagued by a phenonmenon called The Shatter Gap. Eisenhower had good reason to complain about this. The Germans discovered that their standard 16 tonne bridges could handle the Tigers. So movement was not that much of a problem. Except for lack of fuel.
The suspension shown at 3:50 is not the HVSS being discussed in the audio but the earlier (but not earliest) VVSS although the tanks do appear to have wider tracks. No biggee.
Thanks to Chieftain for taking the time to help us with fixing this video! No one does tanks better than him.
Check out his channel here: www.youtube.com/@TheChieftainsHatch
No ones fits into them or gets out of them quickly better in a “ Oh my tank is on fire!” kind of way.
why are sweden, mongolia, turkey, afghanistan, ireland, spain, saudi arabia and argentina highlighted on the map?
They are all "neutral" countries @@CannibaLouiST
@@CannibaLouiSTProbably because they were all neutral.
18:20 So I guess you will never mention the Ratte, if it was even a serious design in the first place.
Shout out to this team for recognizing that they made errors and reproducing the episode. The commitment to quality is outstanding.
If they had outstanding commitment to quality, they would have done their responsibility in the first video, not only when people call out their mistakes.
@@TimZandbergenWere all human and we all make mistakes, These guys do a mammoth task in work and research, all mistakes happen. It's better to address them, fix them, and tell people you were wrong and make it right.
@@TimZandbergenAre you for real?
Do you know someone that has always done everything without a single error?
So toxic
Agreed! Bravo Zulu to the Time Ghost team!
@@TimZandbergenYou must be so bearable to people you interact with.
Just a pure coincidence that this episode is 19 minutes 44 seconds long
I didn't even notice till this comment, strange coincidence for sure!
- Jake
@@WorldWarTwonice ahah
The fact that you and your team were willing to take down an old episode in the name of due diligence and commitment to quality is, frankly, inspiring. Thank you for all your work!
Thanks for watching!
-TimeGhost Ambassador
This is why you guys are the best WWII channel on youtube. You take the time to go back and fix mistakes. You guys rule!
Thank you for the comment and thanks for watching!
Best channel… not just best WWII channel!
Mark Felton
Really impressed by your willingness to admit the mistakes, and actively working to fix them.
A strength of character far too rare in the modern day.
Thanks for the kind words!
Might have wanted to point out that the Allies had heavy tank losses, especially to mines (if memory serves 25% of write offs were to mines, but due to high survivability of the crews they quickly jumped into new Tanks. It was amazing how the Allies were able to get such massive numbers of armor and vehicles across the channel especially without a good port until Antwerp was opened but very late in the war. It was the abilityto build logistic vehicles in massive numbers in terms of ships and specialized carriers and trucks, as well as armor recovery vehicles, that created the Allied Western Front juggernaut.
The History Guy did a video about the hurdles overcome to deliver the B29s on time.
You are correct the people of that time moved mountains.
It's so refreshing to see content creation where mistakes are rectified. It's easy to get things mixed up now and then, especially with the sheer length and volume of a channel like this. So many others would just let it slide or make a note on the original if that. Props to you guys for the reupload and production quality here!
We appreciate the kind comment, thank you!
@@WorldWarTwo since there’s a film about Pattons Panthers(761st tank battalion) I was wondering if you make a special mention of that battalion other black combat units from the USA because I believe they deserve more recognition.
Glad you got your tanks fixed. It's hard to get parts, sometimes. You have my tanks.
Tank you for watching.
There is one advantage of the 75mm gunned Sherman M-4 that is seldom recognized. It had a short gun barrel which allowed the tank to move more easily through thick forest and built up areas. This maneuverability gave its crews the ability to move onto the opposition's flanks to get those good shots against their tanks.
I agree with the Chieftain. It was the best tank of the war.
And easy to ship by rail and sea.
That's a thing in an old Clint Eastwood movie, Kelly's Heroes.
Good thing the Germans were totally ignorant and inept at warfare, and never realised this astounding truth every World of Tanks player knows and tailor their tactics accordingly!
It's just a historical fact that allied tankers were overjoyed at being forced into armored knife-fights because of their hopelessly inferior range... If they were lucky.
You've only got one life chum - this shit is not a videogame, and war is about more than logistics.
Another reason the 75 was preferred was easy/faster loading. This is why the IS-2's sucked compared to IS-1s, in my opinion. The 85 on the IS-1 could put more rounds down the range faster with an adequate round for most jobs, just as the 75 sherman could.
This channel never disappoints, beautiful descriptions and accurate information. Props to realising mistakes and improving on them. Great as always!
Thank you very much for watching, be sure to check out The Chieftain who helped us out with this one if you haven't already!
Strongpoint : "I am a strongpoint ! Nothing can change me."
Petard : *launch 13kg of explosive*
Not-so-strong-point : "Understandable, have a great day."
A school friend's dad served in Normandy and witnessed petard mortars being fired at German bunkers. Apparently, the blast they created was phenomenal, and I remember him telling us about the crew of one bunker surrendering because even though none of them were injured or killed by the first shot, they were so shaken by it that they simply didn't want to be on the receiving end of another !
Great concise episode with the precision of the Chieftain keeping it rolling along and hitting the target.
Thank you for watching.
Well done, kudos to Indy and the entire crew and the Chieftain!
The tank combat in the Western front is so underrated. During the Battle ‘Operation Epsom’, the British had a concentration of Panzers facing them that was only second to the Battle of Kursk. Seven and a half armoured divisions inc 3x SS and the Panzer Lehr *on a front of just 62 miles* compared to over 600 miles on the Eastern front.
Absolutely true! There were more tanks per square mile between Caen and Bayeux during the Battle for Normandy than at Kursk. People just don't realize how grim that fighting was. The heaviest, most concentrated tank warfare of WW2!
Bravo to the team for taking the feedback onboard and producing a great video. Very few channels would've done this; this is why you're one of the best channels on RUclips! Bravo! 👏
Thank you for the kind words and thanks for watching this one!
Thank you so much Indy. I think the tanks are one of the most disputed arguments of which side had the best tanks in all of ww2.
I0 1990s 1990s
Mr. Moran (the Chieftain) has a great presentation about why the Sherman was the best tank in Europe that's highly recommended. Like many I was skeptical at first but he makes a great argument for the Sherman when you take ALL factors into consideration.
Except it wasn't the best tank. There was no best tank. Each country had different requirements.
The Germans would have fared worse with Shermans.
Really appreciate you guys recognizing the error, going back and correcting the video! You rock!
And we appreciate the lovely comment!
Thanks for redoing this video, TimeGhost. Your commitment to accuracy is admirable.
Thanks for watching!
Thank you guys for making the effort to reupload the video after correcting the errors. A shoutout to Chieftain for helping out too!
All writers, even the great ones, need an editor. You just happen to have an entire fanbase. So glad you were able to fix this, with the help of the Chieftain, so that we could enjoy it without the occasional wince. This won't stop the Sherman-haters, but it puts its status in 1944 in balanced, accurate context. Which is what you do best. On to Berlin!
What a great channel, new to it. WWII buff myself, 30 years old and show my kids these videos to inform them as well as entertain. Theyre into it lol Tanks alot
These videos should have way, way higher view counts. Very well done, and very much appreciated, please keep up spectacular work like this.
Props to the "This Tank is Too Small For Me" Chieftan.
Have a copy of the game Panzer Leader from 1974 and almost all the vehicles in this video are represented in there by counters. Values assigned to each tank are somewhat abstract to simplify the game, but represent attack, defense, speed, and range. I can see correlation between those values and attributes in this and other videos such as firepower, armour, engines, and crew quality
Remember, no one makes a perfect plan. But WW2 in real time comes pretty darn close.
Also, war is hell! So my grateful tks 2 Indy, and everyone else connected 2 the Time Ghost Army.
Merry Christmas 2 everyone, and a happy, and safe New Year.😊
Thank you Chieftain for combing through the script to assure its accuracy! And thank you Indy and the whole Time Ghost team for putting these programs out for us to consume! We enjoy your efforts a great deal! 👌😏💖
We appreciate the lovely comment, thank you so much!
Excellent compilation thank you,I knew about the the 75s/76s but the order theywere used and different purposes with different loads is explained very clearly.Also was sketchy on the Cromwell and it's place in the fray made sense to use that with the flame thrower as the thick armor would have protected the crew from certain incineration with a direct hit.These units still needed the faster Shermans(Fire Fly for protection)
Thank you for redoing this episode. I remembered the first release and thought it was not up to your typical quality. Never easy.
Correcting errors is a noble activity. Only fakers and authoritarians refuse to do it. Great respect for the updated video!
I was wondering why the first Video wasnt done in cooperation with the Chieftain :) Nice of you to correct this
Holy crap I was looking for this episode! I thought I was insane and imagined it!
When Indy talks about the pros and cons of both 75mm and 76mm within 4:00 - 4:25, I just remember that Sherman in the first Company of Heroes game. The M4 Sherman tank there has the 75mm as a default main gun and you can upgrade it to M1A1C 76mm if you want it. The 75mm has a blast radius which can decimate infantry and weapons support teams but it has an okay damage to heavy-armored vehicles. This is where the 76mm is needed. Once you upgraded it with 76mm, its armor penetration increases but it has a lesser damage to infantry though it has a different way to counter infantry units like it has a .50 Cal M2HB Browning Heavy Machine Gun.
Pretty much every American vehicle will have at least 1 M2 browning tbh
Much better video than the first version. Great job adding the updated content !
Glad to hear you enjoyed the new and improved version, thanks for watching.
It’s commendable that you admit your errors and correct them. Well done gentlemen.
As always amazing detail that is rarely found in books. 👍
This sounds exactly like a Chieftain video in disguise! Well done getting the best in the business to check your work guys!
Thanks for watching!
-TimeGhost Ambassador
You guys are a class act for taking the time to redo this. Bravo.
Love these specials. Happy Holidays to the Time Ghost team☃️🎅
Happy Holidays to you as well!
@@WorldWarTwo Thank you☃️🎅⛄👀
Indy, the Ferdinand was never deployed in fighting on the North West European front. The survivors from the Eastern front, post Kursk, saw some action in Italy as mobile blockhouses, and I believe a few ended their days in Hungary. Not nit picking of course!
This episode was amazing really interesting and entertaining. Great job guys. Also the changing the video due to it being wrong, much respect for that
Tanks a lot of a deep dive into the Western fields of tankery!
Well you can definitely tell Chieftan's fingerprints all over this script. Its more or less a rehash of several of his talks, and contains many more obscure technical details about tank improvements than the Eastern Front one. (Especially the Sherman part, which is longer than the discussion about all the other American tanks combined)
I really don't like how the modern speakers have started lumping the Panther and Tiger together and calling them rare. Tigers were rare, Panthers were as common as Panzer IVs, and a Plurality by the time of the Battle of the Bulge. Zaloga also notes that the 76mm was seen as a disappointment by Tank Crews, as it had a weaker HE round, no smoke round, and still couldn't punch through the front of a Panther at combat ranges, with a group from 3rd Armored outright refusing the upgrade initially despite seeing more tank on tank action than just about anyone. Regardless, Allied Tankers consistently overcame their opposing counterparts through better use of combined arms and superior numbers.
For the Gemans, Panzer Brigades weren't the answer in the West. Commonwealth and American forces has far more anti tank weaponry spread among their divisions and could whittle down the counter attacks far more effectively than the Soviets. Training was also a major issue for the Germans. Allied tankers noted the decreasing quality of German tankers, and how routinely they began making mistakes. German armor designed for the eastern front suffered heavily in the west, where the terrain forced combat to be at much shorter ranges, and eliminating the Germans primary advantage. Finally, the endurance on these tanks just wasn't there. Germany had kept production high by basically eliminating spare part production, and German tanks were notoriously difficult to repair in the field. Often German armored assaults would create fantastically lopsided local breakthroughs against the Allies only to be enveloped and abandoned a week later. The ideal weapon for video games and selling books, late war german tanks were fantastic at winning the battle only to lose the war.
An excellent comment, thank you for adding this. I am also dismayed about the frequent downplaying of Panther's deployment (numerically speaking) in particular. I wonder if this is related to the common fixation to call it a "heavy tank" and in this way also lump it with the Tigers
@@Maus5000 In my opinion, the reasons the Panther remains such a controversial German Tank is because weight wise it is a Heavy Tank, but the Germans tried to use it the same way you would a Medium Tank. This in turn means that people tend to call it whichever one bests suits their argument at the time.
The closing statement is... Interesting. It poses the old question that every person who has ever studied the 2nd World War in depth will encounter, 'Quantity over Quality' and so on. But what makes a difference isn't whether one is producing Shermans and the other Panthers. The distinction between the Western Allies and Germany is one of industrial capacity and overall industrial self-sufficiency. The US and Britain, combined, excluding the colonies, have multiple times the industrial capabilities of Germany, both by virtue of protected manufacturing facilities (protected from bombings), more modern production machinery (the German industrial machine has been rolling out war materiell for 6 years now and even further back considering the rapid re-armarment, while the US had the capability to modernize its factories, free from that strain) and a bigger manpower pool of specialized workers. The US could be producing bloody Maus and would still outproduce the Germans in raw numbers.
The only thing 'balancing the scales' a bit is the fact that the US has to maintain a massiver production chain over the Atlantic, under threat from U-Boats (even reduced). But still, the idea that there is any chance that the Germans had a low-cost viable solution that could've equaled Allied numbers, and they chose to ignore it in favor of bigger tanks is an illusion.
I would have added one thing: You mention that the main weakness of American armor in Normandy was the inexperience of the crews, by the time the Allies are approaching Germany this is no longer the case. At the Battle of Arracourt in September of 1944 experienced American forces are turning the tables on well equipped but inexperienced German Panzer formations.
@MakeMeThinkAgain
Arracourt was an anomaly. The Americans then got next to nowhere for the next six months, with even a retreat in the Ardennes.
@@lyndoncmp5751 Arracourt was a perfect example of what well trained Sherman tank crews could do against a superior armored force(it was no "anomaly", the U.S. 4th Armored Division trained for years before landing in Normandy). And why did they get "next to nowhere"? Fuel and supplies were diverted elsewhere, so the Third Army had to halt it's advance(kinda hard to go anywhere without fuel, eh?). This halt gave the Germans time to dig in and reinforce the First Army and Fifth Panzer Army. Not to mention the exceptionally rainy weather hampering offensive operations. Then after Metz was captured, the Americans came up against the Siegfried Line.
As always, great videos. Merry Christmas to one & all, along with a Happy New Year.
The Maus humor was unexpected and hilarious.... Squeak!!! LOL. Good one.
I wasn’t really paying attention, just playing RUclips in the background.
When you got to talking about Sherman guns, I was thinking “hey it sounds like they’re using the Chieftain as a source”
As it so happens lol. Just classic Chieftain Sherman talking points.
Congratulations,it was a superb episode!
Shout-out to The Chieftain for helping! Thank you for watching.
@@WorldWarTwo It was an excellent idea to ask him for help. The previous version was problematic to say the least.
Again thank you all for all the amazing work you do in keeping this History alive. Great video as always WW2 crew.
Thanks for the sweet comment and thank you for watching!
Kinda knew you would do this and im really glad. This channel isnt *just* youtube, its education - with a commitment to academic rigour even some academics on youtube don't reach.
As i said in the initial community post, i would love to see an analysis of the errors made and why. This isnt because i feel you as a channel have anything to answer for or correct, but because its a fadcinating opportunity to learn about the traps and mistakes that can exist in research (especially when youre a generalist or youre approaching a specific discipline or subject as an expert in another where greater expertise exists).
If you were to do this, I'd love it, and I'd imagine we would see no reference to who specifically was doing the research or the workings of the channel aside from regarding research. Id also completely understand if a video like that- "how honest historians make mistakes" might present too much of a minfield or be viewed outside the scope of the channel.
In terms of honesty and rigour, this video is enough - id just like to see this analysis as an interesting discussion and an opportunity to educate.
"I call it vue ja de: that feeling you've never been anywhere like this before..."
just wondering, but in the war against humanity series quite it was said that the strategic bombing did not have effect. but now it is claim that tank production got hampered by bombing.
great episode, as always
15:54 All those Kingtigers together looks still very impressive.
It was meant to, propaganda newsreel. But it was a good-looking tank
Ofc it was for "propaganda"...and propaganda should look "impressive". Im surprised they found a place in germany, to that date, to place them all in a open field and dont get bombed by air^^@@Julius_Hardware
Kind of stinks the Pershing rolled out so late. We only have a very small sample size of combat. The M26 was a really cool heavy allied tank.
It saw more action in Korea, performed well when the terrain allowed.
Calling the tanks funnies and having the crocodile spew flame everywhere is brutal ahah.
you all have integrity... Well done..
Excellent work Indy & team. Thanks to Chieftan for being the subject matter expert.
He really is one of the best!
Thanks for a great video. Am surprised the Firefly was not mentioned more. It was an up-gunned terror of a tank that blinded it's own crew temporarily if they didn't blink while firing it and set fire to many hedges and undergrowth in front of it while firing.
I met a man who fought in the panzers on the Easter front in a Tiger. He said they would kill 10 Russian tanks while a 100 would go around them.
Great job as always.
I would suggest that the claims of unreliability of the German tanks is not an issue of design and manufacture, but of a lack of supply and maintenance available to keep them running as well as say, late war British tanks, which I would suggest they are on par with. Also, being on the defensive, tanks that would otherwise be recoverable could not be. (Yes, the Panther was rushed, and that first impression at Kursk was never erased, though it should have been.) People complain about the final drives and transmissions on late war German tanks for good reason, but tank crews report that in good hands, they would hold up for as long as any other tank's. Good hands became harder to find as the war went on, of course... If the Germans were able to maintain any sort of air cover on the Western Front, the story would be very different, even with fuel shortages. Of course, fuel shortages meant no air cover or pilot training, blah blah blah....
American tanks are exceptional, as they are made in peaceful mega-assembly line factories, where any part can be switched out with any other like part (something no other nation could claim). This, along with the lengthy and thorough development of the Sherman (and related tanks) made it a masterpiece for the job it was intended for (and it would have been much better if it didn't have to fit onto railroad cars and jammed into holds of ships via crane). The Pershing was not given the luxury of rigorous testing and long development and so was very much like the Panther. In time, it would prove to be an excellent design. In time...
It's worth mentioning that a hallmark of a properly reliable tank is ease of use. If it takes very experienced personnel for a tank to be serviceable, it's not quite "reliable" in a logistical sense. Turnover rates will be heightened as a result of this. Tanks like T-34 and Sherman, although not impeccable reliability-wise (they were serviceable for the time barring manufacturing defects), could be safely and reliably operated by inexperienced personnel, which is an important distinction
Great episode. Errors revised. This is likely better than the episode you intended to make. Very commendable.
19 44 long, nice
Things are closing in...
Thumbs up to the fixed episode!
Terribly good episode.👍👍👍Merry Chrismas too you all❤👍🤟
Merry Christmas!
-TimeGhost Ambassador
In the first version I got snagged hard on the bad reference to GMC... so glad to hear that go by smoothly now
I wait with bated breath for each new episode, thanks men for your in depth account of ww2 and the little things that made the allies victory.
Thank you for your kind words and continued support!
-TimeGhost Ambassador
Quantity has a quality all its own!
Stalin
Thanks for fixing this video, the 1st had some glaring issues, as I pointed out and noticed you seemed to have mentioned re the Centaur
Fantastic insight guys - I can but imagine the research that goes into this. Top work. 👍🏻
Well done. Episode, thank you for sharing .
Interesting. Stephen Ambrose wrote about German tanks and vehicles with fixable problems being abandoned. While those farm boys and mechanics in the U.S. Army were fixing anything they could get their hands on. The implication I got from Ambrose was that American mechanics were more ambitious. It's easier to be be more ambitious when you've got spare parts, a lot of fuel and vehicles for towing. And yeah, we are more ambitious...
I think you could also say that German engineers were top shelf, but terrific or even more engineers can't create molybdenum.
Well the revised content makes this an extra-special doesn't it
Replacing an episode, that is integrity.
I have many of the books setting on the table in front of Indy.
@TimZandbergen show me a man who makes no mistakes, I will show you a man who doesn't do much
"Right."
The sounded a lot like the Chieftain, except for the Irish accent. I love his scripts, his dry humour -- "Make Strong Points -- not so strong points".
great job updating. Im a big war thunder and i love tanks so this episode is awesome.
Thanks. What percentage of British tanks after D Day in the Battle of Normandy were Sherman variants? How about at the end of the war in Europe?
You meant "tanks", right? 😉
That too.
Can not give you numbers for after D Day, however 17,000 M4's were Lend Leased from late 1942 (almost as many as the US Army received).
Over 7,000 light tanks Lend Leased from late 1941.
Hyperwar Lend Lease shipments
Churchills built 5,640 approx. starting 1942 wiki
Cromwell first fielded D Day No. built 4,016 wiki
7th Armoured division had 350 tanks which were all Cromwells except 36 Sherman Fireflys and often employed a one firefly providing overwatch for three Cromwell formation.
8th Armoured Brigade used about 130 tanks of various models as infantry support vehicles such as Hobarts Funnies.
Guards Armoured Division had 343 tanks initially Crusaders but mostly converted to Shermans just before D-Day
31st Armoured Brigade used mostly Churchills and Churchill Crocodiles
It's crazy to watch this video but my house literally is right next to the arsenal of democracy the Detroit Tank Plant.
@@AndrewBlacker-t1d
Find something better to do then (did I use the right version 💩 head?) going through the comments section and being a detestable wanker.
Drove by it many a time. Are the two gate guardians still there?
@@AndrewBlacker-t1d It's a cool bit of history I live next to no need to be a douche about it.
@@markwilliams2620 They moved the Gate Guardians to the TACOM Facility after the tank plant closed.
@@AndrewBlacker-t1d Well you didn't need to add anything to my comment originally have a great day!!
A couple pieces of interesting Panzer minutia for the coming Bulge fighting and the last part of 1944 in general
The Bulge fighting will see the deployment of a small number of Jagdpanzer 38 "Hetzer" with their main guns replaced with flame throwers. Hitler personally approved construction of 20-30. They will not prove effective and this will be their only deployment I am aware of
Also in the offensive Tiger Ausf B will for the first time be used with a substantially new track. The Tiger B's first track design was composed of alternating "shoe" and "connecting" links. The original connecting link was composed of multiple different parts hinged off the same pin(s) and was propelled by an 18 tooth sprocket. This arrangement proved prone to uneven premature wear on the sprocket wheel, and common failure of the flimsy connecting links. The second track design merged this connecting link into one large solid unit, and removed every other sprocket tooth, bringing it down to 9. This track was acceptable, but soon we will see the introduction of the improved type. This new design will discard the alternating links idea, and simplify it down to a single link and pin. The 18 tooth sprocket will return, at first in its original form for the field trials in the upcoming offensive, and in 1945 in a new form with wider tooth bases.
November saw Krupp present a far reaching series of proposals to the Reichs office of armored vehicle design to re-arm the panzers i na variety of ways. These included : fitting the PzKpfw IV turret to the JgPz 38 "Hetzer" chassis, fitting the PzKpfw IV hull with a new improved design of Panther turret, making a tank destroyer on the Panther chassis with a 12,8cm gun in a rear casemate similar to a Ferdinand/Elefant but with sloped armor, re-arming the Tiger B with a 10,5cm gun, and re-arming the Jagdtiger with a 12,8cm gun with a longer barrel. Virtually all of these proposals were thrown out immediately. The German school of armored vehicle design is out of touch with the situation on the ground and led by independent actors pulling in different, often self-serving directions. Such is the Third Reich
Good you kept the not-so-strong-points joke in. Didn't notice errors in the first round, good job you came back though.
I agree Tiger II were gas guzzler and was prey to shots into its flanks. But the German heavy and super heavy tanks were useless as they couldnt cross bridges due to their heavy weight.
The Sherman Firefly could take on most German Tanks except possibly the Tiger II
I knew a successful hellcat tanker.
One of the few stories i got out of him.. besides what a hotrod it was, was that the engine intake was inside the cab. Meaning, in winter on their way into Germany, running the engine turned the crew into popsicles despite the hot engine 😅
Kudos to the WW2 'gang' (Indy et al) to admit mistakes and bring in an 'expert' to help re-tool a video.
👍
☮
Video length is correct lol
Good stuff WW2 team
Appreciate it!
Nicely done video
Bravo World War Two team!
i love this guy, ssrsly
I find it hilarious that people somehow think that the decision to make a mediocre tank that you can make a gazillion of means that your military skill is somehow inferior to the side that makes infinitely fewer really advanced tanks. Logistics is a military skill.
It's only that way to teens with a throbber for the biggest baddest tank and no care for the less flashy sides of war.
A bit late to the game here, but... hey, gotta love a crew dedicated to the truth.
Good on 'em, truly.
Hol' up.... Where is the Aral Sea? Some of the Great Lakes region looks like they're missinf, too.
They mentioned in a previous video that, when creating the map, the layer with all the bodies of water accidentally got shifted westward, so all the lakes and rivers are in the wrong position 😅
if anyone is wondering why "wolverine" and "slugger"/"Jackson" weren't mentioned, it's because the US army did not officially designate names for the vehicles until post-war and what you commonly hear ever came from the manufacturers or pet names from the proving grounds. There is contention about where the general names came from as well.
Most of the General names (the British did not officially use "General" in their naming) were officially recognized by US Army Ordnance in November of 1944 in an order directing personnel to use the names when speaking to the media.
Neat, thanks for the clarification. So at this point the M36 was actually the Jackson? @@TheChieftainsHatch
@MurderousEagle As far as US Army Ordnance was concerned, yes. That said, that only applied to Ordnance, the rest of the Army was not subject to their declaration
A dramatic improvement in quality of the presentation.
I seem to remember reading in Wikipedia that Wet Stowage was issued as a field modification kit. However, I've not seen any reference to the kit being fitted in the field.
The Firefly (and the 17 pounder) had problems with sloped armour. There is a glacis plate in a German museum (Munster?) with marks from 5 hits by a 17 pounder. The problem is probably overfilling of gunpowder.
As far as the 76mm gun is concerned, it was plagued by a phenonmenon called The Shatter Gap. Eisenhower had good reason to complain about this.
The Germans discovered that their standard 16 tonne bridges could handle the Tigers. So movement was not that much of a problem. Except for lack of fuel.
Favorite tank is the m4 Sherman and the Sherman m4a1 i think its called it was more powerful than its previous model faster better gun.
The suspension shown at 3:50 is not the HVSS being discussed in the audio but the earlier (but not earliest) VVSS although the tanks do appear to have wider tracks. No biggee.