Quality v Quantity? | Panzer IV v M4 Sherman | Tank V Tank - Normandy, 1944

[@onenote6619]

It is not mentioned that later Sherman models were built with spring-loaded hatches and the earlier versions retrofitted with them. This greatly increased the chances of crew to get out alive in the event of major damage. Lifting a heavy, armoured hatch while your tank is on fire is nobody's idea of a good time.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

Panzer IVs had more escape hatches than Shermans.

[@reapertalon]

​@lyndoncmp5751 then why did so many crew die? According to the Chieftain, the Sherman enjoyed the highest crew survivability out of any tank (I believe ConeOfArc, and Lazerpig also state the same)

[@Dreachon]

@@reapertalon Chieftain never made that claim, you people should really watch his video close instead of repeating nonsense.

[@reapertalon]

@@Dreachon he DID say that the Sherman enjoyed great crew survivability in his myths of American Armor video

[@HaVoC117X]

​@@reapertalon where Chieftain also admitted that officers and infantry men which got assigned to tanks were not counted in thks statistics and that the US forces mostly engaged with german Infantery battalions while the Brits and Canadians had to fight the far bigger chunk of the german armor. Chieftain also told us in this presentation, that the US shermans faced Tigers only three times. So this statistic is interesting, but not enough to claim that a penetrated 75 or 88 mm round will cause fewer casualties in a sherman. The wet stowage Sherman which got knocked out in Cologne by the Panther had three lethal casualties by a single 75mm round. It got the driver, commander and loader while pentetrating the turret front. 😮

[@boxsterman77]

It’s not just quantity, it’s maintainability, transportability, repairability, reliability, economy.

[@Nachtkalmar]

both tanks excell in these aspects

[@FP194]

@@Nachtkalmar Except the German tanks excelled in nothing that was listed

[@Nachtkalmar]

@@FP194 they did if you compare them to their nations alternatives.

[@anncoddenns7266]

@@FP194first of all know it al. German tanks were overused unlike allied tanks. They had a lot more combat same as the airplanes. That’s why u only see German aces at the top. Second the panzer 4 was a very good tank the panther was on par after 1 year. That’s called German engineering. The tiger was just to fat..Allies avoided most German tanks because they couldn’t penetrate them. Just called in air or artillery support. I can go on but u get it the point.

[@Ayden-vi1io]

⁠@@anncoddenns7266that is some bullcrap

[@_EllieLOL_]

Ah, the classic American doctrine of “Oh, you finished making your super tank? Well here’s 50,000 Shermans, good luck!”

[@benjammin3381]

Just "logic" viewing two vehicles in a vacuum. The germans made 50000 tanks during the war. 1500 of them were breakthrough tanks. The US made 105k tanks during ww2. Only 270ish were of that calibre. Same with the USSR. Around 6-7000 out of 120k. The germans made what they needed and changing that up wouldn't have changed the outcome of the war as ger could never rival the giant industry of the allies and ussr combined. They bit off more than they could chew.

[@_EllieLOL_]

@@benjammin3381 yeah, there was no way the axis could have ever won wwii

[@robisfantasticutube]

Their ability to be ready and running on the day of the operation due to availability of common spare parts and "easy" maintenance and repairability were also another reason that helped keep the numbers on the allies side.

[@onenote6619]

American tanks had to be loaded onto a ship, sent across the Atlantic and get to work with all the spares available. That put some serious constraints on the design.

[@programmatic93]

I don't like this logic, this is more attuned to Soviet doctrine. American doctrine is more "how does this 1 vehicle fit into our combined joint tactics" The sherman wasn't initially designed to go against tanks, that's what the tank destroyers were suited for. The sherman was initially designed to support the infantry while being able to defend itself long enough for tank destroyers to come up and eliminate armor threats.

[@nonamesplease6288]

Whatever else you have to say about it, the Sherman was the tank the allies needed. It was good enough. It was adaptable, reliable, transportable, and available in large numbers. Tank warfare is a messy, expensive business, and is definitely not gladiatorial combat. The Sherman checked all of the macro boxes, and we should be grateful the allies had it.

[@butchs.4239]

You left out repairable. In the engagement featured in the video three of the four M4s knocked out were recovered, repaired, and returned to service. The M4's designers put a lot of effort into making sure mechanics in the field could maintain the vehicles and repair battle damage as needed to keep their tanks in the fight.

[@atomicspoon6884]

@@butchs.4239 IIRC We had entire tanks worth of spares in warehouses and such. If you needed a spare you got that spare. The allies didn't have crews beating the crap out of each other at depots fighting for parts.

[@j.robertsergertson4513]

Well said!

[@portman8909]

It's just not a vehicle you'd sit inside if you could get a Pershing instead!

[@rileyernst9086]

Panthers would have been a much much better tank for the allies. Think about it like this, the Allies HAD the logistical apparatus to transport and field a tank of that caliber. The Americans HAD the industrial capacity to make tens of thousands of them(and without the reliance on slave labor and the threat of sabotage on the factory line). It was 'quite adaptable'(whatever the hell that means?), had better terrain crossing ability, better speed and acceleration than the sherman. Sure they would not have been available in the same numbers as shermans, you would not be able to fit quite as many on each ship, but you would not need to, because you would have a main battle tank with a gun that could knock out pretty much anything it came across, armour sufficent to deal with most enemy AT weapons from the front; You lose less of them, so transporting more of them becomes less of an advantage. Another great boon, is that tank crews are more likely to survive and become experienced, so you start to lose them less and less often as your troops get more blooded and they become more combat effective, destroying more enemy material for the loss of each of your vehicles. Yet another great boon, is that if the main ammo stores are not located above 1.5m (as it is in the sherman) the likelihood of a catastrophic tank fire burning your tank and making it completely unrecoverable is decreased by 50%!! Meaning you can use some of those 'lost' tanks again!

[@SteamCrane]

0:20 - Staring you in the face is the reason that the M4 was the *overall* best tank in the war - the bolts holding the transmission housing, which was later changed to a simpler one piece housing. Coupled with similar design features elsewhere, repairs on Shermans were much easier than German tanks. A bunch of tanks with superior guns sitting in a repair depot are not a factor in the next battle. Engineers look at 2 numbers, MTBF and MTTR. Sherman won on both of those measures. Metallurgy of mechanical components like gears was also a factor in reliability.

[@aluminumfalcon552]

Absolutely

[@polarvortex3294]

Seems like I heard that the Germans had a tendency to ship their tanks back to Germany for major repairs, rather than attempt to fix them in the field. If that's true, reliability would have been an even more important issue.

[@bradjohnson4787]

The Sherman had an Air Force attached!

[@richardsawyer5428]

Exactly. James Holland and Al Murray point out that allied kit never works in isolation; air superiority allows humble little spotter planes to "see over the hill" allowing artillery, tanks, etc to work together and beat those nazis.

[@michaelpielorz9283]

very overrated , have you ever asked ?

[@tomyoung8563]

And a massive advantage in artillery support

[@matejmacek5784]

with what weapons. Machineguns. There were almost no weapon used that could penetrate armor. They observe smoke (from that weapon) and falsely claimed destroyed tank. Usually weight of planes needed for tank destruction outweighed tank weight (6-7 planes per tank).

[@thekinginyellow1744]

@@michaelpielorz9283 If you read German accounts, they absolutely hated Allied airpower. Yes, statistically it didn't knock out that many tanks, but that's because the Germans changed their tactics to avoid it. But that's the point. It forced them to change their tactics, which overall made them quite a bit less effective.

[@WK1745]

Sorry to be nerdy, but the long 75mm gun on the Panzer IV is either an L43 or in the case of your vehicle an L48, not L60. The long 50mm gun on the late model Panzer III was an L60.

[@MrCenturion13]

Neeerrdddd.

[@alexandersuchodol7888]

You are right.

[@jdgang70]

And to be a bigger nerd most Panzer IV faced by the Allies in Normandy where Ausf H version which had 80mm of solid plate on the superstructure.

[@JHood-67]

Well spotted. I also noticed the same erroneous comment but had forgotten that the panzer 3 50mm was eventually a L60 👌

[@eliasmiguelfreire8965]

It's obviously a mistake, he says that 7.5cm by 60 is 3.6m, which is incorrect if you do the math, I guess he wanted to say L48, which is 7.5cm by 48, and that gives you the 3.6m he says in the video.

[@AnthonyEvelyn]

Quality wasn't a issue with the Sherman and the US would produce them in huge numbers. It was just a matter of who saw who first and fired first, both tanks could KO each other.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

No it was who hit who first in the relevant place.

[@reapertalon]

​@@lyndoncmp5751 self redundant argument. 70% of the time, whoever fired first, won.

[@petestorz172]

Design-for-manufacturability was a concept that eluded Germany when it came to tanks. M4s were both manufacturable and good quality. On another tack, having to be transported by rail and by cargo ship imposed constraints on M4s' size and weight. Upgrades had to fit within those constraints.

[@Dreachon]

@@petestorz172 The ships and dockcranes posed little constraints on the M4. It is a way over-abused myth.

[@David_randomnumber]

​@@DreachonThe ships do, in a way. The tonnage was limited and a heavier tank meant less of them could be shipped.

[@basher20]

Ask Joe infantry who's pinned down by a machine gun nest if he wants a good tank today or a great tank tomorrow, and he'll answer "send me a crappy tank now!"

[@ThePsiclone]

given the stress of his situation I highly doubt he'd be as polite as that hahaha but your point is well made.

[@Edax_Royeaux]

Hey Joe infantry, you mind coming out of your foxhole and help push this stuck crappy tank out of the mud?

[@syncmonism]

The M4 was a great tank though. Its supposed "shortcomings" that people reference are usually just bs. Namely, the idea that they had weak armor protection, a weak gun, or that they caught fire easily, or more generally, that crew survivability was poor. Even the 75mm gun was actually pretty good. Overall, it was probably the best designed tank of the entire war.

[@recoil53]

@@syncmonism Most of those compare the Sherman to the German heavies, which is not a meaningful comparison. I don't recall that the German medium tanks ever stood toe to toe with Allied heavy tanks.

[@recoil53]

That's a maybe on the "great" tank, given how often it broke down.

[@thetankmuseum]

Hi Tank Nuts! We hope you enjoyed our latest video. Which tank do you think comes out on top - the Panzer IV or the M4 Sherman? Let us know below

[@MCE_2]

23:54 but the problem i have offen with such conclutions that they over look that germany had the problem of constend bomber runs and had a Mutch smaler Population than the Allies

[@genaro5766]

​@@MCE_2 That's what happens when you start a war and the other side doesn't just give up . The Allies kept on fighting and fighting until they got much better in the " Business of warfare " . Don't start a war if you're going to cry foul just because the other side is determined not to lose .

[@MCE_2]

@@genaro5766 yup i understand that but it should be mentiond because i have the feeling the air and the ground campain of the allies gets offten seperrated

[@2adamast]

Tank vs tank the us could say that’s something for the m10, m18, where the m4 is there to fight a war

[@joeelliott2157]

The Sherman tank is better.

[@larryfontenot9018]

German vs. American radios: Yes, the Germans used AM radios that were much more prone to static than the Allies' FM sets. And their wattage was lower. But that was NOT a major disadvantage. FM only works when there is a reasonably clear line of sight between the two sets involved because it's terrible at penetrating obstacles but works in a straight line. AM bounces between the ground and a layer of the atmosphere. People using a 10 watt AM set can communicate with people around the world. A soldier with an FM set is lucky if he can communicate with another set that's on the other side of a hill. The FM sets were more powerful to try to compensate for that major disadvantage. In other words, FM offers clearer signals, but that's balanced by them very often not being able to get that signal to the intended recipient. That's something I know very well because I was a soldier who worked with field radios quite a lot, and successful communication conditions were always in the back of my mind. Many was the time when it was necessary to run field telephone cables to talk to people on the other side of a hill.

[@2adamast]

Same frequencies for german and american tanks, gives similar range. With similar frequencies AM-FM is about sound quality not range.

[@MesCaLiN21]

@@2adamast The US and the germans used different frequencies...because its AM and FM. It can be the same value but it´s not the same frequency. FM radio stations modulate the carrier wave while AM ​​radio stations vary the amplitude (height) of the carrier signal according to the audio signal to be transmitted. The US SCR-508 could operate AM and FM, the AM range was 20-27.9 MHz while the german FuG 5 used in tanks was at 27-33 MHz. That was one of the rare cases where germans and americans could hit the same frequency but the rear end of AM band was never used by the US nor the lower ones by germans in combat due to that overlap. AM would be superior in range espec at night using same power and around 30 Mhz but FM is far superior when it comes to clearity. On the other hand u can go up to 300 Mhz FM for long range com but i guess that was not used in ww2 tanks^^ It often needs a trained ear to decipher the cracklings from spoken words or several attempts when using AM but it´s a reliable simple solution for low data communication espec in rough terrain.

[@michaelpielorz9283]

the next Quest for lame excuses?

[@borrisyull52]

Except, in WW2, the only guys on the other side of the hill are the Micro Managers from HQ, not usually the rest of the Tanks in the unit your working with. And having more static when you move seems to be a pretty big problem when your Radio set is mounted in something called a TANK... Tanks tend to be noisy places, not the best for trying to make out voices through static. And knowing what the other tanks know is pretty important, even if you could probably see what those tanks can see yourself, if you happened to be looking right at it though those periscopes. Where allied FM sets fell down was when a unit wanted to call in Arty / Air Support, or Supply, or talk with the Commanders back at HQ. But the AM set used between tanks in a unit tactically was a deficit, because you'd spend more "time critical" time warning local tanks about local threats than having to deal with those more remote issues.

[@2adamast]

@@MesCaLiN21 Following the general formula of range proportional to 1/(log(frequency)) the US at 20 mhz should have a slight advantage over Germans at 30 mhz. Something similar to todays 2.5 and 5 ghz wifi. AM radio is known for long range because of the frequencies used, not because of its type of modulation.

[@FLJBeliever1776]

One thing that is often overlooked is that the M4 Sherman was shockingly able to be resurrected from being absolutely destroyed. Stories exist of Shermans with their Turrets blown off and their Hulls split open being repaired by Tank Repairmen in the field and restored more or less to fully operational status. A number of these wrecked Tanks, though, were sent back to Factories in the UK where the workers could resurrect them from their absolutely destroyed status with a fully completed repair job and even toss in some upgrades while they were at it. As for the Ammunition, that issue was actually an ongoing problem with an ongoing hunt for the solution. Also, techinically speaking, the 76mm Sherman was available in June 1944, but was left behind by decision for two reasons. The first being that no one wanted to complicate the supply chain until the matter with having a fully functional port could be achieved. Second was that the Tank Crews themselves didn't want the Tank because their experiences were amounting to fighting German Defensive Positions manned by Infantry and Anti-Tank units that were either Infantry with Man Portable Anti-Tank Weapons or just plain ole Towed Anti-Tank Guns. Why take the 76mm with a lower Shrapnel Spread to the 75mm when the chases of encountering Tanks was going to be low. Plus, the Allied Tank crews were learning how best to deal with the German Tank Destroyers. Without Turrets, once found, it was just a matter of sticking to the maxim 'Find Them, Fix Them, Flank Them.' Copy and paste, the German Tank Destroyers were really no real, long term meaningful threat until they could fire from so far away, they were just Tank Destroyers in name and were actually Artillery! But as for the Ammunition, the US Army did capture multiple, some huge enough to warrant the following, stockpiles of German ammunition for the long barreled 75mm Panzer IV in North Africa. Due to how much better the ammunition was and the amount that had been captured, it was recommended how to figure out how to put the rounds into the M4 Sherman. As such, the US Army spent much of the war trying to figure out how to fit German ammunition into American guns as a measure of reusing the captured ammunition. Eventually, the US Army figured out what they needed to do, but by that point, there weren't enough German Tanks left to shoot at and what there was, was manageable by the ammunition inspired from the attempt as well as standard upgrades that had been going on for the whole war. As for the propellant, that wasn't a choice the US Army Armored Branch or Tank Research sections wanted. They wanted more propellant to make the guns more powerful even at their smaller size. More than sufficient to punch through German Tanks or gouge even deeper into the Panzers' frontal armor on later Tanks. But the US Army Bureau of Ordnance had taken a page out of the US Navy Bureau of Ordnance's book and decided to do things far more cheaply to extend service life of the barrel without first consulting those who would be using the ammunition or the guys who knew what they were doing in researching the ammunition in the first place! In short, to save the gun barrels for 2,000 rounds, the US Army Bureau of Ordnance intentionally made the propellant far weaker than it should have been. While that meant the rounds were adequate for dealing with Infantry and most Fortifications, the obvious drawbacks were as visible in 1942 as they were in 1944 only made worse. General Marshall was said to have lost his temper as much as Admiral King had with the bean counters who were great at numbers, but forgot the importance of fighting a war with actual people and equipment. Seems like that's a common issue with people who work with numbers. They ALWAYS forget that when they seek the cheapest solution based solely on numbers, they screw up everything else that it becomes MORE expensive in the long run. Yeah. Bean counters should always have someone who is experienced looking over their shoulder no matter how much they would hate it. That way they don't screw everyone over.

[@billsmith5109]

Outcome of the war? The U.S. would have diverted the B-29’s to England. Bomb tonnage would have skyrocketed. German fighters would have learned the B-29 air to air computers were effective. Polesti no longer would have been a long range target. B-29’s would have arrived over the refineries with full bomb loads. Oil would have gone from being short to non-existent. The Red Army would have continued west, every day. Come August ‘45 nuclear war would have come to Germany. Course of the war, yes, failure to get past stalemate in Normandie would have changed the course. Outcome, no.

[@hertzair1186]

I read the book “ Death Traps” about the field engineer who had to resurrect the knocked out Sherman’s….first the body parts and blood was cleaned out , then the interior was repainted white to cover up blood stains. Nasty work.

[@Fidd88-mc4sz]

Admiral King was in dire need of the efforts of the bean counters. That man did as much, or more, than several German u-boat aces, to imperil the battle of the Atlantic, chiefly by doing the opposite of anything the Royal Navy suggested 'might be a good idea', such a implementing the convoy system, or observing blackouts on coastal towns, until a long line of burning allied ships along the Eastern seabord rather made the advice undeniable. If the bean counters had kept score of the deaths of merchant seamen, both American and British, because of this idiot, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of tons of shipping lost, ditto, then he'd have promoted elsewhere. Anywhere in fact. The further away the better!

[@homie8437]

You're misunderstanding a few big things here. Yes, the allies pressed knocked out M4s into service. The M4 had easily swapped transmission housings, gun mounts, turrets, engines. But you can't just fix a tank with the turret blown off. Death Traps by Belton Cooper (has a lot of historical errors) details how tank recovery personnel could not restore tanks with damaged turret rings, broken hull welds, or ones that were burnt down as fires ruined the temper of the armored steel. In that respect it was not "shockingly more able to be resurrected." The US just had more spare parts, tank recovery vehicles, and trained personnel to do so. They briefly experimented with captured 75mm German ammunition. This was because the British found the ammunition had various defects like shattering of projectiles and explosive filler going off prematurely. They swapped captured German projectiles into 75mm Sherman casings. They developed improved ammunition with a blunt steel cap (APC) to improve on these defects. They did not spend "most of the war" on it, not sure what makes you think that. The M3 75mm was a good multi-purpose gun when the tank was being developed. The gun was simply a modernized WW1-era MLE 1897. Initial combat feedback about the cannon was favorable - even in the M3 tank, crews liked that the 75mm HE could handle antitank guns the 37mm or 2-Pounder struggled with. They did not down-load the powder charge, in fact they introduced "Super-Charge" HE rounds with higher velocity. It was true that they made a mistake in putting off 76mm gun development and maybe should have looked at the 17 pdr or M93 HVAP 76mm ammunition more seriously. But in 1942-1943, the field feedback was positive and they really never fought rare heavy tanks like Tigers. Ordnance did want the new gun to have a long barrel life. But guns weren't "down-loaded." They took the M7 Antitank gun, a modernized WW1-era M1916 anti-aircraft gun, and put that projectile into a smaller case with a higher operating pressure and a smaller, lighter breech to make the 76mm M1. They weren't loading less powerful rounds. They were using proven components and weapons to expedite development time. And Armor Branch itself did not like the 17 Pdr and 76mm M1 (in standard turret) for shooting characteristics like muzzle flash, accuracy, gun balance, slow reload. Ordnance bureau had little to do with the initial choice not to use better guns. Probably the big thing was lackadaisical research into tungsten core HVAP ammunition as it did allow the 76mm M1 to punch a Panther frontally.

[@FLJBeliever1776]

@homie8437 Your information is riddled with flaws. All attempts to reuse older, existing guns were abandoned with dedicated guns put into use. While, yes, the M1897 was reused, it was reused only as interim on Halftracks and as the 75mm Pack Howitzer used by Light Infantry units such as the Airborne. No matter what was done, the gun had too much kick and not near enough Ballistic for service in Tanks. In fact, modified Halftracks with M1897 guns had fully traversing mounts. They just weren't traversed. At all. Due to the M1897 threatening to flip the Halftracks on their sides if traversed to fire off to the side. Experience with the 3in, which is likely the AA Gun you refer to, was classified as a dismal failure by Armor Board despite RnD calling it a success. The difference was, yes, they got the 3-inch Gun into the Turret. Unfortunately, that's all they achieved. It was otherwise, and I quote the word used, 'Unfightable.' The Turret became too cramped. Not enough space for ammunition either. The recoil was considered a risk. Not my words. Nicolas Moran and David Fletcher. The Super Charged Rounds were late to the war as well. After the issue with propellant and the increasingly difficult nature of Axis fortification. Nicolas Moran actually has a video where one expert actually told him point blank about 76mm Tanks being left behind because experience showed Allied Soldiers would be encountering entrenched Infantry and Anti-Tank Guns. Also, why would anyone want to wheel 2-pdr and 37mm Guns into action where they are the attacker attacking over open terrain. Also, the US Army did not use the 2-pdr. So I'm guessing you're sourcing from British records, whereas I sourced American.

[@Wastelandman7000]

Another thing people keep forgetting is that in Normandy and after Kursk in the east the Germans were often on the defensive often fighting from prepared positions. When the tables were turned as at Arracourt where a bunch of 75 armed Shermans and some tank destroyers were defending they had little difficulty obliterating a fairly large number of Panthers and Stugs with low losses for the Allied side. Being able to force the enemy to come to you is a huge advantage.

[@stuartkidney3257]

don't forget about the "fog" that hampered the German's visibility of the enemy at Arracourt - The Germans needed to modify their tactics - which they failed to do.

[@crownprincesebastianjohano7069]

German tank crews by 1944 were mostly green to boot. Crews are all-important.

[@TheLouHam]

@@stuartkidney3257 the fog would have been a hinder to the Americans too.

[@stuartkidney3257]

@@TheLouHam might wanna study the history of the battle; tactics of USA defeated Nazi's who probably had better equipment but out-thunk by those wiley God-Fearing Americans

[@andyfriederichsen]

@@crownprincesebastianjohano7069 Good crews alone will only get you so far, especially when your Panther or Tiger I isn't as reliable as the Panzer IV or M4 Sherman.

[@croatiaball3038]

The Sherman is so poorly misunderstood... it's not a human wave tank it's a tank that had great crew ergonomics, easy maintnance and a decent gun especially for the 76 Sherman...

[@fintrollpgr]

Small correction, the longer barrel does not improve obturation. As that is just how well the projectile fits in the barrel avoiding gas leakage past the projectile. The reason why the longer barrel has higher muzzle velocity is because it allows for more propellant to be burned and thus have higher pressure for a longer behind the projectile.

[@roygardiner2229]

velocity ---> speed.

[@ronv6637]

I thought I was the only one who caught the improper phrase and ballistic result

[@j.f.fisher5318]

Even with the same amount of propellant the longer barrel will produce a bit more velocity because the propellant accelerates the shell for a longer period. The higher volume of propellant keeps the pressure in the optimal range for longer in that longer barrel. The ironic opposite of this is modern high velocity tank guns, with the M1 having just a 44 caliber gun and accepting that much of the propellant is still burning after it leaves the barrel. But the pressures are so high and the rounds are so light that it's producing muzzle velocities double what a gun of the same caliber length could produce in WW2.

[@許進曾]

@@j.f.fisher5318 Well the grain size of the propellant can be reduced this will make them burn much faster. However smaller grain size also meant that the pressure will climb much sharper and higher due the smaller space as appose to propellant still burning while the shell is travelling down most of the barrel as oppose to burning it all half way down the barrel.

[@Fulcrum205]

I think they may have meant obscuration, i.e. the smoke, dust, and muzzle flash that obscures the the target. High levels prevent the commander and gunner from seeing the tracer and correcting fire. It's one of the things the US Army really didn't like about the 76mm and 17lbr. They felt the higher muzzle velocity was cancelled out by being unable to observe the shot at medium and short ranges. The 75mm gun could get onto target and get hits much faster than 76mm, 17bler, and 90mm equipped tanks. The muzzle brake added on the M1A1 76mm was an effort to reduce obscuration

[@Chiller11]

Excellent comparison of the two most common tank types in Normandy.

[@williamashbless7904]

The M-4 Sherman was powered by a radial aircraft engine which made it taller than Inline water cooled engines. The Chrysler Multibank engine was specifically designed for the M-4a4 variant and was no taller than its fellow Shermans. It did require the hull be lengthened by nearly a foot to accommodate this beastly engine. While early Sherman’s Commanders did have inferior vision from inside a buttoned up tank, fighting with head and shoulders exposed was a superior tactic and was practiced as much as possible. Close range engagement with infantry would likely see your commander duck inside. Later Sherman Cupolas were as good or better. Sherman crew survivability got better as the war progressed. Sherman was designed to be repaired in the field, as much as possible, by her crew. German doctrine required shipping tanks back to the factory for many major overhauls or repairs. Rule of thumb for armored warfare is whoever spots the enemy first is likely to win the engagement.

[@HaVoC117X]

@@jackgee3200 Futrhermore the the complicated A57 mutlibank only achieved half of the milage between overhauls compared to HL120 and only a thrid of the milage of an Radial powered M4A1 or Ford GAA V8 M4A3. It was by far the worst engine for the sherman. Why is the Panzer IV harder to maintain?? Both the Sherman and Panzer IV had Bogie suspension, the leaf springs of the Panzer IV were more robust and simpler than the VVSS Bogies of the Sherman. The engine deck of the Panzer IV had huge panels and basic maintenance could be done with the engine installed. Try changing a spark plug on a radial powered sherman without removing the engine out of the tank, or tune one of the 5 a carburetors of the A-57. Both engines had a number of Cylinderheads facing down into the tank hull. There is just no way maintaining a Panzer IV was worse than an M4A1 or M4A4.

[@randallbelstra7228]

The Chysler Multibank was an interim engine due to the Navy confiscating all of radial engines for their aircraft, and before the GAA 38 Aluminum Ford V8 Engine which was used in June 1944 by the American M4A3 models. Also, after July of 1944, no more 75 Armed Shermans were sent to the US forces in the ETO. They were all Armed with the M1 76 MM gun.

[@buckhorncortez]

The most prevalent engine used in the Sherman was the Ford GAA. The GAA powered: M4A3 (1,690), M4A3(75)W (3,071), M4A3(76)W (1,400), M4A3 (105) (500), M4A3E2 (254), M4A3(76)W HVSS (3,142), M4A3(105) HVSS (2,539), M10A1 (1,413), and M7B1 (826). The GAA was upgraded to the GAF and it powered: the M26 (2,222), M26A1, T28/T95 (2), and M45 (185). In all, the Ford motors powered close to 12,000 tanks.

[@HaVoC117X]

@@buckhorncortez they produced a little over 49.000 shermans of which almost 20.000 were either M4 or M4a1 equipped with the radial engine. The M4a3 with the Ford engine wasn't the most common type.

[@Tank_Facts]

Lest we forget the german quality of transmissions that took 8 hours to replace and failed, causing a severe lack of Panthers to be left behind before the Battle of the Bulge.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

By December 1944 it had more to do with lack of resources and lack of proper maintenance facilities, recovery vehicles, fuel etc than the time it took to replace a transmission (which wasn't very often). At the start of the Ardennes offensive over 70% of all Panthers were operational.

[@TheSaturnV]

I don't think a Panther is getting a transmission replaced in 8 hours, even on a perfect, sunny day. The turret had to be removed, both driver and bow gunner/radio positions removed, then the top hatch plate before the transmission could be unbolted and lifted out this small opening. Seems like at least a full day's work if not more.

[@Curtissaviation]

​@TheSaturn Chieftain states that you can replace the transmissions on FOUR Shermans in slightly less time than ONE Panther transmission.

[@jsd795]

​@@TheSaturnVhave you ever been a mechanic? Provided that the parts and tools are on hand the speed of any job depends on how many times you have actually done the job. If you have two or three guys that have done the job several times and are working as a team it can drastically speed up the process. I would bet that good experienced men could have cut that eight hours in half if they were in a rush.

[@Cowboycomando54]

@@lyndoncmp5751 The interlocking road wheels alone made repairs a nightmare,.

[@erikwallen4483]

It always bothers me when German gear, tanks especially, is referred to as "high quality". Objectively, most of their designs were prone to breakdowns much more often than comparable tanks from the allied/soviet side. On top of that they were much more difficult and costly to repair. What is the quality in having the stuff that breaks the most?

[@David_randomnumber]

Thank you. I don't like the implication that the Sherman lacked quality just because they were built in masses either. If they compared Pz IV vs T34 that would be another story.

[@polygonvvitch]

Some parts were objectively super high quality, the optics most famously, but yeah the overall system was very flawed.

[@exharkhun5605]

@@David_randomnumber Even comparing the build quality of T34 isn't a simple one-is-better-than-the-other story. There were T34 built that were top quality, and it was originally designed as such. Of course there were moments, and places, where every produced T34 counted and that's where the really badly built ones come from. The ones where you could put your fist through the crack between 2 plates and that where just good enough to make it to the front line. Nearing the end of the war the build quality started to rise again and the dependability with it, the T34's that took part in the attack on the Japanese in Manchuria were on par with Sherman's.

[@TheKsalad]

The german factory worker would weep if they saw what American plants could do at a massive scale.

[@AHappyCub]

Its best described as a high quality pile of garbage

[@kieran2221]

The visualization is excellent, thank you for the additional effort.

[@oogdiver]

Belton Cooper created the post-war myth of the Sherman as being a death trap. Not deliberate but simply a function of what he saw as someone assigned to deal only with knocked-out tanks. If that's all you see, you naturally come to a conclusion. Similar to misunderstanding the effects of the introduction of the steel helmet in WW1 or armouring points on surviving B17s on the basis of flak hits. Statistically, Shermans had a relatively high vehicle loss rate but a high crew survival rate. Even with regard to vehicle loss, the Allies had learned from North Africa that many tanks could be recovered and put back into service. Ironically, the very job was Cooper assigned to and which gave him his false impression.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

Actually the feeling was already there during WW2 from Normandy onwards. Eisenhower got wind of this and commissioned a special report. US 2nd Armored Division provided him with a combat testimony report in March 1945 from lots of Sherman tankers. The report wasn't very favourable for the Sherman tank. In February 1945 a visit to the US 6th Armored Division (which influenced his request for the report) provided him with the declaration that US 6th Armored Division considered its tanks, including Sherman, as being "entirely unsatisfactory". So it didn't start with Belton Cooper post war.

[@Dreachon]

@@lyndoncmp5751 Plus if one reads Mako's book 'Spearhead' one can also see that the men of the US 3rd Armored Division had their issues with the Sherman. And then we have several books of British tank commanders who also make the same points.

[@anthonyjackson280]

@@lyndoncmp5751 but that speaks as well to crew survivability for the M4 - it's crews survived to talk about it.

[@Cowboycomando54]

@@lyndoncmp5751 It was popularized by him. The Sherman also falls victim to survivor bias.

[@SeanCSHConsulting]

@@lyndoncmp5751 no

[@ReallyOldDog]

Sherman tank was quality. Why are all of u still debating this?

[@VosperCDN]

Loved the animation to show the basics of the engagement. The PIV has always been a favourite of mine, and the look is just as iconic as the Sherman's.

[@Cpneuma]

its footage from the game that sponsers them :p

[@matthewclark7885]

It should also be noted that the Sherman was specifically *designed* for reliability and ease of repair. We knew that we wouldn't be able to just ship our tanks bank to the factory for major repair in the same way as any of the other major players in Europe.

[@TheKsalad]

Shermans were built in their 10s of thousands and were also high quality, if you want to compare something who's ONLY upside was quantity try the T-34 tanks with welds so bad you can stick your finger through them and tracks that shook your teeth loose

[@lukeardagh3372]

but also reliabililty, ease of maintenance, sloped armour and a good gun

[@rbaxter286]

Also, should try comparing Apple and Apples. Best example, covering Sherman side armor but not really doing the same for the IV, and in many other areas. Also, plate thickness is not LINEARLY ADDITIVE!

[@huytran6696]

its just basically a giant metal coffin with a cannon on it

[@Wraithling.]

​@@lukeardagh3372 what tank are you talking about? If it's the T-34, then I suppose you mean on paper right? Because in practice it was definitely not reliable. The engine may have been, but the armor and gun were not at all. Nor was crew survivability.

[@tarkov_6]

​@Wraithling. Yeaaa almost like 50% were lost due to break downs. Maybe late war tanks were better.

[@petesheppard1709]

This was a very good comparison, given the time constraint of the video. One very good point in the Sherman's favor was crew survivability, especially when the larger driver and BOG hatches, along with the separate loader's hatches were introduced.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

Panzer IV had more escape hatches than the Sherman.

[@petesheppard1709]

@@lyndoncmp5751 Yeah, those side hatches on the turret look cool--and were much enjoyed in non-combat situations. They also look much easier for the loader and gunner to get through than Sherman roof hatches, especially the original large single hatch.

[@carlmontney7916]

Lots of things went into consideration when the Sherman tank was developed. I would say one of the most important things was that it had to be able to fit into the cargo holds of the ships available in its time. Which it did perfectly. Despite the bad rap it's gotten even to this day. It actually was a pretty good tank for its time and far better than what it's given credit for.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

True. But now it's gone the other way, with many people now claiming it was the best, safest, most survivable tank of WW2 etc. It wasn't.

[@carlmontney7916]

@@lyndoncmp5751 I'd say that applies to any tank during WW II.

[@Dreachon]

They realy didn't design the Sherman to match what carogships could. Heck the first batch of some 250 Sherman were send to Egypt in a ship that had been designed to transport railway trains, look up the SS Seatrain Texas.

[@martinjrgensen8234]

It was designed to fit on rail and with a max weight so the cranes at the port could lift them

[@Cowboycomando54]

@@lyndoncmp5751 It did have the highest crew survival rate of the war, most of the myths and bad rap that the Sherman gets is from a book written by Belton Cooper, who barely had any clue when it came to armored warfare.

[@TheSaturnV]

Unless I missed it, something not mentioned was that the M4's main gun sight was mounted higher in the turret. The result was less of the tank was showing when the gunner already had eyes on the enemy tank resulting in getting off that important first shot. The Chieftain had an excellent diagram used in one of his talks, entitled "The gunner is looking at you." It was a line art comparison of the M4 vs a few German tanks. With the sight placement, you could hardly see the top of the Sherman's turret when he was ready to fire.

[@Dreachon]

And Chieftain got that seriously wrong as the main gunsiht for the Sherman was the telescopic gunsight that was mounted next to the hull, it wasn't until at the end of 1944 that a periscopic gunsight with some serious improvement appeared that it became better to use as the main gunsight but even then most Shermans never got this. Also, if you want to put your Sherman in such a position you will at some point need to move your tanks in order to fire the main gun, at that point you just announced your presence.

[@CrunchyNorbert]

You know what else the Sherman had? Spare parts, in tremendous quantity. All machine cut to reliable fidelity. Even if it broke down then one was easy to fix or replace

[@dgthe3]

Spare parts were plentiful, especially in comparison to what the Germans had. But also entire spare tanks were easy enough to come by. So, when one tank breaks down, not only does it get fixed in fairly short order but the crew will likely be able to hop in another one & keep fighting while it's getting fixed. Being able to keep armoured units near enough full strength all the time is huge.

[@flight2k5]

The Sherman also had a stabilized gun

[@michaelbevan3285]

crews did not maintain the stabilising system as they should have. it wasnt until the Army insisted on sticking to the maintenance schedule and kept the stabiliser reliable. The M4 could fire on the move but Pz 4 crews were warned to be careful about doing so.

[@flight2k5]

@@michaelbevan3285 incorrect, the soldiers were trained in how to use it as it was super secret. The once that did use it were successful

[@pendulum1997]

@@tarkov_6it made a difference to the crews who learned how to use it. It worked at slow speeds and Shermans in Normandy did fire it on the move

[@towgod7985]

@@pendulum1997 Umm....no. The stabilization system on the Sherman was not capable of maintaining a target while on the move. It could only keep the gun in the area of the target, allowing for a faster shot after coming to a stop.

[@c.j.1089]

@@flight2k5 I really hate when sweaty nerds start a statement with "incorrect". Let's collectively grow up and not act like children. What he said wasn't incorrect, it was entirely accurate, you just have a different opinion. It wasnt' secret, btw, it was simply not part of the training for most units so they didn't use it.

[@chiefkikyerass7188]

The Sherman also had a PTO, which is why their were soooo many variations, more versatile, and they didnt have to send them to the rear for repair,

[@emberfist8347]

They did (Death Traps, the gospel for those following the Tommycooker Sherman myths was written by a dude who only saw them in the rear for repair plus a ghost writer), but Shermans were like a Hydra. Destroy one, two more will take its place. The fact that those two Shermans will more than likely have the same crew as the first is also important to note. They can complain only because the Sherman was well-designed for emergency evacuations for the crew particularly compared to the T-34 or Panzer IV so you have survivorship bias.

[@pat0652]

15:45 The Sherman's Gunner sights were a huge advantage. The wide Periscope helped the gunner have good situational awareness. The Sherman thus was liable to get on target fast, fire the first shot, and quickly get follow up shots going downrange while the opposing gunner was still just trying to get their (slow) turret turned and then search for the target out of their narrow sights.

[@Dreachon]

The wide periscope sight was unmanified which only made it usable for closer ranges, when engaging an enemy target at something like 800 metres it would have been useless. And turret traverse rarely made a different as this wasn't videogames where you zipepd passed them at high speed. German tanks also had a similar of better field of view than the Sherman had.

[@pat0652]

@@Dreachon "The wide periscope sight was unmanified"...as the video states, the combination of wide view and magnified view the Sherman had was the best of both worlds, you wanted a wide magnified view in 1944....ok. The PzIV gunner DID NOT have a "a similar of better field of view" as the Sherman Gunner, as is clearly seen in the video. You also may need to visit an optometrist. 20/20 vision corresponds to being able to resolve details that are one minute of arc apart, a vehicle that subtends 30 minutes of arc will be easily visible to someone with 20/20 vision. Therefore, under clear, well-lit conditions, an average human with 20/20 vision should be able to see a seven-meter-long vehicle at 800 meters without any difficulty. People like Nicholas Moran who have forgotten more in the subject than you or I will ever know and have delved into original source material disagree with your point of view.

[@Dreachon]

@@pat0652 Moran's gets basic facts wrong, he's by no mean as good as people such as you make him out to be. He seems amazingly well read if you're only source are stuff you see on YT but if you're like me and also dig into books, converse with historians and experts, can read primary sources then you quickly see that Moran isn't all that much. Maybe try and read up on books yourself instead of just repeating what YT videos tell you, you'll learn far more that way. The telescopic gunsight on the Panzer IV had 25 degrees field of view, looking at the most common periscopic and telescopic gunsight on the Sherman we can see that the overwhelming majority of Sherman had to make do with a 12 or 13 degrees field of view. A wide view that is unmagnified is only useful for anything that is close by, not something that is of any help when you are engaging a target at 800m or such. But go ahead go outside and see how well you can spot something with your naked eye at that distance, I can already tell you that you won't get far.

[@5co756]

@@pat0652 Huge advantage ? Bro they could'nt even set a range nor could they messure the range , all that you can do with German optics . Sherman optic was a simple scope , nothing more .

[@Chopstorm.]

​@Dreachon I can spot deer at that distance without the aid of binoculars. Granted, that's with movement, but a deer is quite a bit smaller than a tank. A well camouflaged tank that is dug in is going to be hard to detect, even with magnification. That periscope is also going to allow you to pick out more landmarks, making it much easier for the commander to guide you onto target when needed.

[@ccmzadv4879]

Not really Quantity versus Quality. Sherman had its issues, but it was still a relatively quality machine, as far as 1940 cutting edge war tech is concerned.

[@dominuslogik484]

for 1942 when it hit the field the sherman was amazing because it was Reliable, well armored and well armed. the 75mm gun could take out anything except the Panther, Tiger and King Tiger meanwhile upgrading to the 76mm allowed the Panther to be threatened and the Tiger was vulnerable to it. the biggest benefits to the Sherman came from the extremely reliable transmissions and engines that allowed them to run for longer without breaking down than just about any other tank of the war.

[@prof_xhew2929]

Quantity vs Quality cant summarize situation; 1_german tank production suffer from Quality issues; in battle of bulge 20-30% German tanks had all type of failures 2_german crews lacked adequate training (vs battle hardened brits n us crews esp. after normandy); 3_as u said logistic was bad - German had no fuel for their super tanks like tiger etc; 4_sherman 75mm could penetrate German front armor but at close quarters (see prev post for some info) 5_76.2mm gun upgrade help Sherman a lot [see firefly / mayfly] 6_but quantity of many3x sherman helped a lot (outside factor)7_airpower also played a role

[@dgthe3]

There are two different definitions of quality being used. There is 'build quality', which relates to how well components meet specifications, their fitment, reliability, etc. Then there is 'combat quality', which relate back to the performance stats. Neither tank was bad in either category. It'd probably be about even between them on build quality, but the Sherman was probably half a step behind as a weapon of war. But only half a step -not 2 or 3 or 4. So, the Panzer IV would have a 'quality' advantage, but it is minimal next to the quantity advantage the Sherman had. To put it another way, in the hypothetical 1 on 1 duels that people love to gin up in these debates, a Panzer IV might have a small, but noticeable advantage. Say, out of 100 engagements it wins 55 to the Sherman's 45(also: I just made up those numbers to illustrate the point). However, in battle there would likely be a troop of 4 or 5 Shermans that encounter a single Panzer IV, with another troop nearby. Sometimes a Sherman will get knocked out, maybe even two, sometimes none. But in practically every engagement, the Panzer gets destroyed. Now, here's the kicker: the exact same scenario plays out with Panthers & Tigers. Troop gets sent out, between 0 and 2 are destroyed -but the German tank is still kaput. Any German quality advantage was practically meaningless because they still lost the engagement due to superior allied numbers.

[@Deneberus]

Chris Copson is an absolute treasure. The way he narrates is captivating, yet I could easily fall asleep to it.

[@TaylorBrain]

The Sherman was one of the highest quality tanks on the battlefield! Easy to maintain, reliable and plenty of spare parts and mechanics.

[@Bob1934-l6d]

Something I read awhile back was a Sherman Power Pac could be changed out in 4 hours and could be done in the field. The same replacement on a Panzer was 4 days and required removing the Turret. Would be interesting to watch this done.

[@ill_bred_demon9059]

The Shermans were legendary for their ease of maintenance and repair on the field. Tank crews could swap transmissions in a few hours. Furthermore, standardization of parts meant damaged Shermans could be cannibalized for parts on the field. Got a tank with busted tracks and a good gear box while another has good tracks but a busted gear box? Swap the tracks and you've got a tank ready to get back in action.

[@BruceGreen-q5u]

The Panther did not require the removal of the turret to replace the transmission/final drive. The turret had to be rotated 90 degrees left or right and the deck above the driver's station, the driver's station and co-driver's station had to be removed.

[@acs9289]

It’s also good to mention that the Sherman had the highest survivability rate than all other tanks at an only 15% fatality. This meant that the American and British crews could fail and still be alive to learn from their mistakes. Not something the Germans could do. A good example is American tanker ace Lafayette Green Poole and his tank, in the mood. If it wasn’t for the survivability of the Sherman, his story would have ended in Italy in 43.

[@stevenewman1393]

😉👍Very nicely greatly well done and very wonderfully informatively explained and executed in every detail way shape and format provided on the "Panzer IV vs M4 Sherman / Tank vs Tank!"; A job very fabulously well done indeed Sir's!👌.

[@itsnotagsr]

Any argument about the quality of Sherman’s ignores the worse situation of allied tanks before it - Valentine, Crusader, Grant/Lee, etc.

[@ill_bred_demon9059]

Yep. And it's worth remembering that 85% of combat for Shermans was not tank vs tank, but tank vs soft target: infantry, bunkers, anti tank weapons, etc. That's what early model Shermans were designed for and in that respect they did extremely well. Sure, they needed changes for better tank vs tank combat, but that was true of every tank in the war. Even the T34 needed some changes so it could fight German tanks.

[@marscaleb]

@@ill_bred_demon9059 That's a fair point, but I am curious how a tank can perform "extremely well" against bunkers, nest, and infantry. I mean, those don't sound like any kind of challenge to any tank from the era. How exactly was the Sherman better at it? Honest question.

[@cyberstormalpha789]

@@marscaleb Shell fragmentation and blast capability are key factors. The Sherman's 75mm M3 gun had a much better shell for dealing with soft targets than did either the 17 Pounder or the 76mm M1 gun.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

Yes but conversely those earlier allied tanks didnt have to face Tigers, Panthers, Jagdpanzer IVs, Jagdpanthers etc and even not really long barrelled Panzer IVs.

[@addisonherbert6686]

Even without mentioning the superior crew survivability, insanely better reliability, gun stabilizer, and the exceptional multitude of crew comfort amenities, technologies, and designs. They still proved the syperiority of the sherman. Well done tank museam. Germany had well made tanks (in the early parts of the war) but in small numbers. The sherman was an insanely well tank manufactured in such high numbers that some 200 shermans were being built in a day, all to the same or higher quality standards as german or even Czech tanks. Gotta love it

[@PeterOConnell-pq6io]

In addition to all the M4 medium's tanks excellent qualities listed above, as German tankers complained: "Even if you knock out 100 Shermans, there'll just be 120 more next day". Re: the M3 75mm cannon's more limited range, how many places in Europe can you see more than 800m (0.5 miles)?

[@AsbestosMuffins]

but the sherman was both quality and quantity. the tank had gyrosopic gun stabilization, electric turrets, wet ammo stowage, radios, electric starters. these aren't the stuff you find in t-34s

[@lyndoncmp5751]

Some of those features were later features. Early Shermans didn't even have a commanders cupola, and none of the Shermans the British and Canadians used in Normandy had wet stowage.

[@mibnsharpals]

I don't want to know what a panther would have done if its cannon had been stabilized. But even unstabilized it was superior to the Sherman in terms of precision.

[@seamusmustapha8378]

​@@mibnsharpals If I had to guess break down still and be used for parts

[@thomasgentry9624]

Something that is often overlooked, Germans were building tanks to fight in Europe, Americans were building a tank they could send to European winters, and south Pacific Islands, at the same time.

[@JohnnyDogs1978]

Love your videos. A war so long ago is still so interesting to talk about. Cheers from Australia, I plan on visiting Europe within the next few years and you guys are definitely going to be seeing me.

[@JassNL]

Took me a while to have the same enthusiasm for this format after David stepped back, but im all for it now! wonderfully explained, clear storytelling and very informative. thank you Tank museum!

[@michaelhowell2326]

I love the way the way the Panzer 4 looks over the Sherman but I would rather be be a crewman on the Sherman.

[@michaelpielorz9283]

When the first Tigers appeared Sherman crews ofte thought every german tank is a Tiger

[@BadMoonRising92]

@@michaelpielorz9283it’s why there’s so many false reports of Sherman’s running into tigers. In the heat of battle and panic a crew would see what appeared to be a tiger but often was just a panzer

[@kaffeekaffee1818]

10:00 KwK 40 comes in 43 or 48 calibre. Not 60.

[@Ezzyazeze]

I wonder if there is some confusion (however inexplicable) with the 7.5cm L/60 flak.

[@budwyzer77]

@@Ezzyazeze Perhaps he got it confused with the Panzer III's 5 cm KwK 39 L/60?

[@theonlymadmac4771]

@@budwyzer77that’s what must have happened. It was 48 calibers, only the first F2 versions had the 43.

[@willcullen3743]

It about entertaining the masses. Accurate information is just not that important. 20 years ago it would have unquestioned. Nice to see there are those who have read the books

[@budwyzer77]

@theonlymadmac4771 it's the only explanation that makes sense. The man knows his tanks. On an unrelated note the long-barreled Panzer IIIs and IVs would have been nearly impossible to distinguish from Tigers in a head-on engagement. It's no wonder American tank crews vastly overestimated Tiger sightings.

[@ThorneWorthington]

99% of the criticism of the Sherman is ludicrous. It was an excellent medium tank and a fantastic WEAPON SYSTEM from a logistical standpoint.

[@leeham6230]

The Sherman is the best-looking tank of all time. I just love it!

[@mibnsharpals]

In terms of design, I think the M18 Hell Cat is the most beautiful, even if it's not a real tank.

[@leeham6230]

@@mibnsharpals It is tank-ish

[@dgthe3]

Chuchill looks much better.

[@RealSuperDuperCooper]

The red highlights on the interior explanations really help

[@aluminumfalcon552]

In a nutshell, Pzkpfw IV vs Sherman was for the most part, who fires first wins. The Sherman’s numbers, reliability, visibility and maneuverability gave it the advantage in firing first.

[@jonathanbirkeland1085]

I believe the Chieftain would have something to say about the Sherman being both high quality and high quantity.

[@DD-qw4fz]

OFC he would, he is the most overrated and biased, sherman proponent.

[@albundy8139]

​@@DD-qw4fzMaybe because he has spent countless hours in archives around the world, interviewed countless people and has lots of hands on time with different models of M4, sounds like he formed an opinion based on meticulous research then.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

@albundy8139 He also cherry picks, skews info and yeah is biased.

[@cattledog901]

​@@lyndoncmp5751The Chieftan has access to more archives and actual tanks than you will ever see in your entire life. Also is real Tanker. He has an actual informed opinion other than your terminally online "research" you googled.

[@cattledog901]

@@DD-qw4fz "If someone doesn't agree with my uninformed Wehraboo opinion they must be bias" - 🤡

[@Anon26535]

The German tank crews had a saying: "One Sherman is no threat. The problem is there's no such thing as *one* Sherman."

[@nordoceltic7225]

I am disappointed to see metallurgy wasn't discussed here. In 1940's the US had the best, purest steel on the planet, and was making it by the literal millions of tons. Which further complicates everything, because German streel was much closer to US steel from 1890's, and Germany didn't have access to newly developed American high-purity, high-alloy steels like Special Treatment, or Chrome-Stainless. Also Germany was largely using rolled plate steel where the US was casting their steel for the Shermans because the US had the bleeding edge in factory technology, where the Germans were a few decades behind favoring skilled guild labor over the newest factory equipment. And in fact the US was at the time the world leader in massive-casting of metal to the order of dozens of tons at a time, famously casting Sherman hulls in 1 solid, cast piece. These metallurgical differences meant that the US tanks were enjoying the equivalent to about 20% more armor "thickness" at a given size because they were made of stronger steel. It ALSO meant that the parts, like the transmissions, of American Sherman's were frankly vastly superior to their german counterparts with FAR less stripped and shattered components, EVEN when the army would coat their Sherman tanks in 8 inch slabs of concrete and weld tons of additional steel to their tanks in the field. Meanwhile the up-armored German tanks fared even worse than the much later, equally breakdown prone, Up-armored humvees, where the extra weight would shatter their mechanical parts causing a good number of tanks to be lost without enemy action. Coupled with their fast retreat in the face of the US-lead advance meant they had to abandon broken tanks, and those were SORELY missed in later battles. And to the best of my admittedly quite limited knowledge, the Shermans did NOT suffer the same fate, by in large Shermans only died to enemy fire And its hard not to credit the US's expertise in metallurgy for a hand in this success. Better steel makes stronger gears, which don't shatter when the tanks suddenly weigh 30% more than design spec and are being abused as hard as possible by stressed crews in combat trying to pull everything that machine was worth so as to not die.

[@douglasstrother6584]

1939-1941: "Blitzkrieg" German-style. 1944-1945: "Blitzkrieg" Allied-style. Effective use of combined arms was true for both.

[@jameslonano5659]

Ike Eisenhower doesn't get the credit he deserves when managing the sheer logistics in the ETO especially. He had full grasp of trans-atlantic transport, weight limitations, ability to be easily repaired, ability to transverse pontoon bridges, detroit reliability, speed etc. It was a good move. And the doctrine of using tanks to harass infantry and rear areas while leaving enemy tanks to the tank killer crews was pretty effective.

[@vonbennett8670]

The late war Shermans were of better quality compared to a late war PzKpfw IV. By late 1944 and into 1945 the PzKpfw IV variants were in service for almost 10 years; the PzKpfw IV was a great tank but by the end of the war it was approaching obsolete status.

[@Melanth89]

I'll never understand why people consider the Sherman to be an inferior tank. It was an absolutely fantastic medium in almost every regard, for its time.

[@ill_bred_demon9059]

It had a big flaw with the thin side armor and dry storing ammo right behind it. A side hit could easily penetrates the armor and set off the ammo inside the tank, killing everyone. The early models were also not well designed for tank vs tank combat. However, all early model tanks of WW2 had similar or comparable problems. And given that only 15% of Sherman combat was against other tanks, the Sherman did extremely well in combat. And once that ammo storage issue was fixed, it was the best tank of the war

[@colinsmith9391]

When I was in high school, at the John Neilson High School in Paisley in Scotland, Mr Brownlie was head of modern languages and deputy head of school.

[@FrankJmClarke]

210mm includes130mm of air apparently.

[@tackytrooper]

Gaps in actual plate can have the effect of increasing protection against some threats under some conditions. It's not as great as more steel, but it's better than nothing.

[@haroldcarfrey4206]

@@tackytrooper The space works against bazookas or HEAT rounds, but does almost nothing against solid AP rounds... even the mid-length 75mm on the early shermans is going thru and possibly going all the way out the back. And no, not all PIVs had all the upgrades described, it was more likely run across partial fits rather than a full setup since Germany just did not manufacture enough...

[@scrubsrc4084]

​@haroldcarfrey4206 it makes a considerable difference, it allowed for rotation of the shell and the deformed tip has less effect at breaking through the surface of the next plate.

[@chefchaudard3580]

@@haroldcarfrey4206Space does nothing against shaped charges. Tests made by the British at the end of the war with Panzerfaust shown that a large enough space was impractical, something like a meter. It makes sense : a jet capable of slicing through 60mm of steel will not be disturbed by a few centimeters of air. Spaced Armour was effective, however, against antitank rifles the Russian used on the eastern front : the bullet shatters on the first plate and only smaller shrapnels reach the second one, they cannot penetrate. Spaced plates are used nowadays to protect satellites in space (no pun intended) against small meteorites.

[@haroldcarfrey4206]

@@chefchaudard3580 the US Army Bureau of Ordinance and the German War Ministry both believed it would help... But a AP capped or otherwise is going thru...

[@brutter602]

Having worked on Sherman’s and Panthers and Panzer4s I can say that the mechanical build quality of the Sherman was superior to the German tanks.

[@robanson32]

I feel like it’s not even worth comparing the Sherman and the Pz IV. Do they have somewhat similar performance on the tactical level? Yeah. But that completely ignores the logistical masterpiece that was the Sherman operating in the pacific, Europe, Soviet Union, Africa and Italy simultaneously, parts could easily be interchanged between variants most of the time and there was never a shortage of them. Also they were reliable and relatively easy to work on compared to the Pz.Iv. Just look at the process in replacing the transmission.

[@jamison4091]

great video. Despite what the Sherman haters say, the Sherman was on par with medium tanks of the other major powers.

[@mightza3781]

Most of the complaints about the Sherman boil down to it not being a heavy tank which all medium tank crews would feel outmatched against.

[@SMC01ful]

Of course it was. Haters are an immense and immature annoyance on this subject. I am a T34 fanboy, but I respect the Panz III's IV's and Shermans immensely. Indeed, Soviet crews really appreciated the wider tracked Sherman variants.

[@emperorcokelord1021]

​@@mightza3781Tbf, heavy tanks can't do a whole lot against a group of medium tanks

[@huntclanhunt9697]

I'd rather have been in a sherman than any Panzer variant. Shermans were more reliable and had a much, much lower crew fatality rate than any other tank in the war beaides the Churchill.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

Myth. Sherman didnt have a lower fatality rate than the Cromwell. Quite the opposite in fact British 21st Army Group found 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.

[@portman8909]

The Sherman was a death trap...

[@nickdanger3802]

@@portman8909 "It is admitted that American tanks played a great part in the Battle of Egypt. America has been in this war for only a year. Why is it that in that short time she has been able to produce a first-class tank like the General Sherman whereas Great Britain, after three years of war and several years of preparation before the war, has not been able to do so." below 245 Hansard DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS 17 November 1942

[@rap2xtrooper878]

@@portman8909 Only when it was used with poor tactics early on like in North Africa in 1942. Later on in the war, the Sherman had numerous survivability-related improvements such as a separate loaders' hatch, spring-loaded hatches, wet stowage and applique armor made the Sherman arguably the most survivable tank of the entire war. There are stories of Shermans getting knocked out from long range by German guns in Normandy during the day and the German troops watching the abandoned Shermans slowly burn through their ammo through the night. While that does sound like a bad thing, it's actually really a testament to the Shermans' survivability. Many of those Sherman crews often survived after abandoning their tanks because the Shermans, especially those with wet stowage, simply just refused to burn down until after hours after they were actually hit, whereas any other tank in the world like a Panzer IV, T-34 or Cromwell in that same situation would more often than not just blow up immediately or at least much sooner. German panzer and AT gun policy was to repeatedly shoot at enemy tanks until their ammo cooked off to deny them from being repaired in the future, and they found that Shermans needed the most hits out of any other Allied tank to permanently disable.

[@Melior_Traiano]

You realise that the German nickname for the Sherman tank was literally "Tommy cooker", right?

[@hossdelgado2]

People who disliked this video - I genuinely would like to know, why? This is freely accessible video that exceeds quality of the old school history/military channel imo. If you're anti-war/weapons ok fine, but if not what is it?

[@emperorcokelord1021]

The wild weherboos are mad that the channel doesn't validate Superior German technology

[@linnharamis1496]

Thanks!

[@thetankmuseum]

Thank you very much!

[@thiscouldntblowmore]

the long 75mm's on PZ 4 were 43 and 48 calibers, not 60.

[@stuartkynoch7289]

“Amateurs talk strategy, Professionals talk logistics”

[@c.j.1089]

How come the fact the Sherman had a stabilized turret never come up in any discussions? That was incredibly advanced technology for the time. I understand not all crews were trained with it, but the ones that were found it to be highly effective.

[@patrickporter1864]

What was the turn around time for repairs on a sherman as against a panzer Iv or panzer v.

[@matejmacek5784]

or the poor tracks (modified in M4A8 to be able to drive offroad) or nonworking shells (as observed by Russians, Yugoslav army (1955ish tests), and also by UK in 1942 (Lee/Grants, but is the same gun))

[@5co756]

Cause it never worked or had any advantage , don't get your facts from a game dude .

[@Cowboycomando54]

@@patrickporter1864 Considerably faster.

[@faq187tim9]

​@5co756 It did work dingus. The problem was that many crews weren't trained to use it or even knew it existed till later in the war.

[@brianivey73]

Shermans winning the strategic way, mass numbers, portable via ships/rail, mechnical repairs efficiency and speed for offensive strategy. Well done when understanding the large picture. Fabulous video, love these.

[@riharikaa809]

Thank you for the explanations. As a layman I now understand the dynamics of tank design and reasonings.

[@Camural]

Panzer IV gun was a L43 or later L48, not L60

[@Tanktaco]

Good catch

[@Whatisthisstupidfinghandle]

Yes pziii had a l60. Simple mixup

[@riverbluevert7814]

Again the British Tank Museum delivers the very best in WW2 tank videos. Brilliant. Cutting through the popular legends and false information to convey how these battle really happened.

[@thetankmuseum]

Thank you!

[@AdamMann3D]

Yeah right

[@thekurtrussell4007]

From all my research the gap in quality between German and allied equipment post American involvement was more or less a fallacy build on the German advantage in tech early in the war

[@Spartan902]

Operation Fortitude worked to perfection! They fell for it hook, line and sinker. Good to see you using computer graphics to recreate the battles like Yarnhub does. Really brings it to life. I play World of Tanks - Blitz and in that game the Panzer IV beats the Sherman easily.

[@AlanpittsS2a]

I’m a private pilot and am building a replica sopwith pup from the airdrop company but I am fascinated with ww2 aircraft and during researching the nazi way of producing things I noticed, they made a ton of different things instead of sticking with making a lot that worked. They made incredible things but often way too complicated to be practical. And idk about tanks and things like that but their aircraft production was a mess as far as they design something and when built they constantly changed things which required them to change the factories. Or they wanted to use certain planes to do things they just should not have been doing. They did make some impressive things it just amazes me that nobody realized what they were doing was not going to work out. Or maybe some did know but couldn’t tell Hitler about it

[@BruceGreen-q5u]

The longest run of a specific model of any "mass produced" German panzer was 10 units

[@drudgenemo7030]

"the Sherman brewed up too much" Cool I fully agree that if the tank I'M in brews up, it's WAY too much. However, if you're playing Top Trumps, like what you're doing here, you kinda need statistics. Not antidotal remarks, however highly ranked those remarks may be.

[@JHood-67]

I thought that the panzer 4 had the L24 then (briefly) the L43 and finally the L48 75mm Kwk40 gun. It never had the L60 that was mentioned...

[@alexandersuchodol7888]

You are right!

[@JHood-67]

@alexandersuchodol7888 I always love the Tank Mueseum content and calm n measured presentation so I never mean to throw any shade on the quality of their content! Love the whole team and with all thos days mistakes are bou d to creep in. Keep up the amazing historical work 🤩

[@andrewfanner2245]

Top notch presentation

[@thetankmuseum]

Thank you Andrew

[@iancourter7291]

The Tank Museum is awesome. I can’t get enough of this engaging history.

[@KyleLarsen-bw5hw]

I’m still not sure why this is my favorite content but I wait for new Tank Museum episodes like I wait for nicotine.

[@cmajaa1]

Some things to consider, Germany didn't have the manpower, support units or oil to maintain an army the size of Russia or the US, they did what they could with their more limited resources.

[@timbirch4999]

And what they could do was..? Oh yes, lose.

[@jonathanbirkeland1085]

If they had invested more into better logistics support early on they could’ve reduced their need to spend so much of their manpower on supply in general. A high quality truck uses less manpower and delivers supplies much faster than the same payload capacity carried on horse drawn carts.

[@ASlickNamedPimpback]

They did what they thought they could do. If they truly were trying to be frugal, then they would be making german T-34's in the dozens a week, instead of days making a single Tiger or Maus or whatever trash "wunderwaffe" they could think up

[@lyndoncmp5751]

@timbirch4999 Well they also moved further and faster, and took out more of the enemy.

[@brianwindsor6565]

Very interesting, thank you. Regarding sherman availability my uncle in 5/7 RDG went from Normandy to the Rhine with the loss of three tanks (the average was 2.5?) And they always had a new stead the next day festooned with new, wet unit markings. A few points. All German tanks were rear engined front drive and no problems with the drive shaft? I always thought the sherman was high because of the original rotary Wright engine and so the hug space allowed the subsequent instalation of the cobbled mutibank. The engines in the mk III & IV would have been lower? Just a thought. Keep up the good work.

[@ilikesnow7074]

The Sherman was an immensely high quality vehicle.

[@nkristianschmidt]

sherman appears to have had better vision and commander gunner cooperation. Plus reliability

[@captainhurricane5705]

The Germans didn't have quantity; the only way for them to compete was to have better quality, but I don't think anyone would consider the panzer 4 to be a 'better quality' tank in mid-44..

[@lyndoncmp5751]

It shouldn't be. It was in combat in 1939. In theory the Sherman should have been WAY better for a tank that didnt see combat until almost 1943. It wasn't.

[@jurassicturtle3666]

​@@lyndoncmp5751you're leaving out 75% of the equation, sticking to arbitrary dates as an argument while not even accounting that the Panzer 4 F2 also didn't see combat til about the same time, and planting a flag on it. What?

[@SeanCSHConsulting]

@@lyndoncmp5751 it was

[@GeorgiaBoy1961]

It would depend who was asked, the reputation of the Panzer Mk. IV. Many of the foremost German panzer generals, men known as experts in armored warfare, actually preferred their units to be equipped mostly with Mark IVs, since the design was well-proven, common, well-known technically, and because it packed a useful punch, was highly mobile, and had decent protection. General Hasso von Manteuffel for example, was one such panzer leader to express such a preferrence and there were others. Of course, technology is always changing and advancing, and the Panzer IV was not state-of-the-art by 1944, but that isn't the same as saying that it was useless. A well-proven design known to work and which does work, can be preferable to a more-advance one which is unreliable and relatively untested. Above all, a soldier wants equipment and gear he can rely upon. If it doesn't work, it does not matter how advanced a tank is.

[@christinepearson5788]

Your forgetting the Sherman's gun is semi stabalized. Also logistically, the Sherman transmission can quickly be replaced in a couple of hours, the Mark 4 is all day. A serious consideration as tanks wear quickly especially cross country travel

[@pierQRzt180]

but this goes back ruining all those years when one said "tanks do not really go in 1vs1. They are very rare. There are a lot of hurdles to pass before two tanks face each other" (infantry with bazookas, mines, artillery, etc..)

[@willberry6434]

I’d argue the Sherman was a qualitatively superior tank to the pz iv as well. Could mount a just as lethal main gun while also being superior in pretty much every other aspect. I.e crew comfort, stabilized gun, angles armour, and better quality steel.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

Panzer IV had better optics, superior vision, better gun, more escape hatches.

[@TheKsalad]

​@@lyndoncmp5751The Panzer iv did NOT have superior vision wtf

[@MesCaLiN21]

@@TheKsalad Sherman M70D scope: Higher magnification of the gun scope (3x vs 2,5x) Panzer 4 D TZF 5b scope: Much wider field of view for the gun scope (25 deg vs 13 deg) The german range finding method was superior to the US, resulting in a higher first hit probability espec at far dfistances but it doesn´t matter for close to medium encounters, which was usually the case. In conclusion, while both tanks had comparable numbers of periscopes (5 for both tanks), the M4 Sherman generally provided better situational awareness and a slightly wider field of view for the commander and driver compared to the Panzer IV Ausf. D. Later Panzer 4 models got an improved commanders cupola which would make it a tie. The quality of the Germans lenses espec due to anti-reflective coating was undeniably superior to any of the Allies. Even by a lot, but that only played a minor role because we are not talking about space telescopes that look lightyears into space, but rather over distances of a few kilometers. The allied lenses were good enough, period. I think this pretty pointless quality advantage in lens production is the reason for the general opinion that germans optics were inferior at all...which is wrong. Most US machines were more modern designs, made by undisturbed industries with almost endless supply and avaibility of ressources. In my opinion THE most important reasons of all is that German troops were PERMANENTLY in action, for weeks and often even months. This creates an incredible amount of stress on people and material and impairs combat performance enormously. So it´s not about the better tank or better optics or visions but about rested, well-supplied soldiers and well-maintained machines and therefore highly concentrated and focused soldiers and machines with low susceptibility to error. It doesn´t matter if the tank got 20% better field of view on paper when the crew is exhausted and fatigued...

[@lyndoncmp5751]

@TheKsalad The Panzer IV commander had considerably superior cupola that sat higher off the turret roof than the flush Sherman cupola did. Panzer IV commander was not encumbered by turret roof fixtures and fittings either. Various ausfs of the Panzer IV also had turret side vision blocks. Even hull side vision blocks (though these were later deleted as not being necessary). They could see enemy infantry creeping low to their flank. The Sherman never had any side vision blocks.

[@alexalmond6862]

Calling a tank that was notoriously unreliable “quality” is certainly a choice

[@wulfheort8021]

Maybe you should look elsewhere than National Geogtaphic for your information on tanks from WW2.

[@KnifeChatswithTobias]

The key here is, the American Sherman was on par with the Panzer IV despite it being simple to mass produce. So I'm not sure how one can consider the Panzer IV was a better made made tank. Over complicated engines, slower turret rotation, etc. As you said, wars are won in the factory.

[@TheNavalAviator]

22:18 YO WHAT, they repaired the track in combat?! Correction: the late Pz. IV's gun was an L/48, not 60. Before that, it was L/43 and on the early support tank variants, it was an L/24. Also, the Pz. IV has ony 50mm of turret armour, which is a massive flaw and 30mm + 5mm skirts side armour. Overall, the Sherman has better armour & the Pz. IV has the better gun against the 75mm variant.

[@jakewright3218]

I don’t know if you forgot to mention or if I’m incorrect, but I believe that the Sherman also had a gun stabilizer, which would help it if it was trying to move and shoot. It wasn’t nearly as effective as modern stabilizers, but it will allow it to be stable when stopping or even when going at slow speeds.

[@GeorgiaBoy1961]

The technology of gyroscopic stabilization of guns was relatively crude in those days, and not yet perfected enough to use except perhaps on uneven pavement. The mechanism was good-enough to account for some variation in elevation, but not for windage (side-to-side movement). Consequently, many crews disconnected the stabilizer entirely and did things manually. A tip of the cap to the designers and engineers for a basically good idea, but just a bit ahead of its time. It took another 25-30 years before that was a practical reality, the coming out party of truly gyrostabilized guns was Gulf War One in 1990-1991, when British and American tankers used it so effectively against Iraqi armor. In that war, between laser-ranging, true stablization, and digital fire-control, MBTs firing on the move were almost more like attack helicopters with tracks than tanks.

[@jakewright3218]

Thank you for answering my question, even though the answer is kind of disappointing. Pretty cool to know the history of stabilizers though.

[@eannamcnamara9338]

The bold assumption being shermans were not high quality tanks

[@ill_bred_demon9059]

Yep. People who complain about that invariably seem to focus on the kill ratios during tank vs tank combat. But that ignores production capabilities, reliability, ease of maintenance on the battle field, and a whole other host of characteristics more important than just tank vs tank. Furthermore, 85% of Sherman combat was not against tanks. It was against bunkers, infantry, anti tank guns, etc. For that the original Sherman design was great

[@blaster112]

​@@ill_bred_demon9059the Sherman was still designed to face other tanks. Problem is that technology during the war advanced rather quick. And modern tanks in 1942 were essentially obsolete (in anti tank roles) by late 1944 (which applies to all combatants) due to the major advances in armor thickness. However, against infantry, bunkers etc. that doesn't make a huge difference. The US was generally behind the curve in terms of armor thickness, forgoing the heavy tanks the others used (Tiger, IS-1 etc). Though they did experiment with the M6, ultimately deciding the extra weight and logistical challenge wasn't worth the effort. Had the war lasted 1-2 more years we would have likely seen a large effort of the US to start bringing an improved version of the M26 though (or possibly even some T29/T30/T32 tanks). In order to better fight vehicles like the Tiger II. Or newer Panthers. (But we can't be sure of that of course, as the war ended in 1945)

[@harverawls636]

American equipment was much better engineered, German vehicles were almost hand made, they had vises on the assembly line to custom fit parts that didn't fit correctly, something you would never see on US assembly lines. The tolerances on parts were so tight that they didn't need to be hand fit, you could take a part off one piece of US made equipment and be assured it would fit on another , this is one of the things that made repairs so easy on US equipment, they were also were designed so maintenance and damage could be repaired much more easily. Everything had to be designed to work together for shipping across the Atlantic. Germans only had to design to get through railroad tunnels. The US and allies built more Liberty ships ( not counting the victory ships) than the Germans built tiger 1s.

[@randomvariable1836]

It should be both - the Sherman was higher quality and far far greater quantity

[@danielreuter2565]

"Design for manufacturing" will carry the day every time when production volumes are critical. Simple, supportable, scalable design is almost always superior to finicky, fiddly, but on paper superior, design.

[@der_paule7713]

13:20 wasn't the Panzer IV also rear engined with it's transmission in the front?

[@Chris-ql9bu]

Yea

[@jordanlackey3384]

The Sherman was not I repeat not designed with one main gun in mind. The US. Army knew before operation torch they need a larger caliber main gun. The main issue preventing this upgrade was turret size. They weren’t going to shoehorn a larger gun in a turret that could not fit it. It would create ergonomic issues for the crew. They were always going to put in a 3in / 76mm on the Sherman tank!

[@Cowboycomando54]

The M3's 75mm shell was favored for having a larger explosive filler on its HE shell compared to the 76mm HV shells. It was better suited for engaging infantry in hardened positions.

[@aaronleverton4221]

2:19 "Hans, Ich hab ein Kettenrad!" "Werner, mein bruder, Ich hab ein Brengewehr Shlepper!"

[@onkelfabs6408]

Kettenkrad Bren-Gewehr Schlepper - I don't get it why you use the word Schlepper here.

[@aaronleverton4221]

@@onkelfabs6408 Because the humour (such as it is) is in the fact that it's not written by a native-German speaker.

[@MilkCrateGarage]

​@onkelfabs6408 He means sprocket, not the motorcycle-halftrack. It's a joke about the slow rate of German armaments production. "I built a sprocket!" "I built a Bren-gun carrier!"

[@aaronleverton4221]

@@MilkCrateGarage That's actually a cool explanation and later on I'll use it. But, no, it was a typo and I meant Kettenkrad. It was supposed to be a couple of brothers in service trying to one-up each other with their "liaison" vehicles. But, I'm liking your comment anyway. It was a good explanation.

[@MilkCrateGarage]

@@aaronleverton4221 Well darn, I'm glad to have failed so successfully!

[@davidharrington1133]

A Sherman every six hours V a Tiger every two weeks. No contest

[@andrewthomas695]

So true. Unless you're in a Sherman when, on the rare occasion, a Tiger turned up. 🙂

[@malcolmstonebridge7933]

@@andrewthomas695 Except there's loads more you you, Fireflies can 76mm armed US items, stabilised gun etc.

[@malcolmhunt7108]

The Tiger was never intended as a general issue tank unlike the Pzkpfw IV and Panther so why compare it to the Sherman? The Germans had 7 contracts for the production of the Tiger I, those 7 contracts called for 1,346 production models to be built and that is exactly how many were made, If they'd wanted to produce more of them they could have done.

[@timbirch4999]

​​@@andrewthomas695 A Sherman Firefly could take out a Tiger with a single hit.

[@benjammin3381]

@@malcolmhunt7108 it makes more sense to compare it to the other heavy breakthrough tanks of US and USSR which were the Jumbo for the US where around 270 were built out of 105000 tanks built by the US. The Soviets made around 120000 tanks during the war and only around 6-7000 of them were breakthrough tanks.

[@randydalmas]

The American tanks were actually very well made, and the parts made to a high tolerance. The Americans had the problem of shipping their tanks overseas, so the development time essentially increased compared to the Germans. I think it would be a valuable comparison to see how the Sherman stacks up against the T-34.

[@nickdanger3802]

T34/76, about 60% of wartime build, had a two man turret and the 76mm gun lacked an effective HE round. Only 25% had a radio until the US bought radios made in Canada to give to USSR. No hatch for bow gunner who had field of view of less than two degrees (same as Pz IV, but according to this video that was better than the periscope on the M4). In Korea Soviet armor had virtually disappeared by 1951. The IDF operated up gunned diesel engine M4's into the 1970's.

[@williamcarey8994]

WW2 was a war of production. The Sherman served in every theater of the war and was reliable. German tanks were initially reliable (Pkw III & IV) but during the war with Hitlers insistence the Pkw V & VI were over engineered and hugely expensive in terms of resources needed for production. As it is the best German armored vehicle of the war was the Stug (Pkw III Variant).