A few small points from a UK perspective. It was the British who named the tank the "Sherman" (as indeed they had named the Lee/Grant M3s) and the US adopted the name. The oldest surviving Sherman in the world is Bovington's M4A1 "Michael" which was the second production Sherman to be built and was delivered to the UK in 1942. Bovvy for any armoured vehicle fan is a must visit! One final point. You mentioned, absolutely correctly, that the majority of US tank casualties occurred when the crews were dismounted from the vehicle. The British army had exactly the same experience, with crews being injured or killed whilst they were outside of the tank, cooking/brewing tea etc (as well as through emergency). It was for this reason that the British introduced the famed BV (Boiling Vessel) into post-war tanks to allow the crews to eat/drink whilst still inside.
6:00 Some inaccurate statements here. The 76mm gun program was not a conversion. The 76 gun was asked for earlier in the war but tests showed it did not fit adequately in the existing turret. Once the T23 turret was developed, the larger gun was brought into production. All 76mm Shermans did NOT have a muzzle brake. Many went to war with a simple cap over the threads.
The Grant/Lee was a tank with it's main 75mm gun on it's right side low, with the turret equipped with a smaller 37mm gun, which must have been the most ridiculous design of any tank in ww2. In 1942 it may have been able to compete with the German panzer 4 only equipped with a 50mm gun turret, before it was upgunned to 75mm. Strange that the US did not produce the British Crusader Mark tank instead or used it to build from.
Did the US government ever think to examine the tank doctrine other countries, chiefly Germany during the prewar period? first of all they had to know by the time the war started how tanks were being used, according to how Germany was using them, and between 1939 and 1942 the US had plenty of time to modify its doctrine, I’ll bet they never did though, that obstinate, “we know it all!” US Army policy probably bit us right in the proverbial keister. we never change until circumstances become so obvious that we have no choice. case in point, how long did the US navy ordnance board take to finally accept the argument that there was something fundamentally wrong with the Mark 14 torpedo? Yeah! Pride goeth before destruction.
Your comments are completely off the mark. The US did better with their tank development than many countries, among them England and Russia. The Sherman was a fine tank. It was certainly the most mechanically reliable, and had a good armor to firepower ratio. It outperformed the T-34, which suffered from awful construction and poor quality steel. It certainly was on par with the German Mark IV.
Armored Thunderbolt” is an excellent book that will give you information on that and many other questions you may have about the policies of amor corps and the policies they developed in regards to tanks and supply before and during the war. It also will tell you a great deal about the Sherman, its predecessors and it’s opponents.
![Megan Thee Stallion - Mamushi (Remix) [feat. TWICE] [Official Audio]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/5c0_u9PsrsQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Great info! Looking good Dr Cressman
A few small points from a UK perspective. It was the British who named the tank the "Sherman" (as indeed they had named the Lee/Grant M3s) and the US adopted the name.
The oldest surviving Sherman in the world is Bovington's M4A1 "Michael" which was the second production Sherman to be built and was delivered to the UK in 1942.
Bovvy for any armoured vehicle fan is a must visit!
One final point. You mentioned, absolutely correctly, that the majority of US tank casualties occurred when the crews were dismounted from the vehicle. The British army had exactly the same experience, with crews being injured or killed whilst they were outside of the tank, cooking/brewing tea etc (as well as through emergency). It was for this reason that the British introduced the famed BV (Boiling Vessel) into post-war tanks to allow the crews to eat/drink whilst still inside.
Great video, George! 😊
6:00 Some inaccurate statements here. The 76mm gun program was not a conversion. The 76 gun was asked for earlier in the war but tests showed it did not fit adequately in the existing turret. Once the T23 turret was developed, the larger gun was brought into production.
All 76mm Shermans did NOT have a muzzle brake. Many went to war with a simple cap over the threads.
Great information! Have to go there one day!!
Thank you
The Grant/Lee was a tank with it's main 75mm gun on it's right side low, with the turret equipped with a smaller 37mm gun, which must have been the most ridiculous design of any tank in ww2. In 1942 it may have been able to compete with the German panzer 4 only equipped with a 50mm gun turret, before it was upgunned to 75mm. Strange that the US did not produce the British Crusader Mark tank instead or used it to build from.
Very interisting..
Surprised to see an M4A1 with wide tracks.
What an odd duck Sherman!
Hello w tanks
The Sherman tanks was not as good as this guy says.
Did the US government ever think to examine the tank doctrine other countries, chiefly Germany during the prewar period? first of all they had to know by the time the war started how tanks were being used, according to how Germany was using them, and between 1939 and 1942 the US had plenty of time to modify its doctrine, I’ll bet they never did though, that obstinate, “we know it all!” US Army policy probably bit us right in the proverbial keister. we never change until circumstances become so obvious that we have no choice. case in point, how long did the US navy ordnance board take to finally accept the argument that there was something fundamentally wrong with the Mark 14 torpedo? Yeah! Pride goeth before destruction.
Your comments are completely off the mark. The US did better with their tank development than many countries, among them England and Russia. The Sherman was a fine tank. It was certainly the most mechanically reliable, and had a good armor to firepower ratio. It outperformed the T-34, which suffered from awful construction and poor quality steel. It certainly was on par with the German Mark IV.
Armored Thunderbolt” is an excellent book that will give you information on that and many other questions you may have about the policies of amor corps and the policies they developed in regards to tanks and supply before and during the war. It also will tell you a great deal about the Sherman, its predecessors and it’s opponents.
Size and weight had a lot to do with design had to be shipped around the world in the 40s in war time the Sherman did what it was supposed to do
Looking backwards is overly simple and generally wrong.
American ww2 equipment was generally much better than anything else in the world and certainly best from a quantity and logical support.