Trapped in Steel: Just How Challenging Was Life Inside A Sherman Tank?

[@independentthinker8930]

My Dad was one of these MEN. He was a driver, fought with Patton

[@TSUNAMICali]

Your father did the fighting and we thank him for his service. Patton never fought anyone except his superiors for his bad behavior. He did get a bullet in his buttocks in WW l. Signed Forest Gump

[@gowdsake7103]

So he drove with Patton

[@brucemcclelland9289]

My father was a troop commander ( 3 Sherman's) in New Zealands 20 th Armoured Regiment. Lost a tank at Cassino and Mentioned in Dispatches during the battle for Orsogna.Survived the war but suffered bad nightmares,hearing loss etc.Died at 63 yrs in 1976.

[@sagejpc1175]

I'm so sorry for your loss. Your father was a hero.

[@robertmiller2173]

My father was in the 20th Armored Regiment as well He was a Sergeant and got an Oak Leaf and Bar….he had been in the 20th Battalion prior to them converted into an armored Regiment. The 20th was basically a South Island Pakeha Battalion. He lived until his he was in his 86th year. Small Country New Zealand, Where abouts did you dad come from? My Dad was from Oamaru he was a journalist. I used to go to the Dawn Service on ANZAC Day for the 20th at Deans Close here in Christchurch. Here’s to the 20th probably the most highly decorated Battalion in the British Empire in WW2.

[@jamescrydeman540]

An uncle of mine was a tank commander in the second world war. When in action the tank crew would sometimes crack the hatch a couple of inches to reduce the heat inside. My uncle ended up with a serious head injury as a result of shrapnel finding that little gap.

[@williamashbless7904]

A primary reason for any tank to catch fire was simple doctrine. Most tanks or anti-tank units were trained to shoot at an enemy tank until it caught fire. A burnt out tank could not be refurbished and returned to combat. At 13:05 there is a foot soldier communicating with the tank commander using a field phone wired into the tank’s electrical system. This was a field improvisation that was incredibly helpful in coordinating tank/infantry combat.

[@billballbuster7186]

The Sherman was notorious for catching fire as ammunition was stowed in the side sponsons. Any hit on the tanks sides would cause an ammunition fire. Because of the losses in 1943 the tanks interior was re-designed and the ammo moved from the sponsons to "wet" stowage bins on the tank's floor.

[@vonbennett8670]

@@billballbuster7186 No, the Sherman was not notorious for catching fire. That myth has been busted a long time ago. "wet" storage was an improvement but like the original poster stated, tanks were shot until they caught fire to make them useless in regard to repairs. In Europe, U.S. tankers had only a 3% death rate from enemy action....compared to 18% for infantrymen.

[@billballbuster7186]

@@vonbennett8670 Ok, if it didn't catch fire why on earth would they completely re-design the hull in late 1943 with Wet Stowage to prevent ammunition fire???

[@vonbennett8670]

@@billballbuster7186 To make them even more safer, why else. Plus, the harder they are to set on fire, the more ordinance the Germans would have to expel to try and catch them on fire. Once again, the goal was to burn the vehicles so they would no longer be able to repair them so you kept on hitting them after they were knocked out. Years ago, I too used to believe the myth about Shermans easily catching fire, but after reading and doing other research, I came to the conclusion that I had been wrong and it was just a myth.

[@garykarr3948]

​@@billballbuster7186It's called improvements. Everybody does it it would be stupid not to and you would quickly get outclassed by the guy that did do it.

[@chrismair8161]

It was a massed production Medium (Everything) Tank. Any Farm boy could drive it fix it and fire it. The commander was as green as the paint. However if you shove 55,000 of these at the Enemy you will have results. The higher ups did not care about the crews. That happened afterwards with the M-26 Pershing which even then was used in limited engagements. The only (War Film) of a Pershing in action is Cologne. A Mk-V Panther is caught and ripped with 3 rounds from a 90mm M3. All three rounds went in one door and out the back. That gun was a version of the British 17 pounder by the length of the barrel and the shape of the projectile. The "Firefly" had a British gun in an M-4 Tank.

[@contumelious-8440]

You are so silly. None of the higher-ups according to you would ever care about any crew ever. Can you please tell us how to build the forces to defeat Germany in WWII with every care for every crew and company? Please, let me know how we should have done it. Not kidding. You are criticizing how tanks were built and used without telling us how they SHOULD have been built and used. I have no doubt you will totally ignore this, but tell us how to build and use tanks. You are critical, how could we have done it better? I'm guessing you will ignore it because you have no fucking idea. If you don't have a solution you should STFU. The Pershing first saw action in Feb 1945 which was 6 months before the war's end. The Firefly had a 17 lb gun which is the same as the 76mm of the M10 the entire video was about. The 90mm (pershing) gun is a version of the US 90mm antiaircraft gun from pre WWII and has nothing to do with the 17lber.

[@cvr527]

The 90 mm on the Pershing had nothing to do with 17pndr. It was the modified from the standard US 90mm anti-aircraft gun.

[@tanfosbery1153]

Don't forget the British fitted a 17 pounder anti tank gun into the turret which could take on all German tanks at combat ranges, except Tiger 2 on frontal armour

[@PeterOConnell-pq6io]

US did the same with their high velocity 76mm cannon. Ironically, many M4 crews preferred the original 75mm due to the fact its HE round was far more effective against their primary threat: German AT guns.

[@ironninja259]

@@PeterOConnell-pq6io the firefly had a very potent HE round. Unfortunately it was slow to load and fire and made just as much of a racket as a standard AP round so it wasn't nearly as convenient as the standard 75mm

[@PeterOConnell-pq6io]

@@ironninja259 US Army ordinance reviewed Firefire, and and a US model upgunned to a 76mm cannon in the original M4 turret, and ruled both models so cramped they were unacceptable due to their flawed ergonomics.

[@robertmehling9766]

Great Video, My Father crewed a M3 CDL Tank. Once they landed they received M-4s

[@MM-vv8mt]

My dad was an ordinance engineering officer for the Advanced Section of Command Zone (AdSec CommZ) assigned to US First Army from August 1944 to VE Day tasked with setting up recovery and repair logistics chains for the 2nd and 3rd Armored Divisions. He told me that the Ordinance Branch did studies after the war and found that the Sherman took approximately 50 man hours to get off the water, gassed up, armed, and pointed toward the front, while it took the Germans 250 man hours to do the same with the Tiger and King Tiger. While the Sherman may not have been as good as the Tiger (especially before it got its gun upgraded from the low-velocity 75mm to the 76mm high velocity gun), the Allies had a lot more of them than the Germans did. As they say, tactics are for amateurs, logistics are for pros.

[@mattharrell6880]

Do you actually believe that?

[@mohammedsaysrashid3587]

It was a wonderful descriptions video about infamous Sherman tanks.

[@coryhoggatt7691]

You can’t speak intelligently about the Sherman without mentioning that it had to be transported across an ocean before it could fight. None of its opponents did.

[@floydfanboy2948]

Indeed

[@jonathanisernhagen6515]

The Type 95 had to be transported...on rowboats or pool noodles or something sufficiently buoyant.

[@morstyrannis1951]

@@jonathanisernhagen6515 true but it didn’t HAVE to be transported. The Japanese could have stayed home and minded their own business. The whole East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere BS didn’t have to happen. All the invading, stealing, raping, murdering didn’t HAVE to happen. It was a choice. Whereas the allies HAD to liberate the lands stolen, plundered, and enslaved by the Axis. Bit of a moral obligation, right? Even if the USA only showed up because war was declared on them.

[@Fuxerz]

It was a great Swiss army knife tank. It's a medium tank it wasn't meant to go up against Tigers or even panthers. From what everyone says, the Maintenanceon it was easy and they very rarely broke down. They were always in the fight, unlike German tanks which were being fixed all the time. Mobile fast enough. Is just the gun, let it down. The 76 mm gun helped out a lot. As a Swiss army knife tank it's the best in the world and it was easy to manufacture. I think they made over 50000 of them.

[@earlyriser8998]

@@jonathanisernhagen6515 ok given but not a medium tank expected to fight other tanks

[@benedictjajo]

Imagine if the allied only made slow, expensive and large tanks. I bet the war would take longer.

[@brennanleadbetter9708]

It definitely would’ve affected our logistics.

[@randyhome1544]

Having an uncle die in this tank, it was improved greatly towards the end of WWIi. There is a whole section in Arlington National Cemetery in the Marshall section.

[@floydfanboy2948]

The M4 Sherman was a very good tank. Agile, reliable, reasonable armor, reasonable firepower, easy to repair, comfortable and good looking. Okay, that last one is just my opinion 😅

[@brianmays4366]

Next to useless armour, the nickname for the sherman was Ronson. The Sherman was the right tank in that it was fast and easy to maintain, both the gun and the armour were soso. It was also light enough being only 34 tons to cross bridges

[@floydfanboy2948]

@@brianmays4366 wet stowage mitigated that Ronson effect greatly

[@earlyriser8998]

The tank was available and effective. Not the most powerful nor the fastest, or most armored. It was a better tank design than the early T34 but needed the larger gun to be highly effective.

[@johngaither9263]

Tank crews had a lower percentage of casualties than did infantrymen. They were also far less than the bomber crews in the 8th air force experienced. At least a Sheman tank would never fall from the sky on fire as far too many B-17's did.

[@TSUNAMICali]

And the B-24s that my father flew. It was called the Liberator for a reason. And suffer the same losses as the B-17s. Don't believe the Hollywood nonsense Spielberg put out

[@davidpadilla9613]

It had the higest surviabiliry rate of any tank in ww2

[@smallam49]

After a few drinks...my boss told us that his Sherman was 'brewed up' once by the Germans and twice by American aircraft.....in Normandy.

[@gowdsake7103]

Ahh yes the Yanks very good at killing their own

[@blueduck9409]

The sherman was alright, unless it went up against a tiger, tiger 2, or panther.

[@Kojak0]

Which it did with alarming frequency, especially Panther tanks that took over the medium tank roles from the earlier Pz III-IV variants - not to mention the frontally better protected assault guns. Tiger tanks were overall quite rare to encounter for the allies though, but yeah, there wasn't an allied tank that could stand against it with the possible exception of the Centurion (which I don't think made it into combat before the war ended) or the M26.

[@brucenorman8904]

@@Kojak0 US M4s in northwest Europe in tank vs tank battles against Panthers lost1.9 M4s for every 3 Panthers destroyed. In 65% of engagements where Panthers sighted the M4s first the M4 still fired first. The prime determining factor in who won tank on tank engagements was who fired first. The Panther a superb tank on PAPER had several flaws that greatly hindered its performance outside the Steppes of the USSR.

[@Kojak0]

@@brucenorman8904 But most tanks the Germans lost overall, were from allied air power, especially Typhoon planes and their equivalent. Also, an M4 firing first does not mean it could kill first; the 75 mm and later 76 mm were woefully inadequate to deal with the German tanks and assault guns that were a lot more common than tanks - I think it was Eisenhower himself that threw a (very uncharacteristic) fit of rage when he heard of ineffective the 76 mm was - the 17 pounder the Brits crammed into their M4s were another history of course. That said you are right - the Panther did have a number of problems, most notably reliability, which the M4 exelled in, being probably the most reliable machine in the war.

[@chadjustice8560]

​@@Kojak0but yet 75mm Sherman's killed tiger 1s but it couldn't have possibly took it on at all and won lol if your going to talk about the subject actually research the subject.

[@Kojak0]

@@chadjustice8560 Did I say M4's *never' killed Tigers? No I didn't - try reading comprehension next time and READ what people write.

[@johnwalsh4857]

The Soviets actually loved their lend lease shermans the Soviet tank crews thought that riding a sherman was luxury with its plush leather seating . The T-34s were unconforable to ride on, with steel seating no pads.

[@keithallver2450]

My grandfather drove an M4A1 during WW2 and had a chance to meet some Soviet tank crews in Berlin in 1945 and said a lot of them liked the Sherman over the T-34. He said the things they liked were it was user-friendly, reliable, and not as cramped all while having comparable armor and firepower.

[@Shadowhunterbg]

Soviets didn't produce their tanks on the other side of the world so such things should be there at the very least...

[@brennanleadbetter9708]

For a good look into how they used their Shermans, read the memoirs of Dmitry Loza and “Sherman Tanks of the Red Army: The American Vehicle in Soviet Service” by Peter Samsonov.

[@billballbuster7186]

No, Sorry but the lend-lease Sherman was completely ignored in Soviet histories of the 'Great Patriotic War' (WW2). The only foreign tank given a mention was the British Vickers Valentine, which Stalin always demanded more.

[@bjornsmith9431]

The M4 Sherman tank in US services have the lowest death rate in overseas combat 1485 men lost of force 49560 tanker men send into combat 3% compare this to R.A.F bomber 44.4% death rate 55500 of 125000 men in service and 8th USAAF 26000 men lose 7.4% of 350000 men service. The German tankers preferred to shoot at tanks at the sides and rear too that a fact, the German tanks armored plates by 1942 were beginning to lack critical strengthen minerals for there steels Mangaisnes and Vandualium that prevent brittling or spalling inside the tanks.

[@JamesRowell-fj7uq]

As a 2 war combat veteran and tanker I respect these brave men and my m 60a3 was gd and I still miss her

[@halwag]

the Sherman was basically a light combat tank, and no match for the super Panzers. Only later, with help from airpower, plus artillery and more gas, did the new models match the Germans.

[@brennanleadbetter9708]

Medium tank

[@ironninja259]

Ah yes, the super panzers like the panther that broke down after 5 minutes and got gutted by fireflies frequently, or the panzer 4 and tiger which showed up only piece meal. Very good death traps, i mean tanks

[@DIDYOUSEETHAT172]

The Original Sherman was perfect for what is was designed for, people do not realize it was not a Heavy Tank, its designation and design was officially Medium Tank, M4. And could hold their own against the other mediums. German Panzer IV, Soviet T-34. Further modifications improved it but over all did not improve survivability head on with the heavy tanks.

[@billballbuster7186]

In 1942 the Sherman was reliable and its 75mm gun was admired for its ability to take out German Anti-Tank Guns at long range. But by 1944 it was outgunned by most German tanks. Patton, regarded as a tank expert, lobbied for a better tank with more armor and better gun, but was largely ignored. General Lesley McNair Chief of AGF was set in his ways and Sherman replacements were all rejected. However he was killed visiting Normandy July 1944, His replacement, General Ben Lear gave the go to the M-26 but it had been delayed so much only a small number took part in the last weeks of WW2.

[@DeniatitadenCompostela]

Patton preferred the 75mm above the 76mm Sherman. No need to talk porky pies.

[@JayM409]

Patton heavily criticized tank crews who added sand bags or logs to the hulls to protect from hollow-charge weapons. He has even been filmed stopping a tank to berate the crew for doing this. He thought the Sherman's speed was its best defence.

[@billballbuster7186]

@@JayM409 The extra weight would tax the transmission, but the Canadians and Polish would add tons of track links as extra armor, nobody seems to have complained about busted trannies!

[@billballbuster7186]

@@DeniatitadenCompostela Yes Patton the great tank general that never fought a tank battle! But you are telling the porky pies here, Patton along with Devers wanted the M-26 and lobbied for it from 1943. That is on record,

[@31terikennedy]

A M-26 took a shot through the mantlet, killing the gunner. They had the M-36 TD with a 90mm that saw combat October 1944.

[@Rob-vq1uh]

The Tiger- and the Panter crew also knew that it what kind of tank it was.. easy target

[@chadjustice8560]

So because your clearly uneducated on the subject so I will give you the numbers. The us army only had 3 recorded encounters with tiger 1s, Sherman's won two and a Pershing lost the other so they rarely saw one let alone a working one. They 95 percent of fights against Panthers to the point they were 5 percent more effective against them on the offensive and 3.5 half times better on the defensive. The battle of arrocourt tells you all you need to know. So the more you know, which is half the battle. Now if you want me to go into how overrated and useless German armor actually was outside panzer 4, will be glad to give you those numbers as well.

[@morstyrannis1951]

@@chadjustice8560 Hey don't go harshing his vibe. He spent a lot of time reading the insert with his Airfix tank models.

[@ironninja259]

@@chadjustice8560 eh, panzer 4 wasn't too hot either. Too complicated to easily mass produce. Stug 3 was better, but not really a full tank

[@simongee8928]

As with any tznk, the M4 had it's fzults. But it was simple, reliable, adaptable and there were a LOT of them. That's what made the difference.

[@lyleslaton3086]

Early Sherman's were death traps. The small oval hatches were referred to as "dead man hatches." Early Sherman turret had one hatch for 3 people to use in an emergency. Common misconception that the fuel burning killed everyone is wrong. The fire extinguisher was very good on the Sherman. The problem was the ammunition. Until the wet stowage came out, one spark in the ammo rack and you were done. Wet stowage got you an additional few seconds to de-ass the tank.

[@camrenwick]

Good tanks at the time, but I'd hate to be in one under attack

[@coachhannah2403]

True of any tank, until one considers the poor, bloody infantry...

[@marvwatkins7029]

A quite good docu: fair and balanced, unlike others views such as at the Tank Museum and previous presentations.

[@davidpadilla9613]

The sherman was the best tank of ww2

[@blaze1148]

lol no.

[@pyeitme508]

Em while the M4 Sherman medium tanks ain't perfect design, they ain't deathtraps. Each the Sherman tank is more of a jack of all trades which compared to similar tanks such as the T-34 serms much safer. Plus during the last year of WW2 in 1945AD the Germans caused the Allies 3:1 ratio due to on the defensive side meant those Shermans be having higher chances getting destroyed or damaged...

[@dovidell]

Because of allied bombing the alloys used as armour on German tracked vehicles was of lower quality which meant that even low velocity ammo used in earlier Sherman's hitting the right spot could do serious damage to the big cats

[@billballbuster7186]

WW2 vets would disagree with you, the Sherman was considered a deathtrap as it caught fire so easily. Crews would bail out at the slightest noise incase the tank caught fire. However the US Army in WW2 were not involved in any great tank battles, just minor skirmishes. So considering the many thousands of tanks in service, fires were relatively rare. But devastating for the few that did confront enemy tanks.

[@bjornsmith9431]

Most Allied Tank loses in the West was due to Anti Tank Guns PAK 37 mm with a large grenade attach, PAK 50 mm, PAK 75 mm and PAK 88 mm, Hetzer and Stugs self propelled Guns, the German produce 1347 Tiger I and 492 Tiger II these tanks was not invincible many were destroy by Sherman Tanks Michael Wittmann O7 Tiger tank was likely destroy by Canadian 75 mm tank along with another Tiger tank for the 75 mm Sherman gun the bulk of the German armour force are Panzer IV tanks 8500 produce and second Panther Tank 6000 produces.

[@billballbuster7186]

@@bjornsmith9431 Again you are rambling on, "shooting from the hip" making little sense. Fact, Wittmann's Tiger 007 as well as 312 and 314 were destroyed by a Sherman Firefly of the Northamptonshire Yeomanry. All three tanks destroyed in a 15 minute fire fight. Fact, 8,500 Panzer IV was for whole war 1939-45, many destroyed by 1943. The most common German tanks in 1944-45 was the Panther. Some sources claim around 8,000 built including 413 JagdPanther. While 6,300 PzIV were built 1943-45

[@bjornsmith9431]

Michael Wittmann tiger tank was hit on the left side engine by 75mm Sherman tank form the Canadian Sherbrooke tanker command by Sydney Walter the 2013 battlefield investigation concluded in the Canadian in the ambush destroy two tiger tanks, two Panzer IV and two S.P.G, Joe Ekins of Northamptonshire Yeomanry of the destroy three Tiger tigers, it doesn't matter who shot who the job was done, Joe Ekins never respect Michael Wittmann because he was a thug.

[@garykarr3948]

My reply must have got lost in the mail. What I said was: We didn't hide in the night. American doctrine seems to be to tell the enemy we're coming to do this, come and stop me. Two years of what had to be the most dangerous job on the planet at the time is what they did. But they did do it.

[@Fuxerz]

The best Swiss army knife ever built. No tank can claim that the Sharman can.

[@blaze1148]

....I would rather be in a Tiger than a Sherman.

[@joyogggKids]

But still better than italy or Japan tank 🤡🤡

[@brealistic3542]

The Soviets actually offered the T34 to America but after it was tested with Soviet technicians in attendance it became clear how actually awful mechaniclly it was. In fact the army testing reports are very extensive on it's many major failings.

[@dusterowner9978]

Quantity didn't hurt either .

[@davidpadilla9613]

The sherman the best tank of the war...

[@richardharmon647]

My father was a radio man In a M10 tank destroyer. It didn’t have the fully enclosed turret that the sherman had, so therefore could be taken out by a well placed grenade or air burst artillery. Although it had a slightly more powerful gun than the early Shermans.

[@AnthonyTobyEllenor-pi4jq]

My Boss was a Sherman Tank commander in WW2 he was in the Royal Tank Corps, he said they were OK against Italian tanks but a deathtrap against the better German tanks. He told us about being advancing in France with his squadron and coming across 6 American Shermans abandoned, their engines running ! so he and his buddies immediately became deathly afraid and they were right to be afraid because a well camoflaged Tiger had taken out five Shermans, the survivors of the US squad must have thought fnuck it I am off. He said that once they established no more Tiger threat, they recovered the 6 US Shermans to stop them faling into German hands.

[@mattharrell6880]

The Sherman was the most survivable tank of WW2 AND tankers took the fewest casualties of all US combat branches. Not to mention once they started using wet stowage the fires dropped off dramatically. And the Shermans were far more comfortable than 99% of all tanks in all sides. So you pretty much screwed the pooch on this one.

[@morstyrannis1951]

The fact the narrator didn't mention the Sherman first saw combat in Africa shows the depth of their research.

[@angelo_giachetti]

Seems back then engineers gave no consideration to evacuating fumes, crew comfort like heat during zero weather that could keep the tank effective. 1960s when I was a little kid our neighbor was a gunner in a Sherman during WW2. My father spent all of 1944 in the ETO as part of a 105mm gun crew...103rd Infantry 383rd FA Bdn.

[@Shadowhunterbg]

Knowing how the "good guys" cranked up the propaganda after the end of the war it wasn't a good experience in this tank i imagine.

[@mbak7801]

The Sherman was fast and cheap to produce. The larger German tanks out classed it in armour and their guns. The plan was to throw a large number of Shermans at German positions and win by sheer numbers. Yes this cost a huge number of lives but the crews were seen as pretty much expendable as were their tanks. A bit callous but it worked.

[@fastboga007]

👍

[@palemale2501]

With only one hatch above the commander, for him, the gunner and the loader, the last 2 would have to get past the commander if he was sitting there injured - nightmare

[@jarikinnunen1718]

In Europe was common "Tiger maneuver". Needed only rumors that Tiger tank might be some place, for avoid it, by stray to other place.

[@kpd3308]

Tanks don't "implode".

[@blaze1148]

yup - only subs do that.

[@gregorylatta8159]

Fury was an awesome movie!

[@JohnSmith-vs2ri]

Interesting that the US produced over 50 thousand tanks and during the entire war only 1400 Sherman tank crews were killed making the role of tank crew one of the safest jobs in the war. And US tank crews had a much lower casualty rate than other countries makin the Sherman one of the better tanks for effect and safety.

[@Sirikazy]

The simple formula that explains the design of the tanks in each one is the number of cannon fodder available. Germany had few, the Allies had plenty.

[@earlyriser8998]

the tank was available and effective. Not the most powerful nor the fastest, or most armored. It was a better tank design than the early T34 but needed the larger gun to be highly effective. But easily repaired and available. Availability is a value in warfare.

[@berthalloway8182]

All tank crew members throughout the years call them iron coffin

[@chrishigbie8645]

My Father drove one of these

[@richardharmon647]

The phrase panzer tank is kind of redundant.

[@jed-henrywitkowski6470]

Implode?! I think not.

[@tbwpiper189]

Sorry AI narrator...the M1A1 wasn't available to replace the tank that helped win WW2

[@romanpernal7397]

In the Normandy invasion the tank was used by Americans,Canadians, British, and Polish Troops. The Poles called them The Burning Coffin. If I left anyone out I stand corrected.

[@chadjustice8560]

Yeah no one called them that but nice try. The Russians called the m3 a coffin for 7 brothers even though the t34 was no better than the m3.

[@davidpadilla9613]

The best tank of ww2

[@davidpadilla9613]

@@romanpernal7397 the best tank of the war had the highest survival rate of any tank.

[@stephenjones6500]

85% survival rate for sherman crews highest among any allied tank be it U,S , empire , or russian...

[@D70Dug]

Russian tanks still have the same issues with ammunition exploding :

[@abizard5899]

habis unda balas jua sing hancur dlm per buatan yg cellla.....😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅

[@roderernst9990]

Nobody mentions the crap 1920s suspension and high ground pressure ,narrow tracks.

[@Newman66]

Don't be fooled the tiger tanks easily Destroyed so many Sherman tanks it was a mismatch..

[@ConstantineJoseph]

Those logs aren't going to be of any use against anti tank fire c'mon

[@damonfisher-f3k]

did he call it a steel monster? what does he call tigers

[@VikingTeddy]

4:34 How does a tank implode? I'm trying to think about pressure differentials during explosions. And stowsge locations for ammo, but I'm stumped. Or am I dumb and the writer just have a brainfart?

[@Globalscanningeyes]

It was the ammunition,they eventually decided to put it at the bottom of the crew compartment which saved lives

[@blueduck9409]

Wet ammo storage and diesel engines made the tank extremely difficult to catch fire or explode. Ammo storrage in the sherman was in various locations. Circular under the floor, and random spots inside the turret and front sides of the tank.

[@VikingTeddy]

@@blueduck9409 Implode... Not explode, that's why I was confused. I'm guessing the writer just doesn't English that well :)

[@toddsmith1617]

What is wet storage?

[@blaze1148]

"Wet" stowage consisted of a system where the main gun rounds were moved to racks on the hull floor. The rounds in each rack were surrounded by separate small containers of a mixture of water, ethylene glycol, and a rust inhibitor, known as "Ammudamp."

[@robbietoms3128]

The shermans were good when fitted with the 17 pounder guns the British put in them. But Paton didn't like it and stopped American tanks being fitted with them.

[@brennanleadbetter9708]

They didn’t like some of the guns drawbacks

[@garyengelman7867]

German tankers called the Sherman the Tommy Toaster and pitted the crew.

[@brennanleadbetter9708]

That’s a new one

[@garyengelman7867]

@@brennanleadbetter9708It came from the diary of a SS Panzer tank commander. He served on the Russian front in a Tiger tank and also in France opposing D-Day. According to the records he had quite a number of kills to his name. Tiger Crew's thought it was pretty funny the way a Sherman would light up and burn after they hit it with a shot.

[@brennanleadbetter9708]

@garyengelman7867 the reason for that was that the ammunition was in sponsons. But the “always catching fire” saying is over exaggerated.

[@Red72618]

In reality 580% rate loss

[@TheSeastar19]

Apart from the model easy 8, the rest were all just rolling coffins on tracks, it is a pity the US and allies didn't come to life with the M-26 Pershing years sooner, many lives may have been saved and who knows, Hitler may have been defeated years earlier.

[@roberthenry3757]

TThe tank would. IMPLODE ? If the ammunition was hit.

[@zillsburyy1]

life in the ronson was terrible

[@torbenjohansen6955]

I was like you 5 years ago. Now i know better. the Ronson comercial : i lits every time! is from the early 1950'th so not from WW2. The Tommy cooker quote is from North Africa. where every allied tank was a Tommy cooker. in the sun every tank without ventilation gets really hot . ( German tanks had better ventilation than the GB and the US tanks ) simple as that. also the frontal armor of the sherman was thicker than the armor on the panzer 4 and the Panter tank. so that wassen't a flaw the Flaw of the Sherman wassen't the armor or the 75mm gun, BUT the US didn't develop a good anti tank round for the gun before later in the war. Look up a few of the Chieftens videos on that topic and you will learn more

[@terraflow__bryanburdo4547]

​​@@torbenjohansen6955The Panther front armor was far thicker and more angled, giving an effective defense of 139mm compared to 93 for the Sherman. Hence standard Shermans always tried to flank a Panther to hit it's much thinner side armor. The M4, Panzer IV long 75s and T34 were all roughly comparable through most of the war, with the T34/85 gaining some advantage in 1944.

[@DrJohn493]

Claustrophobes need not apply...

[@scottprendergast5262]

Cadillac Gage engine

[@ThamMalaysia]

Steel coffin. In one of the first encounters, an ENTIRE battalion of Shermans was wiped out by Panzer IVs. The last tank speeding away to escape was taken out from 2.000 yards.

[@morstyrannis1951]

"an ENTIRE battalion of Shermans was wiped out by Panzer IVs" Hmm. Care to post a credible reference for that?

[@garykarr3948]

Must be British.

[@framusburns-hagstromiii808]

Sounds like an AI robo-reader narrator...Do your own Work!

[@petersclafani4370]

Known as the iron coffin In tank battles it took 2 to 3 shermans to take out a tiger or panther

[@brennanleadbetter9708]

That old myth

[@petersclafani4370]

@@brennanleadbetter9708 you want to bet. They dont tell you how good the german tanks knock out american n British. It is hush hush. But american infantry knows better

[@brennanleadbetter9708]

@ petersclafani4370 the myth comes from the fact that Shermans were in squads of up to 4-5.

[@marksaunderson3042]

One thing that is noticeable about the Sherman: The gun looks like a toy poking out of the tank. Big tank, tiny pea-shooter gun. Look at a German tank of the same period, and it is a very very BIG gun poking out. They only won because for every tank the Germans built the Americans built lots more. Ants can eat an elephant.

[@johnsepulveda443]

Only thing it had going for it was it’s numbers other wise it would do up like a Roman candle

[@brennanleadbetter9708]

Numbers do matter in war

[@scottsuttan2123]

the only worst tank in WW2 then this hunk o junk was Italian tanks ... you would be safer in a paper car then in a Sherman 😂

[@DMBall]

The Germans referred to it as the Tommycooker," in honor of its tendency to blow up with its English crew still inside, when the gas tanks were ignited by enemy fire..

[@brennanleadbetter9708]

That’s been debunked

[@The51DD]

The Sherman tank was called ‘tommy cooker’ for a reason

[@brennanleadbetter9708]

It was hot in the desert

[@paullevins5448]

Do you know that the word "Panzer" means tank! Its not specific it just means the word "tank". To say german "Panzer Tank" you just said "German Tank Tank". Panzer in German just means a tank not a specific tank... Just sayin . I here this all the time, it's a slightly wrong way to refer to German Panzers , if you mean a specific one.

[@blatherskite9601]

Panzer actually means "Armour" - not tank directly. Used in the same way as in English, you would call for heavy armour (Schweres Panzer) in the need of some big support - provided by heavily armoured tanks with big guns.

[@michaelfrench3396]

Last time I checked tanks don't implode from being shot and hit in the ammunition storage areas. Man this video made your channel look real bad. Saying Sherman's or death traps you pretty much using every untrue thing that people have thought about trim and tanks and putting it in the video. But you're not calling it a myth busting video. You're calling it fact. Lol

[@FactBytes]

I hope you watch the video till the end. The effort here is to bust the myth of calling the Sherman a deathtrap and discuss why it was a tank with the highest crew survivability.

[@sergeipohkerova7211]

There's a little button called "unsubscribe" for entitled little Karens like you, or you could always make your own superior video, genius.

[@frankhernandez6883]

*])eath Trap*

[@brennanleadbetter9708]

Any tank can be a death trap when hit.

[@frankhernandez6883]

Not as many times as Sherman's. I don't see why people won't admit Sherman's were 2nd rated armor compare to the German or for that matter T34/85, Stalin's? Our Army Air Force was the counter to German armor.

[@brennanleadbetter9708]

@frankhernandez6883 you were more likely to die in a T-34 than a Sherman. The Soviets used Shermans, and many preferred it over the T-34. The Air Force only served as a deterrent for German armor.

[@frankhernandez6883]

I didn't say T34, I said T34/85. Different tanks here. The air force effected german production & transportation. I dare say if Panther/Tiger production had reached the levels of Sherman's, and the Luftwaffe had controlled the air, it may have been different! However, the air force had the other ace....THE BOMB!

[@brennanleadbetter9708]

@@frankhernandez6883 It’s pretty much the same, just with different modifications. Germany did not have the resources to build or even sustain such a force, nor did they have the manpower. The Luftwaffe did not have the strength to regain control of the sky. The atomic was originally meant for Germany, but they surrendered. If they kept fighting, Berlin would’ve been eradicated. So the bomb was used on you know who, twice.

[@06colkurtz]

Go consume some actual data. There is plenty of evidence that this vid is just wrong. Put a disclaimer up front that it’s BS

[@Khalifrio]

Maybe take your own advice. The Chieftain and others have spent the last several years debunking all the myths about the Sherman tank. Or did you not watch video to the end where this video was did the same thing. Debunking the myths.

[@lwfozzy6925]

Hand picked by patton? What other tanks was he able to choose from? Come on .

[@chadjustice8560]

Well Patton had nothing to do with it anyway. Another myth created by Belton cooper that has been disproven but yet still comes up for some reason.

[@NoGoBu]

🪖🪖My guess is ,it beat walking & sleeping in a ditch.🪖🪖 Infantry sucks 🫡