Chieftain Talks M4 Sherman & 76mm

[@fredorman2429]

As a kid in the US during WWII all I ever heard was that our Sherman’s were junk and the Germans had hordes of invincible tigers. At 82 I am grateful to The Chieftain for debunking these myths.

[@JeremiahPTTN]

Thank you sir! Seeing an older gentleman such as yourself willing to change your opinion gives me hope! I have always struggled against the stubbornness of older generations and it is nice to see a man who can so clearly change his mind with the data! Bravo sir!

[@McSkumm]

I'm not 82 but I grew up hearing the same garbage too, and I too am glad to see it finally turning around.

[@darnit1944]

I felt lucky because i was convinced by the myth for 5 years until Chieftain talks about it

[@andrewwoodhead3141]

Straight up , Sir ! Yes, thanks to the Chieftain it has become quite clear that allied troops had nothing to complain about when it came to the Sherman tank. Yet , as you point out , complain they did . What Garbage ! You certainly never heard German or Russian soldiers whining about their tanks, only American soldiers. What a load of rubbish it turned out to be (their stories, not the Sherman tank) ! I've completely lost any respect for the wartime generation , well the tankers at least....

[@thomasbaagaard]

Especially funny when one consider that no American tanker faced a tiger in France.

[@matthayward7889]

Literally just finished making a mug of tea: Chieftan, your timing is impeccable as always!

[@F4Wildcat]

For me he issent! I agreed to do the dishes and the trash collecting and then he uploads..

[@vonskyme9133]

With that profile image, one would suspect he has several dozen chances a day...

[@brag0001]

@@F4Wildcat I find the chieftain videos to match very well with the chore of washing the dishes or cooking 😉

[@ronboe6325]

I used to work with a fellow that was a tanker in north Africa; in a Sherman that used the stabilized 75mm. He would wax on on how wonderful that tank and gun was. Just one data point, but I didn't hear anything negative about the Sherman until the Internet became popular.

[@KevinSmith-ys3mh]

For an allied tanker in the North African campaign, he had every right to feel that way! At the time of El Alamein to Operation Torch, he was in the latest, best made, planned, tested and supported Medium tank available to the allies. It would be forced to evolve rapidly however, as the nextgen of Panzers was in development to deal with the Soviet armour threat. Tigers (Pzkw6) weren't encountered until the last battles of North Africa, too late and too few to change the outcome. Panther (Pzkw5) wasn't in production phase yet, until Kursk, and basically unusable even then.

[@justforever96]

No, I've been hearing that since I was a kid. But a lot less people talked about tanks and WW2 in general when I was a kid. I was the weird one reading military history in school. I heard how "the Sherman tank caught on fire easily because it had a gasoline engine", which I still see sometimes. And how it wasn't able to defeat German tanks, etc. They were myths that came from 1950s comic books and pulp novels.

[@captaindreadnought212]

US Armoured board: The ergonomic issues are unacceptable we need to redesign the turret to fit the gun right British tank designers: *COWABUNGA IT IS*

[@wierdalien1]

I mean Cowabunga allowed them to take their time

[@darylmorning]

The US would have had an Armor Board, an Armoured Board would have been a Commonwealth thing as we know how to spell. 🤣 It's the U in Armored, never could figure out how English could be so diverse yet so counterintuitive. 🤷

[@colochop713]

*Oh bugger, the 76mm is on fire!*

[@molo8622]

*proceeds to squeeze himself through the cannon barrel*

[@tacomas9602]

@@molo8622 dude wtf

[@fuzzydunlop7928]

@@tacomas9602 Not everyone is Chieftain-sized.

[@ferallion3546]

lol

[@putatankinamall7168]

Giggity

[@overipecanine1485]

Thank you for all your work Chieftain. So many poor souls get caught with the infamous Werhaboo infection and soak up false info like an idiot sponge. Your work helps remedy that, getting the facts out for all to see and learn. Thanks again for helping us learn the facts!

[@hansmueller3029]

And the technical data really helps us history nerds. Now we have a more comprehensive understanding of why engineering design, and even tactical decisions, might have been made !

[@overipecanine1485]

@@hansmueller3029 Everyone absolutely loves it! It's like hearing facts with the support of actual data sort of makes sense lol

[@justforever96]

I think that is _Wehrboo_ . I dont know anything about it, but I know a _weeboo_ is a thing on forums and the Wehrmacht was a thing in 1945.

[@filmandfirearms]

@@justforever96 The Wehrmacht grew out of the Weimar Reichswehr. When Hitler came to power, he reorganized it and called the armed forces "Wehrmacht"

[@rinkashikachi]

​@@justforever96 its wehraboo and weeaboo

[@therealkillerb7643]

Interesting that the major has been waging a one man campaign to restore the Sherman's reputation. I always thought it received a bum rap and it's nice to be given a more rational analysis. Thanks.

[@watchm4ker]

The problem with the Sherman was that the Tigers looked amazing, and so many saw them and wondered, "Why don't WE have those?". They did not, however, stick around long enough to see that the tank they were fawning over has a seized transmission and ruptured fuel lines, and is one last cigarette away from becoming a neighborhood ammunition cook-off. Or, for that matter, at the Panzer 3s and 4s they were actually using.

[@fuzzydunlop7928]

@@watchm4ker For a bunch of drafted 18 - 23 year olds - some of which may have limited experience with motor vehicles - trained, drilled, and told to advance with nothing but the steel between them and the almighty, I am convinced that NO improvement, upgrade, or replacement would be sufficient ENOUGH for them. When mortality is on the line, the first casualty is objectivity. To advance brings with it a unique mindstate unto itself, with its own fears, anxieties, rituals, and common knowledge, regardless of conveyance - Tim O’brien has said that he would be astonished during his tour in Vietnam of the tremendous bravery it seemed to take to put one foot in front of the other while on patrol, he would look down at his feet in amazement at his forward movememt. In a tank, where every mechanical action carries much more feedback - the virtual stakes in the minds of the crew are astronomically high, and raise with every yard or meter, every thicket or hedgerow cleared, every potential killzone probed. For some crews, this had been going on since North Africa, Sicily, Italy, and into France. To move forward is exhausting, and ultimately it likely has little to do with the equipment itself. And every mile accrues on the mind, and the mental calculus for individual survival becomes more dire, necessitating poor appraisals and that which can be somewhat controlled - the gear.

[@brag0001]

@@fuzzydunlop7928 by the time the US was actually fighting the Wehrmacht, the Germans would have been happy to still be able to equip their tanks with 18-23 year olds consistently. A large part of the mechanical issues the german tanks experienced late in the war was down to inexperienced crews driving them. 16 year olds driving a tank weren't that unusual, and honestly, every experienced unit was thrown at the russian front to prevent the inevitable total collapse.

[@andrewwoodhead3141]

@@watchm4ker ''Why don't we have those'' is exactly the question they asked. Correct. The rest of your comment is a variation of ''they were cowards'', one of the four way people attack the memory of our WW2 veterans. Twelve people have like your comment ! ''The Major '' would be pleased !

[@andrewwoodhead3141]

@@fuzzydunlop7928 They didn't understand what was really going on around them. They didn't understand their own weapons. They were incompetents'.

[@hansmueller3029]

A Sherman saved Dad. Injured on Okinawa the Japanese "divine wind" prevented his evacuation. It rained and they put him and other Marines under a short gun Sherman to keep their dressings and wounds from getting soaked. They were put on a small boat and made it to a bigger ship April 8, 1945. Navy surgeons saved his right arm but he could never lift it up. Mom helped him put shirts and coats on. Thank you M-4 ? Maybe another variant ?

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

A 75mm M4 would be the most likely tank present

[@hansmueller3029]

@@TheChieftainsHatch awesome thank you !

[@linleyredford1354]

The great thing about being your own Boss is when The Chieftain uploads, you can work later.

[@autistic_m4a3_76w_hvss]

As a Kid I loved the Shermans even back in the day when the book "Death Traps" was still a credible source. I still loved them

[@Akaeru]

Same. Was practically the first tank I've been familiar with, especially when I saw it in Company of Heroes.

[@Johnnyynf]

Another talk on sherman? Hell yeah, i already lose track of how many time i gone through the "sherman become as it is" vid.

[@dominicdrake5193]

i think you need to tention your track then XD

[@SirCheezersIII]

Considering there are still people out there that think that the Sherman is a cardboard box soaked in gasoline instead of the war-winning workhorse that saw action in all theaters of the conflict I don't think there could ever be enough of these.

[@looinrims]

Obviously not enough since you have the title wrong xD

[@qcarr]

@@SirCheezersIII Definitely! The Sherman also served with distinction in Korea.

[@martentrudeau6948]

Excellent history, there was logic behind the Sherman development which made it a relevant effective tank for the Allies through out the war. Thank you Chieftain.

[@Battleship009]

The 76mm armed Sherman never gets enough coverage in the media most of the time I've seen Shermans with a 75mm in shows and such.

[@BradyBegeman]

For all its faults, the gun on the primary Sherman in “Fury” was a 76mm.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

Because the 76 mm did not see action until July 1944 and even then there were not many until autumn 1944. Still, even by spring 1945 around 3/4 of Shermans in the US armoured divisions were 75mm. The 75mm Sherman was the workhorse.

[@Battleship009]

@@lyndoncmp5751 That doesn't excuse the lack of a 76mm armed Sherman in the media.

[@DeeEight]

@@Battleship009 The media takes photos of things when fighting is going on, if they're present with the units doing the fighting. In WW2 they were more often with british, canadian or other commonwealth units who were not ever equipped with the 76mm sherman, or with american or other units that most likely had the 75mm armed shermans because they represented the majority of all shermans at the time. Post war movies & tv shows made about WW2 or the Korean war made do with whatever equipment was available when and where they were filmed and it was far more likely to be a 75mm armed sherman if they were an M4 at all. Also look at the M4 production numbers, out of all the various marks, and over 49k built, only a quarter left the factory with a 76mm gun. A lot of those 76mm gun shermans were still being built as the war ended in europe, and thus would never see combat and never make it into media photos and war footage. Canada ended up buying 300 M4A2(76) W HVSS which never left north america to replace the various M4 variants we left in europe to be gifted to the Netherlands and Belgium.

[@danieltaylor5231]

"Ergonomics" Is that the fancy word for track tensioning?

[@kemarisite]

It's a fancy word for not needing orangutans as gunners like the Sherman Firefly.

[@jonskowitz]

@@TheTutch Lord knows I've known a few TCs that an orangutan would be a suitable replacement

[@treyhelms5282]

@@kemarisite I would have said "contortionists". Or "Stretch Armstrong"s, but I get your similar reference to long arms.

[@connordevereaux759]

Good video Chieftain. Just made myself a cup of tea. I like history, really explained some good topics about M4 sherman. Greetings from Ireland 🇮🇪

[@johnloman2098]

Chieftain you are the man, anyone who can serve in as many different militaries is a legend I hope you choose to write a book someday and I hope it's a best-seller because you deserve it

[@fuferito]

Count on The Chieftain to always stay on track.

[@MajesticDemonLord]

(Tension)

[@camilstoenescu]

New video from The Chieftain: a fine way to spend a chilly damp Saturday evening.

[@whiskeytangosierra6]

I read all the Sherman as junk, my Father disabused me on that notion. Not as thoroughly as Chieftain does, but he did know the limitations of things like cranes in ports, and how little information was forthcoming from our Soviet "allies".

[@darnit1944]

"The late deployment of the 76mm Sherman was caused by rational decision making to not disrupt the production line" It's almost like as if the Americans doesnt want to copy the Germans' mistake

[@broodmachine172]

Well put good sir well put

[@dominusvictoriae]

@John Cornell the problem was the Germans kept changing the design and tooling required leading to rushed equipment that was barely tested.

[@billd2635]

@John Cornell This one goes around quite alot. The fact is that Germany didnt ramp up its production to full wartime status until after Kursk I believe. They hadnt even used German women in their factories yet, instead relying on slave labor that worked slow and committed sabotage to slow production even more. Of course the numbers are going to go up if you've been holding back on your potential. I dont mean to criticize you, just trying to set the record straight. Remember that numbers can be juggled around to make any point seem valid.

[@andrewthegraciouslordrober327]

A production line that stretched back to the other side of the Atlantic. A lot harder to introduce modifications over the 1940's communication media then too. All the Germans had to deal with was a supply line of less than 500 miles between the Ruhr and Normandy. Being callous, it also was a case of it not being a matter of "if" the Allies were going to win, but "when". They had the air supremacy, they had the greater manpower, they had the better supply line and they had greater production capability. They ( the western ones) only had to worry about fighting on one front in Europe. So, possibly no great need to tinker with a design that was ok for the job, as the presenter said.

[@whirving]

Considering that the Americans developed and implemented the modern production line it's not a surprise. Of course there is nothing new under the sun, but Henry Ford did innovate the production of automobiles before anyone else, that ended up counting for something when it came time to drown the Axis with iron.

[@user-ij9sh1tf9d]

I've never understood the modern perception that during WWII, there was a German tank on every block in every city in Europe that the allies encountered.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

Probably because there was a hell of a lot in Normandy. Over 2,000 of them. Mostly around Caen.

[@GoatPopsicle]

I personally blame it on viewers believing: The heavily disputed “kill counts” of both the Allied armored corps and CAS. Also, old war films(especially John Wayne movies) were anything close to authentic in their retelling.

[@claykalmar8131]

I wish more of my college professors had lectured as good as you. Very informative and interesting.

[@HeiligerHeuler]

Chieftain putting an end to the "Oh bugger, the forum is on fire" caused by shermans xD

[@larrybomber83]

Now that was some great information. I learned a lot. Thank You for taking the time to research the data and put it on a video.

[@TheAmazingCowpig]

It's quite funny to hear the "Greetings, all!" intro on an official WG video.

[@joechang8696]

prior to Barbarossa, during the period of Russo-German cooperation, there was a Soviet delegation to see German tanks. When all they saw were the mid-20t Pzkpfw Panzer III & IV, asked about tanks larger than 30t. The Germans said they didn't have any plans. The Soviet were sure the Germans were lying and withholding information. The Germans somehow did not take that as a clue as to what the Soviets were up to.

[@TheArklyte]

I have a felling that people mix up soviet military cooperation with Weimar Republic in 1928-1933 and purchase of single Pzkw.III in 1940 for research as monolithic period of cooperatin with Hitler(who wasn't in power in 1932 and was the one, who cancelled said cooperation to begin with:))

[@TheArklyte]

P.S.: they *did* take a hint though, it just didn't change their plans. Updated 50mm tank gun and new 75mm antitank gun were ALREADY in development by then because germans met Matilda II(rough equivalent to KV-1 armor), Valentine(rough equivalent to T-34/76 armor), B1bis and S35 alongside a boatload of smaller french tanks all solidly protected from 37mm antitank gun. In fact Pak 38 was already introduced as new antitank gun and Kwk 39 was ready for upgunning of Pz.III. Both are basically the same 5cm L/60 gun. Germans just thought that invasion won't be so long as to it would be important and that new tanks would be rare so it was not worth the investment of resources in rearming(and until 1942 that was kind of true... which retroactively makes first point true too).

[@cynicalfox190]

God damn it, it’s 04:53 here and you drop this video? Well I’m staying up for another 15 minutes now.

[@bigblue6917]

Sleep is for the under informed.👍😊

[@bigblue6917]

And there's another vid as well. You may as well get the coffee on.

[@cynicalfox190]

@@bigblue6917 yeah it’s live and I’m watching it right now ahaha.

[@melle9155]

holy, where do you live? Midway?

[@Kyle-gw6qp]

Summery: Gun go pew but not quite enough so bigger gun go pew pew.

[@Legitpenguins99]

Summary of the summary: MOAR DAKKA!!!

[@le_floofy_sniper_ducko]

@@Legitpenguins99 they didnt paint their shells red so they where not going as fast as they could lol

[@p_serdiuk]

@@le_floofy_sniper_ducko So tracer rounds? xD

[@le_floofy_sniper_ducko]

@@p_serdiuk it was a Warhammer 40k Reference a type Ork believe if they paint something red it makes a bigger explosion or it goes faster it was also a reference to how they tried to increase velocity before they increased caliber with the gun adoptions in WW2 for Armored Branch

[@ivankrylov6270]

Sounds like the t-34's journey to becoming the t-34-85

[@josephglatz25]

A story I'd love to hear some time.

[@gsr4535]

Always a popular topic. The M4 and the story of how and when and why it received the 76mm. 👍

[@delurkor]

Tanks for this video. It was a barrel of fun.

[@jamesvalentine2845]

It's always nice to hear someone educated on the subject talk about the best medium tank of WWII in a positive light. Much better than those who's education is from a biased book, video game or animation with kids in tanks... All of the above are usually so massively pro Soviet Russia or pro Tiger that it's uncomfortably embarrassing at best...

[@Shelmerdine745]

Biased comment

[@lukeb1663]

@@Shelmerdine745 based*

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

@@lukeb1663 who said those are mutually exclusive?

[@lostwolf2162]

To be honest I think its more from Books and shows like Greatest Tank Battles. Where every German tank was a Tiger, and the veterans going "our tanks were outclassed death traps". Also Movies like Fury don't help either.

[@jamesvalentine2845]

@@lostwolf2162 God and the constant history channel rubbish of greatest tanks. Ugh gives me a brain hemorrhage just remembering how as a kid I thought history channel was good 😭

[@fauxhound5061]

I love the firefly's look, it just look intimidating. thank you for you informative and fun videos!

[@coachhannah2403]

The Firefly was a workaround stopgap and not very good as a tank, over all.

[@fostersstubbyasmr9557]

@@coachhannah2403 it was effective and looks way better? What’s the point of your reply. Go away

[@tire26]

Thank you, The Office, for permanently replacing the word "ergonomics" with Urklenomics". I really enjoy trying to learn while saying Urklenomics in my head every time.

[@Mathosalpha]

This must be in response to some of the comments people were making about the Sherman on the museum of American armor Facebook post a day or so ago. I was going to reply to someone on their about there elders stories of multiple Sherman's firing at a single German tank in battle. Thats basically the overlapping fire training thats been in tank gunnery manuals since 1940.. I know this, because I have pdf or paper copies of every tank gunnery manual printed since 1940, including... certain modern vehicles... I'm a collector on top of being a long time forum staffer that handles historical and bug issues for a WoT competitor.. Heh he's not the only one out here trying to restore the Sherman's name. He's got a lot more charisma, and KZbin presence than the rest of us, and his connection with WoT and war gaming helps a lot too.

[@hansmueller3029]

He really has real life experience with armor in combat which gives him authority ! He knows so much about all these tanks and AFVs. I couldn't retain the data to sit in this tank and that tank and know what everything is and what it does as well as the interations of them. You guys do a great service to all of us who love modern armor.

[@jroch41]

Excellent & informative presentation by The Chieftain, but nothing about track tension.

[@patrickwentz8413]

Thank you for clearing up the confusion on why the 3 inch gun was not used in the M4 Sherman Tank. It seemed like an obvious choice but it could not fit... rats.

[@carlhearn108]

Its all about the camo paint. Had the US allowed Shermans in a variety of paint patterns, more modelers would like them and the popularity would have outshined the criticisms. Its just not easy being green.

[@mugofbrown6234]

Yes. A Mercedes Benz is more glamorous that a Ford Fiesta but what is easier and cheaper to produce?

[@carlhearn108]

@@mugofbrown6234 I tend to agree with that. But, having ridden in both, I can say the Fiesta leaves alot to desire. I like the Sherman and feel it is an interesting tank. Where the US lacked in imaginary paint schemes, they made up for in imaginary modifications. Hedgerow cutters, Hobart's Funnies, stowage, and production changes along the war make it interesting. It was just mediocre enough to be flexible. I believe this flexibility in design, more than its ease of production, contributed to its success.

[@yagdtigercommander]

@@carlhearn108 Sometimes the best way is to design something that is just good enough to get the job done. Rather than trying to crate a wonder weapon we all know how that went lol.

[@carlhearn108]

@@yagdtigercommander Like Stalin said, "Quantity has a quality all its own."

[@yagdtigercommander]

@@carlhearn108 pretty much lol.

[@THX11458]

This is analogous to the myth that the Pzklpfw-VI E "Tiger" was created in response to the Soviet T-34 & KV series. In reality the 'Tiger' had been in development as far back as the late 1930's in the form of of its original predecessor the Durchbruchswagen.

[@yagdtigercommander]

Yes it is partially true that it ultimately lead to one of several new panzers that could handle any current Russian tank on the battlefield. But the Tiger concept ranged from various protoypes such as Durchbruchwagen, Vk 30.01H,Vk 36.01H, Vk 30.01P and Tiger P although the porch ones were rival designs that failed. Ultimately it played a role because the Porche Turret was except for the Production Models while Henchel Hull was preferred for the overall performance and function of the Tiger. So it pretty interesting that Tigers actually emerged from competing designs that both had aspects that the German military liked. so for the Tiger H1 and E its was like Henchel Turret is crap but Hull is good and Porche has shitty underperforming Tiger 1 but we Turret is good. Merg the to and are like yes that is the final design we want. Just interesting as usually it a winner takes all for the build contract designs versus this whole split the difference approach.

[@chrisjones6002]

Wasn't the Panther somewhat a response to the T34?

[@THX11458]

@@chrisjones6002 Well, sort of. The origins of Pzkpfw-V "Panther" go back to the late thirties with a program to replace the Pzkpfw-III with a newer design, having a 20 ton tank with large roadwheels w/o return rollers, torsion bar suspension, and advanced steering. This project was known as the VK2001. Daimler Benz, Krupp and M.A.N. all submitted designs based on the requirements. Originally the chassis appeared similar to the Pzkpfw-III and Pzkpfw-IV (ie. box-like), however M.A.N., being influenced by the encounters the Germans had with the T-34, redesigned their chassis with sloped armor. Now there was a commission formed in late 1941 that discussed a tank design directly in response to the appearance of the Soviet T-34 and KV tanks. The commission also addressed the need to design a new tank that could be able to withstand the difficult terrain of the Russian countryside. The meeting resulted in requesting a new tank that had a main armament that could penetrate the above mentioned Soviet tanks at long range, better armor protection than current German tanks (ie. Pzkpfw-III & IV), wider tracks and a more powerful engine. This project, known as the VK3001, allowed the previously mentioned firms to take the advancements they had made in the VK2001 project and apply them to the new VK3001. Daimler Benz famously copied the hull and turret design directly from the T-34. But in the end officials decided on M.A.N.'s proposal which was just basically an upscaled version of their previous V.K.2001(M) project. So long story short, the Panther's origins lie in the late 1930's with a number of its features beginning with the VK2001 project, but its defining characteristics of sloped armor and a powerful high velocity gun seen in the VK3001 project were a direct response to the T-34 & KV-I tanks. So yes and no.

[@chrisjones6002]

@@THX11458 very interesting, so basically the original design was already there but it was modified to deal with the Russian tanks. Thanks for the explanation.

[@dirklehrke148]

@@yagdtigercommander Wie schreibt man Porsche?

[@frankgulla2335]

Nicely and suscintly done, sir. you do bring a great mix of verbage and visuals to your talks with plenty of documentation. Thank you.

[@stitch626aloha]

1:52 Flying jeep and towed 37mm... 🤣😂🤣😂

[@comradealexie]

Fantastic video, thank you Chieftain!

[@709badwolf]

great information! thanks for bringing this to your viewers! 👍

[@Rommel_209]

Always happy to hear from you, sir

[@ParabellumStoria]

1:41 Didnt americans had 37mm (short) since M1917 ww1 copy of Renault ft? ( FT 37 mm) (i know they are obsolete etc but "tecnically" usa had cannons in that role , the m1917 was used up to 30's and canada even in 1940 got 240 from usa, (the cannon on the m1917 was just not suitable for ww2 period)

[@bigblue6917]

Good enough for use against Japanese tanks.

[@radonsider9692]

Probably that couldn't be used as a "Anti Tank Gun" so it was more of a anti infantry gun

[@ParabellumStoria]

@@radonsider9692 for ww2 for sure not usable :)

[@radonsider9692]

@@ParabellumStoria :)

[@Perfusionist01]

It was interesting and informative. A lot of the critics point to the poor reputation of the M4-series in Normandy however my reading seems to show that a lot of the problem was "green" tankers and armor commanders, plus poor coordination of the combined arms team. It took time and some stark lessons to finish the training of the armored team by adding combat experience. Patton used mostly 75mm medium tanks in the Lorraine campaign, which showed what experienced armor units could do with a "mediocre" tank against a less experienced enemy with a "better" tank. Writers (who seem to be either British or using British sources) act as if the M4 series with 75mm was junk, but many 75mm tanks were still running just fine as their units tore deep into Germany.

[@sotabaka]

@John Cornell but those unsatisfatory tanks were still running ... and running 5 shermans vs a tigerII 5 shermans vs a panther 5 shermans vs a pzIV 5 shermans vs an halftrack 5 shermans vs kobelwaggen 5 shermans vs a motorcicle 5 shermans vs a soldier on foot

[@justforever96]

Funny for British to bitch about the M4 when it was clearly far better than anything they managed to develop, and was their only decent tank in inventory for most of the war. I think it is sour grapes. 'Yea, we're using thousands of these tanks the US gave us for free because we cant make a decent tank, nor enough of them...but confidentially, they are rather rubbish, and no doubt we will be turning out something far superior in no time" My impression about the real reputation loss for the M4 is that everyone was thrilled with it until suddenly our long, victorious push across France, the end of the war in a matter of weeks and suddenly came te Ardennes and masses of Panthers, and suddenly everyone was shocked and outraged and demanding scapegoats. No one wants to blame the fighting men, so they blamed to equipment instead. Just like after Pearl Harbor.

[@lachlandaly4552]

It still eludes me how this guy has only 250 k subscriber while frocking mark Felton has almost 2 million

[@fuzzydunlop7928]

The intro was a lot jauntier than I expected, especially when contrasted with Chief’s understated, but matter of factual lilt.

[@romavictor1SPQR]

He’s bumped his head doing ‘oh god, the tank is on fire’ tests

[@gings4ever]

Imagining the Sherman being fitted with the 75mm pack howitzer, weird-ass hood n all, is nightmare fuel worthy. That aside, the Slugger was probably what remained of the hyperthonk on wanting the Sherman to pack a 90mm M3 because enemy armor offends the tank and the 105 howitzer isnt usually enough to un-exist other tanks

[@le_floofy_sniper_ducko]

i mean throw enough HE at a tank the squishy things will die a bunch of 75mm shermans tossed a shit ton of HE at a tiger and concussed the crew to death not efficient but it works

[@gings4ever]

Not gonna lie, that's a really REALLY crazy thing to do tbh At most, an HE round from a 75mm should be enough as an eviction notice for that silly MG team in their pillbox or that sniper plinking up a church steeple (tfw 105 Shermans are also packing eviction notices but with more insistence), but lobbing HE at a Tiger? I sure hope they knew where they were blasting at like rear sprockets. Now I'm starting to wish they tried making a HEAT round for the 75mm.

[@jic1]

@@gings4ever It wasn't a matter of shot placement, it was a 'quantity has a quality of its own' thing.

[@le_floofy_sniper_ducko]

@@jic1 esp when you consider concussive force to the meatsuits inside

[@mvdwege]

@@le_floofy_sniper_ducko And don't forget spalling. With the appalling state of German metallurgy in 1944 that is a real risk for a Tiger crew under HE fire.

[@karl_franz_prince_and_emperor]

"well actually, people dont realize and forget"

[@petehoffman7304]

Another fine video from the Chieftain, but please, no more background music. The music does not add anything to the video.

[@jTheN77]

The Chief of Ordnance called for experiments in tungsten carbide saboted rounds in November 1943 - which is 8 months before June 1944: "On November 17, 1943, the Office of the Chief of Ordnance requested Division 1, NDRC to develop a sabot projectile using a tungsten carbide core for one of these two guns, the 76-mm Gun M1A2 or the 90-mm Gun M1, M2, and M3. It [was believed that it] would be easier to do the experimental work in the smaller gun, and quite a simple matter to scale up a satisfactory design for the larger gun, and the Office of the Chief of Ordnance believed that a 76-mm Gun M1A2 for the experimental work could soon be made available. There- fore this gun was preferred. " Sabot Projectiles Work by University of New Mexico 1942 to 1944 ADA800118 page 105 (in the document; page 118 in the pdf. In some versions of the PDF said page is (annoyingly enough) botched by the image of page -36- for the document, which is superimposed upon the text content in the PDF. Anyone looking at said PDF has to use tricks like selecting and pasting the actual text, saving the PDF to text and hunting it down, and so on. I found an updated version by searching for "ADA800118.pdf" that seems to fix it but haven't looked it over any further than that. The delay of HVAP was due to development and production lag, not a delay in recognizing the need.

[@lqr824]

3:10 "slightly more modern 75mm than the other, but similar enough." OK, you need to do like an hour video discussing guns in detail: all the ways they developed and differed, etc. Love the channel, btw, and will check out your employer's wares.

[@markcantemail8018]

Thanks for the Tank Talk .

[@zackbobby5550]

This is still something that US tank doctrine considers to this day. The Abrams has a pretty large fighting compartment and, as far as MBTs go, is fairly comfortable for long durations. The Soviets went with a smaller means harder to hit philosophy, but we saw how the Abrams and Challenger targeting computers dealt with "harder to hit" lol.

[@justforever96]

It isnt just harder to hit, it is also a lot lighter for an equivalent thickness of armor. Something like IS-2 vs Tiger II. An inch of turret height @ 6 inches of armor can easily add a few tons of weight. The M1 Abrams managed to be both really heavy AND really fast, but only because the US has the money to afford it. Not only the actual unit cost, but the development of the technology it required, AND the logistics to handle it. It means more heavy cranes, more heavy bridging equipment, a whole fleet of heavy transport planes that can carry them, etc. In the end I think you will find that crew training has far more to do with the M1 beating Soviet tanks than the fact that Soviet-tank crews are not as comfy inside. If you swapped machines, the result would have been the same. It is the same with Soviet aircraft. You have to remember, the US never tried fighting Russia. Whenever we or Israel or anyone else faced Soviet equipment, it was always in the hands of some small, poor nation with a military budget a fraction of ours...a small fraction. The only time we faced actual Soviet personnel was in the early part of the Korean War...which happened to be the time the MiG-15 was cleaning our clock. There were also cases where Soviet personnel were manning North Vietnamese SAM missile sites...which happened to also be a sore trial for our people and equipment. So dont make the mistake of judging the actual worth of Soviet equipment based on how well it performs in the hands of 3rd world operators, usually using inferior export versions, and more often than not a generation or two out of date by the time they face more modern Western equipment. Not saying Soviet equipment or personnel is better than ours, just that it is a mistake to dismiss them based on the so-called 'track record'. I think US tankers would have found Soviet armored divisions equipped with the latest Soviet tanks and well-trained crews a far tougher nut than, say, Iraqi T-72s manned by conscripts.

[@SportbikerNZ]

76mm Sherman, the best tank of ww2 imo. Ease of manufacture and transport, excellent reliability, versatility and reparability, good firepower, and good ergonomics that enabled the crew to squeeze the best performance out it.

[@HarrisonSD03]

I agree. In my opinion though. A perfect "on paper" panter or Tiger would dominate. That wasn't the case, however because of poor quality control, lack or fuel, etc. For example. A perfectly built tiger vs a perfectly built sherman. Who wins? On paper. Tiger. In a war with no gas, other tanks... You get the point.

[@SportbikerNZ]

@@HarrisonSD03 Once the critical aspects of mass manufacturing and ease of transport are factored into the equation, it becomes obvious imo.

[@HarrisonSD03]

@@SportbikerNZ yeah. I mean. All aside. Perfectly built 1 on 1 is a different story. I agree with you. Love the Sherman for all the reasons you mentioned.

[@SportbikerNZ]

@@HarrisonSD03 I getcha. Yes, 1 on 1 is a whole other thing, in contrast to a strategic, war winning tank.

[@HarrisonSD03]

@@SportbikerNZ turned this into a forum. Good convo.

[@badcarbon7624]

The Chieftain and Drachinfel, my two most anticipated you tune channels. Don't know how they've the energy to do what they do, but to paraphrase what Lincoln supposedly said about Grant's drinking. What ever he's drinking, send him a case.

[@fergusfitzgerald977]

Lots of my misunderstandings cleared up - thanks !

[@chuckvan1568]

So glad you keep debunking the myth of the M4 inferiority. Yes, I too like the Panthers, Tigers, and Panzer 4s, they are awesome tanks and so few exist.

[@wrathofatlantis2316]

The 75 mm was more popular because it did not blind the gunner with smoke, despite its plain muzzle... Plus, even versus tanks, it was little different from the 76 mm, since it was also best used from the sides of its opponents. The big difference was that the 76 mm, because of the shortened barrel (to fit the M18 Hellcat), kicked up so much smoke and dust (before better primers and muzzle brakes arrived in the fall), it was recommended to the commander that he should stand outside the tank to guide the gunner's shots...

[@allsetago5881]

love this new format

[@garyhill2740]

Definitely would love to see a review of the M4A3E8. It was just coming online during the Ardennes offensive. I would like to see more about it's introduction and first use in combat. How it was recieved by troops and compared with Panther and Mk IV. I also would really like to see a video that compares the M4A3E8 to the A34 Comet. As near as I can tell, the M4A3E8 with 76mm compared quite well to the A34. Yet A34 is generally looked at as a great tank, the M4A3E8 is treated as a footnote by many, despite being in service much sooner and seeing a lot more action in WW II. Makes no sense.

[@justforever96]

Probably because the A34 was pretty much the only good tank Britain produced during the war, excepting Churchill (with reservations). The Soviets refused to take any more British tanks after 1943, said they were all just terrible, but they loved the M4. So the Brits have to make a big deal out of the A34, or they would have nothing to brag about. The US has the M4 Medium, which in spite of the negative perception, was still obviously a war-winning weapon, produced in vast numbers and used by just about everyone. Personally I think the E8 gets too much attention as it is. Everyone focuses on that and the 76mm to a lesser extent, because they were "the Good Shermans", even though it was plain-jane 75mm M4 Mediums that actually did most of the work and won the war on the Western Front. The E8 really was just a side-show, interestiny in that it demonstrated the potential the basic M4 Medium platform had, but it didnt really have much effect on the war. So I think we already give it more attention than it deserves, at the expense of normal M4s.

[@garyhill2740]

@@justforever96 I hear what you are saying. And yes, the majority of the Sherman's were the "normal" ones. And for a variety of roles they were adequate. But for the tank v tank role, which was not as common as other roles, but in no way less important....the normal Sherman was a soggy noodle. Not saying it didn't win battles, but it was the courage, tenacity, and training-as well as leadership-of the people using them that won the day. The standard short 75mm Sherman was outclassed on the 1944-45 battlefield as a "fighter tank". The 76mm changed that. In conjunction with wet stowage, HVSS, and a few other upgrades...it was a significant improvement. Given that the British troops viewed the A34 as a "battle winner", I think more straight up analysis and comparison with the E8 is interesting. Because I think the E8 Sherman is every bit as much tank as the Comet, it arrived sooner, and saw much more combat. (The Pershing was on a whole other level, as good as the original 17pdr. armed Centurion, and again, arrived sooner. Centurion never saw combat in WW II.) I would also like to know more about the M4A3E2 "Jumbo" Sherman in actual combat; especially tank vs tank encounters. There is enough mention of it historically, and enough photographs to indicate it saw heavy use. Yet one could fill one side of a 3 x 5 card at best with details of the Jumbo's use in combat contained in most books readily available today. Between Hunnicutt and Zaloga, and Makos "Spearhead", there is finally a great deal to absorb about the once mystery shrouded Pershing. But the Jumbo remains a few grainy photos and some foot notes. In the same battles where the Pershing cut its teeth there were often Jumbo's present as well. I can't believe they didn't engage enemy tanks as well. Surely more details exist somewhere?

[@lyndoncmp5751]

William Walker, Much wrong in your post. The Matilda II was a good tank in the early war years and gave the Germans much to think about. The Valentine was a good tank and the Soviets loved it. In fact the Soviets asked for production to continue purely for them into 1944. Some 4,000 were sent there. The Comet was good and of course the Centurion was the best tank to come out of WW2. By the way, the British gunned Firefly was the best western allied tank killer there was on the western front.

[@kenneth9874]

@@lyndoncmp5751 dream on

[@S.T.R.Y.K.E.R.]

Please review the M4A3E8

[@535tony]

Wow, great information here.

[@elmersalonga6424]

As usual very informative. Can you do one about spaced armor tech or sandbag add-on against "heat" rounds is this a "myth"?

[@Conn30Mtenor]

I'm a fan of The "This Tank is too Small for Me" Chieftan.

[@terranceroff8113]

Beguiling very low volume backround music... can't hear it nuff to tell for sure what it is, but sounds epic.. Nice work.

[@petesheppard1709]

Thanks--informative and enjoyable as always! You mean the arguments actually die down occasionally?

[@ParabellumHistory]

Is there a recommended reading on the Sherman tanks, besides Hunnicutt's "Sherman: A History of the American Medium Tank" and Zaloga's "Armored Thunderbolt: The U.S. Army Sherman in World War II" ?

[@Bagledog5000]

Zaloga has "Panther vs Sherman" out as well. Not having read the other book I don't know if it covers information you're already familiar with, but I though it was a pretty good comparison of the strengths and weaknesses of the two vehicles as well as the thoughts behind fielding the vehicles, and supply logistics of the two armies.

[@matthewhorsfield6272]

A question (maybe for Q&A); with the sacrifice of he capability for ap in the sherman 76, did the German l43 have the same issues? Or indeed the panthers 75 and 88. Did German crews have an equal preference for better he or was this less of an issue against the armour heavy ussr?

[@Kuschel_K]

That’s still the biggest mystery to me. The 76mm actually fires a smaller HE shell than the 75mm. The German high velocity cannons on the other hand fire pretty much the same HE shell as the low velocity howitzer. The main difference is that German cannon HE shells have significantly lower muzzle velocity than the AP shells. So the 76mm HE shell, which has a higher velocity than the AP shell, must have been designed with the same reasoning as the AP: Increase accuracy (hitting probability) due the reduced time of flight and flatter trajectory. Maybe it was meant to be used against AT guns and light armored vehicles rather than soft targets and defenses. Due to the high muzzle velocity, the HE shell needs thicker walls so it can withstand the acceleration, reducing the amount of HE carried. I guess it makes some sense when you think about how the 76mm increases the engagement range and that the Sherman’s frontal armor can not be penetrated by the PaK 39, 40 and KwK 40 above 500-800m depending on the impact angle. So a 76mm Sherman could knock out a StuG III or Pz IV with ease at long range while the later would have trouble penetrating most of the frontal armor.

[@dirklehrke148]

@@Kuschel_K Dream on

[@rogerlafrance6355]

Though there is little information, I find the 105mm M4 more interesting. The 105 towed and SP were serious block busters but, without knowing if they had the same gun and rounds options its hard to know how they were employed.

[@tacomas9602]

THANK YOU.

[@bobwhite4344]

great vid.

[@richardburke1776]

Great video tanks for sharing.

[@sergarlantyrell7847]

The development story of the Chieftain (the tank not the guy) would be amazing. That cast turret looks like it straight off a space ship!

[@MartinCHorowitz]

The Difference between using a gun on a Tank or a tank destroyer would where you were likely to hit and the angle of Impact. The tank is more likely to engage frontally in flat fire. A Tank destroyer is likely to be further away and have a plunging angle negating aromor sloping and having a chance to hit thinner roof armor.

[@someone2Utoo]

But how would that explain the nearly nonexistent turret top armor on American tank destroyers?

[@sotabaka]

the tank is (just like the jeep & the truck) meabt to carry the troops & its own gun to do the fighting against the enemy army ... the TD is to be just there waiting in case the enemy makes a counter ofensive

[@justforever96]

No, A TD wants to fire from ambush at a range that ensures penetration. It doesnt want the enemy to shoot back at all. I have never heard of a tank or TD gun shooting from so far that it hit a target with 'plunging fire'. First, to obtain said fire, you would need to be so far back you would need a FO to direct your fire, since you couldnt even see the target. Second, you have to shoot steeply up into the air to get a ballistic arc with plunging fire. A long distance shot with a tank gun might hit the roof, but it would be a glancing blow, not proper plunging fire. If that was a good way to kill armor, they would just deploy SP artillery howitzers instead of TDs. The whole point of an HV gun TD is flat-trajectory penetrating fire

[@a_catfish5180]

People forget that even today things are in development long before they’re shown to the public and it’s easy to forget that

[@doughudgens9275]

You have never discussed the advantage/disadvantages of the cast hull vs the rolled steel hull. Besides production, what’s the difference in the armor stopping power? Any thing one had that the other didn’t? What are the reasons the cast hull was phased out? What’s your opinion on the esthetics of the two types. I prefer the flat steel look personally. Great video!

[@nahuelleandroarroyo]

One think that falls from the top of My head is that the rounded cast hull is harder to repair/patch/weld. Moreover the non curved front shermans seem to have more consistent protection and slighlty more inner volume

[@mpetersen6]

I think another reason is welding technology really improved in the 1940s. One still could do curved surfaces and welded hull construction

[@charlesphillips4575]

I don't think the cast hull was phased out. I believe that the cast hull was the preferred version, mostly for production cost reasons. However, only a few places could cast something that big, hence the welded and hybrid versions. I have never seen a comparison of protection, but all the turrets were cast and the US continued to cast tank armour until composites were developed. So they must have liked the performance.

[@mpetersen6]

@@charlesphillips4575 It's not just casting the hull. Now you need to do the machining.

[@charlesphillips4575]

@@mpetersen6 True, but it was less effort than welding and machining.

[@klaustremetsberger1101]

thank you! thank you! how often a m4 fired on a tiger or a panther and how often on anything else, unarmoured or little armoured? the 75mm was an excellent gun!

[@nickdanger3802]

The Ordnance QF 75 mm, abbreviated to OQF 75 mm, was a British tank-gun of the Second World War. It was obtained by boring out the Ordnance QF 6 pounder ("6 pdr") 57-mm anti-tank gun to 75-mm, to give better performance against infantry targets in a similar fashion to the 75mm M3 gun fitted to the American Sherman tank. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnance_QF_75_mm

[@SDZ675]

Don't forget the fact that the US only started designing and making tanks seriously in the 1940s while Germany and Soviets had been on it since the 1930s. When the US entered the war, they were using M2 medium tanks.

[@Pikilloification]

So? They were able to gather all the intelligence from those early years to enter Torch with M3s and M4s which were just as good as what the germans had...

[@TheArklyte]

That isn't true just like "Christie was ignored by US military" myth. US had a shitload of test vehicles and prototypes in 1930's, easily comparable to France aka biggest military industrial complex and most experienced tank school in the world by that point. USSR started off 1930's with their own modernized copy of FT-17 and that was it. They've bought and redesegnied Vickers 6 ton, they've bought and redesigned Christie's latest creation and finally they've copied the plans of Krupp and Rheinmetall Grosstractors during 1929-1933 military partnership with Weimar Republic(both of those tanks are based on plans of Independent and Medium Mark III that germans stole from british). This resulted in T-26, BT-5/7, T-28 and T-35 respectively(which were all superior to original vehicles by virtue of being new designs based on experience with said vehicle's flaws). They also had Grotte design "best tank possible" as a technology demonstrator vehicle. And that's it. Four and a half tanks. Germany worked with even less. They had said Grosstractor("inspired" by said sources), they had contacts with swedish design bureaus and they had "light tractor" based mostly on their own LKI-III WWi designs. So don't start on that "US learned the alternate meaning to a word TANK only a day after Pearl Harbor" level of bs. US was one of the leaders in tank technology in 1920's and 1930's.

[@SDZ675]

@@TheArklyte You're right that US had tons of test vehicles and prototypes, but the Army budget was miniscule. You're forgetting that US was isolationist in the 1920s and 1930s so the priority went to the Navy and to a lesser extent the air wing of the Army. Germany had always planned to remobilize their army since Hitler came to power and the USSR had the largest standing army in the world since the 1920s/1930s. Experience ultimately decides what works. Look at the M3 Lee, that abomination came in 1943 and was quickly replaced by the M4 because it just wasn't practical. People are also fixated on WW2 that they forget the M4 Easy 8s used in Korea were just as good as the T34-85s that the North Koreans were using.

[@whirving]

And then there's that whole CROSS THE OCEAN TO GET THERE side of production for the US. Might be worth noting.

[@yagdtigercommander]

@@SDZ675 The M3 Lee was still good enough for the short term in North Africa. I mean the crusader for the most part at least earlier models were totally outmatched by the germans even the Short Barreled 50mm panzer 3s considering earlier variants only had 40mm 2 pounders. However the 2 pounder wasn't terrible either its just that Panzer 3 had gone through some retrofits at this point having increased armour for the majority of current threats at the time. So the M3 Lee became vary handed its hull mounted 75mm cannon was more than enough deal with the panzer 3s of Afrika Corps and hold its own against even early short barrel panzer 4 models and first gen long barreled panzer 4 f2s although to a lesser degree. But it was good enough to be a filler stop gap tank until later crusader tanks were up gunned to use 57mm 6 pounder gun and first production model Sherman's started arriving in North Africa Which was about late 1942 or early 1943. The Lee didn't come out in 1943 as the British were lent M3s that they called Grants. So the M3s were fighting in North Africa as early as the Latter half 1941 through most of 1942 within the Africa Campaign. So I had already been fighting for at least 2 years before the Sherman entered service and saw combat. The Americans knew the M3 Lee wasn't meant to be the next generation of front line medium tank needed. It was just meant to be place holder until the eventually Sherman could replace it. when your lagging behind your enemy in war sometimes you just have come up with stop gap interim designs for new tanks until you can have some thing you can produce more long term for the war effort.

[@Barabel22]

Did you mean December 1943 and February 1944 when you talked about 76mm gun production beginning and 75mm going down?

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

Yes, error on my end

[@simonh317]

Was the Firefly a more capable fighting machine? With such a large gun in a small turret it certainly was cramped, a challenge to man handle the big rounds, and the blast kicked up a substantial cloud. However, the UK had Firefly on DDay and for the Normandy breakout, whereas the 76mm armed Shermans were left in the UK. Thus the legend was born....

[@maddiewadsworth4027]

Love the videos. Have you done one yet on your opinion about the Marine Corps decision to eliminate their armored branch?

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

It came up in a Q&A a couple of months ago

[@calvingreene90]

It is depressing how many people that think not hunting tanks is the same as not killing tanks when you stumble across them.

[@danlindeke2561]

The British wasted no time in fitting 17 pounder to M3 and made the Firefly

[@kenneth9874]

They never put a 17pdr in a M3....

[@F1ghteR41]

6:24 It has to be noted, however, that chamber volume of 3" gun was about 1.5 times bigger than on 76 mm. And that is not in any measurable way a minute difference in regards to internal ballistic performance. 7:16 Photo depicts the L/48 variant, actually. 8:28 Which nullifies both of your previous statements. There's no effective proactivity in providing vehicles not ready for service, equally, the priority given to that development was clearly not high enough to result in higher suitability of M4/76 for combat operations by late '42.

[@justforever96]

Chamber volume is not an indicator of performance, except potential performance, all other factors ignored. Simply having the space does not mean it was used. A .38 Special is significantly less powerful than a 9x19mm, in spite of having a great deal more case capacity, since the .38 was designed with black powder and low pressures in mind. Conversely, a .357 Magnum equivalent could easily be built with the .38 Special case volume, using all that excess space. They could have made it shorter even. Instead they made it longer, to ensure that no stupid person loaded high-pressure .357 cartridges into a rickety old .38 and blew their hand off. The 76mm was intentionally down-powered from the 3" Gun, and so a large proportion of the case was unused volume, to reduce the pressure for the thinner, lighter, shorter barrel. 76mm cases required a special spacer wadding piece to keep the powder back against the primer for reliable ignition and pressure curves. So simply comparing case capacities doesnt tell you much of use compared to either the 75mm or the 3".

[@F1ghteR41]

@@justforever96 While I admit that you're correct overall, I would like to point out that .38 Special ends up less powerful than 9×19 in no small way due to the fact that it's typically fired from revolvers with a split between the chamber and the barrel.

[@Jukkaimaru]

I've heard there's a Army study from 2018 or so that quotes a rather pessimistic penetration range of 50 yards for the 76mm gun firing APCBC against the front armor of a Panzer IV ausf. H. That seems somewhat ridiculously overblown, but I do wonder if anyone here has heard of it. ARMET-TR-17002.

[@ditzydoo4378]

Yay! more Papa Chieftain and tales of the M4... ^~^ I'm happy now...

[@borntorice]

I've heard that Red Army had only give M4A2/76mm for Guard tank units and some of them were involved final battle around Berlin. And Guards may have better treatment and equipment, Russians didn't said which tank was better, but they just gave better tanks for seasoned units. Shermans had recorded the most of complaints for tanks.......that's "free speech". Such problems for other tanks are not being mentioned frequently: Cromwell: Too fast and hurt crews inside; no more upgrades beyond the QF 75mm. Pz IV: Overcrowded turret and have to turn it by manual. Tigers: Repair was nightmare. Sit inside a huge bell and other punch the bell from outside. T34: Drive it was hard, changing gear may need a hammer; the glass quality is poor, driver have to open the hatch for drive; where's the radio?? Type 97: Everything is outdated; Superior officers always told crews: Shut up for compliant! Where's the radio??

[@justforever96]

I like the M4 Medium because I always like the underdog. But it is a nice change to have the underdog also be the primary of a major combatant, and a very effective weapon as well. You don't get t hat very often, since usually effective and/or widspread systems are overestimated by the average person, not underestimated. The M4 was among the most widely produced weapons of the war, and played a huge part in winning it, in a very visible way, and yet somehow (mostly because of period media accounts, I think) it became known to history as an inferior tank, while the T-34 somehow became a superweapon to the masses, in spite of being roughly equivalent in most ways. And of course Panther became a legend in spite of the enormous flaws and small numbers, the same for Tiger.

[@gordonlawrence1448]

As usual in war, plans are never going to survive beyond engaging the enemy. The 75 vs 76 for D-Day was a perfect example.

[@bubbasbigblast8563]

The irony is, the big gun Panzers were the real WW2 tactical dead end: superior range is worthless if you have to attack in bad weather, and on the defensive, you might as well use either cheaper field guns, or motorized carriages, instead of the big tanks you can never make enough of to matter strategically.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

Actually they weren't and allied tanks became big after WW2 as well. The British built the Centurion and the Americans the Pershing and Patton.

[@agentkaos1768]

Well big guns tanks with no computers or anything to help you fire further or on the move is technologically inferior. Tanks advance with current tech, so they get better, with no lower standards because of war. Tanks got bigger because of better engines, armor is better because the engine can handle it, guns needed to be bigger because armor of tanks got better. So in WW2, Big Gun Panzers were situational and good on the defense, they can hull down and ambush from afar, not great when on the offensive when enemies is closer and on the defense.

[@Wogby]

IDK if you read these comments, but is there any chance you would look at Warthunder? That game has its own problems, but for the most part, they aim at being relatively historically accurate. Shells and after penetration effects are simulated to the best of the ability of a game and it's always been an impressive historical experience.

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

I never enjoyed it much. I play simulators or I play arcade, but WT didn't scratch either itch for me.

[@Wogby]

@@TheChieftainsHatch Oh wow, you responded awesome. Either way, thanks for your amazing tank content, historical or otherwise. I think you should give WT another chance since they now have modern vehicles too, but all good either way.

[@KnifeChatswithTobias]

It's like the Sherman haters out there refuse to listen to the facts involving the tank. Thanks (again) for setting the record straight!

[@KnifeChatswithTobias]

@John Cornell , agreed. Chieftain did an excellent job of setting the record straight on the Tiger as well.

[@TEGRULZ]

It brings up a fascinating question, a 17 pounder in that fancy new turret the Sherman gets later on down the road.

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

Apparently it didn't fit. Best I can determine, the longer narrow front of the turret was incompatible with the shape of the 17pr.

[@justforever96]

No point anyway. The 76mm wasnt much different from the 17lber, and by the time they got those working they were already thinking 90mm. 17lbr isnt enough of an upgrade to be worth the effort, and if you are going to do it anyway, go for the un-reduced 3" instead, no need to bring a whole new (and flawed) round into the supply chain.

[@kenneth9874]

Wasn't needed....

[@markwilliams2620]

"I place great emphasis on ergonomics". Me. 1990. '76 Chevette blows up. Buys '80 Mazda 626. Understands completely. "Wow...I don't have to look at it to find it."

[@muhammadnursyahmi9440]

That's logistic not egronomics, but i do get your point

[@marklittle8805]

Good ergonomics can change how you view any machine. We adapt to shit designs and then something comes along that is so much better and you wonder why you put up with the old one

[@thhseeking]

6:17 - "boring tubes in this new calibre"...but 3-inches IS 76mm. Been to long on that side of the pond :P

[@jamesmarchant9665]

Did the dept of ordinance ever consider just lengthening the 75 mm shell and increasing the length/caliber of the barrell to increase overall velocity of the weapon?

[@AdamSmith-kq6ys]

@01:50 - _cue Dukes of Hazzard music_