The Myth of Tiger Invincibility - The Tiger vs The sherman

Was the Tiger I (the most iconic tank of all time) really the best and most powerful tank of WW2??? I DON'T KNOW! Maybe this video ^ will help me find out :0
No clip/track sampled for this video has any claim of ownership on my part.
Clips from Kelly's Heroes come from the movie; "Kelly's Heroes," produced in 1970 by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios. It's a good movie, go buy it.
Much of the WW2 footage used can be found on the KZbin channel; HCT
Special shoutout to the KZbin channels:
- RedTheTanker
- casualstickman H
- Werber
Thanks for the voice acting, guys ^3^
Follow my Twitter - / el_sanchez0
Support my videos with a one-time donation here:
www.buymeacoffee.com/realelmosan

[@zachantes1161]

Based and truth pilled

[@elmosanchez]

Based on what? :0

[@chiefchepa187]

based on a true story@@elmosanchez

[@Pfc20]

También rima en español

[@johnemmert9012]

Two things to note. Archival sources uncovered by Zaloga and Moran point out that the Armored Branch rejected the 76mm gun in the original turret on crew ergonomic grounds. Not only do a lot of British claims about rate of fire on the Firefly not make sense, but that turret is an ergonomic disaster with the 17 pounder. Furthermore, the US didn't see enough of a benefit when the 90mm was entering the Army's pipeline. The 17 pounder gun was not in the US supply system.

[@connorokeefe6145]

Finally someone said it

[@Kattana1877]

Crazy how people will say "I'm immune to propaganda" then proceed to explain why the tiger was "invincible"

[@whysoserious507]

Anyone saying the tiger was a better tank than the Sherman obviously know nothing about warfare or even tanks. If you look at it in a vacuum where both tanks are in one end of a giant flat space then yeah the tiger is better by far. If you have a brain and realize that war is about coordination between tanks, air power, infantry etc etc you’d realize having 10000 Sherman’s able to effect the course of battle is better than having 1000 tigers. If you look at it from the average infantryman’s perspective you’d probably take a mediocre tank attached to your element over no tank, just a guess. Numbers aside the Sherman was the ONLY tank in the war to have a gun gyro stabilizer. IN 1942. Not only was it the only tank in the world that could shoot with anything resembling accuracy while on the move and the same for when it had to come to a sudden stop it was also praised for having a buttery smooth and fast turret rotation. Very important in the close quarters fights the war would turn into on the western front after Normandy. The gun is a mixed bag but fun fact: the GIs on the ground and in the tanks preferred Sherman’s with the 75mm as opposed to the E8s because the 75mm could fit more HE filler for its roll as an INFANTRY SUPPORT VEHICLE. Don’t get me wrong the tiger was a decent tank but definitely not better than the Sherman in terms of quantity, quality and another important factor, ease of repair. Once a tiger was out it was out, once a Sherman was out they could repair and re crew it within a week. WW2 was a war of production, why do you think the 2 biggest producers won and became superpowers afterward?

[@zenmeisterhoch80]

When this is the only truth, then why isnt Russia the best Army in the World and grind the Ukrainians ? The Truth is, beside this pointless Tiger/Sherman discuss, without eastern Front, the western Allies, didnt won ww2 and without the western support, the Russians didnt won ww2. .

[@m36stonewalljackson95]

@@zenmeisterhoch80 Logistics and thinking on a tactical level, not a strategical one. Logistics is 2nd to everything in the Russian Army. Napoleon said “The amateurs discuss tactics, the professionals discuss logistics.”. Here’s a good example: The “”best general of the American Civil War”” General Lee, of the Confederate States of Participation Trophies, found logistics annoying. He put so many resources on single battles which made majority of the battles in the early years of the war Confederate victories but he didn’t think about what would happen in the long run when the war extended 4 years. He spent everything on the capture of D.C, Gettysburg happened, he lost and all the resources he spent on it are gone, could not supply his army, war drags on, gets destroyed by Ulysses S. Grant, Henry Thomas, Sherman and Meade. The Nazis put majority of their resources on the invasion of Russia. Like Lee, they did very well in the early years of the invasion until it persisted and resources were scarce for them, they could not supply their army and then they lost. Same story for the Russians, spend all of their resources on a lightning war in Ukraine, they reach Kyiv, the Ukrainians resist, it drags on, resources are gone, could not maintain their army, retreat. The Americans in WW2 preserved their resources well, they didn’t gamble everything on a single, climactic, war winning battle, it was just a bad bet. The Nazis on the other hand, did gamble everything on a battle that would “save the Thousand Year Reich” then the Battle of the Bulge happened then lost everything. I don’t have as broad of an understanding of war as Ulysses S. Grant but it’s not too hard to understand.

[@whysoserious507]

@@zenmeisterhoch80 Well that’s an easy one to answer, even more evident from not only the other guys comment but from the shift in Russian strategy where they’re now much more effective. Logistics. As for part 2, it is commonly accepted that WW2 was a war of production, the US was the best country in the world at the time in just that and could have easily grinded Germany down with the UK had they not also been fighting a war on the other side of the world against Japan. I’m not looking at this from a biased perspective either. I read biographies of German soldiers on the western and eastern front, those on the east talked about Russian ferocity and numbers. On the west about the US seemingly unlimited vehicles and ammunition and that’s without all of the resources poured into the pacific. Late war strategy back then was literally a precursor to modern war doctrines and ironically enough what the Russians are doing in Ukraine right now. Spot the enemy, drop the kitchen sink on them with artillery and air power then move in with infantry. One could say this war is still a war of production, without all the equipment being sent to Ukraine they’d be in a very tough spot against Russia. They could literally grind them down until they have nothing to fight with. Unlike in 1942 you can’t just convert a car factory into a tank factory. TLDR: US would claim air superiority, Germany still loses even without an eastern front.

[@robertonavarro7713]

The Sherman was an infantry support gun and was not really made to fight head on with the heavier Panther and Tiger main battle tanks. The most successful German tank was the Stug III which was not a real tank but also an infantry support gun. It became the most successful German tank destroyer. It was also reliable like the Sherman and was easier to repair.

[@TheIzroda]

"Once a tiger was out it was out" Read Otto Carius's book. They constantly reclaimed their knocked out Tigers and repaired them.

[@romeisfalling7459]

wow someone used MoW AS2 for a bit, i loved it :3

[@Temporal94]

Decent video overall, but something to point out is that the reason why the Firefly wasn't mass adopted was because it was a jury-rig job that would be difficult to have entire factories retool to build especially considering that the turret required a bit of finagling to fit the 17 pounder, whereas at around the same time a more purpose-built turret to house the 76mm M1 was being tested. The initial version of this turret was actually rejected for being too cramped, which was also a reason why the Firefly was not considered as a viable long-term upgrade (crew ergonomics is very important)

[@skyflaks6380]

Yeah the US didn't really like the cramped interior of the Firefly

[@i_willstealurloot273]

There is one simple counter-argument when it comes to wehraboos: "if Germany was so great they wouldn't have lost the war."

[@50centpb7]

Lost against every major power on the planet unites against them, surrounded on all sides, and still managed a 3 to 1 K/D ratio.

[@i_willstealurloot273]

@@50centpb7 Exactly, they couldn't win.

[@Sccrd4Lfe]

@@i_willstealurloot273 get roasted

[@i_willstealurloot273]

@@Sccrd4Lfe The West has fallen, billions must die.

[@ultramarine40k65]

Its amazing when it comes to americans you guys simply cannot concede the fact that there is someone out there who did anything better than you guys. Ironic coming from a nation who is sheltered by two giant oceans and the weakest neighboors both side and north.

[@eazy8579]

Excellent video, but you did get one thing wrong, namely, the firefly and the E8 were both different approaches to the same problem. The 76 entered production slightly earlier, and it was crammed into the original 75mm turret, which was rejected on ergonomic grounds in 1942. The next year, Aberdeen got its hands on both a Firefly and a 17 pounder, and trialed both, but found the same problems of ergonomics, but even worse because it was a larger gun. They also found accuracy problems of with the 17pndr, but found it’s power excellent. Shortly after, in late 43, Ordnance took the turret of a prototype T23, and mounted the 76mm in it, and put it on the Sherman, which solved the ergonomic issues. This was the E6, the E8 using the HVSS as opposed to the earlier VVSS suspension of the E6 and earlier versions

[@n8zog584]

The British anti-tank gun was also disliked because it's optics weren't meant to go where the British put em on a sherman, which made it harder to use and slower to fire. That being said, the "its not American enough" thought wasn't as widespread a sentiment from what i understand. It was more like the British implemented this change without much testing, and things luckily worked out. But the Americans wanted more testing.

[@elmosanchez]

Good points

[@PapaLegba-sg1ws]

a lot of allied troops called any large german tank they encountered a tiger, so there's that. the main reason all such tanks were feared was the superiority of their guns, and the superiority of their guns was a result of better optics, training and especially ammunition. for example, the germans captured a lot of russian long barreled 3 inch field guns at the start of their invasion. when fitted with german optics and ammunition they outperformed german 75mm anti tank guns,

[@1sma314]

Your channel and content is crazy underrated. The quality is great, hope your channel gets picked up more by the algorithm because you deserve way more views and subs.

[@gergelylaszlo5463]

thank you, now I can destroy wehraboos I see on the internet

[@elmosanchez]

Just as Churchill intended

[@zackwatson2539]

I love this content, it’s truly informational and isn’t biased on anything.

[@elmosanchez]

Thanks fam'! Glad you're digging it

[@dr.strangelove7696]

Iv seen guys in flip-flops with AK47 beat the pants off modernized military units. A weapon is only as affective as the man who wields it. Good video 👍

[@elmosanchez]

Thanks, fam'

[@patrickdriscoll1632]

Recently saw a video of 6 Syrian insurgents creep up on a whole SAA fob and one dude ended up dropping 4 or so SAA guys.

[@GlennDavey]

Had so much fun making videos like these in games with friends. Nice one.

[@emadbagheri]

I very recently started to learn about late ww2 Russian aircrafts, Yaks and Ilyushins, pretty damn impressive yet I had never really heard anything about them, it's always ME109s, Stukas, Spitfires, Mustangs ...

[@m36stonewalljackson95]

Because of bullshit like “muh mustang won the war” and “noooo me 262 and bf 109 superior” that attracts a lot of people to the air battles in the Western Front and leaves behind the Eastern Front. Late war Russian aircraft were really good, especially the Yaks. The Yak-3 is wonderful.

[@emadbagheri]

@@m36stonewalljackson95 thanks for setting me straight, I have been saying ME109 for so long lol can't believe no one corrected me. Ty

[@m36stonewalljackson95]

@@emadbagheri “Bf 109” and “Me 109” are both correct though the “Me 109” designation was not officially used by the Luftwaffe. It was made by Bayerische Flugzeugwerke (Bf for short) which changed it’s name to Messerschmitt (Me for short) in 1938.

[@shadowgun7331]

bro your videos are really good how come you dont have more subs wtf

[@elmosanchez]

Thanks for watching. And I'm slowly gaining an audience, rest assured. Stay tuned

[@hamsterballer4360]

Funny and informative. Great job

[@jorgesepulveda4379]

when they say the tiger is the best . just remember the wittman assault , inexperienced joe etkins obliterated 3 tigers in minutes without having combat experience, and then the ´´legend himself´´ wittman being blown to pieces by a sherman . he could no longer shoot inferior soviet tankers and met his equal.

[@Jahee-Official]

This for sure deserves a like. Dislike the 13yo inserts, but the talking parts seem to be good.

[@elmosanchez]

Criticism is always welcome. Thanks for the like :D

[@rodgerrodger1839]

I was wondering about the poor cat. Imagine the poor thing when the machine gun went off. Outstanding video.

[@elmosanchez]

I hope that cat survived the war. Thanks for watching!

[@shadowgun7331]

great content

[@elmosanchez]

Thank you!

[@West_Coast_Gang]

Haha tiger go (phing…BOOmweeesssssss) The ammo has been detonated

[@Traxlar]

Ultimately, both tanks served their nation well, and both are great to look back on and commend their use by both sides

[@martinhulin]

The engine thing was done by Chrysler in the M4A4 Sherman wich the british loved

[@PedroCosta-po5nu]

3:25 yoo wtf they jus killed that nigga cold💀

[@henjin.]

godly intro

[@panqueque445]

"They cared more about their bottom line than the lives of American soldiers" Wow I'm so surprised oh my god I am so shocked please tell me you're kidding

[@50centpb7]

The differences between the tigers and the Sherman’s was arguably negligible. The difference in top speed is 1 - 5 mph depending on the variant with most of the older Sherman’s being closer to the same speed. The tiger, despite its greater weight, had better flotation than the Sherman due to its wide track and better low gear settings, which gave it better performance in soft terrain. Where the difference in mobility actually does start having a significant difference is in the range, which gave tanks like the tiger very little ability to operate once they out ran their own logistics.

[@thebrazilianhistorian6530]

Long Live the Anti-Wehraboo Action.

[@emadbagheri]

Uniform fetish eh? Ever seen the Fedayeen's helmets?

[@tugalord]

USMC's Dress blues (they dropped such a banger its still being used)

[@torbjrnsteinsland8985]

When with the stug III have a comeback?

[@lukedelport8231]

Ok some good history but a lot of American fuck yea we’re the best bullshit history as well. One the m4 did not change the tide of the desert campaign it was a change of British command German shortage of supply the gains in air superiority for the allies and a better supply network for the allies . Two no the M4 was not seen as a war winner it was seen as a good medium tank British battalions that got the M4 preferred it yes but to be honest early war British tank were ok in terms of design but horrible in terms of crew comfort that is one of the main reasons the M4 was liked. The channel lazer pig has a great video on the myth of the M4 in the desert. Third the firefly was a stopgap tank for the British were developing their own tank to counter the tiger and panther but development was slow so that’s why it was used once the tank entered service firefly production was halted hence the few numbers

[@PanzerHistorian]

well … Throught the war, there were only 4 encounter’s with tiger’s for the Americans from 1944 to 1945, and from those encounter’s, only one a “combat” because the other’s were on roadway’s, Being packed on train’s, and being shipped to different location’s, and for the lack of the 76mm or 17pdr? Well, despite the german’s making 1,347 tiger’s, they were rare (with the majority going to the eastern Front) and the 75mm was a good all-rounder gun. capable and effective, for panther’s as well. crew’s were trained to use their mobility to their advantage. another point is infantry, we can talk about tank’s knocking each other out all day, but at the end of the day, infantry is BENEFICIAL, and the Sherman SUCCEDED with infantry, and i personally think that a tank without infantry is a sitting duck. put big armor and big gun all you want, but a tank is FAR from immortal. it can get flanked, it can break down and it was rare, THAT is (in my opinion) WHY the tiger isn’t as great as people make it out to be. Sherman’s were made for infantry-and-support doctrine for the US army, and be an All-rounder with a flexible Chassis that can be easy to fix, maintain, and sustain, while being easy to fix, while the tiger WAS a Heavy-breakthrough tank made for long range,exploit the enemy, punch a way through for frindlies and attack, it was NEVER meant to fight tank’s directly, more so to make a hole through a column of tank’s! Good video btw :)

[@arithadesilva4977]

Its only not one tank was better than the other. Put both together,, in the modern world, and make the best. We need good tanks,, and no tank, that earned, a name was bad.!! The tankers pushed them to the limits,, god bless them of all tankers. Of ww2🙏

[@jonvro4022]

Not to mention, most if not all Tiger 1’s were used in the Eastern Front. I remember reading that there were a grand total of 3 individual Tiger 1’s in the Western Front. There were a lot of Tiger 2’s though

[@spakes6561]

That number is downright wrong. 503rd Heavy Panzer Battalion alone lost a dozen tigers minimum in the Normandy campaign. Yes most were used in the east, but it wouldn’t be a stretch to say over 100 saw combat in the west.

[@EvilAmy_]

I like you.

[@elmosanchez]

Wasp

[@EvilAmy_]

@@elmosanchez Correct. One with a bad memory.

[@zenmeisterhoch80]

@ElmoSanchez You talking the whole time of the better speed and maneuverability of the sherman. Where was this ? I cant find it on paper and in reality, tests had proven that the tiger had the same mobility of the sherman. That the tiger was too slow and heavy compared to the most other tanks of ww2, that is a modern myth.

[@islander1939]

Great vid! But as a proud brit im sick of hearing the sherman won the 2nd battle of el alamein, NO THEY DIDNT! The BRITISH AND COMMON WEALTH won the 2nd battle of el alamein! 🤯

[@goldreserve]

Built and lost 1,715. Kills 9,850. Tiger kill / loss ratio 5.74. Much of this while outnumbered, on the defensive, short of fuel, with enemy air superiority.

[@elmosanchez]

I will NOT deny that the Tiger tank was very capable of destroying Allied and Soviet tanks, as it most certainly was. I even mention this in the video. BUT! There are some things worth mentioning about this figure. For one thing: that particular statistic you're quoting in terms of the kill/loss ratio actually refers to a specific grouping of panzer battalions that included the Tiger tanks, and not the Tiger I individually. So this figure also includes panzer III's, IV's, etc. It's also probably worth noting that Germans counted losses much differently than the Allies did. Recoverable tanks were considered as kills, rather than losses. Why? No clue. Heil Hitler I guess? So the kills this statistic quotes are more than very likely heavily inflated, even including all models of panzers. But more to your point. Yes. The Tigers were on a defensive fight for most of their history. Chronically short of fuel, and at a constant risk of being knocked out by Allied aircraft. Which happened quite often. And the Tigers and their crews fought well considering what they were up against. And they were 100% a match for Allied tanks. But the Sherman was also a match for the Tiger. And any other model of panzer the Germans had. Especially later variants of the Sherman. Particularly the FireFly and Easy-8 models of Shermans. Which is more what this video was about, rather than just talking about why the Tiger sucked. Which I don't even really think it did. Anyway though. Thanks for commenting! 👍

[@callofdutyshorts6135]

if a tiger battalion need to fight a m4 battalion is more likely to win the tiger because the armor and gun are better

[@bruvrep]

if that tiger battalion even got there, if the tiger crew were trained as well as the sherman crew (which oftentimes was not the case), if the tigers engaged first, if the shermans are out in the open, if the shermans are not Jumbos or any 76mm variant. That is to say, under perfect conditions, yes they would be better. But perfect conditions are rare in war, which is why you didn't see the tigers gaining hundreds of victories over allied tanks. Why i'd argue the sherman is better then the tiger is because the tiger was designed for basically one role, which is to be a mobile pillbox that snipes tanks from far distances. This is highlighted by how well the tiger performed in Kursk, as the conditions in kursk (wide, open fields that are great for tank warfare) suited the tiger a lot better. This is kind of in contrast to the sherman, where it was pretty ok at everything, which meant that it didn't really need to be pigeonholed into one specific role. Add on the fact that it could be modified to high heaven and actually had spare parts and you have what i'd consider very much a proto-mbt.

[@Pats0c]

Bro's coping. Even 75mm Shermans could pen Tigers in their upper front plate with the proper ammunition, and if a Jumbo faced off against a Tiger the chances of the Tiger killing it were significantly reduced.

[@RandomFurry07]

If it got there and have the same crews from 1939-41

[@bruvrep]

@@Pats0c 100%. + there's the fact that the sherman arguably more survivable.

[@50centpb7]

@@bruvrep But that’s the thing. It’s sort of an apple to oranges comparison because the the tiger was never designed to be a medium tank. It was designed for a specialized role, that being a heavy breakthrough tank. It’s like a comparing the meat cleaver you only use when something needs to be properly hacked to the versatile kitchen knife you use every day. The panther was a more generalized design but even that had a a bias towards anti-tank capability over infantry support.

[@noobhabs5884]

To be honest, i still think the tiger I is still better then the sherman. The problem is it was both in wrong hands, and in the wrong war.

[@tannersires9734]

The tiger was designed to be a break through tank and that’s it not meant for prolonged maneuvering combat. It’s an overrated tank in my opinion. The Sherman had everything you would want in a tank with many different types for many different jobs.

[@dobbs3096]

Fair enough but when you watch interviews with allied tank veterans, they almost unanimously say they would rather be in a Tiger than a Sherman. Sure, the Sherman can arguably be named the better tool of war given the wider context of the war, namely logistics, industry, and strategic situation. Nevertheless, I would not have wanted to encounter a Tiger in a Sherman. One would also need to compare K/D ratios of the tanks. Mechanical breakdowns and logistics pull that ratio down for the German tanks, but there's no denying the adjusted K/D ratios for many of the heavy tank battalions were excellent. If interested, you can refer to a thesis written by Christopher Wilbeck titled 'Combat Effectiveness Of German Heavy Tank Battalions In World War II'@@tannersires9734

[@coachhannah2403]

Lots of factual errors...

[@brutusbarnabus8098]

Sherman was a piece of shit. Some stain in the U.S. greased many a palm to get that pile of junk accepted as the U.S. main battle tank. U.S. could have fielded the Christie M1928 which had sloped armor and an excellent chassis, but no. In fact Christie took his M1928 design to Russia and it became the excellent T-34 and its variants. Sheer numbers is all the M4 had going for. Brits called it the Ronson because it lit up first time every time. Germans called it the Tommy Cooker.

[@m36stonewalljackson95]

The common idea of the Sherman burning excessively does have some sense to it but the problems are that it’s blamed on the gasoline engine, the Germans also used gasoline engines. Another problem that people bring up is that the Sherman uses the sponson ammo stowage, guess what? The Germans also used the sponson ammo stowage. The Panzer IV was notorious for having a reputation of catastrophic fires, people blame this on unarmored ammo racks but the Sherman also had unarmored ammo racks. American units reported burn rates of 40% to 64% and the British units reported burn rates of around 80%. This compares favorably to German tanks, I will admit, but the reason why the burn rates are incredibly high is because of overstocked ammo (which the Brits tend to do) and for both Allies, unarmored ammo racks on the floor of the turret. Regardless, wet ammo stowages were introduced to the Sherman, which I hope not to explain. The Sherman was reliable if handled properly, like the T-34. It had good armor, around 90mm, good speed around 40km/h, an excellent gun for infantry support with it’s HE shell and 50. cals and it was very easy to produce. It could also drive across terrain that the Germans considered impossible to cross as pointed out by Albert Speer in a November 1944 report of what troops in Italy thought about the Sherman. The report stated: “On the Southwest Front, opinions are in favor of the Sherman tank and its cross-country ability. The Sherman tank climbs mountains that our Panzer crews consider impassable. This is accomplished by the especially powerful engine in the Sherman in comparison to its weight. Also, according to reports of the 26th Panzer Division, the terrain crossing ability on level ground (in the Po Valley) is completely superior to our Panzers. The Sherman tanks drive freely cross-country, while our Panzers must remain on trails and narrow roads and therefore are very restricted in their ability to fight.” The Sherman ain’t so bad, sheer numbers isn’t the only thing the Sherman had going for it.

[@coachhannah2403]

As incorrect as Elmo.

[@connorokeefe6145]

Are you retarded

[@brutusbarnabus8098]

@@connorokeefe6145 why do your parents hate you? They must to have named you Connor. It predisposed you to becoming the nut-less beta male that you are. Connor. The go to name for betas. 🤣

[@tannersires9734]

Bro subscribed to all the wrong ideas. The Sherman was one of the most survivable tank designed during ww2.

[@gartik2367]

Allied circlejerks fail to realize that bringing down the quality of German tanks only serves to make Allied losses even more embarassing and German fighting spirit even more tenacious given they didnt even have an edge over such trivial things as tank quality. Continue coping.

[@Temporal94]

I'm actually mildly confused whether this is joke or not. But if it is, well done for landing in that goldilocks zone of just being believable enough.

[@eazy8579]

You lost. Get over it. The Germans never lost fewer tanks than the western Allie’s did, and their claims were exaggerated to the point their own propaganda ministry would half their aces kill claims for their fucking propaganda. Get over it, they lost and they were destined to lose, and in many ways we’re technically backwards

[@VenomSnake420]

what

[@dennis905]

@@eazy8579Like you mentally but 80 years later

[@wwiewolle5849]

LOL...the Sherman💩was overall the better tank than the Tiger 1...😂🤦‍♂...stop watching Fury and playing video games...🙈

[@elmosanchez]

I could care less for Fury, and WoT sucks.

[@m36stonewalljackson95]

The Sherman was never intended for tank to tank combat, it was for infantry support if I remember correctly, of course a Tiger will outmatch it in a fight but he is talking overall. The Sherman was far more reliable and easy to maintain if handled correctly, more versatile, more easy to produce, took up less resources, etc. At the Battle of Arracourt, the 4th Armored Division with about 249 Shermans, M18s and M10s went against 2 Panzer brigades with 262 Panthers, Panzer IVs, StuGs and Jagdpanzers and maybe some Tigers but I forgot the amount that were there and the casualty numbers. After action reports and casualties from both sides: American casualties were 41 Shermans, 9 M5A1s and 7 M18s and M10s. German casualties were around 200 Panthers, Panzer IVs, Jagdpanzers and StuGs destroyed. 57 American tank casualties and 200 German tank casualties. The 5 Shermans for 1 Tiger or 1 Panther (depends) is a myth from that stupid biography called _Death Trap_ by Cooper. The 5 Shermans vs 1 Tiger or Panther myth is an overexaggeration from a US Army report saying that it may take 5 Shermans for 1 Tiger or Panther. The US Army had a rule that if you were going to engage heavy armor, use 5 Shermans for a GUARANTEED victory, that meant that they didn’t need 5 Shermans, it was just playing safe. It’s a myth that flies in the face of actual data. Another one, the 814th tank destroyer battalion in St. Vith took out a Panther from 2 miles/3 kilometers. From the same tank destroyer battalion, an after action report accumulating German and American tank casualties from the 8th of August, 1944 to the 8th of May, 1945: German casualties were 23 Tigers, 33 Panthers and 23 Panzer IVs. American casualties were 12 M36s and M10s. Total: 77 German tanks destroyed and 26 American tanks destroyers destroyed. How about YOU pick up a book and perhaps read?

[@wwiewolle5849]

@@m36stonewalljackson95 I read the book "Sherman the Tommy Cooker and the reliable one disposable Lighter!" Do you have this in your Sherman toy tank collection too...LOL...😂🤦‍♂

[@m36stonewalljackson95]

@@wwiewolle5849 I already talked about the “Sherman burning” idea in another reply section so I’ll just copy paste. The common idea of the Sherman burning excessively does have some sense to it but the problems are that it’s blamed on the gasoline engine, the Germans also used gasoline engines. Another problem that people bring up is that the Sherman uses the sponson ammo stowage, guess what? The Germans also used the sponson ammo stowage. The Panzer IV was notorious for having a reputation of catastrophic fires, people blame this on unarmored ammo racks but the Sherman also had unarmored ammo racks. American units reported burn rates of 40% to 64% and the British units reported burn rates of around 80%. This compares favorably to German tanks, I will admit, but the reason why the burn rates are incredibly high is because of overstocked ammo (which the Brits tend to do) and for both Allies, unarmored ammo racks on the floor of the turret. Regardless, wet ammo stowages were introduced to the Sherman, which I hope not to explain. If you’re going to fight me in an argument, please actually back up what you say, not throw useless insults at me accompanied by a “😂🤦‍♂️”.

[@Bromyguywhayisup]

@@m36stonewalljackson95 well yes your right about most of the things you said but it is a myth also that Sherman were not meant to fight tanks because yes Sherman were infantry support tanks but if you a infantry guy and you see a tank like a panzer 4 you will want something to kill that tank like a bazooka or artillery or guess what another tank

[@dnaseb9214]

Stop coping, the sherman was a trash tank Even Panzer 4s and T-34s were better. Id take a Matilda and a Italian tankete over a shermeme.

[@TheTacticalCactus]

Wehraboo.

[@Pte.Fletcher]

Listen, I'm not a Sherman fan by far, but even I can accept that compared to the Panzer IV and T-34, it held up well. The only way you can think otherwise is if you get all your tank knowledge from World of Tanks or War Thunder where all that matters is armour thickness and gun size. T-34s were produced poorly, with over heat-treated metal which caused it to crack at the slightest impact. The conditions inside the tank also sucked, which made crew perform worse. As for the Panzer IV, it had 3.1 inches of FLAT armour on the front of the hull, which, while the Sherman has 2 inches, it is angled, giving it far more effective armour. The original howitzer like 7.5cm KwK 37 L/24 was designed to fire high-explosive shells at a low velocity. The later KwK 40 L/48 gun could fire armour piercing effectively, but not any better than a standard 75mm Sherman. This is still excluding models like the Sherman Firefly, and the 76mm Sherman. As for taking a Matilda or Italian tankette over a Sherman, fair enough for the Matilda, as they did generally have higher survivability, and I'm sure you want to take every opportunity to survive the war, but a tankette? I would rather be infantry than be in a tankette. I shouldn't even need to explain how stupid that is.

[@dnaseb9214]

@@TheTacticalCactus I dont watch anime to be a weeb dumbass

[@dnaseb9214]

@@Pte.Fletcher Sherman got replaced very fast. Also no side looked at the Sherman and decided to copy it. Only the British upgraded it into a firefly. And they would have taken more Churchils instead if Murica would make em. But they refused

[@Pte.Fletcher]

​@@dnaseb9214 "Replaced very fast" The tank which was in service from 1942-1957 in the US army, and 1942-2018 in the world in total, compared to the Tiger's 1942-1945 service. "No side looked at the Sherman and decided to copy it" Because the US made so many of them that there was no need to copy, the Soviets had them, the British had them, the Israelis were making modifications to them for the six-day war. 42 nations used the M4 Sherman, including, guess what, NAZI GERMANY! Pz.Kpfw. M4 748 (a). The German designation for the US Sherman in their service. The Tiger was used by 4 countries... "Only the British upgraded it into a firefly" The M51 Super Sherman was an Israeli modification made in 1954 "Would have taken more Churchills" Yes, the Churchill was an effective tank, but they didn't need America to produce them. 5,640 Churchills were produced, they were a completely different class of tank to the Sherman anyway, the Sherman is more like a Cromwell than anything (which there were 4,016 of)

[@EvilAmy_]

The Wehraboos in this comment section make me feel better about myself.

[@elmosanchez]

Whatever you do, don't look at the comment section for the other WW2 vid 😮‍💨

[@Pfc20]

Mi bisabuelo sirvio en el norte de África, Italia y finalmente Francia con los voluntarios de Venezuela, y el dice que parte del miedo al tiger venia de rumores de que un solo tiger acabo con toda una división británica... En el 43, para el 44 elllos ya sabian que hasta la infantería se lo papea re facil