Sherman: "so this is what it feels like to be a tiger"
@andreadalcortivo7474 жыл бұрын
No way a Type 95 with 37 mm gun can face a Sherman
@ch4ri0t284 жыл бұрын
Andrea Dal Cortivo i mean they could face the sherman but they'd have to flank it to the side to be able to penetrate it's armor
@andreadalcortivo7474 жыл бұрын
@@ch4ri0t28 Sherman was more fast than Tiger, they could flank it. Type 95 wasn't more fast than Sherman. Very hard flanking.
@spartan10101014 жыл бұрын
@@andreadalcortivo747 The speeds is a close matchup, top speed of an M4 sherman varies between 24-29 mph depending on the variant and terrain (according to britannica). Top speed of a Type 95 is around 25-28 mph depending on terrain. Idk if it could outflank the Sherman before it got hit though since even if it were faster, the turret speed of the Sherman is around 24 degrees/sec which is pretty fast. Combine that with it maneuvering in reverse and its thicker armor would make it pretty one sided. Maybe the only thing the Type 95 had going for it was that it's also small so maybe it'd be hard to hit it while moving.
@wmd2024 жыл бұрын
Ha-Go couldnt even penetrate a M3 Stuart from the front
@MagronesBR24 жыл бұрын
In Europe: oh shit, there is a Tiger! In Pacific: Aw come on, look at that cute tin box trying to kill me!
@khwanthepwisutthirangsan60494 жыл бұрын
Xd
@louiefence65794 жыл бұрын
It was a killing machine anyhow!
@benlaskowski3574 жыл бұрын
Uh, DUDE? That 37mm uses a CANISTER ROUND! It's a big SHOTGUN SHELL! Do your damn research! It also has an HE round! And ANY tank is a threat to unsupported infantry!
@MagronesBR24 жыл бұрын
@@benlaskowski357 by the viewpoint of a tank crew. Of course tanks VS infantry is a meat grinder scenario.
@benlaskowski3574 жыл бұрын
@@MagronesBR2 TRUE. Imagine staring at that tank as is lines you up!
@DesGardius-me7gf5 жыл бұрын
“You know, the last time I was that close to Japanese machine, it was shooting at me.” -Red Forman
@Frankensteins_Highboy5 жыл бұрын
Red served in Korea
@DesGardius-me7gf5 жыл бұрын
Kyle H And in Iwo Jima.
@kstreet74385 жыл бұрын
Kyle H “I've been working since I was sixteen. I fought in two wars.” He was on a destroyer in the pacific war
@HamburgerTime2094 жыл бұрын
His war experiences change episode to episode, the only things that're consistent is that he was in the Pacific in WW2, in Korea, and in one or both he was in the navy
@2011Oly4 жыл бұрын
Des Gardius 2012 and Battle of Guadalcanal
@glenbrugge74309 жыл бұрын
It's not propaganda.I have read enough history to know that this did occur. It's quite a well known battle in terms of Pacific battles - read up on it. The reason the Japanese had sub-par tanks was not because they were bad designers (look at the Zero), but the policy in place within the Japan Army was never modified after the invasion of China - although their border disputes with Russia should have made them think twice. But again, policy was the issue. The Japanese used tanks as infantry support vehicles in China, where they did very well - because the Chinese had very little in the way of armor. They were essentially fast moving artillery/machine gun platforms, for which a small light tank is well suited. It can move fast, keep up with the infantry and fire its cannon into pillboxes and lay down suppressing fire with its MGs. The Japanese failed to anticipate meeting heavier tanks, and didn't adapt until it was too late.
@janflorovic58809 жыл бұрын
Bad designers... Zero was the most superior plane in pacific for 5 years. It was flat out superior to F4F.
@glenbrugge74309 жыл бұрын
As I stated, they were not bad designers (not concerning the Zero), for the most part, just unwilling to adapt (regarding tanks and infantry weapons). Japanese armor was a low priority, most steel etc. going to the navy. And the 95 Ha-Go was superior to US armor when it was introduced in 1936. The US only introduced the Stuart in 1941, which is comparable to the 95 Ha-Go. But, that is where they stopped, in the 30s. Tactically the Japanese thought of the tank as an infantry support weapon, not as something used to fight other tanks. Their doctrine was not in line with the reality of the war. That and they didn't envision the allied forces possibly using tanks during the island campaigns. Japan only began to build heavier tanks towards the end of the war, when it seemed that an invasion of the mainland was inevitable. You can see the same with the Germans and the T-34. They knew a lot about armor warfare, but they let their initial sense of superiority over the Soviets cloud their need to keep ahead of the game.
@ryancrossman68747 жыл бұрын
Glen Brugge What battle is being shown in this scene?
@henderson0236 жыл бұрын
This is the Marine assault on the airfield at Pelelieu.
@louwengchi12615 жыл бұрын
If you’re not going into work tomorrow I’ll have i0
Ha-Go wasn't an awful tank, it was successful for its designated purpose which was infantry support. Much like the Stuart tank. Honestly getting Sherman tanks onto the islands during the Pacific War was a testament to the competency of the U.S. Navy's logistics teams. Had the Empire of Japan had the capacity to maneuver heavier tanks into the same areas they would have, and this may have been a different story.
@RotgerValdes3 жыл бұрын
Japanese tanks were not designed for the small islands, but for the war with mainland China, the USSR and European colonies in South-Eastern Asia. Chi-Ha and Ha-Go were average tanks in 1939, but by 1943 Japanese tanks became obsolete.
@snoweefrost44123 жыл бұрын
@@RotgerValdes I never said the Japanese tanks were designed for island warfare. I said that they were designed for infantry support and were light enough to be transported to the islands. The Imperial navy lacked sufficient sealift capabilities to match heavier tank deployments to fight the US Navy/US Marines.
@seanbryan48333 жыл бұрын
There were Ha-Go tanks on some of the islands. One of them on Tarawa managed to hit a Sherman on its barrel and put the main gun out of action. That was the last thing it accomplished as the second Sherman coming up made short work of it.
@huydang59553 жыл бұрын
Not to mention production issues between heavy vs light tanks. The cost to make one heavy tank would’ve been equivalent to that of three light ones. But making a single heavy tank would also take more time to produce in a factory compared to three light tanks, not to mention the costs of maintaining it on the battlefield would’ve been equal to that of six light tanks both in terms of resource consumption and maintenance. That’s why the Tiger tank, even though it was equal to 10 Shermans, costed as much to care for as 15 panzer iv tanks from refueling and replacing parts.
@clintonmoles91143 жыл бұрын
not true the Japanese tanks just sucked
@RayPall3 жыл бұрын
When facing the Type 95, Sherman crews soon learned that the Japanese tank's armour is so thin the regular APCBC round can go right through without dealing any real damage or triggering the round's fuse. So they started using HE rounds
@mattz12303 жыл бұрын
Yeah...that's what an AP round is SUPPOSED TO DO. And AP doesn't have a fuse. It's just a solid shot. You should get your information from somewhere other than world of twats.
@RayPall3 жыл бұрын
@@mattz1230 Armour piercing rounds with a bursting charge indeed have a fuse. I think there has been a misunderstanding. I referred to AP rounds in general (including APCBC with a HE filler), not to the actual type of round (aka solid shot AP)
@mattz12303 жыл бұрын
@@RayPall Then speak accurately. AP is not APCBC- which also had non-filled versions.
@RayPall3 жыл бұрын
@@mattz1230 Fair enough, I edited my original comment.
@timengineman2nd7143 жыл бұрын
@@mattz1230 Both the US and Germany had an explosive charge in the base of their 75mm, 76.2mm, 88mm,90mm Tank and Anti-tank AP rounds!!!
@ConstantineJoseph4 жыл бұрын
This was one of the fiercest battles in the Pacific war. The Japanese counter attacked with tanks and after they were destroyed the Americans launched a daring exposed charge across the open airfield which the Japanese had the airfield pre zeroed with Machine guns and Artillery and mortar fire. The crossing of the airfield saw an immense amount of casualties sustained, amounting to 900 Americans. It was a bloody day
@pistonar4 жыл бұрын
M4 Sherman. The Tiger of the Pacific.
@wildanalbani36214 жыл бұрын
M4 Sherman, the noob of the europe😂
@jpjp2804 жыл бұрын
Lmao dude u made my day when u said tiger....tfhoh
Yeah, but the Shermans didn't break down so often.
@Warmaker014 жыл бұрын
The Imperial Japanese Army were pretty enthusiastic with adopting tanks. The problem for their armor development, was that Japan, as with any other country, had limited resources. The army had to put other priorities and armor development stagnated. Do recall that Japan had been mired for years of warfare in mainland China, as they invaded in 1937 and bought off more than they could chew. The IJA had newer medium tanks also. "Why didn't the Japanese have bigger, better, heavier tanks?" Because when you look at the enemies Japan expected to fight in Asia, i.e. China, there was no need to have some massive super heavy tank. In addition, what good is something as big, clumsy, heavy as a Tiger going to do in the Pacific Islands, Southeast Asia, Burma where there's nothing but hills, jungle, dense terrain? Not to mention such machines need a lot of maintenance and good logistics, something that Japan did horrible in throughout WWII. Japan had big problems maintaining and supporting their combat aircraft in far flung places, so heavy armor with complicated machinery were going to be even worse.
@luxeternity3 жыл бұрын
They put a lot of their metals for the navy. Do recall that IJA and IJN hates each other pretty much. Japanese imperial military was rife with political struggle
@Ranger18123 жыл бұрын
"bit off more than they could chew."
@datuhuginn50793 жыл бұрын
@@luxeternity and their Airforce which my grandfather who was eleven or thirteen at the time said swarmed the skies earlier in the war, outnumbering the American and Filipino planes 2:1. Southeast Asian ground battles are mostly infantry and artillery battles due to unsteady terrain. In the Art of War, you must fight where you are most advantageous.
@justvertigocauseihaveissue24922 жыл бұрын
Ho-Ri: am I a joke to you?
@Joshua_N-A2 жыл бұрын
The actions in Khalkin-Gol mostly against Soviet BT series. Then there's the Yamato-class.
@imandyhi76718 жыл бұрын
Am I the only one thinking "tier II versus tier V, terrible matchmaking"?
@henriquemarques78598 жыл бұрын
LUL
@ryancrossman68747 жыл бұрын
im andy hi Nope
@ryancrossman68747 жыл бұрын
im andy hi h Although I heard Wot fixed it
@justmerc16425 жыл бұрын
American bias
@constellation19865 жыл бұрын
Now it was Tier I vs. Tier V
@AmazingAce9 жыл бұрын
Everyone complains about how "bad" the Sherman was, but they never talk about how terrible Italian/Japanese tanks were.
@janflorovic58809 жыл бұрын
The Ha-Go tank in this video is a 1933 design, built to provide infantry support vs ill equipped Chinese. If you want to compare US tank to the Japanese one. Compared it to the Type 3 Chi-Nu which can acually penetrate the Tiger I and has more devastating post penetration effect
@AmazingAce9 жыл бұрын
Jan Florovic That vehicle never saw combat. The Sherman was uncontested.
@SuperDefender48 жыл бұрын
+Jan Florovic The Ha Go had more issues than being outdated. Many of the tanks during that time were known to be better than any tank made from Japan. Also Sherman's comparison with the Chi Nu? The Sherman wins. The Chi Nu has 50mm of flat armor in the front compared to the Sherman's 92mm of effective armor in the front. The side armor is weaker than the Sherman. The 75mm on the Chi Nu has nothing special. Its just a Japanese version of the Sherman's 76mm gun. The Sherman had a Gyro Stabilizer which helps it shoot while it moves. Also it was made of car parts. When it was knocked out in battle it could be repaired within 23 hours. The Chi Nu had none of those. Also you're wrong. Trying to penetrate the Tiger with the Chi Nu's 75 is almost impossible unless the crew gets super close to its front hull. Ofcourse the Tiger will spot the Chi Nu first and destroy it before it comes close enough to get a shot.
@janflorovic58808 жыл бұрын
+chan young Choi Type 3 75mm gun: Early APHE: 70mm at 1000m Type 1 Tokku Kou APHE: 100mm at 500m Thing is Panzer IV also had 50mm armour but it's fun was good and so was Type 3 75mm. Using the Tokku Kou shell, Shermans armour was nothing special. Btw only 75mm armed Shermans were deployed in Pacific. Anyways Germans would of done better if they built more panzer IV's that the over engineered tigers and panthers that took long to built and were more expensive. If Japan was able to built Chi-Nu's in the thousands then that's good enough tank. I mean Panzer IV was still relevant in 1945.
@janflorovic58808 жыл бұрын
+Jan Florovic gun*
@Hershey977712 жыл бұрын
My Great Grandfather fought with 1st Marines on Peleliu
@Davidpromaster4 жыл бұрын
Respect! Really cool!
@michdo234 жыл бұрын
Who cares.
@jayjayson96134 жыл бұрын
God Bless him.
@gar64gar34 жыл бұрын
Semper Fi!
@michdo234 жыл бұрын
@Johnson Tamati why? Who cares what his granddad did? It's irrelevant in the context of this video. How can you be proud of something that you yourself did not accomplish? It's called fishing for compliments - or in this case, upvotes. Funny how pissed of everyone in the US gets if you not reflexively apploud everyone mentioning someone in his wider family served. Like yourself. That's why stolen valor is such a big thing here like nowhere else in the world. How do you know his granddad serverd? Maybe he told you bullshit. And now you caps-shouted at a stranger on the internet because another stranger told you his granddad serverd. And you don't know both of us or our story. It's quite laughable, acutally.
@arisakadogs12 жыл бұрын
These are the most authentic looking Ha-Gos I've seen in movie making yet. Gotta wonder how they did that? I have photos of my Dad on Saipan with a knocked out Ha-Go. For all it's shortcomings I always thought it was a pretty cool tank. I have a WW2 publication covering Japanese armor and in it they praised lots of it's design features like self aligning bearings.
@KriegCommisar2 жыл бұрын
decent to pretty good cgi plus good use of general scene composition/layout that makes it less jarring.
@AudieHolland2 жыл бұрын
Whatever they use, real tanks, customized tanks or CGI... There's also some detail that's not just right. In the Band of Brothers episode, Crossroads I think, the hidden Tiger's turret moves way too quickly. These light Japanese tanks also seem to move too nimble (at times). At least its turret movements look ok.
@0341MarineInfantry12 жыл бұрын
The Japanese had a very good anti-tank gun the Type1 47mm. These guns were very effective against all US armor at fairly short ranges and made a very good anti-boat gun.
@williamjpellas03143 жыл бұрын
Yes, but the Type 1 was not fielded until 1945 IIRC. It was used in some numbers on Okinawa, where as you say it was effective. Okinawa was the first Pacific battle in which substantial numbers of Shermans were destroyed by Japanese antitank weapons. As a result, it was decided to rush some M-26 Pershing heavy tanks to the island, but Japanese resistance crumbled just as they arrived and so they didn't see combat on Okinawa. They would have been right in the thick of it if the landings in the Home Islands had gone off as planned.
@nogibertv48242 жыл бұрын
@@williamjpellas0314 and luckily they didnt. as the M26 is notoriously bad at mountainous and soft terrain like during the Korean war i think it is one of the reason for the development of the m46 the first Patton tank cuz of the deficiency of the M26. and the Centurion tank is much better in those condition.
@N3K05535 жыл бұрын
The tank seriously has no idea where it’s going
@insovietrussiavodka4 жыл бұрын
nope, the view on the Type 95 Ha-Go is terrible for any of the crew in it. Granted it is a 1930's tank where keeping moving can be considered a better defence than any armour. Speacialy when you only have 13mm of it.
@N3K05534 жыл бұрын
@@insovietrussiavodka and they use it to charge, smh
@insovietrussiavodka4 жыл бұрын
Indeed they are and it kept them alive for about a minut longer. It wasn't till the infantryman on the rear of the tank was killed there was no one to tell them where are the enemies and more importantly, where is the damn road. I base this on the idea it's an infantry light tank designed with a button installed on the rear, which let the commander know someone either wanted contact or wanted a ride. If you wanna see something truely incompenent tank warfare I highly recomment the tank sceen from the movie "My way" kzbin.info/www/bejne/nWTCnaJqf7FmorM Let's take some high speed BT-5 or 7 and slowly drive into formations of suicide bomber infantry.
@liltoaster73084 жыл бұрын
Given how the actual tank assault occured, they probably didn't know where to go. The Japanese tanks advanced too quickly and were disorganized.
@Maine_Railfan3 жыл бұрын
Sherman in the European theater: *Cant even penetrate the armor of German tanks* Sherman in the Pacific theater: I am fluent in 1,000 ways of kicking your ass.
@patrickmccrann9913 жыл бұрын
Sherman had no issue penetrating Mark III and IV. 76mm Sherman could penetrate Panther at normal combat ranges. Definitely problems with the Tiger until Pershing and M36 TD came along.
@bobsemple32683 жыл бұрын
@@patrickmccrann991 i think 76mm HVAP can penetrate the tiger frontal armor
@patrickmccrann9913 жыл бұрын
@@bobsemple3268 Possibly inside 500 yds for Tiger I, but absolutely not at any range for Tiger II.
All this talk about tigers. If the Japanese were building Tiger tanks, it would have been like... "Hey Sarge, during low tide we saw this weird looking turret sticking out of the sand"
@ulissedazante57483 жыл бұрын
Actually, Japanese had tigers. A group of Japanese tankers went to Germany to train on tigers, while the two government had talks about producing under license the heavy tank in Japan. It went into nothing, but in one moment during the war there are tiger tanks property of the Imperial Army with Japanese insigna and crew. In the middle of Europe.
@KoeSeer3 жыл бұрын
they actually did once. It was cancelled after they learn the cost of delivering Tiger from German to Japan cost them twice than the original price German propose.
@archravenineteenseventeen3 жыл бұрын
Idiots didn't befriend china which was a pure nationalist that will kill communists and already a partner of germany. If Japan, china and Germany were allies during ww2 then this will be a different story
@sirboomsalot49027 жыл бұрын
The Ha-Go wasn't a bad tank at all, best tank in 1935 when they were built, but they had to soldier on until the end, when they were 10 years old. But the Japanese knew how to use them, and they had a lot of them. They were simply obsolete
@cobracurse9 жыл бұрын
Unlike what some commentators here are saying, this is NOT "propaganda". The Japanese did indeed use tanks against American forces during the battle of Saipan. Most of them were destroyed by either American bazookas or American tank guns. And, the historical fact is that America really did win this battle. So, I really don't understand why some folks here are insisting this is "propaganda".
@glenbrugge74309 жыл бұрын
cobracurse I agree with you - I have read enough history to know that this did occur (anyone reading any of the books by the likes of Eugene Sledge etc. will know that this did occur). The reason the Japanese had sub-par tanks was not because they were bad designers, but the policy in place within the Japan Army was never modified after the invasion of China, although their border disputes with Russia should have made them think. The Japanese used tanks as infantry support vehicles in China, where they did very well, because the Chinese had very little in the way of armor. They were essentially fast moving artillery/machine gun platforms, for which a small light tank is well suited. The Japanese never adapted to meet the doctrine of armor vs. armor warfare as was experienced very early on in Europe by all sides. It was only towards the very end of the war that they did build something that might be comparable to a Sherman - but it was too little to late.
@hellomon1009 жыл бұрын
+Ulfrik Vlademirsson (Ulfrik inn Allharðr) the Ha-Go had a 37mm ^^ a 47mm could damage a Sherman side on. ^^
@1IbramGaunt9 жыл бұрын
+Ulfrik Vlademirsson (Ulfrik inn Allharðr) The Chi-Nu was the one kept in defence of the home islands and , like the man said never saw combat as a result; the best actually to see action were type 97 Chi-Ha's, basically the same but mostly armed with a low-velocity 57mm (good against infantry and buildings but nearly useless against tanks) and a handful with better-velocity 47mm's. There were also a variety of SPG's of various kinds dotted about in small numbers that could be considered tank destroyers at a pinch
@janflorovic588010 жыл бұрын
The Ha-Go, 1934-1936 tank I believe, very outdated but very cheap, used as infantry support light tank.
@jamieolberding77315 жыл бұрын
The Type 95 Ha-Gō was a light tank used by the Empire of Japan during the Second Sino-Japanese War, at Nomonhan against the Soviet Union, and in the Second World War. It proved sufficient against infantry but, like the American M3 Stuart light tank, was not designed to combat other tanks such as the famous American M4A2 Sherman Medium Tank. Approximately 2,300 Type 95's were produced, making it the most numerous Japanese armoured fighting vehicle of the Second World War.
@donlove37414 жыл бұрын
Say it ain't so
@seanbryan48333 жыл бұрын
They worked great against infantry that didn't have good anti-tank capabilities. A unit of Ha-Gos made a breakthrough in Malaya that rolled up British Commonwealth forces to a considerable depth. Two of them were landed at Milne Bay where they overran the Australian infantry who had only sticky bombs that wouldn't stick because of the humidity. They probably could have done a lot more in that battle if they hadn't sunk in the mud and been abandoned.
@cbrvo84403 жыл бұрын
Japan Army and Navy fought WW2 continuously for 8 years, starting in China.
@lousarmento11274 жыл бұрын
Have never been in combat - after watching this , thank God I never was - have the highest respect for those who were - not difficult to understand that those who do return are forever changed.
@ered2033 жыл бұрын
I imagine the first time the Japanese tankers saw a Sherman they felt pretty much the same as the American tankers did when they saw the Tigers.
@davidhimmelsbach5573 жыл бұрын
American tankers almost never faced Tigers -- they just thought that they did. Adolf kept sending his tigers against the British... and Soviets. US GIs always conflated the Mark IV panzer with the Mark VI panzer. Even the common Mark IV could shoot up an M-4 Sherman tank.
@ered2033 жыл бұрын
@@davidhimmelsbach557 Fair enough.
@davidhimmelsbach5573 жыл бұрын
@@ered203 Adolf fought against the British during WWI. He always rated the British to be, man-for-man, his ultimate enemy. (His generals didn't feel that way.) His deep opinion is why, time and again, Adolf kept sending his best stuff against the British: V-1; V-2; jagpanther, king tiger, 1SS Panzer Corps, and so forth. The British were constantly facing cutting edge Nazi weapons -- and often the only nation to do so. (V-1s) The Bulge offensive was aimed at destroying the 2nd British Army and the 21st Army Group. Adolf thought that such a feat would be enough to swing the Western Front his way. This was pretty strange thinking because by November 1944, the Americans were by far the bigger threat. Until The Bulge, the US Army simply did not fight the first string Nazi divisions -- with but a few exceptions. This historical reality drives Canadians and Brits rather crazy -- seventy-five-years after Normandy. Patton punched through precisely because the Nazi A-team was facing Monty. Monty never picked up on the fact that their defense proved that his narrow-front strategic scheme could never work. Caen WAS a narrow front drive, and it never got in to first gear. Adolf could always cork off a narrow front attack. This is something that Ike and Zhukov figured out -- pretty early on.
@voctur3 жыл бұрын
There is a video about that kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z3-mZ5iCiJiLnqc
@ered2033 жыл бұрын
@@voctur good one.
@silky94213 жыл бұрын
*Sees tank barrel aim. “Let’s all stand here and just look at it for a few seconds.”
@shironeko49423 жыл бұрын
Average movie lmao
@lightbulbs59518 жыл бұрын
I watched this at full volume with headphones for maximum realism, it was earrape, but hey, I'd imagine that's what it sounded like on the battlefield
@zandarzandarevic54666 жыл бұрын
This aint the best sound quality bro
@meatball89925 жыл бұрын
Only much worse
@georgesakellaropoulos81625 жыл бұрын
Battle is anal ear rape. And I don't want to hear any aural sex jokes.
@benlaskowski3574 жыл бұрын
Um, yeah.
@redussmith80664 жыл бұрын
Oh hell yea I bet they came home half or fully deaf after all that
@warpatato3 жыл бұрын
That's some impressive mortar shooting. They zeroed their target on the first round and they tracked its movement perfectly on the following rounds.
@mightymichael25013 жыл бұрын
What is Sledge saying before each round is fired and why? It’s like he is shouting “hang it!” Or something like that…
@oldegrunt57353 жыл бұрын
@@mightymichael2501 hang it means drop it, mortar smurfs have the round ready to drop and then do so when told to.
@patriotliberator31602 жыл бұрын
@@oldegrunt5735 hang it or half load means to place the round into the opening of the mortar not drop it
@gerryleb85754 жыл бұрын
In the late 30s George Marshall made some decisions that greatly contributed to America's success in fighting a global war. One decision was committing to the Sherman. The Sherman was an adequate tank in all theaters we fought in, and of course was superior in the Pacific. We mass-produced them. It is true that we had trouble with the German tanks. But we had trouble with the Germans, period. They were highly experienced and had weapons a level above ours. One example is the quad 20 AA/infantry support gun you see at the end of Saving Private Ryan. Another are the various armored vehicles you see in the Carentan battle in Band of Brothers. Many of those weapons were improvised using captured Czech tank chassis. Anyway, this is a great war scene, and this is a great series.
@peterson70824 жыл бұрын
Level above?
@deadeyecpt.77653 жыл бұрын
@@peterson7082 as in if you were to take the 75 mm version of a sherman and put it 1 on 1 against the most commonly known German tank (tigers, panthers etc) the sherman would have trouble getting past their front armor or survive getting shot. The strenghts of the Sherman were the adaptability of the frame and how easy to produce it was, its design took advantage of the US industrial might, meaning it was faster to build, you could make many and you always had spare parts to fix it. The Germans had excellent vehicles on paper (if we look at guns and armor only) but didn't have the indistrial capacity needed to build them fast enough or have spare parts when needed. Also, once German engenieers started increasing the weight of the tanks mobility and reliability became a big issue. TLDR: US logistics were superior to German ones and the Sherman took advantage of that. Edit: lots of grammar mistakes in here, sorry.
@rhoadesjerry96963 жыл бұрын
SHERMAN COMMANDER: At last, a tank that doesn't take three of us to kill.
@sipioc4 жыл бұрын
When your Big Brother shows up to a street fight.
@Downtown903 жыл бұрын
The type 95 ha go was not designed for fighting tanks its for infantry support
@cbrvo84403 жыл бұрын
Over arching military strategy for Japan in WW2 was quick, aggressive war, take massive areas under their control, then defend against assault. Their light tanks fit into their overall idea of how they wanted to fight war.
@menadionnassertamtama3794 жыл бұрын
Sherman was considered big dog in the pacific theater
@campfiresnlasguns10 ай бұрын
Gotta admit. Regardless of how inferior the Ha-Go tank was, seeing one in real life was a treat. It's a kawaii little tank with rather thin armour, compared to other tanks, that still looked pretty badass.
@ヒジリカゲモリ5 жыл бұрын
中国戦線で戦ってたのに、海軍に太平洋戦争に引き込まれた陸軍可哀相。
@サヴァの味噌煮-b2o3 жыл бұрын
海軍もハ号とかチハとか持ってたけどね
@lilqueso81905 жыл бұрын
Japanese tank commander: talks shit Us marine:**laughs in m2**
@darkdill10 жыл бұрын
Comes from the HBO series "The Pacific", if I'm not mistaken.
@Kuhlfurst M3 is a scout tank. The high profile allow it to spot enemy over hills and other obstacles. It actually better than or equal to its German counterparts. Such as the Panzer I/II, both design as infantry support/scout armor. Panzer III was built to fight tanks and the Panzer IV, earlier model, was built solely for infantry support. It was not fast enough to be a scout.
@Coach3loli5 жыл бұрын
scrolls down *scrolls back up*
@kevinjohnson73005 жыл бұрын
Scrolled down til i saw your comment then scrolled back up lol
@Nutzkie2001 Жыл бұрын
That final hit on the corner of the bunker is flippin' BRUTAL! I think I saw some dude's head go flying fifty yards into the air!
@therookieanimations81172 жыл бұрын
I love how some of the comments here actually praise any tank even the ha go, It makes me happy as I honestly thought I was the only one who viewed the Ha Go as a tank that does its job for what it could do. Try not to give the poor Ha Go too much hate, after all it did its job for what it could do.
@764563 жыл бұрын
Ha-Go Ke-Go those were actually good for Japan, small tanks on Small islands, those smaller tanks could out manoeuvre shermans and Proved to be good on ambushs and surprise attacks on early tage of war in Pacific
@oldegrunt57353 жыл бұрын
M3 Stuarts ate their lunch repeatedly in the Philippine campaign in 42 in any sort of fight. Faster, better armed, and slightly better armored but almost always better supported and led. The Japanese quickly lost any illusion their armor had much of a chance against Western/Soviet armor and should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. Maneuver and swarms of determined infantry tank killer teams was their tactic of choice in such situations.
@royalhistorian51099 ай бұрын
They were good at the time of their introduction but as time moved on, it's became quickly outclassed and they couldn't be replaced due to...well multiple reasons with the most notable being pity rivalry, lack of resources, etc. Also, you do realize they match the Sherman in terms of speed...right?
@miafillene43964 жыл бұрын
The Japanese tanks were not very tough or fast or even that mechanically reliable...but imagine the heart of the Japanese tankers who had Togo up against Stuart's, Lee's and of course, the Sherman's.
@isaiahgrey24582 жыл бұрын
Pun noted.
@patrickmccrann9912 жыл бұрын
No Lee/Grants in the Pacific. Only place they saw combat service was in North Africa in late 42 early 43.
@Seriona1 Жыл бұрын
@@patrickmccrann991 Nope. The M3 Lee did see limited combat in Asia. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M3_Lee
@patrickmccrann991 Жыл бұрын
@@Seriona1 I was referring to use by U.S. forces. None were used by U.S. Army or Marines in the Pacific.
@Seriona1 Жыл бұрын
@@patrickmccrann991 Again, wrong.
@緑茶-l1r5 жыл бұрын
おおおお! 映画で動いてる95式軽戦車とか、初めて見た! すぐやられたけど・・・。
@harukaze45454 жыл бұрын
対歩兵戦車だしまあ無理。゚(゚´ω`゚)゚。
@tianx92754 жыл бұрын
That's why tank is the key player on the battlefield in WW2. Without some sort of Anti-tank weapon, they can basically roll over infantry like nothing. Nowadays, with the dominance of air power, not so much.
@Darqshadow3 жыл бұрын
Yes and no. You still need boots on the ground to hold territory. Those boots need armored vehicles because the enemy boots has them. Both sides have AA and both sides have Anti Tank. That's why combined warfare exists.
@antonsheridan72933 жыл бұрын
The same small Ha Go was able to move in rough terrain during Malayan invasion which lead to British lost of the whole mainland till Singapore
Mortar does a great job of cutting up the infantry!
@john6550025 жыл бұрын
0:06 that is a japanese type 97 tank machine gun ,shooting on top of building
@dirtyshame24444 жыл бұрын
I saw an old Japanese tank at Nimitz museum in Fredricksburg, Tx many years ago. It was shot all over with rifle fire and a big hole blown in it's side.
@roberthaworth89913 жыл бұрын
So, it was competing to be an Italian M-13/40?
@davy14582 жыл бұрын
Type 95....so this is what it feels like to be combat inaffective and burning coffin for men to die in.
@Wフェン4 жыл бұрын
弱いと言われていた日本の戦車でも歩兵にとってはやっぱり脅威だよな…
@keithbarrett46303 жыл бұрын
Had the pleasure to meet and talk to RV Burgin a few years ago. Still have his signed book.
@jblanas11 жыл бұрын
And I can't even imagine if that was a M26 Pershing instead of an M4 Sherman
@BHuang9210 жыл бұрын
It would've if the Invasion of Japan was realized........
@rb11795 жыл бұрын
The Pershing saw service in Europe and there's a great video of an encounter with a Panther in downtown Cologne.
@bavtie15 жыл бұрын
Literally the same result, just overkill. And the Pershing was way too heavy and big for this terrain, a Sherman just works better
@thesturm86865 жыл бұрын
It would went straight trough Or obliterate that thing out of existance
@dexterramos18264 жыл бұрын
Pershing would be stuck in the mud before it gets to main battle area
@weirdshibainu4 жыл бұрын
Japan's major flaw was thinking that the spirit of Bushido would triumph over technology. The results speak for themselves.
@archravenineteenseventeen3 жыл бұрын
Their bullshit to sucks
@gamerhistorian78438 жыл бұрын
Coming soon to WarThunder
@mikesmith-wk7vy Жыл бұрын
training videos from ww2 taught soldiers how to disable a Japanese tank with a 30-06 round , you could knock the rear spoke off the track with well placed rifle rounds
@marine958812 жыл бұрын
Actually the Tiger and even the King Tiger were quite agile for such a large heavy tank when running properly. Because of their wide tracks, they presented a low ground pressure and could fare against soft ground pretty good. But they were slow and very fuel thirsty and stood no chance against Allied air support.
@石川一郎-m7v3 жыл бұрын
ん
@jc1200u13 жыл бұрын
@CitizenJohnSmith This is from the miniseries "The Pacific" which has at least ten 1-hour episodes. If you watch the miniseries you will see many American and Japanese soldiers getting killed and maimed...It is really bloody and horrible to watch at times. You cannot judge the miniseries by just watching 2 minutes of just one episode. The miniseries is based on the two memoirs of U.S. Marines Eugene Sledge and Robert Leckie.
@santimartinez18545 жыл бұрын
*gets aimed by tank* Rami Malek: -MAMMA MIA MAMMA MIA
@LaSenioraKittehz Жыл бұрын
everytime i find a low tier japanese tank in my sherman in any world of tanks private lobbies it always ends like that lmao.
@ManTheHarpoons913 жыл бұрын
OH YOU BEAUTIFUL BABIES!
@jameszhao64794 жыл бұрын
BOB Episode 3
@patrioticjustice90402 жыл бұрын
Love how the mortars keep missing the tank, but keep hitting the groups of soldiers on either side. There goes your arms. There goes your legs. There goes your daughter to the orphanage.
@ウォーダディー軍曹5 жыл бұрын
日本との戦いでもドイツとの戦いでも必ず米兵は倒されない矛盾(´・c_・`)
@DavidDragonetti7 ай бұрын
What they've done with Pacific and Band of Brothers is highlight the Americans being heroic. Pleases the US public but is heavily biased
@paulheenan90984 жыл бұрын
In reality, you didn't need a tank or even heavy weapons to defeat the Type 95 due to how badly designed it was. - It was so lightly armoured that armour piercing shells passed right through it without exploding (which led to Shermans continually firing at them due to the perceived lack of damage) and a 50 cal M2 just shredded it apart. - An infantryman could easily disable the tank with a well placed shot to the rear of the crudely built tread assembly. - The tank had massive blind spots and could really only see what was directly in front of it. Its very narrow viewing ports could be suppressed with machine gun fire and the hand cranked turret could be jammed by placing a sturdy enough object into the gap between the turret and the hull. - It was much, much slower than American tanks. The M3 could easily outrun it and the M4 could comfortably keep pace with it. As such, they were often outflanked since it was impossible for them to retreat in battle. - Its blind spots made it easy for enemies to literally just walk up to the tank and either fire into its lightly armoured engine or drop a grenade into its easily uncovered oil cylinder.
@AllGamingStarred3 жыл бұрын
then how come it requires 2 bazooka shells in cod waw?
@royalhistorian51093 жыл бұрын
@@AllGamingStarred That because...it's a video game? With a bunch of nonsense like have you seen Veteran difficult with it's grenade spam?
@AllGamingStarred3 жыл бұрын
@@royalhistorian5109 no, that argument falls flat in the face of real world logic. "it's a game" is no excuse when real world events (WWII in this case) are presented in videogame form. There has to be some form of accuracy.
@royalhistorian51093 жыл бұрын
@@AllGamingStarred Are you serious? Can you tell the difference between real life and a video game? Also, you forgot that COD world at war used real footage...real footage to put together their own story and it works because it helps the viewer connect with the actual war and make them become interested in history. They did the same thing with Black Ops 1 and Cold War so...you completely forgot about that. Like, dude...do your own research before you post something stupid it's not that hard.
@AllGamingStarred2 жыл бұрын
And yet in World at War, these things massacre a platoon of shermans? HA!
@nickhanlon93314 жыл бұрын
10 years ago in Bangkok the protestors put up barricades. The Thai army brought in some 50 year old M-60 Pattons. Rolled through them like they weren't there.Any tank is completely devastating against infantry if they don;t have the means to stop it.
@Rammstein096311 жыл бұрын
The Pacific, its basically the pacific theater version of Band of Brothers
@AnakinSkywakka5 жыл бұрын
Eh, I prefer the Pacific. BoB is amazing but I find the Pacific Theater in general to be more interesting. It's often over looked by the European Front.
@Anlushac1110 жыл бұрын
IIRC main use of tanks in Pacific was at Battle of Saipan. Japanese actually launched a tank centered counter attack. It was repulsed with heavy casualties to Japanese.
@rickwong90493 жыл бұрын
Imagine a Phersing tank showing up as well. It would be an absolutely mass a cre.
@SmokinLoon51503 жыл бұрын
No... the M4 Sherman's 75mm was a better infantry support tank than the Pershing. No question. The 75mm HE was superb in its role, had a fast rate of fire as well. The TWO .30 cal MG's (turret and front hull) had thousands of rounds of ammo, and if needed the .50 cal Browning on top could be brought to bear as well. Oh, and the M4 Sherman's 75mm had an AP round plenty enough to deal with Japanese armor too. Bring in the logistics equation of having the added weight of the Pershing in a sandy or soft jungle atmosphere, the extra effort needed to get the added size and weight to shore, the cost of the Pershing... and I think the M4 Sherman and the M3 Stuart did extremely well and both suited the was in the Pacific better than the Pershing. Sure, the Pershing could take enemy AT rounds better, but against the Japanese that was a moot point. Now, on the more open ranges of Europe and maybe even the Ost Front of 1946... oh yeah, bring in the Pershing without question. ;)
@seanbryan48333 жыл бұрын
@@SmokinLoon5150 US tankers found that AP rounds sliced straight through Ha-Gos. HE rounds worked much better, as they would just blow them apart, as shown in this clip.
@barriewright28574 жыл бұрын
Don't forget this film will never be able to really give us the real sensation of real war that these brave men had to endure during ww2.
@kzual8345 Жыл бұрын
Film name please?
@afg36433 жыл бұрын
the "greatest" generation (of which my father was inclusive of) may they soles rest in heaven, be heard on earth and be a leader in "both" in defense of our nation and our national security...
@ZuluLifesaBeech-3 жыл бұрын
Now the smart guys in the Marine Brass don't think they need tanks anymore. There are a lot of mad Devil Dog Tankers!
@Ranillon13 жыл бұрын
@ThePerfectRed You obviously didn't watch the entire mini series. There were plenty of Americans shown to die. The Pacific was perhaps the most unglorified and realisitic view of the war ever.
@newzealandallblacks37263 жыл бұрын
Japanese tanks were designed to be small light infantry support weapons and never really designed to go head to head with medium/heavy tanks. A comment that the Sherman finally got to feel like a Tiger is spot on. Any Japanese tank trying to get it on the Sherman was just more ritualistic suicide.
@Cheezymuffin.4 жыл бұрын
there was a interesting design flaw in the Ha-Go, due to the turret shape and placement, if was possible to jam a bajoney into the turretring, jamming the turret and basically disabeling the tank with a knife. I do not know if it happened, but a brit took out a german armored car using an umbrella. So it isn't that far fetched.
@r2gelfand4 жыл бұрын
The Sherman's 75 mm vs Tiger tank equals ricochet. The Sherman versus a Japanese ha go is total Destruction.
@kstreet74384 жыл бұрын
Turns out shipping tanks isn't an easy thing.
@charly345mstl11 жыл бұрын
it's sad that the most strongest tank of whole Japanese army was captured American tank; ;
@bbhiei87568 жыл бұрын
Tipical stupid asswho thinks Japanese only had light tanks, go check out Ho-Ni tank destroyers, chi-to, chi-ri and chi-nu. Then stfu.
@SuperDefender48 жыл бұрын
The Chi Nu was absolutely pathetic. Its best armor was only the 50mm of effective armor in the front. Its top speed was only 39km/h which was pretty much abysmal for the its weight. The heavier Sherman and the T-34 could reach 45-50km/h. The only thing good about the Chi Nu was its gun The Chi To and Chi Ri had a good gun and mobility. But they were not well protected. For some reason the Japanese had 0 interest on using sloped armor. It had 75mm of armor in the front but it wasn't sloped which made it less protected than the Sherman's 92mm of effective armor. Also due to their huge size they were easy for the enemies to spot.
@charly345mstl8 жыл бұрын
chan young Choi i'm not sure whether your knowledge relies on WoT or not, but actually Chi-Nu never has transferred to oversea, due to the poor infrastructure of Japan at that time. Railway, gantry crane at ports, transport ships and all other infrastructures couldn't have afford to carry heavy weaponry such as M4 or T-34 sized tanks, but very small tanks such as Chi-Ha, Chi-He, and artillery. The reason why they kept building paper-thin armored weaponry, was because of lack of technology to build strong horse power engines like US, USSR, and Germany. Due to the lack of gasoline, Japanese imperial Army ordered to build self propelled weaponry with diesel engine, since the diesel fuel is a bit easier to get and more safer than gasoline, though the diesel technology was not as good as USSR. as a result, they got weak horse powered diesel engine with bigger mass than that of gasoline engine. since the engine is bigger, the total size of machine should become bigger, but since the horse power of engine is weak, the thickness of armor should be thin. well, i don't know why japanese army didn't build sloped armored vehicle. just as a blue print vehicle, "Type 5 experimental tank destroyer" has sloped armor and it was being developed, but the war had been ended while the first prototype was under constructing. Therefore, the strongest tank of Japanese Imperial Army, was M 3 Stuart, ironically:( this is a sad moment to talk about japanese tanks for me.
@SuperDefender48 жыл бұрын
charly345mstlneo In which part did I say that the Chi Nu was transferred? All I said was that the Chi Nu sucked. Yes I know that Japan lacked on resources. That does not make the Chi Nu a good tank. This BB Hiei guy just posted out the tanks Japan had which were clearly garbage compared to the tanks the Allies had.
@blazeburner3036 жыл бұрын
the chi-nu had the same effective armor as the sherman....shermans used soft steel with made it inherently weaker to most shell types
@rexfrommn33164 жыл бұрын
One of the criticisms of the United States Army and Marines was EACH infantry battalion should have had three or four M4 half tracks with 75mm guns on them. Plus every infantry battalion should have had a squad of Stuart light tanks and M3 Grant or M4 Sherman medium tanks. These tanks about eight or ten plus three to four halftracks with 75mm guns would have given the battalion commander more mobile firepower to deal with all kinds of threats. I would rather have many more tank battalions attached to EVERY infantry division and have far fewer armor divisiions. Infantry and armor work together like bread on butter with artillery clearing a path for both whether on defense or offense.
@nate_tmas8 жыл бұрын
WoT Matchmaking.. Ha-Go vs Sherman derp... GG no ree..
@ryancrossman68747 жыл бұрын
Nathan Antonio I relate
@benlaskowski3574 жыл бұрын
Does this look like an on-line game, you ballbag? Imagine being in FRONT of that tank. God help you.
@argyrendehringterimksaccu1743 жыл бұрын
@@benlaskowski357 u forgot the is heavy as much derp as the turtleback us heavy by the cursed by designs series here in yt
@argyrendehringterimksaccu1743 жыл бұрын
Also beria etc
@benlaskowski3573 жыл бұрын
@@argyrendehringterimksaccu174 ?
@SliqhtlyStoopid13 жыл бұрын
its good to see people having actual debates in the comments and not flame wars
@lukasi.v42695 жыл бұрын
I know you came here because that scene resembles a lot of that level in COD: World At War.
@thesturm86865 жыл бұрын
Yeah, the airfield
@bman60655 жыл бұрын
Ah the only tank you could disable by shoving a sword in the turret
@WelcomeToDERPLAND8 жыл бұрын
Type 95 could literally be taken out with small arms fire...
@Kwisss8 жыл бұрын
Yeah but honestly if the Japanese fought primarily in non-island environments then they may have made tanks in a heavy setup like the Tiger but these tanks were only to support infantry.
@bbhiei87568 жыл бұрын
Small arms fire? Damn no. Heavy portable guns, but no small.
@WelcomeToDERPLAND8 жыл бұрын
50 cals and probably sniper rifles probably could, plus there was a huge weakspot on the back of the tank, the engine compartment was only covered by basically wire, so you could just fire a Thompson machine into that and it would take the engine out and possibly start a fire.
@dividednations448 жыл бұрын
there is not a single recorded event where any Japanese tank was KOed by small arms fire.
@snowbud1312 жыл бұрын
If I'm not mistaken, the army manuals stated that it took 5 shermans to take on a single tiger. The reason the shermans proved so well against the Germans was because they could be produced quickly and cheaply, compared to the tigers.
The Type 95 was good in jungle trails of the Philippines. It was equivalent to the American Stewart tank.
@flamewarrior0811 жыл бұрын
its a mini series called "The Pacific"
@simontide67803 жыл бұрын
Shermans are underrated tanks. Despite its flaws, it went against tigers and panzers.
@AFT_05G2 жыл бұрын
Shermans definitely aren’t underrated,for the most part they get the praise they deserve.In 1v1 not much chance to beat a Tiger or Panther but they were very reliable,easy to maintain and easy to produce.Plus Sherman had so many different variants,it could be used as a both infantry support tank(M4/75) and breakthrough tank(M4/76s).
@user-Yukayukarin4 жыл бұрын
小銃なんて撃ったら穴あいちゃうだろ!
@matthias6912011 жыл бұрын
2.) The V2 was not just an unguided missile. Unprecise rockets for fireworks had already been invented by the chinese thousands of years ago. The V2 was the first missile, which was was more or less precise on far distance, which was totally unique at that time. Other rockets went a few miles at most, this one flew hundreds of miles to England. The revolutionary technique was immediately adapted by the US after the war and brought to the US, and it´s being used until today in all US missiles.