M4 Sherman Tank VS Panther Tank

[@Simplehistory]

Which legendary tank do YOU think was more impactful in WWII - the M4 Sherman or the Panther?

[@scravelp]

Sherman gloop

[@praetorxian]

T-34

[@CristianMonserrate-wo2rk]

M4 Sherman

[@Lil_Cuh_]

The sherman, I will say because there are many variants compared to the panther HOWEVER the panther did have better armor and firepower to the sherman but that doesn't matter when you're getting flanked by 12 Sherman's at once

[@themusicman5281]

The Panther could’ve been more impactful with heavier numbers, however the Sherman tank took a depleted British army before lend lease to a powerhouse in the African campaign. The Shermans numbers made it more impactful

[@_Matsimus_]

We all know the Bob semple would be able to handle both of these vehicles. #bobtank

[@Nindorious2]

it's simply unbeatable

[@keithallver2450]

The Bob Semple was so terrifying that's why the Japanese never invaded New Zealand.

[@Star_Wars_Nerd_6J]

They wouldn’t stand a chance

[@promptedleek4829]

legend says that the bob semple fired one shot and made the axis surrender immediatly

[@thedungeondelver]

Well YEAH but I mean come on, that's like saying an Abrams vs. an FT-17 dude. Come on, be reasonable.

[@victorduny9842]

They didn’t just move the M-4 Sherman’s ammunition, but put into wet storage cells.

[@normalhuman9260]

Yes!! Thank you!

[@DarkElfLover]

Right but the wet storage is debated on effectiveness to stop fires since the main reason the fires started was the ammo being hit. Ammo was stored in places the tank would usually get hit before they moved it to the floor while also including the wet stowage. That being said the wet stowage did aid with spalling protection

[@johnconnolly5292]

The easy 8 version of the Sherman had a 76mm gun, improved chassis and wet ammunition storage, resulting in a very mobile, hard hitting and survivable tank, easily outclassing T-34/85’s in Korea.

[@smgdfcmfah]

True, but the even the Easy 8 didn't have anywhere near the punch of the long 75 in the Panther (or the 76mm 17 pndr in the Firefly).

[@coachhannah2403]

E8 variant was for HVSS, not the 76 gun, though all E8 did mount the 76.

[@tomawen5916]

The PzKw V "Panther" with its sloped glacier armor gave it the equivalent of 140mm steel protection from enemy AP shot. As mentioned by comments the weak side armor, it's over complicated design and engine placement were its weakness. The Panther needed high quality crews to utilize the tank's strengths. But due to high losses that never happened. Great video!

[@sthrich635]

The German Waffen SS panzer divisions often had higher quality tank crews and more experienced while Heer Panzer divisions were undertrained and low quality. Allied tankers often paid special atttentions on German crew uniforms and tank marking to identify Heer or SS and made corresponding preparations, usually for SS they made sure to always bring hard hitting tank destroyers since taking side shots worked fine mostly against amateur tank crews

[@tomawen5916]

@sthrich635 overall I would agree with you but the SS Panzer Regiments of the 1st, 2nd, 9th, 10th and 12th SS Panzer Divisions all suffered over 70 to 75% losses in their veteran crews after the Battle for France and the encirclement at Falaise. I recall reading a lot of commentaries on how the SS Panzer Regiments had barely enough training for their crews to drive their tanks before being sent to fight in the Ardennes. All the SS panzer divisions took heavy casualties in their Panther tanks during the offensive. Then after getting mauled in the Ardennes the 1st, 2nd, 9th and 12th SS Panzer Divisions were sent east to take part in Operation Spring Awakening in March of 1945 where they took heavy casualties (again) in both crews and equipment. The remnants of the SS Panzer Divisions were in Austria for the surrender.

[@jamesricker3997]

The frontal armor was increased but the suspension and drive train were not upgraded to handle the extra weight. Leading to mechanical failures

[@ukasz-zm9qc]

@@sthrich635 Sorry, but your statement that the crews of Heer Panzer divisions were undertrained and low quality is BS. The exception may be the Battle of Arracourt where there were indeed green Panther tank crews, but generally the Heer crews were not inferior to those of the W-SS.

[@roastroast3084]

The last time I was this early, i saw the bob semple stroll down the street

[@priatalat]

Being an art guy, mustache man really knew the importance of visual appeal.

[@GloriG_C17]

Tiger I are good on shape, But terrible protection on mid war. They should have make that Armor sloped and not flat.

[@sthrich635]

He probably didn't intend for that though.

[@michaelzomsuv3631]

The sherman was a much more practical, reliable and efficient tank. But the panther was far more sexier, which is what matters most.

[@wilhelmscream25]

This is truth

[@ycplum7062]

Dictators typical use fear and perception to subjugate their own people as well as others. They are prone to dramatic grand gestures, spectacles, and objects (Tiger, Tiger II, Maus, Deutschland class cruisers, V1, V2, sturmgewehr, etc. as well as huge intimidating buildings, built and planned)

[@normalhuman9260]

I want to find a flaw with your reasoning, but I cannot.

[@samadams2203]

And then there's her much sexier sister, the Jagdpanther.

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

Nah, the Panther was as practical and reliable, and much more efficient. And yes, far sexier.

[@endtimes2100]

The Panther is a beautiful tank.

[@foxymetroid]

The 75 mm cannon on the M3 wasn't there to shoot tanks. They were there to shoot pillboxes and other stationary targets.

[@coachhannah2403]

Incorrect. It was to shoot targets, including tanks.

[@elchepo123]

0:04 the tank captain is a centaur XD

[@marceltech]

Tanktaur*

[@Alepfi5599]

Nice catch :D

[@socialdistancing1399]

I love the m4 Sherman tank lol

[@King_GP1616]

Same it’s my favorite of WW2

[@nathanielmeade5731]

0:16 did anyone else hear manure?

[@donewinner7442]

Yes

[@RagtagCoach]

I would highly recommend people read "tank vs tank" by Albin Iryzk. It's a short read (7ish pages) about the Sherman vs German tanks, and the reason/ importance of those differences. This is all coming from a highly decorated tank commander that fought in WW2.

[@iKvetch558]

I have not watched the video yet, but two things I want to mention that I hope this video mentions. First, there is the much better turret traverse of the Sherman versus the Panther. As I understand it, the Sherman could traverse its turret MUCH faster than the Panther...about 17 seconds for 360 degrees compared to just under a minute for the Panther. The 2nd thing is the much higher rate of fire of the Sherman vs the Panther. Shermans could put out 15 rounds per minute, while the Panther was about half that. So with faster traverse, the Sherman could get its gun laid on a target much faster than Panther, so the Sherman is going to get a shot off first, all other things being equal...and with the faster ROF, the Sherman is also going to get the second and every other shot out quicker. And that does not even factor in the Sherman's vertically stabilized gun...that Panther did not have.

[@Andrew08893]

Yet all it takes is a well trained panther crew and boom the Sherman goes up in flames

[@iKvetch558]

@ Yes...if the Panther crew spots the Sherman with plenty of time to traverse their gun before the Sherman crew spots them...but any tank lying in ambush waiting for other tanks is going to have the advantage. If the Panther's gun does not start out pointing in the Sherman's general direction, the Sherman crew is gonna be able to get their turret turned much faster.

[@castleanthrax1833]

No, I don't believe these things you've mentioned were stated in the video, so I thank you for the information.

[@ArcticWolf00Alpha0]

This all depends on who spots who first. The Panther generally had the better scope, so it has its own advantages as does the Sherman. At the end of the day, the best Tank is going to be the one with the best crew.

[@sthrich635]

Yes that correct, and the conclusion should be Sherman was much better at dealing with infantry and soft targets like AT guns, as these were usually in large number and widespread, plus harder to spot, Sherman tank good HE, rate of fire, reaction time and visibility came to much better use. On the other hand, Panther was better at dealing with armored targets with it's more accurate and powerful cannon, since armoured engagement usually took place at long range, and penetration did matter more. That's all good for both US and Germans since US mainly faced German infantry with AFV being rarer, while Germans faced large number of Allied and Russians tanks advancing toward them.

[@imkerrusin]

M4 Sherman was the most impactful. Reason? three words: In. The. Mood. Lafayette G. "War Daddy" Pool demonstrated the potential and capabilities of the M4 Sherman when in capable hands. His crew provided impressive results during the war effort, going as far as destroying two train convoys, one of which carried four tigers, advancing quickly and aggressively pushing the line back. It wasn't all Poole either, he had an incredible crew running operations in the tank. Wilbert "Baby" Richards who drove the tank, Bert "School Boy" Close who was the assistant driver and the bow gunner, Willis "Ground Hog" Oller who operated the main gun and was pretty accurate and Delbert "Jailbird" Boggs who assisted Oller with the shots and was the loader (he was incredibly efficient and fast with loading too). There was one instance where the 32nd Armored Regiment, 3rd Armored Division were pushing forward when they reached a railroad bridge. Pool and the crew of In The Mood steered to a ledge and scared off the German defense after taking out one Panther. The German opposition thought they were getting bombarded with multiple Shermans from the ridge and ran off when it was actually Jailbird and Ground Hog's efficiency and speed between loading and shooting. Their track record speaks for itself. 258 German Vehicles destroyed, took out 1000 enemy soldiers and captured 258 more in 81 days. they had three versions of In The Mood, but In the Mood II dished out the most damage. I would love to see you guys do a more detailed history on War Daddy and the crew of In the Mood. :) Great video.

[@AyushRay-g3f]

You remember about the case when m4 Sherman’s slaughtered panthers in nov, 1944

[@BartholomewCorneliousIV]

You should cover the Second Battle of Sabine Pass, one of the most lopsided battles in modern warfare

[@randallbelstra7228]

One item left out on the Panther, After the war, rather than buy Sherman tanks from the Americans, the French decided to refurbish all of the Panther Tanks in France thinking they'd be getting a better tank for free. After a year of use, the panthers were scrapped and France started purchasing Shermans. It turned out the Panther tanks were too much of a logistical nightmare. Also, from a personal perspective, when I was a 2nd Lieutenant exchange officer in Germany in the early 1980's, I met several Bundeswehr armored officers who had trained in both Panthers and Shermans. Their opinion was that they would prefer defending a position in a Panther, but they would rather attack in a Sherman. That is due to the fact that many of the Sherman's advantages were left out in this video. First, a Sherman's turret could turn four times faster than a Panther's and the commander had an override which was highly effective. Second, All of the turret crew of a Sherman had 2X,and 4X magnification power periscopes in the Turret, giving them excellent vision. The panther had one for just the commander. Also the Sherman had a stabilized gun which the Panther didn't. Finally, a Sherman had a shorter reloading time than the Panther. In a meeting engagement, the Sherman was much more likely to win rather than the Panther. Also, when armed with the 76mm M1 Tank gun, and equipped with HVAP ammo, The Sherman could penetrate the front hull of a Panther at 1000 yards. Something that is clearly overlooked in the video. Finally, the Sherman tank had an excellent history in Korea, NATO, and Israel after the war, while the Panther was scrapped and forgotten.

[@billwilson-es5yn]

The M4 had excellent 360° outside vision due to all crewmen having a rotating periscope. The commander had a sight spare on top of the turret that was aligned with the gunner's sight. The commander could tell the gunner what target he wanted hit while rotating the turret to get his spade on it. The gunner didn't have to search for the target like the German gunners did. The M4 75 mm gun fired a real handy HE round that had an adjustable fuse. It could be set for detonation upon impact or delayed by .3 seconds. The gunners could ricochet rounds at an angle off masonry buildings to detonate in the street or over the heads of troops in concealed positions.

[@micahistory]

last time I was this early, there was only the Mark tank

[@castleanthrax1833]

The last time anyone cared, there was... I can't finish that sentence because nobody has ever cared how early you are.

[@foxymetroid]

Mark tank? Last time I was this early, the only tank designer around was the famed artist Leonardo.

[@micahistory]

@ you cared enough to answer buddy

[@briancooper2112]

The rifleman actor was a Sherman tank trainer.

[@daveywavey-qc3mw]

Chuck Conners

[@briancooper2112]

@daveywavey-qc3mw thank you. Couldn't remember his name.

[@jaredsedoris6736]

The M4 Sherman is my favorite tank from World War II! I do like the German Panzer V ‘Panther’ too, but I have to say that the Panzer IV is my favorite German tank of the war.

[@AhmadJaved-vq2hu]

i love your content about tanks keep making it please

[@mathieulapointe1207]

Love that stuff❤❤

[@sthrich635]

M4 Shermans could easily win against the Panther most of the time when it had a longer gun like Pak42 and thicker armor more than 140mm effective Panthers could easily outmatched the Sherman when it was produced with high quality gear and had a stable and large supply chains with spare parts and fuel.

[@thedungeondelver]

The Sherman was used until the 1980s; fifty or so Panther tanks were used by the French until 1952 and were regarded as highly unsatisfactory. I think that speaks volumes.

[@l0necroc]

So you don't think logistics and french lack of german spare parts played a big role?

[@Aodyri]

These videos constantly miss a very simple concept, instead treating these tanks like toys that were specifically made to fight each other. Tanks were NOT made to kill tanks, which may be kind of obvious when you think about it. Tanks were made to break strong points and make openings for infantry. The 75 Sherman was still produced because it was FANTASTIC at this, with a very effective High Explosive round. Comparatively, the Panther is a terrible tank, and is more of a tank destroyer. The Panther wasn't very capable of fighting infantry or dealing with soft targets. The Sherman was able to fight most German tanks, while still fulfilling its role. The two tank destroyers deployed by the USA most often, the Wolverine and the Hellcat, were very capable of killing enemy armor.

[@knightingale9833]

The Panther is my favorite WW2 tank, but the Sherman was unquestionably more impactful on the war. It was designed for simplicity so it could be mass produced. While German tanks tended to be better protected and more powerful, they couldn’t contend with the sheer number of Shermans that were thrown at them.

[@dbaider9467]

Great vid.

[@TersniaEGL]

The Sherman jumbo

[@zhuangsaur227]

Actually the Sherman 75mm HE was superior to the Panthers 75mm ... well if we be technically it was marginally higher with 0.68kg of HE whilst the Panther Tank had 0.64 to 0.66kg of HE punch ... which was similar to the Panzer IV HE punch

[@danielschneider8101]

People rag on the M3 and I don't think it deserves it. At the time it was being developed and released, the Panzer III was still Germany's anti-tank tank and the Panzer IV was still considered the infantry support tank. The Panzer III had a 37mm cannon and so did the M3 in the turret as the primary weapon. US tank theory considered upgunning to the slower and much larger 75mm as a suitable "all purpose" gun that could handle infantry support and anti-tank combat to be worth replacing the 37mm, but it was too late in the design and the turret couldn't handle the larger gun. As to the profile, that was not only intentional but considered by the United States to be ideal. Lower silhouettes are better for fighting tanks, but higher silhouettes provide better firing angles at infantry for the machine guns. The tanks were not tall because of the transmissions they used, they used that transmission because they wanted a tall tank anyway. The M3 was not an archaic design; it was a design ahead of its time, but incapable of incorporating all the enhancements desired. In a sense the M4 was more of an M3 mk.2

[@AndrewC.McPherson-xf5zw]

Shermans had transmission in front making ease of change plus added something extra to help if you are hit.

[@mrlodwick]

I have to give you kudos, you got the panthers mantle right to date. I subbed.

[@Jagermeister-kun]

Now I'm curios how this two tanks fight in a battlefield. Sherman vs T-34

[@Buildingerror500]

It probably fought eachother in the Korean war

[@yi_hou3092]

No need to ask that question, it probably happened in the Korean War Most of the US Military stayed with the M4A3 76(W) as their main fighting tank with others like Standard, A1,and A2 getting the HVSS later on too (and 76mm M1A1 if they were early 76s) and then they transitioned to the Pershing and M46/47

[@foxymetroid]

Assuming it's a regular T-34 and not a later 85 variant. I'd say the Sherman fights better. Why? Shermans had radios and enough room in the turret for a dedicated loader.

[@Aodyri]

This happened in Korea, repeatedly. Shermans won out. The Sherman was, in addition to being a solid design, made to be easily repaired by grunts in the field. The uptime for Sherman's was over 90%. Sherman's were better able to traverse difficult terrain, had better "soft" features like scopes, radios, and general crew comfort. Honestly comparable guns and armor. Sherman's were also much safer for crews, with only an average fatality rate of 20% in tank kills.

[@donewinner7442]

Is it just me? Or has the animation gotten better

[@dansmith4077]

Great video

[@jamesstaggs4160]

I always wondered why the Brits called that tank the Sherman rather than the Lee, but I think I just figured it out (which isn't very tough to do). The tank was name after General Lee of the Confederacy who lead them during the American Civil War. General Sherman fought for the Union. I guess they thought that by calling it the Lee it would somehow mean they're ok with slavery. In all honesty Sherman should have been branded a war criminal considering the brutality he showed when invading the south, but that's another thing on it's own. What sorta blows my mind is that the Civil War was as far away from WWII as WWII is from us today.

[@nicholassmidsmid2808]

A few basic points, the M3 did have a turret, with a little one on top in US versions. As for the Panther it was closer to a heavy tank and gloriously over engineered

[@AndrewC.McPherson-xf5zw]

Must consider the Pather as a heavy tank due to weight that would test limits of bridge crossings.

[@alextepe4309]

The panther was a fine tank, and acquired a legendary reputation, but like the Tiger tanks, there never were enough of them. They were also expensive to produce and over engineered. The Sherman tank was produced in much larger numbers and quantity has a quality of its own.

[@ryleeculla5570]

It really depends on what position they are in and their chances and area of engagement close quarters and side shots are perfect for the Sherman while long range and choke points are a panthers shooting range

[@ottooctavoi]

yo simple history can you please do the ludendorff spring offensive in ww1 pls

[@johnconnolly5292]

Sherman. Quantity and reliability trump the Panther. Additionally late war Panthers were made with grossly inferior quality steel, making their armor extremely brittle, meaning even the basic Sherman 75mm could easily penetrate the front armor on the Panther. Panthers were very unreliable, especially in regards to their transmissions, resulting in a very low reliability rate. Panthers often had to be transported via rail back to a rear echelon repair facility to have their transmission replaced, whereas a Sherman crew could replace their transmission in the field in about 4-5 hours.

[@ukasz-zm9qc]

Don't exaggerate with this "extremely" and "very". And don't talk nonsense that you had to send the Panther to the rear repair points to replace the transmission. Such repairs could be done in the field.

[@gamedude412]

One small detail Patton told off a unit that was loaned to his command in April 1945, The famous photo is the Mooburg april 1945. The unit didnt really care patton opinion since they were in germany it was 1945 and they were still alive. Also the Panther got BIWA. pz rgt 29 Panther in Berlin/seelow used the BIWA and One on the wesser canal. The I.R trained panther were used in Konrad But were forbid from taking the IR equipment in to combat

[@crazedvole]

6:40 you forgot a kitchen sink. 😁😁😁

[@shanephillips4011]

Ummm, the main difference is over 50 000 Sherman's were built compared to a few thousand panthers.

[@RikusentaiOfficial]

Good lord either say "Version" or "Ausführung". "Ausf" hurts my soul

[@papaaaaaaa2625]

From the pure impact, clearly the Sherman. Development began in 1941, even after the Panther Tank. But it was way ahead in Production and reliability. My Grandfather surrendered near Aachen. He always said that "we saw plenty of the US Tanks, nearly every time we saw a US Soldier...and i remember the two events i saw one of ours". The Sherman was there, doesn't matter where. If a US GI showed up, a Sherman would follow. Africa, Sicily, Italy, France, Pacific...even Russia. The Sherman is like the everyday Van you see on every corner at every traffic light. Meanwhile is the Panther like the Tesla Cybertruck...broken 😂

[@poseidonschef]

The E8 designation has nothing ro do with the gun! It´s the type of suspension used on it

[@tomasmatejcek2526]

8:01 Thanks for the epilepsia :(

[@castleanthrax1833]

Get help.

[@SAS-gam-ing]

I love ur vids

[@KaanTechCrazy]

Which sherman ? there is only 1 type of Panther tank with only some upgrades. There are MANY sherman tanks with many different types and roles.

[@AndrewC.McPherson-xf5zw]

If you are fast and light it may save your life. Plus you can cross most bridges

[@elrobio4601]

I think bro really likes the panther

[@kenbrown2808]

"my panther can defeat 10 shermans, but those damned Americans bring 11." attributed to german tank commander.

[@Discobaby988]

The Tommy cooker.🔥🇬🇧🧨

[@kemptainamerica3830]

Holy new vid

[@Ettubrute-ij1st]

My understanding is that compared to a panzer four American tanks could fire their guns several times more per minute than a German tank. Is that the case when compared to the panther it was unclear from the video or did I miss something. That would’ve given the Americans an advantage, especially with their higher speed to be able to get around to the side and just continually pound the German tanks until they hit a soft point. Especially since the quality of quantity would’ve meant that most engagement with tanks would’ve involve more Sherman’s than panthers.

[@Wotblitzer_123]

M4 Sherman vs Tiger 1 next plz

[@zhuangsaur227]

It was said even in Normandy in the boccage th3 Germans commented the Panther tanks had trouble maneuvering due to the longer gun barrel whilst for the Panzer IV it was acceptable

[@sthrich635]

Yeah maybe but the Germans didnt fought every battles for 6 years in some Normandy bocage only.

[@zhuangsaur227]

@sthrich635 at the same time if tjr Germans weren't on counter offensive then that was less of a problem ofc as you wouldn't need to maneuver around as much

[@hermes667]

Comparing a 44 ton main battle tank to a 30 ton more universal tank does not make much sense.

[@doofinpuss23]

Have a issue there's a Sherman for that

[@TheDarkPrinceR34-rn3op]

The Panther was exceptionnal !

[@Tajny_PL]

Nice idea.

[@AyushRay-g3f]

Bro is comparing a Ferrari with a standard family car. Now there is a reason for this , first of all the m4 Sherman was not even originally built to fight against heavy tanks. They were meant to fight infantry , buildings and some other tanks, with moderate firepower, armour and speed. The ideal comparison would be m4 Sherman vs Panzer 4(later variants)

[@juliustimber7153]

Turn the whole tank didn’t seem to hamper the Stug 111 ( or others )

[@External2737]

It depends on the role and training. The Stug had a well trained driver to assist. The Stug became famous for ambush defense tactics. Turrets really help with offense.

[@kenbrown2808]

germans: ve build the most advanced tanks in the world: Americans: *laughs in c - V*

[@TheGreenGhost123]

Tiger 2 after seeing a 10 Sherman 💥💥

[@dragod7233]

sherman: better ,more reliable,easyer to operate vehicle, panther: better armed and armored but more prone to mechanical faliure fighting vehicle 🤷‍♂

[@xxxlonewolf49]

Tanks were made to support infantry, tank DESTROYERS were the "tank killers"

[@thedungeondelver]

This is a common misconception. The earliest Sherman tradoc heavily covered tank vs. tank combat.

[@knightingale9833]

That is not true, plenty of tanks were designed more for combat against other tanks than infantry support, of which the Panther is one of them, its 75mm cannon (same diameter as the Sherman’s) had a long high velocity barrel for penetrating the armor of other tanks.

[@bowtieguy5281]

Let's go Panther!

[@Ettubrute-ij1st]

My understanding is that American tanks were more capable than German tanks in terms of firing while on the move due to the mechanics involving their turret and gun. Is that not true.

[@eliotness4029]

panter looks better and more expensive, imagine that before battle you have limited resources and you need to choose. 5 panters or 10-15 shermans. what will you choose

[@zhuangsaur227]

Wouldn't the Panther tanks also been more specialized for tank battles rather than anti infantry battles although it surely was superior to a StuG or Jagdpanzer as it had a turret

[@allan330]

M£ wasnt the main gun as such

[@michaelpiwcewicz1412]

T 34 WAS 55000

[@MaxSchmidt-bt8lk]

Cool

[@benedictjajo]

People really be overrating the Sherman in the comments. Yes, the sherman was more reliable than the Panther but I'm gonna ask you one thing and be honest, if you're in a firefight, where would you rather be? Inside a sherman or a Panther? I'd rather my tank breakdown and surrender to the enemy than get obliterated inside a metal coffin.

[@hmonglord]

people say they rather have the heavier,more armored and more powerful stuff until they got to carry it.

[@mormon3760]

Sherman: too weak gun, not enough thick armor for basically vertical hull walls. Too tall. German and Rus tanks: all that but reversed

[@sthrich635]

lmao Sherman frontal hull is sloped, need to get the eyes checked?

[@mormon3760]

@@sthrich635 too slim and not enough slope... to be battle against far advanced tanks with better guns and armor. example The Sherman's glacis plate was originally 50.8 mm (2.00 in) thick. and angled at 56 degrees from the vertical, providing an effective thickness of 90.8 mm (3.57 in) Panther :By August 1943, Panthers were being built only with a homogeneous steel glacis plate. The front hull had 80 mm (3.1 in) of armour angled at 55 degrees from the vertical, welded but also interlocked with the side and bottom plates for strength. Effective thickness 139mm. And they also have tigers...

[@hmonglord]

@@mormon3760 so it has 90.8 effective thickness....you know that only about 9 less then the Tiger?

[@gamingwithnoor158]

King tiger?

[@nicholasmoore2590]

M4s were not called Ronsons. The German soldiers in the desert first called them Tommy Cookers as they would catch fire so quickly after being hit that the British soldiers (nicknamed Tommy) wouldn't be able to get out and would burn to death.

[@Beachygrass]

The last time I was this early, it was just "Simple", because there wasn't any history yet

[@castleanthrax1833]

The video was posted more than 15 minutes before you commented. Stop celebrating nothing.

[@Beachygrass]

@@castleanthrax1833 chill out, i was making a joke because other people had been saying the same thing

[@castleanthrax1833]

@Beachygrass Learn to discern whether a person is "chill" or not, because my comment doesn't imply I am not "chill," just like your comment doesn't imply a joke.

[@Beachygrass]

@@castleanthrax1833 peak ragebait

[@castleanthrax1833]

@Beachygrass Chill out, mate. You're projecting.

[@Shadowhunterbg]

The Sherman vs Panther aka Coughing baby vs a Grown man.

[@boxdogvids1798]

More like 6 teenagers vs one man with back problems

[@lewisgoodey436]

The m10 doesn't use a sherman hull 💀

[@InsertGenuineName]

It’s based on the Sherman chassis but modified

[@johnpaulbolivar780]

Talking about american tanks: Into details, taking their time to explain. Talking about German tanks: Fast talk.

[@frankhernandez6883]

Sherman = Tommy Cooker

[@singularitystudios4502]

The Sherman was cheap but dangerous like the soviets tanks but the Panther was so much better

[@foxymetroid]

The Sherman was actually one of the safer tanks in the war. Its "flammability" reputation came from British crews stuffing as much ammo into their Shermans as possible. It's the equivalent of saying Hondas are too flammable and dangerous because you loved filling the trunk and backseat with oil-soaked rags.

[@FrostyLego22]

cheese

[@Convernater]

Blud need ez money so just merged recent videos but still with imperial measure (who most of audience not familiar with)

[@charlesdubuc4169]

Not the sherman for sure

[@displacedyankee7819]

The more I learned about the Panther, the worse I thought of it. Side armor can be penetrated by AT-Rifles??? Bleh

[@user-cm9pt8bo3l]

We've all seen the Sherman vs Panther test drive videos made by the Americans...

[@godly_soup]

I am once again asking you to make a video about the soveit IS tanks next plz

[@Your_average-Tyler-enjoyer]

Under 5k views gang 👇

[@Tarantulas94]

You forgot the nickname Germans gave the m4 sherman they called it the Tommy cooker, for the British were called tommies by the germans the same way Americans called the Germans jerrys and when ever a sherman burst into flames they would amount it to the tommies being cooked alive

[@ArcticWolf00Alpha0]

Wasn't that a proven myth? Its generally well understood that the Sherman didn't burst into flames as much as people made it out to?

[@lucioordo3647]

False

[@castleanthrax1833]

Ignore him. Before the edit, it said "... for the Americans were called Tommies... " I was halfway through writing a correction when I re-read the OP, and he'd changed it to "British."

[@Tarantulas94]

@ArcticWolf00Alpha0 the nickname "ronsen" was confirmed to be a myth as the slogan "light everytime" didn't come till much later, but the rumored nickname "Tommy Cooker" has neither been completely confirmed or denied. It's not impossible or improbable for it to be true because the original name "Tommy cooker" actually come ls from the military rations given to the British which were portable stoves that look like a tin can. So it's likely a german saw a real Tommy cooker and compared it to what the tank did to the Tommy's inside

[@Tarantulas94]

@castleanthrax1833 yeah I tend to correct my mistakes when I see them

[@MICHAEL-tz9ni]

wait, did you say the m3 had no rotating turret. You might want to go recheck your facts, I'm not even gonna waste my time watching the rest of this video. 1 min, and 49 seconds, and I have had enough

[@CT9905.]

The German Panzer’s ruled the Battlefield, until they ran out of FUEL ⛽️!!!

[@ukasz-zm9qc]

Which happened rarely, contrary to popular belief.

[@CT9905.]

@ American 🇺🇸 soldiers suffered from Tiger Tank Phobia…. Every German tank encountered was a Tiger Tank!

[@Marvid236]

Would it be possible to use valid units of measurement in addition to the freedom units?

[@colonelhavco9508]

Sherman tank is the best tank that a fact top that

[@castleanthrax1833]

No, that's an opinion, and it's not an opinion that is shared by many.

[@normalhuman9260]

What was the quote "a Sherman is better than 5 US tanks,the problem is the US would make 6" or something like that?

[@castleanthrax1833]

@@normalhuman9260 A Sherman tank IS the American tank. I believe the quote is comparing Tiger tanks to Sherman tanks.