Was the M4 Sherman The TOP WW2 Tank? | James Holland and Al Murray Weigh In

[@WW2WalkingTheGround]

If you are enjoying walking the ground of Operation Market Garden with Jim and Al, please do like the videos and subscribe to the channel to show your support. Growing our KZbin community will enable us to walk more ground and make more films. Thank you for watching!

[@guarmiron5557]

I followed XXX Corps route in '93. Then I visited Arnhem. It was amazing because the Dutch Orange had just beat the Germans at soccer (football). There was a spontaneous 2 day street party. The Dutch treat Canadian soldiers very well. Just an aside: I knew Radley-Walters well. Rad didn't have a great opinion of the Sherman. He had 3 of them knocked out from under him. In one incident he was blown right out of the hatch and lost his driver (his house had burned down and I had a drink with him in Ottawa. He was very sad because of the pictures he had lost and was particularly sad to have lost his pictures of that driver). Rad had a particularly low opinion of the Ram and for that reason he was happy with Shermans.

[@Paul-hh7bx]

Loving your videos thank you. My late father-in-law was a driver/mechanic in a 75mm Sherman M4A4 tank with the Grenadier Guards, 2nd Bn, Guards Armoured Division, late 1944, when he was 18yrs old, to war’s end, followed by occupation forces in Germany until 1951. Would very rarely talk about his experiences, only time he spoke at length was on a joint visit to the Bovington Museum in the 1980s, where he stated he undertook a lot of his training. Next to the exact type of type of Sherman he drove was a bank of 5 Chrysler engines. Recall he stated during training he was shown into a large building where there was a huge heap of the 5 engines completely stripped down and he was given a strict time limit to rebuild all 5. Sadly he passed away in the early 2000s, I’m currently researching family history so if someone could point me in the direction to obtain his service record I would be very obliged.

[@simonclark9367]

If you Google service records there’s a link you can the MOD, where you can apply for service records if you’re next of kin. I’m planning on doing it for my grandad when I’ve got some time. I believe it can take a while though.

[@Paul-hh7bx]

@@simonclark9367 Thanks Simon I'll give it a try

[@simonclark9367]

@ good luck 👍🏻

[@Thunderer0872]

To quote a line from Band of Brothers from Webster "Say hello to Ford & General E'fin Motors!"

[@russgrant512]

It is overwhelming obvious that you both love your chosen subjects. Thank you for passing on your knowledge. Sometimes, the details that may be obvious to yourselves are an eye opener to us mere mortals. Keep going! Your audience demands more. 😊

[@jsplicer9]

I think the M4 is technically the third most produced tank ever. Second is the T-54/T-55 with 96,500 - 100,000+ estimated being built across all variants and multiple countries

[@davidcook7887]

Rubber: Major Dick Winters said the US rubber boots were fantastic. A platoon could walk along a road silently. You could hear the British “ a mile away”.

[@wbertie2604]

That was a function of a decision made about the likely availability of rubber. Rubber soled boots were proposed during trials leading up to the adoption of battle dress (the loser looked more like modern uniforms) but IIRC, were rejected as it would need a lot of rubber and resoling compared to hobnail boots. In trench or open country fighting, hobnails also offer better traction unless you have lots of rubber to build deep treads and are no noisier. Where the USA options really win out are weight and the more supportive gaiters.

[@wbertie2604]

There were actual rubber boots issued by the USA, technically to go over existing boots, as well as some by at least Canada. The US boots are excellent for going on a tank as they are "sticky" and won't damage the tank's paint.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

British Reverse Lend Lease actually supplied America with rubber from its colonies.

[@allanburt5250]

Excellent guys I totally agree. As ex Royal Armoured Corp, a reliable, easy to maintain and replace items, reasonably comfortable, tried and tested waggon, gets the vote every time. To Fight in an armoured vehicle is not just, drive and fire a big gun.

[@billballbuster7186]

I doubt you were around to fight in a Sherman against a Tiger that can blow you out of existence at over 2,000 meters. While you have to get close in and try and hit the side armour, praying it doesnt see you.

[@allanburt5250]

@billballbuster7186 your absolutely correct, what's your experience of armoured vehicles outside of books and watching youtube? I think I can guess

[@billballbuster7186]

@@allanburt5250 Always had a fascination for tanks. I seved in 19 Tk,Tpr Sqn in Bulford and was trained on Centurion, Chieftain and the Scorpion series. In recent years I research tank history for Asian Plastic Model kit Manufacturers - Tamiya, Atsuka, Bronco, Gecko and Riiche.

[@jandoernte3312]

The Russians- who fought the Germans for 4 years- called it a "coffin for 5 brothers".

[@billballbuster7186]

@@jandoernte3312 The Russians didn't like it, though there are some fake Sherman fan boy comments that say they did.

[@seanbradley2134]

I’ve never heard anyone wax lyrical and so fascinatingly about a tank gents. Is there anything you don’t know about the war? Another cracking episode. Makes you realise how important the battle for the Atlantic was in terms of shipping the numbers of the things over. Loved it as usual

[@WW2WalkingTheGround]

Thank you kindly! And thank you for watching.

[@wessexdruid7598]

Clearly you've never watched any of the Tank Museum's shorts and vids... 😃

[@seanbradley2134]

@ 😂😂I know, I haven’t lived

[@wessexdruid7598]

@@seanbradley2134 And with a name like Bradley....

[@seanbradley2134]

@@wessexdruid7598 yeah I know. Hopefully this podcast will keep plugging holes of my ignorance

[@seanyoung8085]

You blokes are absolutely awesome! I could watch you both talking WW2 for days. Would so love to do a battlefield tour with you both. Keep up the good work.

[@WW2WalkingTheGround]

Thanks Sean.

[@jeffpowers8526]

Anyone looking to dig in more on the Sherman would do well to look up Chieftain’s videos on the development of the M4 and his “Myths of American” armor is fantastic. As far as books go Steven Zaloga’s Armored Thunderbolt is a wealth of knowledge on the M4. Highly recommend.

[@brianford8493]

We always forget that they were ALL a target.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

@@jeffpowers8526 His presentation is flawed in places and even incorrect in others.

[@billballbuster7186]

The "Chieftain" never crewed a Sherman, and as a WoT influencer, plays fast and loose with the truth. Put it this way 5 Tigers against 5 Shermans who would you put your mony on?

[@drewschumann1]

​@@lyndoncmp5751Oooh, do tell.

[@drewschumann1]

​@@billballbuster7186 Yeah nah. Tigers aren't all that and a bag of chips.

[@user-mc4sq3fk5d]

Nice to see some love thrown at the Sherman. You guys had a very good point people too often don’t even consider. All of the equipment from America had to be shipped to Europe AND the Pacific. The Germans did not have this issue. This is also part of the reason the Japanese used smaller tanks. Comparing the overall requirements for the US in both theaters against the Germans is comparing apples to potatoes.

[@CGM_68]

Funny you should mention potatoes; in Austria, Switzerland, and even parts of Bavaria, potatoes are more popularly referred to as "Erdapfel" (literally, "Earth apple"). This word has the same root as the French “pomme de terre” (apple of the Earth) and the Dutch “aardappel”, with all three originating from the Latin malum terrae.

[@CGM_68]

Germany hadn't even considered American or Soviet production capacity in the run up to WWII. They were also over optimistic about their own capacity to churn out vehicles, and struggled to replace vehicle losses all through the war.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

@@user-mc4sq3fk5d Conversely, America didn't have the issue of having it's infrastructure and industry bombed or overrun like in Europe.

[@slimeyslug50]

I’m so glad I found this series.

[@marcppparis]

Panther designed by a tank commander used to short engagements assuming ample support and time for maintenance. Sherman seriously considered the input from a logistician

[@tadsalyards]

The namesake of the tank was a masterful logistician. It makes good sense :)

[@A.J.K87]

Brilliant stuff again lads. The Americans did eventually make a loader's hatch in later variants of the Sherman and issued kits to have them retroactively fitted to Shermans already in theatre.

[@MisterFastbucks]

The fact that we built nearly 50,000 of those in the American midwest and shipped them all over the globe just floors me to this day. What a logistical flex that was!

[@pete1942]

There’s some great film footage of M3 and M4 factory production on KZbin. The efficiency of the production lines is pretty amazing. Even more so when you consider how quickly those lines were spun up.

[@papaaaaaaa2625]

Hi mate. My Grandfather fought at the end of WW2 and surrendered near Aachen. He once told us that he and his friends heared tons and tons of stories of fabulous German tanks and about new Wunderwaffen. The propaganda, the officers...stories, stories, stories. He always said then they realized that "hearing" about new, superior weapons mean nothing when you can see allied tanks EVERYWHERE, but you can't see your own. He surrendered with 5 of his mates. And what his buffled him the most was what he saw after that. They where brought to a prisoner camp...and they got a ice cream while stopping on the way. The weeks prior he only had thin soup and moldy bread.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

@@MisterFastbucks It helped that America didn't have its industrial infrastructure bombed or overrun like in Europe.

[@MisterFastbucks]

You're right. But if it HAD been bombed that would mean it was closer to the front line. Without the logistical challenge of moving a tank 10,000 miles, would you even build the Sherman? Or would you go straight to the M7 or Pershing or something that could be thrown straight into battle? There's a lot to consider here.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

@@MisterFastbucks Well, the thing is, the Sherman was designed and built when Germany had the Panzer III and IV (25 tons or less) so building a bigger tank was not really on the cards until later and by then American manufacturing was already geared up to mass producing the Sherman.

[@nickdanger3802]

Ronson The only problem with the Ronson nickname is the explanation that this was due to the slogan “lights first every time.” The issue is that this slogan appears in almost no surviving print ads, and not in any ads from the period right before or during the war. The most common slogan used in print ads for the Ronson is “The World’s Greatest Lighter.” To a leaser extent, the slogan “Flip… It’s Lit… Release… It’s Out” or “Press… It’s Lit… Release… It’s Out” appears regularly. Nowhere does the slogan “lights first every time” appear, except in a single ad from 1929 which states “Lights every time.” Tank and AFV News From the Editor: Lights First Every Time?

[@lyndoncmp5751]

There was already a slogan for the Ronson lighting quickly BEFORE WW2.

[@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935]

The morons quoting ‘the fork tailed devil’ and ‘the whispering death’ don’t quote their sources unless it’s another moron.

[@PaulDouglasDouglas97]

Really enjoyed the video mate that's my favourite tank

[@PeterSingh-qe8cc]

A few other factors. The US could have built a more formidable tank, but opted for the Sherman. 1. At 2.62m width, the Sherman was narrow enough to use a wider range of European bridges and streets than larger tanks. So more employable. The Panther was 20% wider. 2. At about 35 tons, the Sherman’s weight matched the capacity of existing ship davits. A heavier tank would would require replacing some 4,500 ship davits, and that would have delayed Overlord. So more compatible for strategic deployment. 3. I agree with your points on field servicing and maintenance. This analysis must always a relative to the German armoured fleet. 4. Likewise speed. The Sherman’s on-road and off-road speed was TWICE that of the Panzer IV.Twice! 5. Utility. Often people ask if a Sherman tank could match a Panzer IV or V. But one-on-one is not combined arms fighting. It’s more about getting the most firepower to the right place at the right time, and then responding rapidly as tactical victory or setback. The Sherman tank radios were cutting edge technology and far ahead of the German counterparts. They allowed greater responsiveness to tactical problems in the heat of battle. If a Sherman was disabled, the top priority was destroying the radio. (Britain installed their own less effective radios). As an aside, in 1990, I saw a few WW2 vintage Sherman hulls half buried in the Golan Heights being used as Israeli infantry fixed defence MG posts.

[@WW2WalkingTheGround]

Thank you for this extra context. And thank you for watching!

[@stuartdollar9912]

Good stuff. Because of the reliability of the Sherman, it was never a fair fight. If the Germans had a platoon, the US would send a company. If the Germans had a company, the US would send a battalion. And all of those tanks would get there.

[@albertperks3476]

I think you both nailed it toward the end when you said the Sherman was not expected to last very long in the field - possibly only weeks maybe months - therefore they just needed to be 'good enough'. The German's had been totally focused on demonstrating their engineering prowess, building the very best. The wheel bearings alone (in the panzer or tiger) had been designed to last years but were a burden on German resources (material and labour).

[@dankorolyk5917]

You guys are hilarious,love the series,keep it up!

[@WW2WalkingTheGround]

Thanks! Will do!

[@stevenmiller184]

THE best tank was the Easy 8. Better armor, 2 turret hatches for escape. Wet storage of ammunition prevented fires, wide tracks for better flotation on soft ground and a gun capable of penetrating German tanks. All with the virtues of the simple M4.

[@billballbuster7186]

The 76mm M1 was really not an outstanding weapon. Though much smaller and lighter the British 6 Pounder had almost exactly the same armour penetration with both APCBC and APDS than M1 with M62 APC and M93 HVAP. Though in US service HVAP was not issued to tanks.

[@drewschumann1]

​@@billballbuster7186 For 90% of main gun engagements, the 75mm was superior than the 76mm.

[@billballbuster7186]

@@drewschumann1 That is true as an Infantry Support tank the Sherman was hard to beat. The 75mm was based on the French M1897 Field Gun.

[@ConsciousAtoms]

It's a minor point, but James' remark, right at the start, that the M4 is the second most produced tank in the history of armoured warfare is incorrect. Both T-34 and T-54/55 were produced in higher numbers.

[@wbertie2604]

Although for both the Sherman and T-34 the exact number is uncertain due to how tanks so damaged as to be effectively remanufactured are accounted for, or indeed how they should be. Some were nearly Ship of Theseus repairs.

[@kevinhendon]

Amazing knowledge to share with us as usual, thank you Gents 👍👍

[@WW2WalkingTheGround]

Thank you sir!

[@grumblesa10]

Great stuff, but there are some misconceptions 1- Gun overhang. It was not to make shipment easier. For travel the turret was traversed to the 6 o'clock position and locked. No overhang. The 75 was picked because it was already around and fired a pretty good HE round. Tanks were breakthrough/ infantry support. TDs killed tanks 2- gun stabilizer. Kind of true. Most crews disconnected it as it was a safety concern. The gun could make unexpected movements in the turret. Crews just halted to shoot.

[@WW2WalkingTheGround]

Thank you for sharing your expertise. And thank you for watching the channel!

[@robertpatrick3350]

You’ve included some US centric prepositions. EG TD’s were a significant part of US doctrine and not universal.

[@grumblesa10]

@@robertpatrick3350 It was a US designed, US built weapon system to conform to US tactical and operational art concepts. SO...yeah.

[@alexcane4498]

01:10 "Simplify (and add lightness)" - Colin Chapman.

[@stewartfullager493]

Well done Al for getting in the comment about the Comet. Just sneaked it in !

[@HerbSparks]

The Chieftain made the best videos defending the Sherman’s reputation. The Americas made a reliable tank that had to be shipped across world and be able to fight in almost every environment. In that sense the Americans made the best tank for the overall war strategy not the best for all tactical battle situations… hence make a lot them.

[@brooklynguy-b4m]

12.42 "For my money this is still tops"

[@stironeceno]

Best tank for the overall war ? T 34 .

[@brooklynguy-b4m]

This is arguable. I was just quoting Holland at 12.42 .

[@drewschumann1]

​@@stironeceno T34s were conceptually a good tank but in execution they kind of sucked. When M4s met T34s in Korea, they smoked them

[@stironeceno]

@@drewschumann1, The T34 won the major battles on the eastern front .

[@sabii416]

The 75mm was always in question about its firepower against the german big cats. With the addition of the upgunned(76mm) "Easy eight", Firefly and in some cases "Jumbo" the allies threw their hat in the ring. With its reliability, easy maintenance and mass production it has to be considered a winner in WW2. Enjoying the content fellas keep up the good work.

[@csjrogerson2377]

The 75mm gun was never designed to be an anti-tank gun coz the Sherman was an infantry support tank and mobile artillery piece. M10, M18, M26 were TDs. The 76mm Sherman and the Firefly were produced in relatively small numbers.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

The 75mm also had problems frontally against the Jagdpanzer IV and even the little Hetzer.

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

The 76mm was a good, accurate gun, but was plagued with poor quality standard AP rounds (too soft), and in reality was not the cat killer the flawed US test showed. The tests were done without HE filler and against armor plates that were softer than the German ones. In combat it was discovered that the HE filler had a tendency to burst at impact, shattering the round before it penetrated. Even if they didn't detonate, the rounds themselves were too soft, often collapsing against hard German armor plates. So in reality the 76mm was near useless against the front armor of the big cats.

[@sabii416]

​@@TTTT-oc4ebThe point I was trying to make is the 76mm gave the tankers a bit more confidence going against a bigger adversary. The 75mm bouncing shells off of armor was not a big morale booster. Shells used are a whole different ball of wax.

[@lawrencemeyer5471]

One role that gets scanted is the airborne corp commander, General Boy Browning. Max Hasting’s new book on Operation Biting goes into more detail on his career than I have seen elsewhere. As an on-the ground Corp commander in Market-Garden it seems Browning was a complete bust. Hasting quotes a rather scathing view on Browning by Jim Gavin.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

Browning wasn't responsible for the bad decisions in Market Garden. That was Brereton (his boss in First Allied Airborne Army), Williams of the USAAF and Hollinghurst of the RAF. Plus the individual Airborne commanders. Gavin made his own mistakes around Nijmegen.

[@lawrencemeyer5471]

@@lyndoncmp5751 I’m not saying the guys you name did not screw it up too. But Browning was the airborne Corp commander on the ground after everybody landed. I recall something like he used 30 gliders to land his Corp headquarters. I’ve never read of a significant act or order he gave after the landing. For example, did he know that 1st British Airborne’s communications had failed and could he have done anything to fix that? He had no WWII combat command experience. Ridgeway would not have been as passive.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

@lawrencemeyer5471 I personally feel Browning was more or less irrelevant in Market Garden. Never made the big crucial decisions and didn't make any of the lower down decisions. He didn't interfere with Gavin around Nijmegen. Gavin had the authority to strike for the bridge on day one if the situation allowed it, which it did. Browning didn't prevent it. It was a mix up in communication between Gavin and the 508th PIR commander (Lindquist) as to why there was no immediate move on the bridge. That had nothing to do with Browning. Browning was still in the air when Lindquist failed to move on the bridge. Gavin also agreed with Browning about the importance of the Groesbeek Heights. When Gavin decided to pull back from Nijmegen on the 18th (not Browning's decision that), Browning stressed to Gavin that the road bridge in Nijmegen must be taken on the 19th, or at the very least the morning of the 20th. Browning's HQ did indeed take up a lot of gliders, but I don't think that broke the operation. As l said, I'm certain that what broke the operation were the cautious decisions of Brereton, Williams and Hollinghurst, and the Germans concluded the same in a post battle appraisal. Brereton is the "villain" of Market Garden in my eyes. The wrong choice to command the First Allied Airborne Army. He was not Airborne, but a USAAF general and made decisions in favour of the USAAF over his own paratroopers in his First Allied Airborne Army. He never took any responsibility, blaming XXX Corps and 1st Airborne.

[@lawrencemeyer5471]

@@lyndoncmp5751 The doctrine of major airborne operations was clearly not well thought out; there was a disconnect between what the air transport could do and what the paratroop force leaders needed to have them do to be successful. Brereton knew one side but not the other. Mallory had charge of the air transport side in Overlord and he feared the possible aircraft losses so much he begged Ike to cancel the airdrop. It seems Montgomery had a very light role in the planning but Browning sold (oversold?) the plan. And Montgomery wanted US troops with 21st Army Group any way he could get them so he could get Ike out of the way as ground forces commander. Market Garden did kill Browning’s career; he was shoved off to be COS with Mountbatten in India.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

@lawrencemeyer5471 Yes Browning seems to have been the scapegoat. He didn't get on with Brereton at all. He was "persuaded" to leave the Airborne quietly after being there for years. Already shunted off out to Burma in an administration position before the end of 1944. Brereton sided with Williams of USAAF Troop Carrier Command and rejected double missions on day one. Browning was in favour of double missions on day one, as were the individual divisional commanders. Montgomery sent an aid to Brereton to argue for double missions but Brereton refused. Brereton put USAAF Troop Carrier Command personnel getting too tired ahead of the preferences of his own First Allied Airborne Army and troops. The RAF even told Brereton they could fly double missions/double glider tows to Arnhem, but Brereton wouldn't allow it. He wanted 3 days of drops across the whole zone. He also prevented tactical ground attack air support because he wanted the skies clear for his 3 day drops, which ballooned into a week due to the weather. It seems that Brereton was all in favour of and excited by Market Garden when it was presented to him. I don't think Browning had to oversell it. Montgomery actually had an alternative proposal, a paratroop drop around Walcheren Island to clear the Scheldt but Brereton rejected this immediately and was only interested in Market Garden. Whatever the debate about Browning is, I also feel Brereton was the wrong choice. He knew little about paratroop operations and what the troopers needed. He didnt practice double glider tows during August during all this down time, nor made any plans to begin transferring the First Allied Airborne Army over to the continent. The further east the allied ground forces were advancing, the further it would be to transport the paratroopers from England (especially central England where the 82nd was stationed). He didn't even begin to plan to relocate them in England to the southeast. Brereton appears to have been very lax. I feel Brereton should have been removed toot, but seeing as Eisenhower had only just personally selected him to command First Allied Airborne Army that was never going to happen. Instead Browning, who never even had a prominent hand in the decisions, was got rid of. Montgomery tried having more of an input early on but his ideas were rejected (Taylor of the 101st complained about Montgomery's suggestion for his drop zones around Eindhoven so Montgomery dropped it) and he didn't have any jurisdiction over the air forces. Eisenhower did but Eisenhower stayed out of it, even though he was both Supreme Commander and the C-in-C of all ground forces in September.

[@CauliflowerMcPugg]

Use the Sherman to get rid of granny in her Suzuki 😂. Great chat as usual, gentlemen.

[@WW2WalkingTheGround]

It for this very reason we will be worried if James ever gets his wish-list Sherman.

[@etherealbolweevil6268]

Sherman - no need for a Strabokran 35 (take Al on a mission to find one please), lots of subcontractors for common components working to an Interface Control Document giving plenty of spares and interchangeable spares, standardise fasteners, where precision is needed the item is precise, but only that item (no non-essential precision), use of special machine tools for component production in high volume/precision (not craft skills), few exotic materials employed, volume produced lightweight aero engine, 'good enough' quality control etc. etc. Everything the opposite of late German AFV engineering. And Al should know that the purpose of Armour is to spot/slow/stop enemy armour and direct artillery onto, so the map and radio become as important (or more so) than the primary weapon, a bit of height being helpful for both. Also noted the use of existing dockside cranes, whereas the Germans had one vessel capable of loading moving and unloading the Tiger, greatly extending the period needed to form up an armour capability (I refer to a book - British Intelligence in WW2, built in the 1930's as a railway locomotive transport. Uncertain about Panther transport by sea). Keep up the good work boys.

[@glynmatthews6697]

Simply Brilliant- Love it!

[@BigChrisD1965]

Loving watching your videos, this one is of particular interest, as my dad was a Sherman tank driver, with the Polish 1st armoured Division. Unfortunately he didn’t really speak much about his experiences.

[@brucelamberton8819]

I rate the M4A3E8 HVSS with the 76mm gun and wet stowage as the best all-around tank of WW2.

[@stamfordmeetup]

A good reliable tank and made much more effective with the British 17 pounder.

[@matt6477]

Not quite. 17 pdr had a very limited HE round.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

​@@matt6477But Fireflies operated in troops alongside 3 Sherman 75mm or 3 Cromwells so it didn't need HE much. It was more important to have a tank killer readily available in every troop.

[@vinnyganzano1930]

​@@matt6477HE doesn't kill a Tiger or a Panther though, the Firefly's 17lb gun removes them very effectively.

[@billballbuster7186]

The Sherman was a very good Infantry Support tank and was also excellent at taking out anti-tank guns at long range. Its faults were that the early versions burned easily and were hard to exit in an emergency. The 75mm gun was poor at armour penetratinn it was at a great disadvantage againt all German tanks in service by 1944. The 76mm M1 used in later Shermans, was only as good as the much smaller and lighter British 6 Pounder (57mm) in terms of armour penetration.

[@nickdanger3802]

source ?

[@barkingmonkee]

I tend to think each major belligerant ended up making the "best" tank for the war they were fighting. The Germans, facing hordes of allied Shermans and T-34s, needed a good anti-armor tank that was survivable enough to minimize their limited manpower and support capacity shortcomings. The Panther fit the bill. The Soviets needed a tank that they could crank out very quickly in very large numbers, that was easily serviced, didn't require a lot of crew training to operate, and was 'good enough' to engage German armor provided they had sufficient numbers and supporting arms to carry the day. The T-34 did this better than any other WW2 tank could. The video covered most of why the Sherman was such a good fit for the Western allies. I'd only add that the US and Commonwealth forces didn't need a tank optimised for anti-armor actions b/c apart from the rare case where you happened to be right in front of a MAJOR German offensive there were hardly any German AFV around. Films and games have given armchair tank commanders a woefully unrealistic sense of how much tank on tank fighting an American, British or Canadian tank commander was likely to be doing in 44-45.

[@DanBray1991]

"I'd only add that the US and Commonwealth forces didn't need a tank optimised for anti-armor actions b/c apart from the rare case where you happened to be right in front of a MAJOR German offensive there were hardly any German AFV around" When these vehicles were developed, they were developed for major tank clashes. The US ordinance department had a Battlefield need requirement for procuring new equipment, which works fine for rifles that tended to last around 20+ years or artillery pieces that lasted 30-40 years before being unable to do their job to modern standards. For tanks, this meant they only started tank development once it was requested by troops on the front lines. This meant playing catchup from 1936 to 1942 and then again 1944 to 1945. Development, while fast, generally occurred once they realised something was out of date. The British, Soviets and Germans by comparison would try to predict the lifespan of their vehicles during development and would already have vehicles in development when the previous ones were becoming outdated. If you look at the uphill struggle to get the 75mm adopted, despite the requirement being chucked around in the early 1930's, when the Spanish Civil war comes around, they were in absolute shock (The M2 medium is a prime example) and were in panic mode rushing to develop a 75mm equipped vehicle, this was still floundering when the US Armed Forces had a second big shock during the fall of France. Then add the fact they misidentified the Panther as a low number Heavy Tank and it keeps getting worse as the war goes along. The British had always had an evolutionary mindset with tank development, that was only slowed down by bureaucracy and poor industry capabilities. The Americans were lucky at the time of D-Day the Allies outnumbered German armour they faces on the western front, at something like 16 to 1. Later in 1945 this reached highs of something in the region of 60 to 1. The Americans also faced far less armour than the British and Commonwealth forces did in their sector in Northern France, which is apparent when you look at the priority of Tank Development between the two forces. Based on experiences in North Africa they were expecting far more Tank Combat, and the Sherman would have been a failure if it had been in the situation. Luckily the Americans learned their lessons, but if you look at their Tank Development from 1917 to 1945, it's horrifically bad. You have bickering departments, bickering department heads, bickering branches of the military, different branches using the same vehicles for different roles, shoestring budgets, budgets being spread all over the place or being revoked last minute for rival projects with Christie pretty much blackmailing the Ordinance department at one point. I'm amazed the vehicles they ended up rolling out were so good. There's more to put down, and Jentz has written a fair few books now on how bad American tank development was at the time.

[@elmersalonga6424]

A Massed Produced with Genius Practically in Mind, Pretty much like the Ford Cortina...👌👌👌

[@tonyhuntington]

Great video very interesting loved your "We have ways" can I ask does much happen in Italy after the fall of Rome and the start of D-day as this seams such a quiet period almost if the war had stopped in Europe

[@WW2WalkingTheGround]

Thanks for the question Tony. It certainly did carry on after this. In Summer '44 you have the Germans setting up a defence called the Gothic Line in Northern Italy, which took months to break through. Lots of the North was still in German occupation, and places like Milan were not even fully liberated until 25th April 1945. It's only after Berlin falls that Germans in Italy finally surrender.

[@tonyhuntington]

@WW2WalkingTheGround Thank you so much for the reply much appreciated

[@savouryduck]

People love to moan about Allied tanks in general, but most of the time they were pushing forward against dug in defenses. Even if centurions and Pershing's had been available in time they would still have suffered huge losses. Centurion had a great record post war, but it never had to fight in hedgerows, Dutch Polder or the narrow roads leading into Germany

[@ethansnell8235]

Just realised that I’ve seen this exact tank about 4 months ago in Dorchester as part of D-Day commendations. Small world!

[@Mozzer209]

Hi guys, great channel, great content. Will you be walking the route from the breakout to closing of the falaise gap? Moissy Ford, Chambois etc... Regards Pete

[@WW2WalkingTheGround]

Thanks for the message Pete. We never rule anything out, although at the moment we are looking at areas in London affected by The Blitz, and we might be tempted to make a trip to the Ardennes.

[@Mozzer209]

I look forward to the blitz vid. That will prompt a trip to the V rocket launch sites. Keep up the good work.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

Yes. Quesnay Wood/Estrees la Campagne is always ignored. The Canadian 28th Armoured Regiment lost a whopping 44 Shermans there on 9th August 1944, mostly to a small number of Tiger Is from Schwere SS Panzer Abteilung 101.

[@donaldgrant9067]

I love how that talk about the mechanics that have work on it and the people on the ship that have to carry it. But really nothing about the crew that was in it. Then for the generals to use it as a spare head tank when it was an infantry SUPPORT tank, just what they asked for, was just stupid. That is what the Pershing was for. Nothing like sneaking up on a Panther and bouncing the first shot to make you want to go home. The situation was so bad that the generals had to bring over the Pershing to get tankers to have hope that they too might get a Pershing.

[@drewschumann1]

Your comments vis a vis M4 not being antitank is wrong. The Pershing came much later as an experiment

[@michaelburke5907]

One additional factor was the Allies' tank recovery and repair capability, mitigating losses and returning units to the fight. German units were most often just written off and abandoned in the field. This added greatly to force mobility and numerical superiority.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

The Germans had their own excellent recovery and repair sections. It was only when the battlefields were overrun by the enemy that they couldn't recover and repair damaged armour.

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

Any modern, mechanised army will lose a lot of hardware when they retreat. The British and French in 1940, the Soviets in 1941, the Germans in 1944, the US in 1950.

[@raulduke6105]

My uncle was a Sherman driver in Europe, loved the reliability hated the thinish armor and said the gun was crapola

[@ottovonbismarck2443]

Guys, if you happen to have a long gun, as in Firefly, 76mm Sherman, Panzer IV, Panther, you turn the turret to 6 o'clock for transport. It's easy. The M4 gun had nothing to do with ease of transport. The stabilizer didn't help with firing on the move. This didn't happen before the 1960s.

[@douglasmartin2091]

When your strategy is to rely on numbers to win, it makes it very hard on tankers.

[@wbertie2604]

The stabiliser didn't really allow firing on the move, nor was it designed to allow it, but it did allow very rapid target acquisition after stopping. Granted, you could try firing on the move, but you'd be very unlikely to hit anything.

[@davidbaker4533]

Is the height of the Sherman product of the French designers influence, I hear that the Lee/Grant M3 (from which the Sherman takes many design influences) was very much influenced by the French. I love these videos chaps, keep them coming!!

[@gleggett3817]

The height is a result of having a driveshaft running from engine at back to gearbox at front. The turret basket has to rotate above that.

[@shanewallace1126]

...and Teflon coated to make any but straight-on hits slide off. Just better! 🙃

[@peterstickney7608]

One of the first modifications to the Sherman was the addition of the Loader's Hatch in the turret roof. This could, and was, made as a field modification, as well as on the production line. Another point - When you're replacing parts on a Sherman, you just unbolt the old part, and bolt in a new one. There wasn't any need for bashing, bending and filing to get parts to fit. The German tanks were, basically, hand-fitted. Th Germans weren't capable of building parts with the level of precision to achieve that.

[@senseofthecommonman]

I wonder how far into the future we will go with the unwinnable debate of which is the best tank.

[@bertiebirdman]

Excellent, chaps.

[@allotmentuk1303]

My Dad was radio an operater/gun loader in a Sherman in Tunisia

[@Climpus]

Do like these two chatting away but the idea that the length of the gun allowed you to put more tanks on trains and ships falls down when you consider pointing the barrel slightly to one so it missed the turret of the next tank - that way they can be nose-to-tail....

[@geordiedog1749]

Gunter Grossman said as soon as he saw a Sherman (Firefly) knock out a Panther at 900yds he knew the war was over.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

The Panther could knock the Sherman Firefly out at 2,000 yards or more.

[@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935]

@@lyndoncmp5751 How often would they meet on a 2 km long frozen lake? How often can you see a clear view for 2,000 yards? A 2 metre wide target at 2,000 yards is about 1/15th the width of your thumb nail at arms length, not an easy casual encounter.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

@@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 It happened more than you'd think. Operation Goodwood was a case in point. Operation Totalize too. The US 2nd Armored Division even noted Panthers taking out their Shermans at 3,000 yards in the Aachen battles in late autumn 1944.

[@papps44]

Quite a tall profile when compared to a stug which must have been concerning in the bocage. Great vantage but with downsides.

[@bat33.12]

isn't the Stug the afv with the most tank kills in WW2? I'm sure I've seen it quoted somewhere recently

[@scatton61]

Depends of the fuel type. Diesel fuel (T35) is much harder to set alight than petrol (Sherman). I agree with Al... The Comet was a better tank

[@nickdanger3802]

how many in service before 1945 ?

[@stuartdollar9912]

The US eventually put a second hatch in the turret, and wet stowage for the ammunition, which made it a lot safer to exit.

[@willmartin1033]

T--55 was the most produced tank ever wasn't it?

[@gornallbell5459]

T54/55 96-100,000 tanks built.

[@LordInter]

I dunno, fear factor of the sherman is its not 1, where the hell are the other 2 or 5 or 20, where there's one there are many, tigers... not so much

[@Spitfiresammons]

I would say the Sherman Firefly is my favourite allied tank ever because it can destroy much German tanks like the Tiger tank’ King Tiger’ Panther’ and Panzer iv’.

[@bat33.12]

A regular Sherman with a 75mm could knock out a Panzer IV but the Sherman was still out ranged by the Panzer IV's longer 75mm with better armour penetration. The Germans quickly learnt to target the Firefly first in a troop of tanks as they were only issued on the basis of one per troop of four, which is why you will see lots of contemporary pictures of Fireflys attempting to make the barrel look shorter.

[@bob_the_bomb4508]

Does it have a BV?

[@WW2WalkingTheGround]

Thanks for sharing that about your father-in-law Paul. You can request a service record at this link, but giving you a heads up that they are never very quick and you may have to nudge them a bit: www.gov.uk/get-copy-military-records-of-service

[@andrewcombe8907]

Four mechanical items won WW2 for the Allies: the Jeep, the Sherman, the T34 and the P38 can opener. All characterised by simplicity and reliability.

[@thomasburke7995]

Two items that always get over looked. 1, parts commonality, during ww1 the USA threw everything we had at the AXIS POWERS , the outcome was that units became unrepairable because the war dept did make suppliers standardized components, right down to the spark plugs and wheel nuts. 2, the major reason for the M4 to be limited to 30 tons was due to the lack of lifting capacity. The leadership knew there were issues with the DOCK cranes at potential ports early in the war, limiting the wieght ( completed but not finished chassis) to 30 tons ensure any port could off load the M4's. Modification and Finishing work could be done at the port of entry or in the field

[@alexlanning712]

strength in numbers

[@wessexdruid7598]

"Quantity has a Quality all of its own." Soviet doctrine.

[@alexlanning712]

@@wessexdruid7598 good comment

[@dancahill9585]

As long as you were facing infantry without anti-Armor weapons like Panzerschrecks the M4s were fine. Americans and Brits largely relied on artillery and airpower to take out German armor because the M4 was largely garbo against German armor. Also the Russians found that Shermans were largely useless in the Russian mud due to their thin tracks and high CG.

[@nickdanger3802]

Lend-lease M-4 tank pulls Soviet tank out of mud hole kzbin.info/www/bejne/p3KXZHSHgNZ-rdk

[@DCS_World_Japan]

Historians: "The T-34's revolutionary sloped armor..." Sherman: "Am I dead to you?"

[@DD-qw4fz]

Sloped armor was seen on all forms of afvs before t34s , french tanks german half tracks etc. Sherman is younger than a t34 btw.

[@rob5944]

All well and good being less likely to be hit statistically, unless your the unlucky crew being lined up. Then the superiority of the German tank would become apparent. Otherwise great.

[@cprk1]

Could the Centurion and Pershing have been developed sooner? Would they have made a significant difference in 1944?

[@Greebs229]

I get the impression from the likes of Steve Zaloga and Nick Moran that certainly if the Pershing had been pushed to be in the line by 1944, it would be a debut catastrophe on a par with the Panther at Kursk, but a LOT harder to send back to the factories or swap out for the updated models.

[@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-]

Centurion was a monster and the m-26 super Pershing was also formidable. In a tank engagement I think they would come out on top with a Tiger. Both had more powerful guns.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

There was no pressing desire to design either the Centurion or Pershing until the Tiger I was met in Tunisia at the turn of 1942/43. It was only the appearance of the Tiger that changed the game.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

@Greebs229 Panthers weren't a disaster at Kursk. This has become a modern myth. They were in fact quite successful in engaging and knocking out Soviet armour there. The Panthers gun and frontal armour proved itself to be effective. However the task was nigh on impossible. The Soviets had months of preparation, with deep lines of defensive belts. Minefields, trenches, anti tank gun emplacements. Even the so called mechanical problems are exaggerated. The battle report from von Lauchert, commander of the Panther regiment deployed there in two battalions shows that the Panthers out of action and in need of repair were mostly there due to battle damage (particularly the running gear and tracks due to mines and anti tank gun fire) than mechanical failure. Von Lauchert wrote that engine failures decreased after a few days. The engines were simply not 'run in' properly at the beginning. Von Lauchert also wrote that the transmissions did not suffer high amounts of failures and that the modifications done at Grafenwoer in Germany before the battle were successful. Only 2 Panthers caught fire and were total write offs before the battle began. This was due to leaking fuel seals, which were later rectified. The report in full can be found in the Tom Jentz book on the Panther, which remains the best ever work written on this tank. Cheers.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

​@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-Well the King Tiger still outgunned and out armoured the 1945 Centurion and Pershing. Super Pershing was ungainly and nose heavy. Only one saw action in WW2. The Super Pershing v King Tiger encounter at Dessau has been discredited. No King Tigers were within 70 miles of Dessau. Nor are there any pictures of this, which would have been the case if it actually happened. It would have been a publicity coup.

[@ce17ec]

About the remark of a piano on a Sherman: in reality the Allied forces around Nijmegen (but probably everywhere) where unbelievable robbers. In the German army the punishment for looting was severe, even execution was possible. So in occupied territories in Western Europe the destruction and looting by German soldiers was relative small. And if it was done, it was on a typical German way: organised and with bureaucracy, like they did in Arnhem. But the Americans, Canadians and British forces (and in that order!) looted every house, every farm and every factory when they stayed a little longer on one place. All the villages in the front areas from Venlo up to Nijmegen and in the Betuwe, where the civilians were evacuated, were completely empty when the allied forces left in April 1945. There is a book about this subject that shows how widespread this behaviour was and how little officers (up to Eisenhower!) did to punish the soldiers or discourage this behaviour. People could understand that they stole things to use in the trenches, like mattresses and blankets. But they stole everything with even a minor value and if they couldn't take it with them to the next place, it was destroyed, burned or left in the field to rot. They opened almost every floor in the unoccupied houses to see if people had hidden their belongings. Eye witnesses saw how this looting only took a few days after September 17th to start. After the war, the USA and UK have paid a large sum of money to the Netherlands government to compensate some of the looting damage in the Venlo/Nijmegen area. But it was not a subject to talk about for the Dutch: the Allies were our liberators and heroes, the Germans the bad guys so much of the damage was blamed on the Germans. And if you had no personal experiences with this, it was not talked about. It is still a subject not popular to talk about because it contradicts the popular view of the allied soldier: all of them were heroes, weren't they? But yes, they even stole complete pianos!

[@oddballsok]

The Germans took my granny’s bike, the yanks stole our watches and standing clock..

[@jasonmussett2129]

Both the Tiger and the Panther were overengineered, the Sherman was so much simpler

[@lyndoncmp5751]

Think the Panther and Tiger crews enjoyed their much more comfortable ride due to the suspension and Panther crews definitely enjoyed their crew compartment heaters in the Ardennes, while the Sherman crews froze their nuts off. There are flip sides to everything. It's not black and white.

[@jasonmussett2129]

@lyndoncmp5751 totally agree

[@lyndoncmp5751]

@jasonmussett2129 Yeah there is a lot to consider. Overengineering doesn't necessarily mean bad. It can be argued that today's modern MBTs are highly complex and overengineered, but the crews wouldn't swap them for something simpler 🙂

[@jasonmussett2129]

@lyndoncmp5751 Absolutely. As Stalin said 'quantity has a quality all of its own.' I would rather have been in a Panther than a Sherman 🤔

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

The Panther did only cost 10-15% more than the much smaller and less formidable Panzer IV, and was designed to be both easy to produce and maintain. It probably cost about the same as M4A3E8.

[@jabonorte]

Knowing that you only pay for lend lease stuff if you still have it at the end of the war, it's probably good that it wasn't built to last!

[@nickdanger3802]

ARTICLE V The Government of the United Kingdom will return to the United States of America at the end of the present emergency, as determined by the President, such defense articles transferred under this Agreement as shall not have been destroyed, lost or consumed and as shall be determined by the President to be useful in the defense of the United States of America or of the Western Hemisphere or to be otherwise of use to the United States of America.

[@nickdanger3802]

Tommy Cooker "But our men in the tanks in Libya have been exposed to temperatures of 120° and 130° (54 C), whilst I understand apparatus attached to the German tanks will keep their temperature down to round about 80°. Most of our tanks-British-produced tanks-were equipped with a 2-pounder gun. The heavier American tanks, unfortunately too few in number, very excellent machines I believe, were equipped with good guns, but few if any of the British-produced tanks have 6-pounder guns on them. Our field guns, splendid as they are, 35-pounders, were confronted by German field guns which fire 15 rounds a minute as against our 4. The line of German 88 mm. and the heavier 105 mm. guns destroyed our tanks at the un-fortunate engagement of June 13. Those are facts known to the whole of the people and they demand an explanation." para 2 CONDUCT OF THE WAR. HL Deb 01 July 1942 vol 123 cc551-613

[@wessexdruid7598]

_Thirty_ five pounders??

[@csjrogerson2377]

@@wessexdruid7598 Fat Finger Trouble followed by failure to proof read before hitting 'send'.. 3 is next to 2.

[@csjrogerson2377]

The 25 pdr field gun could fire at 6-8 rpm but could never keep up with an 88mm. However the Brit 17 pdr AT gun could fire at 10-20 rpm and keep up with the 88mm. Differences in performance depended on what round was being fired at what target

[@simonrichards6739]

Now I want both you guys to bring out your own ‘top trumps’!

[@ducomaritiem7160]

Oh no guys! Talking about the suspension of a Panther, showing a Tiger?😮

[@WW2WalkingTheGround]

Our mistake using the clip from Fury in this part of the video. Good spot.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

And the Panther and Tiger crews very much appreciated the comfortable ride the torsion bar suspension and interleaved wheels gave them. Too much focus on having to change damaged wheels, which was nowhere near a common every day occurrence. Videos like this ignore the benefits and concentrate on the rarer negatives.

[@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935]

Frozen mud glueing in the morning was a real phenomenon.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

@@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 There is no actual verified incident of frozen mud or ice glueing a Panther or Tiger to the spot. It's a myth.

[@MadMonk_]

The best quote I heard about the Sherman came from a German tanker - a German tank was worth a 100 Sherman tanks, unfortunately there was a 101 Shermans

[@drewschumann1]

That isn't even the right quote and the original was stupid

[@josephinekush5056]

To me, the Sherman & I've ridden in plenty back in the early 1960's before training on Centurions, it's a symbol of how capital is always more important than human life. Better to fill the pockets of certain preferred rich to than accept a better design. It was all about the money & nothing has changed. - George Kush, UE,CD.

[@mjoelnir1899]

The worst enemy of the M4 was not the Panther, Tiger or the IV, but the Sturmgeschütz.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

Depends where they were. At Estrees la Campagne on 9th August 1944 during Operation Totalize it was the Tigers who took out most of the 44 Shermans of Canadian 28th Armoured Regiment, from 1,000 metres plus. Not Stugs. Just saying.

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

The Panther was the most common tank in the West in the last year of the war with 1833 deployed vs. 1665 Panzer IV and 1650 Stug III.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

@@TTTT-oc4eb Yep. Many people don't realise that. After Normandy, Panthers were more frequently encountered than any other German AFV type.

[@Twirlyhead]

Sorry to be picky guys but there were no leopard 2s in WW2.

[@rob5944]

Thing is, none of us have to do any fighting in them. Whereever you come from, be it Germany, the US, Russia or Britain etc, our opinions are merely speculative. My old mate sais a German shell went through his like it wasn't even there.

[@lucaamedeowilber1557]

Thank you fellas for fighting the still persistent Nazi propaganda that they had the best kit!

[@lyndoncmp5751]

The Sherman certainly wasn't the best kit.

[@lucaamedeowilber1557]

@@lyndoncmp5751don't take it from me, take it from James, it's the best tank of the war, easily

[@sheilah4525]

If you can’t imagine transporting a Panther or T34 to the sands of Africa, the steaming jungles of Southeast Asia, or having them attack across Pacific islands…….. or even transporting them across embattled seas…… then you just MIGHT understand why a tank that CAN DO ALL THAT, use guns, flamethrowers and anti air defenses, and even swim rivers….. just also MIGHT BE the most effective historical tank EVER CREATED! Mr. Sherman. Oh, did I mention how relatively QUICKLY they could be repaired and sent back into service? Yeh, there’s THAT TOO!

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

Any standard 1944 tank could do all that. The US themselves brought the 42 ton Pershing to the Pacific. There was nothing special about the Sherman, except that its was produced and backed by the largest economy in the world.

[@nickdanger3802]

@@TTTT-oc4eb "It is admitted that American tanks played a great part in the Battle of Egypt. America has been in this war for only a year. Why is it that in that short time she has been able to produce a first-class tank like the General Sherman whereas Great Britain, after three years of war and several years of preparation before the war, has not been able to do so." below 245 Hansard DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS 17 November 1942

[@sean640307]

@@nickdanger3802 the simple answer to the Hansard question was that America concentrated on producing only a few things but in huge quantities and didn't have the likes of Nuffield trying to get his own way all the time. The in-fighting within the War Department and with Nuffield is quite damning. That said, British tanks were not as bad as is constantly made out (with the exception of the Covenanter, which was truly dreadful, and the early Crusaders which were not suited to desert warfare but were rushed into service). Once the supply of tanks from America became established, British tank production slowed immensely, as it was quicker and easier to get the more plentiful Shermans so it meant that effort on tanks like the Cromwell slowed down. They got it right, in the end, and the Cromwell was a very good tank - just 12 months too late.

[@nickdanger3802]

IWM Britain's Struggle To Build Effective Tanks Too little too late? Apart from the moderate success of the Churchill and the later cruisers, the story of British wartime tank development is a sorry one. It had got off to a bad start as a result of insufficient pre-war funding, and a lack of political and military drive to develop the armoured forces. Uncertainty over the role of tanks led to the conflicting developmental paths of infantry tanks and cruisers. Defeat in 1940 prompted the panic building of inadequate designs, which impeded the development of more promising tanks. Rushed production and design flaws led to reliability issues. External constraints meant tanks had limited capacity for future armament upgrades. From late 1942, US tanks were required in increasing numbers to make up for the deficiencies of home-grown products. Only in 1944 was British industry able to deliver a tank reasonably fit for a fast-moving battlefield, and even then it was scarcely a match for its opponents.

[@sean640307]

@@nickdanger3802 I won't disagree with almost all of what you said until the "From late 1942..." onward. The fact that the US was able to supply tanks in plentiful quantities meant that Britain could (and did) concentrate more effort into the stuff that it could do better (planes and ships, of the types not being bought elsewhere). Always keep in mind that Army was the bottom of the heap when it came to defense spending, which is what led to the early debacles you describe. If you don't have it already, a really good book on the subject is David Fletcher's "The Great Tank Scandal" (I only have part 1, but it's a pretty damning look at the issues around the War Office, the General Staff, procurement practices, etc....) The Cromwell was pretty good, and in some aspects better than the US equivalent (and in others, not so). The Comet was better again, but the best of the best was undoubtedly the Centurion.

[@paulmurgatroyd6372]

1:24 Not a Panther, but never mind, details aren't important on the internet. Anyway it was close.

[@WW2WalkingTheGround]

We noticed after it was too late! One of the many reasons to blame the film Fury for something...

[@lyndoncmp5751]

Didn't mention the very comfortable ride that German Panther crews enjoyed due to the torsion bar suspension and interleaved wheels. Always with the negative waves Moriarity.

[@jimleffler7976]

Uh.. No I don't know that there Was any 1 tank that was best. Definitely not the Sherman in my opinion, maybe the 76mm or the Firefly versions were close

[@digitalbegley]

Oh James I can tell you've never ever had to take armour off the front or the back of a tank. One simply doesn't pop off the armour. You certainly need to do a lot of swearing break a few nails bang a few shins and agree that it's a pig of a job. Anyway keep on the entertainment Fellas

[@LordInter]

allies were told to burn a tank out if it was being abandoned, there were a lot of abandoned allied tanks...... lots of burnt out allied tanks.... you don't say 😂

[@charlesphillips8635]

Ditch…..culvert……😊

[@wessexdruid7598]

Asked and answered previously - James needs to read the comments!

[@WW2WalkingTheGround]

It's now our running joke as there was such brilliant discussions on here when James couldn't remember the difference during our Normandy series.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

There was no top or best tank of WW2. Each nation had its own needs and parameters. Shermans wouldn't have served the Germans any better than what they had when the allies had numerical superiority, overwhelming air support and no lack of resources and well trained replacement crews. A British 21st Army Group medical report showed that the Cromwell was actually safer and more survivable than the Sherman, and other analysis showed it was more automotively reliable. Obviously the Cromwell wasn't the top tank of the war either.

[@nickdanger3802]

The Sherman M-50 and the Sherman M-51, both often referred to abroad as the Super Sherman, were modified versions of the American M4 Sherman tank that served with the Israel Defense Forces from the mid-1950s to early 1980s. The M-51 was also referred to as the Isherman (i.e. Israeli Sherman).

[@lyndoncmp5751]

​@@nickdanger3802What does that have to do with my post?

[@tedcopple101]

Of course it was the best, it worked in Africa, the Pacific Islands, the Aluetians, north west Europe... and so on. It could get anywhere and compete. No other vehicle could.

[@roosterbooster6238]

Ronson was a compliment as a ronson lighter starts first time and the Sherman started first time everytime

[@WW2WalkingTheGround]

Sadly it seems the reference is to do with the Sherman catching fire rather than starting every time. 'The Sherman Tank' by Steven J. Zaloga and veterans accounts in the National WW2 Museum back this up.

[@guywilloughby3383]

I know it's fuel but the Sherman runs on diesel engines, so surely that would have had no bearing on brewing up? The German tanks were petrol which is far more flammable, but a naked flame will not set fire to diesel

[@WW2WalkingTheGround]

Diesel may not be flammable in the same way as petrol, for example a spark won't make it go, but diesel will still brew up when exposed to heat and pressure, both of which are present when a fuel tank takes a hit. It's why in a diesel engine you find a Glow Plug that generates heat rather than a traditional Spark Plug like in petrol cars.

[@Paul-hh7bx]

The Sherman M4A4 & Firefly variant used by UK & Commonwealth forces had a engine comprising of a bank of 5 Chrysler engines, that's a lot of oil to burn and flow into the crew compartment if hit on the rear.

[@f87max30]

Early versions used the Continental R-975 9 cilinder radial petrol engine (hence the high profile). Depending on the version there were then Ford V-8, Chrysler multibank and also some diesels. After the war many Shermans were converted to diesels. My favorite is the Firefly with it's 17 pounder and the original R-975.

[@wessexdruid7598]

British crews preferred the petrol-engined variants to the later diesels, for their performance.

[@jeffpowers8526]

Ammunition propellant is the reason they brew up so quickly, hence the innovation of wet stowage. Reduced the incidence of burning from 60-80% down to 10-15%

[@davidmathie9512]

Have to agree the Sherman was the best tank in WW2 .Simply due to ease of repair and production numbers .There is a myth that Shermans couldn't knock out a Tiger or Panther that's not true.

[@gleggett3817]

George Dring took out two Tigers in one day.

[@wbertie2604]

With the 75mm, they couldn't penetrate frontally, which was the biggest issue, and even the Pz. IV it was marginal against. Most of the targets were less well armoured or not tanks at all, though.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

​@@wbertie2604Struggled frontally against the Jagdpanzer IV and even the little Hetzer. The Stug had 80mm front armour as well, so it couldn't go through that at long range either.

[@wbertie2604]

@@lyndoncmp5751 True, it had issues with those too. Frontally the Stug and Hetzer couldn't do very much better against the M4, although they had a small chance of scoring a penetration. There weren't many IV/70s to contend with.

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

The Sherman tankers themselves certainly didn't think their tank was the best. That says it all. It had to close to within 100 yards to have much of a chance against a Tiger - from the side - and even then only if the angle was good. That is basically useless.

[@michaellee9975]

Panther

[@douglaskillock3537]

No it wasn't but a great piece of rhyming slang

[@tsr207]

Sorry to interrupt the love-in for this tank but my uncle (who actually fought in WW2) but his opinion was that it was a death trap - exploded at will (he saw one go up when a shell landed 300 yards from it) and too high in profile. He was in a Churchill Mark vii which kept him safe. A lot of people seem to believe the American propaganda seen in bad films and TV series...

[@nickdanger3802]

"The superiority of German armour was illustrated again when three Jagdpanther tank destroyers knocked out 11 Churchill tanks of 3rd Scots Guards on Hill 226." IWM Tactics and the Cost of Victory in Normandy The Sherman M-50 and the Sherman M-51, both often referred to abroad as the Super Sherman, were modified versions of the American M4 Sherman tank that served with the Israel Defense Forces from the mid-1950s to early 1980s. wiki

[@SeanCSHConsulting]

Cool story, bro.

[@sean640307]

@@nickdanger3802 the three Jagdpanther tank destroyers would have been even more devastating on the M4s as they were on the Churchill tanks. The Churchill Mk VII was much better armoured than any M4 at the time but was still not invincible!

[@nickdanger3802]

@@sean640307 IWM Britain's Struggle To Build Effective Tanks Too little too late? Apart from the moderate success of the Churchill and the later cruisers, the story of British wartime tank development is a sorry one. It had got off to a bad start as a result of insufficient pre-war funding, and a lack of political and military drive to develop the armoured forces. Uncertainty over the role of tanks led to the conflicting developmental paths of infantry tanks and cruisers. Defeat in 1940 prompted the panic building of inadequate designs, which impeded the development of more promising tanks. Rushed production and design flaws led to reliability issues. External constraints meant tanks had limited capacity for future armament upgrades. From late 1942, US tanks were required in increasing numbers to make up for the deficiencies of home-grown products. Only in 1944 was British industry able to deliver a tank reasonably fit for a fast-moving battlefield, and even then it was scarcely a match for its opponents.

[@drewschumann1]

Your uncle is a liar. Sorry you believe that ba

[@jandoernte3312]

Saying the sherman was the "best" tank in ww2 is like saying Lizzo is the "hottest" woman in the USA. Sure- if you myopically focus on ONE attribute and ignore the obvious.

[@brucepeek3923]

The biggest lie about the sherman is that they somehow had to keep it entirely assembled in order to ship it overseas.... BUT_ the allies found out that by taking the duece and a half trucks apart they could ship 30 per cent more of them overseas on the same ship. They could have done the exact same thing with the sherman. The fact that the allies did not do so is the fault of the idiot allied high command - witness Ikes stupidity about not sealing off and containing the Falaise pocket like Patton wanted to do- witness the American Bomber high command refusing to allow P 47's to escort B17's causing record high casualties... It goes on and on and the corrupt allied high command made endless decisions that needlessly caused the death of tens of thousands of their own soldiers.. best Bruce Peek

[@macred]

T34

[@jameshalley5467]

I think I'd rather have a tiger ...