I had a Grampa in the 3rd Armored Division in WW2. He was a 19yr. old who trained as infantry, but ended up a replacement loader in a Sherman that had lost its previous two loaders in combat (he had black-and-white pictures of the welded-in "turret-hole-plugs" from which both prior loaders lost their lives). He ended his few months in combat during The Battle of The Bulge, when, while riding in what his battalion commander told them was a "Kraut Scrubbed Area" with his turret hatch open, his Sherman got hit by what he believes was a German 75mm AP round which touched off their tank's forward, right-side ammo rack. All he remembered was a loud "bang" and when he woke up, he remembered screaming in pain while his tank commander pressed freshly fallen snow into the burn wounds on his face and upper-body in an attempt to provide him some temporary relief. He later found out that he and his tank commander were both blown clear from his tank's turret after the initial hit, and shortly afterward the rest of the ammo in the tank brewed up and burned the rest of his crew to death. As a child, I remember it taking a long while getting used to my Grampa's facial deformities due to his severe burn wounds. He never complained and neither did my Grandma, although my Mom would tell me in later years that as a child she remembered him waking up screaming in the middle of the night and manically saying he had to get his buddies out of his burning tank. What a horrific war. In my book, they're absolutely the Greatest Generation and through their sacrifices they undoubtedly saved the world.
That's a haunting story. Thank you for sharing. We don't hear very often stories about the inside of armored warfare as we should. It sounds terrifying. I mean, everything about those wars sound terrifying, but there's something to be said about how helpless you feel being stuck inside of a steel coffin that at any point during combat can just explode.
@@Vietnow15 Don't judge them on that - They didn't get to pick the era in which they were born - They just did the best they could and saved the world for their families and for later generations as well (like the one you were born into). God how I hate all this retro-judgement bulls**t.
An important factor that was overlooked here is that the Sherman had a weight limit of 30 tons, because that was the weight limit for most cranes in European ports. They restricted the mass to ensure that it would be able to be easily offloaded in foreign ports.
As well, had to be transported largely on US trains to get to embarkation ports. Limits weight and width. All tanks are a trade off between firepower, armor, and speed.
It also had to drive over bridges. Some of the German tanks were too heavy to drive over some bridges. This was a serious liability during the battle of the bulge.
@@lesliefranklin1870 Those bridges that the German tanks couldn't cross would also not have held the weight of a Sherman. If a bridge can't hold a Panzer IV/70 then you can forget about a Sherman. Not to mention that a Sherman weighs more than 30 ton. So all people seeing that was the hard cap because of the weight limit, you're shooting down your own claim.
My Grandfather served in the 701st Tank Batallion during WW2. His unit saw action in Northern France, the Ardennes and Germany 1945. He was the ammunition loader.
My Uncle, Sgt Frank Love was also in the 701. He was in the tank retrieval and repair group. He ran a Grant with a crane to tow repairables back from the field.
I have a better story to tell. When I was 12 in 1962 there were three shermans parked outside of the armoury in my town. As kids we would play on them. One evening we found that one of the turrets was unlocked and we crawled in. I went to the driver's seat and started moving things around. I found, much to my surprise< that if I hit the start button the tanked lurched forward by a foot or so. We moved that thing about 12 feet. It was the first motor vehicle I ever drove on my own
100% believable and what a sharp contrast to today's kids. Hovering parents who won't even let the kids go on a swing set... our parents had no idea where we were... and we were down at the armoury driving shermans....
@@56squadron Not in my town but we would stop on trips. A playground had a slide coming out of the intake on a Super Saber (The Hun). We could climb around where the engine used to be.
@@jimreilly917 My brother and I regularly played in a Sherman when my father was executive officer at Rock Island Arsenal in 1959-61. Unique fun! This video brought back fond memories.
My grandfather was a 5th Marine Division Sherman tank commander in the battle for Iwo JIma. He landed on the first day and was there on the last day, and during that time he served in at least 5 different tanks (I gathered this number from his war stories, which he started telling me at a very young age; he and I shared a very close bond, and he eventually told me stories that he never told his own kids). He came ashore in a standard gun tank, which soon struck a buried aerial bomb and was torn in two, killing the Driver and Co-Driver, and possibly the Loader (IIRC). He and the Gunner survived because the explosion blasted them out of the turret, and he escaped with only moderate hearing loss. At points, he served in a tank dozer, a flame tank (I recently read a book, 'Tanks On Iwo Jima 1945' by Roman Cansiere. His unit details showed that the 5th Marine, 5th Battalion did not have a flame tank, but he went on to mention that at one point, the 5th operated the flame tank attached to the 4th Marines), two gun tanks and a field-modified 'corpsman' tank. The corpsman tank had a hinged plate attached to the glacis (or possibly the diff cover). The intention was for the tank to drive up and straddle a wounded soldier, then the plate was lowered to prevent the Japanese from targeting the wounded or the medics - two of the many war crimes they were known for. He said the only enemy tanks he saw were buried and used as pillboxes, but the Japanese 47mm could pierce a Sherman at short-medium range and and he did face emplaced artillery - one of which, after a long battle to destroy it by land, sea and air, turned out to have been mounted on a rail cart that the Japanese would wheel in and out of a cave to fire from two different positions.We have to remember all our veterans, but especially now that WW2 is taught less and less in the public schools. That was really the case when I was gong through Junior High and High School; just about everything I learned about the war was from Grandpa and books I read on my own. It was the defining event of the 20th Century. Let's hope WW3 or the next American Civil War won't define the current one.
One advantage not mentioned here that the Sherman had was spring loaded hatches. If you needed to bail out fast, the assistance the springs gave to open heavy, armoured hatch covers was critical. It gave the Sherman a survivability after being hit unmatched by any previous tank. Most crew survived at hit (if I recall correctly, the figure was about 83%)
@@davidecarucci1073 plenty of experience having to go inside these knocked out tanks, but Belton Cooper is a victim to his own confirmation bias. Sad that nowadays his words have solidified the image of the delicate, flammable , death trap towards the Sherman when compared to the tanks it was facing it was a life saving, dependable, versatile workhorse.
My Father was a 16yo boy on Poland when the Germans invaded. At some point in time he was conscripted into their army from which he deserted. He was captured by French forces and eventually drove a Sherman in North Africa and Italy (near Monte Cassino). Like many he didn't speak a great deal about his experiences. But, after a few drinks he once recounted an incident when we told his Commander he had seen movement in a nearby building. They fired in a round causing an explosion, after which the Germans spilled out burning. 'Poor Devils' was his final comment. After the war he came to England, met my Mother. and the rest they say is history.
That's awesome glad to hear I never got to meet my great grandfather he died 3 years b4 I was born in 92 he had 3 shrapnel wounds and a bullet in em still he was in the 69th inf div the fighting 69th lol 😆
@@user-ve7hn2dh8h we did have a range of shells with different purposes and a nasty one with incideinary phosphorus that clings and burns anything in the white cloud of choking burning smoke 😅
That was an excellent program gentlemen. My father fought his Canadian Army Sherman through the Italian campaign, and then up through Belgium, Holland, and Germany. His variant was the M4A4 version that was about a foot longer and the fastest of all Shermans because of its Chrysler multi-bank engine which was used during a shortage of air-cooled aircraft engines between July 1942 and November 1943. Because it was a foot longer, it also provided a more stable platform for the Firefly version with its more powerful 17 pounder gun. Almost all of this variant were sold to Britain and used by the 8th Army and Canadian Army because the Americans wanted to maintain a more consistent supply and logistics system for their Sherman’s regarding engines and fuel types. As a fellow tank nerd, I noticed right away that you had an early version because of the lower radio compartment on the back of the turret, and the three piece transmission housing. Later versions raised the compartment and utilized a single cast transmission housing that made for even speedier servicing. Your version also featured a single hatch as did the M4A4 (a second hatch was installed in later models like the M4A2 and A3) which my father complained about bitterly because as gun loader/radio operator, he was last man out of the turret in an emergency. There was an anomaly on your version which had a yellow diamond insignia on the side of its turret indicating it was a “D” Squadron tank, but its name designation “Balaclava” indicates it was a “B” Squadron tank which would have had a yellow square designation on the turret. Conversely, it’s “D” Squadron name would have started with a “D”, like “Destroyer”. Additional historical information regarding the Sherman’s development should include that the Canadian army developed its earlier Ram tank using the M3 General Lee tank’s engine, drive train, suspension, and chassis, but replaced the riveted high profile hull with a lower profile cast hull with a 360 degree traverse turret containing its main 2 or 6 pounder gun. The Americans liked the design and enlarged the glacis, turret, and turret ring to accommodate the larger 75mm gun. Otherwise the Sherman is an almost identical copy of the Ram. Your Canadian manufactured version was known as the “Grizzly”, and after about 800 units, production ceased as the Detroit tank arsenal got up to speed. If you like reading about this kind of stuff, one of my historical novels available on Amazon, “Fighters, Bombers, Tanks, Wolves: Gitchigumi” under my pseudonym William Myers has lots of action. Cheers.
@@nickdanger3802 Production of the M4 was delayed due to Ordnance developing then finalizing the design of the M4 turret ring and transverse system. They wanted to use only one design on all their planned M4 variants that would be using heavier turrets with bigger guns. The Pullman-Standard plant in my hometown of Hammond, Indiana assembled the Lend-Lease M3's and M4's used by the British. We used to ride our Sting Rays around their tank test track which was a big oval track with a ramp those took at speed to go airborne to see if the suspension and tracks held up when it slammed back down onto the ground!
@@nickdanger3802 Yes, the M4A4 variant was “sold” to Britain, even if some of them may have been designated as “lend-lease”. Uncle Sam and “the arsenal for democracy” never really “gives” anything away for free. The Brits were still paying off war debts to the USA into the early 21st century. As for the Grizzly, built in Montreal, most were supplied to Canadian tank regiments with some maybe finding their way into British units before the full flow of Sherman’s began arriving in strength from the Detroit Tank Arsenal. At that point, to paraphrase Stalin, “quantity became a quality all its own”. Remember, the Canadians were in the war against Hitler for more than two years before America joined in.
I have a tank story to tell. Back in the 1980s, probably 1986 or 87, my unit (Armor Company, ESC, USATEC, Fort Hunter Liggett) did an exchange program with British soldiers. I really enjoyed the Brits assigned to my platoon, who filled in vacant positions on our tanks during training. We did one attack where all my tanks rolled out of their assembly areas on time and executed the attack. Later on, the British soldiers told me that never would have happened in the British Army, because they said 25-50% of their tanks would have broken down right out of the assembly area. We were on M60A3's, which were pretty reliable; my tank would only break down on Fridays, right before the weekend...
I used to string a hammock across the turret and sleep in my A3 there was so much room. And I really loved the TTS. Probably those two things I really missed once we switched to the M1IP
I recently purchased a 1:48 scale model of a M4A2 SHERMAN and ended up going down a SHERMAN rabbit hole! Different manufacturers, different hulls, different engines, different front gearbox covers, different hatches and all in a relatively short space of time.
I thoroughly enjoy seeing my grandaddy's Sherman getting the love it deserves. Not a "perfect tank", particularly against the later war German heavies, but it consistently showed up to the battlefield which is as important as the size of the gun or thickness of the armor.
And the exceptionally high crew survival rates means tank crews could easily find a replacement tank and continue to bring what they learned against the enemy, or teach more tank crews.
Reliable, easy to build, mass produced, easy to maintain, ergonomically sound in that crews were as comfortable as they could be, internal intercom, the best radios in the business, and used everywhere, and by everybody (the Russians that used them loved them). The Sherman is what happens when a country that built most of the world's cars started building tanks
as a Sherman Tank fangril, thank you, thank you, thaaaaaaank you for addressing the fire problem. I can only assume you know the headache of hearing someone use the Ronson slogan for them, not realizing the "Lights the first time, every time" didn't come into circulation until *after* the second war.
My grandfather fought in Africa and Italy in a Sherman with the 760th Tank Battalion. His unit's story is written in the book "To Rome and Beyond". Very proud of my late grandfather.
Many people in pop culture seem to think that tanks only fought other tanks and thats what mattered......reality was that tank on tank combat was actually quite rare, most of the time these Shermans were fighting against Germany infantry units that had no armored vehicles of their own, and their main threats were hand-held Panzerfausts and towed anti-tank cannons sitting in a ditch somewhere. For those kind of enemies, Sherman was arguably one of the best tanks you could have (very good visibility for its time, very quick firing gun with a lot of HE power in 75mm shells, lots of machine guns). And if it did run into a proper German tank unit, 80% of the time it would be against older Panzer 4 and Stugs and that sort of vehicles that Sherman could destroy even with 75mm gun.
Battle of Kursk... The Sherman didn't go up against tanks because most of the German panzers were fighting on the eastern front. Stalin became very annoyed that the British and Americans were taking so long to introduce the western front while Russia ended up destroying most of the German army.
thats flat out nonsense, there were more than enough Panzers operating in Western Europe as well as North Africa and Italy. During battle of Normandy for example, Germany deployed more than 2200 tanks of various modifications against Americans and British forces, during Battle of the Bulge over 1000 Panzers were used against Americans alone @@lperea21
Saw on another video on TY, that the US Army did a study just after the war and for the ENTIRE European theater (both allies and axis) that tank on tank combat only happened ~14% of the time. The rest of the time tanks fought soft targets like the Sherman was designed to fight against.
@@Joe-xd3urit’s actually not true - and fantasy writing. The tank was obsolete and known as a Tommy cooker for a reason. The only advantage the Sherman had was sheer numbers - and to think otherwise is a lie. If you had a choice you’d take the Tiger tank every day of the week and 2x on Sunday.
Drastically underrated. The 75mm was an excellent cannon designed for engagements at 500 yards .. the typical engagement on the western front. Totally capable of knocking out even the tiger with frontal and turret penetrations. British 6 lb AT guns punched clean through a tigers turret. Germans rarely used face hardened armor, every allied tank had it.
Nice fantasy. Please provide link to an even semi-credible account of a Sherman 75 taking out a Tiger, with a front shot, from 400-500 yds (and not a Pnzkw IV mistaken for a Tiger). That's what I thought. Here endeth the lesson.
@@Mst-bh9ti500yrds could potentially pen a tiger on its sides since german armour notoriously had paper side armour and rear armor and emphasized on the frontal armour.
Standardization and things like only using one oil type also paid huge dividends in the logistics trains. Easier to procure, ship, and store the right parts. No having to track multiple vendors for many different parts. Easier to organize in shipping and storage etc.
The Germans found this out eventually, but it was too late. So many Tigers were left on the battlefield because of the logistic train for fuel and parts. A big tank is fine but you can't fight with something lacking reliability and mobility in a modern war. Much like their fortifications and battleships, German tanks were a victim of inferiority complex. Hitler had to have the biggest everything, not comprehending the concept they themselves created: That of a fast, mobile war. The Mouse and Schwerer Gustav are perfect examples. Great ideas on paper to a drug-addled mind, but far too impractical for actual consistent use on a rapidly changing battlefield.
The Sherman wasn't the biggest, meanest tank on the battlefield. But it was reliable, fast, and could fight well enough. You could also transport it well. It was there to do a job.
And the parts were more interchangeable between tanks which was unusual at the time, especially among German tanks. You could take parts of a disabled tank and use them to get another going. We take that for granted now but it wasn't the case back then.
@@MrGary10k LOL their is also a recorded case of a Sherman against a Tiger where they killed the Tiger crew by firing so many shells that they occupants died from the number of shells rather than their tank being penetrated.
The thing they don't mention is how the 75mm gun had an HE round that was better at killing soft targets than any allied round until you get as large as 155mm.
US armoured doctrine was that tank should not fight tank, that was the role of the tank destroyer. The Sherman was intended for infantry support, hence the low velocity gun. This is not realistic and explains why the Firefly and 76 mm gunned versions were so much better. A better gun, about a metre less height and better armour would have improved things, but, then, it wouldn't have been a Sherman.
@@alecblunden8615 that is not exactly true. The TD doctrine is defensive in native. They're fast because they're meant to be reactive. The US tank doctrine is based around supporting the infantry meaning if the infantry comes in contact with tanks during an assault they would rely to their accompanying tanks to engage. But if enemy tanks make a breakthrough during a defensive scenario then it's the hellcats and wolverines that are in charge to counter them (meaning to stop the advance or turn the enemy tanks back).
@@JericoLionhearth That hardly coincides with most of the publicly available material. Shall we compromise by saying that Sherman's were not originally intended to fight tanks, hence their low velocity guns pre 1944?
@@alecblunden8615 Not really. It's stated in the doctrine manual for the TD branch that it's defensive in nature. And tanks from Armoured branch that support infantry, stated in their doctrine manual, are told that the enemy will bring tanks of their own and they are suppose to fight them in support of the infantry. And the 75mm gun isn't low velocity, it's a medium velocity gun that can happily kill German and Italian tanks when the Sherman was first used by the British. We are talking 75mm gun in a theater where largest anti tank guns on tanks are 57mm which is the 6 pounder, if my memory serve me correctly.
@@LAIHOCKCHUN Perhaps you should actually read my original post. It's only you who keeps rabbiting on about *defensive" and "offensive" which is clearly irrelevant. Shermans were not designed to fight tanks. That was the role of tank destroyers. Pea shooters were enough to destroy Italian tanks which were little more than mild upgrades of Carden Lloyd tankettes and Vickers Commercial designs. As to German designs. Panzer I and II were light tanks. The Panzer III and IV were the fighting tanks, followed by the V and VI from 1942-1943.. A Sherman crew attacking a Panzer IV would have to feel lucky. Virtually all the reported engagements with Tigers were found to be with IV's and the regularly ran away from Vs. No wonder the British crews called them Ronsons because of their propensity to light up, and that the Germans called them Tommy Cookers for the same reason. Face it, the only good features of the Sherman, particularly by 1944, were reliably and abundance. The gun was hopeless which was why the Germans were ordered to focus on the long barreled tanks - the Firefly and the less specialised 76 mm. Drop the patriotic claptrap and work from the facts. B
Underrated. Reliable, and it "got there" on its own power. Send 100 Shermans from point A to B, 100 start, 100 get there. Tigers and Panthers have tender feet.
@@TTTT-oc4eb Cooper only took care of those that were destroyed. They were cheaper to build than Tigers and Panthers, and there were ALWAYS replacements. Part of Cooper's job was to determine how many replacements to have available for the next day, as he points out in "Deathtraps." Cooper greatly exaggerates the deaths of Sherman crewmen compared to actual First Army Stata, as well.
@TT TT They would break down, but easy availability of spare parts and easy maintenance meant they WOULD, eventually, get there. The Tigers and Panthers were hard to repair in the field.
@@scottjoseph9578 The Panther was designed with ease of production and maintenance in mind. See video at 6.56: ruclips.net/video/EzEXBbQC7BU/видео.html
This tank is an M4A1as it has a cast hull. The subnodels were M4 Welded hull Continental Radial Engine M4A1 Cast Hull Continental Radial Engine M4A2 Welded hull GM 6046 Diesel - Two buss engines ganged together to a common output shaft M4A3 - Welded hull Ford GAA engine M4A4 - Welded hull Chrysler Multibank engine - Five straight 6 auto engines sharing a common crankcase, with output to one drive shaft M4, M4A1, M4A3 - US Army, French Army (US agreed to rearm French) M4A2 - USSR (their T-34, KV and IS series were diesel powered) US Marines (took what it could get) M4A4 - British Commonwealth and countries rearmed by Britain (Holland, Belgium, etc)
The USMC took A2s by choice actually because more naval vehicles and other marine vehicle had diesel which simplified logistics. Diesel is also somewhat safer.
Those cast-hull variants are my absolute favourite. Something about knowing that the entire thing is one colossal piece of metal has always been so cool to me.
Again, my dad was a veteran of WW 2 and I didn't know much of what he did because I didn't asked the questions due to respect for him. But I often wonder if he actually did sometimes. But what I did find out did make me cry 😭 Rest in peace Dad.
I was in a Sherman once. I discovered I had mild claustrophobia. Then I went in a 'Hetzer' and couldn't get out fast enough. It makes a Sherman seem like a mansion.
Put it this way, back then I was very skinny. I've had a few pies since then. I don't think I'd fit in a 'Hetzer' now as my stomach would jam against the basket at the back of the cannon breech. And I haven't put on that much weight, it's just any more than a light lunch would present issues.
then you would absolutely love touring the U-505 U-boat in the Field Museum in Chicago Illinois. don't be taller than 5-8". you will lose scalp skin and shin coverings. hehehehehehe
The Sherman tank's turret spins around in 15 seconds! That's fast for WW2! The Brits put a 17 pounder inside her, and she became the best tank in the war for the Allies. Its gun way out-classed Russia's T-34/85.
I enjoyed this very much! I often go running in the Beechwood Cemetery in Ottawa and pass by a Sherman tank and wondered about it. That example was purchased in 1947 and has the 76 mm gun. It was used in the Korean War, it seems with good effect. Apparently 49,000 Shermans were built and even though the last was constructed in 1945 they were still being used in the Iran-Iraq War, which ended in 1988.
M4A1, the name M5 was attributed to the Stuart as they worked to not overlap designations. There was also a mess of the RAM tanks and them presumably M4A5
Tommy Cooker was a British & Commonwealth nickname for ANY Tank during the African Campaign (Something being on the northern edge of the Sarah Desert, from early spring, thru summer, and well into autumn basically in a steel box without any air-conditioning!!! Also, one advantage that the Gunner of a M-4 Sherman had, is that he had a periscope so that the tank could be completely hidden behind something with only his periscope and the escape hatches sticking above it! He could actually aim the main gun, engage the Stabilizer, and as they climbed up, look through a Co-Axial telescopic sight and when he didn't see the berm (or ridge, or whatever) and still had his crosshairs on the target, simply stomp on the firing button mounted in the footplate for his left boot! Another advantage is that in the M-4 Sherman, everyone had a seat, and on the 75mm armed tanks, the Loader could actually load several rounds while still in his original position with very little movement other than turning his head & moving his arms!
My great uncle got a Bronze star for rescuing a tank crew, his Lt wrote up the recommendation but added himself in the main role. Uncle didn’t care as the Lt won the “farm” the following week which he did want.
Just finished reading James Holland's book, Brothers In Arms, about the story of one of Britain's tank regiments from D-Day to VE-Day - the Sherwood Rangers Yeomanry (which was equipped with Shermans). Thoroughly recommend it. 👍
That includes references to how a tank would be destroyed, they'd dust off, get a new one the next day, not really taking notice of the excellent logistics that allowed this to happen.
The vast maintenance and logistics tail of each American armored division was a secret weapon, almost, in the ETO 1944-1945. Legions of boys who'd grown up with a wrench in their hand joined the army, coming primarily from two main sources. Rural and small-towns - young men who'd grown up on farms and knew machinery for that reason, and kids who'd worked in factories in big cities and knew mechanical things from that angle. And the Shermans - despite their virtues - were not always easily kept in the field. Aircraft radial engines are designed to run at high rpms, and the engineers take that into account when designing them. Loose tolerances when cold, but they seal up when the engine runs at operational rpms and heats up. Trouble is, tanks often spend extended periods in idle or running at lower rpm ranges, which is not what those engines are designed to do. Since they didn't run as hot, the tolerances didn't seal properly and the engines seeped oil, including past the head gaskets and into the combusion chambers, where the oil would eventually foul the spark plugs. The mechanics had to adopt a very aggressive schedule of pulling the plugs on a regular schedule, sand-blasting or otherwise cleaning them, regapping them, and then reinstalling them in the engines. Those guys with the wrenches in their hands had a lot to do with the final victory, even if they don't always get the acclaim they deserve. Same with their counterparts who kept the flyboys in the air.
@@GeorgiaBoy1961 Have you ever seen the Sherman talk Nicholas Moran aka The Chieftain gave?? If you haven't I highly recommend watching it. It is a very good talk and he points out all of the paperwork and studies the US Army had on every nut and bolt of the Sherman. They may have to learn some things in the field, but they put the Sherman through as many torture tests as they could from desert to freezing cold.
@@jamessephar9458 When they ran they were. But the German's didn't have to ship them over two oceans. Besides the Sherman's were were easier to maintain because of the commonality of parts. If you needed to change something like the drive train you could do it much easier than you could on a German tank.
Considering how quickly the Sherman was designed and put into production,it was a very sound design. Also it could be upgraded and modified.I think Israeli Shermans were still in frontline service in 1973.
The Israeli Sherman's went through several stages of upgrade, tracks, suspension, main gun, engine. I think even the turret may have been swapped out when French main guns were mounted. The '70's "Shermans" were quite a different animal from the dinged up veterans of WWII.
@@meaders2002 I haven't been able to get definite figures,but I think the M51 Super Sherman with it's French 105mm gun did see action in the Yom Kippur war,probably with reserve units.
The thing about the Shermans is that its design inherited quite a bit from the M3 Medium. The M3 was a stopgap design so they took the parts that worked with it and used it as a base for the Sherman.
@@ddraig1957 it did. because the Yom Kippur war was a surprise attack, the isreali's needed to field as many tanks as possible, especially because not all Sho't tanks (Isreali Centurions) were operational. So M51s were taken out of reserve and were send to the frontlines and they were able to fight against more modern Soviet counterparts thanks to the very potent HEAT shells of the French 105mm gun
Much like American author/historian Shelby Foote, I could listen to James Holland discuss history for hours on end. The knowledge he shares is fantastic.
Great video James, it was so good seeing the Black Bull emblem, my old Dads regiment 11th Armoured Division. Dad served from 1945 - 50 mainly in Germany in the Allied Army on the Rhine. Unfortunately he’s not with to enjoy this superb film. Lest we forget.
My father was a WWII infantry combat vet. I have a postcard he took from a German girl when she was complaining about his outfit commandeering her family's home. The postcard picture shows German soldiers riding on top of a tank and has some writing from her boyfriend soldier to her (Lisl). On the remaining white space he wrote to my mother about how his outfit had to hang on to ride on top of their tanks through the night often as they advanced.
What made the Sherman spectacular was that manufacture could ramp up to produce nearly 50,000 by mid-war, was extremely reliable and easy to fix in the field, was light enough to ship across an ocean on massive scale and faster for a medium tank to outmaneuver. The Soviet T 34 was also a formidable tank. It had thicker armor, more sloped armor (to deflect hits better), lower profile, bigger gun and harder armor making it harder to penetrate. The T 34 was not so reliable in the field, however, and some things on it not so strong like the poor welding together of the hull. So, lesson is - if you can't run your tank you cannot fight and the Sherman was able to accomplish this. My personal favorite regarding armor in WWII was the U.S. Hellcat Tank Destroyer, but that's for another day.
you better get your facts straight. the Soviet tanks where better than the us tanks. but let me guess you believe that it was the usa that won the war too.
@@joeydepalmer4457Soviet t-34s had a 75% casualty rate. And while they were ready to produce, their transmissions had serious reliability problems. Furthermore, the design made it harder to replace those busted transmissions than on the Sherman.
@@ill_bred_demon9059 i would take a t-34 over a Sherman any day. the only thing the Sherman tanks had going for them was numbers and good crew training.
@joeydepalmer4457 Here's the video I watched that took off the rose colored lenses about the t-34. I hadn't heard about a lot of these flaws in the design, and note that both the T-34s and Shermans had serious problems with burning their crews alive. But the Shermans dramatically reduced the risk of catching fire with their redesign while the T-34, at best, made it easier for the crew to get out before being burnt alive. ruclips.net/video/soQxx1tatqM/видео.htmlsi=BH5hGP_2PDuZxd84
If you love tanks and you happen to find yourself in England, you must go check out the Land Warefare Museum at Duxford. As I toured the place, I noticed that most of the tanks and vehicles had mud on them. I thought it was for a more dramatic display, in giant war dioramas with ground, equipment, and scenery. The real reason was both the and Land and Air Warfare museums there had a policy that all equipment, when possible, is kept in working order. The mud wasn't for decoration, the mud was because they regularly take them out back and play with them. Very cool.
the Russians loved their Shermans, which they called "Emchas". The Sherman was a far more crew-friendly tank to crew. They also liked the seats- when their Shermans were knocked out the wrecks were swarmed by Russian soldiers who wanted the leather off of the seats with which they would make boots. Every part of a Sherman was top-knotch.
@No Fyou It had great armor. Just the Germans had fuck off huge guns. Other than the Germans, the Italians and the Japanese didn't have any tanks or guns that could effectively nor efficiently punch holes in the Sherman's armor. The Japanese were especially bad at this.
@@nofyou5182 Aside from german heavies. Shermans have really good armor compare to other medium tanks like Panzer 3, Panzer 4, T34 and almost every japanese tanks.
@@nofyou5182The M3 75 mm main gun was really no slouch on the battlefield. It wasn’t designed primarily as an antitank weapon, though it could do that at moderate range. And it wasn’t really any worse that the T34’s 76.2 mm. The armor was a trade off, saving weight, but Sherman’s armor wasn’t really any worse than the Russian or British tanks, and far better than the Italian and Japanese vehicles. It’s height can certainly be seen as a liability, but American tank commanders valued the visibility it afforded, particularly in the hedgerows of Normandy. Everything on a tank is a compromise.
The stistics they give about the tank are mostly correct except regarding the track width on this model the M4A1 (cast body with VVSS (Vertical Volute Spring Suspension) and no Duckbills) which is 16.56" or 42.06cm. The 584mm or 23" tracks were not fitted until they used the HVSS (Horizontal Volute Spring Suspension) on the M4A3's and late M4A2's. This gave lower ground pressure 12psi angainst 18psi (narrow tracks) and better ground handling.
My father was in the 15th /17th Hussars , part of the 7th and feared Armoured division ( the black bulls ) as they were known . I have pictures of him with his crew in North Africa and in France a week after D Day , really great pictures , my fathers tank had a direct hit , he was the only survivor of the 5 man crew , he rarely spoke of that , but it must have been hell as they were like a family . Huge respect and thanks
It was common practice amongst all sides that if a tank was spotted that wasn't clearly burnt out, they would shoot it until it was, this was to prevent recovery from the battlefield but also to prevent traps, therefore certainly in the European theatre as many axis tanks were found burnt out as allied tanks. The Ronson Monica for the Sherman has been found to be something that was made up post war and certainly wasn't used during it. Also everyone talks about the triangle of tank design choices, speed/mobility, armour and fire power, but as shown in the documentary, reliability, ease of production, ergonomics and ease of use, ease of production, ease of repair and ease of transport are also key, this easily proved by the T34 and the Sherman being so successful, numbers won the war, the tiger and the panther were not five times better than either the T34 or the Sherman which was the numbers they often outnumbered by.
And let's not forget - 9 times out of 10 the tank that fired the first shot won the engagement. And the Germans were on the defensive pretty much from 1942 onwards. So they tended to get the first shot in. Most of their counter-attacks were stopped in their tracks. By someone who got in the first shot..
It has not been found that the Ronson moniker was made up after the war, far from it. Ask armoured archives about the evidence that the advertising logo was in use well before the war, if you don't believe me. And there are interviews with British veterans that were made in the sixties in which they attest to having used that moniker at the time. Right here on RUclips. Some people have suggested that the moniker was made up after the war and that the veterans were coerced into supporting that lie by certain disreputable authors and journalist, but there is no ''certainty'' about it . Just insinuation.
@@andrewwoodhead3141 You're not improving your credibility by asserting that anyone has claimed that coercion took place, trying to assign to others research homework, nor claiming as proof things which are not proof. Why "the armored archives" (whatever that is) would be the go-to source for a history of cigarette lighter advertising slogans I cannot imagine, but there's a Wikipedia article on the subject that covers the company and this controversy, so if you can find -- anywhere -- a contemporaneous example of anyone using "Ronsons" to refer to Shermans you still have the opportunity to settle the matter, since no one else has found one. Which is very strange if you're right,.
@@andrewwoodhead3141 whatever the story, the truth is that before wet stowage, the Sherman burned at exactly the same rate German, British, and Soviet tanks burned at, within maybe a 2% margin and that rate was high, something like 85%. After wet stowage which only the Sherman had, the rate dropped to 25%. Shermans burning is simply a lie. Even if salty German tankers said it as copium, its irrelevant because the statistics just prove its a lie. It looks like the real difference between the Sherman and other nations' tanks was that Americans freely discussed the problems with their tanks and then fixed them (see also large spring-loaded hatches for every crew member to make escaping a burning tank easier) while everyone else chalked up burning to death in a tank as just part of the hazards of war.
My late father served in Shermans in North Africa and Italy. In North Africa he was in the 1st Army (2nd Lothians and Border Horse Yeomanry, B Sqn.) His final tank, as commander, was a Sherman with a cast hull and the American 3" (76.2mm) 52cal high velocity gun. I have a picture of him smartly stood in front of his tank just before action at Arezzo. Incidentally, he never called himself a 'tanker' - 'trooper' yes, 'crew member' yes, but not 'tanker'. Through being knocked out or badly damaged (one time his tank rolled over a thousand feet off a cliff in the Apennines) he ended up in his 7th tank before the surrender of Italy. I believe this final tank had the General Motors twin diesel, not the Continental radial petrol engine.
@@derekmills1080 You said his last tank was a cast hull with the US 76mm. That is the M4A1 76mm which the US sent to the UK as replacements because the M4A4's were long out of production. Most M4A1's went to Italy or to common wealth units because the British had the new Comets and didn't like the US 76mm very much.
@@tankmaker9807 Absolutely. My dad didn't talk about war a lot, but there are clues in the photo: It says 'At Arrezzo' on the back, so near the end of the hostilities.. The barrel is clearly the 3" and 52 cal. It doesn't have an 'attenuator'/'blast deflector' or call it what you like - it clearly has a protective cap at the end of the barrel. I believe those issued quickly to Italy didn't have the 'attenuator', but had this protective cap to prevent damage to the thread. The photo is black and white, but the cap appears very bright - likely polished brass or bronze. Finally, the front doesn't have the early bolted flanges of the Sherman (or Grant) from assembly, nor is the hull constructed from welded plates. It has clear curves on the main hull, going up to the turret ring.
I had a neighbor growing up that was a US Marine tank gunner in a Sherman in WWII. He saw a lot of action against the Japanese in the Pacific. He opened with a lot of stories as he got older. I main have the terms correct, but these some of what I remember. One story was they were decoding all the Jap messages so the US knew their every move ahead of time. They were planning a counterattack with all the Japanese tanks. The US picked a spot where the tanks had to pass through a valley and put some Sherman tanks up on high ground. He said they destroyed every single Japanese tank without a single loss. The Japanese tanks were tin cans, very easy to take out. His tank ran out of ammo 3 times and they had to go back to get more ammo and came back started firing again. Another time he had a new tank commander the new guy was sticking out the hatch when they were driving. He told the new commander to stay down because of snipers. Not too much later, they hear a shot and new guy falls down into the tank shot in the neck. He said turned and yelled at the guy, "I told you so, you son of a bitch" He said it went clean through and missed his spine, main arties and wind pipe. The guy lived.
There are 4 attachments on the tank that has EVERYTHING to do with the Sherman. The four lift points on the front and back of the tank. Every. Single. Sherman tank needed to be shipped across the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, a minimum of 2,000 miles. Want a bigger gun along with a larger turret to hold it? More weight, a larger engine, a heavier and wider tank that takes up more storage, and fewer tanks. After WW2, the statistics of all the main tanks in the war found that the Sherman tank was one of the safest tanks to be in. Add in the ease of repair, a perfectly adequate gun, and strong reliability made the Sherman one of the best tanks of WW2.
What people never see is all the tankers who got OUT of a Sherman, the Sherman has the ammo fire issue but the Chieftain showed how fast you could amcsray when the tank was on fire!
Absolutely. I worked with a old guy who drove a Sherman and he said everyone loved the big hatches. When he first saw a Comet he was appalled at how constricted the driver's hatch was since they had bulky oversuits by the winter of 44/45 and you had to, as he put it, 'squeeze out like toothpaste from a tube;.
@@anti-Russia-sigma Not a Chieftain tank, Major Nicholas Moran AKA The "Chieftain" is a tank commander and armor historian that has very detailed information on armor and their use. Has repeatedly dispelled the common myths and misinformation about Shermans specifically.
Many thanks for this video! My father was a Sherman driver in the 3rd Armored Division. In my opinion, the Sherman's greatest advantages over the German tanks was its rate of fire and over-the-road speed.
The Sherman's greatest advantage over the German tanks was the US Army air corps. The last thing a lot of German tank crews ever saw was a P-47 Thunderbolt coming down on them. Which itself was a tank with wings.
@@1pcfred Thats probably an overstatement. Post war analysis concluded that air power was responsible for only about 3% of all Tank kills by the allies in the war. Air Power was far more important for denying them their fuel and supply convoys as well as tearing up their halftracks - denying them infantry support in the actual fighting. In many ways the Americans were fortunate, the Germans ended up concentrating most of their armor against the Soviet British forces. Although its worth noting that both of them made significant usage of Shermans as well. The vast majority of German armor destroyed in and around the battle of Caen would have been done by the Sherman. (even if the far more glamorous Firefly gets the spotlight) The Soviets likewise used the Sherman interchangeably with the T-34, and it saw plenty of heavy fighting on the Eastern front.
@@BlitkriegsAndCoffee perhaps planes did not destroy much armor but the Germans wouldn't even move in the daylight for fear of being spotted from the air. So they were clearly concerned about it themselves.
@@1pcfred Agreed. There are many reports of the Germans being unable to move except for at night. Harassing forces no doubt had an impact, sending vehicles to the motor pool for repairs, but the outright number of kills is thought to be quite low for the amount of air power applied.
When I was a young soldier (16) I was at the Army Apprentices college in Harrogate doing my trade training. We had a 2 hour a week lesson on "Life skills" which was held by an ex Major from a tank regiment. Sadly I forget which regiment. He was small in stature (as tank crews tend to be). All he would do for those 2 hours was reminisce on what had happened to him during WW2. He had taken part in the Normandy landings and the battle for Caen where he had three tanks destroyed in which he was in. I can still hear his voice. What he did was very valuable. He explained to us that among his crew there were losses. He could name every one of them, where they came from and how long he had known them. He explained war was not a walk in the park. Be ready to lose some of your comrades and friends when it happens. I believe all of us benefited greatly from his experiences. Back in the barrack block we always discussed what he had said. I think all new recruits should have a similar seminar given to them by a veteran. Someone you can respect, listen too and learn from.
Very nice synopsis. Lovely restoration of that Grizzly. I always thought if I was a WW2 tanker I’d like to drive around Europe in an American tank unit in captured German Panther. A little more armour and a more effective main gun but the support of all those thousands of American M4’s.
The biggest problem would be the Panther breaking down as their transmission was far from perfect, and needing to take the tank apart to get to the transmission. The motor wasn't the best either. After the war was over the French had in their area of occupation the Panther plant, and they continued to make them for the post war French army.
@@terrygardner3031 Ehm no, the transmission on the Panther didn't break down all the time, it actually had a respectable service life. The notion that one needs to take a Panther apart in order to get to the transmission is a silly one. The French didn't have any factories to produce the Panther after the war, no more Panthers were build for the French army.
Great Video! Agree the Sherman was a an effective Offensive weapon. The best IMO was the Jumbo M4A3E2. It could take multiple 88mm hits and keep the crew alive. E8 Easy 8 was good too. Held their own against T34 in Korea. The upgunned British Firefly was an excellent combination.
Logistically, an astounding feat, as every single bolt, nut spare parts etc. Had to be transported across the Atlantic (not to mention the tank itself).
I'd say it's misunderstood by a lot of people who think that the role of the tank can only be measured by the metric of Tiger tanks in the eastern front in 1943. Sherman was versatile, easily maintained and a great infantry support vehicle. The best tank of WW2.
Workhorse, just like T-34... Easy to make, easy to maintain, relatively inexpensive, and yet extremely reliable, simple to operate and maintain... Just what you need in a war.
I don't think the t-34 was any of those. Adjusted for economy, the t-34 was as expensive or more than a Sherman and broke down in rates that were on par with late German tanks, with a crew survivability rate that was abysmally poor. It was an average tank the Russians made so poorly as to be barely effective.
I love the Sherman it's by a good margin one of my favourite tanks of all time! If obviously proves itself, however off the bat it should of been coax machine gun, ma duece on the top for soft, buildings, anything that needed a few inches bribing in! However as a British civilian who's only had my hands on one a couple of times of times. Also it has by far the most satisfying and feeling sounding bolt of any SAW!
My great uncle was in the 62nd mobile armored field artillery bn BT.B,he was a Sherman driver. He was in the N.African campaign,Sicily (possibly Italy not positive) and landed on D Day being the 1st armoured field artillery to land. He was in battle all the way to Germany. He LOVED the Sherman and said the Ford powered Sherman saved them more than once because of its reliability. I have two photos 1,is his crew standing with their Sherman sporting the rhino blade. The 2nd is my favorite it's just him standing next to a Sherman( in the winter of 44 ) that's been painted white but where they ran out of paint they used blankets,quilts and curtains. He loved the Ford powered Sherman so much that when he got home he never bought any car or truck unless it was a Ford.
Interestingly, when the 76mm became available most Sherman tankers preferred the ubiquitous 75mm. Sounds crazy right? But the 75 wasn't nearly as helpless against German tanks as werhaboos make out. Also, Sherman tankers only fought other tanks roughly 20% of the time. Sherman tankers feared German anti tank guns far more than Panthers and the 75mm had a far better HE shell than the 76mm.
It’s “Wehraboo”. I am a Wehraboo, but I’m the more liberal type. I’m open to acknowledging that a tank is better than a German tank, unlike most of our kind.
@@raven_1133you aren't a wehraboo necessarily then, maybe just a enthusiast for german ww2 armaments. When people say wehraboo, usually they mean the type that thinks that if Germany had just made a few more me262's and if mustache man hadn't been so stupid then Germany could have won the war.
It was said you'd need four Shermans to take out one Tiger. It was also said you were far more likely to find four Shermans on a battlefield than one Tiger.
There is reason to believe that this is a myth based on the tendency for Shermans to operate in groups of 4 to 6, while Tigers were frequently only available 1 at a time. If a Tiger was spotted Shermans may be called for, and they will show up in 4s or 5s.
Here is the thing that you have to remember about the Sherman, when Jacob Devers took command of the US Armored Force, he came from the Artillery, and while he was impressed with what the US Armor had accomplished, he had a basic complaint; lack of firepower. Devers' brief was give me the optimum tank that could mount a 105mm howitzer; that's the Sherman.
My dad was in WWII in a tank killer battalion that used the m36 variant. One thing with all the worship of the German tanks that is overlooked is the Sherman was designed as Mobil artillery to be used to cover infantry, the tanks and infantry as Mr.Holland so well described in 'brothers in Arms' was symbiotic. The big advantage it has? At 30 tons you can drive them over field bridging. You can't with something that weighs almost 70 tons. Mr. Holland also points out in the book that crews in the Sherman were not burned up more statistically than any other type of tank.
@@njlauren The whole Ronson thing is BS - any tank without wet ammo storage was a Ronson if a a round or spalling that was hot got into the stored ammo. The other benefit of the M4 is that it was developed during the war with the Easy 8 and Jumbo versions being quite good tanks when they entered service compared to the Germans and the T-34/85.
@@jimbosc Yep, like I said that reputation was based on the generalized need to put down US equipment, in part bc of some weird notion of German invincibility,that the poor GIs went out there in this 'crappy' tank and were able to beat the superior forces. The Ford V8 was good, they used that in the M36. In Holland 's book he talks about how tank crews were disgusted when later in the war they had the Shermans with the Chrysler engines *lol*. I don't think the engine was bad, think it was brand loyalty:)
The M4's 75mm gun used the 105mm howitzer carriage so the commanders could swap out the barrels when they needed the extra fire power. The 105 barrels came with a conversion kit.
I have been in a M4A1 at Ft. Lewis Washington: it was parked outside the main Post Exchange with the escape hatch missing. It was a nice place to hide in on Sundays during Basic training. One way to avoid extra work details. I did always carry a book to read. Biggest problem I have read about was running out of ammunition on Betio Island in the Tarawa atoll with the Marines M4A2 tanks. After that battle they built extra racks any place they could cram a few more rounds in. Much later while in the Army reserves, I taught 19D Cav scouts in vehicles ranging from M113 to M113A3 and Hummers. On a recruiting mission, I got to ride in a M7 Priest.
I had to smirk at the idea of calling a tank transmission swap in the field "very, very, easy". I feel we should hand him a spanner. "The engine comes out in a couple of hours" does it? Have at it, lad.
The real Achille's heal of the Sherman might well have been that they made them so fast that improvements took too long to make it into the assembly lines before they were shipped off to fight the already upgraded German tanks.
It's nice to see a pretty even-handed take on the M4 tank. Although there's still this misconception that it was an infantry support tank or the gun was meant for "soft targets." At the time, it was very adequately gunned tank which could kill most other tanks on the battlefield and had much better armor than the enemies in 1942 (keep in mind the M4 has about the same frontal armor as a Tiger I). The gun was not great against the Panther and other late war designs, but not because it was a gun for "soft targets." There was a failure, in a sense, that the US didn't really pursue an improved gun as enthusiastically as the British did with the Firefly, and their whole tank destroyer doctrine was a mess (not issuing tungsten core ammunition to tanks in general, even when they fired the same ammuntion). The 76mm gun program never really addressed the threat of the Panther tank. But most mainstay tanks had an issue of rapidly getting out of date. The Panzer IV rapidly outgrew its 1939 roots as an infantry support assault gun platform by the allied invasion, the weight of the long-barrel L43 and L48 cannons plus the improved 80mm frontal armor routinely maxed out and broke the front suspension components. The original T-34's two person turret immediately showed defficiencies, but the T-34's turret ring was not designed with a larger turret in mind, so when the T-34-85 was put into production they needed entire new tooling and machinery to accomodate manufacturing new hulls with larger turret rings. Versus the M4, where when they found the 75mm turret was cramped for the 76mm gun, they simply took the entire turret from the canceled T23 tank and placed it into the exact same M4 hull. They made improvised "Jumbos" by welding armor plates from salvaged vehicles and the drivetrain and suspension more or less held up to task. It was a very well engineered tank.
The Americans got it right, the 76 was a much better solution it just took a bit longer because they wanted it right. Every german tank was vulnerable especially when flanked.
Underrated. The Sherman was a very reliable tank, and was easy to work on whenever it needed it. It's crew survivability was the best of the war of all tanks. The gun was more than sufficient, as Tigers were very few in number, as were Panthers; and the Sherman would kill any other German tank without issue. Also, it's armor isn't poor. At all. We don't think of the T-34 as having had poor armor, and yet it had 15 - 20mm less than the Sherman. People sleep on the Sherman. It was a fantastic tank got its time; its exactly what was needed.
@@PotatoeJoe69 Rubbish. Ronson lighter company, established July 20, 1898 based in Somerset, New Jersey. and it was the Brit's that called them Ronson's.
@@majorgrumpybum3161 You're correct on the year of the companies foundation. I was a bit confused; what the reality is, is that the MYTH comes from the old Ronson lighter slogan "Lights the first time, every time." The problem is that this slogan didn't exist until the 1950's. The Sherman was never called a Ronson.
Most anti-tank guns in the anti-tank role in the US Army were 57mm M1A1 (early 1942) then M1A2 (late 1942)towed cannons that were licensed copies of the British 6lber. This was an upgrade from the 37mm M2 anti-tank gun they phased out by 1943. Big guns, like on the Hellcat (90mm) were not very common.
once you get much larger than 57mm the gun can barely be pushed around the battlefield by the troops, so going bigger becomes problematic especially for forces that are attacking. By contrast, a small gun that can be hidden is fine for ambushing tanks with flank shots, so the 57mm was still fairly viable for defending against localized German counterattacks.
The Chieftain did a presentation on the Sherman. Believe it was at the Museum of Flight. He stated that the lowest US casualty rates were the Tankers. Go figure. Way more USAAF and Infantry deaths. Many tankers had 3-4 Shermans shot out from under them.
What he also stated was that the British had higher casualties than the americans, mostly head injuries. The British used Berets while the Americans used a helmet.
@@terrygardner3031 The Sherman gunner in the film clips used neither a beret nor a helmet. Looked more like an aviator's headgear. My uncle was a WWII US tanker, and his tanker's helmet was a sort of plastic affair.
A very poor comparison. The rifle companies always take, by far, the most casualties. Roughly 20% of an army is made up of infantry - and they take 80% of the casualties.
The most important feature of a tank is it's availability. It can only do good if it's there, when it's needed. The scale of mass production, the ease of transport and ease of serviceability and interchangeable parts made the M4 the best tank of the war.
the ammo storage was on the of the side of the tank why the high fire chance, they it moved to the floor and the fire chance dropped p.s. British casualties were slightly higher us tankers because they wore berets and the us wore leather helmets
I knew a gentleman, who has passed now, who fought in a Sherman in WW2. He said that a thing that worried him when in action was the fact that if the turret was disabled off center, the gun blocked the driver's or assistant driver's hatch and you couldn't escape if the tank was burning.
@@Snuffy03 Yes they issued a kit for another hatch, another to make the hatches wider and other to spring load the hatches for them to open faster as result escaping from a Sherman was very easy.
@@viceralman8450 Thank you for enlightening me. As for myself, I was USMC infantry. The thought of being cooped up inside a metal box didn't sit too well. A friend of mine, who went Army shortly after I enlisted in The Corps., became a tank gunner. He loved it. To each his own, I guess.
Read the US 1st Armored history. One tanker was in action in North Africa. He was the co-driver and his hatch was blocked by the turret rotation to the rear. He escaped out the drivers hatch by crawling over the transmission. Lucky for him the tank was not on fire at that time, so he had a few extra seconds to escape.
The reason for the high profile was the original radial aircraft engines the M4 and other tall US tanks like the M3 both light and medium used. Since the engine was tall and round the hull needed to be high to fit them in the first place. But then as the engine was in the rear and the transmission was in the front there needed to be a drive shaft running through the tank. From the radial engine it came out of the middle of the thing and so the turret basket and thus the turret needed to be mounted higher to give it room to pass. When the US stopped using the radial engines they could have started making the tanks shorter but the delay in production while the factories were retooled to make a different hull wasn’t deemed worth it. Newer tanks like the M24 Chaffee and M26 Pershing are shorter than the M4 Sherman because they didn’t have to deal with the high drive shaft problem.
Pit is correct. A side benefit was also great cooling, which led to improved reliability. Having the engine in the back by itself helped make it easy to repair. As for the transmission, the entire lower front hull was designed to be removed with a few bolts to be able to repair/ replace it.
The Hellcat had the same or very similar radial engine as did the first few versions of the Sherman, yet the Hellcat was significantly lower than the Sherman. The difference was that the Hellcat used a transfer case mounted vertically which lowered the prop shaft's position in the hull, which of course eliminated the need for a high mounted turret. The Hellcat was designed pretty much in-house by real automotive engineers from Buick.
My uncle commanded a Sherman in Europe. He told me about a tactic they used to knock out the more heavily armored German tanks. When German tanks were approaching they would hide on the opposite side of a sharp ridge or steep hill. When the German tank came over the top of the obstacle it would momentarily expose its soft underbelly. This would allow the Sherman to easily penetrate the underside of the German tank and knock it out.
Another tactic I’ve heard involved shooting one of the tracks of a moving enemy tank. This would cause the tank to turn with the undamaged track. With the side exposed, they would put a round into the fuel cell.
Fascinating. I had always been under the impression that the Sherman was inferior in almost every respect except that the US could crank them out like sausages. This is a whole new perspective.
It's an old myth. All WWII tanks had advantages and weaknesses. British tanks using up to the 6 pounder (57 mm) mostly fired armor piercing rounds. Those may be good for tank to tank warfare, but s no good against infantry/ artillery/ trucks/ dug in positions. For that you want High Explosive. The Sherman was primarily an infantry support weapon so it was as adept at firing HE as well as a big old 75/76 mm AP round. US doctrine really didn't envision the M4 being primarily engaged in tank to tank battles. AT and tank destroyers were for that kind of thing. The M4 was also easy to ship across the Atlantic or Pacific to actually get to the fight. Rail car weight capacity/ bridge capacity/ crane capacity at ports and footprint on ships are important. The Tiger was so big it had to have its tracks and roadwheels removed and special transit wheel applied to fit on rail cars... not ideal. The M4 wasn't perfect, but it was a good tank for the USA. Just like the T34 wasn't perfect but it was good for the USSR.
I think that impression comes from the fact that the late war German heavies (even the Panther, which was classed as a medium tank, really was _slightly_ over the line into the heavy category), had so much more in the way of armor and firepower, and they had better mobility than you might think because their much wider tracks and complicated suspension system of interleaved road wheels gave them lower ground pressure, despite the much greater weight. _On paper_ they do look greatly superior. But the stats don't tell the whole story. The Chieftain, who has a video about how misunderstood and underrated the Sherman is (and he debunks a lot of myths about it), also did a video about the Panther, and his conclusion was interesting: that despite the Panther's impressive gun and armor, it's not a tank he's sure he'd want to go to war in. The issue was that the Panther's poorer ergonomics made it harder for a crew to get the most out of it, and the tank was much harder to maintain. In this video, they point out how easy the Sherman's gearbox was to remove and service. For the Panther, you had to take the whole top of the tank off, remove the driver and bow gunner's seats, take out the radio, etc. etc. in order to pull the transmission back _into_ the tank and lift it out with a crane. That would be a full day in the repair depot, maybe even two. With the Sherman's bolt on/bolt off transmission housing, that would take a couple of hours tops. And since the Panther had notoriously weak final drive gears, that were so prone to breakage they had to speed-limit the tank by general order, this sort of transmission repair was a not-infrequent headache for the Germans. The result: a US or British tank company would generally have almost all its tanks in serviceable condition, while German units might only have half or two thirds of theirs, with the rest down for maintenance. The best tank in the world doesn't help you much if it's not on the battlefield. And finally, it should be remembered that Panthers and Tigers were not common tanks in German service. The vast majority of tanks encountered by the Allies were the older Panzer IV, against which the Sherman was almost evenly matched -- in fact the Sherman was slightly superior in almost every respect.
Don't let anybody tell you the Sherman wasn't meant to fight other tanks. Keep in mind that tank development proceeded at a blistering pace during WWII. At the time the Sherman was deployed, it was *the* best armored combat vehicle in the world. Germany was never content with just one design and so continued making bigger and more heavily armed tanks throughout the war. Even the basic snub nosed 75mm Shermans could and did take out Panthers through sound tactics. Also, the US did crank them out like sausages. Having a whole continent of resources and industry really helps the war effort.
The mk5 Panther is a beauty queen of a tank. When it wasn’t broken or out of service. When you had enough petrol to run it. Reminds me of Italian cars and motorcycles. Terrific vehicle when they aren’t in the shop!. The Sherman is like a tractor. The Sherman is made for go, not for show.
A workmate who was in Sherman tanks in Italy told me one thing about his time there. " It was 4-0... to the Germans ". That's all he ever said. Also, I find it " interesting " that everyone talks about Tigers and Panthers being the problem, when the mainstay of the German tanks divisions were the Panzer IV and they and the " Stugs " that took out more Allied tanks than all other German armour combined.
Stugs destroyed 20,000 tank in Russia during the war. Soviet losses were, at a guess, around 60,000. So if you remove the ones destroyed by the anti-tank guns etc, again guessing at say, 15,000, then you end up with 25,000. The guesses come from various sources. None the less, Stugs did not destroy more than all the other types combined, just more than any other single type. As the Stug with the long 75mm was built in greater numbers that any German tank, that makes sense. However, in a test the panzer force compared the tank losses, and tank kills, between a PZ IV armed unit and a Stug armed unit. The PZ IV was preferred because it took out a slightly higher number of Soviet tanks due to the ability to turn the gun towards a target without turning the whole tank. The result was that, based on numbers used in combat, the PZ IV had a higher kill ratio than the Stugs, but the Stug was prefered by the Army because it was not limited to use in the panzer divisions.
the problem is that one person's recollection doesn't scale out across the battlefield. If you look at the actual battlefield deaths in the U.S.Army statistics, they are broken down by what branch the soldier was in. For example, Quartermasters Corps lost over 900 soldiers in the war (IIRC 979, but could be wrong), out of a bit more than 400K total American deaths in the war. The Armored Force lost just over 1400 total dead (IIRC 1408) in the entire war, and keep in mind 1/3 of US tanks were light tanks that practically anything could destroy. As another example something like 10x as many were killed in the Field Artillery branch as in the Armored Force. For a war on the scale of WW2 it is a tiny number dead, and while we don't know what fraction of those were killed in Shermans we know it was a very small number of actual soldiers killed.
@@j.f.fisher5318 read a report made by the British army after the war that showed the majority of their losses in tanks was because of commanders riding around without helmets.
@@JoeLClare My father fought in the bocage, and was scornful of tank commanders fresh from N Africa shot because they had their heads out of the hatch. However, realising from this video what limited situational awareness they had when shut down, I understand the compulsion they must have had.
When the Sherman was designed the biggest German tank was the Pz MKIV, it's size and weight was determined by rail and ship capability. The M-4s 75mm gun was the logical choice but the M4 was able to adapt much larger guns where as the Germans had to create entirely new , and unreliable, tanks from scratch in the midst of a war. Would you rather arrive on a battle field with 5 M4s or a single Panzer? PS the most effective anti-tank weapon in Europe was the US Air Force
The definitive review of the Sherman is made by The Chieftain. The later Sherman's with the 76mm gun and wet storage for the ammunition were arguably the best medium tank of the war.
Hi, Steven I think the "easy eight" was a great medium tank. However, the British "Firefly" with its 12 pounder gun whose rear section had to be mounted sideways inside the turret because of its size, wins it for me!👏😊
This. Yay for more pretty Sherman pictures, but really this has been thoroughly done by actual subject matter experts. The way he fails to realise the progression between riveted and caste steel hulls is kinda jarring, and then the mistake about the extra armour being to protect the crew. When it was welded on to protect the ammunition…
@@davidbarr9343 gotta agree the "Firefly" takes the cake for anti-armour but the M4A4E8 certainly showed major strides forward for the sherman and maintained the infantry support role. Cheeky 17pdr (not 12 😱) in that firefly certainly could put a dent in German armour.
You alluded to the lack of armor protecting the crew. A German 88 easily penetrated the armor. When it did, it made a horrible mess. The men who had to clean out a tank that had been hit would, sometimes, get physically sick because of what they saw inside. The tank was so well enclosed that the shell fragments would ricochet all over the inside turning the crew into hamburger. As to the tank commander being exposed when sitting up in the hatch, sometimes it was a benefit. The well known actor Dale Robertson was a tank commander in WWII. His tank was hit and he was thrown out receiving injuries to his legs. His crew was killed.
The M4 was the most survivable tank of the war. If an American Sherman was hit, you had a five out of six chance of getting out alive. The odds were the reverse in a T34.
@@jeremypnet Caveat with survivability is that it is inflated by being constantly on the offensive and having a constant overstock of resources. They could retrieve and render aid easier. With all its features, Shermans still got hit A LOT, resulting in many crippling injuries, because of their silhouette. We can all agree the T-34 was the real creme de la creme POS death trap.
Keep in mind that there were only around 1500 fatalities in Northwestern Europe around Sherman crews. As the Chieftain pointed out, with the improvement in storage of ammo, fire risk went down.
Statistically, it never was any higher than any other tank in Europe at any point, and with the improvements, it was the lowest of any tank. Perception and reality differed significantly.
@@nobodyspecial4702statistics on survivability is not always comparable. The Russians used their tanks very differently (threw them into the meat grinder) in a desperate attempt to defend their country. Most of the German heavier tanks were deployed in the eastern front. The survivability of the Sherman may have been against smaller artillery and more cautious tactics. I highly doubt anyone was making decisions on tank usage with tank survivability statistics in mind. A more accurate comparison would have been the tank survivability of the Sherman tanks used by the Russians in the eastern front in comparison to the T34. Comparing German tank survivability to Sherman tanks is also misleading because they were not facing the same threats.
I spoke to a German Tanker from WW2 when I was stationed in Germany in 1970. He told me German Tanks were the best, especially the Panther that he operated. But he told me thare was a problem in that they kept improving the tank so that by the end of the War, in his words "not one screw from one Panther would fit another".
My late father-in-law was a driver mechanic of a 75mm M4A4 Sherman with the (2nd Btn Grenadier) Guards Armoured Division, as an 18-19yr old he went post D-Day through France, Belgium, Holland & Germany. Like many of that generation he didn’t speak much of his war service, the only time he did was when we visited the Bovington Tank Museum, Dorset in the 1980’s, on display was a same livered M4A4 (apart from the troop/squadron marking) adjacent was a bank of 5 Chrysler engines used in the M4A4. He stated he had trained at Bovington Camp during which he had to strip down all five engines and rebuild them within a strict time limit. Other references were watching 75mm shells bouncing off German heavy tanks, being well practised at reversing speeds, and the early hours of one morning, hearing the screams of some members of another tank crew being crushed to death while sleeping under a tank (strictly against orders) in heavy rain on soft ground.
The other advantage out of all other tanks during the time, very easy to get out of if it was noticed that there was a round starting to cook off, which US ammunition has a slower initial ignition rate giving valuable milliseconds to react, making it vastly more survivable. Also the US crews actually wore their protective head gear resulting in vastly fewer injuries when just driving the dang thing.
If given the choice, I would pick the Sherman over the t34 every time... If for no other reason then the fact that I can actually FIT into a Sherman ... that and I prefer my armor plates to be held together by more than shoddy spot welds
As an American, when he praised how reliable, mechanically sound, and easy to maintain this machine was, it makes my heart break because we haven’t made any civilian vehicles like that for quite sometime…*cough GM* *cough Ford*….
There was no regard for emissions, as global warming was unheard of. It was a different era. Cracked plastic in a 20 year old GM radiator nearly killed my truck during the summer of last year. Because the hairline crack, leak and ineffective radiator was not apparent for some time. No doubt unnecessary wear or damage resulted. That's an example of what we're dealing with today versus back then: one plastic crap component that initially saved a few dollars over steel or brass inevitably breaks and that can compromise the whole thing.
Sounds like user error. I’ve driven mostly domestic produced vehicles from Ford and Chevy with no major issues and none of them were less than 10 years old and one was pushing 20.
Military contracts specify standards for reliability, durability, maintainability. Civilian consumers don't have that kind of influence with manufacturers, unfortunately.
![[#2024MAMA] G-DRAGON - 무제(Untitled, 2014)+POWER+HOME SWEET HOME+뱅뱅뱅+FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ox29z5Nf1Uk/mqdefault.jpg)
I had a Grampa in the 3rd Armored Division in WW2. He was a 19yr. old who trained as infantry, but ended up a replacement loader in a Sherman that had lost its previous two loaders in combat (he had black-and-white pictures of the welded-in "turret-hole-plugs" from which both prior loaders lost their lives). He ended his few months in combat during The Battle of The Bulge, when, while riding in what his battalion commander told them was a "Kraut Scrubbed Area" with his turret hatch open, his Sherman got hit by what he believes was a German 75mm AP round which touched off their tank's forward, right-side ammo rack. All he remembered was a loud "bang" and when he woke up, he remembered screaming in pain while his tank commander pressed freshly fallen snow into the burn wounds on his face and upper-body in an attempt to provide him some temporary relief. He later found out that he and his tank commander were both blown clear from his tank's turret after the initial hit, and shortly afterward the rest of the ammo in the tank brewed up and burned the rest of his crew to death. As a child, I remember it taking a long while getting used to my Grampa's facial deformities due to his severe burn wounds. He never complained and neither did my Grandma, although my Mom would tell me in later years that as a child she remembered him waking up screaming in the middle of the night and manically saying he had to get his buddies out of his burning tank. What a horrific war. In my book, they're absolutely the Greatest Generation and through their sacrifices they undoubtedly saved the world.
Thanks to your Grandpa Service, It's sad to see the shellshock he suffered post war, all respects to him.
‘Saved the World’? With hindsight, from what?
They would be disgusted at the West now and would wonder why they bothered.
That's a haunting story. Thank you for sharing. We don't hear very often stories about the inside of armored warfare as we should. It sounds terrifying. I mean, everything about those wars sound terrifying, but there's something to be said about how helpless you feel being stuck inside of a steel coffin that at any point during combat can just explode.
Undoubtedly brave men. I wouldn't go as far to say the best generation, on account of segregation
@@Vietnow15 Don't judge them on that - They didn't get to pick the era in which they were born - They just did the best they could and saved the world for their families and for later generations as well (like the one you were born into). God how I hate all this retro-judgement bulls**t.
An important factor that was overlooked here is that the Sherman had a weight limit of 30 tons, because that was the weight limit for most cranes in European ports. They restricted the mass to ensure that it would be able to be easily offloaded in foreign ports.
It was also a fast tank, and highly maneuverable
As well, had to be transported largely on US trains to get to embarkation ports. Limits weight and width. All tanks are a trade off between firepower, armor, and speed.
Given that heavier cargos were processed by European ports this is a dubious claim at best.
It also had to drive over bridges. Some of the German tanks were too heavy to drive over some bridges. This was a serious liability during the battle of the bulge.
@@lesliefranklin1870 Those bridges that the German tanks couldn't cross would also not have held the weight of a Sherman.
If a bridge can't hold a Panzer IV/70 then you can forget about a Sherman.
Not to mention that a Sherman weighs more than 30 ton. So all people seeing that was the hard cap because of the weight limit, you're shooting down your own claim.
My Grandfather served in the 701st Tank Batallion during WW2. His unit saw action in Northern France, the Ardennes and Germany 1945. He was the ammunition loader.
did he share any stories?
My dad served with the 9th army 8th tank destroyed division drove the M5A1 scout tank never talked about the war until after I come back from mine.
My grandfather was the one who kicked both of your father’s butt during the war!
My Uncle, Sgt Frank Love was also in the 701. He was in the tank retrieval and repair group. He ran a Grant with a crane to tow repairables back from the field.
Shermans seem to have the best suspension in WW2.
I have a better story to tell. When I was 12 in 1962 there were three shermans parked outside of the armoury in my town. As kids we would play on them. One evening we found that one of the turrets was unlocked and we crawled in. I went to the driver's seat and started moving things around. I found, much to my surprise< that if I hit the start button the tanked lurched forward by a foot or so. We moved that thing about 12 feet. It was the first motor vehicle I ever drove on my own
😂
100% believable and what a sharp contrast to today's kids. Hovering parents who won't even let the kids go on a swing set... our parents had no idea where we were... and we were down at the armoury driving shermans....
@@56squadron Not in my town but we would stop on trips. A playground had a slide coming out of the intake on a Super Saber (The Hun). We could climb around where the engine used to be.
@@jimreilly917 My brother and I regularly played in a Sherman when my father was executive officer at Rock Island Arsenal in 1959-61. Unique fun! This video brought back fond memories.
Great video, well done and informative. I learned more about the Sherman in 30 minutes than I’ve ever known all my life.
My grandfather was a 5th Marine Division Sherman tank commander in the battle for Iwo JIma. He landed on the first day and was there on the last day, and during that time he served in at least 5 different tanks (I gathered this number from his war stories, which he started telling me at a very young age; he and I shared a very close bond, and he eventually told me stories that he never told his own kids). He came ashore in a standard gun tank, which soon struck a buried aerial bomb and was torn in two, killing the Driver and Co-Driver, and possibly the Loader (IIRC). He and the Gunner survived because the explosion blasted them out of the turret, and he escaped with only moderate hearing loss. At points, he served in a tank dozer, a flame tank (I recently read a book, 'Tanks On Iwo Jima 1945' by Roman Cansiere. His unit details showed that the 5th Marine, 5th Battalion did not have a flame tank, but he went on to mention that at one point, the 5th operated the flame tank attached to the 4th Marines), two gun tanks and a field-modified 'corpsman' tank. The corpsman tank had a hinged plate attached to the glacis (or possibly the diff cover). The intention was for the tank to drive up and straddle a wounded soldier, then the plate was lowered to prevent the Japanese from targeting the wounded or the medics - two of the many war crimes they were known for. He said the only enemy tanks he saw were buried and used as pillboxes, but the Japanese 47mm could pierce a Sherman at short-medium range and and he did face emplaced artillery - one of which, after a long battle to destroy it by land, sea and air, turned out to have been mounted on a rail cart that the Japanese would wheel in and out of a cave to fire from two different positions.We have to remember all our veterans, but especially now that WW2 is taught less and less in the public schools. That was really the case when I was gong through Junior High and High School; just about everything I learned about the war was from Grandpa and books I read on my own. It was the defining event of the 20th Century. Let's hope WW3 or the next American Civil War won't define the current one.
One advantage not mentioned here that the Sherman had was spring loaded hatches. If you needed to bail out fast, the assistance the springs gave to open heavy, armoured hatch covers was critical. It gave the Sherman a survivability after being hit unmatched by any previous tank. Most crew survived at hit (if I recall correctly, the figure was about 83%)
The Sherman was the best ergonomically maybe the panzer III-IIII were good to not as good though. Your correct about getting out quickly also.
I saw in another video that Allied forces lost 0.6 people per knocked out tank. They weren't the death traps people act like they were.
Interesting - Nice One !
@@clideb60 Its a mith from a book criticizing the sherman...
...written by a mechanic that had no combat experience
@@davidecarucci1073 plenty of experience having to go inside these knocked out tanks, but Belton Cooper is a victim to his own confirmation bias. Sad that nowadays his words have solidified the image of the delicate, flammable , death trap towards the Sherman when compared to the tanks it was facing it was a life saving, dependable, versatile workhorse.
My Father was a 16yo boy on Poland when the Germans invaded. At some point in time he was conscripted into their army from which he deserted. He was captured by French forces and eventually drove a Sherman in North Africa and Italy (near Monte Cassino). Like many he didn't speak a great deal about his experiences. But, after a few drinks he once recounted an incident when we told his Commander he had seen movement in a nearby building. They fired in a round causing an explosion, after which the Germans spilled out burning. 'Poor Devils' was his final comment. After the war he came to England, met my Mother. and the rest they say is history.
Why are they burning when he shoots a round into it? sounds very unlikely
My father was the German soldier who kicked your father’s butt during the war!
That's awesome glad to hear I never got to meet my great grandfather he died 3 years b4 I was born in 92 he had 3 shrapnel wounds and a bullet in em still he was in the 69th inf div the fighting 69th lol 😆
@@user-ve7hn2dh8h we did have a range of shells with different purposes and a nasty one with incideinary phosphorus that clings and burns anything in the white cloud of choking burning smoke 😅
@@user-ve7hn2dh8h Shells often start fires.
That was an excellent program gentlemen. My father fought his Canadian Army Sherman through the Italian campaign, and then up through Belgium, Holland, and Germany. His variant was the M4A4 version that was about a foot longer and the fastest of all Shermans because of its Chrysler multi-bank engine which was used during a shortage of air-cooled aircraft engines between July 1942 and November 1943. Because it was a foot longer, it also provided a more stable platform for the Firefly version with its more powerful 17 pounder gun. Almost all of this variant were sold to Britain and used by the 8th Army and Canadian Army because the Americans wanted to maintain a more consistent supply and logistics system for their Sherman’s regarding engines and fuel types. As a fellow tank nerd, I noticed right away that you had an early version because of the lower radio compartment on the back of the turret, and the three piece transmission housing. Later versions raised the compartment and utilized a single cast transmission housing that made for even speedier servicing. Your version also featured a single hatch as did the M4A4 (a second hatch was installed in later models like the M4A2 and A3) which my father complained about bitterly because as gun loader/radio operator, he was last man out of the turret in an emergency. There was an anomaly on your version which had a yellow diamond insignia on the side of its turret indicating it was a “D” Squadron tank, but its name designation “Balaclava” indicates it was a “B” Squadron tank which would have had a yellow square designation on the turret. Conversely, it’s “D” Squadron name would have started with a “D”, like “Destroyer”. Additional historical information regarding the Sherman’s development should include that the Canadian army developed its earlier Ram tank using the M3 General Lee tank’s engine, drive train, suspension, and chassis, but replaced the riveted high profile hull with a lower profile cast hull with a 360 degree traverse turret containing its main 2 or 6 pounder gun. The Americans liked the design and enlarged the glacis, turret, and turret ring to accommodate the larger 75mm gun. Otherwise the Sherman is an almost identical copy of the Ram. Your Canadian manufactured version was known as the “Grizzly”, and after about 800 units, production ceased as the Detroit tank arsenal got up to speed. If you like reading about this kind of stuff, one of my historical novels available on Amazon, “Fighters, Bombers, Tanks, Wolves: Gitchigumi” under my pseudonym William Myers has lots of action. Cheers.
M3 medium was a stop gap until facilities to make a turret large enough to accommodate a 75mm gun could be built.
@@nickdanger3802 Production of the M4 was delayed due to Ordnance developing then finalizing the design of the M4 turret ring and transverse system. They wanted to use only one design on all their planned M4 variants that would be using heavier turrets with bigger guns.
The Pullman-Standard plant in my hometown of Hammond, Indiana assembled the Lend-Lease M3's and M4's used by the British. We used to ride our Sting Rays around their tank test track which was a big oval track with a ramp those took at speed to go airborne to see if the suspension and tracks held up when it slammed back down onto the ground!
@@billwilson3609 Sounds cool
"Almost all of this variant were sold to Britain"
Source for sold?
@@nickdanger3802 Yes, the M4A4 variant was “sold” to Britain, even if some of them may have been designated as “lend-lease”. Uncle Sam and “the arsenal for democracy” never really “gives” anything away for free. The Brits were still paying off war debts to the USA into the early 21st century. As for the Grizzly, built in Montreal, most were supplied to Canadian tank regiments with some maybe finding their way into British units before the full flow of Sherman’s began arriving in strength from the Detroit Tank Arsenal. At that point, to paraphrase Stalin, “quantity became a quality all its own”. Remember, the Canadians were in the war against Hitler for more than two years before America joined in.
I have a tank story to tell. Back in the 1980s, probably 1986 or 87, my unit (Armor Company, ESC, USATEC, Fort Hunter Liggett) did an exchange program with British soldiers. I really enjoyed the Brits assigned to my platoon, who filled in vacant positions on our tanks during training. We did one attack where all my tanks rolled out of their assembly areas on time and executed the attack. Later on, the British soldiers told me that never would have happened in the British Army, because they said 25-50% of their tanks would have broken down right out of the assembly area. We were on M60A3's, which were pretty reliable; my tank would only break down on Fridays, right before the weekend...
Great story SIR.
Thank you for your service!
🙏🏼
nice I was with B co 1/149 Armor at Camp Roberts Gunnery was at hungery lizard. Was on a M1IP left before we got A1's.
I used to string a hammock across the turret and sleep in my A3 there was so much room. And I really loved the TTS. Probably those two things I really missed once we switched to the M1IP
Our armour might breakdown but they all have BVs (boiling vessels) therefore we can have a nice cup of tea while awaiting the recovery team😁🇬🇧
@@douglasspencer745 That IS a nice feature
I recently purchased a 1:48 scale model of a M4A2 SHERMAN and ended up going down a SHERMAN rabbit hole! Different manufacturers, different hulls, different engines, different front gearbox covers, different hatches and all in a relatively short space of time.
I thoroughly enjoy seeing my grandaddy's Sherman getting the love it deserves. Not a "perfect tank", particularly against the later war German heavies, but it consistently showed up to the battlefield which is as important as the size of the gun or thickness of the armor.
A decent medium tank that's running is worth a lot more than a big heavy tank that isn't.
Like in sports, the most important ability for tanks is availability.
And the exceptionally high crew survival rates means tank crews could easily find a replacement tank and continue to bring what they learned against the enemy, or teach more tank crews.
Reliable, easy to build, mass produced, easy to maintain, ergonomically sound in that crews were as comfortable as they could be, internal intercom, the best radios in the business, and used everywhere, and by everybody (the Russians that used them loved them). The Sherman is what happens when a country that built most of the world's cars started building tanks
as a Sherman Tank fangril, thank you, thank you, thaaaaaaank you for addressing the fire problem. I can only assume you know the headache of hearing someone use the Ronson slogan for them, not realizing the "Lights the first time, every time" didn't come into circulation until *after* the second war.
My grandfather fought in Africa and Italy in a Sherman with the 760th Tank Battalion. His unit's story is written in the book "To Rome and Beyond". Very proud of my late grandfather.
if he is late, why not tell him to hurry and catch up?
James I’ve watched you on mysteries of the abandoned but to find you here is a real treat very good to see you and a great piece you did here.
Many people in pop culture seem to think that tanks only fought other tanks and thats what mattered......reality was that tank on tank combat was actually quite rare, most of the time these Shermans were fighting against Germany infantry units that had no armored vehicles of their own, and their main threats were hand-held Panzerfausts and towed anti-tank cannons sitting in a ditch somewhere. For those kind of enemies, Sherman was arguably one of the best tanks you could have (very good visibility for its time, very quick firing gun with a lot of HE power in 75mm shells, lots of machine guns). And if it did run into a proper German tank unit, 80% of the time it would be against older Panzer 4 and Stugs and that sort of vehicles that Sherman could destroy even with 75mm gun.
Excellent comment! So true!❤
Battle of Kursk... The Sherman didn't go up against tanks because most of the German panzers were fighting on the eastern front. Stalin became very annoyed that the British and Americans were taking so long to introduce the western front while Russia ended up destroying most of the German army.
thats flat out nonsense, there were more than enough Panzers operating in Western Europe as well as North Africa and Italy. During battle of Normandy for example, Germany deployed more than 2200 tanks of various modifications against Americans and British forces, during Battle of the Bulge over 1000 Panzers were used against Americans alone @@lperea21
Saw on another video on TY, that the US Army did a study just after the war and for the ENTIRE European theater (both allies and axis) that tank on tank combat only happened ~14% of the time. The rest of the time tanks fought soft targets like the Sherman was designed to fight against.
@@Joe-xd3urit’s actually not true - and fantasy writing. The tank was obsolete and known as a Tommy cooker for a reason. The only advantage the Sherman had was sheer numbers - and to think otherwise is a lie. If you had a choice you’d take the Tiger tank every day of the week and 2x on Sunday.
My grandad was a Sherman tank commander fighting in Italy from 1943 onwards. Thanks for the insights into what that involved
Drastically underrated. The 75mm was an excellent cannon designed for engagements at 500 yards .. the typical engagement on the western front. Totally capable of knocking out even the tiger with frontal and turret penetrations. British 6 lb AT guns punched clean through a tigers turret. Germans rarely used face hardened armor, every allied tank had it.
Nice fantasy. Please provide link to an even semi-credible account of a Sherman 75 taking out a Tiger, with a front shot, from 400-500 yds (and not a Pnzkw IV mistaken for a Tiger). That's what I thought. Here endeth the lesson.
WRONG! LMAO!!!! There is a reason the 76 was rushed and crammed into the Sherman.
@@Mst-bh9ti500yrds could potentially pen a tiger on its sides since german armour notoriously had paper side armour and rear armor and emphasized on the frontal armour.
Standardization and things like only using one oil type also paid huge dividends in the logistics trains. Easier to procure, ship, and store the right parts. No having to track multiple vendors for many different parts. Easier to organize in shipping and storage etc.
There were more than 100 variants, minor and major, of the Sherman.
The Germans found this out eventually, but it was too late. So many Tigers were left on the battlefield because of the logistic train for fuel and parts. A big tank is fine but you can't fight with something lacking reliability and mobility in a modern war. Much like their fortifications and battleships, German tanks were a victim of inferiority complex. Hitler had to have the biggest everything, not comprehending the concept they themselves created: That of a fast, mobile war. The Mouse and Schwerer Gustav are perfect examples. Great ideas on paper to a drug-addled mind, but far too impractical for actual consistent use on a rapidly changing battlefield.
No one matched the US in logistics
The Sherman wasn't the biggest, meanest tank on the battlefield. But it was reliable, fast, and could fight well enough. You could also transport it well. It was there to do a job.
And the parts were more interchangeable between tanks which was unusual at the time, especially among German tanks. You could take parts of a disabled tank and use them to get another going. We take that for granted now but it wasn't the case back then.
do a job yeah get you killed
And it could be built in massive numbers fairly quickly.
@@MrGary10k LOL their is also a recorded case of a Sherman against a Tiger where they killed the Tiger crew by firing so many shells that they occupants died from the number of shells rather than their tank being penetrated.
T34 enter the channel
The thing they don't mention is how the 75mm gun had an HE round that was better at killing soft targets than any allied round until you get as large as 155mm.
US armoured doctrine was that tank should not fight tank, that was the role of the tank destroyer. The Sherman was intended for infantry support, hence the low velocity gun. This is not realistic and explains why the Firefly and 76 mm gunned versions were so much better. A better gun, about a metre less height and better armour would have improved things, but, then, it wouldn't have been a Sherman.
@@alecblunden8615 that is not exactly true. The TD doctrine is defensive in native. They're fast because they're meant to be reactive. The US tank doctrine is based around supporting the infantry meaning if the infantry comes in contact with tanks during an assault they would rely to their accompanying tanks to engage. But if enemy tanks make a breakthrough during a defensive scenario then it's the hellcats and wolverines that are in charge to counter them (meaning to stop the advance or turn the enemy tanks back).
@@JericoLionhearth That hardly coincides with most of the publicly available material. Shall we compromise by saying that Sherman's were not originally intended to fight tanks, hence their low velocity guns pre 1944?
@@alecblunden8615 Not really. It's stated in the doctrine manual for the TD branch that it's defensive in nature. And tanks from Armoured branch that support infantry, stated in their doctrine manual, are told that the enemy will bring tanks of their own and they are suppose to fight them in support of the infantry.
And the 75mm gun isn't low velocity, it's a medium velocity gun that can happily kill German and Italian tanks when the Sherman was first used by the British. We are talking 75mm gun in a theater where largest anti tank guns on tanks are 57mm which is the 6 pounder, if my memory serve me correctly.
@@LAIHOCKCHUN Perhaps you should actually read my original post. It's only you who keeps rabbiting on about *defensive" and "offensive" which is clearly irrelevant. Shermans were not designed to fight tanks. That was the role of tank destroyers.
Pea shooters were enough to destroy Italian tanks which were little more than mild upgrades of Carden Lloyd tankettes and Vickers Commercial designs. As to German designs. Panzer I and II were light tanks. The Panzer III and IV were the fighting tanks, followed by the V and VI from 1942-1943.. A Sherman crew attacking a Panzer IV would have to feel lucky. Virtually all the reported engagements with Tigers were found to be with IV's and the regularly ran away from Vs. No wonder the British crews called them Ronsons because of their propensity to light up, and that the Germans called them Tommy Cookers for the same reason. Face it, the only good features of the Sherman, particularly by 1944, were reliably and abundance. The gun was hopeless which was why the Germans were ordered to focus on the long barreled tanks - the Firefly and the less specialised 76 mm. Drop the patriotic claptrap and work from the facts.
B
Spot on, underrated tank that served all the allies, finally getting a balanced review in modern times.
Underrated. Reliable, and it "got there" on its own power. Send 100 Shermans from point A to B, 100 start, 100 get there. Tigers and Panthers have tender feet.
According to Belton Cooper, 30-35% did not get there. Shermans, too, broke down en masse during road marches. All WW2 tanks did.
@@TTTT-oc4eb Cooper only took care of those that were destroyed. They were cheaper to build than Tigers and Panthers, and there were ALWAYS replacements. Part of Cooper's job was to determine how many replacements to have available for the next day, as he points out in "Deathtraps."
Cooper greatly exaggerates the deaths of Sherman crewmen compared to actual First Army Stata, as well.
@TT TT They would break down, but easy availability of spare parts and easy maintenance meant they WOULD, eventually, get there. The Tigers and Panthers were hard to repair in the field.
@@scottjoseph9578 The Panther was designed with ease of production and maintenance in mind. See video at 6.56:
ruclips.net/video/EzEXBbQC7BU/видео.html
@@scottjoseph9578 A late war M4A3 was probably as expensive as a Panther. The Panther only cost 15% more than a Panzer IV.
This tank is an M4A1as it has a cast hull. The subnodels were
M4 Welded hull Continental Radial Engine
M4A1 Cast Hull Continental Radial Engine
M4A2 Welded hull GM 6046 Diesel - Two buss engines ganged together to a common output shaft
M4A3 - Welded hull Ford GAA engine
M4A4 - Welded hull Chrysler Multibank engine - Five straight 6 auto engines sharing a common crankcase, with output to one drive shaft
M4, M4A1, M4A3 - US Army, French Army (US agreed to rearm French)
M4A2 - USSR (their T-34, KV and IS series were diesel powered) US Marines (took what it could get)
M4A4 - British Commonwealth and countries rearmed by Britain (Holland, Belgium, etc)
Escept this one is a Grizzly, built in Canada
The A4 is the type used in Kelly’s Heroes. The radio antenna is an indicator
The USMC used the A2 because most of the other vehicles they were using also ran on diesel, thus simplifying logistics.
The USMC took A2s by choice actually because more naval vehicles and other marine vehicle had diesel which simplified logistics. Diesel is also somewhat safer.
@@kevingarrett2559 The Grizzly was basically an M4A1.
Underrated. The more I learn about the M4, the more I believe it’s the best tank of all time.
Those cast-hull variants are my absolute favourite. Something about knowing that the entire thing is one colossal piece of metal has always been so cool to me.
We have an M4A1E8 at a local museum and I make sure to walk out and oogle it whenever I pass by that way.
Again, my dad was a veteran of WW 2 and I didn't know much of what he did because I didn't asked the questions due to respect for him. But I often wonder if he actually did sometimes. But what I did find out did make me cry 😭 Rest in peace Dad.
God bless the men that served in these crews.
Leave your God out of it
@clairevero Seriously what's your problem?
@@claireveroWhy don't you keep your God-less existence to yourself.
I was in a Sherman once. I discovered I had mild claustrophobia. Then I went in a 'Hetzer' and couldn't get out fast enough. It makes a Sherman seem like a mansion.
Put it this way, back then I was very skinny. I've had a few pies since then. I don't think I'd fit in a 'Hetzer' now as my stomach would jam against the basket at the back of the cannon breech. And I haven't put on that much weight, it's just any more than a light lunch would present issues.
hetzers where basically coffins with guns. they were frankly expendable.
then you would absolutely love touring the U-505 U-boat in the Field Museum in Chicago Illinois. don't be taller than 5-8". you will lose scalp skin and shin coverings. hehehehehehe
Hetzer was only half the weight of a Sherman but with just as good if not better frontal armour and gun.
The Sherman tank's turret spins around in 15 seconds! That's fast for WW2! The Brits put a 17 pounder inside her, and she became the best tank in the war for the Allies. Its gun way out-classed Russia's T-34/85.
I enjoyed this very much! I often go running in the Beechwood Cemetery in Ottawa and pass by a Sherman tank and wondered about it. That example was purchased in 1947 and has the 76 mm gun. It was used in the Korean War, it seems with good effect. Apparently 49,000 Shermans were built and even though the last was constructed in 1945 they were still being used in the Iran-Iraq War, which ended in 1988.
I used to live at the old Uplands base and passed Beechwood Cemetary when I biked to work in Hull every morning. It seems like a lifetime ago now.
Used by Chile until the mid-1990s with the 60mm hypervelocity gun
@@minuteman4199 Uplands or Rockcliffe?
@@Sprocketboy1956 Mis spoke I meant Rockliffe. I was looking on Google maps and my whole neighbourhood is now gone.
I saw them in Israel in 2001, totally upgraded but still about.
Very interesting to see a M4 Grizzly (Canadian-made M4A1 Sherman) as part of 11th Armoured Div in British's RAC!
The guys in Oshawa need one!
M4A1, the name M5 was attributed to the Stuart as they worked to not overlap designations. There was also a mess of the RAM tanks and them presumably M4A5
@@spamuraigranatabru1149 Typo, what can I do? Thanks for pointing that oot. Edited.
Tommy Cooker was a British & Commonwealth nickname for ANY Tank during the African Campaign (Something being on the northern edge of the Sarah Desert, from early spring, thru summer, and well into autumn basically in a steel box without any air-conditioning!!!
Also, one advantage that the Gunner of a M-4 Sherman had, is that he had a periscope so that the tank could be completely hidden behind something with only his periscope and the escape hatches sticking above it! He could actually aim the main gun, engage the Stabilizer, and as they climbed up, look through a Co-Axial telescopic sight and when he didn't see the berm (or ridge, or whatever) and still had his crosshairs on the target, simply stomp on the firing button mounted in the footplate for his left boot!
Another advantage is that in the M-4 Sherman, everyone had a seat, and on the 75mm armed tanks, the Loader could actually load several rounds while still in his original position with very little movement other than turning his head & moving his arms!
My great uncle got a Bronze star for rescuing a tank crew, his Lt wrote up the recommendation but added himself in the main role. Uncle didn’t care as the Lt won the “farm” the following week which he did want.
I'd add that the Sherman was equipped for indirect fire which was useful against dug in antitank guns.
Great video, my grandfather was a Sherman tank commander in North Africa and Italy. I have always admired these amazing machines
We also had to transport thousands of tanks across two oceans. It was a medium tank and did what it was designed to do quite well.
Just finished reading James Holland's book, Brothers In Arms, about the story of one of Britain's tank regiments from D-Day to VE-Day - the Sherwood Rangers Yeomanry (which was equipped with Shermans). Thoroughly recommend it. 👍
That includes references to how a tank would be destroyed, they'd dust off, get a new one the next day, not really taking notice of the excellent logistics that allowed this to happen.
Try and get a copy of John Foley's
" Iron Fist" . A Churchill tank commander in the 11 th Armoured division. No Rambo bull shit ,just the way it was.
Thank you.
I’ll have to check it out!
🫡
Chaplain Skinner was a real hero, ensuring all the fallen got a proper burial
@@michellebrown4903 No Churchill tanks in 11th AD.
The Sherman was what they had and you fight with what you have.
And they had a damn good tank!
They point out some of the biggest reasons why Sherman was so good in WW2. The reliability was one, if not the biggest, reason it was so successful.
The vast maintenance and logistics tail of each American armored division was a secret weapon, almost, in the ETO 1944-1945. Legions of boys who'd grown up with a wrench in their hand joined the army, coming primarily from two main sources. Rural and small-towns - young men who'd grown up on farms and knew machinery for that reason, and kids who'd worked in factories in big cities and knew mechanical things from that angle. And the Shermans - despite their virtues - were not always easily kept in the field. Aircraft radial engines are designed to run at high rpms, and the engineers take that into account when designing them. Loose tolerances when cold, but they seal up when the engine runs at operational rpms and heats up.
Trouble is, tanks often spend extended periods in idle or running at lower rpm ranges, which is not what those engines are designed to do. Since they didn't run as hot, the tolerances didn't seal properly and the engines seeped oil, including past the head gaskets and into the combusion chambers, where the oil would eventually foul the spark plugs. The mechanics had to adopt a very aggressive schedule of pulling the plugs on a regular schedule, sand-blasting or otherwise cleaning them, regapping them, and then reinstalling them in the engines.
Those guys with the wrenches in their hands had a lot to do with the final victory, even if they don't always get the acclaim they deserve. Same with their counterparts who kept the flyboys in the air.
@@GeorgiaBoy1961 Have you ever seen the Sherman talk Nicholas Moran aka The Chieftain gave?? If you haven't I highly recommend watching it. It is a very good talk and he points out all of the paperwork and studies the US Army had on every nut and bolt of the Sherman. They may have to learn some things in the field, but they put the Sherman through as many torture tests as they could from desert to freezing cold.
The German tanks were far superior.
@@Lonewolfmike that was a great talk
@@jamessephar9458 When they ran they were. But the German's didn't have to ship them over two oceans. Besides the Sherman's were were easier to maintain because of the commonality of parts. If you needed to change something like the drive train you could do it much easier than you could on a German tank.
love the show guys, amazing cast and team. Keep it up!
Considering how quickly the Sherman was designed and put into production,it was a very sound design. Also it could be upgraded and modified.I think Israeli Shermans were still in frontline service in 1973.
they were nothing like the clunckers they received after the war...
The Israeli Sherman's went through several stages of upgrade, tracks, suspension, main gun, engine. I think even the turret may have been swapped out when French main guns were mounted. The '70's "Shermans" were quite a different animal from the dinged up veterans of WWII.
@@meaders2002 I haven't been able to get definite figures,but I think the M51 Super Sherman with it's French 105mm gun did see action in the Yom Kippur war,probably with reserve units.
The thing about the Shermans is that its design inherited quite a bit from the M3 Medium. The M3 was a stopgap design so they took the parts that worked with it and used it as a base for the Sherman.
@@ddraig1957 it did. because the Yom Kippur war was a surprise attack, the isreali's needed to field as many tanks as possible, especially because not all Sho't tanks (Isreali Centurions) were operational. So M51s were taken out of reserve and were send to the frontlines and they were able to fight against more modern Soviet counterparts thanks to the very potent HEAT shells of the French 105mm gun
I love James holland anything he’s in is always engaging
Much like American author/historian Shelby Foote, I could listen to James Holland discuss history for hours on end. The knowledge he shares is fantastic.
Great video James, it was so good seeing the Black Bull emblem, my old Dads regiment 11th Armoured Division. Dad served from 1945 - 50 mainly in Germany in the Allied Army on the Rhine. Unfortunately he’s not with to enjoy this superb film. Lest we forget.
My father was a WWII infantry combat vet. I have a postcard he took from a German girl when she was complaining about his outfit commandeering her family's home. The postcard picture shows German soldiers riding on top of a tank and has some writing from her boyfriend soldier to her (Lisl). On the remaining white space he wrote to my mother about how his outfit had to hang on to ride on top of their tanks through the night often as they advanced.
What made the Sherman spectacular was that manufacture could ramp up to produce nearly 50,000 by mid-war, was extremely reliable and easy to fix in the field, was light enough to ship across an ocean on massive scale and faster for a medium tank to outmaneuver. The Soviet T 34 was also a formidable tank. It had thicker armor, more sloped armor (to deflect hits better), lower profile, bigger gun and harder armor making it harder to penetrate. The T 34 was not so reliable in the field, however, and some things on it not so strong like the poor welding together of the hull. So, lesson is - if you can't run your tank you cannot fight and the Sherman was able to accomplish this. My personal favorite regarding armor in WWII was the U.S. Hellcat Tank Destroyer, but that's for another day.
you better get your facts straight. the Soviet tanks where better than the us tanks. but let me guess you believe that it was the usa that won the war too.
@@joeydepalmer4457Soviet t-34s had a 75% casualty rate. And while they were ready to produce, their transmissions had serious reliability problems. Furthermore, the design made it harder to replace those busted transmissions than on the Sherman.
@@ill_bred_demon9059 i would take a t-34 over a Sherman any day. the only thing the Sherman tanks had going for them was numbers and good crew training.
@joeydepalmer4457 Here's the video I watched that took off the rose colored lenses about the t-34. I hadn't heard about a lot of these flaws in the design, and note that both the T-34s and Shermans had serious problems with burning their crews alive. But the Shermans dramatically reduced the risk of catching fire with their redesign while the T-34, at best, made it easier for the crew to get out before being burnt alive.
ruclips.net/video/soQxx1tatqM/видео.htmlsi=BH5hGP_2PDuZxd84
The frontal armor on the Sherman is sloped to the point where it offered similar protection to the Tiger I.
An excellent honest Sherman analysis!! Very rare! Cheers!
If you love tanks and you happen to find yourself in England, you must go check out the Land Warefare Museum at Duxford. As I toured the place, I noticed that most of the tanks and vehicles had mud on them. I thought it was for a more dramatic display, in giant war dioramas with ground, equipment, and scenery.
The real reason was both the and Land and Air Warfare museums there had a policy that all equipment, when possible, is kept in working order. The mud wasn't for decoration, the mud was because they regularly take them out back and play with them. Very cool.
the Russians loved their Shermans, which they called "Emchas". The Sherman was a far more crew-friendly tank to crew. They also liked the seats- when their Shermans were knocked out the wrecks were swarmed by Russian soldiers who wanted the leather off of the seats with which they would make boots. Every part of a Sherman was top-knotch.
Apart from a weak gun, poor armour and super high profile.
@No Fyou It had great armor. Just the Germans had fuck off huge guns. Other than the Germans, the Italians and the Japanese didn't have any tanks or guns that could effectively nor efficiently punch holes in the Sherman's armor. The Japanese were especially bad at this.
@@nofyou5182 The high profile was an issue though, but that was an issue with half the tanks in ww2.
@@nofyou5182 Aside from german heavies. Shermans have really good armor compare to other medium tanks like Panzer 3, Panzer 4, T34 and almost every japanese tanks.
@@nofyou5182The M3 75 mm main gun was really no slouch on the battlefield. It wasn’t designed primarily as an antitank weapon, though it could do that at moderate range. And it wasn’t really any worse that the T34’s 76.2 mm.
The armor was a trade off, saving weight, but Sherman’s armor wasn’t really any worse than the Russian or British tanks, and far better than the Italian and Japanese vehicles.
It’s height can certainly be seen as a liability, but American tank commanders valued the visibility it afforded, particularly in the hedgerows of Normandy.
Everything on a tank is a compromise.
The stistics they give about the tank are mostly correct except regarding the track width on this model the M4A1 (cast body with VVSS (Vertical Volute Spring Suspension) and no Duckbills) which is 16.56" or 42.06cm. The 584mm or 23" tracks were not fitted until they used the HVSS (Horizontal Volute Spring Suspension) on the M4A3's and late M4A2's. This gave lower ground pressure 12psi angainst 18psi (narrow tracks) and better ground handling.
My father was in the 15th /17th Hussars , part of the 7th and feared Armoured division ( the black bulls ) as they were known .
I have pictures of him with his crew in North Africa and in France a week after D Day , really great pictures , my fathers tank had a direct hit , he was the only survivor of the 5 man crew , he rarely spoke of that , but it must have been hell as they were like a family .
Huge respect and thanks
It was common practice amongst all sides that if a tank was spotted that wasn't clearly burnt out, they would shoot it until it was, this was to prevent recovery from the battlefield but also to prevent traps, therefore certainly in the European theatre as many axis tanks were found burnt out as allied tanks. The Ronson Monica for the Sherman has been found to be something that was made up post war and certainly wasn't used during it. Also everyone talks about the triangle of tank design choices, speed/mobility, armour and fire power, but as shown in the documentary, reliability, ease of production, ergonomics and ease of use, ease of production, ease of repair and ease of transport are also key, this easily proved by the T34 and the Sherman being so successful, numbers won the war, the tiger and the panther were not five times better than either the T34 or the Sherman which was the numbers they often outnumbered by.
And let's not forget - 9 times out of 10 the tank that fired the first shot won the engagement. And the Germans were on the defensive pretty much from 1942 onwards. So they tended to get the first shot in. Most of their counter-attacks were stopped in their tracks. By someone who got in the first shot..
-Monica- *moniker*
It has not been found that the Ronson moniker was made up after the war, far from it. Ask armoured archives about the evidence that the advertising logo was in use well before the war, if you don't believe me. And there are interviews with British veterans that were made in the sixties in which they attest to having used that moniker at the time. Right here on RUclips.
Some people have suggested that the moniker was made up after the war and that the veterans were coerced into supporting that lie by certain disreputable authors and journalist, but there is no ''certainty'' about it . Just insinuation.
@@andrewwoodhead3141 You're not improving your credibility by asserting that anyone has claimed that coercion took place, trying to assign to others research homework, nor claiming as proof things which are not proof. Why "the armored archives" (whatever that is) would be the go-to source for a history of cigarette lighter advertising slogans I cannot imagine, but there's a Wikipedia article on the subject that covers the company and this controversy, so if you can find -- anywhere -- a contemporaneous example of anyone using "Ronsons" to refer to Shermans you still have the opportunity to settle the matter, since no one else has found one. Which is very strange if you're right,.
@@andrewwoodhead3141 whatever the story, the truth is that before wet stowage, the Sherman burned at exactly the same rate German, British, and Soviet tanks burned at, within maybe a 2% margin and that rate was high, something like 85%. After wet stowage which only the Sherman had, the rate dropped to 25%. Shermans burning is simply a lie. Even if salty German tankers said it as copium, its irrelevant because the statistics just prove its a lie. It looks like the real difference between the Sherman and other nations' tanks was that Americans freely discussed the problems with their tanks and then fixed them (see also large spring-loaded hatches for every crew member to make escaping a burning tank easier) while everyone else chalked up burning to death in a tank as just part of the hazards of war.
My late father served in Shermans in North Africa and Italy. In North Africa he was in the 1st Army (2nd Lothians and Border Horse Yeomanry, B Sqn.)
His final tank, as commander, was a Sherman with a cast hull and the American 3" (76.2mm) 52cal high velocity gun. I have a picture of him smartly stood in front of his tank just before action at Arezzo.
Incidentally, he never called himself a 'tanker' - 'trooper' yes, 'crew member' yes, but not 'tanker'.
Through being knocked out or badly damaged (one time his tank rolled over a thousand feet off a cliff in the Apennines) he ended up in his 7th tank before the surrender of Italy.
I believe this final tank had the General Motors twin diesel, not the Continental radial petrol engine.
It's most probable his last tank was the Chrysler multibank. Most UK and colonial forces ran with that version.
@@drewschumann1 Could be. Thanks.
@@derekmills1080 You said his last tank was a cast hull with the US 76mm. That is the M4A1 76mm which the US sent to the UK as replacements because the M4A4's were long out of production. Most M4A1's went to Italy or to common wealth units because the British had the new Comets and didn't like the US 76mm very much.
@@tankmaker9807 Absolutely. My dad didn't talk about war a lot, but there are clues in the photo:
It says 'At Arrezzo' on the back, so near the end of the hostilities..
The barrel is clearly the 3" and 52 cal. It doesn't have an 'attenuator'/'blast deflector' or call it what you like - it clearly has a protective cap at the end of the barrel. I believe those issued quickly to Italy didn't have the 'attenuator', but had this protective cap to prevent damage to the thread. The photo is black and white, but the cap appears very bright - likely polished brass or bronze.
Finally, the front doesn't have the early bolted flanges of the Sherman (or Grant) from assembly, nor is the hull constructed from welded plates. It has clear curves on the main hull, going up to the turret ring.
@@derekmills1080 Your picture is a wonderful piece of family history.
I had a neighbor growing up that was a US Marine tank gunner in a Sherman in WWII. He saw a lot of action against the Japanese in the Pacific. He opened with a lot of stories as he got older. I main have the terms correct, but these some of what I remember. One story was they were decoding all the Jap messages so the US knew their every move ahead of time. They were planning a counterattack with all the Japanese tanks. The US picked a spot where the tanks had to pass through a valley and put some Sherman tanks up on high ground. He said they destroyed every single Japanese tank without a single loss. The Japanese tanks were tin cans, very easy to take out. His tank ran out of ammo 3 times and they had to go back to get more ammo and came back started firing again. Another time he had a new tank commander the new guy was sticking out the hatch when they were driving. He told the new commander to stay down because of snipers. Not too much later, they hear a shot and new guy falls down into the tank shot in the neck. He said turned and yelled at the guy, "I told you so, you son of a bitch" He said it went clean through and missed his spine, main arties and wind pipe. The guy lived.
They didn’t even have to use the main gun, .50 cal would turn them into Swiss cheese.
In New Guinea the Australians used the Matilda The terrain was too soft for the Sherman
There are 4 attachments on the tank that has EVERYTHING to do with the Sherman. The four lift points on the front and back of the tank. Every. Single. Sherman tank needed to be shipped across the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, a minimum of 2,000 miles. Want a bigger gun along with a larger turret to hold it? More weight, a larger engine, a heavier and wider tank that takes up more storage, and fewer tanks. After WW2, the statistics of all the main tanks in the war found that the Sherman tank was one of the safest tanks to be in. Add in the ease of repair, a perfectly adequate gun, and strong reliability made the Sherman one of the best tanks of WW2.
James is a true man of the people. Love his work.
What people never see is all the tankers who got OUT of a Sherman, the Sherman has the ammo fire issue but the Chieftain showed how fast you could amcsray when the tank was on fire!
Absolutely. I worked with a old guy who drove a Sherman and he said everyone loved the big hatches. When he first saw a Comet he was appalled at how constricted the driver's hatch was since they had bulky oversuits by the winter of 44/45 and you had to, as he put it, 'squeeze out like toothpaste from a tube;.
Yea, I’ll take Chieftain’s assessment over a “historian” any day, someone that’s actually served in an armor unit please.
?amcsray.Shermans & Chieftains are from different times.
The ammo fire issue was resolved with wet storage.
@@anti-Russia-sigma Not a Chieftain tank, Major Nicholas Moran AKA The "Chieftain" is a tank commander and armor historian that has very detailed information on armor and their use. Has repeatedly dispelled the common myths and misinformation about Shermans specifically.
Many thanks for this video! My father was a Sherman driver in the 3rd Armored Division. In my opinion, the Sherman's greatest advantages over the German tanks was its rate of fire and over-the-road speed.
The Sherman's greatest advantage over the German tanks was the US Army air corps. The last thing a lot of German tank crews ever saw was a P-47 Thunderbolt coming down on them. Which itself was a tank with wings.
@@1pcfred Thats probably an overstatement. Post war analysis concluded that air power was responsible for only about 3% of all Tank kills by the allies in the war. Air Power was far more important for denying them their fuel and supply convoys as well as tearing up their halftracks - denying them infantry support in the actual fighting.
In many ways the Americans were fortunate, the Germans ended up concentrating most of their armor against the Soviet British forces. Although its worth noting that both of them made significant usage of Shermans as well. The vast majority of German armor destroyed in and around the battle of Caen would have been done by the Sherman. (even if the far more glamorous Firefly gets the spotlight) The Soviets likewise used the Sherman interchangeably with the T-34, and it saw plenty of heavy fighting on the Eastern front.
@@BlitkriegsAndCoffee perhaps planes did not destroy much armor but the Germans wouldn't even move in the daylight for fear of being spotted from the air. So they were clearly concerned about it themselves.
@@1pcfred Agreed. There are many reports of the Germans being unable to move except for at night.
Harassing forces no doubt had an impact, sending vehicles to the motor pool for repairs, but the outright number of kills is thought to be quite low for the amount of air power applied.
The Panther was faster than all Sherman variants, and even the Tiger was as fast as most. All German tanks were capable of rapid fire.
Would’ve been nice to have some history on this specific Sherman, I.e where it served and how it got to where it is now.
Why?
It served everybody and your momma...
It was the change to wet ammuition storage that made the Sherman the most serviable tank of the time.
When I was a young soldier (16) I was at the Army Apprentices college in Harrogate doing my trade training.
We had a 2 hour a week lesson on "Life skills" which was held by an ex Major from a tank regiment. Sadly I forget which regiment. He was small in stature (as tank crews tend to be).
All he would do for those 2 hours was reminisce on what had happened to him during WW2.
He had taken part in the Normandy landings and the battle for Caen where he had three tanks destroyed in which he was in.
I can still hear his voice.
What he did was very valuable. He explained to us that among his crew there were losses. He could name every one of them, where they came from and how long he had known them. He explained war was not a walk in the park. Be ready to lose some of your comrades and friends when it happens.
I believe all of us benefited greatly from his experiences. Back in the barrack block we always discussed what he had said.
I think all new recruits should have a similar seminar given to them by a veteran. Someone you can respect, listen too and learn from.
Very nice synopsis. Lovely restoration of that Grizzly. I always thought if I was a WW2 tanker I’d like to drive around Europe in an American tank unit in captured German Panther. A little more armour and a more effective main gun but the support of all those thousands of American M4’s.
Yeah, but how many of those Sherman's would be shooting at you thinking you were German.
The biggest problem would be the Panther breaking down as their transmission was far from perfect, and needing to take the tank apart to get to the transmission. The motor wasn't the best either. After the war was over the French had in their area of occupation the Panther plant, and they continued to make them for the post war French army.
@@terrygardner3031 Ehm no, the transmission on the Panther didn't break down all the time, it actually had a respectable service life.
The notion that one needs to take a Panther apart in order to get to the transmission is a silly one.
The French didn't have any factories to produce the Panther after the war, no more Panthers were build for the French army.
Great Video! Agree the Sherman was a an effective Offensive weapon. The best IMO was the Jumbo M4A3E2. It could take multiple 88mm hits and keep the crew alive. E8 Easy 8 was good too. Held their own against T34 in Korea. The upgunned British Firefly was an excellent combination.
Agree about the jumbo but unfortunately it came too late to be significant in WW2.
there is no way any Sherman could take multiple hits from a 88
@@jacktattis E2's likely could. They had a lot of added armor. The gun mantlet was 180mm thick.
@@TheSaturnV The rest of the turret was not
Logistically, an astounding feat, as every single bolt, nut spare parts etc. Had to be transported across the Atlantic (not to mention the tank itself).
Ship is basically the easiest and most effecient way to transport heavy stuff.
I'd say it's misunderstood by a lot of people who think that the role of the tank can only be measured by the metric of Tiger tanks in the eastern front in 1943. Sherman was versatile, easily maintained and a great infantry support vehicle. The best tank of WW2.
Workhorse, just like T-34... Easy to make, easy to maintain, relatively inexpensive, and yet extremely reliable, simple to operate and maintain... Just what you need in a war.
I don't think the t-34 was any of those. Adjusted for economy, the t-34 was as expensive or more than a Sherman and broke down in rates that were on par with late German tanks, with a crew survivability rate that was abysmally poor.
It was an average tank the Russians made so poorly as to be barely effective.
Better than the T-34 imo
Although my first love will always be the Tiger I, I have reluctantly came around to this opinion.
I love the Sherman it's by a good margin one of my favourite tanks of all time! If obviously proves itself, however off the bat it should of been coax machine gun, ma duece on the top for soft, buildings, anything that needed a few inches bribing in! However as a British civilian who's only had my hands on one a couple of times of times. Also it has by far the most satisfying and feeling sounding bolt of any SAW!
My great uncle was in the 62nd mobile armored field artillery bn BT.B,he was a Sherman driver. He was in the N.African campaign,Sicily (possibly Italy not positive) and landed on D Day being the 1st armoured field artillery to land. He was in battle all the way to Germany. He LOVED the Sherman and said the Ford powered Sherman saved them more than once because of its reliability. I have two photos 1,is his crew standing with their Sherman sporting the rhino blade. The 2nd is my favorite it's just him standing next to a Sherman( in the winter of 44 ) that's been painted white but where they ran out of paint they used blankets,quilts and curtains. He loved the Ford powered Sherman so much that when he got home he never bought any car or truck unless it was a Ford.
Interestingly, when the 76mm became available most Sherman tankers preferred the ubiquitous 75mm. Sounds crazy right? But the 75 wasn't nearly as helpless against German tanks as werhaboos make out. Also, Sherman tankers only fought other tanks roughly 20% of the time. Sherman tankers feared German anti tank guns far more than Panthers and the 75mm had a far better HE shell than the 76mm.
It’s “Wehraboo”. I am a Wehraboo, but I’m the more liberal type. I’m open to acknowledging that a tank is better than a German tank, unlike most of our kind.
@@raven_1133you aren't a wehraboo necessarily then, maybe just a enthusiast for german ww2 armaments.
When people say wehraboo, usually they mean the type that thinks that if Germany had just made a few more me262's and if mustache man hadn't been so stupid then Germany could have won the war.
@@sinistersoul7238 True, true. I mean you have a po-NEIN YOU DO NAHT! YOU ARE A FAILU-*cough* excuse me, I’ve had a cold recently.
It was said you'd need four Shermans to take out one Tiger.
It was also said you were far more likely to find four Shermans on a battlefield than one Tiger.
There is reason to believe that this is a myth based on the tendency for Shermans to operate in groups of 4 to 6, while Tigers were frequently only available 1 at a time. If a Tiger was spotted Shermans may be called for, and they will show up in 4s or 5s.
You only need one Joe Ekins in a Sherman to take out four tigers
@@StuSaville 3 Tigers.
@@viceralman8450 3 confirmed (Tigers 009, 312 and 314) 1 possible (Whitmann's Tiger 007)
@@StuSaville No, Wittmann Tiger and other two. THe fourth one was destroyed by the Canadian Shermas that were nearby.
Here is the thing that you have to remember about the Sherman, when Jacob Devers took command of the US Armored Force, he came from the Artillery, and while he was impressed with what the US Armor had accomplished, he had a basic complaint; lack of firepower. Devers' brief was give me the optimum tank that could mount a 105mm howitzer; that's the Sherman.
My dad was in WWII in a tank killer battalion that used the m36 variant. One thing with all the worship of the German tanks that is overlooked is the Sherman was designed as Mobil artillery to be used to cover infantry, the tanks and infantry as Mr.Holland so well described in 'brothers in Arms' was symbiotic.
The big advantage it has? At 30 tons you can drive them over field bridging. You can't with something that weighs almost 70 tons.
Mr. Holland also points out in the book that crews in the Sherman were not burned up more statistically than any other type of tank.
@@njlauren The whole Ronson thing is BS - any tank without wet ammo storage was a Ronson if a a round or spalling that was hot got into the stored ammo. The other benefit of the M4 is that it was developed during the war with the Easy 8 and Jumbo versions being quite good tanks when they entered service compared to the Germans and the T-34/85.
@@jimbosc
Yep, like I said that reputation was based on the generalized need to put down US equipment, in part bc of some weird notion of German invincibility,that the poor GIs went out there in this 'crappy' tank and were able to beat the superior forces.
The Ford V8 was good, they used that in the M36. In Holland 's book he talks about how tank crews were disgusted when later in the war they had the Shermans with the Chrysler engines *lol*. I don't think the engine was bad, think it was brand loyalty:)
The M4's 75mm gun used the 105mm howitzer carriage so the commanders could swap out the barrels when they needed the extra fire power. The 105 barrels came with a conversion kit.
@@billwilson3609Got a source for that claim? The gun mounts look pretty different between the 75 and the 105
I have been in a M4A1 at Ft. Lewis Washington: it was parked outside the main Post Exchange with the escape hatch missing. It was a nice place to hide in on Sundays during Basic training. One way to avoid extra work details. I did always carry a book to read.
Biggest problem I have read about was running out of ammunition on Betio Island in the Tarawa atoll with the Marines M4A2 tanks. After that battle they built extra racks any place they could cram a few more rounds in.
Much later while in the Army reserves, I taught 19D Cav scouts in vehicles ranging from M113 to M113A3 and Hummers. On a recruiting mission, I got to ride in a M7 Priest.
I had to smirk at the idea of calling a tank transmission swap in the field "very, very, easy". I feel we should hand him a spanner. "The engine comes out in a couple of hours" does it? Have at it, lad.
James Holland seems to be a cracking bloke
M4 Sherman commanders were head and shoulders above the rest...
The real Achille's heal of the Sherman might well have been that they made them so fast that improvements took too long to make it into the assembly lines before they were shipped off to fight the already upgraded German tanks.
Width: 584 mm ;)
Part of the "ronson" reputation is that you keep hitting the tank until it lights up
It's nice to see a pretty even-handed take on the M4 tank. Although there's still this misconception that it was an infantry support tank or the gun was meant for "soft targets." At the time, it was very adequately gunned tank which could kill most other tanks on the battlefield and had much better armor than the enemies in 1942 (keep in mind the M4 has about the same frontal armor as a Tiger I). The gun was not great against the Panther and other late war designs, but not because it was a gun for "soft targets."
There was a failure, in a sense, that the US didn't really pursue an improved gun as enthusiastically as the British did with the Firefly, and their whole tank destroyer doctrine was a mess (not issuing tungsten core ammunition to tanks in general, even when they fired the same ammuntion). The 76mm gun program never really addressed the threat of the Panther tank.
But most mainstay tanks had an issue of rapidly getting out of date. The Panzer IV rapidly outgrew its 1939 roots as an infantry support assault gun platform by the allied invasion, the weight of the long-barrel L43 and L48 cannons plus the improved 80mm frontal armor routinely maxed out and broke the front suspension components. The original T-34's two person turret immediately showed defficiencies, but the T-34's turret ring was not designed with a larger turret in mind, so when the T-34-85 was put into production they needed entire new tooling and machinery to accomodate manufacturing new hulls with larger turret rings. Versus the M4, where when they found the 75mm turret was cramped for the 76mm gun, they simply took the entire turret from the canceled T23 tank and placed it into the exact same M4 hull. They made improvised "Jumbos" by welding armor plates from salvaged vehicles and the drivetrain and suspension more or less held up to task. It was a very well engineered tank.
The Americans got it right, the 76 was a much better solution it just took a bit longer because they wanted it right. Every german tank was vulnerable especially when flanked.
Underrated. The Sherman was a very reliable tank, and was easy to work on whenever it needed it. It's crew survivability was the best of the war of all tanks. The gun was more than sufficient, as Tigers were very few in number, as were Panthers; and the Sherman would kill any other German tank without issue. Also, it's armor isn't poor. At all. We don't think of the T-34 as having had poor armor, and yet it had 15 - 20mm less than the Sherman.
People sleep on the Sherman. It was a fantastic tank got its time; its exactly what was needed.
Crew survivability..? Are you kidding me? Is that why the Germans called them Ronsons?
@@PDZ1122 The Germans didn't call them Ronson's. Nobody did, because Ronsin lighter company didn't even exist. That's a modern myth lmao
@@PotatoeJoe69 Rubbish. Ronson lighter company, established July 20, 1898 based in Somerset, New Jersey. and it was the Brit's that called them Ronson's.
@@majorgrumpybum3161 You're correct on the year of the companies foundation. I was a bit confused; what the reality is, is that the MYTH comes from the old Ronson lighter slogan "Lights the first time, every time." The problem is that this slogan didn't exist until the 1950's.
The Sherman was never called a Ronson.
Most anti-tank guns in the anti-tank role in the US Army were 57mm M1A1 (early 1942) then M1A2 (late 1942)towed cannons that were licensed copies of the British 6lber. This was an upgrade from the 37mm M2 anti-tank gun they phased out by 1943. Big guns, like on the Hellcat (90mm) were not very common.
M18 or Hellcat tank destroyer only had a 76mm gun . The M26 Pershing & M36 Jackson had a 90mm gun
once you get much larger than 57mm the gun can barely be pushed around the battlefield by the troops, so going bigger becomes problematic especially for forces that are attacking. By contrast, a small gun that can be hidden is fine for ambushing tanks with flank shots, so the 57mm was still fairly viable for defending against localized German counterattacks.
Very few M26 Pershings saw combat in WWII, but many M36 Jackson's did.
The Chieftain did a presentation on the Sherman. Believe it was at the Museum of Flight. He stated that the lowest US casualty rates were the Tankers. Go figure. Way more USAAF and Infantry deaths. Many tankers had 3-4 Shermans shot out from under them.
What he also stated was that the British had higher casualties than the americans, mostly head injuries. The British used Berets while the Americans used a helmet.
@@terrygardner3031 The Sherman gunner in the film clips used neither a beret nor a helmet.
Looked more like an aviator's headgear.
My uncle was a WWII US tanker, and his tanker's helmet was a sort of plastic affair.
Yep. M4s that were knocked out resulted in 1 KIA per.
And sadly Chieftain got it seriously wrong.
A very poor comparison. The rifle companies always take, by far, the most casualties. Roughly 20% of an army is made up of infantry - and they take 80% of the casualties.
The most important feature of a tank is it's availability. It can only do good if it's there, when it's needed. The scale of mass production, the ease of transport and ease of serviceability and interchangeable parts made the M4 the best tank of the war.
Awesome video, great distillation of the main points, a sensitivity to the feelings of the crews. Great all around.
the ammo storage was on the of the side of the tank why the high fire chance, they it moved to the floor and the fire chance dropped
p.s. British casualties were slightly higher us tankers because they wore berets and the us wore leather helmets
Tigers and Panthers had ammo stowed in the sponsons aswell
I knew a gentleman, who has passed now, who fought in a Sherman in WW2. He said that a thing that worried him when in action was the fact that if the turret was disabled off center, the gun blocked the driver's or assistant driver's hatch and you couldn't escape if the tank was burning.
That was change in late 42 if a don't recall wrong.
@@viceralman8450 I was not aware of that. I do know that my friend was in North Africa, Sicily, then Normandy and so on.
@@Snuffy03 Yes they issued a kit for another hatch, another to make the hatches wider and other to spring load the hatches for them to open faster as result escaping from a Sherman was very easy.
@@viceralman8450 Thank you for enlightening me. As for myself, I was USMC infantry. The thought of being cooped up inside a metal box didn't sit too well. A friend of mine, who went Army shortly after I enlisted in The Corps., became a tank gunner. He loved it. To each his own, I guess.
Read the US 1st Armored history. One tanker was in action in North Africa. He was the co-driver and his hatch was blocked by the turret rotation to the rear. He escaped out the drivers hatch by crawling over the transmission. Lucky for him the tank was not on fire at that time, so he had a few extra seconds to escape.
The reason for the high profile was the original radial aircraft engines the M4 and other tall US tanks like the M3 both light and medium used. Since the engine was tall and round the hull needed to be high to fit them in the first place. But then as the engine was in the rear and the transmission was in the front there needed to be a drive shaft running through the tank. From the radial engine it came out of the middle of the thing and so the turret basket and thus the turret needed to be mounted higher to give it room to pass. When the US stopped using the radial engines they could have started making the tanks shorter but the delay in production while the factories were retooled to make a different hull wasn’t deemed worth it. Newer tanks like the M24 Chaffee and M26 Pershing are shorter than the M4 Sherman because they didn’t have to deal with the high drive shaft problem.
That air cooled aircraft engine gave it good low maintenance reliability in the North African desert environment that it was originally designed for.
Pit is correct. A side benefit was also great cooling, which led to improved reliability. Having the engine in the back by itself helped make it easy to repair. As for the transmission, the entire lower front hull was designed to be removed with a few bolts to be able to repair/ replace it.
@@tomt373 No tank was designed for anything so ephemeral as the campaign in North Africa.
The Hellcat had the same or very similar radial engine as did the first few versions of the Sherman, yet the Hellcat was significantly lower than the Sherman. The difference was that the Hellcat used a transfer case mounted vertically which lowered the prop shaft's position in the hull, which of course eliminated the need for a high mounted turret. The Hellcat was designed pretty much in-house by real automotive engineers from Buick.
Glad to see the Sherman getting some love after being maligned for decades.
My uncle commanded a Sherman in Europe. He told me about a tactic they used to knock out the more heavily armored German tanks. When German tanks were approaching they would hide on the opposite side of a sharp ridge or steep hill. When the German tank came over the top of the obstacle it would momentarily expose its soft underbelly. This would allow the Sherman to easily penetrate the underside of the German tank and knock it out.
Another tactic I’ve heard involved shooting one of the tracks of a moving enemy tank. This would cause the tank to turn with the undamaged track. With the side exposed, they would put a round into the fuel cell.
Fascinating. I had always been under the impression that the Sherman was inferior in almost every respect except that the US could crank them out like sausages. This is a whole new perspective.
It's an old myth. All WWII tanks had advantages and weaknesses. British tanks using up to the 6 pounder (57 mm) mostly fired armor piercing rounds. Those may be good for tank to tank warfare, but s no good against infantry/ artillery/ trucks/ dug in positions. For that you want High Explosive. The Sherman was primarily an infantry support weapon so it was as adept at firing HE as well as a big old 75/76 mm AP round. US doctrine really didn't envision the M4 being primarily engaged in tank to tank battles. AT and tank destroyers were for that kind of thing.
The M4 was also easy to ship across the Atlantic or Pacific to actually get to the fight. Rail car weight capacity/ bridge capacity/ crane capacity at ports and footprint on ships are important. The Tiger was so big it had to have its tracks and roadwheels removed and special transit wheel applied to fit on rail cars... not ideal.
The M4 wasn't perfect, but it was a good tank for the USA. Just like the T34 wasn't perfect but it was good for the USSR.
I think that impression comes from the fact that the late war German heavies (even the Panther, which was classed as a medium tank, really was _slightly_ over the line into the heavy category), had so much more in the way of armor and firepower, and they had better mobility than you might think because their much wider tracks and complicated suspension system of interleaved road wheels gave them lower ground pressure, despite the much greater weight. _On paper_ they do look greatly superior.
But the stats don't tell the whole story. The Chieftain, who has a video about how misunderstood and underrated the Sherman is (and he debunks a lot of myths about it), also did a video about the Panther, and his conclusion was interesting: that despite the Panther's impressive gun and armor, it's not a tank he's sure he'd want to go to war in. The issue was that the Panther's poorer ergonomics made it harder for a crew to get the most out of it, and the tank was much harder to maintain. In this video, they point out how easy the Sherman's gearbox was to remove and service. For the Panther, you had to take the whole top of the tank off, remove the driver and bow gunner's seats, take out the radio, etc. etc. in order to pull the transmission back _into_ the tank and lift it out with a crane. That would be a full day in the repair depot, maybe even two. With the Sherman's bolt on/bolt off transmission housing, that would take a couple of hours tops. And since the Panther had notoriously weak final drive gears, that were so prone to breakage they had to speed-limit the tank by general order, this sort of transmission repair was a not-infrequent headache for the Germans. The result: a US or British tank company would generally have almost all its tanks in serviceable condition, while German units might only have half or two thirds of theirs, with the rest down for maintenance. The best tank in the world doesn't help you much if it's not on the battlefield.
And finally, it should be remembered that Panthers and Tigers were not common tanks in German service. The vast majority of tanks encountered by the Allies were the older Panzer IV, against which the Sherman was almost evenly matched -- in fact the Sherman was slightly superior in almost every respect.
Don't let anybody tell you the Sherman wasn't meant to fight other tanks. Keep in mind that tank development proceeded at a blistering pace during WWII. At the time the Sherman was deployed, it was *the* best armored combat vehicle in the world. Germany was never content with just one design and so continued making bigger and more heavily armed tanks throughout the war.
Even the basic snub nosed 75mm Shermans could and did take out Panthers through sound tactics.
Also, the US did crank them out like sausages. Having a whole continent of resources and industry really helps the war effort.
The mk5 Panther is a beauty queen of a tank. When it wasn’t broken or out of service. When you had enough petrol to run it. Reminds me of Italian cars and motorcycles. Terrific vehicle when they aren’t in the shop!. The Sherman is like a tractor. The Sherman is made for go, not for show.
This is a commonly believed myth.
A workmate who was in Sherman tanks in Italy told me one thing about his time there. " It was 4-0... to the Germans ". That's all he ever said. Also, I find it " interesting " that everyone talks about Tigers and Panthers being the problem, when the mainstay of the German tanks divisions were the Panzer IV and they and the " Stugs " that took out more Allied tanks than all other German armour combined.
Stugs destroyed 20,000 tank in Russia during the war. Soviet losses were, at a guess, around 60,000. So if you remove the ones destroyed by the anti-tank guns etc, again guessing at say, 15,000, then you end up with 25,000. The guesses come from various sources. None the less, Stugs did not destroy more than all the other types combined, just more than any other single type. As the Stug with the long 75mm was built in greater numbers that any German tank, that makes sense.
However, in a test the panzer force compared the tank losses, and tank kills, between a PZ IV armed unit and a Stug armed unit. The PZ IV was preferred because it took out a slightly higher number of Soviet tanks due to the ability to turn the gun towards a target without turning the whole tank. The result was that, based on numbers used in combat, the PZ IV had a higher kill ratio than the Stugs, but the Stug was prefered by the Army because it was not limited to use in the panzer divisions.
the problem is that one person's recollection doesn't scale out across the battlefield. If you look at the actual battlefield deaths in the U.S.Army statistics, they are broken down by what branch the soldier was in. For example, Quartermasters Corps lost over 900 soldiers in the war (IIRC 979, but could be wrong), out of a bit more than 400K total American deaths in the war. The Armored Force lost just over 1400 total dead (IIRC 1408) in the entire war, and keep in mind 1/3 of US tanks were light tanks that practically anything could destroy. As another example something like 10x as many were killed in the Field Artillery branch as in the Armored Force. For a war on the scale of WW2 it is a tiny number dead, and while we don't know what fraction of those were killed in Shermans we know it was a very small number of actual soldiers killed.
@@j.f.fisher5318 read a report made by the British army after the war that showed the majority of their losses in tanks was because of commanders riding around without helmets.
@@JoeLClare My father fought in the bocage, and was scornful of tank commanders fresh from N Africa shot because they had their heads out of the hatch. However, realising from this video what limited situational awareness they had when shut down, I understand the compulsion they must have had.
There were a lot of allied tank losses from 88mm flak guns, often at range.
When the Sherman was designed the biggest German tank was the Pz MKIV, it's size and weight was determined by rail and ship capability. The M-4s 75mm gun was the logical choice but the M4 was able to adapt much larger guns where as the Germans had to create entirely new , and unreliable, tanks from scratch in the midst of a war. Would you rather arrive on a battle field with 5 M4s or a single Panzer? PS the most effective anti-tank weapon in Europe was the US Air Force
Absolutely.
The definitive review of the Sherman is made by The Chieftain. The later Sherman's with the 76mm gun and wet storage for the ammunition were arguably the best medium tank of the war.
and continued to see service and upgrades in other armies around the world up to the late 20th century
Hi, Steven I think the "easy eight" was a great medium tank. However, the British "Firefly" with its 12 pounder gun whose rear section had to be mounted sideways inside the turret because of its size, wins it for me!👏😊
The Chieftain video here ruclips.net/video/ACqzevjK2DQ/видео.html
This. Yay for more pretty Sherman pictures, but really this has been thoroughly done by actual subject matter experts. The way he fails to realise the progression between riveted and caste steel hulls is kinda jarring, and then the mistake about the extra armour being to protect the crew. When it was welded on to protect the ammunition…
@@davidbarr9343 gotta agree the "Firefly" takes the cake for anti-armour but the M4A4E8 certainly showed major strides forward for the sherman and maintained the infantry support role. Cheeky 17pdr (not 12 😱) in that firefly certainly could put a dent in German armour.
Not to sound Anglophobic, but it kind of warms my heart when two British scholars agree that we Americans did something right in WWII. ^_~
how is that anglophobic
You alluded to the lack of armor protecting the crew. A German 88 easily penetrated the armor. When it did, it made a horrible mess. The men who had to clean out a tank that had been hit would, sometimes, get physically sick because of what they saw inside. The tank was so well enclosed that the shell fragments would ricochet all over the inside turning the crew into hamburger.
As to the tank commander being exposed when sitting up in the hatch, sometimes it was a benefit. The well known actor Dale Robertson was a tank commander in WWII. His tank was hit and he was thrown out receiving injuries to his legs. His crew was killed.
The M4 was the most survivable tank of the war. If an American Sherman was hit, you had a five out of six chance of getting out alive. The odds were the reverse in a T34.
@@jeremypnet Caveat with survivability is that it is inflated by being constantly on the offensive and having a constant overstock of resources. They could retrieve and render aid easier. With all its features, Shermans still got hit A LOT, resulting in many crippling injuries, because of their silhouette. We can all agree the T-34 was the real creme de la creme POS death trap.
Keep in mind that there were only around 1500 fatalities in Northwestern Europe around Sherman crews. As the Chieftain pointed out, with the improvement in storage of ammo, fire risk went down.
Statistically, it never was any higher than any other tank in Europe at any point, and with the improvements, it was the lowest of any tank. Perception and reality differed significantly.
@@nobodyspecial4702statistics on survivability is not always comparable. The Russians used their tanks very differently (threw them into the meat grinder) in a desperate attempt to defend their country. Most of the German heavier tanks were deployed in the eastern front. The survivability of the Sherman may have been against smaller artillery and more cautious tactics. I highly doubt anyone was making decisions on tank usage with tank survivability statistics in mind.
A more accurate comparison would have been the tank survivability of the Sherman tanks used by the Russians in the eastern front in comparison to the T34.
Comparing German tank survivability to Sherman tanks is also misleading because they were not facing the same threats.
I spoke to a German Tanker from WW2 when I was stationed in Germany in 1970. He told me German Tanks were the best, especially the Panther that he operated. But he told me thare was a problem in that they kept improving the tank so that by the end of the War, in his words "not one screw from one Panther would fit another".
My late father-in-law was a driver mechanic of a 75mm M4A4 Sherman with the (2nd Btn Grenadier) Guards Armoured Division, as an 18-19yr old he went post D-Day through France, Belgium, Holland & Germany. Like many of that generation he didn’t speak much of his war service, the only time he did was when we visited the Bovington Tank Museum, Dorset in the 1980’s, on display was a same livered M4A4 (apart from the troop/squadron marking) adjacent was a bank of 5 Chrysler engines used in the M4A4. He stated he had trained at Bovington Camp during which he had to strip down all five engines and rebuild them within a strict time limit. Other references were watching 75mm shells bouncing off German heavy tanks, being well practised at reversing speeds, and the early hours of one morning, hearing the screams of some members of another tank crew being crushed to death while sleeping under a tank (strictly against orders) in heavy rain on soft ground.
The major advantage of the Sherman over all other thanks is that it could be produced in huge number. Same with the T34.
The other advantage out of all other tanks during the time, very easy to get out of if it was noticed that there was a round starting to cook off, which US ammunition has a slower initial ignition rate giving valuable milliseconds to react, making it vastly more survivable. Also the US crews actually wore their protective head gear resulting in vastly fewer injuries when just driving the dang thing.
If given the choice, I would pick the Sherman over the t34 every time...
If for no other reason then the fact that I can actually FIT into a Sherman
... that and I prefer my armor plates to be held together by more than shoddy spot welds
As an American, when he praised how reliable, mechanically sound, and easy to maintain this machine was, it makes my heart break because we haven’t made any civilian vehicles like that for quite sometime…*cough GM* *cough Ford*….
There was no regard for emissions, as global warming was unheard of. It was a different era. Cracked plastic in a 20 year old GM radiator nearly killed my truck during the summer of last year. Because the hairline crack, leak and ineffective radiator was not apparent for some time. No doubt unnecessary wear or damage resulted. That's an example of what we're dealing with today versus back then: one plastic crap component that initially saved a few dollars over steel or brass inevitably breaks and that can compromise the whole thing.
Sounds like user error. I’ve driven mostly domestic produced vehicles from Ford and Chevy with no major issues and none of them were less than 10 years old and one was pushing 20.
GM builds junk, but at least it is, in many ways, easy to maintain (or repair more likely). You dont even need to tools to take apart many things GM..
Military contracts specify standards for reliability, durability, maintainability. Civilian consumers don't have that kind of influence with manufacturers, unfortunately.
My grandfather commanded one in the war. He rated it against infantry but had no illusions about going head to head with German late war tanks.
On RUclips everybody’s grandfather fought in ww2
@@stc3145 I don't think they did... In fact my kids grandfather definitely didn't. Even fewer commanded a Sherman.
Yes, I don't think it was really intended to go head-to-head with the German main battle tanks.
@@buffymcmuffin5361 absolutely not, allied philosophy was to use aircraft to counter tanks, not other tanks.
My grandad fought in Africa and great uncles in Europe