It is a funny thing that in The Unknown Soldier (1955 film) Pzkw IV was used as a soviet tank instead of a KV tank. Nowadays it's not a problem thanks to some cinematic magic.
The Sherman lacked a gun that could seriously damage a tiger tank (with the exception of a close in shot to rear armor) until the Sherman Firefly tank was released. This is where the story that it took 5 sherman tanks to kill a tiger...4 shermans to die distracting the tiger while the 5th snuck up behind it and killed it. Not entirely sure of the Varacity of this myth but that is supposedly the story.
1. German tanks are not invincible. 2. Soviet tanks are not invincible. 3. French tanks are not invincible 4. British tanks are not invincible 5. American tanks are not invincible
@@michaelmckinnon427 They performed poorly late into the Eastern Front. A lot of Tiger/IIs were forced to retake the lost ground in the EF but were just ambushed and destroyed by T34s and IS2s
Frank Verdino ahahahahhahaahh no, not true at all. You hit the first, the column stops, you hit the last , the column is blocked. You then proceed to hit the ones with better cannons, because the earlier tanks’ guns can’t penetrate tigers frontally or even laterally
@@frankverdino477 so what if taking out the 1st tank "alerted" the other tanks? It's irrelevant because the wreckage of the 1st tank halted the rest of the column. And taking out the last one would've effectively trapped the other ones. So, eliminating the lead tank is a sound tactic.
OK I gotta call BS. Tigers and Panthers had a more complex suspension system but it gave a very smooth ride and the wide tracks gave very good flotation on soft ground. The statement that the Sherman was lighter and could go across soft ground the German heavies couldn't is outright wrong. Tiger I was slower than a Sherman on roads but had roughly equal performance and speed operating cross country. Panther actually had better cross country performance and US Army reports mentioned many times of Panthers crossing soft ground Shermans bogged down in. Look up UA-cam video "Panther tank versus Sherman Firefly tank field driving test". Early PzIII and PzIV's had narrow tracks about 350mm wide and had poor cross country performance on snow and soft ground. Later models received a wider 450mm wide track and could also be fitted with track grousers that were pinned to side of track cleat by track pin and increased surface area to reduce ground pressure. That said the late war Horizontal volute suspension system Shermans was night and day leap forward in cross country performance. Cast hull Shermans were the weak ones and that was due to some of the tank builders not having experience with casting armor. ALCO is a prime example. Welded hull Shermans were almost all built to correct armor hardness. The early Shermans had a 55deg sloped front hull 45mm thick with a shot trap and small hatches that were not spring loaded and were hard to get out of. The later Shermans had a simpler, easier to produce one piece front hull sloped at 47deg and increased to 60mm to compensate for the steeper front hull angle. The steeper plate allowed the fitting of much larger spring loaded top hull hatches that made it much easier to get out of. Gasoline engine Shermans did not burn at a significantly higher rate than diesel engine Shermans. US Army in Europe used exclusively M4A1 with gasoline radial engine and gaoline V8 engine. Diesel engine Shermans went to Allies like Brits and Soviets, The main culprit in Shermans burning was the ammo stored in side hull sponsons above the tracks. Once the wet hull model came out and moved ammo out of line of fire in side hull to floor under turret ammo fires dropped significantly just from that act. To best of my knowledge 76mm Shermans were first used in August 1944 for Operation Cobra, the breakout from Normandy. The tanks were limited in number and were issued one 76mm per platoon of 75mm Shermans. British added Fireflys to their Sherman units in same manner, one Firefly per troop. The Panther never weighed 30 tons. The design specification was for a 30 ton tank with sloped armor. Daimler Benz submitted the VK 30.01D which weighed about 30 tons. MAN submitted their VK 30.02M design intending to use as many Tiger parts as possible to minimize development costs and to standardize on parts. It was felt this would improve chances of wining contract. The MAN VK30.02M prototype weighed 42 tons. The Panther Ausf D weighed 43 tons. The Panther Ausf A weighed 45 tons. The Panther Ausf G weighed 44 tons, if fitted with steel rimmed road wheels it weighed 46 tons. At no point was a larger gun planned for the VK30.02M and the only armor increase was first 20 tanks produced had 60mm thick glacis plate, rest were upped to 80mm glacis plate. Never heard anyone describe a Panther as being under powered. It was one of the fastest tanks in WW2 on road and cross country. Reliability was always a issue for all German tanks. German logistics in WW2 were a nightmare and all effort was on producing more tanks, very little effort went into building tank parts. Thus it was common for disabled tanks to be cannibalized of parts to keep other tanks running. Unit reports show that from late 1943 til about March 1945 when reports ceased that PzIV's and Panthers usually had roughly same operational rate of around 50%. Tigers were usually higher as they had priority on parts, ammo, and repair manpower as they were seen as more vital to the war effort By 1943 materials to make steel and materials such as Tungsten used for machining and AP rounds were in very short supply. Fuel was so scarce tanks were often transported by wood fueled steam locomotives and Luftwaffe had little fuel to train replacement pilots.
"Reliability was always a issue for all German tanks." One thing another youtube historian, TIK, mentioned in one of his vids was that he didn't know whether German tanks were actually less reliable. He had no information on whether the Germans actually had more calls for tank repairs per capita than the US, or whether the US tanks simply got back to combat faster because they had more reliable access to spare parts.
@@Shachza According to a author and researcher on German armor Thomas Jentz tanks breakdowns were fairly common for whatever reason by all nations. A US Army officer studied and wrote a report about German Army logistics in WW2. It reads like a horror novel. There was so much focus on more tanks, more tanks, more tanks that insufficient effort was put into replacement parts. It was common by 1943 for German tank units to be cannibalizing parts off damaged tanks to keep other tanks running. Google "Logistics In WW2 - Final Report Of Army Service Forces" if you want to read it. By comparison the US Army would recover tanks and do a sort of triage, determining which tanks could be repaired the quickest and fixing those first. Whatever tanks the unit was short of were requisitioned and sent to the unit overnight so the unit was almost always at full strength the next morning, for sure within 48 hours. The US logistics were so well organized that the joke was they could assemble complete tanks from all the spare parts at rear area maintenance units.
@@jdsol1938 The Tiger was in a position where moving was wholly unnecessary and where fury would have gone done first in most cases anyway, because tanks with the 76mm were attacked first, being the larger tactical threat. Unless Fury had become lucky or its barrel camouflage had worked (I don't remember there being any in the film but it was used historically to pretend being a 75mm gun) it would not be for long in this world.
@Reagan James Not in real combat. The IS-2 could penetrate Tiger 2's turret, but only at closer range. On the other hand, Tiger 2 would destroy the IS-2 at way longer distance. The IS-2 wouldn't even manage to get so close to penetrate Tiger 2 from the front.
Wimex The metal of later Tiger 2s was rushed by the Germans making it very brittle.the IS2 shouldn't have been able to penetrate the frontal armor but it did with many of the tiger 2's frontal armor being broken or caved in
the stug 3 had the highest kill ratio of all German armor in the war. it was a great little machine. perfect for shoot and scoot. as Michael Wittman proved in the early days on the Russian front.
yes the only one I have ever seen is at Aberdeen. they are small, fast, well armed once they put the high velocity 75mm on it. everything you want in an ambush tank. just ask the Swiss their legendary S tank was supposed to be designed from the stug 3. not sure I would want to serve in one. but then I was never a tanker to begin with. its safer jumping out of airplanes.
@@killianlile173 fury's actually in the big conservation centre (the hall where they keep all their stuff they Couldn't for in the actual museum). It's right below the viewing platform on the left you can see it perfectly
Back then, CGI wasn't ready and rebuilding german WW2 tanks isn't really a option. German tanks barley existed (being the side that lost, far fewer built ect.) after WW2. So overall, I would give those earlier movies the benefit of the doubt, because practical no one has got that right. Even "A Bridge too far" has Leopard 1 as Panthers, Tiger and Panzer 4. Doesn't explain thou why they didn't use Shermans thou. There were alot of them around.
Also: I wouldn't even be sure that the audience would even know what which tank look like, without google at they hand. The most grievous example of this btw that I know is in "Holgan Heroes" where they try to sell a Priest, an artillery, as Tiger 1.
SairasKynx remember its a game and they need to keep things balanced and fun. if you played the germans yay for you getting to stop shermans in your king tiger all day but how fun would it be as the americans or brits on the receiving end. and also if youre the germans your panthers would just go up in flames at the start of the battle or its final drives giving out. wouldnt be a fun game would it.
The Sherman did what it was designed to do. It was cheap to build, quick to build and weight allowed it to be lifted by cranes at ports. The upgraded 76mm or British Firefly were enough to do the job. In terms of crew death I think the M10 TDs has a higher killed rate due to the exposed turret Tiger may have been too heavy but it did achieve psychological victory over the allies and just it’s rumoured presence was enough to hold up advancing units. If anything the biggest threat to allied tanks were the Pak 40 AT guns and in small numbers Panzerfausts.
Youre the only person ive found mention the cranes. Which most dont consider. We had to limit our design weight because of cranes state side. I think it played a part into why the pershing was slow to come to ww2. Not a major part, but one none the less
@@bacon51695 the pershing had an terible engine too. just like the tiger 2 so verry slowww. funy that the next in line of US tanks was basicaly a pershing with a better engine.
I've read in a book by a Franciszek Skibiński (chief of staff in 1st Polish Armored Brigade) where he claims that soldiers refered to M4s as "cows" compared to cromwells (which were the only tanks that could be called "warhorses")
Point about nemenclature: "Easy-8" isn't the name of the 76mm gun, or automatically the name of any tank carrying one. Easy-8 comes from the -E8 on the end of the designation of the first Shermans to have a revised suspension system called HVSS which gave a much better, "easy" ride. There were 76mm Shermans with the earlier suspension system too, so while it's true that every Easy-8 had a 76mm, not every 76mm Sherman was an Easy-8.
@@signolias100 Well kind-of. Some 75mm M4A3s were _upgraded_ with the HVSS suspension system, but they still didn't get the 'E8' on the designation, so you can have a tank which is, for all practical purposes, a '75mm HVSS Sherman' but which doesn't actually have the 'Easy Eight' designation.
the e8 designation is the experimental modification. When the e8 modification became standard the name changed. For example the m4a3e8 with a 76mm gun. Is actually known as an "m4a3(76)w hvss". an m4a3e8 with a 75mm gun is an m4a3(75)w hvss. E2 is the heavy armor mod, E6 is the 76mm gun, and the E8 is the hvss mod
There’s another video on UA-cam that claims that Allied tank crews preferred the 75 mm cannon because it was more effective against enemy infantry and lightly armored vehicles. The 76 mm cannon was more effective at punching through armor.
@@picklerix6162 That's because the 75mm always did have a useful HE round, while ammo development/production for the 76mm/17pdr understandably concentrated on AP rounds, so HE for them was in short supply.
@@Hornet135 its more about the long barrel 75 i think. Seeing the chance they would run into a tiger is quite slim. Go check out the performance of the long 75 vs the short 75 the shermans use. Sure they eventually got the 76 which had the pretty much the same performance but that was 2 years later!
It's always something for something. Long 7.5 cm gun Panzer IV could knock out Sherman or T-34/76 at most practical ranges (assuming perfect aim and conditions, of course), but so could they, because upgunning reached practical limit of Panzer IV chassis, and armor couldn't be improved enough to make diffrence. Mobility also suffered heavily, when offroad, Panzer IV could barely move at speed of advancing infantry. Americans had gun to match perfomance of 7.5 cm KwK 40, but didn't see practical gain if mounting them on tanks, so for most of war 3 inch (76 mm) guns were used on M10 tank destroyers meant to dispatch massed German tank assaults. 76 mm armed Shermans were requested only by late 1944 due to increased encounters with Panther tanks that had most of their frontal profile immune to standard M3 75 mm gun. There was actually Sherman variant with enough armor to suvive 88 mm, Assault Tank M4A3E2. These heavily armored Sherman were requested specifically to provide infantry with fire support during attacks on fortified areas infested by anti-tank guns, as experience showed this job to be far more dangerous for tanks than all-out tank battle. While they proved to be virtually immune to anti-tank guns, they still took staggering loses, mostly from mines and short range anti-tank weapons like Panzershreck.
People don't seem to realize you can't compare the Sherman to the Tiger directly. That's like comparing a pistol to an assault rifle. They're in different size classes. A more appropriate comparison would be M4 vs. Pzkpfw IV or M26 vs. Tiger 1/2.
I agree, it's only right to compare the jumbo 76 to the tiger, then the tanks are comparable, in my opinion, the jumbo being better due to superior mobility/reliability.
Bullshit, there is a lot of movies about the Eastern Front, It's a Russian Film industry of all it's own. White Tiger is a good one. There were never enough Tigers in any one place to really make much of a difference in the outcome of the war. People tend to forget that the M-4 Sherman had to be transportable, It's a long way from Detroit to Normandy, it had to be reliable and easy to repair in the field. The Sherman was the right machine for the time. And then the Israelis took it did some upgrades and took on T-55's that were Russian versions of Tiger II tanks and drove the Shermans right to the Suez in two days.
Since the M4 sherman was so compatible, it could have a bunch of, "field modifications" (upgrades if you prefer that) done to it increasing the odds of survivability. For example: concrete, extra tredding/tracks for added armor, extra welded armor, etc. Since it wasn't as heavy as its German counter- part; it could have a lot more done to it.
Silly Puppy well that as common sense but what you should try to do is use as less as you can to preform better and yet have enough of what you need to make the enemy waste their ammunition fuel and all that
It's not an animal if you cut off its supplies only the crew will suffer not the tank and plus the tank will try to reach supplies and the ammo isn't good so it won't lose ammo if it just stays in one place
What I find is hilarious is you roll in footage from documentaries and movies with improper tanks through the entire video.. I saw some Korean war footage here as well..
Actually none were. Tiger 131 was partially dismantled and the engine cut apart in storage when Kelly's Heroes was made. It wasn't till the 90's/00's that Bovington was able to get it overhauled and rebuilt to running condition again. They use an engine from a King Tiger in it instead since Maybachs seem to be hard to find
Why would a lone Tiger be operating with no support whatsoever? It's in an ambush here, so it makes no sense for it to be completely by itself; no infantry, no other tanks, nothing. Fury is garbage.
Bungo Box, That sometimes happened in the last months of the war though. A Tiger of Gruppe Fehrmann moved out of cover without infantry support and received a flank shot from a British Comet. April 1945 north central Germany, not far from Hanover.
Edit: forgot to mention this was at the bulge as well My mothers father was an infantryman attached to the 10th armored div and my father's father was in the 256th volksgrenadier I believe it was... Which ever one it was he was in the 7th army and my grandfathers actually shot each other and i don't mean just in the general direction either they quite literally hit each other... Father's father was captured and taken to pow camp Forrest in Tullahoma Tn which is ironically south of a town called Normandy... While my mother's father was sent back home to memphis tn and after the war was over my father's father managed to gain citizenship and moved to that same area in tn where he met a girl and they eventually moved to memphis where their children met...
@@kenwheeler3637 You could probably look him up online if you wanted to... It will take you a bit to find a free site to do it on but there is a lot of records online now a days... You might even find out about "secret" medals for example in regards to my dad's dad he didn't mention any medals he got and didn't like to talk about any medals he got and he promptly threw most of them away but i looked him up one day and found some quite significant medals... Just for examples sake he had either the knight's cross of the iron cross with oak leaves and swords or the one with just oak leaves can't remember right now and the long service award... Whether you tell anyone online or not it'll definitely be an interesting read for you and your family...
@@officiallastresort0248 "that's a legendary" it's not a video game mate, what else are there, mythic tanks? shiny tanks? If there is only 1 of something left out of the x amount that were built, that still makes it rare. It's the most rare something can be, unique and one of a kind.
@@penzorphallos3199 French speaker here: you're right with the pronunciation of Ardennes, but wrong with the pronunciation of la Seine; it's like "senne"
@@penzorphallos3199 Jsuis américain, avant j'ai appris français j'ai su comment on dit « Paris » correctement, même que la Seine, c'est un nom propre connu qui est facile à prononcer qu'un locuteur natif d'anglais.
@@goo_dragon i dunno, theres plenty of easy words or names that americans or brits manage to butcher. But yea youre right, seine for sure isnt the worst offender.
My fathers experience (8th AD) was our tanks NEVER ENGAGED German heavy tanks, our tankers relied on yabos (P47's) etc. as dying wasn't a good idea. German tank reliability wasn't so bad as the lack of fuel. Every Tiger 1 my father saw was able to move and shoot (very accurately) and he was no dummy as he became a Rocket scientist when he returned. BTW the German tanks never missed inside of 500m and almost never missed at 1000m. Most of the knocked out Allied tanks were hit square in the middle and US tanks within 1 foot of the white star. My father thinks the German crews were using the start as the tgt point.
And your father could not possibly have been exaggerating? During WWII, air power was far more disruptive against tanks than actually crippling. And since Tigers had no gun stabilizers, the shooting accurately on the move seems really unlikely too.
@Wolfgang Charlemagne Ah yes, the 'everybody knows so research it yourself' defence. Unlike in games there was no 3rd person camera or replay function available so no easy way way to verify or disprove bragging. Even primitive gyrostabilization was still a new thing, relatively late war, and not a German invention. Also identifying tanks on the battlefield in the middle of combat was not that easy. Because of the similarities in box-hulls, Pz IV's were often mistaken for Tigers.
The Ardennes Panthers were mostly Ausf G types and they were really bad ass tanks by this time with a lot of the reliability issues resolved. The most likely issue for their loses incurred compared to M4's, is thought to be the lack of experienced crews operating them. The Ausf G was not under-powered. It had a better HP/Ton than all types of Shermans. That said, good vid. Nice breakdown. Thumbs up!
The real problem with Panthers (and to lesser degree Tigers) wasn't that they signifigantly less relible then the american tanks or British tanks, but rather the german tanks were much harder to repair in the field for various reasons, so it was much more common for the germans to write off a tank as loss if it broke down then it was for the allies.
shure, but when you consider, that every long range redeployment of tanks was done via railroad and flatbed.... not so significant. also the next problem is the time before the part breaks. this issue was not solved, due to inabillity but due to the fact that a redesign of the final drive would cost more, due to restructuring the production lines etc. and primarily realism: why build a weapon wich can last 15 years, when the general life expectancy of this weapon is around 100 hours of combat?
well it was not that bad. yes the optics were badly designed and the transmission, engine, final drive setup was designet for a tank 10 tons lighter. but, considering how engagements most of the time happened and much perforationpower most allied guns had, the armor was more then decent. yes the panthers gunner couldnt react effectively unless commander and gunner were very well trained together. but the main gun was outstanding. and after the initial production runs, the later runs did in fact fix the engine burning and parts of the overstressing of the transmission etc, so that the panther was indeed a very mobile, fast and agile vehicle with high combat potential. even with the design flaws it still had, it outclassed and outperformed the t34 and the m4. its a great tank but was in parts bad designed. same goes for the m4, wich also for a long time had its teethingproblems and issues wich got only fixed to the end of the war. like mass production wet stowage, ablative armorplating over the magazines and fueltanks, ammunition stored besides and below fuel tanks, etc etc.
@ZDProletariat then explain why even with its reliability issues they were able to crush soviet tanks in the battles of kharkov and kursk. Most soviet tanks that played a role in that battle were t34s and the soviets suffered a staggering 6.5:1 loss. It wasnt a failed design....it was a great design with the wrong parts slapped into it because of rushed development and Hitler's incompetence as an armaments minister. Sherman was a good tank but needed alot of work as with the t34s as they were mid line ok tanks
If there is one criticism I could make of this otherwise really good coverage of the topic it would be that "german tanks" in his description seem to only refer to tigers and panthers ignoring that panzer 3/4 and stug were far more numerable(and far more comparable to the m4 as those were also medium tanks).
The Stug was an "assault gun" platform. Or, basically, a tank destroyer in U.S. doctrine. Doesn't mean it only shot at tanks, but... it really isn't capable of doing the same job as a tank with the lack of a turret, it's kinda hard to support infantry that way. Although I'm sure with the lack of armor especially towards the end of the war, a German soldier would be happy to have a horse or a tractor helping them, let alone a Stug, and would take anything that they could get. As far as comparable... Eh. I mean, in role and doctrine, yes, the Panzer III/IV was similar to the Sherman. In actual operational performance, not really. The Panzer III/IV had almost 90 degree vertical armor and even the Panzer IVs were susceptible to anti-tank rifle rounds like the Soviet 14.5×114mm fired by PTRDs and PTRSs. Those side panel armor plates you see on later Panzer IVs? Yeah, those aren't meant to protect against tank rounds. They put those on because the Germans were losing far too many Panzer IVs to a guy with a single-shot anti-tank rifle. Meanwhile, the Sherman had slopped armor. And a good fair bit of it at that. Frontally, it was much better protected than most tanks. As far as crew comfort and survivability goes, statistically, one it was one of the best tanks to be in that was mass produced at the time. No one wants to talk about Panthers and Tigers having more casualties from breakdowns just getting to the battle and them not being the most forgiving and easiest vehicles to operate and be in.
@@matchesburn "it really isn't capable of doing the same job as a tank with the lack of a turret, it's kinda hard to support infantry that way." Ehm, the Stug was build explicitly to support infantry when assaulting a position, hence the name assault gun. The role as a TD was added later (specialized TD's in German are called Jagdpanzer). "The Panzer III/IV had almost 90 degree vertical armor and ...(description of Schürzen and their protection against AT-rifles) ...Meanwhile, the Sherman had slopped armor... " The sides of a Sherman are just as vertical and the area armored skirts are to protect against AT-rifles (area inside the tracks) is just as vulnerable on a Sherman. "No one wants to talk about Panthers and Tigers having more casualties from breakdowns just getting to the battle" Early versions, later models had those issues fixed. And certain sections of the internet won't stop talking about it to the point of claiming all german thanks had nothing but transmission breakdowns. No one talks about that the early versions of the T34 had the same issues.
@@DeHerg "Ehm, the Stug was build explicitly to support infantry when assaulting a position, hence the name assault gun. The role as a TD was added later (specialized TD's in German are called Jagdpanzer)." Not really. In doctrine the Germans utilized them more as SPGs when not in their TD role. And that goes for the Su-76s/Su-122s/Su-152s, the Brummbar/Sturmtiger and the Churchill AVRE as well. You can't provide infantry support and go in alongside an infantry assault when your vehicle doesn't even have a coax (Stugs didn't get coaxials until around mid 1944) and often times didn't even have a single machine gun mounted anywhere on it (until, again, it became standard in mid 1944). And the Germans eventually acquiesced this point and just used the thing almost entirely as a TD as the war went on because it was actually good at doing that. "The sides of a Sherman are just as vertical and the area armored skirts are to protect against AT-rifles (area inside the tracks) is just as vulnerable on a Sherman." I see you added a lot of ellipsis there in my statement. I brought up frontal Sherman armor with frontal Panzer IV armor for a reason. The side skirts are just sprinkles on top, a bonus. Also, another bonus: The Sherman actually had more side armor than the Panzer IV, too. "Early versions, later models had those issues fixed." Eh... Uh... Yeah, no. Not really. The Wehrmacht did operational readiness studies in March, 1945 (...which must've been very, very optimistic thinking at the time) on their remaining Panthers, Tiger IIs and Panzer IVs. Panthers had a reliability of 48%. And Tiger IIs had a rating of 59%. Panzer IVs had a rating of 62% (which seems rather low to me, but this is also March of 1945). Which... when you consider they didn't have to travel very far at all at that time... That's... Not great. Oh, and these were of the available *_operational_* vehicles, so only anything that could actually participate in combat was counted among the pool of vehicles. "And certain sections of the internet won't stop talking about it to the point of claiming all german thanks had nothing but transmission breakdowns." Well, they'd be wrong. The Panzer II/III/IV series had great reliability. "No one talks about that the early versions of the T34 had the same issues." Not many in general circles, but in tank circles you have people like The_Chieftain/Nicholas Moran that is a rather vocal critic of T-34 as both from a design point of view and their operational records and how sensationalized it is.
Great video as always, but not every Sherman with a 76mm is an Easy eight which was build with different features including orizontal suspension, the normal 76mm were m4a3 shermans with a bigger turret and gun
@@kerkize8907 easy 8 received wider tracks, horizontal volute suspension systems, upgraded hull armor (it increased from 80 to 100mm RHAe) and in some cases duckbill connectors, and that was for all the variants which received the upgrade.
Yup. Lots of M4A1s and M4s were outfitted with the 76mm gun to be able to handle armor at longer ranges, and solely for that purpose. The HE on them wasn't nearly as good as the shorter 75mm gun. The only thing that made the E8 what it was happened to be the combination of the 76mm gun and the Horizontal Volute Suspension System (HVSS), which gave it outstanding mobility and ease of driving, plus the capability of knocking out almost any armor they came across. IIRC, during the war, its first designation was M4A3 HVSS (76), only earning the E8 designation once they realized they needed to differentiate from the other M4A3 HVSS we call the jumbo sherman, the M4A3E2. But don't quote me, that's a vague memory from a long time ago. It's been a long time since I did any studying on american armor from that era. Edit - realized I mis-named the HVSS acronym. oops.
Aaron Peart The M4A3E2 never received HVSS, they used VVSS during all the war the Easy 6 modification was the one that gave 76mm guns and T-23 turrets to all the shermans (i'm not sure if wet storage was also part of the E6), the T-23 turret was factory mounted on all jumbos despite mounting a 75mm gun. The Easy 8 was the HVSS+armor+wide tracks modification. Note that the M4A2 never received the Easy 6 upgrade, they skipped to the Easy 8, with the Easy 4 torsion bar suspension never reaching production Also note the standard M4 never received any significant upgrade and the howitzer version was simply named M4 (105) HVSS or M4 (105) if it had a standard VVSS (not to be confused with the M4A3 (105) HVSS and the M4A3 (105))
Lana, You're right about the Jumbo and HVSS. For some reason I thought they'd switched to the HVSS for the M4A3 overall, but it was the VVSS. I find it odd they wouldn't give it to the jumbo, considering the extra weight.. As to the modification for the 76mm, it was not a universal upgrade to all M4s. In fact, they still shipped many M4 variants in late 1944 still with the 75mm M3 because it was cheaper to produce, required less man-hours to assemble, and they already had a large surplus of ammunition for them. Additionally, it was possible to upgrade to the 76 post-production, which did happen a few times, as well as some crews putting the M3 back INTO their tanks. That was why, when you see pictures, most sherman platoons were many 75mm shermans augmented with a 76 sherman, or firefly, depending on which side of the pond you came from. Granted, by the time march '45 came around, production had switched to the most advanced Sherman models like the E8, but that uniformity wasn't seen on the battlefield in full effect, because logistically, it was impossible for the army to fully outfit their armored divisions with 76mm tanks that quickly. The E8 did include upgraded armor, but it was only thicker on the sides, the front was still the ~80mm rolled armor sloped back, though some did recieve applique armor later (25mm extra I believe). The Jumbo was called such because it was the up-armored sherman, roughly 5 inches of steel sloped back on the upper plate, and almost 7 inches on the turret mantlet. The A2 did get the E6 upgrade, but we didn't use it much in the US. it was primarily sent overseas as part of the lend-lease program, and was accepted by the soviets with limited success. The M4 did not because it's hull was poorly designed (IDK what happened to the A2 at the end of my first statement) but the A2 did recieve the 76mm gun. It was just mostly overlooked by the US army because the time between the A2 and superior A3 models was only a couple months at best. Thanks for correcting me, like I said, it's been a hot minute. Was glad to go looking back into things, and found a document on the 12th army Armored section that showed the armor composition of their forces. Kinda cool. the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/manufacturer/m4a376w/m4a376w_72.jpg
In many tank doctrines the first tank that shot would win if fury just shot the front without moving and stood still they could have shot the frontal armor and easily kill it
Good video but you are swimming upstream against entrenched Internet Tank experts. Facts don't mean anything to myth. The Sherman was a good tank, the Tiger was a maintenance Hog. The Most common German tank on the battlefield was the Panzer IV the most common fighting vehicle was the StuG. The Stug had the highest kill rate than any other German tank.
Wasn't the StuG really self propelled artillery rather than a tank? Granted it's artillery piece could be used in an anti-tank role, but it was meant more as a support weapon.
@@schizoidboy it was used as an assault gun, not for artillery. It was also used as an anti-tank, so it would be a tank especially considering its armour was good enough to take rounds.
Posting about the 5 myths about tanks. While I agree that the Sherman was inferior in frontal armour and it's cannon I disagree the Tiger or particularly the Panther weren't good as largely the only reason they didn't succeed in the battle of the bulge was due to lack of resources and air cover which was completely irrelevant when speaking about the tanks design as the allies at this time were very much on the front foot, resources being abundant both the Americans and English could have these parts built and shipped to the front quite quickly whereas the Germans fighting on two fronts and factories constantly being bombed simply didn't have the ability to produce repair parts or fuel. And the failure came more down to a poor strategic decision than poor equipment.
I enjoyed this video quite well. But I also feel the need to say this: I’ve been a gunner on the M1 Abrams for 10 years out of my 16 year military career. There’s a reason it’s design is based off the Tiger tank. It was a beast. Period
4:04 The 75mm at that range could frontally penetrate a Tiger 1s hull, it could also go through the turret of a panther or even destroy it by knocking out the welds from mechanical shock. The tiger 2 however was almost impossible to frontally penetrate with the short 75, but were slow and easily flanked as in the case of an M8 armoured car destroying one.
The US 76mm was actually comparable to the Panzer IV's 75mm KwK 40. Regarding Fury, it's based on post-Remagen March 1945 push to Berlin. Remaining Tiger Is were 'obsolete' cannabilized vehicles used in training schools and reserve (Ausbildings) divisions. The German military placed newer tank crews in newer tanks because it was assumed that better tanks would protect the newer tank crews until they become more experienced. Hence during the Berlin defense, the best tank crews were in Panzer IVs. My point being, highly likely that the Tiger I crew in Fury were most likely Green/training crews using scrap-of-the-barrel reserve tank. And thus their apparent lack of experience... is actually valid.
Reminds me of my War Thunder days when I finally got the Pz IV with the 75mm. Learned very quickly to keep a sharp eye out, stay out of sight, and not stay anywhere too long.
And yet still a better movie than Fury. If you want to see a movie with authentic German equipment, about the only option is to watch "Theirs Be the Glory," made in 1946 with actual veterans and equipment left over from the war. It's about Operation Market Garden.
The movie was filmed in Spain and the Spanish army had Chaffees and M-47s in the large numbers required, so it was the obvious choice to make for a big war film. Although they obviously look different to Shermans and Tiger IIs, the relationship between the two is about right.
@RustyLH LOL - before Google, we had these things called 'books', 'magazines', 'photographs' and 'TV documentaries'. I was born in 1967 and I could ID all the WWII tanks by the time I was about eight years old. Everyone also knew, and was broadly accepting of, the limitations of making live war movies when the correct hardware just flatly wasn't available. A large proportion of Battle Of The Bulge viewers knew that the tanks were 'wrong', but that was just something you had to put up with. It was easy for anyone _who cared_ to find out what the tanks actually looked like, but there's the real issue: most people just _don't care_ . Most people aren't military geeks. To most people "big scary thing with tracks" = "tank", even if it's just an APC with a machine-gun.
#1 myth is that german main tanks were tigers and panthers, in reality these tanks were rare, germans mostly used pz III at first half, and pz IV in second half, also in september campagin they used mostly pz II and pz I #2 myth is that german tanks charged alone on their enemies, in reality only allies in earliest parts of african campagin done that, on other sides tanks were combined with infantry.
@John Cornell But the brunt force of the german armoured units were sent against the british. So american Shermans were very unlikely to face better german tanks. As mentioned here, the americans only came up against Tigers on three occassions after landing on D-Day.
@John Cornell By the autumn of 1944 though (depending on how you define autumn) the big armoured battles of Normandy and the Falaise pocket was already over though and there wouldn't be another major german amassment of armour until the Ardenne offensive. By the fall, the brits were bogged down in the Netherlands, clearing the estuaries, so it's only logical that they would face less armour. On the topic of you and Zaloga, I know of him (and the Chieftain for that matter) but I've never heard of you before, so I'll go with the word of a known historian over yours.
That last point about tanks and infantry, is an annoying feature of the film “A bridge too far”; because they get it right and portray it badly. Towards the end of the film, you see Robert Redford losing his rag, at a British tank commander; who isn’t going to advance any further, after Redford’s unit had fought so hard to take a bridge. He can’t believe that the British armour is going to “...sit here; and drink tea?”, when they are just a few miles away, from reliving the besieged and beleaguered British paratroopers. The problem is, as the British officer pointed out, they had no infantry support, to go with them. The Grenadier Guards were still fighting in the town, clearing the remaining enemy troops. So the idea of changing ahead, to fight a German panzer Division, was tactically ridiculous. This was portrayed poorly however, with Redford’s character incredulous response. The audience got the impression that the paratroopers could have been saved, if they’d just pushed a little harder and further.
I read the book that the movie was based on and had the British pushed harder and not stopped when the daylight went away they might have been able to achieve the objective of taking all the bridges. What the movie doesn't show is that XXX Corps did make it to the river and was able to link up with the British Paras but the Paras were so weak from fighting they it was decided to pull them out since they could not hold out long enough for a bridge to be built. Plus the highway that the British had pushed up and been cut in several places by the Germans and units from XXX Corps had to go back and reopen the road. But as for Redford's comment in the movie I think it was meant to show that the disgust that the American troops had at that moment for the British tankers, knowing that the British Para's were fighting and dying just up the road.
Sorry I was talking about on the first day of battle. You are correct about the bridge at Nijmegen, those 5 tanks would have been wiped out for sure. But on the first day of battle the British did stop for the night as was their doctrine at the time.
The British Tank Commander asked the American Paratroopers if they would accompany the Tanks if they pushed ahead. The Americans told him to go forth and multiply.
Some minor corrections and additions. 1. There was only one diesel variant of the M4 in ww2, the M4A2. It wasn't a specific upgrade really more of a trade-off. Russia and the Marines were the primary users of this variant. Russia liked the extra torque and shared fuel. The Marines just didn't want to fight with other services and countries so they took them. 2. There are only 3 or 4 confirmed battles between Americans and Tiger tanks. British and other countries did fight more of them. However it is true the majority of the rare (1347) Tigers were on the Eastern front. 3. People focus too much on armor penetration. The M4's medium velocity 75mm had excellent high-explosive and smoke ammo. In fact it's HE performance was better than the Panther's L/70 75mm. This is due to the tech limitation that high velocity ammo can't have as much HE filler. This is extra important when you consider tanks fired HE about 80% of the time with the remainder being split between smoke & AP. For this reason more than a few tankers preferred the 75mm over the 76mm the Sherman got later. 4. Fury isn't the only 76mm M4 in that scene. The second tank destroyed also has a 76mm but without the muzzle break on it. This just reinforces how right you were in saying it was wrong for the Shermans to charge when two of them could penetrate the Tiger's front no problem from over 1,000 yards. (76mm HVAP has 127mm of penetration against armor angled at 30 degrees at 1,000 yards). Tiger 1's front plate is 100mm thick with almost no angling. 5. Wet stowage wasn't the only thing done to prevent ammo related fires. Applique armor was put over the ammo rack on early model M4s and later "dry" Shermans had their ammo moved to under the floor where it would be less vulnerable to penetration. (Wet Shermans had their ammo in the same place) 6. The M4 also had a variant with a 105mm howitzer that was very powerful. It also had a HEAT round that could defeat a Panther's front plate. 7. Sherman had a gun stabilizer while no other countries tank had one in ww2.
The gas vs. diesel tanks came down to supply. Both the American and German armies used gasoline-powered tanks and vehicles, and their supply chains were simplified by providing a common fuel for all of them. Providing diesel would have complicated matters, especially considering that Allied supply lines were already strained by the rapid push towards Germany. The USMC in the Pacific was supplied by the Navy, and the Navy was set up to provide large amounts of diesel fuel for small craft and larger vessels such as LSTs which were powered by locomotive diesels. The Navy goes to great lengths to avoid carrying and handling gasoline because it's so volatile and explosive. This is why the USMC Shermans were diesel powered. Also, the M4A2 tanks' GMC diesels shared parts with the engines in the Navy's small boats and landing craft, simplifying the supply chain further.
The angle of armor is much more effective against HEAT rounds and the 105's would never go tank v tank if at all possible. I never heard of an engagement.
The reason the Sherman got a bad rap was because of the casualties suffered in the hedgerows of Normandy. It was put into a combat situation it wasn't designed for (and really other tanks weren't either)....close quarters combat with limited visibility. The Sherman doesn't get credit for being exceptional at doing what it was designed to do....operate cross country at high speeds and excelling at what tanks are designed to do.....operate as the pinnacle of balance between firepower, maneuverability, and protection on the battlefield. It's post Normandy service was exceptional.
@Elron The Sherman would move cross country. The Tiger would sit somewhere and shoot cross country. What the one had in effective range, the other had in mobility. the Tiger, although designed as a breakthrough vehicle, was really a design much more suited for defense.
@Elron sure. In flat, open terrain with firm ground, yes. Yet it suffered from restricted mobility, dependence on a logistic background that wasn't there (fuel, transport, workshops) und short action range. So it seems to me, it had strength and weaknesses, but all in all, it was in the wrong place at the wrong time, and there were never enough of them to really make it count.
Nicholas Moran, aka "The Chieftain", likes to point out the Sherman's secret weapon, which is also a limitation on the Sherman's design: The ability to be shipped from factory to front without disassembly to accommodate the weight and size restrictions all along the way. It fit on both U.S. and most European flat cars, and most harbors had at least one crane that could load and unload them intact. It might not have been the very best tank, but it was arguably the best tank that could be delivered across the Atlantic in large quantities, fast. And, of course, the almost unique ability of American factories to turn out fully interchangeable tank parts boosted the quantity of Shermans that could be kept operational after delivery. (Story goes a British officer was amazed to find U.S. assembly areas in the tank factories without a vise in sight. No vise because nothing needed to be filed or drilled to fit.)
Hundreds? More like dozens. A few may have scored close to a hundred actually. The Germans had a nasty habit of accounting Full Kills to all their Tanker and Pilots, regardless if it was a Shared Kill or not. Someone actually once crunched the numbers and said that in one battle with the US Army, the Germans claimed to have destroyed more Tanks than were actually present. By a factor of 4 to 1.
@@FLJBeliever1776 Yes but you have that on all sides. At one point the Russians claimed to have destroyed more Panzer VI Tigers than how many were actually build at that time.
Arne Krug - Those were either propaganda claims or exaggerated claims. This was neither. The Germans used an Institutionalized System that MISCOUNTED the total number of defeated enemies. How else can you explain that the Luftwaffe was totally baffled by the sheer numbers of RAF planes that kept popping up during the Battle of Britain? They thought they decided the RAF Fighter Command several times over. Even sent in unescorted bombers that took heavy losses at one point. This wasn't wild claims or confused claims, this was a system that was inherently flawed and created confusion among its own users. These were documented with great care to confirm precise numbers and then figure out total kills later. But because so many were being awarded full, rather than shared kills, it ballooned the numbers and gave the impression that the Germans thought they were winning. A lot like how the Argentina Military Junta made a bold claim they were winning the Falklands War, instead of actually losing it. Only difference here, was the Argentinian Junta knew they were losing and how badly so. The Germans didn't. They thought they were wiping out whole squadrons on a regular basis, giving strength to the belief they were a super people. When the reality was the opposite.
@@FLJBeliever1776 I quite agree, the "best" ace of WWII was supposedly Michael Wittman who is credited with up to 130 kills, (depending on source), however most of these were up to 1943 on the Eastern front between his STUG III and a Panzer III before transferring to a Tiger 1 at a point where the Russian tanks couldn't easily destroy the Tiger. Fast forward to '44 where the Germans didn't have that advantage and Wittman went from being nigh on invincible to dead in 2 months. Over half his kills in France were trucks and personnel carriers.
Yes he does, but his reasons are far more sophisticated than those in this video, many of which are fine, but many of which are misleading at best. Chieftain would likely say this video has some flaws but is not too bad. He might choose to be in a Tiger I if he's just facing off 1-on-1 versus a Sherman, even an easy 8. His claim is not that the Sherman is a better tank in the anti-tank role when in action. His claim is it was the right tank for the US to build and ship, for a host of reasons, many of which are ignored or barely addressed in this vid.
I didn't have a big issue with this vid, gaps notwithstanding, but when someone mentioned the chieftain you claimed he'd would agree with this video. I'm not convinced he would. I don't see what the intent or scope of the video have to do with it. Vid says x, y, and z; Chief thinks x, maybe y, and not z. Ergo, he wouldn't agree.
Contrary to 'Fury' Tiger crews were forbidden to fire the 88 on the move, its in the manual .. the trunion pull on firing the gun would damage the turret ring and the gun mount disabling the tank M4's had a 80% survival rate, T34's were 30%
Allen please stop spreading the myth that Sherman's weren't used for antitank roles. Please refer to the UA-cam channel chieftains hatch as to where this myth comes from.
@@PsilocybinCocktail And also at least on one occasion states why being a current tank commander is irrelevant as a qualification when speaking about WW2 tanks. Some of the tactics might translate, but not much else with regards to knowledge.
Sure in one of cases from a defensive position. The reason some German tanks were so effective is they knew the ground and picked good defensive positions. It's like comparing infantry vs a pill box. It's hardly a fair comparison of tanks. Overall if you just compare tank loses its pretty much a wash. Especially when so many Sherman tanks survived compared to their contemporaries.
Also remember that at the end of two weeks fighting in Normandy (Caen), the 12th SS Panzer Division "Hitlerjugend" were virtually wiped out, suffering roughly 80% losses.
The Krauts killed my grandfather three times, then a fourth just to make sure he was *really* dead. They never returned his body, but my family is convinced he's still alive out there.
Fun fact: the easy eight and the tiger they used in Fury, are both real tanks on display in the tank museum in Dorset, England. They are still running and they get driven around once a year during tiger day.
Tiger crews were "instructed" to takeout, fireflies first, not the Easy8's. An easy 8 could probably take out a tiger up front at about 500meters in range, or maybe even less, at which case it would be dead before it even got to that range, as a tiger can knock out a sherman, at ranges of about 1100meters to 1500meters, plus in the fury scene, the last "man" in the column was taken out first, because the tiger knows of its superiority, meaning he prevented a retreat from the enemy sherman platoon, and wanrted to finish them all off. The inaccuracy of that scene is that the battle field was an open field, and taking out the lead tank or the last tank was irrelevant as they can still escape, but if a treeline was there the retreat would be impossible, and therefore the sherman platoon has no chance but to engage.
@@nickthepick120 It's called "neutral steering" and few tanks could do that back then. Even the Panther which was able to, was recommended not to, as it could strip the transmission if done wrong.
Pavonis Gangster Zaloga actually said 3 or 4 “encounters” between Shermans and Tiger I tanks. This goofy video says the same but then mentions Tiger IIs in the next breath. Each encounter could and usually did involve multiple Tiger tanks so Zaloga did not mean only 3 or 4 tanks. Even then you are correct, there were more encounters. Using the word encounter can be misconstrued or used in a very broad sense. Did a company of US tanks “encounter” a platoon of Tigers in an area over several days? Does that count as one encounter or many? Way too much emphasis is put on this number by experts” out there so that they can then claim to in fact have super secret information that the unwashed do not, and then tell us all we are morons, so watch their videos and buy their books. Of course these are fabricated “myths” because any casual student of this campaign knows that German heavy tanks were relatively rare, especially in the West. These “mythbuster” videos are aimed at the World of Tanks crowd who think WWII was nothing but one huge tank battle conducted at 40mph.
Dont know know how accurate it is, but i remember hearing that bomber crews "only" had to do a dozen missions and then they were retired just because the casualty rate was so high and they were so fortunate to have survived that long.
@@penzorphallos3199 The standard Bomber Command tour was 30 operations. The USAAF talked about 25 missions, but the crew of the Memphis Belle flew a total of 29. The 12-mission number was was a rough guess at how long it took to learn enough to stand a chance of surviving a tour.
Brits love to mock the Americans for being foolish enough to fly during daylight against Germany even though the RAF had a higher casualty rate than the 8th Air Force.
"...in reality, something as large as an Tiger tank, would probably never be send into a town, with such narrow Streets, especially if its occupied by enemy troops and no infantry Units were send to support that tank." Michael Wittmann with his 4 Tigers Standing in front of Villers Bocage after ambushing and absolutely wrecking the british convoy… other Tiger commander:"So what now Michael?" Michael Wittmann:"This is where the fun Begins :)" --> goes alone into town without infantry or even other armor support, keeping spreading chaos, confusion and carnage around the enemy, until immobilized by an 6 pounder at gun…. i would consider it an valueable tactic xD
I would consider it risky to the point of suicidal. Or, as the germans of the time would call it, "halskrank" (throat-sore, i.e., in desperate need for something to tie around the neck. Like a knight´s cross....) Remember Grosny.
@@paavobergmann4920 of Course it is risky, and tbh flatout stupid.... but he did it, thats why i made that joke… in hindsight very lucky and extremely effective, but back in the Situation just stupid...
@Paavo Bergmann ....loving the discussion, great posts. Even Carius, Bolter, Egger, Knispel, all legendary tank commanders in Tiger I and Tiger II would agree. As retired Army my take is, tactics are determined by the situation. The best officers I served under in 32 years had two attributes that made them stand out... 1. Coolness under fire. 2. Incredible Situational Awareness.
To lay it more clearer to the idiots in comment section: 1. The M4's hatches were among the most accessible of World War 2 tanks thanks to its huge crew space. Basically, large crew space means less chance of multiple crew member getting killed in one shot and easy to access hatches mean Allied crew can easily bail out of the M4. Hence, at the end of the war, the M4 have among the best crew survivability. The Tiger I and Panther, however, have a smaller crew space thus making their hatches harder to access. Meanwhile, the Soviet T-34 had one of the worst hatch accessibility and smallest crew space of all WW2 tanks, thus making it a death trap for its crew. 2. The "easy-to-burn" M4 was a result of poor British ammo storage during the early stage of the war. While it is true the early M4 suffered from not having non-wet ammo storage (like most tanks at the time), it didn't help that the British thought the extra crew space meant they should jam as much ammo as they can into the M4. On side note, the British/Commonwealth M4 crew survivability was also lower than the Americans due to the fact that "fashionable" berets does jack shit when it comes to stopping shrapnel. 3. The majority of German armor the US faced were Panzer IV G/H and Stug III, all of which the M3 75mm on the M4 can penetrate from the front, especially when considering the fact that the average combat tank range in the Western Front was below 500 meters. The British/Commonwealth, being the ones on the northern Western Front, dealt with the almost all of the German heavy armor coming from Northern France/Belgium. Also, the M3 75mm had superior HE capability than the Panther and even the Tiger I with its 88mm. A crucial advantage when the main threats to tanks were infantry and anti-tank gun. 4. The M4 also had a revolutionary gyro-stabilized gun (M3 75mm) and a full set of advanced FM radios. In other words, M4 were the ideal tanks for mobile warfare, considering the M4 didn't have to stop to fire accurately (well as long as it doesn't go too fast) and tanks could communicate effectively with each other as well as supporting units. In fact, Patton's 3rd Army made good of use of these advantages to outmaneuver and soundly defeat a German force made up mostly of Panthers at the Battle of Arracourt. 5. The M4 was built to be adaptable to any situation, a key element that allowed it to be one of the very few tanks to be deployed in nearly all fronts of WW2 (I am not sure if Soviets used any against Finland in later stage of war). It can be fitted to remove mines/obstacles, lay down bridges, acted as mobile artillery(105mm)/fire-thrower, and even to act as amphibious tanks. Even decades after WW2, the Israeli and French constantly upgraded the M4 enabling it to combat Soviet T--54/55/62.
Correct me if I err, but was not another consideration in the M4 design the requirements for amphibious ops and bridging limits? I heard many heavy german tanks were heavily restricted on what bridges they could use.
Lensflare Deviant Kind of. The M4 was design to be easily transport from factory via trains to shipping yards. It weigh less than heavy tabks, which meant more be load onto transport ships. So, by default, it meant M4 can also cross smaller bridges that heavier tanks cannot.
@ivan ivanovitch ivanovsky Were the T-54/55/62 not all post wwii tanks? From what I read the M4 enjoyed a 3:1 kill ratio against T-34's in Korea for what that's worth. Everything else says the two ever pretty evenly matched with each doing somethings better than the other.
@ivan ivanovitch ivanovsky I agree, that's why I said "for what it's worth" because a kill ratio is hardly the whole story but there is little good data available, Korea was not war that involved a lot of tank battles it's just the only example I knew of where the 2 ever actually traded shots. :)
Sean he really dosent know much he said the panther was underpowered while it was faster then the Sherman and the panther lost all its mechanical issues by the battle of the bulge because they had the g variant where they toned down the horsepower to make it mechanically reliable then the A
gee, i hate to pop your bubble here, but your info is way off. my dad was a driver with the 753 tank battalion and drove several versions of the sherman, including the " easy 8". the 76 mm gun on the sherman could not penatrate the front armour of a tiger 2 at 500 yards, as my dad saw this happen on several encounters. the 88mm round would and did penatrate the front of the sherman at 1000 to 1500 yards. my dad was there, so his word is fact. you need to talk to american tankers to get the true story. tigers were bad design in that it could not be repaired in the field because of the weight. sherman crew could fix a broken track with tools they carried.
Yeah and my dad was a double agent spy that highjacked a landkreuzer p.1000 and ran over Hitler with it without any germans ever noticing. Since my dad was there his word is fact.
Was not intended to disrespect him, just the "my dad was there, so his word is fact" part. It just sounded so silly, especially with how you spaced your lines.
I would like to point out that in 1:15 it was said that the snow caused problems with mobility on both sides. While this is true the show itself would have been a bigger problem for the Allies instead of the Germans, this is being due to the fact that the Shermans had very narrow tracks for their 30-ton weight, in comparison with which the larger German tanks were most probably made with the eastern front in mind hence their substantially wider tracks. The only reason that similar proportions of tanks didn't get to their fighting positions on both sides would have been due to the fact that German tanks were breaking down while the Shermans were getting bogged. In fact I read a story about a company of M4 tanks attacking a group of German Tiger Tanks and to do so the M4s had to cross a muddy field and most of them got bogged and destroyed and those that weren't bogged were latter taken out when the German Tiger tanks crossed the same field without any of them getting bogged. I would also like to point out that in the scene in Fury between Tiger 131 and the column, if the commander of the German tank had been smart he would have stayed were he was and taken out the M4s in their rush at the Tiger, M4s had horrible suspension, secound only to the T34 and stood very little chance of hitting even something as big as a Tiger at ranges such as the range of the engagement.
After problems with mud were found by the Soviets, the M4s provided to them were equipped with extensions to make the tracks wider. The issue was addressed. Also, M4s had an early gyroscopic gun stabilizer, while other tanks of the time did not, and were therefore no less capable of shooting on the move than their contemporaries, and probably better than most.
@@Morrigi192 The Sherman's stabilizer absolutely did NOT allow the tank to fire accurately on the move. All it did was allow the gunner to track his target easier and to get a shot off quicker after the driver had made his stop. The Sherman's stabilizer was effectively useless past 10km/h and was negated completely past 15km/h.
I never said it allowed the tank to fire accurately on the move, try actually reading what I wrote. I said it was probably better than its contemporaries, which had no stabilizers at all.
The Allies knew about the mud and snow problems on the Eastern front, but determined (wrongly) that they wouldn't be as much of a problem in Western Europe, and so to save weight equipped the Shermans with narrower tracks. When this problem was realized, they started equipping Shermans from the factory with wide tracks. Also the Sherman had a very good suspension system, that's why it was used, because it had been so proven and tested already. It also had a very good fire control system for aiming the gun.
Well Panzer is actually the german word for Armor. But it's the word they use in place for tank. It would be "Armor tank" Still not a great use of words. but Not actually tank tank.
Patton couldn't get any Sherman tanks or Panzer IVs which is why they went through such an effort to paint the tanks accurately. They get a pass just because they were not able to use any accurate tanks.
Sherman 76 was not so effective against Tiger due to shatter gap effect. US test plates were metallurgically different to German armour steel , especially that on Tiger. On arriving in Normndy the US found their shot breaking up at ranges they should have penetrated. The British had noted this odd effect in North Africa, where rounds that could penetrate beyond 1000 yards would fail at shorter ranges, or hits would fail at short range and then start to penetrate further out. The theory on shatter gap is that when hits penetrate there are certain impact forces on the projectile nose. If the velocity is increased and the armor thickness is held constant, the round moves armor out of the way faster, which leads to increased inertial forces on the ammo nose. If the projectile nose is too soft, such that it absorbs much of the impact energy, the nose can shatter and break up. U.S. and Russian ammunition fell into the shatter gap nose hardness range (less than 59 Rockwell C). While British ammunition was harder than the threshold, some characteristic of the projectiles made it vulnerable to shatter gap. With regard to Tiger armor, shatter gap normally occurs when the armor thickness is close to, equal to or thicker than the projectile diameter. U.S. 76mm APCBC hits on Tiger armor would fall into this category. If 76mm APCBC hit the Tiger driver plate at 12° side angle, the resultant LOS thickness would equal 109mm at 0°. With shatter gap, rounds fail when they have 1.05 to 1.25 times the armor resistance, which would result in 76mm failures from point blank to 550 meters range, and then penetrate from 550m to 750m. On 76mm hits against the Tiger side armor at 30° side angle, the resistance would equal 103mm at 0°, and all hits would be expected to fail from point blank to 800m, and then penetrate from 800m to 1000m.
I am fairly certain most vets interviewed said the German tanks were far superior to allied tanks in the west. I remember many of them telling of point blank shell bounce on Tigers. Fuel was the biggest factor in tank superiority in the late west European war. Great video.
I'm starting to get the sense that Hitler's meddling in the war effort was a major reason for why the germans lost in a lot of places where they possibly could have won.
My impression is yes and no. It's scary how some of the stuff he had planned seems like it should have worked, and some of the other stuff he planned directly foiled his other plans. A few examples: Rommel likely would have had a much easier time in North Africa if the Germans hadn't pulled resources to Barbarossa when they did. And taking the Suez canal would have opened up all manner of other changes to the war. (But then, would Barbarossa have worked as well as it did if Hitler had waited on Rommel in Egypt...?) Apparently Hitler's basic plan for 1941 was to hit hardest in southern Russia, and go straight for the Caucasus. Hitler's generals decided to focus on Moscow. Hitler's basic plan for 1942 was to again hit southern Russia, and go straight for the Caucasus. Hitler's generals finally did this, but they also sent the lion's share of reinforcements to the German center, in preparation to hit Moscow. Stalingrad likely would have gone very differently if Germany hadn't been starving its primary offense of reinforcements for months. If I recall correctly, in 1944, Germany lost pretty much its entire central army force in July because Hitler directly ordered his forces to static defensive positions, and the Russians essentially used 1941 Blitzkrieg tactics back on the Germans. My impression is that Hitler has decent strategic sense, but terrible tactical sense. Fortunately, he also tended to use the one against the other.
The generals sometimes made bad decisions and vice versa. For example, his generals wanted to take Moscow to try end the war, but the Russians definitely weren’t going to give up just because they took Moscow, and hitler aimed for the Russian oil fields which were much better targets. Basically both him and his generals made bad decisions, so they prob still would have lost.
@@karlozovko6465 No, I'm saying that the people who claim to know what's realistic don't really do their research, if you take a look at archives and post-war analysis, you'll realise that these people just base their facts/claims off myths that the Internet made popular
Well they couldn't get the right tanks, so OK, but the funniest thing in the whole film is when Kojak's tank has half a turret left and he is unscathed. I laughed so hard.
Their opinion is irrelevant and, in many cases, wrong. Take, for example, the veteran who came to the conclusion that the Sherman was a death trap. All he ever saw were the dead crews sent back from combat. He had no clue that the Sherman actually had one of the best crew survivability rates of the war.
Kelly's Heroes was rare in their tank accuracy using actual M4s against T34s made to look like Tiger Mk1s. That's was rare for a movie made in the 1960s
KG Peiper , 1st SS LAH , on 12-23=1944 had lost 40 tiger 2s', and 40 panthers, mostly due to no gas and bullets, or just stuck in the mud, big guns need a lot of trucks
Well no it's not exactly well designed, it was designed to mass produce and is cheap. Yes it's well designed for this purpose but, it's not that good in terms of tank combat. It's way too tall and large weak spots like upper glaciers. In 1944 it's 75mm can't penatrate the frontal armor of gen3 German tanks. And that's why it's refined through the war and its actually pretty good at the end of the war
@@tiredtotality4145 "M4 was incredibly well designed as a piece of war effort." AS A PIECE OF WAR EFFORT. M4 was part of complex doctrine, and didn't really need to be very effective against pzV or pzVI. Wasn't perfect, but was reliable, easy to live with, easy to repair and very good to fight 95% of opponents. And being an M4 crew was one of safest job among Allied troops on frontline. To sumarize: bloody well design!
@@tiredtotality4145 Yeah and on top of that they were well designed, it's really easy to have the thickest armor, and the biggest gun, that's not a feat of engineering, to just make a massive tank, especially when they end up being unreliable and in need of extensive maintenance. If the panther had to be ferried across the Atlantic to be deployed in combat, like the Sherman had to, i can assure you it wouldn't be remembered as a great tank. Because war is not just people shooting at each other, and especially not just tank shooting at each other, it's also a lot of logistic and coordination between infantry, armored division, and air support, and a vehicle that put less strain on logistic offer a significant advantage. And the Sherman did offer that it was reliable and easy to repair on the field. Yeah the Sherman original 75 mm had trouble with the tiger and panther, but their was no urgent need to counter those tank, Germany couldn't flood the battlefield with those tank, they actually had other weapon to deal with those tank, they had air support, infantry Anti tank gun, Tank destroyer. And ultimately when the project launched mid war to release Sherman capable of dealing with those tank was finished, well the 76 mm Sherman were well capable of dealing with those tank at good range while being cheaper reliable, and without being a completely new Model that would have needed new production line ,and different spare part.
The pictures of the 'MK IV' tanks erroneously referred to as attacking during the Battle of the Somme, were actually MK I tanks ...... note the rear steering wheels that were only ever fitted to the MK Is.
Sure in one of cases from a defensive position. The reason some German tanks were so effective is they knew the ground and picked good defensive positions. It's like comparing infantry vs a pill box. It's hardly a fair comparison of tanks.
I'm so glad people are finally dispelling all the bogus myths about the Sherman tank. It wasn't just slapped together, it was a good tank that was actually well designed and did its job within the limitations the US had to work with.
man, just imagine if the Germans had used all the weapons that Hydra was developing before Steve Roger took steroids and stop them, we would've been so screw. eh, Heil Hydra!
@@venator5only if you buy into the History Channel's nonsense. You look at German tank reliability and American tanks make them out to be worse than a Mark V. Can German tanks kill American tanks? Yes. But American tanks can just as easily, depending on the models we consider, kill German tanks.
@@ironstarofmordian7098 I don't buy History channel. I read books like Spielberger, Jentz, Devey Schneider, Volgin and so on. And some technical aspects indeed make them superior. Reliability is a difficult topic it is really complex.
@@ironstarofmordian7098 fun fact is also how "garbage" Japanese tanks were among, if not the most reliable tanks in the war. Can't remember where I read it, but they were noted as being excellent for fighting in terrible terrain with minimal infrastructure like they were, rather than fields and suburbs in Europe.
For anyone wondering why Pattons and Chaffees are being called Tigers and Shermans, it was common in film to use them as standins. Edit: nm, he mentions this near the end.
Before you post about the wrong tanks being used in all the scenes 7:45 probably should’ve mentioned it earlier but hey my bad
@10:32 you said that tanks were first used in the Somme, I thought that they were first used in Cambrai
@@gymladdtate3493 They were first used in Camri.
It is a funny thing that in The Unknown Soldier (1955 film) Pzkw IV was used as a soviet tank instead of a KV tank. Nowadays it's not a problem thanks to some cinematic magic.
The Sherman lacked a gun that could seriously damage a tiger tank (with the exception of a close in shot to rear armor) until the Sherman Firefly tank was released. This is where the story that it took 5 sherman tanks to kill a tiger...4 shermans to die distracting the tiger while the 5th snuck up behind it and killed it. Not entirely sure of the Varacity of this myth but that is supposedly the story.
should watch the entire video before commenting as this is covered lol
"the Tigers often never made it to the front,"
*Yes but no, the front made it to them*
I actually laughed out loud.
@@davidj9677 I did too when dad told me the Nazis are invading OUR country xaxaxxaxaxaxaxa
@@chatbannednosse lmao
By which time they were typically abandoned.
But they were often non-functioning, out of fuel, out of ammunition, or a combination thereof.
1. German tanks are not
invincible.
2. Soviet tanks are not invincible.
3. French tanks are not invincible
4. British tanks are not invincible
5. American tanks are not invincible
@Bf 109 F2 German tanks were damn near invincible check out the survivors being used as memorials
@@michaelmckinnon427 Ah yes, the Panzer II.
@@michaelmckinnon427 They performed poorly late into the Eastern Front. A lot of Tiger/IIs were forced to retake the lost ground in the EF but were just ambushed and destroyed by T34s and IS2s
German may not be perfect but the 88 mm gun was best weapon of the whole WW2
But bias and plot armor are.
They didn't hit the 1st tank because Brad pit was in it
I hear he had 6 inches of plot armor at an incredible angle.
They didn't hit the first tank because that would immediately alert the other 3 to what was going on.
Good joke
Frank Verdino ahahahahhahaahh no, not true at all. You hit the first, the column stops, you hit the last , the column is blocked. You then proceed to hit the ones with better cannons, because the earlier tanks’ guns can’t penetrate tigers frontally or even laterally
@@frankverdino477 so what if taking out the 1st tank "alerted" the other tanks? It's irrelevant because the wreckage of the 1st tank halted the rest of the column. And taking out the last one would've effectively trapped the other ones. So, eliminating the lead tank is a sound tactic.
OK I gotta call BS.
Tigers and Panthers had a more complex suspension system but it gave a very smooth ride and the wide tracks gave very good flotation on soft ground. The statement that the Sherman was lighter and could go across soft ground the German heavies couldn't is outright wrong. Tiger I was slower than a Sherman on roads but had roughly equal performance and speed operating cross country. Panther actually had better cross country performance and US Army reports mentioned many times of Panthers crossing soft ground Shermans bogged down in. Look up UA-cam video "Panther tank versus Sherman Firefly tank field driving test".
Early PzIII and PzIV's had narrow tracks about 350mm wide and had poor cross country performance on snow and soft ground. Later models received a wider 450mm wide track and could also be fitted with track grousers that were pinned to side of track cleat by track pin and increased surface area to reduce ground pressure.
That said the late war Horizontal volute suspension system Shermans was night and day leap forward in cross country performance.
Cast hull Shermans were the weak ones and that was due to some of the tank builders not having experience with casting armor. ALCO is a prime example. Welded hull Shermans were almost all built to correct armor hardness.
The early Shermans had a 55deg sloped front hull 45mm thick with a shot trap and small hatches that were not spring loaded and were hard to get out of. The later Shermans had a simpler, easier to produce one piece front hull sloped at 47deg and increased to 60mm to compensate for the steeper front hull angle. The steeper plate allowed the fitting of much larger spring loaded top hull hatches that made it much easier to get out of.
Gasoline engine Shermans did not burn at a significantly higher rate than diesel engine Shermans. US Army in Europe used exclusively M4A1 with gasoline radial engine and gaoline V8 engine. Diesel engine Shermans went to Allies like Brits and Soviets,
The main culprit in Shermans burning was the ammo stored in side hull sponsons above the tracks. Once the wet hull model came out and moved ammo out of line of fire in side hull to floor under turret ammo fires dropped significantly just from that act.
To best of my knowledge 76mm Shermans were first used in August 1944 for Operation Cobra, the breakout from Normandy. The tanks were limited in number and were issued one 76mm per platoon of 75mm Shermans. British added Fireflys to their Sherman units in same manner, one Firefly per troop.
The Panther never weighed 30 tons. The design specification was for a 30 ton tank with sloped armor. Daimler Benz submitted the VK 30.01D which weighed about 30 tons. MAN submitted their VK 30.02M design intending to use as many Tiger parts as possible to minimize development costs and to standardize on parts. It was felt this would improve chances of wining contract.
The MAN VK30.02M prototype weighed 42 tons. The Panther Ausf D weighed 43 tons. The Panther Ausf A weighed 45 tons. The Panther Ausf G weighed 44 tons, if fitted with steel rimmed road wheels it weighed 46 tons. At no point was a larger gun planned for the VK30.02M and the only armor increase was first 20 tanks produced had 60mm thick glacis plate, rest were upped to 80mm glacis plate.
Never heard anyone describe a Panther as being under powered. It was one of the fastest tanks in WW2 on road and cross country.
Reliability was always a issue for all German tanks. German logistics in WW2 were a nightmare and all effort was on producing more tanks, very little effort went into building tank parts. Thus it was common for disabled tanks to be cannibalized of parts to keep other tanks running. Unit reports show that from late 1943 til about March 1945 when reports ceased that PzIV's and Panthers usually had roughly same operational rate of around 50%. Tigers were usually higher as they had priority on parts, ammo, and repair manpower as they were seen as more vital to the war effort
By 1943 materials to make steel and materials such as Tungsten used for machining and AP rounds were in very short supply. Fuel was so scarce tanks were often transported by wood fueled steam locomotives and Luftwaffe had little fuel to train replacement pilots.
tHaTs A lot oF wOrDs
Excellent calling out - provable facts. Well done
A lot of good info there, thank you for those!
"Reliability was always a issue for all German tanks."
One thing another youtube historian, TIK, mentioned in one of his vids was that he didn't know whether German tanks were actually less reliable. He had no information on whether the Germans actually had more calls for tank repairs per capita than the US, or whether the US tanks simply got back to combat faster because they had more reliable access to spare parts.
@@Shachza According to a author and researcher on German armor Thomas Jentz tanks breakdowns were fairly common for whatever reason by all nations.
A US Army officer studied and wrote a report about German Army logistics in WW2. It reads like a horror novel. There was so much focus on more tanks, more tanks, more tanks that insufficient effort was put into replacement parts. It was common by 1943 for German tank units to be cannibalizing parts off damaged tanks to keep other tanks running. Google "Logistics In WW2 - Final Report Of Army Service Forces" if you want to read it.
By comparison the US Army would recover tanks and do a sort of triage, determining which tanks could be repaired the quickest and fixing those first. Whatever tanks the unit was short of were requisitioned and sent to the unit overnight so the unit was almost always at full strength the next morning, for sure within 48 hours. The US logistics were so well organized that the joke was they could assemble complete tanks from all the spare parts at rear area maintenance units.
Who doesn't know it, the famous M47 Tiger
@Greg nelson or the famous M4A3 Panzerkampfwagen VI
@@julesb6816 i know
@Greg nelson or do you remenber Hogans heroes when they used a M7 priest as a Tiger?
Patton tanks for the Patton film
@Greg nelson or no, a T90 as a M1A2 and a M60A3 as a russian tank. (Illuminati music starts playing)
'Fury' is about as representative of tank combat as Roadrunner is of prey/predator interactions.
That scene from Fury, but realistically :
*Lead tank gets sniped*
*Fury gets destroyed because of its gun*
*Credits roll*
@@klobiforpresident2254at the movie range the 76mm on the m4 could punch thru the front of a mark6
@@jdsol1938
It travels as the lead tank in its squad. In an ambush it's the first to go to stop the column.
@@klobiforpresident2254 in open fields tank should not be traveling in columns, also the Mark6 had to stop to aim and fire the m4 didn't
@@jdsol1938
The Tiger was in a position where moving was wholly unnecessary and where fury would have gone done first in most cases anyway, because tanks with the 76mm were attacked first, being the larger tactical threat. Unless Fury had become lucky or its barrel camouflage had worked (I don't remember there being any in the film but it was used historically to pretend being a 75mm gun) it would not be for long in this world.
Yeah I was really confused by those "tigers/panthers" that looked more like Pattons
Yea and the Chaffee just moves to quick to be a medium tank
Darth Cirls an M24 Chaffee vs a nazi M47 Patton. Very historical.
But Tiger two his Front Armour was Never penetratet by a different tank..
@Reagan James Not in real combat. The IS-2 could penetrate Tiger 2's turret, but only at closer range. On the other hand, Tiger 2 would destroy the IS-2 at way longer distance. The IS-2 wouldn't even manage to get so close to penetrate Tiger 2 from the front.
Wimex The metal of later Tiger 2s was rushed by the Germans making it very brittle.the IS2 shouldn't have been able to penetrate the frontal armor but it did with many of the tiger 2's frontal armor being broken or caved in
This guy: "tiger mk 2"
Me: *scheiße, i dont drink tea!!*
that poor STuG abandoned on the side of the road at 1:22. If you're cold, they're cold. Bring them inside
#stuglyfe
Alex Daigle I love the STUG
the stug 3 had the highest kill ratio of all German armor in the war. it was a great little machine. perfect for shoot and scoot. as Michael Wittman proved in the early days on the Russian front.
Yeah. It's a good ambush tank.
yes the only one I have ever seen is at Aberdeen. they are small, fast, well armed once they put the high velocity 75mm on it. everything you want in an ambush tank. just ask the Swiss their legendary S tank was supposed to be designed from the stug 3.
not sure I would want to serve in one. but then I was never a tanker to begin with. its safer jumping out of airplanes.
Fury actually used the only functional Tiger Tank in the world Tiger 131 from Bovington UK Fury is in the same place
Yeah, I'm actually visiting Bovington this year. Excited to see both of them.
@@killianlile173 Is going to be your first time?
@@killianlile173 fury's actually in the big conservation centre (the hall where they keep all their stuff they Couldn't for in the actual museum). It's right below the viewing platform on the left you can see it perfectly
Samson Crawford it is supposed to be the only running tiger 1 left in the world
Samson Crawford it is currently the only functioning tiger 1. not original engine though AFAIK, the engine was from a tiger 2
0:55 Wow, I didn't know Nazi Germany was using M46/47 Pattons from the future for the Battle of the Bulge.
Magister R'yleth people always say the Germans in ww2 were ahead of their time
Back when you could do whatever the fuck you wanted and no one cared
Back then, CGI wasn't ready and rebuilding german WW2 tanks isn't really a option. German tanks barley existed (being the side that lost, far fewer built ect.) after WW2.
So overall, I would give those earlier movies the benefit of the doubt, because practical no one has got that right.
Even "A Bridge too far" has Leopard 1 as Panthers, Tiger and Panzer 4.
Doesn't explain thou why they didn't use Shermans thou. There were alot of them around.
Also:
I wouldn't even be sure that the audience would even know what which tank look like, without google at they hand.
The most grievous example of this btw that I know is in "Holgan Heroes" where they try to sell a Priest, an artillery, as Tiger 1.
@@Nonsense010688 Unless that audience is a World of Tanks or WarThunder players. 😉
Wow, the Germans were fielding M48 Pattons. We didn't have a chance!
Especially if all we had were m24 chaffees
You are some real tank guys/girls
Aren't those M47s ?
@@fruitmidget2533 I think they did show a clip of M 47's. They have a very distinctive turret. You can hardly tell an M48 from an M60.
Thats a M47 not a M48
*plays war thunder once*
you know, i'm something of a scientist myself
Oh my now that is funny.😂
I actually thought this
*WoT Tech tree historically accurate
Even War Thunder RB isnt exactly somewhat realistic itself
SairasKynx remember its a game and they need to keep things balanced and fun. if you played the germans yay for you getting to stop shermans in your king tiger all day but how fun would it be as the americans or brits on the receiving end. and also if youre the germans your panthers would just go up in flames at the start of the battle or its final drives giving out. wouldnt be a fun game would it.
The Sherman did what it was designed to do. It was cheap to build, quick to build and weight allowed it to be lifted by cranes at ports. The upgraded 76mm or British Firefly were enough to do the job.
In terms of crew death I think the M10 TDs has a higher killed rate due to the exposed turret
Tiger may have been too heavy but it did achieve psychological victory over the allies and just it’s rumoured presence was enough to hold up advancing units.
If anything the biggest threat to allied tanks were the Pak 40 AT guns and in small numbers Panzerfausts.
Youre the only person ive found mention the cranes. Which most dont consider. We had to limit our design weight because of cranes state side. I think it played a part into why the pershing was slow to come to ww2. Not a major part, but one none the less
You're right about that. Tigers couldn't be everywhere, so it made sense to have a medium tank for most jobs.
+Bacon God516 The Chieftain mentioned that in his Myths of American Armor videos iirc
@@bacon51695 the pershing had an terible engine too. just like the tiger 2 so verry slowww. funy that the next in line of US tanks was basicaly a pershing with a better engine.
Cranes, bridges, and even just sheer numbers that can fit on a ship, the lower weight helped all around
The M4 was never called the Burning coffin by the Polish. The M3 Lee was called a coffin for 7 brothers, however.
I've read in a book by a Franciszek Skibiński (chief of staff in 1st Polish Armored Brigade) where he claims that soldiers refered to M4s as "cows" compared to cromwells (which were the only tanks that could be called "warhorses")
Reds had bunchs of M3 Lee and really hated it, hence the 'coffin name'
That name has never came up regarding the _M4._
It was. And Tommy Cooker to the Brits. And other things.
@@jackrubenfeld1735 No it was not
Point about nemenclature: "Easy-8" isn't the name of the 76mm gun, or automatically the name of any tank carrying one. Easy-8 comes from the -E8 on the end of the designation of the first Shermans to have a revised suspension system called HVSS which gave a much better, "easy" ride. There were 76mm Shermans with the earlier suspension system too, so while it's true that every Easy-8 had a 76mm, not every 76mm Sherman was an Easy-8.
not true you can have an m4a3e8 with the 75mm gun only every m4a(insert 1-6 here)e6 had the 76mm gun
@@signolias100 Well kind-of. Some 75mm M4A3s were _upgraded_ with the HVSS suspension system, but they still didn't get the 'E8' on the designation, so you can have a tank which is, for all practical purposes, a '75mm HVSS Sherman' but which doesn't actually have the 'Easy Eight' designation.
the e8 designation is the experimental modification. When the e8 modification became standard the name changed. For example the m4a3e8 with a 76mm gun. Is actually known as an "m4a3(76)w hvss". an m4a3e8 with a 75mm gun is an m4a3(75)w hvss.
E2 is the heavy armor mod, E6 is the 76mm gun, and the E8 is the hvss mod
There’s another video on UA-cam that claims that Allied tank crews preferred the 75 mm cannon because it was more effective against enemy infantry and lightly armored vehicles. The 76 mm cannon was more effective at punching through armor.
@@picklerix6162 That's because the 75mm always did have a useful HE round, while ammo development/production for the 76mm/17pdr understandably concentrated on AP rounds, so HE for them was in short supply.
'it wasnt that the shermans armor wasnt thick enough, it was more that the germans had crazy powerfull guns' So their armor wasnt thick enough?
Sjon Hompiestompie right?
No, tigers are heavy tanks. They are supposed to have thicker armor and more powerful guns as opposed to medium tanks like the sherman.
@@Hornet135 its more about the long barrel 75 i think. Seeing the chance they would run into a tiger is quite slim. Go check out the performance of the long 75 vs the short 75 the shermans use. Sure they eventually got the 76 which had the pretty much the same performance but that was 2 years later!
No allied armored vehicles could carry enough armor to stop an 88mm round. If they tried, then they'd be called "bunkers."
It's always something for something. Long 7.5 cm gun Panzer IV could knock out Sherman or T-34/76 at most practical ranges (assuming perfect aim and conditions, of course), but so could they, because upgunning reached practical limit of Panzer IV chassis, and armor couldn't be improved enough to make diffrence. Mobility also suffered heavily, when offroad, Panzer IV could barely move at speed of advancing infantry.
Americans had gun to match perfomance of 7.5 cm KwK 40, but didn't see practical gain if mounting them on tanks, so for most of war 3 inch (76 mm) guns were used on M10 tank destroyers meant to dispatch massed German tank assaults. 76 mm armed Shermans were requested only by late 1944 due to increased encounters with Panther tanks that had most of their frontal profile immune to standard M3 75 mm gun.
There was actually Sherman variant with enough armor to suvive 88 mm, Assault Tank M4A3E2. These heavily armored Sherman were requested specifically to provide infantry with fire support during attacks on fortified areas infested by anti-tank guns, as experience showed this job to be far more dangerous for tanks than all-out tank battle. While they proved to be virtually immune to anti-tank guns, they still took staggering loses, mostly from mines and short range anti-tank weapons like Panzershreck.
maby the tiger didn't hit the 1th tank because they was a noob player in War Thunder with premium tank
Ha, you have a kill shot you take it reguardless of the BR. It not like they were a T-34-85 taking on British Black Princes in Assault.
1th?, Idiot its "1st"
US marine chill the fuck out if you looked at his username you would see that English is not his first language.
@@usmarine3226 he is Russian
Och!
People don't seem to realize you can't compare the Sherman to the Tiger directly. That's like comparing a pistol to an assault rifle. They're in different size classes. A more appropriate comparison would be M4 vs. Pzkpfw IV or M26 vs. Tiger 1/2.
I agree, it's only right to compare the jumbo 76 to the tiger, then the tanks are comparable, in my opinion, the jumbo being better due to superior mobility/reliability.
Neustrashimy the tiger tank was only a heavy tank because of how Germany clarified tank weights by the caliber of its gun.
@@patriotic-panda You have a fair point, though the Tiger is a heavy boy (57 tons)
Yes. The Sherman was a medium tank, more in the range of the T-34.
Neustrashimy by modern standards that’s a medium tank. With the current Abrams being around 60 tons
Bullshit, there is a lot of movies about the Eastern Front, It's a Russian Film industry of all it's own. White Tiger is a good one. There were never enough Tigers in any one place to really make much of a difference in the outcome of the war. People tend to forget that the M-4 Sherman had to be transportable, It's a long way from Detroit to Normandy, it had to be reliable and easy to repair in the field. The Sherman was the right machine for the time. And then the Israelis took it did some upgrades and took on T-55's that were Russian versions of Tiger II tanks and drove the Shermans right to the Suez in two days.
Hey George, I think he was referring to the eastern campaign between Japan and US, he just worded it poorly
Since the M4 sherman was so compatible, it could have a bunch of, "field modifications" (upgrades if you prefer that) done to it increasing the odds of survivability. For example: concrete, extra tredding/tracks for added armor, extra welded armor, etc. Since it wasn't as heavy as its German counter- part; it could have a lot more done to it.
Just think, the 1st 68 ton Jadg Tiger was taken out by a lowly bazooka infantryman
The best way to stop a heavy tank is cut off its supplies. Without ammo and fuel it's just a metal box.
you would think Germany learned that from beating the "superior" French heavies with their faster, more reliable Panzer 38s
I mean that's how you stop every tank.
It's not glamorous but war's are won on Logistics.
Silly Puppy well that as common sense but what you should try to do is use as less as you can to preform better and yet have enough of what you need to make the enemy waste their ammunition fuel and all that
It's not an animal if you cut off its supplies only the crew will suffer not the tank and plus the tank will try to reach supplies and the ammo isn't good so it won't lose ammo if it just stays in one place
What I find is hilarious is you roll in footage from documentaries and movies with improper tanks through the entire video.. I saw some Korean war footage here as well..
Kelly's Heroes knew how to do tanks properly...
Oddball is a legend among U.S. Army tank crewmen.
The tiger tank was a T34..
Oscar Mayer well yeah only one tiger was in running condition at this time
Actually none were. Tiger 131 was partially dismantled and the engine cut apart in storage when Kelly's Heroes was made. It wasn't till the 90's/00's that Bovington was able to get it overhauled and rebuilt to running condition again. They use an engine from a King Tiger in it instead since Maybachs seem to be hard to find
Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves man! lol
"Fury is a step up in accuracy" - shows one of the most inaccurate tankbattle scenes ever made
exactly, its LESS inaccurate then others, but its still inaccurate
Why would a lone Tiger be operating with no support whatsoever? It's in an ambush here, so it makes no sense for it to be completely by itself; no infantry, no other tanks, nothing. Fury is garbage.
@@bungobox7454 yeah and starting with shooting the one in back, then moving out of cover towards multiple enemy tanks
Right? The Tiger took 5 AP rounds to the face and two to the turret, it should've been swiss cheese before Peterson's unit was taken out
Bungo Box,
That sometimes happened in the last months of the war though. A Tiger of Gruppe Fehrmann moved out of cover without infantry support and received a flank shot from a British Comet. April 1945 north central Germany, not far from Hanover.
The “burnt out Sherman” was a M24 Chaffee light tank
I think the m24 was used in the movie due to no available Sherman's thus the use of it in the movie battle of the bulge.
Also the fact Shermans were made out to be really weak.
The “tiger in that movie was a Patton tank
Which is really inaccurate.
It was also an American tank
My uncle fought in the Battle of the Bulge. He drove a Half-Track. He died last year at the age of 95.
Edit: forgot to mention this was at the bulge as well
My mothers father was an infantryman attached to the 10th armored div and my father's father was in the 256th volksgrenadier I believe it was... Which ever one it was he was in the 7th army and my grandfathers actually shot each other and i don't mean just in the general direction either they quite literally hit each other... Father's father was captured and taken to pow camp Forrest in Tullahoma Tn which is ironically south of a town called Normandy... While my mother's father was sent back home to memphis tn and after the war was over my father's father managed to gain citizenship and moved to that same area in tn where he met a girl and they eventually moved to memphis where their children met...
What division? My father was a machine gunner in the 8th AD and fought near the end of the BofB. My father died in 2006 age 80.
Sadly, I don't know. He really didn't like talking about it. In fact I only remember him speaking about it once.
@@kenwheeler3637
You could probably look him up online if you wanted to... It will take you a bit to find a free site to do it on but there is a lot of records online now a days... You might even find out about "secret" medals for example in regards to my dad's dad he didn't mention any medals he got and didn't like to talk about any medals he got and he promptly threw most of them away but i looked him up one day and found some quite significant medals... Just for examples sake he had either the knight's cross of the iron cross with oak leaves and swords or the one with just oak leaves can't remember right now and the long service award...
Whether you tell anyone online or not it'll definitely be an interesting read for you and your family...
Thanks for that. Sounds like some very interesting and rewarding discoveries. I will give it a try.
“Rare functional tiger”
You mean the only functional tiger in the world?
Yes. That's what rare means.
That's not rare. That's a legendary. Only one like it now.
that makes it rare doesen´t it?
@Jon Maier No tigers never made it to the sinai dessert.
@@officiallastresort0248 "that's a legendary" it's not a video game mate, what else are there, mythic tanks? shiny tanks? If there is only 1 of something left out of the x amount that were built, that still makes it rare. It's the most rare something can be, unique and one of a kind.
I believe it's pronounced AR-DEN, as opposed to Ar-di-nees.
Ardennes is basically pronounced like 'harden' without the h and with a french accent, and the Seine river is 'sane'
@@penzorphallos3199 French speaker here: you're right with the pronunciation of Ardennes, but wrong with the pronunciation of la Seine; it's like "senne"
@@penzorphallos3199 Jsuis américain, avant j'ai appris français j'ai su comment on dit « Paris » correctement, même que la Seine, c'est un nom propre connu qui est facile à prononcer qu'un locuteur natif d'anglais.
@@goo_dragon i dunno, theres plenty of easy words or names that americans or brits manage to butcher. But yea youre right, seine for sure isnt the worst offender.
@@goo_dragon French Canadian here, I confirm about Ardennes and Seine as senne... With more of a french twist of course. :D
My fathers experience (8th AD) was our tanks NEVER ENGAGED German heavy tanks, our tankers relied on yabos (P47's) etc. as dying wasn't a good idea. German tank reliability wasn't so bad as the lack of fuel. Every Tiger 1 my father saw was able to move and shoot (very accurately) and he was no dummy as he became a Rocket scientist when he returned. BTW the German tanks never missed inside of 500m and almost never missed at 1000m. Most of the knocked out Allied tanks were hit square in the middle and US tanks within 1 foot of the white star. My father thinks the German crews were using the start as the tgt point.
What are you on about?
I don't know the american use the term yabos (or jabos for jadgbomber or fighter-bomber)
And your father could not possibly have been exaggerating? During WWII, air power was far more disruptive against tanks than actually crippling. And since Tigers had no gun stabilizers, the shooting accurately on the move seems really unlikely too.
@Wolfgang Charlemagne Ah yes, the 'everybody knows so research it yourself' defence. Unlike in games there was no 3rd person camera or replay function available so no easy way way to verify or disprove bragging. Even primitive gyrostabilization was still a new thing, relatively late war, and not a German invention. Also identifying tanks on the battlefield in the middle of combat was not that easy. Because of the similarities in box-hulls, Pz IV's were often mistaken for Tigers.
500 to 1000m,that tiger is so accurate.But did you know Tiger 1 was created on 1942.
The Ardennes Panthers were mostly Ausf G types and they were really bad ass tanks by this time with a lot of the reliability issues resolved. The most likely issue for their loses incurred compared to M4's, is thought to be the lack of experienced crews operating them. The Ausf G was not under-powered. It had a better HP/Ton than all types of Shermans. That said, good vid. Nice breakdown. Thumbs up!
MrBiggrim They never fixed the final drives. The Panther would make it less than 100 miles before they would need to be replaced.
The real problem with Panthers (and to lesser degree Tigers) wasn't that they signifigantly less relible then the american tanks or British tanks, but rather the german tanks were much harder to repair in the field for various reasons, so it was much more common for the germans to write off a tank as loss if it broke down then it was for the allies.
shure, but when you consider, that every long range redeployment of tanks was done via railroad and flatbed.... not so significant.
also the next problem is the time before the part breaks.
this issue was not solved, due to inabillity but due to the fact that a redesign of the final drive would cost more, due to restructuring the production lines etc.
and primarily realism: why build a weapon wich can last 15 years, when the general life expectancy of this weapon is around 100 hours of combat?
well it was not that bad.
yes the optics were badly designed and the transmission, engine, final drive setup was designet for a tank 10 tons lighter.
but, considering how engagements most of the time happened and much perforationpower most allied guns had, the armor was more then decent.
yes the panthers gunner couldnt react effectively unless commander and gunner were very well trained together.
but the main gun was outstanding.
and after the initial production runs, the later runs did in fact fix the engine burning and parts of the overstressing of the transmission etc, so that the panther was indeed a very mobile, fast and agile vehicle with high combat potential.
even with the design flaws it still had, it outclassed and outperformed the t34 and the m4.
its a great tank but was in parts bad designed.
same goes for the m4, wich also for a long time had its teethingproblems and issues wich got only fixed to the end of the war.
like mass production wet stowage, ablative armorplating over the magazines and fueltanks, ammunition stored besides and below fuel tanks, etc etc.
@ZDProletariat then explain why even with its reliability issues they were able to crush soviet tanks in the battles of kharkov and kursk. Most soviet tanks that played a role in that battle were t34s and the soviets suffered a staggering 6.5:1 loss. It wasnt a failed design....it was a great design with the wrong parts slapped into it because of rushed development and Hitler's incompetence as an armaments minister. Sherman was a good tank but needed alot of work as with the t34s as they were mid line ok tanks
A few years later an Irishman invents the phrase, "Oh bugger, the tank is on fire."
And proceeds to struggle to exit due to the hole being made for midgets.
@@MahBones malnourished and panicking midgets
If there is one criticism I could make of this otherwise really good coverage of the topic it would be that "german tanks" in his description seem to only refer to tigers and panthers ignoring that panzer 3/4 and stug were far more numerable(and far more comparable to the m4 as those were also medium tanks).
True. But most of the time comparisons are made between those and the Sherman
The Stug was an "assault gun" platform. Or, basically, a tank destroyer in U.S. doctrine. Doesn't mean it only shot at tanks, but... it really isn't capable of doing the same job as a tank with the lack of a turret, it's kinda hard to support infantry that way. Although I'm sure with the lack of armor especially towards the end of the war, a German soldier would be happy to have a horse or a tractor helping them, let alone a Stug, and would take anything that they could get.
As far as comparable... Eh. I mean, in role and doctrine, yes, the Panzer III/IV was similar to the Sherman. In actual operational performance, not really. The Panzer III/IV had almost 90 degree vertical armor and even the Panzer IVs were susceptible to anti-tank rifle rounds like the Soviet 14.5×114mm fired by PTRDs and PTRSs. Those side panel armor plates you see on later Panzer IVs? Yeah, those aren't meant to protect against tank rounds. They put those on because the Germans were losing far too many Panzer IVs to a guy with a single-shot anti-tank rifle. Meanwhile, the Sherman had slopped armor. And a good fair bit of it at that. Frontally, it was much better protected than most tanks.
As far as crew comfort and survivability goes, statistically, one it was one of the best tanks to be in that was mass produced at the time. No one wants to talk about Panthers and Tigers having more casualties from breakdowns just getting to the battle and them not being the most forgiving and easiest vehicles to operate and be in.
@@matchesburn "it really isn't capable of doing the same job as a tank with the lack of a turret, it's kinda hard to support infantry that way."
Ehm, the Stug was build explicitly to support infantry when assaulting a position, hence the name assault gun. The role as a TD was added later (specialized TD's in German are called Jagdpanzer).
"The Panzer III/IV had almost 90 degree vertical armor and ...(description of Schürzen and their protection against AT-rifles) ...Meanwhile, the Sherman had slopped armor... "
The sides of a Sherman are just as vertical and the area armored skirts are to protect against AT-rifles (area inside the tracks) is just as vulnerable on a Sherman.
"No one wants to talk about Panthers and Tigers having more casualties from breakdowns just getting to the battle"
Early versions, later models had those issues fixed. And certain sections of the internet won't stop talking about it to the point of claiming all german thanks had nothing but transmission breakdowns. No one talks about that the early versions of the T34 had the same issues.
@@DeHerg
"Ehm, the Stug was build explicitly to support infantry when assaulting a position, hence the name assault gun. The role as a TD was added later (specialized TD's in German are called Jagdpanzer)."
Not really. In doctrine the Germans utilized them more as SPGs when not in their TD role. And that goes for the Su-76s/Su-122s/Su-152s, the Brummbar/Sturmtiger and the Churchill AVRE as well. You can't provide infantry support and go in alongside an infantry assault when your vehicle doesn't even have a coax (Stugs didn't get coaxials until around mid 1944) and often times didn't even have a single machine gun mounted anywhere on it (until, again, it became standard in mid 1944). And the Germans eventually acquiesced this point and just used the thing almost entirely as a TD as the war went on because it was actually good at doing that.
"The sides of a Sherman are just as vertical and the area armored skirts are to protect against AT-rifles (area inside the tracks) is just as vulnerable on a Sherman."
I see you added a lot of ellipsis there in my statement. I brought up frontal Sherman armor with frontal Panzer IV armor for a reason. The side skirts are just sprinkles on top, a bonus. Also, another bonus: The Sherman actually had more side armor than the Panzer IV, too.
"Early versions, later models had those issues fixed."
Eh... Uh... Yeah, no. Not really. The Wehrmacht did operational readiness studies in March, 1945 (...which must've been very, very optimistic thinking at the time) on their remaining Panthers, Tiger IIs and Panzer IVs. Panthers had a reliability of 48%. And Tiger IIs had a rating of 59%. Panzer IVs had a rating of 62% (which seems rather low to me, but this is also March of 1945). Which... when you consider they didn't have to travel very far at all at that time... That's... Not great. Oh, and these were of the available *_operational_* vehicles, so only anything that could actually participate in combat was counted among the pool of vehicles.
"And certain sections of the internet won't stop talking about it to the point of claiming all german thanks had nothing but transmission breakdowns."
Well, they'd be wrong. The Panzer II/III/IV series had great reliability.
"No one talks about that the early versions of the T34 had the same issues."
Not many in general circles, but in tank circles you have people like The_Chieftain/Nicholas Moran that is a rather vocal critic of T-34 as both from a design point of view and their operational records and how sensationalized it is.
Great video as always, but not every Sherman with a 76mm is an Easy eight which was build with different features including orizontal suspension, the normal 76mm were m4a3 shermans with a bigger turret and gun
the E6 was the 76mm gun
@@kerkize8907 easy 8 received wider tracks, horizontal volute suspension systems, upgraded hull armor (it increased from 80 to 100mm RHAe) and in some cases duckbill connectors, and that was for all the variants which received the upgrade.
Yup. Lots of M4A1s and M4s were outfitted with the 76mm gun to be able to handle armor at longer ranges, and solely for that purpose. The HE on them wasn't nearly as good as the shorter 75mm gun. The only thing that made the E8 what it was happened to be the combination of the 76mm gun and the Horizontal Volute Suspension System (HVSS), which gave it outstanding mobility and ease of driving, plus the capability of knocking out almost any armor they came across. IIRC, during the war, its first designation was M4A3 HVSS (76), only earning the E8 designation once they realized they needed to differentiate from the other M4A3 HVSS we call the jumbo sherman, the M4A3E2. But don't quote me, that's a vague memory from a long time ago. It's been a long time since I did any studying on american armor from that era.
Edit - realized I mis-named the HVSS acronym. oops.
Aaron Peart The M4A3E2 never received HVSS, they used VVSS during all the war
the Easy 6 modification was the one that gave 76mm guns and T-23 turrets to all the shermans (i'm not sure if wet storage was also part of the E6), the T-23 turret was factory mounted on all jumbos despite mounting a 75mm gun.
The Easy 8 was the HVSS+armor+wide tracks modification.
Note that the M4A2 never received the Easy 6 upgrade, they skipped to the Easy 8, with the Easy 4 torsion bar suspension never reaching production
Also note the standard M4 never received any significant upgrade and the howitzer version was simply named M4 (105) HVSS or M4 (105) if it had a standard VVSS (not to be confused with the M4A3 (105) HVSS and the M4A3 (105))
Lana, You're right about the Jumbo and HVSS. For some reason I thought they'd switched to the HVSS for the M4A3 overall, but it was the VVSS. I find it odd they wouldn't give it to the jumbo, considering the extra weight.. As to the modification for the 76mm, it was not a universal upgrade to all M4s. In fact, they still shipped many M4 variants in late 1944 still with the 75mm M3 because it was cheaper to produce, required less man-hours to assemble, and they already had a large surplus of ammunition for them. Additionally, it was possible to upgrade to the 76 post-production, which did happen a few times, as well as some crews putting the M3 back INTO their tanks. That was why, when you see pictures, most sherman platoons were many 75mm shermans augmented with a 76 sherman, or firefly, depending on which side of the pond you came from. Granted, by the time march '45 came around, production had switched to the most advanced Sherman models like the E8, but that uniformity wasn't seen on the battlefield in full effect, because logistically, it was impossible for the army to fully outfit their armored divisions with 76mm tanks that quickly. The E8 did include upgraded armor, but it was only thicker on the sides, the front was still the ~80mm rolled armor sloped back, though some did recieve applique armor later (25mm extra I believe). The Jumbo was called such because it was the up-armored sherman, roughly 5 inches of steel sloped back on the upper plate, and almost 7 inches on the turret mantlet.
The A2 did get the E6 upgrade, but we didn't use it much in the US. it was primarily sent overseas as part of the lend-lease program, and was accepted by the soviets with limited success. The M4 did not because it's hull was poorly designed (IDK what happened to the A2 at the end of my first statement) but the A2 did recieve the 76mm gun. It was just mostly overlooked by the US army because the time between the A2 and superior A3 models was only a couple months at best.
Thanks for correcting me, like I said, it's been a hot minute. Was glad to go looking back into things, and found a document on the 12th army Armored section that showed the armor composition of their forces. Kinda cool.
the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/manufacturer/m4a376w/m4a376w_72.jpg
That Fury scene is so unaccurate
"unaccurate" - LMAO!!
@@doogleticker5183 "LMAO!!" What a joke...
Yeah, 500yrds that Tiger should have been dead
Shoot the front one then the last and pick off as many as you can.
In many tank doctrines the first tank that shot would win if fury just shot the front without moving and stood still they could have shot the frontal armor and easily kill it
You need to make a debunk video for this video.
Good video but you are swimming upstream against entrenched Internet Tank experts.
Facts don't mean anything to myth.
The Sherman was a good tank, the Tiger was a maintenance Hog.
The Most common German tank on the battlefield was the Panzer IV the most common fighting vehicle was the StuG.
The Stug had the highest kill rate than any other German tank.
All hail the Stubby StuG
the yagpanzer was also a really good design, though it was still scrapped
Wasn't the StuG really self propelled artillery rather than a tank? Granted it's artillery piece could be used in an anti-tank role, but it was meant more as a support weapon.
@@schizoidboy it was used as an assault gun, not for artillery. It was also used as an anti-tank, so it would be a tank especially considering its armour was good enough to take rounds.
Posting about the 5 myths about tanks. While I agree that the Sherman was inferior in frontal armour and it's cannon I disagree the Tiger or particularly the Panther weren't good as largely the only reason they didn't succeed in the battle of the bulge was due to lack of resources and air cover which was completely irrelevant when speaking about the tanks design as the allies at this time were very much on the front foot, resources being abundant both the Americans and English could have these parts built and shipped to the front quite quickly whereas the Germans fighting on two fronts and factories constantly being bombed simply didn't have the ability to produce repair parts or fuel. And the failure came more down to a poor strategic decision than poor equipment.
I enjoyed this video quite well. But I also feel the need to say this: I’ve been a gunner on the M1 Abrams for 10 years out of my 16 year military career. There’s a reason it’s design is based off the Tiger tank. It was a beast. Period
IAM sorry but can u back this up?
4:04 The 75mm at that range could frontally penetrate a Tiger 1s hull, it could also go through the turret of a panther or even destroy it by knocking out the welds from mechanical shock. The tiger 2 however was almost impossible to frontally penetrate with the short 75, but were slow and easily flanked as in the case of an M8 armoured car destroying one.
The US 76mm was actually comparable to the Panzer IV's 75mm KwK 40.
Regarding Fury, it's based on post-Remagen March 1945 push to Berlin. Remaining Tiger Is were 'obsolete' cannabilized vehicles used in training schools and reserve (Ausbildings) divisions. The German military placed newer tank crews in newer tanks because it was assumed that better tanks would protect the newer tank crews until they become more experienced. Hence during the Berlin defense, the best tank crews were in Panzer IVs. My point being, highly likely that the Tiger I crew in Fury were most likely Green/training crews using scrap-of-the-barrel reserve tank. And thus their apparent lack of experience... is actually valid.
Reminds me of my War Thunder days when I finally got the Pz IV with the 75mm. Learned very quickly to keep a sharp eye out, stay out of sight, and not stay anywhere too long.
I dont think that even a ''green crew'' would be so stupid that they would shoot the last tank in a column
Except that it wasn't, nowhere on earth.
Sorry mate but one of the first things a german tabk commander would learn is how to take out a colum of tank if not he's plain stupid
Bro the biggest tank battle happened on the eastern front du
@Mario Cantani what? That name... But why is it different when I reply to it?
@Mario Cantani Kursk was not the biggest tank v tank battle in WW2.
Breizh Rudie it was.
@@zepter00 Negative, it was not the biggest direct tank confrontation of the history.
Breizh Rudie it was tyle bigest in WW2. So now you retreat from your previous sentence?
I still laugh at the Chaffees and Patton used in replacement of Shermans and Tigers
at least the old movies in my country managed to mask the T-34s to make the look somewhat like a tiger 1
Considering there is only running tiger 1 in the world and that didn't happen until a couple years ago. What were they supposed to do?
And yet still a better movie than Fury. If you want to see a movie with authentic German equipment, about the only option is to watch "Theirs Be the Glory," made in 1946 with actual veterans and equipment left over from the war. It's about Operation Market Garden.
The movie was filmed in Spain and the Spanish army had Chaffees and M-47s in the large numbers required, so it was the obvious choice to make for a big war film. Although they obviously look different to Shermans and Tiger IIs, the relationship between the two is about right.
@RustyLH LOL - before Google, we had these things called 'books', 'magazines', 'photographs' and 'TV documentaries'. I was born in 1967 and I could ID all the WWII tanks by the time I was about eight years old. Everyone also knew, and was broadly accepting of, the limitations of making live war movies when the correct hardware just flatly wasn't available. A large proportion of Battle Of The Bulge viewers knew that the tanks were 'wrong', but that was just something you had to put up with.
It was easy for anyone _who cared_ to find out what the tanks actually looked like, but there's the real issue: most people just _don't care_ . Most people aren't military geeks. To most people "big scary thing with tracks" = "tank", even if it's just an APC with a machine-gun.
#1 myth is that german main tanks were tigers and panthers, in reality these tanks were rare, germans mostly used pz III at first half, and pz IV in second half, also in september campagin they used mostly pz II and pz I
#2 myth is that german tanks charged alone on their enemies, in reality only allies in earliest parts of african campagin done that, on other sides tanks were combined with infantry.
@John Cornell But the brunt force of the german armoured units were sent against the british. So american Shermans were very unlikely to face better german tanks. As mentioned here, the americans only came up against Tigers on three occassions after landing on D-Day.
@John Cornell By the autumn of 1944 though (depending on how you define autumn) the big armoured battles of Normandy and the Falaise pocket was already over though and there wouldn't be another major german amassment of armour until the Ardenne offensive. By the fall, the brits were bogged down in the Netherlands, clearing the estuaries, so it's only logical that they would face less armour.
On the topic of you and Zaloga, I know of him (and the Chieftain for that matter) but I've never heard of you before, so I'll go with the word of a known historian over yours.
And the most common armored fighting vehicle you would actually encounter is the Stug III and Stug IV
4:00 God is that a Patton Tank? That's just an eyesore to see Postwar American Tanks fight WW2 American tanks.
Well, Israelis vs Jordanians did that IRL in 1967. M48s vs. modified M4s.
@@nerokota I guess
That last point about tanks and infantry, is an annoying feature of the film “A bridge too far”; because they get it right and portray it badly.
Towards the end of the film, you see Robert Redford losing his rag, at a British tank commander; who isn’t going to advance any further, after Redford’s unit had fought so hard to take a bridge. He can’t believe that the British armour is going to “...sit here; and drink tea?”, when they are just a few miles away, from reliving the besieged and beleaguered British paratroopers.
The problem is, as the British officer pointed out, they had no infantry support, to go with them. The Grenadier Guards were still fighting in the town, clearing the remaining enemy troops. So the idea of changing ahead, to fight a German panzer Division, was tactically ridiculous.
This was portrayed poorly however, with Redford’s character incredulous response. The audience got the impression that the paratroopers could have been saved, if they’d just pushed a little harder and further.
I read the book that the movie was based on and had the British pushed harder and not stopped when the daylight went away they might have been able to achieve the objective of taking all the bridges. What the movie doesn't show is that XXX Corps did make it to the river and was able to link up with the British Paras but the Paras were so weak from fighting they it was decided to pull them out since they could not hold out long enough for a bridge to be built. Plus the highway that the British had pushed up and been cut in several places by the Germans and units from XXX Corps had to go back and reopen the road.
But as for Redford's comment in the movie I think it was meant to show that the disgust that the American troops had at that moment for the British tankers, knowing that the British Para's were fighting and dying just up the road.
Sorry I was talking about on the first day of battle. You are correct about the bridge at Nijmegen, those 5 tanks would have been wiped out for sure. But on the first day of battle the British did stop for the night as was their doctrine at the time.
I'd say that that scene was mostly for the benefit of the film audience, as a way to explain to them why the tanks couldn't continue on their own.
The British Tank Commander asked the American Paratroopers if they would accompany the Tanks if they pushed ahead. The Americans told him to go forth and multiply.
Some minor corrections and additions.
1. There was only one diesel variant of the M4 in ww2, the M4A2. It wasn't a specific upgrade really more of a trade-off. Russia and the Marines were the primary users of this variant. Russia liked the extra torque and shared fuel. The Marines just didn't want to fight with other services and countries so they took them.
2. There are only 3 or 4 confirmed battles between Americans and Tiger tanks. British and other countries did fight more of them. However it is true the majority of the rare (1347) Tigers were on the Eastern front.
3. People focus too much on armor penetration. The M4's medium velocity 75mm had excellent high-explosive and smoke ammo. In fact it's HE performance was better than the Panther's L/70 75mm. This is due to the tech limitation that high velocity ammo can't have as much HE filler. This is extra important when you consider tanks fired HE about 80% of the time with the remainder being split between smoke & AP. For this reason more than a few tankers preferred the 75mm over the 76mm the Sherman got later.
4. Fury isn't the only 76mm M4 in that scene. The second tank destroyed also has a 76mm but without the muzzle break on it. This just reinforces how right you were in saying it was wrong for the Shermans to charge when two of them could penetrate the Tiger's front no problem from over 1,000 yards. (76mm HVAP has 127mm of penetration against armor angled at 30 degrees at 1,000 yards). Tiger 1's front plate is 100mm thick with almost no angling.
5. Wet stowage wasn't the only thing done to prevent ammo related fires. Applique armor was put over the ammo rack on early model M4s and later "dry" Shermans had their ammo moved to under the floor where it would be less vulnerable to penetration. (Wet Shermans had their ammo in the same place)
6. The M4 also had a variant with a 105mm howitzer that was very powerful. It also had a HEAT round that could defeat a Panther's front plate.
7. Sherman had a gun stabilizer while no other countries tank had one in ww2.
AMEN, and don't forget the success of allied tank crews against German tanks in Italy
Good points, The Sherman gets a bad rap from a lot of people, I used to be one of them. I'm glad this reputation is slowly being revised.
The gas vs. diesel tanks came down to supply. Both the American and German armies used gasoline-powered tanks and vehicles, and their supply chains were simplified by providing a common fuel for all of them. Providing diesel would have complicated matters, especially considering that Allied supply lines were already strained by the rapid push towards Germany.
The USMC in the Pacific was supplied by the Navy, and the Navy was set up to provide large amounts of diesel fuel for small craft and larger vessels such as LSTs which were powered by locomotive diesels. The Navy goes to great lengths to avoid carrying and handling gasoline because it's so volatile and explosive. This is why the USMC Shermans were diesel powered. Also, the M4A2 tanks' GMC diesels shared parts with the engines in the Navy's small boats and landing craft, simplifying the supply chain further.
The angle of armor is much more effective against HEAT rounds and the 105's would never go tank v tank if at all possible. I never heard of an engagement.
Not to mention that the "Fury" tank isn't a M4A3E8 as claimed, but a M4A2(76)HVSS =P
The reason the Sherman got a bad rap was because of the casualties suffered in the hedgerows of Normandy. It was put into a combat situation it wasn't designed for (and really other tanks weren't either)....close quarters combat with limited visibility. The Sherman doesn't get credit for being exceptional at doing what it was designed to do....operate cross country at high speeds and excelling at what tanks are designed to do.....operate as the pinnacle of balance between firepower, maneuverability, and protection on the battlefield. It's post Normandy service was exceptional.
@D3LTA ?
Little Mac not true Market garden was no picnic for the shermans.
@Elron The Sherman would move cross country. The Tiger would sit somewhere and shoot cross country. What the one had in effective range, the other had in mobility. the Tiger, although designed as a breakthrough vehicle, was really a design much more suited for defense.
@Elron sure. In flat, open terrain with firm ground, yes. Yet it suffered from restricted mobility, dependence on a logistic background that wasn't there (fuel, transport, workshops) und short action range. So it seems to me, it had strength and weaknesses, but all in all, it was in the wrong place at the wrong time, and there were never enough of them to really make it count.
Nicholas Moran, aka "The Chieftain", likes to point out the Sherman's secret weapon, which is also a limitation on the Sherman's design: The ability to be shipped from factory to front without disassembly to accommodate the weight and size restrictions all along the way. It fit on both U.S. and most European flat cars, and most harbors had at least one crane that could load and unload them intact. It might not have been the very best tank, but it was arguably the best tank that could be delivered across the Atlantic in large quantities, fast.
And, of course, the almost unique ability of American factories to turn out fully interchangeable tank parts boosted the quantity of Shermans that could be kept operational after delivery. (Story goes a British officer was amazed to find U.S. assembly areas in the tank factories without a vise in sight. No vise because nothing needed to be filed or drilled to fit.)
at last M24 where used in WW2
@Tristan Pye you're talking about the Pershing.
Plays one battle of wot: i know alot about tanks. And tank mythologiiiii
1:08 You said King Tiger and Panther but show picture of a Tiger I. H
By the looks of this abortion of a video, he probably thinks the Tiger and King Tiger are the same tank...
If we had the right models we'd safely be speakingPig Latin
, bubba.
I'm still not sure if he ment panther or panzer ?
Its actually called a "Royal Tiger" its still been today mistaken as "King Tiger"
@@undamagedpuppy4830 Panther is Bigger. Panzer is smaller.
Kellys Heroes mostly got it right with the tanks even if the Tiger was a modified T34.
You didn’t mention the luckiest of German crews who clocked in at hundreds rank kills.
Yeah, mainly BT-7 in 1941.
Hundreds? More like dozens. A few may have scored close to a hundred actually. The Germans had a nasty habit of accounting Full Kills to all their Tanker and Pilots, regardless if it was a Shared Kill or not. Someone actually once crunched the numbers and said that in one battle with the US Army, the Germans claimed to have destroyed more Tanks than were actually present. By a factor of 4 to 1.
@@FLJBeliever1776 Yes but you have that on all sides. At one point the Russians claimed to have destroyed more Panzer VI Tigers than how many were actually build at that time.
Arne Krug - Those were either propaganda claims or exaggerated claims. This was neither. The Germans used an Institutionalized System that MISCOUNTED the total number of defeated enemies. How else can you explain that the Luftwaffe was totally baffled by the sheer numbers of RAF planes that kept popping up during the Battle of Britain? They thought they decided the RAF Fighter Command several times over. Even sent in unescorted bombers that took heavy losses at one point.
This wasn't wild claims or confused claims, this was a system that was inherently flawed and created confusion among its own users. These were documented with great care to confirm precise numbers and then figure out total kills later. But because so many were being awarded full, rather than shared kills, it ballooned the numbers and gave the impression that the Germans thought they were winning.
A lot like how the Argentina Military Junta made a bold claim they were winning the Falklands War, instead of actually losing it.
Only difference here, was the Argentinian Junta knew they were losing and how badly so.
The Germans didn't. They thought they were wiping out whole squadrons on a regular basis, giving strength to the belief they were a super people. When the reality was the opposite.
@@FLJBeliever1776 I quite agree, the "best" ace of WWII was supposedly Michael Wittman who is credited with up to 130 kills, (depending on source), however most of these were up to 1943 on the Eastern front between his STUG III and a Panzer III before transferring to a Tiger 1 at a point where the Russian tanks couldn't easily destroy the Tiger. Fast forward to '44 where the Germans didn't have that advantage and Wittman went from being nigh on invincible to dead in 2 months. Over half his kills in France were trucks and personnel carriers.
I like how the entire first half of the video is on one movie.
That movie was so bad Eisenhower came out of retirement to say how bad it was.
Which movie? Fury and that other movie using m47s are both unrealistic
If you want the best tank info lookup " Chieftain" Nick Moran.
And The Tank Museum
And Chieftain would agree with this video. Chieftain likes Shermans and thinks German tanks are over rated.
Yes he does, but his reasons are far more sophisticated than those in this video, many of which are fine, but many of which are misleading at best. Chieftain would likely say this video has some flaws but is not too bad. He might choose to be in a Tiger I if he's just facing off 1-on-1 versus a Sherman, even an easy 8. His claim is not that the Sherman is a better tank in the anti-tank role when in action. His claim is it was the right tank for the US to build and ship, for a host of reasons, many of which are ignored or barely addressed in this vid.
Ben, this is not supposed to be an in-depth look at the Sherman. It is just a "5 Myths About WWII TANKS" video. And it did that well.
I didn't have a big issue with this vid, gaps notwithstanding, but when someone mentioned the chieftain you claimed he'd would agree with this video. I'm not convinced he would. I don't see what the intent or scope of the video have to do with it. Vid says x, y, and z; Chief thinks x, maybe y, and not z. Ergo, he wouldn't agree.
Contrary to 'Fury' Tiger crews were forbidden to fire the 88 on the move, its in the manual ..
the trunion pull on firing the gun would damage the turret ring and the gun mount disabling the tank
M4's had a 80% survival rate, T34's were 30%
The _Tiger_ shouldn't fire on the move, but historically some crews, including Wittmann, did.
Kelly's Heroes also used Yugoslavian T34s mocked up to look like Tigers.
But at least they actually look like Tigers.
Most movies did nothing but slap some German markings on the turret.
Really? Damn I had no idea, they did so much of a good job to make them look like tigers
In the movie white tiger they used an IS-2 disguised as a tiger
GUMBA So they painted Stalin's tiger killer as a tiger?
Allen please stop spreading the myth that Sherman's weren't used for antitank roles. Please refer to the UA-cam channel chieftains hatch as to where this myth comes from.
Otherwise, well done.
I don't think he ever stated that they weren't used for anti-tank roles, the Shermans MAIN role was infantry support
@@biospider4984 he did state the early doctran that was written at the beginning of the war, this doctern was changed after kiserene (?) Pass.
The Sherman wasn't meant for Anti-Tanks. That job was for tanks like the M10
BioSpider All tanks are meant to support the infantry.
Good source for this subject would be "Myths of American Armor" by The Chieftain who is paid by Wargaming America to research this stuff.
He is also a real genuine tank commander, rather than some basement-dwelling wannabe.
okay darkangel31314
I'd add to the list of good sources TheTankMuseum
@@PsilocybinCocktail And also at least on one occasion states why being a current tank commander is irrelevant as a qualification when speaking about WW2 tanks. Some of the tactics might translate, but not much else with regards to knowledge.
Guards Armoured Division losses in Normandy vs 12th SS HitlerJugend Panzer Division:
July 18th : 68 tanks
July 19th: 37 tanks
July 20th: 38 tanks
Wait a second...
Sure in one of cases from a defensive position. The reason some German tanks were so effective is they knew the ground and picked good defensive positions. It's like comparing infantry vs a pill box. It's hardly a fair comparison of tanks. Overall if you just compare tank loses its pretty much a wash. Especially when so many Sherman tanks survived compared to their contemporaries.
At raseiniai when a single kv1 or 2 tank held of the entire 6th german tank division for a day
Also remember that at the end of two weeks fighting in Normandy (Caen), the 12th SS Panzer Division "Hitlerjugend" were virtually wiped out, suffering roughly 80% losses.
7:44. As a war thunder tanker i noticed that almost right off the bat.
What br you at?
Not high enough. 5.0 ground
let's squad up
My grandfather was the only British soldier to be killed at Alamein AND Cassino. They were a hardy breed back then.
Died twice?
@@jameswallace1926 at least twice.
I bet men these days cant even die once
@@jameswallace1926 bunch of lilly livered pinkos the lot of 'em.
The Krauts killed my grandfather three times, then a fourth just to make sure he was *really* dead. They never returned his body, but my family is convinced he's still alive out there.
Fun fact: the easy eight and the tiger they used in Fury, are both real tanks on display in the tank museum in Dorset, England. They are still running and they get driven around once a year during tiger day.
Tiger crews were "instructed" to takeout, fireflies first, not the Easy8's.
An easy 8 could probably take out a tiger up front at about 500meters in range, or maybe even less, at which case it would be dead before it even got to that range, as a tiger can knock out a sherman, at ranges of about 1100meters to 1500meters, plus in the fury scene, the last "man" in the column was taken out first, because the tiger knows of its superiority, meaning he prevented a retreat from the enemy sherman platoon, and wanrted to finish them all off. The inaccuracy of that scene is that the battle field was an open field, and taking out the lead tank or the last tank was irrelevant as they can still escape, but if a treeline was there the retreat would be impossible, and therefore the sherman platoon has no chance but to engage.
"Shermans couldn't pivot on the spot like Tigers." The fuck are you smoking?
The Sherman didn't have the pivot-in-place feature. (Neither did the Pershing.) The Tiger, Tiger II and Panther did.
you mean traverse? in place?... yeah Im sure just about every tank could do that...
@@nickthepick120 It's called "neutral steering" and few tanks could do that back then. Even the Panther which was able to, was recommended not to, as it could strip the transmission if done wrong.
The point is irrelevant, as the USA didn't use Fireflies and the british didn't get any M4A3E8s (during the war at least).
Now bro, you are right about there being not much encounters with tiger tanks, but there were WAY more encounters than 3 or 4
3 or 4. take it or leave it
Pavonis Gangster Zaloga actually said 3 or 4 “encounters” between Shermans and Tiger I tanks. This goofy video says the same but then mentions Tiger IIs in the next breath. Each encounter could and usually did involve multiple Tiger tanks so Zaloga did not mean only 3 or 4 tanks. Even then you are correct, there were more encounters. Using the word encounter can be misconstrued or used in a very broad sense. Did a company of US tanks “encounter” a platoon of Tigers in an area over several days? Does that count as one encounter or many? Way too much emphasis is put on this number by experts” out there so that they can then claim to in fact have super secret information that the unwashed do not, and then tell us all we are morons, so watch their videos and buy their books. Of course these are fabricated “myths” because any casual student of this campaign knows that German heavy tanks were relatively rare, especially in the West. These “mythbuster” videos are aimed at the World of Tanks crowd who think WWII was nothing but one huge tank battle conducted at 40mph.
he did say by US Crews, dont forget that the sherman was used by practically everyone during the war
9:06 - My jaw just dropped, those poor brave souls. I knew the RAF suffered high loses but I had I know idea bomber command suffered that badly.
Dont know know how accurate it is, but i remember hearing that bomber crews "only" had to do a dozen missions and then they were retired just because the casualty rate was so high and they were so fortunate to have survived that long.
@@penzorphallos3199 The standard Bomber Command tour was 30 operations. The USAAF talked about 25 missions, but the crew of the Memphis Belle flew a total of 29. The 12-mission number was was a rough guess at how long it took to learn enough to stand a chance of surviving a tour.
Brits love to mock the Americans for being foolish enough to fly during daylight against Germany even though the RAF had a higher casualty rate than the 8th Air Force.
"...in reality, something as large as an Tiger tank, would probably never be send into a town, with such narrow Streets, especially if its occupied by enemy troops and no infantry Units were send to support that tank."
Michael Wittmann with his 4 Tigers Standing in front of Villers Bocage after ambushing and absolutely wrecking the british convoy…
other Tiger commander:"So what now Michael?"
Michael Wittmann:"This is where the fun Begins :)"
--> goes alone into town without infantry or even other armor support, keeping spreading chaos, confusion and carnage around the enemy, until immobilized by an 6 pounder at gun….
i would consider it an valueable tactic xD
@Tyrion Lannister ..... Wittmann is a “tread head” Legend!
I would consider it risky to the point of suicidal. Or, as the germans of the time would call it, "halskrank" (throat-sore, i.e., in desperate need for something to tie around the neck. Like a knight´s cross....)
Remember Grosny.
@@paavobergmann4920 of Course it is risky, and tbh flatout stupid.... but he did it, thats why i made that joke… in hindsight very lucky and extremely effective, but back in the Situation just stupid...
@@tyrionlannister4920 yeah, i guess nobody expected it, because no sane person would ever do that...throatsore....
@Paavo Bergmann ....loving the discussion, great posts. Even Carius, Bolter, Egger, Knispel, all legendary tank commanders in Tiger I and Tiger II would agree. As retired Army my take is, tactics are determined by the situation. The best officers I served under in 32 years had two attributes that made them stand out... 1. Coolness under fire. 2. Incredible Situational Awareness.
To lay it more clearer to the idiots in comment section:
1. The M4's hatches were among the most accessible of World War 2 tanks thanks to its huge crew space. Basically, large crew space means less chance of multiple crew member getting killed in one shot and easy to access hatches mean Allied crew can easily bail out of the M4. Hence, at the end of the war, the M4 have among the best crew survivability. The Tiger I and Panther, however, have a smaller crew space thus making their hatches harder to access. Meanwhile, the Soviet T-34 had one of the worst hatch accessibility and smallest crew space of all WW2 tanks, thus making it a death trap for its crew.
2. The "easy-to-burn" M4 was a result of poor British ammo storage during the early stage of the war. While it is true the early M4 suffered from not having non-wet ammo storage (like most tanks at the time), it didn't help that the British thought the extra crew space meant they should jam as much ammo as they can into the M4. On side note, the British/Commonwealth M4 crew survivability was also lower than the Americans due to the fact that "fashionable" berets does jack shit when it comes to stopping shrapnel.
3. The majority of German armor the US faced were Panzer IV G/H and Stug III, all of which the M3 75mm on the M4 can penetrate from the front, especially when considering the fact that the average combat tank range in the Western Front was below 500 meters. The British/Commonwealth, being the ones on the northern Western Front, dealt with the almost all of the German heavy armor coming from Northern France/Belgium. Also, the M3 75mm had superior HE capability than the Panther and even the Tiger I with its 88mm. A crucial advantage when the main threats to tanks were infantry and anti-tank gun.
4. The M4 also had a revolutionary gyro-stabilized gun (M3 75mm) and a full set of advanced FM radios. In other words, M4 were the ideal tanks for mobile warfare, considering the M4 didn't have to stop to fire accurately (well as long as it doesn't go too fast) and tanks could communicate effectively with each other as well as supporting units. In fact, Patton's 3rd Army made good of use of these advantages to outmaneuver and soundly defeat a German force made up mostly of Panthers at the Battle of Arracourt.
5. The M4 was built to be adaptable to any situation, a key element that allowed it to be one of the very few tanks to be deployed in nearly all fronts of WW2 (I am not sure if Soviets used any against Finland in later stage of war). It can be fitted to remove mines/obstacles, lay down bridges, acted as mobile artillery(105mm)/fire-thrower, and even to act as amphibious tanks. Even decades after WW2, the Israeli and French constantly upgraded the M4 enabling it to combat Soviet T--54/55/62.
Correct me if I err, but was not another consideration in the M4 design the requirements for amphibious ops and bridging limits? I heard many heavy german tanks were heavily restricted on what bridges they could use.
Lensflare Deviant Kind of. The M4 was design to be easily transport from factory via trains to shipping yards. It weigh less than heavy tabks, which meant more be load onto transport ships. So, by default, it meant M4 can also cross smaller bridges that heavier tanks cannot.
@ivan ivanovitch ivanovsky Were the T-54/55/62 not all post wwii tanks? From what I read the M4 enjoyed a 3:1 kill ratio against T-34's in Korea for what that's worth. Everything else says the two ever pretty evenly matched with each doing somethings better than the other.
@ivan ivanovitch ivanovsky I agree, that's why I said "for what it's worth" because a kill ratio is hardly the whole story but there is little good data available, Korea was not war that involved a lot of tank battles it's just the only example I knew of where the 2 ever actually traded shots. :)
@ivan ivanovitch ivanovsky No need, I took no issue with what you said at all! :)
ALLEN DO MORE WW2 AND WW1 STUFF
Sean he really dosent know much he said the panther was underpowered while it was faster then the Sherman and the panther lost all its mechanical issues by the battle of the bulge because they had the g variant where they toned down the horsepower to make it mechanically reliable then the A
@@Hunt-nu1pq agreed
he has no clue what he is talking about, and neither do you if you didnt notice the huge mistakes.
no don't he is so off target here he isn't even hitting paper.
It also helps that around 50k sherman tanks were made and only around 1500 tigers .
gee, i hate to pop your bubble here, but your info is way off. my dad was a driver with the 753 tank battalion
and drove several versions of the sherman, including the " easy 8". the 76 mm gun on the sherman could not
penatrate the front armour of a tiger 2 at 500 yards, as my dad saw this happen on several encounters. the 88mm
round would and did penatrate the front of the sherman at 1000 to 1500 yards. my dad was there, so his word
is fact. you need to talk to american tankers to get the true story. tigers were bad design in that it could not be repaired
in the field because of the weight. sherman crew could fix a broken track with tools they carried.
Yeah and my dad was a double agent spy that highjacked a landkreuzer p.1000 and ran over Hitler with it without any germans ever noticing. Since my dad was there his word is fact.
He was talking about a Tiger 1
1. Hes talking about a tiger 1. And 2. Theres only 1 encounter of a sherman vs a tiger 2 and the sherman won.
@@Sone01TheFirst you know where you can go. boy, don't disrespect my father.
Was not intended to disrespect him, just the "my dad was there, so his word is fact" part. It just sounded so silly, especially with how you spaced your lines.
Did you seriously pronounce Ardennes like “ardennese”......how are you going to post a movie about history and fail that badly.
Man He sayed that IT was early in the morning and whatever just go away
I would like to point out that in 1:15 it was said that the snow caused problems with mobility on both sides. While this is true the show itself would have been a bigger problem for the Allies instead of the Germans, this is being due to the fact that the Shermans had very narrow tracks for their 30-ton weight, in comparison with which the larger German tanks were most probably made with the eastern front in mind hence their substantially wider tracks. The only reason that similar proportions of tanks didn't get to their fighting positions on both sides would have been due to the fact that German tanks were breaking down while the Shermans were getting bogged. In fact I read a story about a company of M4 tanks attacking a group of German Tiger Tanks and to do so the M4s had to cross a muddy field and most of them got bogged and destroyed and those that weren't bogged were latter taken out when the German Tiger tanks crossed the same field without any of them getting bogged. I would also like to point out that in the scene in Fury between Tiger 131 and the column, if the commander of the German tank had been smart he would have stayed were he was and taken out the M4s in their rush at the Tiger, M4s had horrible suspension, secound only to the T34 and stood very little chance of hitting even something as big as a Tiger at ranges such as the range of the engagement.
After problems with mud were found by the Soviets, the M4s provided to them were equipped with extensions to make the tracks wider. The issue was addressed. Also, M4s had an early gyroscopic gun stabilizer, while other tanks of the time did not, and were therefore no less capable of shooting on the move than their contemporaries, and probably better than most.
Also in that scene one of the Sherman’s has a 76mm which should’ve gone through the front
@@Morrigi192 The Sherman's stabilizer absolutely did NOT allow the tank to fire accurately on the move. All it did was allow the gunner to track his target easier and to get a shot off quicker after the driver had made his stop. The Sherman's stabilizer was effectively useless past 10km/h and was negated completely past 15km/h.
I never said it allowed the tank to fire accurately on the move, try actually reading what I wrote. I said it was probably better than its contemporaries, which had no stabilizers at all.
The Allies knew about the mud and snow problems on the Eastern front, but determined (wrongly) that they wouldn't be as much of a problem in Western Europe, and so to save weight equipped the Shermans with narrower tracks. When this problem was realized, they started equipping Shermans from the factory with wide tracks. Also the Sherman had a very good suspension system, that's why it was used, because it had been so proven and tested already. It also had a very good fire control system for aiming the gun.
I am now braindead after watching this video
I think that the shermans in the movie battle of the bulge were m24 chaffee and the tigers were m26 pershings.
Panzer means tank in german, so when you say panzer tank, your saying tank tank
Well Panzer is actually the german word for Armor.
But it's the word they use in place for tank.
It would be "Armor tank"
Still not a great use of words. but Not actually tank tank.
@@captainseyepatch3879 panzer is more of slang, to be nazi grammar here, correct way to say is "panzerkampfwagen"
@Mario Cantani Sry but nope..
"Tank" = "Panzer" and "Armor" = " Rüstung"
@@Scouttex98 armor is Panzerung and panzer is Tank bye
@@captainseyepatch3879 nope panzer is Tank and Panzerung is armor
Patton couldn't get any Sherman tanks or Panzer IVs which is why they went through such an effort to paint the tanks accurately. They get a pass just because they were not able to use any accurate tanks.
Sherman 76 was not so effective against Tiger due to shatter gap effect. US test plates were metallurgically different to German armour steel , especially that on Tiger. On arriving in Normndy the US found their shot breaking up at ranges they should have penetrated.
The British had noted this odd effect in North Africa, where rounds that could penetrate beyond 1000 yards would fail at shorter ranges, or hits would fail at short range and then start to penetrate further out.
The theory on shatter gap is that when hits penetrate there are certain impact forces on the projectile nose. If the velocity is increased and the armor thickness is held constant, the round moves armor out of the way faster, which leads to increased inertial forces on the ammo nose.
If the projectile nose is too soft, such that it absorbs much of the impact energy, the nose can shatter and break up. U.S. and Russian ammunition fell into the shatter gap nose hardness range (less than 59 Rockwell C). While British ammunition was harder than the threshold, some characteristic of the projectiles made it vulnerable to shatter gap.
With regard to Tiger armor, shatter gap normally occurs when the armor thickness is close to, equal to or thicker than the projectile diameter. U.S. 76mm APCBC hits on Tiger armor would fall into this category.
If 76mm APCBC hit the Tiger driver plate at 12° side angle, the resultant LOS thickness would equal 109mm at 0°. With shatter gap, rounds fail when they have 1.05 to 1.25 times the armor resistance, which would result in 76mm failures from point blank to 550 meters range, and then penetrate from 550m to 750m.
On 76mm hits against the Tiger side armor at 30° side angle, the resistance would equal 103mm at 0°, and all hits would be expected to fail from point blank to 800m, and then penetrate from 800m to 1000m.
I am fairly certain most vets interviewed said the German tanks were far superior to allied tanks in the west. I remember many of them telling of point blank shell bounce on Tigers. Fuel was the biggest factor in tank superiority in the late west European war. Great video.
I have never heard anyone claim that. Specific tanks certainly, but as a whole- no.
@@peterson7082 I said specifically Tiger?
bodasactra yes. I’ve heard the same from speaking with veterans and from reading on tank crewman accounts.
I'm starting to get the sense that Hitler's meddling in the war effort was a major reason for why the germans lost in a lot of places where they possibly could have won.
My impression is yes and no. It's scary how some of the stuff he had planned seems like it should have worked, and some of the other stuff he planned directly foiled his other plans. A few examples:
Rommel likely would have had a much easier time in North Africa if the Germans hadn't pulled resources to Barbarossa when they did. And taking the Suez canal would have opened up all manner of other changes to the war. (But then, would Barbarossa have worked as well as it did if Hitler had waited on Rommel in Egypt...?)
Apparently Hitler's basic plan for 1941 was to hit hardest in southern Russia, and go straight for the Caucasus. Hitler's generals decided to focus on Moscow. Hitler's basic plan for 1942 was to again hit southern Russia, and go straight for the Caucasus. Hitler's generals finally did this, but they also sent the lion's share of reinforcements to the German center, in preparation to hit Moscow. Stalingrad likely would have gone very differently if Germany hadn't been starving its primary offense of reinforcements for months.
If I recall correctly, in 1944, Germany lost pretty much its entire central army force in July because Hitler directly ordered his forces to static defensive positions, and the Russians essentially used 1941 Blitzkrieg tactics back on the Germans.
My impression is that Hitler has decent strategic sense, but terrible tactical sense. Fortunately, he also tended to use the one against the other.
The generals sometimes made bad decisions and vice versa. For example, his generals wanted to take Moscow to try end the war, but the Russians definitely weren’t going to give up just because they took Moscow, and hitler aimed for the Russian oil fields which were much better targets. Basically both him and his generals made bad decisions, so they prob still would have lost.
Am I the only one who did not like Fury?
no. hated it.
Nope, a bunch of German dick suckers hated it too
Worst movie i've ever seen ^^
@@ShopeeMarketteam you are saying it is realistic film
@@karlozovko6465 No, I'm saying that the people who claim to know what's realistic don't really do their research, if you take a look at archives and post-war analysis, you'll realise that these people just base their facts/claims off myths that the Internet made popular
Battle of the Bulge is just awful … worse still was the ‘TANKS’ they used!
Well they couldn't get the right tanks, so OK, but the funniest thing in the whole film is when Kojak's tank has half a turret left and he is unscathed. I laughed so hard.
During the war there was a bigger chance meeting a real tiger then encountering a Tiger tank both on the Eastern and latter on the Western front.
Like the Germans built a few thousand of them compared to the tens of thousands of the other tanks.
@@seangallagher9435 The number of Tigers built was somewhere between 1250 and 1300 compared to 85 000 T-34 or 50 000 Shermans.
I checked with our veterans by showing them your opinion. THEIR opinion isn't printable.
Their opinion is irrelevant and, in many cases, wrong. Take, for example, the veteran who came to the conclusion that the Sherman was a death trap. All he ever saw were the dead crews sent back from combat. He had no clue that the Sherman actually had one of the best crew survivability rates of the war.
@@davidj9677 are you have dumb
Kelly's Heroes was rare in their tank accuracy using actual M4s against T34s made to look like Tiger Mk1s. That's was rare for a movie made in the 1960s
But I doubt anyone put giant speakers on their sherman tanks LOL
The info in this video is very wrong.
Fantastic video it was really enjoyable 🤙🏻
The German Tigers incorporated dolphin technology, but it was far too late...
KG Peiper , 1st SS LAH , on 12-23=1944 had lost 40 tiger 2s', and 40 panthers, mostly due to no gas and bullets, or just stuck in the mud, big guns need a lot of trucks
FINALLY SOME MAINSTREAM SHERMAN LOVE!
The E8 is a suspension system, unrelated to the 76, sorry
You just watched the potential history video, didn't you?
The E8 had both the gun and suspension
Good job! You got it right. M4 was incredibly well designed as a piece of war effort.
Well no it's not exactly well designed, it was designed to mass produce and is cheap. Yes it's well designed for this purpose but, it's not that good in terms of tank combat. It's way too tall and large weak spots like upper glaciers. In 1944 it's 75mm can't penatrate the frontal armor of gen3 German tanks. And that's why it's refined through the war and its actually pretty good at the end of the war
@@tiredtotality4145 "M4 was incredibly well designed as a piece of war effort."
AS A PIECE OF WAR EFFORT.
M4 was part of complex doctrine, and didn't really need to be very effective against pzV or pzVI. Wasn't perfect, but was reliable, easy to live with, easy to repair and very good to fight 95% of opponents. And being an M4 crew was one of safest job among Allied troops on frontline. To sumarize: bloody well design!
@@daxnet6583 yes I said it was well designed to mass produce which is the most effective production method in ww2
@@tiredtotality4145 Yeah and on top of that they were well designed, it's really easy to have the thickest armor, and the biggest gun, that's not a feat of engineering, to just make a massive tank, especially when they end up being unreliable and in need of extensive maintenance. If the panther had to be ferried across the Atlantic to be deployed in combat, like the Sherman had to, i can assure you it wouldn't be remembered as a great tank. Because war is not just people shooting at each other, and especially not just tank shooting at each other, it's also a lot of logistic and coordination between infantry, armored division, and air support, and a vehicle that put less strain on logistic offer a significant advantage. And the Sherman did offer that it was reliable and easy to repair on the field.
Yeah the Sherman original 75 mm had trouble with the tiger and panther, but their was no urgent need to counter those tank, Germany couldn't flood the battlefield with those tank, they actually had other weapon to deal with those tank, they had air support, infantry Anti tank gun, Tank destroyer. And ultimately when the project launched mid war to release Sherman capable of dealing with those tank was finished, well the 76 mm Sherman were well capable of dealing with those tank at good range while being cheaper reliable, and without being a completely new Model that would have needed new production line ,and different spare part.
The pictures of the 'MK IV' tanks erroneously referred to as attacking during the Battle of the Somme, were actually MK I tanks ...... note the rear steering wheels that were only ever fitted to the MK Is.
Did you actually do research 🤔
What Do you think
You my want to read up on how one tiger gutted a British tank regiment in Normandy
And how one tiger took out close to 50 t34s
Sure in one of cases from a defensive position. The reason some German tanks were so effective is they knew the ground and picked good defensive positions. It's like comparing infantry vs a pill box. It's hardly a fair comparison of tanks.
Ah yes, the famous white tiger movie, oh wait you're talking about real life? Nice joke.
That was surprise, it does not show how the tiger is superior, also what about the firefly that took out 3 tigers in a single engagement?
@@APFS-DS read about Sergeant Franz Staudegger how he took out T34s in battle of Kursk.
I'm so glad people are finally dispelling all the bogus myths about the Sherman tank. It wasn't just slapped together, it was a good tank that was actually well designed and did its job within the limitations the US had to work with.
man, just imagine if the Germans had used all the weapons that Hydra was developing before Steve Roger took steroids and stop them, we would've been so screw. eh, Heil Hydra!
Myth: German Tanks were better than everyone else's.
Don't be so naiv with that one. There's some actual technical proof about that one.
@@venator5only if you buy into the History Channel's nonsense. You look at German tank reliability and American tanks make them out to be worse than a Mark V. Can German tanks kill American tanks? Yes. But American tanks can just as easily, depending on the models we consider, kill German tanks.
@@ironstarofmordian7098 I don't buy History channel. I read books like Spielberger, Jentz, Devey Schneider, Volgin and so on. And some technical aspects indeed make them superior. Reliability is a difficult topic it is really complex.
@@ironstarofmordian7098 fun fact is also how "garbage" Japanese tanks were among, if not the most reliable tanks in the war.
Can't remember where I read it, but they were noted as being excellent for fighting in terrible terrain with minimal infrastructure like they were, rather than fields and suburbs in Europe.
In the Sherman it is.
1:05 that's a panzer VI (tiger), not a king tiger.
He's naming a few of tanks he's showing one of them
King tiger are panzer VI ausf B which means it's panzer VI
For anyone wondering why Pattons and Chaffees are being called Tigers and Shermans, it was common in film to use them as standins.
Edit: nm, he mentions this near the end.