Evolution of the Sherman | Was it any good?

[@thetankmuseum]

Hello tank-nuts! Let us know what you thought of our latest video in the comments.

[@pyeitme508]

Prefer thr Sherman Easy 8😂

[@tasman006]

Wow that was an awsome vid on in my opinion one of if not the best tank of WW2. The only thing is thier could be a part 2, its service in the Korean war agianst the T34/85 tank and later conversion of the ultimate Sherman tanks helped with french technology. Isreali upgunned and moddified Sheman M50 and to the Super Sherman M51 tank which knocked out a Russian T62 tank in the Yom Kippur war and going up agianst its old nemisis the PZIV that Syria had needs to be told.

[@gazr290]

Sherman Firefly is much superior myess jolly ho ohoho@@pyeitme508

[@fundude365]

What do you mean? It was bursting into flame all the time! Constantly! 4000-8000 times per second in a very small, contained area at the rear of the vehicle. This carried on the entire time the tank was operating. I believe this was a common issue with the majority of tanks.

[@derekowens1817]

Any reference for Germans using the term Tommy cooker, or the Zippo name? I've seen a number of discussions on this in FB, Quota etc, and no evidence for either has been found by anyone who's tried looking. D

[@danschneider9921]

My grandfather, Sherman commander 17th Tank Battalion 7th Armored said to anyone who asked and I quote "People give the Sherman hell because the armor couldn't stop the kraut 75s and 88s, well name me one damn allied tank that could outside of the big Russian ones at the very end of the war" He also pointed out that "Not every German tank was a Tiger" and "They burned because some guys stuffed them overly full of gun rounds" Granted this was one man's perspective, but I wish he could have been interviewed by a museum like yours before he passed in 2012, in his shed, smoking a cigar cleaning a shotgun after pheasant hunting. Great man.

[@OnEEmONErD]

The one non Russian heavy that could stop a German round was the Sherman Jumbo. The Sherman was an amazingly upgradable design

[@lyndoncmp5751]

@OnEEmONErD There is a picture of a, Sherman Jumbo with a 88mm round through it. Nothing is going to stop a 88mm L/71.

[@OnEEmONErD]

@@lyndoncmp5751 through the turret or the hull?

[@lyndoncmp5751]

Through the turret front.

[@danschneider9921]

@@OnEEmONErD as I stated....one man's perspective

[@michaelmanning5379]

"Holy Roller" is an M4A2 that landed on D-Day and was still in service on V-E Day. It can be seen in Victoria Park in London, Ontario.

[@PatGilliland]

M4A4 Forceful III landed later but was the only one of it's regiment 21 CAR / GGFG to survive until VE day. It's at the Canadian War Museum in Ottawa.

[@SHADOWFRENZY92]

I was thinking I would go and see it until the last word. Sad times.

[@michaelmanning5379]

@@SHADOWFRENZY92 Think of the possibilities of a visit . . . The tank museum at Base Borden, Ontario Regiment tank museum, and the Canadian War Museum''s tank collection are all in Ontario.

[@SHADOWFRENZY92]

@@michaelmanning5379 I would certainly like to but the pond is preventing me from doing so, that and a lack of funds.

[@StarkRaven59]

For some reason I remember "Holy Roller" being in the background of the first campaign mission of Call of Duty 3. Would be a nice Easter egg if I'm remembering correctly.

[@The1davidb]

I think that is a very fair assessment and documentary about the evolution of the Sherman and its value. Thank you for your even handed approach.

[@jasonsearle7832]

Not many tanks could survive the 75 and 88mm guns of Germany. The Sherman was like the t34. They could be large numbers and damn versatile. So many variants

[@ralphgreenjr.2466]

What must be remembered is the Sherman had several constraints that German tanks did not. The Sherman's size and weight had to be such that it could be loaded on ship and off loaded at European port facilities. The mobility and speed were developed to compensate for its reduced size and light armor compared to German tanks. Lastly, everything about the Sherman was developed to facilitate speed of construction. It served all the Allies well.

[@baldalicious]

My father started the Normandy invasion as a bow gunner on a Sherman in the 6th Armored Division. He soon became a scout because he spoke fluent French and traded the Sherman for a Jeep and a Thompson sitting on the passenger seat. He maintained that the Sherman wasn't really a tank but more of an infantry support vehicle. Tank to tank, it often became overwhelmed but as an infantry support vehicle, it could be very effective.

[@nickdanger3802]

All due respect to your father, someone who was a bow gunner for a short period would hardly be in a position to judge.

[@baldalicious]

Interesting that you think a guy who served two and a half years in a Sherman equipped armored brigade, including combat from D-Day to V-E day wouldn't be in a position to judge. @@nickdanger3802

[@williamkarbala5718]

I like how the Sherman Tank and General Sherman had the same advantages. You build a competent army. And then just have never ending numbers of them.

[@linusgallitzin]

Gasoline during war must have been a premium to get and transport. The smaller and more numerous Sherman probably dealt better with the logistics and limitations of big tanks in Europe with bad roads, small roads, and limited gas stations in-between. You spread the risk and mobility by having more tanks. Tanks not should go alone without infantry anyway.

[@kathleenmcmanus8509]

Excellent video but I feel some mention of the Sherman post war was merited

[@dxb338]

A key advantage of the sherman that you didn't touch on was logistics. it was designed to be very easy (relatively, for a tank of the time) to transport by rail and by sea to all corners of the world. also, compared to its contemporaries, it was designed to be easy to repair, with modular systems like a transmission that could be swapped out as a unit.

[@jamesabbot-cole6814]

And Bridging equipment. One of the Criteria was that it had to be able to cross Class 40 Bailey Bridges.

[@emberfist8347]

@@jamesabbot-cole6814Well most nations in their right mind wanted a tank that could cross bridges.

[@dxb338]

@@emberfist8347 nono, we'll just put a snorkel on it im sure it will be fine

[@scootergeorge7089]

@@dxb338 - That was the plan for the Maus.

[@matts1166]

If I remember correctly, a Sherman with a busted transmission could be fixed (complete tranny swap) in the field, with hand tools, by 2 guys, in 5 hours. A Panther? first you needed to tow it to a shop, then remove the entire turret with a crane, then remove a firewall, driver seat, radio, etc. Pull tranny out of the turret ring and replace. A Dozen guys over a week to do.

[@Caratacus1]

Am surprised the 75mm Sherman's rapid rate of fire and fast turret traverse wasn't mentioned. All very useful in Normandy when the typical engagement was at close range (less than 500m). The HE round was outstanding.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

It didn't help at Estrees la Campagne on 9th August 1944 when 44 Canadian Shermans of Worthington Force were decimated at range by the Tigers of Schwere SS Panzer Abteilung 101 and Panthers of 12th SS. Not a single Tiger was lost there. The Tigers stood back and picked the Shermans off at range.

[@MarkofZollo]

@@lyndoncmp5751 decimated? So just four Shermans were knocked out? Regardless, that's a heavy tank at long range doing what it was designed for, vs a medium not in its element. Plenty of times where the Sherman's rapid fire was beneficial, including Semken of the Sherwood Rangers knocking out a Tiger, frontally, on the 26th June 44

[@jamesabbot-cole6814]

@@MarkofZollo And George Dring (also Sherwood Rangers). Knocked out 2 Tigers, 2 Panthers and a MKiv in one day with a 75mm. Mind you what alot of people don;t understand is knocked out doesn't mean destroyed completely, it just has to not fucntion (crew bailing out, engine dies, turret jams etc.)

[@0lionheart]

@@lyndoncmp5751 sorry, what was your point here? It's so bizarre people feel the need to bring up the Tiger constantly when there's no need to. OP is talking about the Sherman's positive traits in infantry support (HE), which y'know we're allowed to talk about.

[@frankpolly]

@@lyndoncmp5751 literally this entire comment reads as: I have an SS flag in my room and I listen to Erika all day, no I don't speak to my childhood friends anymore and that was their choice not mine.

[@yutian5884]

Honestly once the Sherman tanks got upgraded cannons they were able to go toe-to-toe against all German tanks. The armor wasn't as good compared to some of the later German models. But the number 1 deciding factor in tank v tank warfare was always about who got visual and range and fired first. Not to mention the US could outproduce everyone and field the most tanks.

[@dominuslogik484]

that stabilizer when used made for a huge improvement too. getting the gun stable faster after moving gave you precious seconds of advantage during a meeting engagement.

[@luisangelgonzalezmunoz7071]

Another factor that is often overlooked is that the M4 had two periscopes, one for the commander and another for the gunner. In the german tanks the gunner had no periscope, only the aiming telescopic sight, with a reduced width of field, and therefore was slower to adquire targets. That was an advantage for the crews of the M4.

[@yutian5884]

​@@luisangelgonzalezmunoz7071 I would still say crew experience is the #1 defining factor. A good tank commander would maximize his advantages whilst reducing the disadvantages by picking terrain and angle of attack. Sherman crews became very adaptable towards the end of the war once they had actual battlefield experience.

[@tommygun333]

Exactly, it was just a medium tank which is hard to compare with German or Russian heavies... Even the Panther was in fact rather a heavy than medium tank.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

No it couldn't go toe to toe (as in frontal engagements at range) with Tigers and Panthers. Let's not get carried away here.

[@treyriver5676]

So tank museum hired the former "history channel" writers? All tanks burn, it is often combat doctrine to shoot a tank till it burns 1942 Sherman is under gunned ? Ok what could it not kill ? M2 gun was very short lived even on M3 The harping on height is common, because hull down is not a thing I guess. No TDs were not supposed to be the primary AT unit as the Sherman was also supposed to fight tanks read Armor Force FM. A2 was sent to USSR in good part due to Soviet use of Diesel. 98mm not bad ? So Tiger I is what ok at less than a cm more ? APDS was wildly inaccrate. 76mm was available in june commenders decided not to use them on D Day.

[@jaggedskar3890]

All true and excellent points, notably lacking in this presentation.

[@CrusaderSports250]

A centimeter more is all it takes, and when your enemy has a far more potent gun than your armour stands you are in trouble, fortunately Tigers were not in abundance. The Sherman suffered from its own mass production, it was fine when it came out but steadily dropped back as development carried on, the problem was production was totally geared to making it, so changing to another tank would impact the numbers - which you need, but you also need something better, the Germans had this problem with the 109, we had it with the Hurricane, both very good aircraft but in the requirement of numbers development was limited, the T34 was the same, not the best tank but huge numbers of them and at what point do you interrupt production for a new development, which may not give the desired results, it's a gamble and had the war continued the lack of a better design may well have been problematic, as it worked out the designs lasted the conflict. I discuss this as original manufacturers not as service with third parties as that is a whole other topic.

[@giantskunk]

If I had to pick one tank to go to war in during WW2, it would be the Easy 8 Sherman. Reliable engine, wider tracks, big enough gun, and again, reliable engine.

[@ninus17]

And ease of maintenance and lots of spare parts making field repair relatively quick and easy compared to many of its contemporaries

[@theapostatejack8648]

And if things go wrong you have a good chance of getting out and getting another.

[@wotwott2319]

guess you could say it's very "easy going"

[@abntemplar82]

great but that hit the battlefield in 1944, the war started in 39 and the Sherman was produced starting in 42. so what do you ride before that? after all just like the Germans didn't give their Tigers to cherries, neither did the Americans, Brits, or anyone else with 2 or more functioning brain cells. they gave them to the veteran crews that had proved their worth on the battlefield. don't get me wrong, if i was a tanker (no way in hell) in WW2 i too would want an Easy Eight or a Firefly if i was a Brit.

[@giantskunk]

@@abntemplar82 Hmmm, early war, I’ll go with a Matilda, then maybe a Panzer III.

[@Zapranoth-lf8nt]

Strategic mobility is also important…the Sherman was designed to be built in Michigan, shipped to England, and ferried across the Channel in an assault landing craft…lots of weight restrictions involved even before it appeared on the battlefield.

[@0lionheart]

This is an important factor that often gets overlooked! Not to mention a lot of the bridges it had to cross in Europe couldn't support anything much heavier.

[@hoilst265]

@@0lionheart The wehraboos don't like discussing contexts, only looking at a Top Trumps-like set of stats, not the practicalities. It was either the Chieftain or the Mighty Moustache himself, David Fletcher, who said the most important thing on the Sherman were the lifting eyes that got them off the docks and craned onto Liberty Ships.

[@c.j.cleveland7475]

Wasn't one other thing they had to consider was that it had to fit on the existing railroad flatcars for transportation to whatever port it was leaving from? 🤔

[@Dreachon]

@@hoilst265 Actually the silly Sherman fanboys don't look at look at logistics al that much either as they love to repeat those silly myths about the Sherman could not not weigh more, Liberty ships had a crane with a 50 ton capacity, much heavier stuff was shipped across the ocean, and German engineers likely had a much better idea of what European bridges could handle than American engineers.

[@davestevens6283]

@@Dreachon But how many could you send over on each ship? how many can you transport on ships and landing craft? How many landing crafts will you need? And how will it affect your overall war effort in time, material, and manpower? Unlike most other designs, the Sherman survived in regular service in some armies for decades. Maybe mostly due to numbers, but it was effective, reliable and up-gradable enough to do so.

[@0KiiLLa0]

Plenty of source material debunking the "Zippo"/"Ronson" myth. Only took just over 2 minutes to discredit yourselves. Nice.

[@robertsantamaria6857]

Funny, just last week Paul Woodadge at WW2TV just did a myth busting episode on the Sherman with Chieftain as his guest to specifically address the origins of the Tommy Cooker myth.

[@dok3304]

If it's on KZbin, mind looking that? It sounds like a fun watch.

[@petestorz172]

Chieftain also pointed out the the original Sherman was not more likely to "brew up" than contemporary tanks. What may be remarkable, though, is that the US Army tested the issue and designed the wet stowage that improved crew survivability.

[@gwarner99b]

I have seen it claimed by a number of experts that the phrase "tommy cookers" was first applied to British tanks, and when it was used, it referred to the temperature inside ill-ventilated tanks, especially in hot climates.

[@michaelporzio7384]

If it wasn't an issue at the time, then the US army would not have gone through the trouble of devising wet storage. Same could be said for the welded plates, tankers famously improvise especially when it comes to saving their lives!

[@kmoecub]

@@michaelporzio7384 It was an issue as the war went on. Every nation with any sense will upgrade equipment as necessary when the situation changes. A clear modern example is the current scramble in Russia to improve the survivability of their tanks vs. drones.

[@minuteman4199]

My reserve armoured regiment in Canada was equipped with Shermans into the 1970s. I served with guys in the 80s and 90s who were trained Sherman crewmen.

[@wayneholmes637]

Centurions were still in use in the British army until the early 90s and Centurion is only a few years younger.

[@perpelle]

The constant bursting into flames is kind of a myth.....

[@stranger299a]

yea, it had a gasoline engine and ammo stored at the sides just like everyone else including the overrated Tigers. And yet some think the Shermans burned more, with ammo later stowed on the floor it was very survivable

[@Venezolano410]

Sour grapes? 🍇😁

[@ifv2089]

Even Tanks today are constantly bursting Into flames.

[@Chopstorm.]

It happened with the British in Africa due to them shoving ammo in every spot they could. Beyond that though, it's burn rates prior to wet stowage were the same as the Panzer IV. With wet stowage, it was the lowest of the war (at least for production tanks).

[@Andy-co6pn]

​@Chopstorm. In fast moving open desert warfare you don't want to stop to wait for the supply truck for more ammo..

[@ragerancher]

The Sherman was the perfect example of the best balance of all the different requirements. Easy to produce, relatively cheap, quick, reliable, easy to maintain and repair, decent guns and decent armour. Whilst other tanks could have beaten it 1 on 1, there were many the Sherman could also go toe to toe with. Any that could best it directly on the field would have had glaring weaknesses elsewhere, usually related to production, reliability and logistics.

[@frankstonrat]

Yep, the Sherman was also a convenient size to transport by ship.

[@billalumni7760]

@@frankstonrat Ship And Rail.

[@billalumni7760]

One could say the major strength of the Sherman was not that they could go 1 v 1 with the best of the Axis tanks but because they were so reliable they never had to.

[@frankstonrat]

@@billalumni7760 Yes, very well designed for strategic deployment half a world away.

[@joeelliott2157]

Shermans were great for shipping by ship and rail. And even more importantly pontoon or Bailey bridges hurriedly throw up across rivers. It was alright for Germany to use big heavy tanks during 1943-1945. They were almost always on the defensive. And only had to cross permanent bridges. When the Ludendorff bridge was taken in March 1945, Sherman tanks were able to cross the Rhine river over the heavily damaged bridge, and over pontoon bridges. In contrast, the Pershing tanks had to be ferried one at time over the bridges, one or two per day. While the Shermans streamed across the Rhine taking the war to Germany. Of course using the Pershing tanks in this case was no problem, assuming you didn't mind holding up the war for a few days, didn't mind giving the Germans several days to respond to the sudden emergency, and had a few engineering companies available with nothing better to due than to laborious ferry Pershing across the river one at a time.

[@gregsmith222]

The Sherman was not the greatest at tank on tank combat, but it was great at distributing high explosive shells and machine gun fire across the battlefield, and we built tons of them. if you were an infantryman, pinned down by a mg-42 in a barricaded position, or by a half-track, or what have you, you didn't care if the thing could penetrate a king tiger turret or not, you were just glad it was there

[@ditto1958]

It was also really good at being where it was needed, operational, with trained crews, fuel, ammo, maintenance crews and spare parts, in numbers large enough to win.

[@vast9467]

and compared to a king tiger it was able to show up without breaking down

[@Cursed_sc0ut]

And if you were pinned down by a BAR you had to pray the tank would make it and not break down

[@indianasunsets5738]

That the Israelis were still using Sherman's (upgunned, of course and with a Cummins diesel motor) into the 1980s testifies to its good design.

[@pex_the_unalivedrunk6785]

Isreal is great at upgrading old tanks, their up-armored M60 Magach still looks like a viable war machine today, even though they stopped using them once they had enough Merkavas built.

[@peterrobbins2862]

Not really they were readily available and cheap

[@indianasunsets5738]

@@peterrobbins2862 yes, really, because they were still useful into the 80s. Duh.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

Because there were literally thousands left. Same with the T-34.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

@@peterrobbins2862 Is the right answer. Other middle east nations still used the Panzer IV and Jagdpanzer into the 1960s until they were all gone (not many left to begin with).

[@ronhudson3730]

My father served in the Canadian army as a radio operator/loader on a Firefly. He was at the front from October 1944 until the end of the war. Returning home in 1946. His tank was hit and burned out but thankfully they all got out.

[@wihamaki]

One big overlooked thing in judging tanks is how easy is it to get out of. If that was a T34, your father might not of made it out.

[@bebo4807]

HAVE made it out. Learn how to speak and write your native language.

[@kleinerprinz99]

@@bebo4807 Who is HAVE? Made it out how and what? If you you want to correct someone else correctly, then you need to write correctly, too. A good example: Try ".., your father might not have made it out (in time)."

[@535tony]

@@bebo4807 Get a life dude!

[@Djamonja]

@@bebo4807 How do you know what his native language is?

[@jsplicer9]

The Tommy Cooker and Zippo names when used in reference to the tanks catching fire is incorrect according to a few other historians. Apparently the British tankers referred to all of their tanks in the desert as Tommy Cookers due to the extreme heat inside the tank, and the Zippo was a nickname given to flamethrower tanks. The thing about the Sherman fire myth is that all tanks, especially early to mid war, would burn. Most tanks stored ammo in the sponsons or other dangerous areas.

[@podunkman2709]

It was poor tank; gun, optics, engine, armour... But delivered in huge ammount on west front where germans were weaker than eastern front.

[@jaymorris3468]

It was the German gun crews who called them Tommy cookers not because they were hot inside.

[@johnnycab8986]

I've heard of the "Ronson" nickname coming from the slogan of Ronson lighters which was "Lights every time," with the implication being that it was extremely reliable, rather than it was something that went up in flames all the time. Take that with a grain of salt though.... The Sherman was probably the safest tank to be in in the entire war, with a 75% chance of surviving a penetration, compared to the T34-76 which was 10%. Only 1400 US tankers died in the entirety of WW2, that is across all models (Stuarts, Grants, etc.) , which gives you a sense of just how survivable Shermans were. British tankers in Shermans had significantly worse survival rates however, this is due to US tankers wearing helmets, and British tankers using berets. The Chieftains talk on this is easily the best breakdown of the Sherman and just how good it really was, it was probably the best tank of the war by far.

[@PeklyCZ]

@@johnnycab8986 The Ronson nickname came from guy, who write a book and during the war he was in repair depot. His view is horrible biased, because, well....he was in repair depot, so he saw a lot of burned out Shermans, because....well, this is where all destroyed/damaged tanks went...to repair depot.

[@pooddly9637]

@@podunkman2709 this video and history legit says otherwise

[@chaosXP3RT]

The Sherman tank was also one of the safest tanks of the war. Sherman tanks that were hit had the highest chance of all crew members escaping the tank

[@Paronak]

yep, had the biggest crew hatches.

[@matts1166]

@@Paronak Not only large hatches, MANY hatches. 5 in fact And they were spring loaded so you didn't have to lift the entire weight to open it.. A T-34 might only have one. A sherman crew took less time to get out and stand up on the ground than it took to open a single hatch on a T-34.

[@Paronak]

@@matts1166 lets say the T-34 had 2, 1 giant heavy hatch on the turret and a heavy hatch for the driver. Machine gunner had to sort it himself

[@lyndoncmp5751]

It wasn't even the safest allied medium tank. The British reported that the Cromwell had a higher survival rate than the Sherman.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

There was a significant difference in casualties between the Cromwell and Sherman when hit by artillery and anti tank fire typically 55% of the Cromwell Crew escaped unhurt whilst its only 35% for Sherman. Also a greater number of casualties died from their injuries in the Sherman 46% than did in Cromwell 33%. From "Montgomery's Scientists Operational Research in Northwest Europe, the Work of No.2 Operational Research Section with 21 Army Group June 1944 to July 1945” by Canadian historian Terry Copp, published by Laurier Centre for Military Strategic and Disarmament Studies Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.

[@tommygun333]

As far as I know, according to WW2 statistics Sherman's didn't catch on fire more frequently than other gas run tanks of the era... The Chieftain explained it thoroughly many times...!

[@pex_the_unalivedrunk6785]

Oh bugger...the tank is on fire.

[@KekusMagnus]

Diesel tanks are still superior though

[@mikeholland1031]

​@@KekusMagnusvery few of them in WW2

[@eric934]

Soviets built plenty of diesel tanks. T34, KV1, IS1. V12 diesel.

[@Mustapha1963]

I can't recall exactly when, but pretty early on in the evolution of the Sherman, the shells for the 75mm were surrounded with a liquid mixture to lessen the chance of the rounds cooking off after a hit. If there wasn't at least some truth to the claims that Shermans burned easily, why go to the trouble and expense of wet-stowage?

[@06colkurtz]

According to my reading, the reason for the sponson gun in the M3 was because of the challenge of casing a hull with a turret ring large enough to fit the turret. Building the turret was not the limiting factor. It was the inability to pour the turret ring.

[@Ocrilat]

That doesn't sound right. It makes no sense that the turret ring was the problem in a cast hull...it's just a hole in the hull. The problem was that neither the USA or the UK had ever cast a turret big enough for a 75 mm gun, and it took a bit of time to work out how to do it. Do you have a source for that? Every source I see echoes the 'need to built a bigger turret'.

[@seanraymond9529]

@@Ocrilatyea your correct. They needed a 75 asap but weren’t able to put it in a turret yet at that moment so stuck it in a hull. Thus, the m3 was born.

[@Lunkwow]

The most have produced casted M3's with turret before the M4's, but if it's the turret ring or turret itself that was the problem I don't know.

[@billwilson-es5yn]

It was the design of the ring. The Army and Ordnance wanted a ring design that could handle the weight of larger turrets holding bigger guns that they planned to use within a year or two. The Jumbo is a good example. It was a basic M4 that had extra armor added to the hull and a much thicker cast turret. When one had its turret shot up then it was replaced with any available M4 turret. The M10 and M36 also used the same turret ring. Fisher Body built the M10 whose hull was to hold the M36 turret. Fisher had labor problems so couldn't produce more M10 hulls. Ordnance told Ford to set the M36 turrets on M4'S coming off the production line and redo the ammo storage outside in the storage yard. Fisher Body was then given the contract to design and produce the Jumbo while the Army rounded up all of the M10's at the training bases. Those totalled 1000 and were refurbished by Fisher Body before they received the M36 turret. Fisher was to produce 6000 M36 TD's but Ordnance cancelled the contract after the 1000 were finished since the M36 on M4 hulls were preferred by their users for being better armored. Ordnance discovered that after shipping 29 M36 turrets to France after D-Day to set on repaired M4 hulls to get it to the troops faster.

[@Frostfly]

The M3 is a very standard interwar Design. Look at the early Churchills, the B2. and a pile of proposed designs. It's just what the thinking was. the little gun on top was considered plenty for antitank work. the big gun was for bunkers. The MGs everywhere were because the US had a machine gun fetish.

[@richardlobinske5174]

Honestly surprised that the myth of excess flammability being continued here.

[@drewschumann1]

Me too. You'd think a professional historian would actually pay attention to objective history on the subject

[@sapiensiski]

But muh ronson

[@TheBruceGday]

War Thunder…

[@reedvending2384]

In a Sherman was one of the safer jobs to have. Also it's down to logistics. We had to ship it across a ocean to fight. Then transport supplies once it got there. On top of that spare parts were available.

[@Fireclaws10]

especially safe when wet storage was put in

[@dominuslogik484]

@@Fireclaws10 an under appreciated fact was also that US tankers still wore helmets inside the tank. there was actually a noticeable increase in survivability compared to British tankers in their own shermans since they only wore berets inside their shermans.

[@markthompson4096]

Plus the ability for the allies to provide a complete new tank relatively quickly to replace those lost as unrepairable on the battlefield. That's something the enemy couldn't match due to allied air supremacy shooting up most replacements.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

@dominuslogik484 A British medical study, concluded the Cromwell was more survivable than the Sherman. There was a significant difference in casualties between the Cromwell and Sherman when hit by artillery and anti tank fire typically 55% of the Cromwell Crew escaped unhurt whilst its 35% for Sherman. Also a greater number of casualties died from their injuries, in the Sherman 46% than did in Cromwell 33%. From "Montgomery's Scientists Operational Research in Northwest Europe, the Work of No.2 Operational Research Section with 21 Army Group June 1944 to July 1945” by Canadian historian Terry Copp, published by Laurier Centre for Military Strategic and Disarmament Studies Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.

[@tobiasbauer198]

But that this tank was great in logistics is a myth, if they would have built a better one, they wouldn't need to transport so many replacement tanks. In Africa they have been good enough, but in Europe they were outmatched as Germany had until late 44 enough resources in the West to roast them. Only allied air power ended the battle of the bulge.

[@DavisJ-ln6fw]

The Sherman was the best tank of WW2

[@lyndoncmp5751]

No best tank of WW2. Each nation had different requirements. The Sherman wouldn't have served Germany better 1943-1945.

[@DavisJ-ln6fw]

@@lyndoncmp5751 The Sherman was the best because it best fit the tactical doctrine of the nations that used it and it was able to cover the most doctrines across the most nations. Which is why it was so widely used and saw so much success both during the war and post war.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

@@DavisJ-ln6fw Well, as balance the British reported fewer mechanical problems and lower injury and survival rates with the Cromwell than Sherman and nobody would declare that the Cromwell was the best tank of WW2.

[@DavisJ-ln6fw]

The Cromwell was nowhere as widely used as the Sherman nor was it as versatile nor was it used nearly as much after the war so I would still argue the Sherman's superior to the Cromwell as it's advantages had more substantial implication for the overall war effort. Note this is just my opinion .

[@lyndoncmp5751]

@@DavisJ-ln6fw The Sherman was widely used after the war because there were tens of thousands of them left. Same with the T-34. There were nowhere near as many Cromwells built. The Cromwell basically turned into the Comet.

[@ivanconnolly7332]

The Chieftain believes the appellation Tommy cooker was coined by the British in N Africa as all British tanks there were saunas.

[@MichalKaczorowski]

Sherman: the transmission broke after driving 1500 km from France to Germany - just unscrew these few bolts and replace the gearbox, spare parts are there. Panther: after rolling off the railway ramp, the transmission broke and the tank burst into flames - back to the factory...

[@lyndoncmp5751]

You are referring for the whopping TWO Panthers out of the TWO HUNDRED deployed to Kursk that caught fire and were written off while moving from the detrainment sector? This was caused by defective fuel line seals which was quickly rectified. Von Laucherts report on the two Panther abteilungs at Kursk is actually an eye opener. It shows battle damage was far more prevalent than mechanical issues for Panthers in the repair workshops. Von Lauchert also reported: "After several days the number of motor breakdowns decreased. Therefore it is speculated that the motors were not sufficiently run in" and that "transmissions didn't experience a high number of breakdowns. The transmission modification at Grafenwoehr were apparently successful". Nor did they get sent back to the factory in Germany. They were repaired by the field workshops within the Panther abteilungs. You can read this report in detail on pages 132, 133 and 134 in Tom Jentz's excellent book on the Panther tank.

[@ironfox2411]

@@lyndoncmp5751 still yet, those panthers could only go miserably short distances before burning up clutches, blowing transmission gears, grinding down transaxle bearings and so on, due to their crappy metallurgy late in the war and immense weight and overall crap design. And the idiot germans made it where you had to pull the entire turret off to get the transmission out, which became a very real problem after a very short amount of operational time.

[@moekitsune]

​@@lyndoncmp5751 You're overanalyzing a meme sir

[@Dreachon]

@@ironfox2411 So much utter nonsense in one comment, it is pretty clear you have never read up on the actual tank.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

@@ironfox2411 You are repeating exaggerated myths, and who told you that the Panther turret had to be removed to take the transmission out? All you did was turn the turret to the side. There are literally pictures showing this 😂

[@rafis117]

This is a weirdly inaccurate video for Tank Museum. The M4 was designed from the start for both anti-armor and anti-infantry roles. Its gun upgrades were planned from the start, and often delayed for lack of perceived need against enemy armor. Through the war it saw three different upgrades: in addition to upgunning some M4s with the 76mm M1 guns, the M10 and M36 vehicles - M4 derivates - carried 76mm and 90mm guns, respectively. But most Allied commanders didn’t think they needed the 76mm M4s before Normandy. But what the Americans seemed to understand from their British and French advisors is that most tank battles were fought and won by ambush. Everyone saw high losses on the attack and low losses on the defense. Whoever got the first shot typically won. What swung the balance in the favor of the Allies was that the Allied tanks had great tactical mobility and dominant strategic mobility, plus situational awareness: even though broadly the Allies were on the attack, tactically they were often ambushing German armor. M10 tank destroyers were able to lock down Tiger I tanks as soon as they met in North Africa. M4s had a 3.6:1 kill ratio over Panther tanks and about a 1:1 with Tiger tanks, both tanks that had a lot of great features and on paper the M4 shouldn’t have been able to scratch! Over 86% of M4 tanks survived the war, compared to 22% of T-34s and less than 5% of each German type. In fact, when Americans were worrying about M4s brewing up, they were 5% less likely to burn than Panzer IVs, and wet stowage widened the lead significantly. Moreover, the average number of tank crews killed when an M4 was penetrated was about 1, meaning in most cases all 5 crewmen got out safely.

[@sithdoestat4432]

literally this

[@lyndoncmp5751]

"M10 tank destroyers were able to lock down Tiger I tanks as soon as they met in North Africa." Not a single Tiger was knocked out by any M10 in North Africa. Out of the 32 Tigers deployed there, only 7 were lost to direct enemy action. None to M10s. Source : Sledgehammers, Strengths and Flaws of Tiger Tank Battalions in World War Two by Christopher Wilbeck. "M4s had a 3.6:1 kill ratio over Panther tanks" Myth. It came from a skewed cherry picked report which ommited losing engagements and did not sufficiently establish that the tanks in question were even Panthers. Not to mention the propensity for American crews with ample ammunition to lob shells into already abandoned enemy tanks and calling it a "kill". This was a common practice. "and about a 1:1 with Tiger tanks" An even bigger myth. What is your source for this?

[@sithdoestat4432]

@@lyndoncmp5751 You got anything regarding the British experience with shermans and the german big cats btw?

[@lyndoncmp5751]

@sithdoestat4432 In North Africa or in general? In North Africa no Shermans, either British or American, knocked out any Tigers.

[@sithdoestat4432]

@@lyndoncmp5751 in general

[@kunstderfugue]

I wish you would have talked about the life of the Sherman after WWII, because there's a lot of interesting things that countries did with Shermans in the Cold War Era. The French, Israelis, and other countries had projects to adapt and up-gun Sherman Tanks they purchased

[@bigtoad45]

People like to hate the Sherman but people don't realize that America had to design, manufacture, and then transport across the ocean a tank that was reliable and easy to maintain. Try putting a king tiger on a landing craft.

[@christiandauz3742]

Poland and China wished they had Sherman Fireflies at the start of WW2 The Axis would have sustain three times as many losses in the first year alone!

[@1reefshark]

to say the us wasn't doing anything to improve the fire power of the Sherman is inaccurate, there were designs to mount the 76mm gun into the Sherman as early as 1942, its just on the originally turret it wasn't as ideal even with modifications made. Add in that in 42 the Sherman was facing mostly pz IVs and pz IIIs, there was no need for the more powerful gun as the 75mm was sufficient against those vehicles. Even going into 43 where the tiger would show up, they were so rare that it wasn't worth forcing a 76mm into the Sherman just for the rare tiger sighting. it wouldn't be till 44 that a better designed turret for the 76 mm in the form of the T23 turret that they would make the switch now that it could be done much more reliably, rather than having another rush job like the Lee/Grant or the Firefly.

[@johnharrison6745]

People who talk smack about the 'Sherman' series of tank-models, don't know what they're jabbering-about. It's that simple.

[@SmedleyDouwright]

I learned recently that the British Army actually really liked the US 75 mm gun from the Sherman tank, at least early on. They would salvage 75 mm guns from damaged/destroyed Shermans and mount them on Churchill tanks. Field modified Churchills are easy to spot in photographs because they have the external gun shield from the Sherman.

[@simonh317]

It was the HE round ; the 2lber and 6 lber wernt great for anti infantry work (poor HE) whereas the 75mm was.

[@dominuslogik484]

The British also figured out how to bore out a 6 pounder to 75mm and make it use American 75mm ammo. pretty sure a modern engineer would have a stroke if you suggested thinning out a cannon barrel to push a wider round through it today lol.

[@michaelguerin56]

@@dominuslogik484 There would only be a problem if you tried to use the ‘76’ mm round because that round has a much bigger case to hold more propellant thereby generating higher breech pressure and velocity. The higher pressure ‘76’ mm round was also much heavier, just like the German equivalent. Doing the same thing to produce more powerful German 88mm flak guns and British 3.7” flak guns was not so much of an issue because the gun crews were larger, had more room to work in and simply had to place the rounds into automatic loading systems that also set the fuses.

[@rwaitt14153]

@@dominuslogik484 The 6lb gun was overbuilt. Ammunition could not always be relied upon to have consistent charges and sometimes there would be "hot" rounds that produced elevated breech pressures. The conversion of these guns to 75mm took advantage of that extra strength built into the design to handle the new ammunition. There was the extra risk because of the reduced capacity to handle "hot" rounds but that was considered acceptable because it got a more capable round into the fight.

[@villesaarenketo2506]

Easy 8 M1A2 muzzle brake is disturbingly similar to the one in german KwK 40. Who copied who?

[@JakeTheTankmaster]

14:55 75mm M3 was absolutely designed as an anti-armour weapon, being a successor to the 75mm M1897A4 which served on M3 GMC halftracks as tank destroyers.

[@tasman006]

Agreed when looked and what tanks they thought they would be going up agianst the Panzer 3 and Panzer 4 but the troops did love the HE shell compared to the 76mm that came later.

[@alexanderthegreatzabaras7492]

@@tasman006that’s cus the amount if the he in the 76mm, was much less than the 75, the 76 was necked down and specifically made for an anti tank round.

[@treyriver5676]

Agreed. Also read FM 17 the armored Force.

[@dominuslogik484]

@@alexanderthegreatzabaras7492 The HE filler wasn't "significantly less" but it was less. the major complaint by a lot of tankers was the reduction in ammo storage. its also why the 90mm wasn't adopted on tanks sooner since they figured the 76mm was enough and they preferred to not give up even more ammo for a bigger gun.

[@dwwolf4636]

The biggest reason is that the 76mm had a higher velocity and thus the spread pattern of fragments is more elongated and narrower.

[@jimbrown2769]

The Sherman was reliable and much easier to repair unlike many contemporary tanks.

[@emberfist8347]

Well to be fair that is because most modern tanks have more advanced equipment by necessity. P-38 Lightning is technically more reliable than an F-35 Lightning II because it is a piston-engine craft and not a stealth jet. As Star Trek III once put it “the more complicated the plumbing, the easier it is to clog the pipes.”

[@hoilst265]

@@emberfist8347 "Contemporary" doesn't mean "today". "Contemporary" means "of the same time". He's referring to the Sherman's _contemporaries_, not modern tanks.

[@emberfist8347]

@@hoilst265 I now of the other definition. Contemporary is also used to refer to modern things so I incorrectly assumed it was that definition.

[@WalterWhiteFootballSharing]

Wow u guys settled it without a Twitter style flame war.

[@friedyzostas9998]

There's always a stinky, dishonest idea that pops up in the collective's minds once the M4 is brought in discussion: its comparison with the Tiger and the Panther, as if those were the standard german tanks. People need to start comparing the M4 with the Pz. IV instead.

[@lionheartx-ray4135]

To me it simple, The fact 3% american tankers died in the war is much lower then any other country. Sherman did it job in the war and also brought back over 95% of it crew back home.

[@minuteman4199]

My Canadian reserve regiment fought in WW1 as an infantry battalion. In the 30s it became armoured and in WW2 it fought from the invasion of Sicily, through Italy then into NW Europe equipped with Shermans the whole time. It's WW1 honour roll goes on forever. For WW2, it's reasonably short.

[@davepeters4955]

I seem to recall the Germans having a pretty strict doctrine on when their crews could abandon their tanks - it had to be on fire, iirc. They were so hard up for materials that the tank was more valuable than the crew. Meanwhile, three more Shermans rolled off the assembly line to replace the one that was damaged, and two more were repaired and sent back into action - likely with experienced crews, because they survived their tank being hit.

[@chrisfletcher86]

At least partly due to tactics, air superiority and weight of numbers

[@lionheartx-ray4135]

@@chrisfletcher86 True noting in war lives in vacuum.

[@minuteman4199]

@@chrisfletcher86 No, it's also short compared to WW2 infantry battalions.

[@OasisTypeZaku]

The Sherman was the Best Tank of World War 2. I'd always figured it got a bad rap but Chieftain convinced me it was the best with his Myths of American Armor and Sherman Tabk videos. Note: Yes, the M3 75mm WAS meant to shoot tanks. Really? Tank Museum? Why, oh WHY would you give it AP ammo in the first place? Lazerpig knows better. Love to Lazerpig! Edit: The gun was meant to do *everything* that might be asked of it; from infantry support, to anti-tank duty. Too high a velocity, the HE would sail over a target and loses the ability to give the shell good, plunging fire as well. Too low and it can't take on other tanks. 619-625m/sec isn't bad at all, right down the middle, really and gives the tank amazing utility. If you had the correct sights and equipment, I bet you could use it for anti-aircraft work as well😂. And, throughout it's many variants, it's crew survival rates were into the 80% range and it only got better with water storage. The T-34 only had a 5% to 15% crew survival rate, could only get off a couple rounds a minute while the Sherman could get off around 10! The Sherman was faster by a wide margin as well and the roomier of the two, aiding the soft factors lile loading and target acquisition. Sherman. BEST. Tank. Of. WW 2.

[@brucenorman8904]

The M4 could got off a few more than 10 rounds a minute. An M60a1 could get off 18 rounds the first minute, it slowed down once the 15 rounds in the ready racks were spent, and that is a 105mm round.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

There was no best tank of WW2.

[@OasisTypeZaku]

@@lyndoncmp5751 Yes there is! And it's right here!

[@lyndoncmp5751]

@OasisTypeZaku There was no best tank of WW2. Each nation had different requirements. It wouldn't have served the Germans better 1943/45.

[@OasisTypeZaku]

@@lyndoncmp5751 True, but given everything the Sherman was, the roles it was expected to fill, ease of repair/maintenance, hard and soft factors, and the fact it has to be supplied from thousands of miles away successfully (which it was) compared to every other tank, not one vise in the maintenance/repair shops because *the parts all fit perfectly From The Factory and no modifications were ever required...* Yeah, best tank of WW2, I'm calling it here and now.

[@davidmartyn5044]

i`m wearing my Sherman Fury slippers bought form the tank museum shop. Rugged an reliable!

[@timeandnourishment1961]

Furry Fury slippers? Great fun! 😂

[@redsion23]

The Sherman was a revolutionary tank. Every tank nowadays has "rolling upgrades" just as the Sherman's started

[@anthonycarter8158]

Well ..... Shermans were on the winning side. No need to debate the other issues.

[@SootHead]

Tank Museum should pay more attention to the research done by LTC Nick Moran (the Chieftain). Why the Sherman was what it was had as much to do with the fact that every Sherman had to be shipped a minimum of 3000 miles on ships and from port facilities not suited to tanks much larger or heavier. The concept of a heavy tank wasn't unappreciated by American planners but, for a big part of the war, logistics and production concerns dictated a medium tank. I believe it was Moran who said something along the lines of, "Better to have a hundred medium tanks now than 25 heavy tanks in a while."

[@antonrudenham3259]

I'm not sure I subscribe to Morans transport theory, US and European ports had been handling items far bigger and heavier than even modern tanks for decades before WW2. Things like steam locomotives, huge naval gun, transformers, armour plate and massive turbines, every modern port in every modern country could handle such things and I can't see why there'd be an insoluble problem with handling 40-60 ton tanks. The Germans got a few Tigers to Tunisia in early 43 and the British had no problem with their Churchill tank so I just can't see why the USA might have struggled with similar weights and sizes. There is of course the question of actual hold space on board ships but I can tell you that weight is not the deciding factor in this issue, a ship designed to carry 12000 tons of iron ore would not even notice 100 50 ton tanks. The prohibiting factor is actually the individual volume of a tank, with their turrets reversed all tanks are rectangular boxes and some are obviously bigger than others. An M26 is not greatly larger volumetrically than an M4, it is however larger and so instead of a typical T2 cargo vessel toting 80 M4's it totes 70 M26's.

[@SootHead]

@@antonrudenham3259 I'm not so sure it was an issue of being able to "handle" large items, I think it's a matter of handing large volumes of heavier materiel as rapidly as was needed, especially initially. Moran did research and, IIRC, stated the average port crane in the US could do 45 tons in a single lift. And the problem was solved later in the war via various infrastructure upgrades. Go back and look at Moran's various presentations for clarity. And then we go back to logistics, standardization and the fact that tank to tank duels were relatively uncommon. Most of the time, a tank was truly and mainly an infantry support weapon. It can be argued that US Tank Destroyer doctrine was a somewhat flawed concept, vs upgraded tanks or a new heavier tank. IMO, the biggest mistake in the ETO was not sending the 76mm Shermans in from the D-Day getgo.

[@PatGilliland]

Oh I expect they have and continue to do so. Nicholas Moran is a professional Armoured Officer, the Tank Museum staff are professional Historians. All of them know their stuff so I don't get too bent out of shape when they differ a bit on details.

[@solus48]

I would count Moran as an actual historian at this point considering the amount of research he does with primary sources in the US national archives and the archives of other countries.

[@brucenorman8904]

@@SootHead Not really. They arrived shortly before the invasion and would require re-training and would cause an additional burden on logistics.

[@petestorz172]

As in so much of such assessments, context matters: when did it come into usage; how was it intended to be used; what was its strengths and vulnerabilities; etc.. This is true for a wide range of "its", not just tanks. When introduced, the M4 was very effective. That it had an effective HE round - better than the upgrade 76 mm gun's - indicates that infantry support was intended to at least be a significant role (just as having an AP round proves that tank vs. tank was an expected role). Infantry support actions get less attention in tank histories, thus the M4's effectiveness in this role is much less visible/known. Implied, though not directly mentioned, is that contemporary British and German tanks were less reliable and serviceable than M4s. Also not mentioned is that because the allies were attacking to liberate, M4s (and other allied tanks, of course) often were driving into German tanks in concealment or prepared positions, advantageous to the German tanks.

[@washingtonradio]

The Sherman was a robust enough design that with upgrades it could be a competitive tank with any medium tank in the world and have a decent chance against any heavy tank in the world, of course depending on variant, etc. even at the end of WWII. It was an easily repairable tank, something Chieftain has remarked on before.

[@raseli4066]

the cheiftan also remarked the myth of the sherman always burning was because the germans had a tendency to shoot everything until it burned.

[@emberfist8347]

@@raseli4066That and the Brits put ammo wherever they could stuff it.

[@boydgrandy5769]

Not inconsequential was the fact that US Army M4 Shermans armed with the 75mm gun operated in platoons of at least 4 tanks, usually 5. They were quicker than the Tiger and the Panther, were more agile in the turn and their turrets could turn faster. That meant that a platoon of Shermans could outflank any lone heavy cat they met and get a shot into the side or rear of the heavy tank before the German could lay his gun on one of them. The M3 gun, firing M61 or M72 AP rounds, could penetrate the Tiger's side and rear at close range, and the accuracy of the gun made track and wheel hits possible at longer ranges. This is the source of the legend that it took 5 Shermans to kill a Tiger, implying that 4 of the 5 Shermans would be destroyed getting the Tiger. That was not the case. They swarmed the big cats and shot them where the armor was thinnest with their 75 mm M3 guns, getting at least a mission kill, often without losing a single attacking tank. The real good news is that they rarely met a Tiger I in France (less than 1400 were ever made) and Panthers were almost as rare because Allied air power decimated German armor units when they attempted to road march to the Normandy front. The up gunning of the M18 and M36 tank destroyers later in the war provided a class of powerful and flexible armored fighting vehicles that were a match for any tank the Germans could field, and they were a development of the Sherman chassis and running gear as well. The tactics were simple. Shoot first, fire two or three rounds and then move to a secondary position to prevent the enemy from getting a shot on you.

[@matts1166]

@@boydgrandy5769 US Shermans virtually NEVER fought a Tiger after D-day. It actually only happened twice, and I don't count one of those times because they were unmanned Tigers loaded onto a train for transport. Even though 1943 if you saw a German tank it was likely either a Panzer 4 (all around equal to a Sherman) or a Panzer 3 (Sherman way better here.)

[@piotrmalewski8178]

Sherman was arguably the best tank of WWII. Armour was good for medium tank, same as optics and gun. It was reliable, could be easily repaired and cheaply produced. It was also comfortable for the crew and the size offered good survivability. The only thing where Sherman was lacking was off-road ability, similarly to many German tanks. But it was corrected in the HVSS version.

[@lunokhod3937]

best tank of WW2, as close to perfect as you can get. realiable, easy to repair, easy to transport, easy to mass produce, easy to upgrade, capable against tanks, capable against infantry; absolutley perfect for global attritional warfare. hard to point at a single thing and credit it for winning a whole war; but I'd think history'd be different if we never got the sherman.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

There was no best tank of WW2. Each country had different requirements.

[@SweetSniper5197]

There isn't really a best tank, every country had different doctrines throughout the war, US: Mass production USSR: Mass production Britain: Infantry support Germany: Blitz (early war idk what I'd call late war) France: Infantry support Italy/Japan: Didn't really focus on tanks

[@moekitsune]

​@@lyndoncmp5751I agree but the Sherman is the closest

[@0lionheart]

@@lyndoncmp5751 The book "Armored Champion" by Steven Zaloga does a really, really good "best tank" breakdown for each period of the war, by criteria. So, commanders choice, crew choice etc. Feels like the best way to do it imo

[@lyndoncmp5751]

@@0lionheart Zaloga is widely criticised for being too America biased.

[@bluemouse5039]

Actually The German Tiger and Panther tank wasn't good as the Sherman in many ways, The German tanks were too heavy that put strain on the suspension and transmissions causing them to break down and many times had to be abandoned because they were overly complex mechanically with limited access for mechanic to repair them quickly, the engines were also underpowered for the weight and overheated easily while the Sherman was designed for fast production and simplicity of design for easy service, a Sherman could be repaired quite rapidly from a mechanical problem because that was incorporated into the design, while the German tank was rushed into production fast as possible and things like reliably, easy to service or repair were afterthoughts or not considered to be important, the prime concern was getting the biggest tank and gun on the battlefield fast as possible another thing is the Sherman is always called inferior when compared to the Tiger and Panther but those are heavy tanks that the Sherman was never designed to fight because it is a medium tank made to fight the MK 3 and 4 models

[@kuroiuzu9754]

brilliant video as always , we are all very lucky to have this content

[@detritus23]

Excellent video. I think two points were sadly missed: 1) part of the M4's design was to allow for its shipment across the oceans, which limited its tare mass; and, 2) the provisions for crew survival with the reasonably well-placed hatches for the crew to escape a knocked out tank. I'd also add its relative ease of maintenance, but the archive photos made the point.

[@willd7596]

The warrior using the weapon is always more important than the weapon itself. -Out of over 400,000 US dead in WWII approx only 1,600 were tank crewmen. That’s around .4%. -The US tank forces won the majority of battles they fought, both in the Pacific and in Europe -The US upgraded it as much as we could have, as soon as we could have, often very easily. We didn’t purposefully not upgrade it. -The side that used the Sherman prolifically won the war. -The Sherman was used by many countries into the 70’s, in combat. If it was a bad tank… none of the above would have happened. You couldn’t ask for a tank to do more. You can’t argue with the outcome. Very few tanks in history, if any, have that raw success rate. But ultimately, the people using the weapon are always the primary factor. With any weapon system, in any war, in human history… the side that wins is the side with the better warriors that also, by extension, know how to use and fight with the weapons they have better than the warriors on the opposing side know how to fight with theirs. It’s not the weapon, it’s how you use the weapon. When I was an officer in the US Army in Afghanistan, I never once worried or thought about the enemy having a 7.62mm AK-47 vs our 5.56mm M4… or whether our 105mm howitzers were enough, or whether our 60mm mortars might be as heavy as they could be. You fight as hard and as intelligently as you can with the weapons you have, and you have confidence in your abilities. The mental and psychological is always more important… if you out think and out fight the enemy, you are going to win. Whether it’s hunting or combat, as long as you are in a generally acceptable range of bullet/shell size… shot placement, positioning, confidence/training in your equipment, maneuver, and timing are the deciding factors. A final note… I think a lot of people just don’t want to admit the obvious… American (and Allied) tankers and cavalrymen were just better than their opponents.

[@vortega472]

Meanwhile the Tiger tank crew: Oh sure great gun, great protection, lousy mileage, complicated to maintain or repair. WHERE ARE THE SPARE PARTS!

[@christiandauz3742]

Imagine if every Sherman was a M51 SuperSherman when the Tiger was first deployed The Axis would have lost by 1943

[@PhilippBrandAkatosh]

Like you already said in the video combat is fought in the factory as well as on the battlefield, if you look at the cost and production time of the Sherman tank then it rivals and may even surpass the efficacy of the T-34, and that is something, while maintaining decent quality of armor and gear.

[@casbot71]

It definitely had massive logistical advantages over the T-34 in field, in that it was reliable.

[@OPFlyFisher304]

The M-4 Sherman constantly out preformed the T-34-85 in Korea.

[@josephahner3031]

Especially when you look at the performance on the battlefield by comparison. Shermans outperformed T-34s in every category. They even had early gun stabilization that allowed faster aimed shots on the short halt. This along with the wide view spotting the periscopes and excellent mobility enabled them to score about even with Panther tanks despite the Panther's bigger on paper numbers in armor and firepower.

[@OPFlyFisher304]

@@josephahner3031 Correct, and well said. The Panther by tonnage is a WW2 heavy tank. Look up the tonnage of the T-34, M-4, Panzer IV. Then look at the KV-1 and IS-2, you will see the Panther is a medium tank in name only.

[@petesheppard1709]

And there's also the fact that vehicles had to be loaded on ships and transported all around the world.

[@dirkbonesteel]

Was wondering why US didn't do wet storage of ammo. before 1944. Then remembered Russia is still waiting for real ammo storage

[@addisonherbert6686]

Yeah that catching on fire thing is a post war myth, the sherman had insanely high survivability even in 1943

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

Catching on fire and crew survivability are not mutually exclusive. What is important is that the crews were more likely to get out without being burned

[@addisonherbert6686]

​@@TheChieftainsHatch still, with the exception of British heavies allied tankers were safest in the sherman. If there's anything to take away from the sherman it's the crew mortality rate, for a vehicle that catches so much flak for various flaws most people forget to mention the benchmarks it set.

[@onenote6619]

@@addisonherbert6686 And one of the major reasons was that the crew hatches were spring-loaded. Open the catch and give it a one-handed push, the hatch opens. A lot of other tanks required the crew to push open heavy slabs of steel against gravity - not great when you have seconds to get out.

[@eliasmiguelfreire8965]

​​@@TheChieftainsHatch I would like to read or watch a direct response from you regarding some informations of this video, like the tendency of the Sherman burning, the myth of it, that you talk so much in your videos, that in fact Shermans were burning in the same rate of other tanks, this wasn't even addresed in this video. Another thing that you talk about was the myth of US doctrine of tank destroyers being responsible for engaging enemy tanks while tanks were not, when in fact tank destroyers were supposed to engage tanks when on the defense, while tanks, in their supporting or exploitation role were expected to engage any threat, including enemy tanks. Another strange piece of information is the pair of Panzer IVs knocked out by Ekins after he knocked out the 3 Tigers. In Stephen A Hart book (Sherman Firefly vs Tiger - Normandy 1944) it's said Ekins knocked out 1 Panzer IV at 1200m, not 2, then his Firefly got hit and the crew baled out. I was so thrilled about this video, but it's so much dubious information, especially regarding what I'm used to read/watch from you, that's disappointing.

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

@eliasmiguelfreire8965 unfortunately, I am on a family vacation in Costa Rica. I'm not likely to spend 20 minutes watching a Tank Museum video and then assessing it until after Christmas

[@rrl4245]

Another advantage, pointed out by historians, it was shippable. It was small/light enough to be shipped easily by rail, or by boat across the Atlantic. Try that with a Tiger. or even a Churchill.

[@EndertheWeek]

That was a design factor in all of them. The Churchill was even limited by "being train transportable on standard tracks" not sure if the German designers gave similar consideration as the Tiger apparently had problems due to its width.

[@Dreachon]

Both the Tiger I and Churchill fought in North Africa, please think before you post something silly

[@EndertheWeek]

@@Dreachon Not silly - a discussion like normal people have. I would be interested in knowing how many Tigers and Churchills were in N. Africa compared to all the other tanks on both sides.

[@casbot71]

Well, it beat the German Tanks in the end. So from the user perspective it was a success.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

There were 50,000 Shermans but another 200,000 other allied AFVs that weren't Shermans, plus 400,000 planes and 30 million troops. Etc.

[@Awesomes007]

Name one other tank that would have worked better than the Sherman. From performance, to reliability, to manufacturing, to repair, to logistics, from the Pacific to the Bastogne, I can’t come up with a better choice for the allies.

[@petergilkes7082]

T-34

[@generalfluffyproto]

The Stuart

[@kiana_kaslana12]

​@@petergilkes7082 nah

[@oumajgad6805]

@@petergilkes7082 T-34 is the single most overrated piece of WW2 equipment.

[@petergilkes7082]

@@oumajgad6805 I'm sure the Nazis agree with you.

[@OPFlyFisher304]

def the best, most adaptable, most reliable medium tank of WWII. No other tank could have exploited Operation Cobra the way the Sherman did.

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

By mid 1944 both the Cromwell, Churchill, Panzer IV, Tiger and Panther had roughly similar reliability. In fact, during the pursuit phase after Normandy, Cromwells broke down less often than British Shermans.

[@OPFlyFisher304]

@@TTTT-oc4eb Not true on reliability, plenty of facts out there on that. I purposely mentioned medium tanks. Look up the tonnage of the T-34, M-4, Panzer IV. Then look at the KV-1 and IS-2, you will see the Panther is a medium tank in name only. I want you to declaratively state what tank could have exploited Operation Cobra the way the Sherman did.

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

@@OPFlyFisher304 So show me those "plenty of facts". By mid 1944 both the Panzer IV, Tiger and Panther had readiness rates of 70+%, more than good enough for something like operation Cobra. Shermans broke down en masse during road marches, too, like all WW2 and Cold War tanks. And the Cromwell was at least as good by mid 1944.

[@OPFlyFisher304]

@@TTTT-oc4eb Brah, what’s your sources? Just give me one book stating the avg distance traveled by the Tiger before critical maintenance.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

@TTTT-oc4eb Correct. British 2nd Army reported a lower mechanical breakdown rate in Cromwells than Shermans during The Great Swan across France end August/early September 1944. By the way, a British medical study showed there was a significant difference in casualties between the Cromwell and Sherman when hit by artillery and anti tank fire typically 55% of the Cromwell Crew escaped unhurt whilst its 35% for Sherman. Also a greater number of casualties died from their injuries, in the Sherman 46% than did in Cromwell 33%. In essence, the Cromwell was considerably safer. From "Montgomery's Scientists Operational Research in Northwest Europe, the Work of No.2 Operational Research Section with 21 Army Group June 1944 to July 1945” by Canadian historian Terry Copp, published by Laurier Centre for Military Strategic and Disarmament Studies Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.

[@WWFanatic0]

The tank destroyer myth NEEDs to die. TDs were defensive in doctrine, meant to counter large armored thrusts. We're talking panzer corps at a minimum if not multiple panzer armies. The idea was an operationally mobile force that could rush to an area to blunt any penetration and stop a breakthrough. They'd be held at corps and army level, often in their own larger formations. This didn't change what the tanks were meant to do though. Tanks were meant to fight tanks. Sherman was meant to fight tanks. To oversimplify, they were the offensive, proactive side of the force while TDs were the defensive, reactive side (in theory, by late 44 they got dispersed to divisions and often used as quasi tanks; bunker busting was a common role due to their guns being good at concrete penetration).

[@ughettapbacon]

We have a saying here in America that puts an end to arguments like this one. "Scoreboard." It translates roughly to, "yes your panzers were ferocious but we won so..." Yeah.

[@EricAlbin]

It was good for what it was designed for. For building, shipping, making en masse, for simplicity and toughness, for ease of repair..it was not only good, it was excellent. Comparing it to a German tank, which was used and built for entirely different reasons, is rather short sighted. In the end, the Germans might've been better off with improved, up-gunned Panzer IV's, rather than the larger, harder to produce machines they had.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

There was no way to up gun the Panzer IV after spring 1943. It had reached the end of its evolution as a tank and was not capable of being improved to to toe to toe with the next generation of allied tanks expected to be met. The Panzer IV was only ever 25 tons at most. This was nearly 10 tons lighter than the Shermans and T-34s coming out in 1944. The Germans felt already in 1942 they needed a main tank to carry the 75mm L/70. The Panzer IV couldn't. Hull was too narrow so the turret ring was too small.

[@papaaaaaaa2625]

How good was the Sherman? People always compare it with much heavier and advanced Tanks like Tiger 1 and Panthers. This is how good it was!

[@annoyingbstard9407]

Those weren’t advance. They were tanks designed for an offensive role that ended up little more than semi-mobile pill boxes fighting defensive or holding battles. As with much the Germans did they simply designed the wrong stuff at the wrong time.

[@southronjr1570]

You missed one of the M4's greatest strengths being so simple and easy to be maintained. She was built from the outset to be able to be completely rebuilding drivtrain with nothing more than a small engine crane and simple hand tools and to have the job done in a matter of hours instead of the days to weeks required by a drive train swap for even the Mk4 much less a Tiger or Panther.

[@tedhodge4830]

The Sherman was an outstanding tank in its basic configuration, with excellent armor and a good gun with a superb HE round when it was introduced, and it was still a very good match for US tank doctrine late in the war, even in the European theater. The fact that it was accompanied by Shermans and M10 tank destroyers with 3 inch guns that could frontally defeat Tigers and Panzer IVs in ample abundance made it even better in theater, and it's part of why the Allies steamrolled their opposition in every theater. The Sherman in any configuration is one of the best tanks of the war, and they had tens of thousands of them available. The numbers alone tell the tale, it did very well.

[@canuckled]

Not all Shermans were built in the US, hundreds were built in Canada. My Grandmother worked at GMC Diesel in London Ontario

[@johnharrison6745]

As I recall, a Canadian version was called a 'Grizzly'.

[@brucenorman8904]

@@johnharrison6745 Lets not forget the Canadian Ram tank which was then converted into the Kangaroo APC

[@calumlittle9828]

Ah those must have been the ones that blew up then. That explains a lot.

[@kevinprzy4539]

188 were, and they were all used for training.

[@canuckled]

@@kevinprzy4539 Holy Roller was built in Canada, landed on D-Day and went to VE Day and is currently a monument. So not all were just used for training

[@tomfuller4205]

Should have gone on about postwar modifications such as Egypt replacing the Sherman’s turret with that of the AMX-13 and Israel’s deep modifications with 75mm and 105mm guns.

[@GeneralLee131]

The Israeli Shermans are really cool. Definitely my favorite variants.

[@pex_the_unalivedrunk6785]

​@@GeneralLee131 mine too, those guys really know how to modify a tank!

[@robertmiller2173]

My dad was a Tank Commander of a M4 Sherman, he fought with the 1st Echelon of the New Zealand Division, he was converted to tanks after being wounded taken POW and Escaped. He loved his Sherman and particularly its engine. Yes all the New Zealand Shermans were powered by the the mighty Ford GAA V8, 18 Litre engine. My dad only purchased and drove a brand new Ford to the day he died! My Favorite was his Ford Falcon 500, Super Pursuit, Station Wagon, it was so big and strong with a 3.65 Litre engine, or was it 4.1Litre? Cripes I'm getting old!

[@NVRAMboi]

Salute to both you and your Dad, mate. Perhaps it was the 1967 Falcon Wagon with the 4.7L (289cui) V8 - a legendary small-block engine. Ford did have the very famous "7 Liter" engine in 1966 (and beyond), at 428/429 cui reserved for "larger" Ford Models until roughly 1968 (in the USA) when it began use in the Mustang. Cheers!

[@mattfransen1551]

The only reason the Sherman’s may have caught fire easily is because the British stored ammo all over the floor. It’s also worth noting that the M4A1 was cast, hence had weaker armor. The Sherman actually had one of the highest crew survival rates of the war.

[@simonrichards6739]

Easy to produce, easy to maintain, quick, relatively light so not bogged down and economical on fuel. Yes it didn’t have the best armour or gun but give me 5 Sherman’s over one panzer any day!

[@deadringer4577]

Well yeah, but you could get at most two shermans for one tiger 1, and 5 tigers to 10 shermans I'm pretty sure is L for the Shermans. Also not to mention panthers or panzer 4 which would be similarly priced and with much better performance than a sherman

[@trathanstargazer6421]

@@deadringer4577 It took about 2 weeks to make a Tiger. The Sherman could be shipped and put into the fight in those two weeks. Correct me if I am wrong but I believe about 10 Tiger's were being built at any one time. Meanwhile America was making about 45 Shermans a day. So if we want to talk pure numbers. In two weeks there would be about 10 Tigers vs about 540 Sherman's.

[@Dreska_]

​@@deadringer4577 your numbers are slightly off as far as I can tell, shermans are estimated as a little cheaper than that, but even if you are correct in 2 Shermans costing 1 Tiger what is your point? Germany had very limited resources & its factories were getting constantly bombed. And many of its tanks were notoriously unrealible Better to have an all-rounder good enough tank than an expensive tank that you can never make enough of and is a logistical nightmare. Also since the US was on the offensive far from home, manouverability, reliability & supply chain was even more important than normal

[@deadringer4577]

@@trathanstargazer6421 maybe, but we saw how history turned out, and Germany could produce far fewer tanks in general than US, so we're not comparing that aspect, since if the US produced tigers, it would be a whole other story. In conclusion, having more stuff doesn't mean that the unit itself is better than the one you have less of

[@deadringer4577]

@@Dreska_ a generalisation. We are comparing a tank on tank or a platoon on platoon, not a country vs country since we already know which side won so there's no point. Also I'm pretty sure that having less stuff makes logistics easier to handle

[@hideshisface1886]

A lovely overview of the Sherman. I came to really appreciate the Sherman and get increasingly annoyed by various myths surrounding it. The Sherman burning myth, for the matter. I always wonder how does it compare to similar tanks of other nations and often struggle to find any decent data. From what I was able to stumble upon over the years, it does not look like Shermans burned at any more significant rate than comparable designs of other nations, like T-34, or Panzer IV. And when wet ammo bins became available, Shermans burned considerably LESS than competition, it seems. Ammo placement of the Sherman seems to be a contributing factor to the myth of its flammability, which bothers me to no end. Because most of the tanks of the period have similarly placed ammo, yet do not face the same amount of criticism. Iconic Tiger and Panther tanks have ammo stored in sponsons exactly like Sherman does. Panzer IV has one of its racks just behind the Driver's position, meaning a hull penetration is likely to detonate it. Crusaders and Cromwells have ammo around turret ring areas. Soviet tanks are also infamously crammed, with ammo stored on the floor and sides of the hull, on top of the entire sides being covered in fuel tanks. Most of the medium tanks of the period also had similarly thin side armour - 38mm for Sherman, 30mm for Panzer IV H, 45mm for T-34, 40-45mm for Panther. It is not like Sherman was uniquely thin. And yet, somehow the Sherman is supposedly uniquely flammable? Something does not add up here. Now, as for Sherman's gun not being designed as AT weapon... Well... M3 GMC would like to have a word - a tank destroyer carrying basically the same gun as Sherman. It is just that Sherman's gun could no longer keep up when Panthers and Tigers became more common.

[@antonrudenham3259]

Overwatch. Germany used insanely powerful 88's with a delayed action HE fuse against tanks since the Spanish civil war and throughout WW2. We didn't do that, the Soviets did but we didn't. When a 88 round only has to spend a small portion of its energy to penetrate say 50mm of armour its residual energy is spent inside the tank which makes it far more destructive and conversely when a 75 round has to spend most of its energy just making a hole its residual energy is greatly diminished with happier results for the recipient. The men who crewed the M4 all considered it brew up prone, you only need to read some of their memoirs to see that and coupled with the one hatch turret high casualties were inevitable, they also knew that. All tanks burn if penetrated with enough force and it's inevitable that an undergunned tank will burn more often than vice versa.

[@dominuslogik484]

@@antonrudenham3259 Using gasoline rather than diesel made them burn more often when fuel was hit. also our most common shell was the APHE for the 75mm since the solid shot was really only used during north Africa and by the time we were fighting in Europe largely that shell was replaced. also almost all American weapons and equipment are surrounded by myths and negativity because Americans like to complain / we are allowed to complain with a free press all too happy to share our complaints on papers. You can find statements regarding every single piece of US equipment from WW2 to today talking about how the troops hate everything and how it definitely won't/doesn't work and yet somehow in the end everything works out.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

I get increasingly annoyed at the modern fashionable myth that says the Sherman was the best and safest tank of WW2.

[@antonrudenham3259]

@@lyndoncmp5751 Ditto, it's nice to know I'm not alone. The M4 came along at an opportune time, it was a good tank early on but these latter day revisionists who claim nonsensical 3% casualty figures for M4 crewmen really show their ignorance. The British found that for every M4 knocked out there were 1KIA and 2WIA and that's no better or worse than the other tanks they operated with one exception and so I can only assume that the tanks these people claim were so safe were different tanks fighting a different war against a different enemy. When asked none of them can show me the source for their claims, they just 'know' because 'somebody told them'. They do a great dis-service to the brave crewmen who mounted up and drove them into action day after day.

[@moekitsune]

​@@lyndoncmp5751I mean, it's incredibly safe

[@matthewredman7814]

It annoys me when it comes to people saying the Sherman had thin armour in one sentence and then say the T34 was well armoured.

[@yxmichaelxyyxmichaelxy3074]

The Sherman would get owned by a T-34.

[@matthewredman7814]

@@yxmichaelxyyxmichaelxy3074 well as luck would have it Sherman tanks did fight T34s and was the superior tank. In the Korean war the shermans showed a kill ratio against T34s as 2.3 to 1. On top of that these would be post/late war T34s where the build quality and ergonomics would be better than earlier models.

[@yxmichaelxyyxmichaelxy3074]

@@matthewredman7814 'During the period July 1st - Sept 20th 1951, 40 UN tanks were penetrated by AP projectiles fired by T.34 tanks mounting 85 mm guns, self-propelled 76 mm guns, and 45mm, 57mm, & 76mm anti-tank guns. All these tanks were American, since British armour did not engage enemy tanks or anti-tank guns during this period [which contradicts the article above- I told you that information is confusing!] The tanks studied were the M24 Chaffee, the M4A3 Sherman, the M26 Pershing, & the M46 Patton.' Now do the staggering numbers of American armour. Ask the Soviets about this tactic. 😎

[@matthewredman7814]

@@yxmichaelxyyxmichaelxy3074 yes you are right the Americans lost tanks too I'm not disputing that. And especially the Chaffee which did horrible because it neither had the gun nor the armour. But when it came to tank on tank between the Sherman and the T34, the Sherman's were taking out more than double their own number. This isnt my opinion its written down In multiple areas.

[@tomsmith2209]

German military tech superiority.... According to German military authors.

[@rodhayes7777]

Sure it was. As soon as the Brits put that 17 pounder inside the Sherman tank, it became the bully on the block. Unfortunately, Michael Wittmann (Germany's panzer ace) found this out the hard way.

[@roberthainault6676]

Michael tank along with two other Tiger 1 where knocked out because they focused on British tank in woods in front of them . The Sherbrooke Fusiliers Shermans where on left Frank hidden behind the walll of an Abbey . They could not miss , as they where 150 yards away . By the way their young commander was the highest scoring allied tank with 18 kills . I personally knew one crew member Bill Paw . God Bless him !

[@alanrogers7090]

Don't forget that the Sherman was also used in the Pacific theater. A good all around tank for a bitter war.

[@brucelamberton8819]

And on the Eastern Front too, as it was supplied to the Soviets as part of Lend Lease.

[@nickdanger3802]

The only problem with the Ronson nickname is the explanation that this was due to the slogan “lights first every time.” The issue is that this slogan appears in almost no surviving print ads, and not in any ads from the period right before or during the war. The most common slogan used in print ads for the Ronson is “The World’s Greatest Lighter.” To a leaser extent, the slogan “Flip… It’s Lit… Release… It’s Out” or “Press… It’s Lit… Release… It’s Out” appears regularly. Nowhere does the slogan “lights first every time” appear, except in a single ad from 1929 which states “Lights every time.” TANK AND AFV NEWS From the Editor: Lights First Every Time? page

[@patrickradcliffe3837]

From what I picked out wa the 75mm was preferred when working with infantry. The 76mm was disliked because the HE was less effective then the 75mm.

[@SteamCrane]

Nick Moran demonstrated a significant survivability advantage of Shermans built after the first few - "Bugger! The tank's on fire". Escape from all positions is very fast.

[@donb1183]

It is a myth that the Sherman was called a Zippo.

[@nrich5127]

One of the major advantages of the Sherman was it was mechanically reliable - 15 to 20% of German tanks had issues before they reach the battle.

[@BeoZard]

During the Korean War Shermans Kille T-34/85s at a rate of 2 to 1. Not bad for a undergunned, under armoured tank. When designing the Sherman they knew that the tank would often engage with other tanks and the design they came up with was superior to the Panzer IV in armour, mobility and firepower.

[@Fljeep18]

The Sherman was good enough to win WW2!

[@lllordllloyd]

Montgomery built his reputation on the fortuitous arrival of 300 Shermans, at the time it was excellent compared to its enemies.

[@markymark3572]

The later versions were much improved over the early versions, less likely to catch fire when hit too. The Germans thought highly of their reliability, ease of maintenance, & space inside for the crew in examples they captured

[@chaptermasterpedrokantor1623]

So did the Red Army. Much more comfortable to operate and handle then the T-34.

[@dominuslogik484]

@@chaptermasterpedrokantor1623 Only common soviet complaint was typically that the Sherman was tall compared to what they were used to using.

[@chaptermasterpedrokantor1623]

@@dominuslogik484 I can understand that. But then again the T-34/85 was no Mini Cooper either. Bigger gun -> bigger turret -> bigger height.

[@tobiasbauer198]

But the germans also build tanks with a lot of crew space

[@RussianThunderrr]

@@chaptermasterpedrokantor1623- Even T-34-85 was a harder target to hit, then Tall and wide Sherman tank silhouette. T-34 was more stable, faster and did a lot better in mud, show and ice.

[@jasonking3182]

Keep in mind around 85% of the Sherman’s combat was against infantry not other tanks.

[@chaptermasterpedrokantor1623]

Judging by firepower, armor and mobility, the traditional criteria, the Sherman should be a failure and the Panther should have won Germany the war. But in the words of Laser Pig, the Panther paradox, the Panther did not win Germany the war. Clearly the soft factors matter more then the traditional 3 hard factors. Allied tankers also had the misfortune of being on the offensive and thus moving out in the open, while the Germans being on the defense, usually had the advantage of being on the defensive. But as the guy who knocked out 3 Tigers with 5 shots proved, the heavier armor and firepower mean squat when the Sherman has a 17 pounder and the advantage of being on the defensive too.

[@brucenorman8904]

The fact that in the ETO during engagements where the Panthers sighted the M4s first the M4s fired first 65% of the time speaks poorly for the Panther response time.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

The Panther didn't appear until July 1943. Germany had long since started losing the war. Stalingrad and El Alamein were lost in 1942 and the Germans were already in retreat. No tank type could have turned the situation around.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

@brucenorman8904 Take that with a pinch of salt.

[@danconnolly2341]

Panther was a long range sniper tank. Optimized for that role on the eastern front to the detriment of more conventional close and mid- range tank warfare. Ergonomics not exactly stellar for the crew either. A massive tank that was cramped inside due to a narrow turret and over abundance of mechanicals.

[@cobalt2672]

Setting aside that online tank debates often don't define what measure of "good" they're using - it feels like the Sherman succeeds in all the ways that aren't "sexy". It doesn't have the biggest gun or the most armour or some superweapon unproven technology...it's survivable, easy to maintain, was available in large numbers, and was flexible / adaptable enough to suit multiple theatres of war and multiple roles, none of which have that "bedroom wall poster" factor that makes tanks 'cool'.

[@xardozz]

The Sherman could NOT be as heavy as a Tiger. It had to be shipped across the ocean more-or-less assembled. The difficulty of transporting a heavy tank that distance was the biggest challenge. The plan (and correct choice) was to mass-produce a lighter, faster tank. Talking to tankers from WW2, the guys loved the GAA engine, even though it was gas, over the GM diesel. With minor modifications, those gassers could really get up and move. Mobility kept you alive.

[@snekkie117]

something to keep inmind about the shermans bursting into flames. they bursted into flames about the same amount of other tanks, but it was way more survivable and easy to escape. and later war shermans had the ammo moved to the floor reducing the tanks chances of ammunition cook off. wet stowage itself is controversial, and its consider to probably of not done much to help

[@GTX1123]

The Germans feared the Firefly. They always looked for that massive 17 pounder sticking out of the turret so they could take those out first. This prompted British tank crews to paint a camo scheme on the barrel of the gun to make it look like a 75mm.

[@pukalo]

Sherman = WWII GOAT

[@danieparriott265]

German child watching a column of Shermans going past in April '45, "Deutsches Panzer ist besser." .... American GI directing traffic, "Where are these better tanks, child?"

[@K1ngblackrex]

Chieftain did a pretty good job of explaining the firefly and easy 8 gun upgrades Good enough now vs perfect later

[@TheMotorGuyDirect]

I’m surprised no mention of the stricken weight limit because it was loaded by crane onto ships. While German and Soviet armor were not limited by this weight restriction because they were shipped by rail.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

Why was the Pershing heavier then?

[@Dreachon]

That is nothing more than a myth, dockcranes could lift way more than the 33 ton weight of the Sherman and early on the Libertyships got a 50 ton crane install for the number 2 hold. The entire claim that the Sherman could not weigh more because the cranes could not lift it is nothing more than a nonsensical piece of fiction.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

@@kumasenlac5504 Depended. Lots of pictures of Tigers on trains with their battle tracks still fitted. Same even with King Tigers/Jagdtigers.

[@kumasenlac5504]

@@lyndoncmp5751 which is why I deleted - I was mistaken.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

@@kumasenlac5504 No worries. Best wishes. Tigers did change to transport tracks often so you were part right.

[@kevinmurphy3464]

Very good video, but one thing that wasn’t really addressed was the weight factor for shipping to different war theaters which was of great importance. The weight that can be shipped on a train is far different than a ship in regard to lifting and stowing. The ability to mass produce medium tanks and quickly load them onboard transport ships was always at the forefront of the U.S. Ordnance Department’s mind. The book “Logistics of WWII: Final report of the Army Service Forces”, covers this in some detail.

[@RussianThunderrr]

T-34 was a lot better in that regard, it could be shipped any place Sherman could, it was not as tall and tippy-flippie, and did not got stuck where M4 would not go… So is any German tank of first part of the war better in those regards, then M4.

[@rabyoung1317]

Thie was an enjoyable vid. My father's regiment, Lothian and Border Horse Yeomanry, was equipped with the M4A2 later on in North Africa. Matildas and Crusaders being superceded by it. They were part of the 6th Armoured Division and took part in Operation Torch. Later, fully equipped with Shermans, they were brought over for the 4th battle of Monte Casino and chased the Wehrmacht all the way to the river Po.