Busting Tank Myths: M4 Sherman

The American M4 Sherman medium tank is one of the most hotly contested vehicles of World War II, and is actually what inspired this series in the first place. With that being said, it makes sense to finally talk about the myths that plague it. There is a load of misinformation surrounding the M4, so we'll be trying to dispel some of it.
Check the channel "About" section for the link to the creator of my profile picture.
Sources:
Sherman: A History of the American Medium Tank by R.P. Hunnicutt
AD65653 TANK FIRE CONTROL SYSTEMS STUDY (M4, CENTURION, T41, M24)
Data on World War II Tank Engagements Involving the U.S. Third and Fourth Armored Divisions by Ballistics Research Laboratories
American Tanks & AFVs of World War II by Michael Green
Armored Thunderbolt by Steven J. Zaloga
KG-9-3 Gyrostabilizer, 90-mm Gun, In Tanks
Review of "Sledgehammers: Strengths and Flaws of Tiger Tank Battalions in World War II"
Survey of Allied tank casualties in WWII (ORO-T-117)
Songs used (in order from first to last):
Subnautica - Into the Unknown
Halo 3: ODST - Rain (Deference for Darkness)
Sound mods:
Epic Thunder (Pre-release)
Gunner HEAT PC Crew Voices Mod (Personal, go play the game: gunnerheatpc.com/ )
Sponsor: apexgamingpcs.com/pages/spook...
Second channel: / @spookstoon
Patreon: / spookston
Twitter: / spookston
Reddit: /u/spookston
Discord: See my Patreon page.
Twitch: / spookstonwt
Steam: goo.gl/BYQjC9
#warthunder​​​​​​​​​​​​ #tanks​​​​​​​​​​​​ #tankhistory

[@OddBawZ]

BUT THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL SAID IT TOOK 4000 SHERMANS TO RUN A SINGLE TIGER TANK OUT OF AMMO AND THEY WENT ON FIRE IF YOU SNEEZED INSIDE IT

[@eqou]

LIE

[@jiewang6845]

In my experience the discovery channel is like 99% about fishing

[@OddBawZ]

@@jiewang6845 YOU AREN'T STAYING UP LATE ENOUGH PADAWAN

[@tutel8299]

John Miller killed a Tiger with a 1911 in Saving Private Ryan,germans got Gaijined

[@boeing_is_best5632]

*Scottish accent intensifies* BUT THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL SAID THE KING TIGER COULD EASILY KILL A MODERN ABRAMS TANK

[@largain]

Would love to see a series about "how good was ....... tank" focusing on tanks with an overwhelmingly good reputation like the centurion.

[@Drummercommander]

Ooh yes great idea

[@pyronuke4768]

Or T-34. It's a decent tank, but It's attributes (good or bad) often get blown out of proportion.

[@lunatic_nebula9542]

@@pyronuke4768 T34 sucks watch the pig

[@Miles26545]

@@pyronuke4768 it was actually quite bad

[@pyronuke4768]

@@lunatic_nebula9542 The T-34 was not an ideal tank; however, it did at least function as a tank should. Tell me, would you rather have a tank that's terrible and works, or a tank that is terrible and doesn't work at all? Would you rather take a Covananter or take a Valiant?

[@Starscream7680]

"When it comes to military procurement, things rarely make perfect sense" Truer words have never been spoken

[@Somedude317]

"Hey supply, did we get our order?" "Yeah its on the pier" 5 mins of looking at every fucking box but the biggest on the pier later "Supply where is our order?" "Its that one". "I ordered diggits and tape, not whatever that is" Turned out to be a mistake that was supposed to go to another boat that got slapped to our boat somehow. It was an entire ECU packaged in the shittiest way possible.

[@stc3145]

The Shermans were often called «Tommy Cookers» because they supposedly burned alot. As the Chieftan pointed out, this nickname comes from when the British (Tommies) used their tanks in North Africa were its quite hot, especially inside a tank. It has nothing to do with burning. Panzer IIIs and IVs also had ammo mounted on the sides just like the M4 had before the wet storage was introduced

[@lector-dogmatixsicarii1537]

I would like to point out they would put a big ass star right over where ammo was and this was the SHOOT HERE sign for German gun crews. The Sherman was entirely cursed by the hull silhouette since some asshole in the higher ups could not get his cock unstuck from having sexual relations with radials.

[@harveyknguyen]

@@travisbair9375 also the burn rates in the British Shermans was way higher because crews tended to store ammo in every single nook and cranny

[@megoaat]

@@travisbair9375 the ronsons nickname never even existed at the time and was simply a myth

[@Trashmarksman]

Panzer 3,4s also had much thiner effective armor in most of their variants

[@pantherace1000]

@@travisbair9375 You do realize that literally every German tank had hull sponson ammunition storage right, and all of them had a burn rate similar to M4s without the wet storage racks.

[@thedungeondelver]

"The Sherman was an infantry tank, it wasn't designed for tank vs. tank operation!" is another rib-tickler. The Chieftain has already covered it in great detail, but going all the way back to the 30s and the stopgap M3, yes, tank vs. tank combat was planned for. The Sherman absolutely was designed as a tank killer.

[@lector-dogmatixsicarii1537]

They absolutely drug ass for two extra years so the anti tank part of the gun was behind times. Even having the 90mm and 76 for years we still drug loaded diaper ass getting it passed on as per tradition.

[@chaosagent_0106]

It had a medium 75mm AT gun that has a good HE. The perfect gun for the Medium 4. Well not perfect but good and preferred.

[@julmdamaslefttoe3559]

the M3 Cannon is a top tier, When metallurgy in later german war vehicles where dwindling, it was known 3/5 HE 75mm Shots could crack a panthers front plate. In the past 10 years, my opinion of the M4 has changed 3x Depending on the level of knowledge I knew. and as of 2022 I say it WAS the best tank of the war. In regards to economy, Design, Use and more.

[@jackn2236]

@@chaosagent_0106 Nice to see someone properly refer to the M3 gun as a "Medium" as it was of "Medium" length and "Medium" velocity, where many (Including some people I know personally) incorrectly call it either a "Short" barrel or "Low" velocity cannon because it had a shorter barrel and a lower muzzle velocity than the American 76.2mm cannon... You can probably guess my counter to that one... me: So you are saying that the American 76.2mm cannon is also a "Low" velocity cannon because it has a "Lower" muzzle velocity than the British 17 pouner and the same for the German "Short" 88mm on the Tiger 1 when compared to the "Long" 88mm on the Tiger 2?" them: "That is not what I am saying at all!" me:"But that "IS" what you are saying about the M3 75mm on the M4 Sherman isn't it?" them: "EXACTLY!" me:"So why does this logic apply to the M3 75mm on the M4 Sherman but "NOT" to any other cannon mounted on any other tank in the world at all?" them: "..." me: "Well?" them: "..."

[@Scarletraven87]

I follow my general rule that: Most produced = better by default

[@JustMinna]

Great video! Can we get one about the cromwel too? The tank seems to get overlooked by the other vehicles from ww2

[@strategicperson95]

Churchill too. I'm curious if its climbing steeper hill claim is even true, especially since I heard it was able to do so in Korea. Or the interesting claim from a New Zealand tank commander saying a well placed 20 pdr HE round was able to destroy a T-34.

[@spee8132]

what da minna doin

[@jimbothegymbro7086]

Especially since the hull of the Cromwell was used a bunch for up gunned variations like the challenger 1

[@prussianhill]

I'd love to see a Cromwell review vid. I never really took the tank seriously until lazerpig suggested it was the best all-round tank of ww2. I'd like to see a even-handes review of the tank.

[@MonolophosaurusEnj0yer]

@@jimbothegymbro7086 the A30 Chally isn’t the Chally 1

[@michaelhowell2326]

I really dig these "Mythbuster" videos. I would like them to be on the 10ish minute area though. That's about all I can suggest for now.

[@MrJinglejanglejingle]

He's said before that he prefers to make shorter videos, and not pad them out.

[@MultiFelix39]

Funny how the ATF still doesn’t know I own a sherman

[@Thekilleroftanks]

I mean if all the guns are disabled you don't need to tell them seeing in the government eyes it's an overgrown SUV or a bucket less tractor (which is ironic because after the war so many farmers all over the world bought m4 Sherman's to use them just as that, tractors.)

[@StacheMan26]

And if the ATF finds out, well, the machine gun registry might be closed, but you can still register artillery!

[@oldman8996]

Because it was lost in a boating accident

[@mobilememes1313]

Bro were do you buy a tank?

[@AForsakenSlayer]

@@mobilememes1313 eBay, some used car sites. Also if you can afford it, you can buy a brand new fully functional tank right from the manufacturer. Just apply for the tax stamps and boom brand new tank. You just won't have access to any AP rounds as those are the only thing that's actually ban. Everything else can be overcome with money.

[@bubbasbigblast8563]

Ironically, the biggest problem with the Sherman was that it spent so much time going up against field guns and medium tanks that the 76mm gun caused as many problems as it solved.

[@icon517]

Could you elaborate? What hindrances would the 76mm present when going up against these targets?

[@jameswolf133]

@@icon517 the 75 mm had a more effective high explosive round for use against soft targets like infantry and field guns than the 76 mm.

[@bubbasbigblast8563]

@@icon517 The higher pressure forced HE shells to use less charge (barring expensive modifications the US couldn't apply to most shells,) which made them weaker. The bigger issue though (according to the crews,) was that the dust kicked up from the 76 made quick, successive shots difficult.

[@Treblaine]

76mm wasn't terrible against soft targets like anti-tank guns. The high explosive was a bit more than a 60mm mortar round, which wasn't great except the 76mm was a much more accurate gun at long ranges so it was easier to land a shot very near a gun crew. If the US wanted to saturate an area then it would be better to call in artillery than use tanks as artillery. Interestingly, the 76mm turned out to be the best weapon available on Shermans for destroying concrete bunkers. The 75mm and 105mm had more explosives but less velocity, the 76mm gun's velocity let it shatter the concrete more and penetrate deeper before detonating. Probably most missed was canister rounds (which can be dangerous to muzzle brakes as on 76mm), which the 75mm gun had.

[@signolias100]

@@Treblaine or they could just call in the 105mm equipped shermans to blanket an area. it is true the 76 did have weaker HE rounds. it also didn't have willy pete rounds either the 75mm while slower velocity had both but was outclassed in AT by the 76mm and HE by the 105mm. what the 75mm offered was versatility

[@mrdude4124]

M4 is probably my favorite ww2 tank by how much of a reliable work horse tank it is. High adaptability and performance. By far not a perfect tank but for the type of war ww2 was it fit it's role perfectly.

[@onedeprivedboi1625]

Not perfect but as perfect as it could be for American crew to reliably and safely use it

[@SP-sy5nq]

Hell yeah!

[@Toenism]

In what way was at all a "high performance vehicle" other than in the aspect you already mentioned?

[@MasterChiefSargeant]

@@Toenism highest crew survival rate of tanks in ww2? At least in the ones used for as long as in large numbers

[@onedeprivedboi1625]

@@Toenism The Sherman was built with Reliability as in Ease of Repair and maintinance and Survivability of the crew. While having a 75mm cannon to chuck HE shells at soft targets that Infantry needed destoryed or to deal with AT guns. The role of a tank of course is to support infantry. While the M10 would do the fighting against other armoured vehicles if they were to show up. I believe crews of the Sherman did not want the 76mm cannon due to the HE shells more lack luster filler on the 76.

[@AnaithnidEsblenin]

That cut at 3:58 where you get struck and it jumps to another battle was clean.

[@matthieuzglurg6015]

I've heard a few times in the past years that the Sherman was a tank that was not very survivable for its crew, myth that has been maintained by the fire hazard reputation of the tank when bein struck. Thing is, the Sherman have been designed with crew survivability in mind : the tank is quite roomy so it's quite easy to move inside it, and there is pretty much hatches everywhere for crewmen to escape if the tank if need be. Compare that to the extremely cramped T-34/76, or the Panther that doesn't even have a hatch for the loader. (the Sherman was also lacking a loader's hatch, thing that was fixed on the T-23 turret. The US military also gave kits to add the hatch on the older turret design)

[@Toenism]

Yet there is no evidence to suggest it was a more survivable tank than most others.

[@matthieuzglurg6015]

@@Toenism well I would say there is when it comes to Pz IVs and early T-34s. For the other, it's either not big of a difference, or the data sample is not big enough to actually draw conclusions (I mean the situation is really hard to measure to begin with)

[@pyronuke4768]

I've heard that the crews nicknamed Shermans "Ronsons" because they "lights first time, everytime." This is in spite of the fact that (a) Zippos were vastly more popular for the 1940s American soldier, and (b) Ronson wouldn't use that catchphrase until 1954.

[@Kottery]

I can't recall where I found the document as it's been many years, but I saw a casualty report for the US Army that showed being a tank crewman (which would be most likely in a Sherman) had the lowest casualty rate and was the safest combat job to be.

[@Toenism]

@@Kottery This document only includes tank corps casualties which represented only a fraction of actual troops killed while crewing tanks. If you compare the amounts of tanks lost and written off to tank corps casualties you get a ridiculous number of something like

[@Gary_The_Metro]

It's simple, I call the Sherman the best tank of the war. Not because I think it is or isn't. But because it makes the wehraboos angry, and that is amusing to me.

[@Warmaker01]

Wehraboo Panzer Supremacy with broken down panzers and catching on fire before getting into battle!

[@mobilememes1313]

Fucking chad

[@AUsernameWeShallMarchToKiev]

The turan II was clearly the best tank of WW2. It was so good it was unfair to anyone facing it so the Hungarians swapped theirs out for T-34s as soon as they got some. /s

[@patchmoulton5438]

We all know the Bob Semple was the real best tank.

[@nahuelleandroarroyo]

You can push for a 2x1 and trigger commieboos "rugged" "cheap" "angled armour". Bruh those tanks barelly had AP ammo, radios, optics, seating and turret baskets early war, even in late war with the bigger turrets storage bins outside the tanks became a thing because a crew could not carry supplies inside

[@TheSuperZOS]

It's not strictly a Sherman thing but I'm rather interested in a similar video on Firefly. Or, even better, the weird history of post-war Shermans and Fireflies and what places like Argentina did to them.

[@julmdamaslefttoe3559]

The Firefly is one of my most hated Weapons of WW2, Give me a Sherman M3/75mm pls, I like to reload effectively

[@russman3787]

Super Shermans are really cool imo.

[@kingkairos2437]

Another thing on the stabilizer that the chieftain has brought up a lot is that while its not amazing for the main gun, it works brilliantly for the coax. Hes made it a constant point to bring up how effective a stabilized coax gun is

[@ssh6659]

0:25 I'm not so sure, I know a lot of people who respect the tank as being reliable but not the best. Just what I think

[@sagareaper3263]

Most important factor of its reliability is that the components were easily replaced and spare parts were plentiful. Not enough people who study AFVs take that into account. The fact that so many don’t know this helps to play into the love it or hate it ideologies. I see where Spookston is coming from here.

[@jacksonlarson6099]

@@sagareaper3263 The echelon system of repair and highly standardized mass production made maintenance and repair an absolute breeze for the Sherman. It also helps to design tanks that are powerful enough to pull other tanks off the battlefield.

[@ssh6659]

@@sagareaper3263 I wasn't saying that there weren't polarizing opinions I'm just saying its not as black and white as it might have been described,

[@sagareaper3263]

@@ssh6659 I understood when replying

[@overvieweffect9034]

and to me, the number 1 myth surrounding the sherman is that the reason it caught so much on fire is because it used a gas engine rather than a diesel one. I know you've mentioned this before, and you talked about fires here, but this myth still persists to a degree

[@Bird_Dog00]

I first came across this as a little boy watching some old war movie where a us tanker stated that their tanks burnded all the time because of the gasoline engine, while the germans had diesel engines. Took quite a while unil someone explained to me how much this was BS. Not idea where the german diesel tank thing came from, but the bad rep of the M4 probably had a lot to do with Belton Cooper suffering from a serious case of sample bias. His job was to repair and salvage tanks so most M4 he got to see were the ones that either got killed or broke down.

[@nahuelleandroarroyo]

@@Bird_Dog00 but not burnt, a burnt tank cannot be fixed, so if Cooper had work it was because crews bailed put after hits and penetrations (mobilityand mission kills) or tanks could both be towed back and fixed.

[@Bird_Dog00]

@@nahuelleandroarroyo I haven't read the book but form others discussing it I would expect that his job included salvaging and damage assesment. While a vehicle that burned out would most likely be written off, someone had to take a gander at the wreck and check the "FUBAR" box on the form.

[@Schwarzvogel1]

@@Bird_Dog00 Yep, the German tanks also had petrol, not diesel engines. And they burned just as nicely as any other petrol-engined tank.

[@signolias100]

the sad thing is they cite the whole "the sherman burned more because of the gas engines" myth yet know little of where the fuel tanks are on a sherman or even that the fact the engine bay had a manually activated engine bay fire extinguisher for such a case.

[@insertcringe2220]

Jo I've heard that regarding the stabilizer, there was like one armoured division that *really* effectively used it, due to lack of training in the other ones. So, is this because this division knew how to repair their stabilizers earlier than the others, and therefore this fact only covers a specific time frame, or is it simply wrong?

[@aker1993]

i think it was the 3rd armored division or the 4th armored division because those two have more training than most armored divisions during ww2

[@phoenixyo9987]

Ive always liked the Sherman, and if I had to pick a Tank for my main forces, it would be the Sherman in WW2. Its just designed by its very nature to be reliable and useful for the kind of war WW2 was. You can't ship a tank overseas in huge numbers if you're tank breaks down after landing on the beach.

[@julmdamaslefttoe3559]

aye, And ammo is hard to resupply when only 1 in 1000 Armoured vehicles use said ammo. Looking at you M1/M2/M3 90s

[@raketny_hvost]

I'd better choose late 34-85 for multitask as sherman had better piercing and comfort but way less mobility and power for both HE and AP shells

[@Paladin_Aurum]

Ha! Designed to be reliable… If they wanted to make it actually reliable a radial engine wouldn’t have been installed. A diesel would’ve been a superior option. But that wasn’t the case. They were designed to be cheap and quick to manufacture in high quantity.

[@jacobdewey2053]

@@Paladin_Aurum Shermans were incredibly reliable though

[@pedrolft9010]

I would pick the panzer 4

[@tacomas9602]

The Sherman was a fucking chad of a tank, it had actually very respectable armour when you look at it without thinking you’re the gunner of a fucking Tiger 2. It was reliable, had effective armament, and wasn’t too big or too small. It was a capable vehicle that served for many years after the main WW2 too.

[@utzius8003]

Yeah, good luck knocking out a sherman with your short 75mm, 37mm or 50mm cannons.

[@frankhernandez6883]

that's cause they made TOO many. I dare say the t-34/85 and JS-I & II were easily better tanks

[@tacomas9602]

@frankhernandez6883 the T-34/85 and the Early JS heavy tanks don't compare quite the same. Many Russian tanks, almost all of them from that era, were simply inferior in some regards. Crew comfort, ease of egress, gun handling etc. The sherman has many advantages, easy to use 5 speed manual you don't need hammers for and enough room in the turret and hull to actually get stuff done in combat. The T-34/85 certainly got the job done though. I think if training was equal I'm sure the soviet tankers would give any sherman crew a hell of a fight.

[@frankhernandez6883]

@@tacomas9602 remember...the Reds HAD Shermans due to lend-leash. Why do U think there were hardly any Shermans on the Eastern Front? They were RED COOKERS and the Soviets thought they were inferior to their armor.

[@frankhernandez6883]

@@tacomas9602 FURTHER...it was the AAF (Army Air Force) that won the war for us. 1-Rail transport got bombed 2-Armor moving along roads were bombed 3-German industry was bombed. Russia if we would've continued the war would've suffered the same fate.

[@priestofsyrinx6681]

You should do a video on the myths of the T-64 through the T-90 (Y'know, the Soviet Cold War autoloader tanks). I feel like there are a lot of misconceptions about them, especially with the current conflict in Ukraine.

[@ThatOneGuy46696]

I'm not racist but all the Soviet Frying Pans look the same. okay maybe slightly racist

[@spiritmoon5998]

@@ThatOneGuy46696 T54s and T55s have the bore fume extractor on the end of the barrel as well as the gap in between the first and second road wheel. T54 has a ventilator cap on the turret. T62 has the fume extractor a little more down the barrel, a more squashed turret, and a gap behind the third and fourth road wheel. T64 looks like a T72 but with small road wheels. T72s pretty much look like a more sleek and pointy T62 with a slightly different turret. T55 and T54 are 100mm, T62 115mm, T64 and T72 125mm. I can't really tell the external difference of T80s and T90s and all their variations off of the top of my head, but the T80 has a gas turbine engine.

[@evo3s75]

@@spiritmoon5998 T-90 is basically a differently dressed T-72, the T-90A has 2 boxes on the front (Shtora) and the T-90M(and MS) have a bigger turret because of all the ERA and the different build (bigger) turret. T-80 is easily recognizable if you look at the engine deck (smooth, no vents) and the back of the turret (the snorkel for the engine inlet is always on the back of the turret) and then you have the engine exhaust which is in the middle on it's ass

[@ThatOneGuy46696]

@@spiritmoon5998 yeah yeah I know the differences down to the curves of the turrets. I'm just racist against Soviet Frying Pans.

[@lector-dogmatixsicarii1537]

Being a Soyuz is not a myth, they just are. I mean what can you fucking say. Soviets took an axe and hacked the corners away with zigzag scissors as per usual. You drive it like a claymore or you die. This has been the consensus in Ukraine. T-64's have been camping and dying less while the T-72's have been deep throating NATO industrial complex Xenomorph javelins.

[@awndolznmowdlzkwndznwua]

Oh I just got the M4 on the chinese tree, this is perfect timing!

[@padnightmare6963]

Sherman,T-34,Tiger, Panther, Kingtiger are either the best tanks ever built and the pinnacle of tank design, or travelling coffins that should never have existed.

[@AUsernameWeShallMarchToKiev]

Military “reformers” moment: (Basically the reformers believe WW2 tanks are the best ones ever made and can whip a MBT’s ass into the stratosphere should they fight one)

[@SirBinding]

​@AUsernameWeShallMarchToKiev I might be two years late but whom the hell believes a T-34 could 1v1 a T-90M and win

[@fal.0656]

Really nice video aproach, well done Spookston

[@michaelgautreaux3168]

👍👍. Have to say I'm pro Sherman. As far as armored vehicles go, it's the M113, T54/55 & the M4. For a multitude of reasons. Many thanx.

[@jakobbelt1436]

Love youre videos they keep my love for the game and has helped me alot in the game

[@__Tiny__]

Thanks for the release on my birthday, was very nice.

[@Residentbrit281]

Great vid man!!! You should do one on the Churchill

[@Danniels95]

That was a great transition at 4:00

[@Nero-dz5gr]

I think the Sherman chassy has been used too much ..it had SO many variations which all had their problems. Thats where probably alot of dislike comes from.

[@Trashmarksman]

Or it's because of Belton cooper

[@cmsIGauffahrgestellPanzerkampf]

Pretty much sums up American armour and why people prefer other factions vehicles, because they would just contain cast sherman, sherman but somewhat welded, fully welded sherman, sherman without radial engine, sherman with more fancy gun, sherman with fancy howitzer, spg sherman, extra thicc sherman, extra thicc sherman but with fancy gun too, railgun testbed sherman, AA sherman, armoured recovery sherman, sherman but can swim, concrete sherman, inflatable sherman and maybe a few stuarts, pershings and chaffees.

[@jic1]

@@Trashmarksman I've heard that's actually a really good book if you ignore all the parts directly related to its premise.

[@Trashmarksman]

@@cmsIGauffahrgestellPanzerkampf as apposed to what? The Germans with it's forty different panzer 3,4,and 5 variants or the Russians with their t34s falling out of their a$$ not to mention kv1,t54,t28,or the t72 all with slightly different armor layouts and guns

[@bro3217]

@@Trashmarksman there aren't many variations of the panther. Besides that I'm pretty sure everyone's point here is that the Americans basically used only Sherman's where as people like the germans had more variety in their tanks.

[@bonesmalone5802]

the best way to describe the sherman is just good

[@nathanisjesuschrist1175]

Spookston pls idk if you'll ever read this but don't be afraid to make vids on other games or topics. I love your personality and ways of thinking and I would love to see some stuff on other games youre interested in! I love your channel mate and I wish nothing but the best for you!

[@camman2547]

Keep up the good work trust me we appreciate it

[@HakimFinger1953]

Well done on the video Spookston, I recommend the Challenger MBT or the Leopard I & II for the series.

[@PoisoningShadow671]

"Bruh Sherman tank lights on fire so easy because of gasoline engine and sponson ammo!" German Tank: Monkey_look.jpg

[@julmdamaslefttoe3559]

good info on wet stowage and it placement of rounds

[@erloriel]

The tank-furry striking again with the knowledge bombs! Nice. Love your vids.

[@Ksportin]

There are a lot of things that annoy me about arguments about which tank was better or whether or not a tank was utter crap. But the two biggest ones for me are that a) it doesn't matter and b) it ignores all context around why the tank (or other equipment) was designed and made the way it was. Was the M4 Sherman the best tank of the war? Maybe. Was it the best tank for the US at the time? Probably. The M4 Sherman was a tank that could be built, loaded onto a ship, shipped around the world, and then worked pretty much where ever it was and did whatever was needed, with a reliability that massively helped ease the strain on US logistics. Both the Germans and the Soviet Union fielded heavier tanks, in part because they could. With the exception of Germany fighting in North Africa, their logistics line was across land and even in North Africa they relied more on lighter armour. What blows my mind, is that the US went from the M2 medium to the M4 in like 3 years, was it? And the resulting tank worked FAR more reliably in North Africa than anything I can think of that was designed and produced here in Britain. And we had a lot more experience making tanks than the US.

[@onebigfatguy]

I can think of only two British tanks that did well in Africa. The Matilda II's and the Crusader's

[@cmsIGauffahrgestellPanzerkampf]

To me this is just the historical equivalent of the consoles wars, arguing about whos the best is pointless and overly drawn out and boils down to your opinions and preferences or your just in it for the feel or looks of curtain vehicles which is also probably why heavies see more interest, they just seem more cooler.

[@Godofchaosdragons]

Honestly I love the Sherman for its adaptability and how modifiable it is. Like look at all the variations of the Sherman that were used during the war.

[@badmouth1542]

This video perfectly demonstrates why the Sherman is my favorite afv of The Second World War, and why I’m banned from most of the armored forums on Reddit 😂.

[@coffee0093]

Reddit is a shitty site it's probably a blessing

[@Lxxrxns]

Man I missed those type of videos👑

[@theunknownwarrior632]

Shermans have a soft spot and close to my heart as my great grandad drove them from North Africa to the end of the war. He was a dessert rat

[@foxmaster6963]

Bought ur decal like 3 weeks ago and I love it :)

[@GeneralLee2000]

Ah yes, Fury moment (referring to the 5 shermans to a tiger of course)

[@Warmaker01]

If Fury was to be more realistic, what would have happened was the Germans falling over themselves to surrender to the Western Allies and not get caught by the Russians.

[@GeneralLee2000]

@@Warmaker01 The 76 shermans would have shot through its unangled front plate... or the side... not have to flank and pump a shot into the engine

[@Castragroup]

@@GeneralLee2000 tiger would have just shot them at 2000 meters. well out of range for 76

[@Castragroup]

yeah it was closer to 4

[@GeneralLee2000]

@@Castragroup there was too much cover for that... if we're talking about the situation in the movie.

[@meatball.9710]

Please talk about the semoventes. You can take your pick, but the semovente da 90/53 would be a good one to start with.

[@santoast24]

My Grandpa served in Italy as part of the 88th Infantry Division, The Blue Devils (first in Rome) but unfortunately he passed away before I ever took an interest in history, so I never once talked to him about any of it. An old family friend tho, served as like... an air tanker (like fuel tanker, not.. anyway) in North Africa and.... I think some time in France after D-Day, something along the lines. He was always very adamant about the Sherman being a piece of junk, and about how we should have built Tigers and Panzers and Panthers, but since our factories werent always being bombed, we could have built them better. Problem is, he passed away before I was too old as well, and also... he didnt deal with tanks on a regular basis... soo

[@brennanleadbetter9708]

He probably would’ve complained about the Tiger/Panthers high maintenance.

[@JagdPanzerE-yo5uq]

Man that camo looks sick

[@slowlydying6967]

"not as bad" is a better phrase when comparing counties military tech than "better" or "best" I'm a huge sherman fan, but I understand the thing had plenty of shortcomings. I also think it looks the best when it's covered in Bustle racks and spare tracks and such. Wish more media would have tanks loaded up like that

[@punic4045]

I agree, tanks look much cooler when they look like they've been running from one place to another carrying troops, ammo, and pounding AT guns and pillboxes all day.

[@signolias100]

i'd argue the sherman was good, not great not terrible, just good. it did the job it was designed to do and did it fairly well

[@slowlydying6967]

@@signolias100 well if you make that argument than almost all tanks are good haha

[@signolias100]

@@slowlydying6967 not really. if we look at them and consider armor, speed, firepower, reliability, and other less definable parameters (like comfort for example) we can see a fairly large number of tanks that are just not good. for example the m3 lee/grant wasn't really a good tank.

[@slowlydying6967]

@@signolias100 it did the job it needed to do and did it well. Be a stopgap until the sherman was ready

[@nekomakhea9440]

>Why didn't the US Army keep the single axis stabilizer until the two-axis stabilizer worked? Because the "C" in "US Army" stands for "Common Sense"

[@TheOriginalGrungust]

I'd love to see you do videos on Italian WW2 tanks.

[@MonolophosaurusEnj0yer]

Hey Spookston, could you talk about the Swiss modifications of the Staghound when you do another tanks that should be added to WT? There’s one with a 47mm cannon, and another armed with the same gun as the R3 T20.

[@alpacaofthemountain8760]

Shermans will always have a place in my heart, a tank I can be proud of as an American

[@Mike-tu7uw]

😂😂As what? A death trap?

[@STzim]

I think it's the logistics that could be mentioned. Easy to ship, easy to repair, individual parts and whole tank tested on reliability. Tiger spends a lot more time in repair shops as it is more likely to have issues that need some field repair and is harder to repair. Now question is do you prefer to be the best IF the tank works or do you prefer your tank to always work.

[@Darkness_My_Fetish]

I find it to be the most well rounded tank. With fantastic crew survivability with a acute focus on reliability and ease of maintenance.

[@wacojones8062]

Looking at Marine operations in the Pacific they crammed every round they could fit into the tanks mostly HE rounds. That reduced the need to break off combat to reload with ammo improved the chance of breaking everything the Ground Pounders needed smashed and reduced to some extent the chances of not taking a needed shot due to worries about running out of ammo at a critical point in a fight. They carried crates of grenades, rifle and machinegun ammo plus five-gallon cans of water for the Ground Pounders to draw from all around the engine compartment externally. Most Japanese tanks could be dealt with using one HE round well placed.

[@Thatssoscketchy]

Hey Spookston! Recently, I was wondering what changes the XM1 undertook to become the m1, and was wondering if you would be interested in covering the differences between prototype tanks and their production line variants?

[@shizuoheiw]

From what I know the Sherman had 2 advantages over pretty much everyone else, first was crew survival rates and second was really good logistical support, if you have those 2 things you don't really need the best specs, you only need specs that are good enough

[@bkjeong4302]

Don’t forget reliability. The Sherman was the only WWII-era tank that wasn’t constantly breaking down.

[@shizuoheiw]

@@bkjeong4302 that seems right from what I've heard, but some of that could be a result of good logistics rather than design, I velieve the deaign was reliable and have heard as much, but I don't know enough about french or german tanks to say ot was designed in a more reliable way than it's peers (To anyone wondering I left russia out of that list on purpose)

[@deezboyeed6764]

@@bkjeong4302 tbf theres the argument to be made that it wasn't anymore reliable but like say the ak it was super easy to repair. So in the morning when asking how many tanks would be ready to could easily be 98% since anything that got damaged was quickly fixed wjere as with germans and their way of building it took much longer to even do simpler things.

[@signolias100]

the sherman also had a better set of gunner sights with it having up to three sights (no zoom sight, 2x zoom, and something like 8x zoom) where the germans only had a single sight that was magnified

[@michielvanmol3529]

Crew survival wasn’t particularly great compared to the other tanks that were fielded so I don’t know why that’s one of its advantages.

[@politenessman3901]

One of the issues relating to M4s burning was "lap ammo" and extra rounds that some commanders insisted be carried outside of stowage, any penetration was a good chance to ignite it. I don't have my references handy, but I think it was covered in Armored Thunderbolt by Zaloga

[@AdrianOkay]

if a lap ammo gets hit there's a high chance the loader with it does as well so imo dead crew is as bad as an ablaze sherman

[@politenessman3901]

@@AdrianOkay the concern with a burning tank, isn't the tank, it's the crew. if the ammo in a sherman goes up, its unlikely anyone is getting out.

[@icampexfils3637]

My grandfather was a tanker in WW2 and Korea comanded a late war Easy 8 I remember 8yo me listening to him tell stories and details about his tank and crew members. Good video man it brought me back to those talks with him.

[@nick0875]

Kill claims are very difficult to verify because unlike video games no one is sitting around on a battlefield and keeping count on what killed what.

[@jsplicer9]

Your Sherman decals look amazing! How did you get the gold stars and stripes?

[@PitFriend1]

The US had also determined that the glycol solution used in wet stowage wasn’t worth the hassle. In Korea they didn’t even bother to fill the stowage with it in the first place, just leaving the jackets empty. One less maintenance task to bother with.

[@darkninjacorporation]

The M4 Sherman and it's many variants have had the misfortune of (successfully) enduring one of the longest slander campaigns in military history. A few rumors started by men who worked within, alongside, or behind these vehicles have been perpetuated, exaggerated, and repeated over the last 70+ years by those men's descendants who up until the maturing of the internet and common availability of niche information, really had no idea what they were talking about. It is only in the last few years that the well deserved reputation that this historic vehicle and others like it earned are making their comeback. The M4 Sherman was such a great tank, it's armor stood up to an entire generation of fudd lore. That's a win in my book!

[@paoloviti6156]

What you stated is a bit misleading because altrough you are correct about the wet ammo but was introduced during mid 1944 by installing installing most of the ammo on the floor so the Shermans arrived to Normandy with the ammo stored on the sponsors on both sides but despite being up armoured welding slabs on the sides it was still vulnerable. But by putting the ammo on the floor improved, apparently, by 75% the chances for the crew. But there was still issues like having gasoline powered engines unless it was powered by diesel engines, typically used by commonwealth troops, but the ready ammo rack was still vulnerable and finally many Shermans had a mono-hatch on the turrets. Finally many tanks was fitted with the flat padded tracks making it prone to skid on grass, ice and snow. That said despite being an excellent tank it was normally always on the offensive by attacking the Germans that usually was waiting for them but nevertheless armour protection was never a strong point of this tank....

[@Tank50us]

To add to the wet ammo bins.... While they didn't stop a fire from starting, they did slow it down enough that the crew could evacuate the tank before it brewed up completely. It didn't always work out that way, but it was better than having no chance at all.

[@tinchorb1340]

And its fairly easy to escape a sherman Thanks to the spring-help hatchs, and the hatches being wide, very easy

[@samwisethe5th112]

Yes! Sherman vid!

[@thequarantiner7828]

so I don't know if this is true, but I would like to know if the sherman really has most varints out of any other tank. if so who by how much, and if not what tank really does have the most variant(i know variants is a real loose term but I think the vaugeness may allow more of a discussion)

[@Panopod]

Hey Spookston love the vids, I've got a topic suggestion: War Thunder's mobility problem - more specifically tracked vehicle driving. So for a game that touts 'accuracy' of its vehicles there's currently a lack of accurate drive models - which causes many vehicles to drive unrealistically e.g. compare a video of a Chieftain or M60 maneuvering compared to their in-game counterparts. I was initally typing up a wall of text fuelled by my frustrations with this game but I'll keep it to some brief points instead: - Traction (this is well known) is currently bugged with tanks unable to overcome steeper slopes. - Neutral steering is currently hopeless, refusing to work on the slightest of slope or undulating terrain. - All tracked vehicles in game use simple clutch-brake steering which causes them to haemorrhage speed on the slightest of turns, this is particularly painful on vehicles with mediorce hp/t (looking at you challengers). In reality most tracked vehicle transmission use regenerative steering - allowing for reactionary mobility unlike that of a cruise ship. Posting this in hopes of getting some more traction (pun intended) regarding the issue, since driving is a core part of the game and is often overlooked. Edit: spellings

[@benjaminwatson7868]

Please do a video on my favorite tank the M36 GMC Jackson/Slugger

[@joshuambodie9410]

I love your videos

[@Patches-vq8cd]

I hope you do a vid on the Churchill some time

[@dennislemasters4339]

the shermans when first entering combat in 1942 in north africa were pretty good their armor was decent and the most powerfull tank they would encounter the tiger 1 was rare it was mostly stugs, panzer 1's, panzer 2's, panzer 3's and panzer 4's the shermans fought which they could fight effectively even with their 75mm gun, they would not encounter the panther untill italy and the king tiger untill the invasion of normady by which point the americans and british had ways to counter them

[@ShonRT]

I'm a huge M4 Sherman fan! Can you do a video on the M36 Tank Destroyer? I feel like the vehicle gets overlooked by the M10, M18, and even the M26 Pershing.

[@signolias100]

i'd love to see one specifically on the m36b2 variant you'd find that variant very interesting

[@bigjake0619]

could you do a video on the pattons? m48 m60 and their variants?

[@arwood111]

Good video

[@Dovahkiin520]

From my findings, all M4 models had smoke grenade launchers but in War Thunder, only the M4A3 105 has it, which is weird lol

[@flare9757]

The most painful myth I have heard is that it has a steering wheel.

[@flotterotter1202]

Hey spook could you talk about how accurate the destructive power of APHE etc. in War Thunder is compared to real life? i think it's kinda odd to see pretty much every APHE round in war thunder one shotting almost everything it penetrates

[@guywhodoesstuff3314]

I think he's mentioned it in passing before, but an ammo myth video would be pretty neat

[@user-ox6li1fy3g]

Like the T-34, Sherman's biggest advantage was their number

[@LilNuss]

Could you talk about Air/Tank simulator battles and where they sit amongst the war thunder community. I mostly play simulator so your opinion on it would be interesting, love your content Spooks.

[@user-um5oy8cf6f]

i was just wondering, what is your opinion on the Weisel1A4 spook? i tried it today and its the most entertaining tank ive ever played. Hiding infront of whole enemy teams and beeing so small is hilarious

[@modica3466]

I mean, if all the Sheraman had pretty bad crews, a german feline in a good spot would take down A LOT of them, the only he would stop was by running out of ammo, which would take a while.

[@Miles26545]

Do a video on the a10; I know is a plane but it still fits

[@dennisswaim8210]

The Sherman was the best tank in the world for about 6 months. It was good enough and was improved constantly throughout the war with the last models being superior to the PZKV IV. Panthers and Tigers were a different matter. But there were alot of Shermans around in 45 and not so many of the big cats. The Panzerwaff had lost the majority of its veteran crews by then.

[@pavleh4602]

It would be interesting to see what tank would fight with whom , like if warthunder had historical brs

[@shturm602]

Can we have a video on T-72 myths? Quite a lot of people seem to have some misconceptions

[@axtoncam3661]

I don't know if you have done this but could you do myths on British tanks from ww2 and some post modern tanks?

[@alexanderwaite9403]

As the Chieftain states the M4 was the best tank for the US military in WW2

[@jordangames2560]

I mean if you can’t get a tank to the frontline (Pershing) than it can’t be used

[@Kalashnikov413]

@@jordangames2560 Pershings were underpowered and had problems regarding its suspension, which is why the M46 Patton was created in the first place

[@jordanthomas4379]

Do you have any thoughts on autonomous tanks? Basically a tank that is unmanned and operated as a drone.

[@dougcoombes8497]

Interesting about the wet ammo storage. I think overall the Sherman was a good tank, but some of the crews hated them. I knew a Sherman tank driver from the Canadian military who's tank got knocked out in Normandy killing the rest of his crew. He remained VERY bitter about the Sherman's shortcomings for the rest of his life.

[@chadjustice8560]

That's extremely flaws logic on his part. The Sherman had been in north Africa before Normandy and how did it do? It rolled and help push the Nazis out. It goes to Normandy where everything had to be fought completely different and with a bunch of green tankers and it's the tanks fault lol I guess the Sherman's that fought all the way from north Africa to Germany were just junk then.

[@dougcoombes8497]

@@chadjustice8560 He lost his entire crew of friends and spent a week behind enemy lines hiding from the Germans. I think he was more than entitled to his opinion.

[@Szczur2004]

Theirs a book about M4 Sherman’s being Death Traps, can you going into more depth on the subject plz, love your videos

[@Akatsuki_716]

Basically, it was written by a guy that worked (either directly, or with others that were) with tank recovery teams during World War 2, so he only really saw knocked out/burned out Shermans. The book is widely regarded as being pretty poor overall. The Chieftain here on KZbin has some excellent videos on the subject that talk about the Sherman overall in quite a lot of detail.

[@Szczur2004]

Oh thank you 👌

[@An-American]

The Sherman is better than people think. It’s hull was highly reusable and allowed many many variations for many different tasks which is why I personally think it is the one of the greatest tanks of WW2. The US army want stupid if it really did suck as bad as some people think it would’ve been quickly replaced.

[@flyzart8148]

just curious, ofc the stabilizer wasnt applied to the pershing, but why was it not reused later on on the m48 and m60, or at least a more advanced version?

[@999Phiro]

Ngl, for all of the perceived shortcomings, I honestly think the M4 was the best tank produced and fielded in the war overall. Considering that the only tank that was more produced than it was was the T-34, and that the Sherman performed relatively well in most if not all aspects it was utilized during the war compared to all competitors, I think that's a fair statement. Especially considering the machines took much less man hours to produce compared to other comparable tanks, and were still effective and reliable in the field. And considering that it was adapted (even poorly by most standards) to conduct a variety of roles outside of regular medium tanks, see Firefly, 105, Crocodile, and others, the tank performed quite well considering it was outside of normal parameters.

[@michaelsoland3293]

Sherman best tank, no take any criticism On a side note I love the subnautica music in the background

[@Kardia_of_Rhodes]

"Sherman wuz infantry tank!" Nevermind the fact it was developed literally in response to Gemany's panzer program and subsequent blitzkrieg into France.

[@Xeemix]

How about a video on the Churchill?

[@onlyarandomusername]

poor archer, just staring there at the end

[@troyboii5238]

Can you do a review on the Skink a Canadian Sherman AA.

[@Serbian_War_Criminal]

Nice