Can't wait to hear what you guys think about this one! Leave us a comment below 👇 Big thanks to our sponsor: Join WoWs: Legends now and get a welcome bonus and Star Trek Commander for free: wowsl.co/3LlBfvn And to Epic Militaria for providing Louee's kit! www.epicmilitaria.com/ 🪖 Finally, of course, thank you to the organisers of Armour and Embarkation 2024, and the owners of these epic World War Two vehicles 🫡
You should do a “could you survive the Crusades” next, that would be fun since it’s quite well recorded and it shows the advances in medieval armor decently well.
A great uncle of mine served in Normandy with the 4th Infantry Division in a rifle company. He was surprisingly open about it, admitting that his combat experience was only three weeks, but he said that was more than enough. A German rifle bullet went through his right hand, and despite surgery, it was never useful for him again, but he did have a P-38 that he picked up somewhere along the way. It was the first pistol I ever fired. Before I shipped out for training in 2002 he said to me, "For God's sake, keep your head down. Digging is living."
Digging is living. In German we say "Digging saves blood" (Schanzen spart Blut). On the other hand both of my German grandfathers only survived the war because of injuries.
My great grandfather landed with the 93rd on Utah Beach. Earlier this year I had the honour of being received by the American Battlefields Monument Commission at the Netherlands American Cemetery to visit his grave. He fought and liberated all through until Hesse where he was killed in the last month of the war. Great video
Depends. About 140,000 Americans died in Europe vs 3.5 million soldiers deployed. So odds of surviving would be quite high. Front line troops made up about 20% of the troops, so about 700,000 men on the front lines. That would mean you'd have 4/5 chance of surviving. 80% chance of living doesn't sound so bad.
@Survivehistory Well done, thank you for making this. My grandfather was an armored infantry Sgt in the 2nd Armored division from North Africa to Berlin. Something mentioned during the gear rundown about dropping the M-36 bag or leaving it on the half-track during combat is something he talked about. He and others in the unit carried the black assault gas mask bags with essentials. In his case dry socks, ration bars, captured camera and film, and assorted war souvenirs. On the Falaise gap he said one thing words and pictures can never fully portray is the god awful stench of burnt metal, rotten apples, human and horse flesh that permeated the area for miles.
@@megandarling2215videos can be posted on youtube with a date and time. you can comment on it but you can’t see the video until the time selected to premiere
@@megandarling2215it's often because the creator releases the video as a private video that only their patreon members can view & comment on. Then later (from days to weeks later on) it gets changed from 'private' to 'public' and then anyone can view it.
I was in Normandy this year, at Juno and Sword beaches and Pegasus Bridge. It’s incredibly so many got past the beaches. Thank you for your channel, you really bring history alive.
26:16 I guess “Moaning Minnie” was a British nickname for the Nebelwerfer 41. Grandpa, and every other American WWII vet I’ve interviewed, called them “Screaming Mimis.” I love your approach to historical content. Keep up the awesome work!
i once heard that a German tank commander loved the Sherman more then the panther because it was faster and more agile , he supposable said " one panther tank can tank down 10 shermans, but the americans always had 11" .........and i love that haha ...my new favorite channel
A tanker's priorities are protection and firepower more than agility. They want to stay alive so that Panther veteran was a minority. Having said that, the Panther actually had better mobility over soft ground mud and snow than the Sherman due to its much wider tracks.
If I remember right one of the reasons for the "Hordes of Sherman's, 10 to 1 against a Tiger" thing was that in American tank doctrine tanks always stuck together as a platoon. So if you encountered one Sherman's the whole unit wasn't far away.
@@lyndoncmp5751 You do know that even the standard 75mm Sherman could pin a panther from the front as easily as the panther could pen the Sherman right? The more important factor is that only 35% of knocked out panther crews survived while 80% of knocked out Sherman crews survived. As for the 11 Shermans quote, the knock out rate on both tanks is about even, the Americans weren't losing 11 tanks to every German tank, they were losing about 1 to 1. Most tanks weren't even killed by other tanks, they were taken out by Aircraft, artillery, AT infantry, and if you are German, Abandoned due to constant mechanical failures and breakdowns. The Tiger and panther were dogshit, the panzer 3/4 and Stug did all the work.
@@lyndoncmp5751the Sherman's agility meant that it was able to get to better positions faster than the panther leading to the sherman's positive KD against the panther in western europe
I would have died in the first 30 seconds on the beach. I would probably be that guy carrying his own arm around at the beginning of “Saving Private Ryan”.
Great video but one quibble. The Sherman was definitely designed to face enemy tanks, it’s just that its gun was outpaced by advances in German armor. The US Army opted to not fully replace with the 76mm version since it had a better HE shell and simplified logistics.
The 75 was better at fighting anti tank guns and infantry than the 76 as well. For every tank they fought there were countless more anti tank guns and infantry with panzerfausts and panzershrecks.
@@AudieHolland That is such a commander view. Tanks were designed to fight tanks. End of. TDs were mostly used to plug gaps created by the enemy punching through with armour as they had the mobility to get there faster. They were more defensive, M4s were pushers.
@@sheilamorrison1954 Nope, originally tanks were designed to cross trenches and advance despite murderous enemy machinegun fire. Tanks were supposed to support the infantry so they didn't have to go fast, about walking speed.
I'd like to make a few comments on the Sherman as it was portrayed in this video: 1. The Ronson nickname. This is absolutely a myth. The name allegedly comes from Ronson matches having the slogan "[Lights up] first time every time,". This slogan never acually used during the war first appearing in 1950. There's also no real evidence outside of anecdotes that the Germans ever called the Sherman the "Tommy Cooker" either. 2. The rate of catching fire. The video gives the impression that Shermans had an unusual rate of ignition. This was true during the North Africa campaign. Early models of the tank stired ammo in visable humps near the front of the vehicle which gave German gunners an easy time hitting them. However, by the Normandy campaign Shermans had switched to storing the ammo at the bottom of the tank, making it harder to hit. Additionally, by Normady the Americans had shifted to a wet storage of ammunition which significantly reduced the rate of ignition. After these chnages this the rate of igition was not any higher than their German or British counterparts. 3. Survivability. The Sherman actually had one of the highest rates of survivability of any tank of the war. This due to both its ergonomic interior design (compare the inside of a Sherman to a T-34 or a Tiger and you'll notice it is a lot roomier and easier to move around it) and the number of hatches on the tank itself. While it was different to exit, as all tanks of the time were, it was much easier to get out as every crew member had a hatch in close proximity. 9 in 10 Sherman crews suvived their tank being knocked out. The fact that one crew was in 8 vehicles should be seen as a commendation of the Sherman's design, that the crew was able to survive that meny incidents. 4. The armour. The frontal armour of a Sherman was sloped. This ment that the 51mm of armour had a comparible rate of deflection to the Tigers 100mm of flat frontal armour. The side armour of the Sherman was compariable to a Panzer 4 or Panther and could deflect a Tiger at 30 degrees angling. Also on the story of the Geman tank ace. Something you'll find if you do research on the claims of individuals during the war is that they're usually full of shit. This happened on both sides of the war (see Typhoon pilots reporting more kills than were present in the tank columns they were attacking) but Panzer Aces in particular are particularly bad due to the propaganda value they have. They or the propaganists reporting on them would do things like report half-track and trucks as armoured kills. Overall I liked this video but I really wish people would stop spreading Belton Cooper tier myths about the Sherman.
On your 2nd point: For the "humps" are you referring to the applique armor that were added over where the ammo racks are for extra protection? For dry stowage Shermans, the ammo was stored in the sponsons which was the most likely part of a tank to be hit, which is why Shermans caught fire at the rate that they did. However this was not significantly higher than other contemporary tanks, so the "high burn rate" of the Sherman is in general a myth.
Yeah, found this video to be quite bad. The one thing that drives me crazy about tank myths is the misunderstanding that Shermans lit on fire because of their gas engines, while not understanding that even pure kinetic rounds would be so hot from the friction of penning armor that they would also ignite diesel, which is why German tanks and British designs also burnt out a lot. The main thing to take into account was the Shermans were the most recovered tank of the war being patched and put back into service because they weren't burning out as often as myths say.
@@Thaddios Again the M4's lower weight is an advantage in that it only took a Diamond T wrecker or M26 Dragon Wagon to go into the fields at night and recover them. Panther's required at least a Bergepanther and Tigers needed up to 3 FAMO heavy halftracks in series to do the job. The only diesel engines used in the war for AFVs were the T34, the US M10 TD, the German PUMA and the M4A2 Sherman which were sent to the Marines or the USSR. Tank crews were well aware that knocked out enemy tanks would be recovered it possible, so they would sometimes shoot until the target burned. Don't want to face that thing next week if at all possible.
@@TheSaturnV And yet, Allied tanks on the western front were lost at a near 1-1 ratio. its 2024 If you are still falling for the myth of German superior engineering when the problem all of their tanks had was too much weight not enough engine/ transition, then there is no helping you. You don't want truth you want your Nazi superiority fantasy. Grrrr they just needed to make a few more panthers, cope and seethe.
Another really top quality documentary. Thank you for posting. These guys have also posted a documentary on what life was like in a Roman fort in Britain. Well worth viewing. Keep up the good work! 👍
Wow! this was an incredible video. The level of dedication the guys and gals at Armor and Embarkation have is amazing. Hats off to all involved in creating this. Well done!
41:23 If you think the Sherman's hatches are small, you'd hate every other nation's main tank even more. The Sherman is one of the easiest tanks to exit in event of emergency. Small hatch Shermans (like the one in the video) and Shermans without a loader's hatch were slightly worse off. Most Shermans had spring loaded hatches, making them easier to open. Here is a great video demonstrating the difference of getting out of various WW2 tanks (The Chieftain is also not a small guy so it makes it harder): ruclips.net/video/q6xvg5iJ4Zk/видео.html If I had to be in any tank in WW2 I'd probably pick the Sherman since it was relatively easy to fix if anything went wrong, and even if my tank was knocked out, I'd have decent chance of making it out than if I were in some other tank.
The Panzer IV had an escape hatch in the turret for all three turret crewmen. The Sherman didnt. There is no data that Shermans crews could get out faster than Panzer IV, Tiger and Panther crews, while a British study actually found the Cromwell was more survivable than the Sherman.
@lyndoncmp5751 The ability to exit quickly had to have some effect on the crew mortality rate. I remember hearing that the likelihood of the tank burning when hit is a major factor, but dry stowage Shermans burned at about the same rate as the Panzer IV, and still had less deaths on average. Even with the individual hatches for everyone on the Panzer IV, they aren't spring-loaded, and the angle you need to exit at is more awkward. Also, the overall experience in a Panzer IV is more uncomfortable (don't get me wrong, I love the Panzer IV, I just wouldn't want to be in one during wartime) I did not know about the study showing Cromwell's higher survivability (thank you for telling me!), but it still wouldn't sway my choice of the M4 for other reasons like internal space and ease of maintenance.
@@AudieHolland I agree, the diagonal exit seems very inconvenient. I think The Chieftain also agrees with you, seeing how much he struggled with that hatch on the Comet lol
@skepticalbadger That's off the point. Rule number 1 of gun handling: ALWAYS assume the weapon is loaded. Rule 2: NEVER point the muzzle in an unsafe direction, for instance at another person. Rule 3: Whenever picking up a weapon, ALWAYS check the chamber to make sure it is unloaded. Etcetera. By the way, how do you know they're props? Making such an assumption is also one of the bad mistakes potentially causing a dangerous situation.
@@grotesqo8570 rule number 1000: it's a toy, a prop. Something that can't fire live rounds so settle down buddy. You also get so mad when people do actual reenactments where they "shoot" at each other?
@@ax23mgh8 I'd say the probability of them being real firearms is high enough to not assume they're props. Though your standpoint is very typical for someone not used to handling guns. I do see tour point of it being reenactment and i find it very informative and educational, but in such a circumstance, it's customary to make a disclaimer that the guns are props, that they've been checked beforehand or the like. For us who handle guns on a regular basis and where the rules mentioned above has been drilled into us, the circumstance in the video makes us squirm.
While Tiger tanks were formidable, they were not a game changer because they were present in relatively low numbers, they were difficult to transport, they were not highly reliable, and were difficult to maintain and repair. In contrast, Shermans were reliable and easy to maintain. Despite the "stories" of the Shermans' vulnerabilities, the fact is that their crews had the highest survival rates of any tank in WWII. Your comments on the M1 carbine were a little misleading. More than 6 million were produced not so much because of a dramatic disproportion between support versus front-line infantry troops, but more because the carbine's utility was increasingly recognized during the course of the war. While it was perhaps more useful in the Pacific than in the European theater. it certainly was superior in power, range, and accuracy to the German MP 40 and the Russian PPSH, particularly in the selective fire M2 version. I believe this was demonstrated by its continued use through the Korean and early Vietnam conflicts.
That musette pack was the same as the backpack we carried to catholic grade school in the late 60s/ early 70s. There was a cool surplus shop around the corner from school.
Omg!! Where has this channel been all my life?!?!? The production values, writing and editing are top notch! It’s so intense while I’m high AF! SUBSCRIBED HAPPILY!!!
Excellent analysis, but the infantry officers served at the front with their men, especially platoon leaders and company commanders. The US infantry motto is "Follow Me." I was an infantry PL. Our troops expected us to lead up front.
My great uncle on my dads side and my great grandpa on my moms side both landed on the same beaches in Normandy on D-Day. Both would survive the war and both suffered the same fate and wouldn't fight past the initial landing. My great grandpa landed on a land mine as soon as he jumped out of his boat getting thrown into the air. They thought he was dead and left behind but he was actually just unconscious for the entire first day and woke up piled up with the other dead Americans on the beach with a cloth over his face. There was a soldier collecting dogtags walking by that saw him rise up from the line of corpses and it scared him so bad he ran off screaming thinking he was a zombie. His legs got shredded good but they would survive, he would be left with bad knee damage tho keeping him from being able to rejoin the war. He spent the rest of his days in his mountain home he built himself in the Carolinas living in piece. My great uncle made it past the first bunkers and pillboxes before also stepping on a land mine that was planted around the trenches. He managed to drag himself into a hole and laid there pinned down under mg fire until dark. He crawled between fox holes and craters from bombs in the dark while getting hit by rifle fire in the hip and tryn to dodge grenades and bullets until he made it back to a fox hole with American soldiers where he finally got help. The explosion tore up his groin and thighs pretty bad and he wouldn't be able to have children after words. He would also have to sit out the rest of the war unable to walk without help. He got a metal plate where his privates used to be and never married his whole life saying it was a waste in his condition. He lived in a run down neighborhood in Houston and refused to move his whole life and instead spent his time after the war adopting neighborhood kids that were neglected and raised them as his own when they had nowhere to go to. He was never lonely with a home full of people that cared for him and open couch for anyone that needed a place to stay. No oned dared mess with him even after the neighborhood turned dangerous from gangs moving in as they knew what he did for the kids and teens in the area helping anyone without discrimination. Both have pased away several years ago and lived into their 90s. Its a miracle they both survived that day and got to live a long life afterwards.
Eh the tank losses are pretty insane if you see the stats….. literally we just out build and sent in to the front. Tankers demanded for a heavier tank at the beginning but Patton just said fk it
When talking about the M1 Garand, one important step of reloading was left out. They forgot the bit where the bolt closes and smashes your intercoursing thumb! Also, the M3A1 Grease Gun was still in use when I was a soldier. Some of the soldiers in my section were issued them instead of M16A2s.
The part about the Sherman being difficult to get in/out of is missing so much context it's bordering on being misinformation - sure, for a historian looking at it and doing it for the first time you might think that. But one of the core tenants behind the Shermans design is it is exceptionally easy to get out, compared to every single one of it's contemporaries. Shermans were lost at high rates, but crew survivability was top compared to pretty much any other tank of it's time. It was much more useful as a tank than pretty much any other because it is one of the most reliable, super easy to be worked on in the field, and able to be mass produced. Crew can get out of one tank that is hit, and another tank is already waiting for them back at the base like you say. "Thin Armour" is such a silly trope, armour thickness has very little to do with it's effectiveness in isolation, there's so many more variables that go into it - for example, the thicker and further sloped T34 armour is useless because it was heat treated so high it was very brittle and the tank cracked open without even penetrating shots, and a large amount of spalling happened inside which often killed the crew. The Sherman had none of these problems despite "thinner armour". Would have been better to have more analysis than "what my eyes see when I look at the tank", which is all we really get from this video I'm afraid! Even then, "high loss rates" without context makes it look like the tank was poor - we're totally ignoring the fact the Allies were the ones on the offensive, and most likely to be engaged by the enemy rather than visa versa, you mention this earlier in the video but it's not again contextualized when you say the Sherman had high loss rates. Plus the stuff about Wittman basically boils down to "they said he did it so he did it", a lot of the claimed things he did on that day are physically impossible, so take that 13 kills or whatever it was you said here with a grain of salt.
I am writing from the other side of the fence, even in a double-sense. My grandfather, fighting with the Wehrmacht, served in a recovery, repair and signal unit. He needed to recover and repair all kind of Wehrmacht vehicles and tanks. He was also driving either a truck or a motorbike, often alone distributing orders and despatches between different units. An extremely dangerous task on partisan infested Soviet soil. I am myself an German engineer and served in the East-German army (NVA) from 1983-1986 as a T55 commander. I saw the very few last T34s (already converted into recovery tanks without turrets) in action before they were scrapped during my time of service. T34 indeed suffered a lot of quality problems particular in the beginning of the war with Nazi-Germany (1941): unreliable gearboxes, frequently poor armour and missing radio equipment. But we should not forget that many of these problems occurred because the more or less very modern Soviet armour production industries including its workforce needed to ne evacuated and flee into the Ural mountain range and beyond. Also, similar to the US-production of Shermans, the T34 was manufactured in different factories with various technologies. But the Soviets also lacked often the necessary quality steel or metallurgic ingrediencies. Later, once the transfer of factories was completed, the quality dramatically improved for the T34s. I agree with you that pure steel thickness alone will not make a good tank armour, it indeed depends very much on things like heat treatment and steel quality but also suitable welding procedures. The Soviets at the time were world class miners, metallurgists, engineers and technologists in the 1930s. But without a stable operating plant(s) and missing essentials (and a lot of capable heads still in Gulags), you cannot get things right. Therefore the land-lease program was so important to them. Besides the tanks, trucks, jeeps, Harleys and fighter aircraft the real Western support were rather machinery, quality steel, other metals, cable, radio equipment, medical supplies, food supplies (most of the farm land was under German occupation, mined and burnt and the farmers now fighting in the Red Army or being partisans) and special know-how (i.e. airplane engines) etc. etc. Which allowed the Soviet Union to established there own and very strong and sophisticated armament industries to churn out military hardware in gigantic numbers in almost no time. My grandfather told me, that indeed the T34 become a very strong fear for "Landsers" (infantry men) and tanker crews. After the T34/85 was entering the battle field almost all of its disadvantages even against Panthers and Tigers were at least levelled. It is always said that on request of the Western WW2 allies the USSR shipped one or two T34 to Britain for them to evaluate and study Soviet tank technology, but I am not sure if this is true. A very few things the Shermans and T34s shared: they were mass-produced with ever-dropping costs (and yes, this is indeed an essential QUALITY factor for a good tank), they were increasingly updated in various aspects and in the end could cope with the Tigers. What the Sherman firefly was, was the T34/85 with now a smooth and reliable gearbox, a three-men turret , good intercom and radio plus better optics. "My" T55 still shared the same T34 engine, just slightly modernized for even more power and torque. This V12-Diesel-monster was unstoppable and provided an unbelievable driving range. Peace! from Dresden / Germany
Love the history. Love the in depth examples….im a history nerd so most was not new to me, but loved it all the same. Hate to even mention it as these are prob demilled firearms but to see them flag each other bugged me. Sorry, range safety officer being uptight…lol. Love these episodes! Thanks!
Yeah the Sherman fighting a tiger was a rule of 3 to 1 but the Sherman when they got the upgrades. Mainly different modifications like the 76 mm barrel helped it out so much more. When they brought the jumbo 76 mm Sherman in that was the main thing to fight the tiger on the front of its armor.
The Jumbo had the 75mm. It wasn't fitted with the 76mm until 1945. Even the 76mm was seen as disappointing without HVAP and very difficult to penetrate the Tiger frontally unless at very close range.
@ahmadsuleman9045 The Jumbo was a completely different Sherman variant than the Firefly. The Jumbo never had the 17 pounder. The British Firefly had a better anti tank gun than the American 76mm Sherman. Without HVAP, which was rare even in 1945, the American 76mm Sherman gun was seen as disappointing.
It's always weird hearing people say the sherman wasn't designed to fight tanks cause it was. Inside the chieftain's hatch has a good video explaining this its called myths of American armour.
People also forget about the Tank Destroyer M3 GMC Which used the same 75mm gun as the Sherman. Sherman having the same gun as a tank destroyer, but wasn't meant to fight tanks? Strange.
@@moomoo7706and contrary to belief (likely spawned by War Thunder), it's not like the M3 GMC was some interwar design, an era where 75mm was considered quite large. It came out along 40-41, when thicker, heavier tanks were becoming the norm.
I absolutely love WWII, US Army of course. I would have been in a Cavalry Recon Group/Regiment. (MECz) like the 6th, 15th or 106th Cav Grp. I also love the DUI or the individual unit crests of the Tank Destroyer Battalions, & Armored Battalions. 3rd & 9th Armored were the only ones that used the M26 Pershing, Perhaps even the 2nd I read used the Pershing. The Armored Mechanized Artillery are cool too. Every infantry Division had it's own organic cav recon troop. Depending on the units size determined the size of the recon unit. A troop is company in size, Squadron is a battalion & squadrons were organic to Armored Divisions. Regiments or Groups worked at Corps or Army level recon, Flank Security, Task Force Raiding parties.
My father-in-law was in a Sherman after D Day. He told his daughter, my wife that he was a radioman. He probably did this to keep her for asking questions about what he did in the war. He at times suffered from PTSD, which I believe was called "shell shock" at that time. I wish my son had gotten to know him better.
Initially I thought u had like 10 million subs or something when I've watched ur Napoleon video I've just subscribed to u yesterday and I've almost watched all ur videos , amazing Content and amazing presentation
not sure if it was for this event but my cousin's husband partook in a ww2 paradrop reenactment in full ww2 gear, it was pretty neat seeing the photos taken during it
I dont know if it was done on purpose, but at the start there where a new breed of indestructible tank is mentioned and the footage proceeds to show a pz4 J/H, was an absolutely hilarious nod
Thr MP40 wasnt really the german vesion of the grease gun, the MP3008 was. As it was their last ditch cheap to make SMG, there might be others and alterations to the others, but thats the one that springs to mind.
History is one of those subjects that if you don’t make fun then in my opinion then the students that you are teaching aren’t going to learn as much as if you try to make it fun
I was looking at that area of Normandy a while ago and some of those old plots are literally almost exactly 1 acre in size based off of the old medieval way of measuring an acre.
Something about seeing a British man so passionate about the American forces in the conflict. It is as if it is a subtle note of the idea that WW2 really was a war of the world…
Artillery and airpower were the two things that had the greatest contribution in the defeat of the Germans! The recently developed proximity fuse played a huge part in the devastating artillery put upon them by the Americans.
I saw this and knew bro was cooked when I heard Normandy😂 btw love the channel Edit: (I know 2 of my great grandpas served in WW2 and one was served for Italy, and the other served as an officer next to Dwight D. Eisenhower, for America obviously)
With Colonel Abrams at the helm you didn't break through the German lines. You sideswiped the Germans, attacking them on their flanks. The Sherman tanks were able to do this because they were just a little bit (just enough) faster than the German tanks. The German tanks had very little side armor. At least, not enough side armor.
Can't wait to hear what you guys think about this one! Leave us a comment below 👇
Big thanks to our sponsor: Join WoWs: Legends now and get a welcome bonus and Star Trek Commander for free: wowsl.co/3LlBfvn
And to Epic Militaria for providing Louee's kit! www.epicmilitaria.com/ 🪖
Finally, of course, thank you to the organisers of Armour and Embarkation 2024, and the owners of these epic World War Two vehicles 🫡
Nope
Fantastic keep it up
Keep these series up ! Love them
@@lucaslorenzo4802 Thanks will do!
Don't point guns at people that you don't want to shoot
You should do a “could you survive the Crusades” next, that would be fun since it’s quite well recorded and it shows the advances in medieval armor decently well.
Smart man
Problem is just how long the crusades lasted.
To be specific, could you survive the children's crusade.
It'd be sick to see a Baldwin IV reenactor.
@@OnionLord9000pun intended? 😂
A great uncle of mine served in Normandy with the 4th Infantry Division in a rifle company. He was surprisingly open about it, admitting that his combat experience was only three weeks, but he said that was more than enough. A German rifle bullet went through his right hand, and despite surgery, it was never useful for him again, but he did have a P-38 that he picked up somewhere along the way. It was the first pistol I ever fired.
Before I shipped out for training in 2002 he said to me, "For God's sake, keep your head down. Digging is living."
Digging is living. In German we say "Digging saves blood" (Schanzen spart Blut). On the other hand both of my German grandfathers only survived the war because of injuries.
imagine carrying a whole damn plane home when one of your hands is already damaged.
@@AlexHalt100 Walther P38
@@generalidea4519 Sarcasm
Lol thought the same 😂@@AlexHalt100
My great grandfather landed with the 93rd on Utah Beach. Earlier this year I had the honour of being received by the American Battlefields Monument Commission at the Netherlands American Cemetery to visit his grave. He fought and liberated all through until Hesse where he was killed in the last month of the war. Great video
Title: Could you survive the Normandy Invasion of World War Two?
Me: No.
Me: HELL no!
I think that the title of this video should have been. Could you survive the Normandy Invasion as a American soldier.
Depends. About 140,000 Americans died in Europe vs 3.5 million soldiers deployed. So odds of surviving would be quite high. Front line troops made up about 20% of the troops, so about 700,000 men on the front lines. That would mean you'd have 4/5 chance of surviving. 80% chance of living doesn't sound so bad.
No.
@@magnusbjarnithe implication is front line grunt. Odds very different. Most of army was support of some type.
@Survivehistory Well done, thank you for making this.
My grandfather was an armored infantry Sgt in the 2nd Armored division from North Africa to Berlin.
Something mentioned during the gear rundown about dropping the M-36 bag or leaving it on the half-track during combat is something he talked about.
He and others in the unit carried the black assault gas mask bags with essentials. In his case dry socks, ration bars, captured camera and film, and assorted war souvenirs.
On the Falaise gap he said one thing words and pictures can never fully portray is the god awful stench of burnt metal, rotten apples, human and horse flesh that permeated the area for miles.
Pls correct it falaise*
Did he was in the 2db from Koufra ?
I am NOT seeing my wife again after this one
Comment: 3 days ago
Video: 2 days ago
@@petermmm42wait how?!
@@megandarling2215videos can be posted on youtube with a date and time. you can comment on it but you can’t see the video until the time selected to premiere
@@charcuteri oh yea right thanks!
@@megandarling2215it's often because the creator releases the video as a private video that only their patreon members can view & comment on. Then later (from days to weeks later on) it gets changed from 'private' to 'public' and then anyone can view it.
I was in Normandy this year, at Juno and Sword beaches and Pegasus Bridge. It’s incredibly so many got past the beaches. Thank you for your channel, you really bring history alive.
26:16
I guess “Moaning Minnie” was a British nickname for the Nebelwerfer 41. Grandpa, and every other American WWII vet I’ve interviewed, called them “Screaming Mimis.”
I love your approach to historical content. Keep up the awesome work!
For a moment I thought this was a old video but nope quite fresh being only 15 hours old. But it's nice to see that people still look into ww2
As i've written on your previous videos: Another amazing episode! Keep it up.
Thanks a lot!
9:39 absolutely love the chap pretending to use the typewriter. fully committed to the fantasy
I know you probably couldn't do this but could you do a video on if you could survive in the American Civil War
i once heard that a German tank commander loved the Sherman more then the panther because it was faster and more agile , he supposable said " one panther tank can tank down 10 shermans, but the americans always had 11" .........and i love that haha ...my new favorite channel
Thanks, that's a great quote!
A tanker's priorities are protection and firepower more than agility. They want to stay alive so that Panther veteran was a minority.
Having said that, the Panther actually had better mobility over soft ground mud and snow than the Sherman due to its much wider tracks.
If I remember right one of the reasons for the "Hordes of Sherman's, 10 to 1 against a Tiger" thing was that in American tank doctrine tanks always stuck together as a platoon. So if you encountered one Sherman's the whole unit wasn't far away.
@@lyndoncmp5751 You do know that even the standard 75mm Sherman could pin a panther from the front as easily as the panther could pen the Sherman right? The more important factor is that only 35% of knocked out panther crews survived while 80% of knocked out Sherman crews survived. As for the 11 Shermans quote, the knock out rate on both tanks is about even, the Americans weren't losing 11 tanks to every German tank, they were losing about 1 to 1. Most tanks weren't even killed by other tanks, they were taken out by Aircraft, artillery, AT infantry, and if you are German, Abandoned due to constant mechanical failures and breakdowns. The Tiger and panther were dogshit, the panzer 3/4 and Stug did all the work.
@@lyndoncmp5751the Sherman's agility meant that it was able to get to better positions faster than the panther leading to the sherman's positive KD against the panther in western europe
I would have died in the first 30 seconds on the beach. I would probably be that guy carrying his own arm around at the beginning of “Saving Private Ryan”.
I doubt I would’ve made it out of the landing craft tbh
I would be the puking guy in the boat
@@zwischenzeilenleserI'm a seafarer have seen really rough weather and would have also been puking. I'd say the vast majority of ppl did
@@zwischenzeilenleserthe fact a lot of them had a full meal beforehand probably didn’t help
Great video but one quibble. The Sherman was definitely designed to face enemy tanks, it’s just that its gun was outpaced by advances in German armor. The US Army opted to not fully replace with the 76mm version since it had a better HE shell and simplified logistics.
Fighting tanks was not its main mission though. That was where the tank destroyers would come into play, like the M-10.
The 75 was better at fighting anti tank guns and infantry than the 76 as well. For every tank they fought there were countless more anti tank guns and infantry with panzerfausts and panzershrecks.
@@AudieHollandwrong
ruclips.net/video/bNjp_4jY8pY/видео.html&si=lHrLOmfcWDAJ6yF3
@@AudieHolland That is such a commander view. Tanks were designed to fight tanks. End of. TDs were mostly used to plug gaps created by the enemy punching through with armour as they had the mobility to get there faster. They were more defensive, M4s were pushers.
@@sheilamorrison1954 Nope, originally tanks were designed to cross trenches and advance despite murderous enemy machinegun fire.
Tanks were supposed to support the infantry so they didn't have to go fast, about walking speed.
I'd like to make a few comments on the Sherman as it was portrayed in this video:
1. The Ronson nickname. This is absolutely a myth. The name allegedly comes from Ronson matches having the slogan "[Lights up] first time every time,". This slogan never acually used during the war first appearing in 1950. There's also no real evidence outside of anecdotes that the Germans ever called the Sherman the "Tommy Cooker" either.
2. The rate of catching fire. The video gives the impression that Shermans had an unusual rate of ignition. This was true during the North Africa campaign. Early models of the tank stired ammo in visable humps near the front of the vehicle which gave German gunners an easy time hitting them. However, by the Normandy campaign Shermans had switched to storing the ammo at the bottom of the tank, making it harder to hit. Additionally, by Normady the Americans had shifted to a wet storage of ammunition which significantly reduced the rate of ignition. After these chnages this the rate of igition was not any higher than their German or British counterparts.
3. Survivability. The Sherman actually had one of the highest rates of survivability of any tank of the war. This due to both its ergonomic interior design (compare the inside of a Sherman to a T-34 or a Tiger and you'll notice it is a lot roomier and easier to move around it) and the number of hatches on the tank itself. While it was different to exit, as all tanks of the time were, it was much easier to get out as every crew member had a hatch in close proximity. 9 in 10 Sherman crews suvived their tank being knocked out. The fact that one crew was in 8 vehicles should be seen as a commendation of the Sherman's design, that the crew was able to survive that meny incidents.
4. The armour. The frontal armour of a Sherman was sloped. This ment that the 51mm of armour had a comparible rate of deflection to the Tigers 100mm of flat frontal armour. The side armour of the Sherman was compariable to a Panzer 4 or Panther and could deflect a Tiger at 30 degrees angling.
Also on the story of the Geman tank ace. Something you'll find if you do research on the claims of individuals during the war is that they're usually full of shit. This happened on both sides of the war (see Typhoon pilots reporting more kills than were present in the tank columns they were attacking) but Panzer Aces in particular are particularly bad due to the propaganda value they have. They or the propaganists reporting on them would do things like report half-track and trucks as armoured kills.
Overall I liked this video but I really wish people would stop spreading Belton Cooper tier myths about the Sherman.
On your 2nd point: For the "humps" are you referring to the applique armor that were added over where the ammo racks are for extra protection?
For dry stowage Shermans, the ammo was stored in the sponsons which was the most likely part of a tank to be hit, which is why Shermans caught fire at the rate that they did. However this was not significantly higher than other contemporary tanks, so the "high burn rate" of the Sherman is in general a myth.
@@moomoo7706 Interesting, I'll have to look into that thanks
Yeah, found this video to be quite bad. The one thing that drives me crazy about tank myths is the misunderstanding that Shermans lit on fire because of their gas engines, while not understanding that even pure kinetic rounds would be so hot from the friction of penning armor that they would also ignite diesel, which is why German tanks and British designs also burnt out a lot. The main thing to take into account was the Shermans were the most recovered tank of the war being patched and put back into service because they weren't burning out as often as myths say.
@@Thaddios Again the M4's lower weight is an advantage in that it only took a Diamond T wrecker or M26 Dragon Wagon to go into the fields at night and recover them. Panther's required at least a Bergepanther and Tigers needed up to 3 FAMO heavy halftracks in series to do the job.
The only diesel engines used in the war for AFVs were the T34, the US M10 TD, the German PUMA and the M4A2 Sherman which were sent to the Marines or the USSR.
Tank crews were well aware that knocked out enemy tanks would be recovered it possible, so they would sometimes shoot until the target burned. Don't want to face that thing next week if at all possible.
@@TheSaturnV And yet, Allied tanks on the western front were lost at a near 1-1 ratio. its 2024 If you are still falling for the myth of German superior engineering when the problem all of their tanks had was too much weight not enough engine/ transition, then there is no helping you. You don't want truth you want your Nazi superiority fantasy. Grrrr they just needed to make a few more panthers, cope and seethe.
Louee's genuine passion for history is obvious in every video he makes. Another excellent one well done !!
I am 10 but still I love this cannel
Quick heads up, dont tell people your age on the internet. Other than that, keep watching, its great to see more people enjoying these videos
@@Politefox17yea right age telling isn't ethical
he misspelled 100, its all good
Another really top quality documentary. Thank you for posting.
These guys have also posted a documentary on what life was like in a Roman fort in Britain. Well worth viewing. Keep up the good work! 👍
Thanks!
Wow! this was an incredible video. The level of dedication the guys and gals at Armor and Embarkation have is amazing. Hats off to all involved in creating this. Well done!
Glad you enjoyed it!
41:23
If you think the Sherman's hatches are small, you'd hate every other nation's main tank even more. The Sherman is one of the easiest tanks to exit in event of emergency. Small hatch Shermans (like the one in the video) and Shermans without a loader's hatch were slightly worse off. Most Shermans had spring loaded hatches, making them easier to open.
Here is a great video demonstrating the difference of getting out of various WW2 tanks (The Chieftain is also not a small guy so it makes it harder): ruclips.net/video/q6xvg5iJ4Zk/видео.html
If I had to be in any tank in WW2 I'd probably pick the Sherman since it was relatively easy to fix if anything went wrong, and even if my tank was knocked out, I'd have decent chance of making it out than if I were in some other tank.
The Panzer IV had an escape hatch in the turret for all three turret crewmen. The Sherman didnt. There is no data that Shermans crews could get out faster than Panzer IV, Tiger and Panther crews, while a British study actually found the Cromwell was more survivable than the Sherman.
@lyndoncmp5751 The ability to exit quickly had to have some effect on the crew mortality rate. I remember hearing that the likelihood of the tank burning when hit is a major factor, but dry stowage Shermans burned at about the same rate as the Panzer IV, and still had less deaths on average.
Even with the individual hatches for everyone on the Panzer IV, they aren't spring-loaded, and the angle you need to exit at is more awkward. Also, the overall experience in a Panzer IV is more uncomfortable (don't get me wrong, I love the Panzer IV, I just wouldn't want to be in one during wartime)
I did not know about the study showing Cromwell's higher survivability (thank you for telling me!), but it still wouldn't sway my choice of the M4 for other reasons like internal space and ease of maintenance.
@@lyndoncmp5751 You really gonna mention a study and not provide a source? You got me interested now and I wanna see it
The British tanks were particularly complicated to get out of.
@@AudieHolland I agree, the diagonal exit seems very inconvenient. I think The Chieftain also agrees with you, seeing how much he struggled with that hatch on the Comet lol
You guys should add hand-made captions to these videos! Makes them much easier to watch, and auto-generated captions are not particularly accurate
Great video but man the muzzle awareness while handling those guns... even if a gun is not loaded you always make sure where its pointed.
Same, the entire weapon section I was clenched up
They're reenactment props, not real. The whole point of reenactment is to point "guns" at each other.
@skepticalbadger That's off the point. Rule number 1 of gun handling: ALWAYS assume the weapon is loaded. Rule 2: NEVER point the muzzle in an unsafe direction, for instance at another person. Rule 3: Whenever picking up a weapon, ALWAYS check the chamber to make sure it is unloaded. Etcetera. By the way, how do you know they're props? Making such an assumption is also one of the bad mistakes potentially causing a dangerous situation.
@@grotesqo8570 rule number 1000: it's a toy, a prop. Something that can't fire live rounds so settle down buddy. You also get so mad when people do actual reenactments where they "shoot" at each other?
@@ax23mgh8 I'd say the probability of them being real firearms is high enough to not assume they're props. Though your standpoint is very typical for someone not used to handling guns. I do see tour point of it being reenactment and i find it very informative and educational, but in such a circumstance, it's customary to make a disclaimer that the guns are props, that they've been checked beforehand or the like. For us who handle guns on a regular basis and where the rules mentioned above has been drilled into us, the circumstance in the video makes us squirm.
While Tiger tanks were formidable, they were not a game changer because they were present in relatively low numbers, they were difficult to transport, they were not highly reliable, and were difficult to maintain and repair. In contrast, Shermans were reliable and easy to maintain. Despite the "stories" of the Shermans' vulnerabilities, the fact is that their crews had the highest survival rates of any tank in WWII.
Your comments on the M1 carbine were a little misleading. More than 6 million were produced not so much because of a dramatic disproportion between support versus front-line infantry troops, but more because the carbine's utility was increasingly recognized during the course of the war. While it was perhaps more useful in the Pacific than in the European theater. it certainly was superior in power, range, and accuracy to the German MP 40 and the Russian PPSH, particularly in the selective fire M2 version. I believe this was demonstrated by its continued use through the Korean and early Vietnam conflicts.
That musette pack was the same as the backpack we carried to catholic grade school in the late 60s/ early 70s. There was a cool surplus shop around the corner from school.
Omg!! Where has this channel been all my life?!?!? The production values, writing and editing are top notch! It’s so intense while I’m high AF! SUBSCRIBED HAPPILY!!!
thanks!
Great documentary! Very informative and entertaining!
Another brilliant episode, much better than a lot of documentaries on TV! I'm sure you could probably get your episodes on TV. Keep them coming mate!
Thanks so much Matt!
Superb production quality throughout.
Much appreciated!
In the 1980s here in the USA you could still buy the M1 Carbine right out of a Sears catalog. I never did but wished I had.
Wow, this is a great video.
Thank you so much.
The live modern footage was great
Glad you enjoyed it!
Ive been waiting for this since your first video!
Amazing video, I've had the honor of meeting some of these heroes and serving along their legacy.
Thank you for creating my new go to content for history!
Thank you Adam, that means a lot to us! Really appreciate it.
Thanks so much for sharing!
Amazing video, very well structured, beautiful narration and great interviews. Keep up the good work 😊
Thank you so much!
How does this guy not have his own show on TV yet?
Very kind of you!
What's a "TV"?
What's a 'TV'?
(Why on earth is youtube constantly deleting this comment? It's a really tame joke, and it kinda makes youtube look good.)
he's got like national geographic level videos
it wasn't deletedd@@Wintermute909
Excellent analysis, but the infantry officers served at the front with their men, especially platoon leaders and company commanders. The US infantry motto is "Follow Me." I was an infantry PL. Our troops expected us to lead up front.
My great great grandfather was a tanker in the 6th armoured. He arrived in Normandy a day after the landing
My great uncle on my dads side and my great grandpa on my moms side both landed on the same beaches in Normandy on D-Day. Both would survive the war and both suffered the same fate and wouldn't fight past the initial landing. My great grandpa landed on a land mine as soon as he jumped out of his boat getting thrown into the air. They thought he was dead and left behind but he was actually just unconscious for the entire first day and woke up piled up with the other dead Americans on the beach with a cloth over his face. There was a soldier collecting dogtags walking by that saw him rise up from the line of corpses and it scared him so bad he ran off screaming thinking he was a zombie. His legs got shredded good but they would survive, he would be left with bad knee damage tho keeping him from being able to rejoin the war. He spent the rest of his days in his mountain home he built himself in the Carolinas living in piece. My great uncle made it past the first bunkers and pillboxes before also stepping on a land mine that was planted around the trenches. He managed to drag himself into a hole and laid there pinned down under mg fire until dark. He crawled between fox holes and craters from bombs in the dark while getting hit by rifle fire in the hip and tryn to dodge grenades and bullets until he made it back to a fox hole with American soldiers where he finally got help. The explosion tore up his groin and thighs pretty bad and he wouldn't be able to have children after words. He would also have to sit out the rest of the war unable to walk without help. He got a metal plate where his privates used to be and never married his whole life saying it was a waste in his condition. He lived in a run down neighborhood in Houston and refused to move his whole life and instead spent his time after the war adopting neighborhood kids that were neglected and raised them as his own when they had nowhere to go to. He was never lonely with a home full of people that cared for him and open couch for anyone that needed a place to stay. No oned dared mess with him even after the neighborhood turned dangerous from gangs moving in as they knew what he did for the kids and teens in the area helping anyone without discrimination. Both have pased away several years ago and lived into their 90s. Its a miracle they both survived that day and got to live a long life afterwards.
Well done. Nice video.
American involvement in WW2 along with the introduction of the Sherman Tank saved so many Allied lives.
Good video. I would prefer if the maps used in the film were accurate to the time period
This channel is just awesome
Thanks for the support!
I already know that I am NOT surviving this
You could
If war daddy did (unlike in fury) you probably could unless one of your team is slacking especially loaders
Eh the tank losses are pretty insane if you see the stats….. literally we just out build and sent in to the front. Tankers demanded for a heavier tank at the beginning but Patton just said fk it
You’re mentally weak. Don’t get me wrong, they had plenty of people like you during the war, they just don’t talk about it.
@ aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh5832 Patton knew the negative impact it would’ve had on our logistics.
very good WW2 video thanks, better than most
Love your channel . This made my day thank you!
You're welcome!
Very cool video, thanks for the upload
Absolutely amazing content! Thoroughly enjoyed this!
Much appreciated!
Did I just find my new favorite channel?
When talking about the M1 Garand, one important step of reloading was left out. They forgot the bit where the bolt closes and smashes your intercoursing thumb!
Also, the M3A1 Grease Gun was still in use when I was a soldier. Some of the soldiers in my section were issued them instead of M16A2s.
The part about the Sherman being difficult to get in/out of is missing so much context it's bordering on being misinformation - sure, for a historian looking at it and doing it for the first time you might think that. But one of the core tenants behind the Shermans design is it is exceptionally easy to get out, compared to every single one of it's contemporaries. Shermans were lost at high rates, but crew survivability was top compared to pretty much any other tank of it's time. It was much more useful as a tank than pretty much any other because it is one of the most reliable, super easy to be worked on in the field, and able to be mass produced. Crew can get out of one tank that is hit, and another tank is already waiting for them back at the base like you say. "Thin Armour" is such a silly trope, armour thickness has very little to do with it's effectiveness in isolation, there's so many more variables that go into it - for example, the thicker and further sloped T34 armour is useless because it was heat treated so high it was very brittle and the tank cracked open without even penetrating shots, and a large amount of spalling happened inside which often killed the crew. The Sherman had none of these problems despite "thinner armour". Would have been better to have more analysis than "what my eyes see when I look at the tank", which is all we really get from this video I'm afraid!
Even then, "high loss rates" without context makes it look like the tank was poor - we're totally ignoring the fact the Allies were the ones on the offensive, and most likely to be engaged by the enemy rather than visa versa, you mention this earlier in the video but it's not again contextualized when you say the Sherman had high loss rates. Plus the stuff about Wittman basically boils down to "they said he did it so he did it", a lot of the claimed things he did on that day are physically impossible, so take that 13 kills or whatever it was you said here with a grain of salt.
I am writing from the other side of the fence, even in a double-sense. My grandfather, fighting with the Wehrmacht, served in a recovery, repair and signal unit. He needed to recover and repair all kind of Wehrmacht vehicles and tanks. He was also driving either a truck or a motorbike, often alone distributing orders and despatches between different units. An extremely dangerous task on partisan infested Soviet soil.
I am myself an German engineer and served in the East-German army (NVA) from 1983-1986 as a T55 commander. I saw the very few last T34s (already converted into recovery tanks without turrets) in action before they were scrapped during my time of service.
T34 indeed suffered a lot of quality problems particular in the beginning of the war with Nazi-Germany (1941): unreliable gearboxes, frequently poor armour and missing radio equipment.
But we should not forget that many of these problems occurred because the more or less very modern Soviet armour production industries including its workforce needed to ne evacuated and flee into the Ural mountain range and beyond. Also, similar to the US-production of Shermans, the T34 was manufactured in different factories with various technologies. But the Soviets also lacked often the necessary quality steel or metallurgic ingrediencies. Later, once the transfer of factories was completed, the quality dramatically improved for the T34s. I agree with you that pure steel thickness alone will not make a good tank armour, it indeed depends very much on things like heat treatment and steel quality but also suitable welding procedures. The Soviets at the time were world class miners, metallurgists, engineers and technologists in the 1930s. But without a stable operating plant(s) and missing essentials (and a lot of capable heads still in Gulags), you cannot get things right. Therefore the land-lease program was so important to them. Besides the tanks, trucks, jeeps, Harleys and fighter aircraft the real Western support were rather machinery, quality steel, other metals, cable, radio equipment, medical supplies, food supplies (most of the farm land was under German occupation, mined and burnt and the farmers now fighting in the Red Army or being partisans) and special know-how (i.e. airplane engines) etc. etc. Which allowed the Soviet Union to established there own and very strong and sophisticated armament industries to churn out military hardware in gigantic numbers in almost no time.
My grandfather told me, that indeed the T34 become a very strong fear for "Landsers" (infantry men) and tanker crews. After the T34/85 was entering the battle field almost all of its disadvantages even against Panthers and Tigers were at least levelled.
It is always said that on request of the Western WW2 allies the USSR shipped one or two T34 to Britain for them to evaluate and study Soviet tank technology, but I am not sure if this is true.
A very few things the Shermans and T34s shared: they were mass-produced with ever-dropping costs (and yes, this is indeed an essential QUALITY factor for a good tank), they were increasingly updated in various aspects and in the end could cope with the Tigers. What the Sherman firefly was, was the T34/85 with now a smooth and reliable gearbox, a three-men turret , good intercom and radio plus better optics.
"My" T55 still shared the same T34 engine, just slightly modernized for even more power and torque. This V12-Diesel-monster was unstoppable and provided an unbelievable driving range.
Peace! from Dresden / Germany
Love the history. Love the in depth examples….im a history nerd so most was not new to me, but loved it all the same.
Hate to even mention it as these are prob demilled firearms but to see them flag each other bugged me.
Sorry, range safety officer being uptight…lol.
Love these episodes! Thanks!
At 31:27 it must have been terrifying for the crews when being loaded onto ships. Just kidding, great video.
Quality on par if not better than History Channel itself! You're like TopGear but for history nerds ❤
Yeah the Sherman fighting a tiger was a rule of 3 to 1 but the Sherman when they got the upgrades. Mainly different modifications like the 76 mm barrel helped it out so much more. When they brought the jumbo 76 mm Sherman in that was the main thing to fight the tiger on the front of its armor.
The Jumbo had the 75mm. It wasn't fitted with the 76mm until 1945. Even the 76mm was seen as disappointing without HVAP and very difficult to penetrate the Tiger frontally unless at very close range.
@@lyndoncmp5751The Sherman firefly was introduced in early 1944 and it had a 76mm cannon
@ahmadsuleman9045
The Jumbo was a completely different Sherman variant than the Firefly. The Jumbo never had the 17 pounder.
The British Firefly had a better anti tank gun than the American 76mm Sherman. Without HVAP, which was rare even in 1945, the American 76mm Sherman gun was seen as disappointing.
It's always weird hearing people say the sherman wasn't designed to fight tanks cause it was. Inside the chieftain's hatch has a good video explaining this its called myths of American armour.
People also forget about the Tank Destroyer M3 GMC
Which used the same 75mm gun as the Sherman. Sherman having the same gun as a tank destroyer, but wasn't meant to fight tanks? Strange.
@@moomoo7706and contrary to belief (likely spawned by War Thunder), it's not like the M3 GMC was some interwar design, an era where 75mm was considered quite large. It came out along 40-41, when thicker, heavier tanks were becoming the norm.
Very insightful, you guys 17:04
I absolutely love WWII, US Army of course. I would have been in a Cavalry Recon Group/Regiment. (MECz) like the 6th, 15th or 106th Cav Grp. I also love the DUI or the individual unit crests of the Tank Destroyer Battalions, & Armored Battalions. 3rd & 9th Armored were the only ones that used the M26 Pershing, Perhaps even the 2nd I read used the Pershing. The Armored Mechanized Artillery are cool too. Every infantry Division had it's own organic cav recon troop. Depending on the units size determined the size of the recon unit. A troop is company in size, Squadron is a battalion & squadrons were organic to Armored Divisions. Regiments or Groups worked at Corps or Army level recon, Flank Security, Task Force Raiding parties.
You would most likely be killed as soon as the landing craft door opened 😅😂
Please do battle of the bulge. The attrition suffered from both sides was horrible. Great video 👍🏻
Reminds me of the old history channel. Keep up the good work!
Thanks! Will do!
So far I've seen two videos from this channel both with inaccuracies.
😂😅
A fascinating insight 🧐🧡🌸
Amazing video,loving all the videos coming from this channel.great job!
Thanks so much!
My father-in-law was in a Sherman after D Day. He told his daughter, my wife that he was a radioman. He probably did this to keep her for asking questions about what he did in the war. He at times suffered from PTSD, which I believe was called "shell shock" at that time. I wish my son had gotten to know him better.
Brilliant!
Initially I thought u had like 10 million subs or something when I've watched ur Napoleon video
I've just subscribed to u yesterday and I've almost watched all ur videos , amazing Content and amazing presentation
Really appreciate that thank you - hopefully 10 million one day!
not sure if it was for this event but my cousin's husband partook in a ww2 paradrop reenactment in full ww2 gear, it was pretty neat seeing the photos taken during it
What a great video man, well done
Glad you enjoyed it!
I dont know if it was done on purpose, but at the start there where a new breed of indestructible tank is mentioned and the footage proceeds to show a pz4 J/H, was an absolutely hilarious nod
I know I would survive the Normandy Landings since I would be onboard the Battleship Texas as a Surface Warfare Officer
Thr MP40 wasnt really the german vesion of the grease gun, the MP3008 was. As it was their last ditch cheap to make SMG, there might be others and alterations to the others, but thats the one that springs to mind.
You guys remind me of extra history, reason?
You guys make history fun! 100% subbing after this and the napoleon vid
History is one of those subjects that if you don’t make fun then in my opinion then the students that you are teaching aren’t going to learn as much as if you try to make it fun
Another great video here!👏🏽😎
I was looking at that area of Normandy a while ago and some of those old plots are literally almost exactly 1 acre in size based off of the old medieval way of measuring an acre.
The British and Canadians faced 90% of the German armour in Normandy, including all three Tiger battalions.
True & that because most American soldiers & their commanders (Patton excepted) were useless in battle in Europe
Congratulations?
@@sputnikone6281the fuck?
Yeah, but according to the dialogue in 'Private Ryan' Montgomery was 'overrated'. Hanks/Speilberg 'Brit Bashing ' again. Yawnnnnn...
@sputnikone6281 That’s a pretty bold claim.
What follows is frontline combat.
You are not expected to survive.
Bedankt
Thank you!
My grandpa fought in ww2! He fought in the eastern front as a romanian.
My great grandfather has fallen fighting in the east. He was Silesian conscripted into Wehrmacht.
@@justanordinaryaccount9910he's dead?
Superb viewing . Compelling content. Thank you.
Thanks a lot Mark!
I like the series it takes quality over quantity best historical channel
Something about seeing a British man so passionate about the American forces in the conflict. It is as if it is a subtle note of the idea that WW2 really was a war of the world…
Can You survive In battle of stalingrad in ww2?
No💀
No
I'm worried about Westerners making anything about the USSR, it usually comes with truckloads of bias
More like, how long would you be able to stay alive, cause aint no surviving there lmao
Statistically...probably not
Best job I ever had!
Looking forward to the video 😊
Enjoyed this video.
Just remember: The answer is always no.
Unless you're very Very lucky.
Wow, great episode as always! I personally stood on that Sherman in Netherlands where he was displayed in front of ww2 museum
This really make me miss a game heroes and generals sadly it was shutdown in may of 2023
A bit odd for 2nd Armored to have airborne infantry gear like jump boots and musette bags.
Artillery and airpower were the two things that had the greatest contribution in the defeat of the Germans! The recently developed proximity fuse played a huge part in the devastating artillery put upon them by the Americans.
I saw this and knew bro was cooked when I heard Normandy😂 btw love the channel
Edit: (I know 2 of my great grandpas served in WW2 and one was served for Italy, and the other served as an officer next to Dwight D. Eisenhower, for America obviously)
Can I ask, is that the 2nd armoured living history group you made the film with? They look extremely well kitted out.
Instantly sub'd, love your style and channel. Wish you the best.
Thanks and welcome aboard!
I really enjoyed that. Thankyou 😊
You're welcome!
With Colonel Abrams at the helm you didn't break through the German lines. You sideswiped the Germans, attacking them on their flanks. The Sherman tanks were able to do this because they were just a little bit (just enough) faster than the German tanks. The German tanks had very little side armor. At least, not enough side armor.
These videos are the best
Excellent 👍
i loved this video
like all videos you made so far
Thanks so much for watching with us Davide!
@@survivehistory prego ;)